Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle

Christl A. Donnelly (), Rosie Woodroffe, D. R. Cox, F. John Bourne, C. L. Cheeseman, Richard S. Clifton-Hadley, Gao Wei, George Gettinby, Peter Gilks, Helen Jenkins, W. Thomas Johnston, Andrea M. Le Fevre, John P. McInerney and W. Ivan Morrison
Additional contact information
Christl A. Donnelly: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
Rosie Woodroffe: Food & Rural Affairs
D. R. Cox: Food & Rural Affairs
F. John Bourne: Food & Rural Affairs
C. L. Cheeseman: Sand Hutton
Richard S. Clifton-Hadley: Woodham Lane, New Haw
Gao Wei: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
George Gettinby: Food & Rural Affairs
Peter Gilks: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
Helen Jenkins: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
W. Thomas Johnston: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
Andrea M. Le Fevre: Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
John P. McInerney: Food & Rural Affairs
W. Ivan Morrison: Food & Rural Affairs

Nature, 2006, vol. 439, issue 7078, 843-846

Abstract: Abstract Human and livestock diseases can be difficult to control where infection persists in wildlife populations. For three decades, European badgers (Meles meles) have been culled by the British government in a series of attempts to limit the spread of Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis (TB), to cattle1. Despite these efforts, the incidence of TB in cattle has risen consistently, re-emerging as a primary concern for Britain's cattle industry. Recently, badger culling has attracted controversy because experimental studies have reached contrasting conclusions (albeit using different protocols), with culled areas showing either markedly reduced2,3 or increased4,5 incidence of TB in cattle. This has confused attempts to develop a science-based management policy. Here we use data from a large-scale, randomized field experiment to help resolve these apparent differences. We show that, as carried out in this experiment, culling reduces cattle TB incidence in the areas that are culled, but increases incidence in adjoining areas. These findings are biologically consistent with previous studies2,3,4,5 but will present challenges for policy development.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04454 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nature:v:439:y:2006:i:7078:d:10.1038_nature04454

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/

DOI: 10.1038/nature04454

Access Statistics for this article

Nature is currently edited by Magdalena Skipper

More articles in Nature from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().