27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing effects from four years of industry-led badger culling in England on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle, 2013–2017

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The objective was to measure the association between badger culling and bovine tuberculosis (TB) incidents in cattle herds in three areas of England between 2013–2017 (Gloucestershire and Somerset) and 2015–2017 (Dorset). Farming industry-selected licensed culling areas were matched to comparison areas. A TB incident was detection of new Mycobacterium bovis infection (post-mortem confirmed) in at least one animal in a herd. Intervention and comparison area incidence rates were compared in central zones where culling was conducted and surrounding buffer zones, through multivariable Poisson regression analyses. Central zone incidence rates in Gloucestershire (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.39, p < 0.001) and Somerset (IRR 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.69, p < 0.001) were lower and no different in Dorset (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27, p = 0.168) than comparison central zone rates. The buffer zone incidence rate was lower for Gloucestershire (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.70, p < 0.001), no different for Somerset (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.767) and lower for Dorset (IRR 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54, p < 0.001) than comparison buffer zone rates. Industry-led culling was associated with reductions in cattle TB incidence rates after four years but there were variations in effects between areas.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The impact of badger removal on the control of tuberculosis in cattle herds in Ireland.

          In Ireland, the herd prevalence of bovine tuberculosis has remained stable for several decades, and in common with several other countries, progress towards eradication has stalled. There is evidence in support of the potential role of infected badgers (Meles meles, a protected species) in bovine tuberculosis in Ireland and Britain. However, this evidence on its own has not been sufficient to prove disease causation. Field trials are likely to offer the best opportunity to define this role. Building on the earlier East Offaly project, our objectives were to assess the impact of badger removal on the control of tuberculosis in cattle herds in Ireland. The study was conducted from September 1997 to August 2002 in matched removal and reference areas (average area of 245.1km(2)) in four counties: Cork, Donegal, Kilkenny and Monaghan. Badger removal was intensive and proactive throughout the study period in the removal areas, but reactive (in response to severe tuberculosis outbreaks in cattle) in the reference areas. Removal intensity in the removal and reference areas during the first 2 years of the study averaged 0.57 and 0.07 badgers/km(2)/year, respectively. The outcome of interest was restriction of cattle herds due to confirmed tuberculosis, where tuberculous lesions were detected in one or more animals. Data were analysed using logistic regression (modelling the probability of a confirmed herd restriction) and survival analysis (modelling time to a confirmed herd restriction). During the study period, there was a significant difference between the removal and reference areas in all four counties in both the probability of and the time to a confirmed herd restriction due to tuberculosis. In the final year of the study, the odds of a confirmed herd restriction in the removal (as compared to the reference areas) were 0.25 in Cork, 0.04 in Donegal, 0.26 in Kilkenny and 0.43 in Monaghan. Further, the hazard ratios (removal over reference) ranged from 0.4 to 0.04 (a 60-96% decrease in the rate at which herds were becoming the subject of a confirmed restriction).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impacts of widespread badger culling on cattle tuberculosis: concluding analyses from a large-scale field trial.

            Bovine tuberculosis (TB) has re-emerged as a major problem for British cattle farmers. Failure to control the infection has been linked to transmission from European badgers; badger culling has therefore formed a component of British TB control policy since 1973. To investigate the impact of repeated widespread badger culling on cattle TB, the Randomised Badger Culling Trial compared TB incidence in cattle herds in and around ten culling areas (each 100 km2) with those in and around ten matched unculled areas. Overall, cattle TB incidence was 23.2% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.4-32.7% lower) inside culled areas, but 24.5% (95% CI 0.6% lower-56.0% higher) higher on land
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The occurrence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle in and around an area subject to extensive badger (Meles meles) control.

              The occurrence of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle herds during the period 1966-92 in two geographically related areas in South-West England is compared. In one area comprising 104 km2 all badgers were systematically destroyed from 1975-81, after which recolonization was allowed; in the other, comprising 116 km2, small scale, statutory badger removal operations were undertaken from 1975 onwards where specific herds were detected with M. bovis infection. In the area with total clearance, no further incidents with M. bovis isolation occurred from 1982-92. Survival analysis and proportional hazards regression indicated that the risk of herds being identified with infection was less once badgers had been cleared from their neighbourhood, whereas it was greater in herds with 50 or more animals, and once cattle in a herd had responded positively to the tuberculin skin test, even though infection with M. bovis was not confirmed subsequently. The study provides further evidence that badgers represent an important reservoir of M. bovis infection for cattle and that badger control is effective in reducing incidents of cattle infection with M. bovis if action is thorough and recolonization is prevented.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Sara.Downs@apha.gov.uk
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                11 October 2019
                11 October 2019
                2019
                : 9
                : 14666
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1765 422X, GRID grid.422685.f, Department of Epidemiological Sciences, , Animal and Plant Health Agency, Woodham Lane, New Haw, ; Surrey, KT15 3NB UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0425 573X, GRID grid.20931.39, Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, , The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield, ; Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8024, GRID grid.8391.3, Environment and Sustainability Institute, , University of Exeter, Penryn, ; Cornwall, TR10 9FE UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1765 422X, GRID grid.422685.f, National Wildlife Management Centre, , Animal and Plant Health Agency, Woodchester Park, Nympsfield, ; Gloucestershire, GL10 3UJ UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, GRID grid.7445.2, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, , Imperial College London, St Mary’s campus, Norfolk Place, ; London, W2 1PG UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Department of Statistics, , University of Oxford, 24-29 St Giles’, ; Oxford, OX1 3LB UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-2597
                Article
                49957
                10.1038/s41598-019-49957-6
                6789095
                31604960
                3022768f-ef73-4f70-9f0a-d5b824acd3f3
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 4 January 2019
                : 30 July 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002142, Defra | Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA);
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award ID: SE3131
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Uncategorized
                epidemiology,outcomes research
                Uncategorized
                epidemiology, outcomes research

                Comments

                Comment on this article