IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v439y2006i7078d10.1038_nature04454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Christl A. Donnelly

    (Imperial College London, St. Mary's Campus
    Food & Rural Affairs)

  • Rosie Woodroffe

    (Food & Rural Affairs
    University of California)

  • D. R. Cox

    (Food & Rural Affairs
    Nuffield College)

  • 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
    University of Strathclyde)

  • 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
    London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)

  • John P. McInerney

    (Food & Rural Affairs
    University of Exeter)

  • W. Ivan Morrison

    (Food & Rural Affairs
    University of Edinburgh)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, 2006. "Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle," Nature, Nature, vol. 439(7078), pages 843-846, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:439:y:2006:i:7078:d:10.1038_nature04454
    DOI: 10.1038/nature04454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04454
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nature04454?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephan Price & Clare Saunders & Stephen Hinchliffe & Robbie A McDonald, 2017. "From contradiction to contrast in a countryside conflict: Using Q Methodology to reveal a diplomatic space for doing TB differently," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2578-2594, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:439:y:2006:i:7078:d:10.1038_nature04454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.