Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:00:59.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

R. S. Clifton-Hadley ,
J. W. Wilesmith ,
M. S. Richards ,
P. Upton  and
S. Johnston
R. S. Clifton-Hadley
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB
J. W. Wilesmith
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB
M. S. Richards
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB
P. Upton
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB
S. Johnston
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Department, Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 3NB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 114 , Issue 1 , February 1995 , pp. 179 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

REFERENCES

1.Muirhead, RH, Gallagher, J, Burn, KJ. Tuberculosis in wild badgers in Gloucestershire: Epidemiology. Vet Rec 1974; 95: 552–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Gallagher, J, Nelson, J. Causes of ill health and natural death in badgers in Gloucestershire. Vet Rec 1979; 105: 546–51.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Report. Animal health 1992. The Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer. 1993: 113.Google Scholar
4.Report. Bovine tuberculosis in badgers. Seventeenth report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. London: MAFF Publications, 1994: 37.Google Scholar
5.Report. Bovine tuberculosis in badgers. Sixteenth report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. London: MAFF Publications, 1993: 19.Google Scholar
6.Cheeseman, CL, Wilesmith, JW, Stuart, FA. Tuberculosis: the disease and its epidemiology in the badger, a review. Epidemiol Infect 1989; 103: 113–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Cresswell, P, Harris, S, Bunce, RGH, Jefferies, DJ. The badger (Meles meles) in Britain: present status and future population changes. Bio J Lin Soc 1989; 38: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Wilesmith, JW. Epidemiological features of bovine tuberculosis in cattle herds in Great Britain. J Hyg 1983; 90: 159–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.McAleer, PD. The relationship between badger density and the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in County Galway. Irish Vet J 1990; 43: 77–80.Google Scholar
10.Little, TWA, Swan, C, Thompson, HV, Wilesmith, JW. Bovine tuberculosis in domestic and wild mammals in an area of Dorset. II. The badger population, its ecology and tuberculosis status. J Hyg 1982; 89: 211–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wilesmith, JW, Savers, P, Little, TWA, Brewer, JI.Bode, R, Hillman, G, Pritchard, DG, Stuart, FA. Tuberculosis in East Sussex. IV. A systematic examination of wild mammals other than badgers for tuberculosis. J Hyg 1986; 97: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Pritchard, DG, Stuart, FA, Brewer, JI, Mahmood, KH. Experimental infection of badgers (Meles meles) with Mycobacterium bovis. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 98: 145–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Zuckerman, Lord. Badgers, cattle and tuberculosis. London: HMSO, 1980: 107.Google Scholar
14.Dunnet, GM, Jones, DM, McInerney, JP. Badgers and bovine tuberculosis – a review of policy. London: HMSO, 1986: 71.Google Scholar
15.Macdonald, D. Badgers and bovine tuberculosis – case not proven. New Scientist 1984; 104: 17–20.Google Scholar
16.Harris, S. Taking stock of Brock. BBC Wildlife 1989; 7: 460–4.Google Scholar
17.Myers, JA, Steele, JH. Bovine tuberculosis control in man and animals. Missouri: WH Green, 1969: 403.Google Scholar
18.Barlow, ND. Control of endemic bovine TB in New Zealand possum populations: results from a simple model. J Appl Ecol 1991; 28: 794–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Wilesmith, JW, Little, TWA, Thompson, HV, Swan, C. Bovine tuberculosis in domestic and wild mammals in an area of Dorset. I. Tuberculosis in cattle. J Hyg 1982; 89: 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Report. Bovine tuberculosis in badgers. First Report, 1976: 21.Google Scholar
21.Breslow, N. Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics. 1974; 30: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Rees, WHG. Irish evidence. Nature 1981; 290: 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Lesslie, IW, Hebert, CN, Burn, KJ, MacClancy, BN, Donnelly, WJC. Comparison of the specificity of human and bovine tuberculin PPD for testing cattle. 1 Republic of Ireland. Vet Rec 1975; 96: 332–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Lesslie, IW, Hebert, CN, Barnett, DN. Comparison of the specificity of human and bovine tuberculin PPD for testing cattle. 2 South-eastern England. Vet Rec 1975; 96: 335–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Lesslie, IW, Hebert, CN. Comparison of the specificity of human and bovine tuberculin PPD for testing cattle. 3 National trial in Great Britain. Vet Rec 1975; 96: 338–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Cheeseman, CL, Wilesmith, JW, Stuart, FA, Mallinson, PJ. Dynamics of tuberculosis in a naturally infected badger population. Mammal Rev 1988; 18: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Cheeseman, CL, Mallinson, PJ, Ryan, J, Wilesmith, JWT. Recolonisation by badgers in Gloucestershire. In: Hayden, TJ, ed. The badger. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy 1993: 78–93.Google Scholar
28. Anonymous. Tuberculosis in possums. Surveillance 1977; 4: 11–3.Google Scholar
29.Worthington, RW. Mycobacterial PPD sensitins and the non-specific reactor problem. Onderstepoort J Vet Res 1967; 34: 345–8.Google Scholar
30.Wilesmith, JW, Williams, DR. Observations on the incidence of herds with non-visible lesioned tuberculin test reactors in south-west England. Epidemiol Infect 1987; 99: 173–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Report. Bovine tuberculosis in badgers. Tenth report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, 1986: 21.Google Scholar
32.Clifton-Hadley, RS, Wilesmith, JW. Tuberculosis in deer: a review. Vet Rec 1991; 129: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Report. Bovine Tuberculosis in Badgers. Fourteenth Report. London: MAFF Publications, 1990: 17.Google Scholar