Bovine TB, Badgers and a Permaculture Perspective

Tim Green
Wednesday, 17th August 2011

What is bovine TB? Why are we set to cull huge numbers of badgers to deal with it? Why can't we use a bovine tb vaccine? Cattle farmer and permaculturist Tim Green answers some of these questions - and poses more - in this controversial article

Well, if you're reading this piece hoping to glean some new facts or incisive reasoning to back up your already firmly held belief that culling badgers or not culling badgers is the right or wrong thing to do then I'm afraid you will be disappointed. In fact, the following summation of the problem as I see it will probably make you angry.

Badgers are largely irrelevant. The real problems are our mistaken belief that disease eradication is desirable, our hubris in thinking we can achieve said eradication, and mankind's continuing naïvety in expecting nature to abide by the arbitrary and spurious rules of economics that we hold so dear.

Animals and disease

All animals, including ourselves, deal with disease in one of two ways; by either dying or by getting better. If you get better, it means your immune system has done its job. If you don't get noticeably ill in the first place it means your immune system has done its job and if you die then your immune system wasn't much good in the first place. You may recognise this as natural selection, an ongoing process by which continued exposure to diseases and pathogens creates a population largely capable of surviving such things. This is sometimes referred to as "survival of the fittest".

In contrast, the current official "test and cull" policy to deal with bovine TB in the UK has been most aptly described as "survival of the shittest". This is the process by which we slaughter any cow that shows signs of mounting an immune response to the TB pathogen, thus steadily removing those animals from the population that had the best chance of surviving infection.

If that policy sounds a little insane to you then you probably aren't a politician. As far as I can tell, the only context in which such madness appears to make sense is in the paradoxical world of international trade. As a member of the EU we are "obliged" to try and eradicate bovine TB whether or not it's possible or even makes sense. Oh, and we're not allowed to use vaccines either. If money is your thing then it's worth noting that we are spending £100 million each year trying to protect an export market (live cattle) worth about £3.3 million.

For me, the whole bovine tb issue is so far beyond rational, logical discussion that it's futile to even try and discuss it rationally. Farmers are crying out to kill the badgers because they are trapped by an inherently flawed policy and are clutching at straws. The government is sinking in a quagmire of vested interests, lobby groups, media outrage, EU bureaucracy and public opinion. Those who oppose the cull are emotionally tied to the badgers' fate because they are (quite rightly) sick and tired of the seemingly unstoppable erosion of our natural environment.

Bovine TB - do we need a 'solution'?

badgers on the farmSo what's the solution? Well, if there is one it's a hell of a long way from where we are now. The independent group have the best summary of the current situation I have seen and a very sensible suggested way forward – I highly recommend you read their analysis. The main thing they point out is that bovine TB isn't really much of a problem in the first place and the "devastating effect" it is having on farmers is in reality not from the disease but from the misguided attempted control policy.

The "test and cull" program has been going on now for 60 years and has only succeeded in costing a lot of money and stressing out farmers. Even total extinction of the badger wouldn't get rid of bTB as it is a very gregarious bacillus and is happy in pretty much any mammal. If the EU were to have a change of heart (or collapse completely which is looking distinctly possible at the moment) then we would at least be allowed to vaccinate cattle which would certainly have a much more pronounced effect. However, we should always bear in mind Sevareid's Law: "The chief cause of problems is solutions."

As farmer Joel Salatin says "pests and diseases are nature's way of telling us we are doing something wrong". You could argue that without diseases like bTB we would be free to carry on taking farming down its current ultimately doomed path. We could continue reducing the cattle gene pool to a puddle in the pursuit of ever more productive and freakish animals. Breeds like the Belgian Blue may produce a lot of rump steaks but that muscle mass has to have come at a price – most probably to its internal organs and immune system. It's no surprise that the new improved Holstein, the darling of industrial milk production, is particularly susceptible to TB infection. They have been bred to produce so much milk that they are effectively forced to digest their own bodies to keep up with their udders. Does that sound like a sensible survival trait to you?

Belgian blueHolstein udder

Intensive farming in a world without Bovine TB

Without bTB we could also further increase our stocking densities, increase herd sizes, use lower quality forage and just push the animals a little harder all round. What appears to make sense economically is ecological suicide. If there is one thing that nature will not tolerate it is "economies of scale". Even in the absence of TB, a tightly packed herd of 2000 over-developed, under-the-weather cattle with little genetic variation between them are some other pathogen's dream home.

Disease waiting to happenOn our particular farm we are by no means doing everything right but, despite having a beef herd slap bang in the middle of a major bTB hotspot we are, unlike most of our neighbours, so far in the clear. I can't say why this is but we do have a herd of real mongrels, not particularly high yielding yet robust. They graze on a wide range of forage plants in the summer and their winter feed is proper old-fashioned hay (wild flowers, weeds and all). We have numerous badger setts amongst the pasture but we do make sure the badgers get supplementary feed when times are tough and mineral licks to keep their immune systems firing on all cylinders. Or we may just be lucky so far.

Our happy mongrelsLooking beyond bTB there is a near infinite world of Foot and Mouth Disease, BSE, CBP, PPR, anthrax, trypanosomosis, brucellosis, avian influenza, swine fever, wheat rust, ergot, BYDV, potato blight, rice blast, rice ragged stunt, corn smut, maize mosaic virus, wilt, take-all, weevils, borers, warble flies, varroa mites, foul-brood, Newcastle disease, lungworm, liver fluke, fowl pox, aspergillosis......and on and on and on. The war on agricultural pests and diseases is an exercise in futility. So rather than trying to eradicate them I suggest we continue studying and observing and letting them tell us where we're going wrong. And, as things stand, that list is even longer. 

dusha |
Sat, 07/07/2012 - 14:02
This is the most sensible article I've ever seen on bovine TB. It has never made sense to me to kill animals that have produced antibodies to TB--where has the concept of the immune system gone in modern thinking? Survival of the shittest is right.
Clive Terry |
Sat, 14/07/2012 - 07:51
a lot of room for thought here and it would seem a lot of common sense
Sum Doood |
Thu, 27/09/2012 - 20:15
I'll say this because no-one else seems to be saying it - we have no need for farmed cattle.
Duke of Hazard |
Fri, 28/09/2012 - 19:26
The land needs large herbivores because that is how the whole system is meant to work; otherwise maintaining long term soil health and high fertility is nigh possible. Granted we don't need to keep them in anything like the huge numbers we see, and which are presently damaging the environment and soil; but we do need them.
Alphabet Pony |
Wed, 21/11/2012 - 20:42
I always felt that blaming the badgers was too easy. Recently I came across some belgian research wich found risks of infection increased in warmer moist climates and with high cattle density. It states that intensive farming is a risk factor too. Altitude also came up as a factor with higher altitude bringing decreased risk. The study looked into how long the virus(I think, I'm not a scientist) survived and found this to be longer than generally expected. What struck me particularly was the 15 month survival time if the feces containing it is buried 5 cm under ground. I thought of farmers ploughing it in and then growing food crops (note: I don't know for sure they do this) . The study does show increased risk if farms are situated around fodder crop land. Food for thought. Though the possibility of badgers playing a part in infection is not ruled out, in Belgium there was no link to wildlife. I found maps on the Defra site that show cattle density across the UK in 2000 and 2010 and it tallies with the spread of bovine TB. The badger population however follows a different pattern. I hope this is of interest, I was certainly hooked!
John Wantling |
Wed, 30/07/2014 - 00:09
I agree with dusha, one of the most thoughtful provoking articles I have ever seen on the badger cull. Tim Green has done a good job. However, another angle on TB is that it is not even infectious. Lets not forget that the slaughtered cattle and badgers are all healthy animals. It is insane to slaughter healthy animals. So we must look exactly at what TB testing is picking up and stop translating into infection. As soon as we translate, based on an infectious theory, we are lost. Here is a link to my TB Not Infectious theory. John Wantling, Rochdale Badger Cull - TB not Infectious
John Wantling |
Wed, 30/07/2014 - 00:14
If the TB Not Infectious link I have posted is dead, then go to Rochdale Online, click on the NEWS heading, then LETTERS TO THE EDITOR and it is listed. Failing that, search on google. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK
AmaMenec |
Wed, 28/01/2015 - 14:57
A brilliant article which I shall be sharing widely. Spot on about cattle densities, inbreeding, and TB susceptible Holsteins. More on other ways of improving the chances of protecting cattle herds from bTB infection can be seen here: . As for Europe, my understanding is they are not against vaccinating cattle, and our politicians can make this possible, but Europe would like to see the UK apply other control methods first, such as the ones implemented in Wales, to very good effect. The bottom line is our politicians in Westminster simply want to get votes from the countryside alliance and are getting them via a state sponsored badger cull. If they had any interest in bTB management they wouldn't have cut the spending on vaccination research as the first thing they did when they came to power. There are now tests which can differentiate between an infected cow and one which has fought off bTB, so the science is moving slowly forward, but what England lacks is the political will to put that science into action.


robin cook |
Fri, 30/01/2015 - 23:23
.A very good article. Cattle are kept in a very unnatural way. I read some old Ministry of Agriculture Articles on a project which was carried out in N Ireland in the 1950's it involved farms being closed so cattle did not move around very much,combined with good fencing,this had a positive result in stopping the spread of BTB. I am 60 in my life time I have seen farms get larger and larger I do feel that Foot and Mouth,BSE and BTB have been used by the Government as a way of causing demographic change. so the Government has no interest in resolving BTB.
John Wantling |
Tue, 03/03/2015 - 03:47
This issue is not about cull/slaughter or vaccines, it is about the terribly flawed science based upon 'infectious disease'. This is the root of this issue. A so-called 'positive' TB test is not an infectious disease test, it is a basic antibody test that picks up non-specific proteins that we associate with TB. This is all it is, and these proteins/antibodies are not related to so-called 'infectious' disease. This idea of infection has come about through poor shoddy science where we translate an antibody test result into an 'infectious' disease, when all we have are antibodies. Science then says that this means the creatures are 'infected' and sick, so they cull and slaughter. Detecting antibodies means that the animals are under a stress, and so we need to ascertain what this stress is. I am guessing, but it is probably environmental, and nuclear pollution is the most likely candidate. The whole idea of vaccination is a dead end, and introducing foreign matter - vaccine filth - into the body of a creature or human is asking for serious trouble because this is a form of poisoning. To vaccinate a badger is to poison that animal. This is not the solution to this cull issue. We are very much misguided by infectious science. This is why TB is not even an infectious disease. Shame on those vaccinators who are making matters worse. John Wantling, Rochdale
cheytunis |
Thu, 05/04/2018 - 13:54
This issue is not about cull/slaughter or vaccines, it is about the terribly flawed science based upon 'infectious disease'. This is the root of this issue. A so-called 'positive' TB test is not an infectious disease test, it is a basic antibody test that picks up non-specific proteins that we associate with TB. Infectious diseases are sometimes caused by simple injuries. To ensure treatements please visit
cheytunis |
Thu, 05/04/2018 - 13:55