TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 1999

PROFESSOR SIR JOHN R KREBS

  120. But we are really not discussing single causality at all. Everyone, even the badger groups, accept that there is a relationship and that it is multi-causalities we are talking about.
  (Professor Krebs) Well, if there was a priori evidence that, and I believe it is selenium and cobalt which are the two minerals that people are referring to, if there was a priori evidence that selenium and cobalt are getting scarcer in the diets of cattle over the last ten years and, therefore, that might be a factor that is contributing to the increase in the disease, then it might be worth looking at.

  121. I would just like to say, Professor Krebs, that I actually respect the integrity of your report, but I think I am sad that it was so thin on the husbandry questions. There is a great deal of academic research around which has been brought to our attention by badger groups which you do not seem to have taken account of and perhaps if you had been rather clearer on the husbandry issues, farmers might be more prepared now to take the steps necessary to address these questions.
  (Professor Krebs) What sort of husbandry issues have been brought to your attention then?

  122. Well, this is a quote from the National Federation of Badger Groups' evidence to this Committee, "The Krebs Report did not consider the wider aspects of farm management. Moreover, it failed to cite one of the most detailed studies on the subject, which has already identified a number of farm management practices which increase the likelihood of cattle being infected with TB (Griffin et al, 1993)." They list evidence from Benham and Broom in 1991 about the effect of herbage being in short supply, Brown, Harris and Cheeseman in 1993 about the over-stocking and poor-quality grazing. There seems to be academic evidence around on these husbandry issue which you do not seem to have taken account of.
  (Professor Krebs) We did take account of all the evidence both that we read about and that was presented to us and although we did it in a succinct way in the report, it is covered. I think there is also of course a tendency to try to distract attention from the focus on badgers and people are always looking, those who want to eliminate badgers from the story rather than look at them as a possible factor, are always looking for alternative explanations and I agree that husbandry may have a role to play which is why we said that husbandry should be looked at.

  123. But you do not seem to be very enthusiastic about it as a solution.
  (Professor Krebs) On the contrary, I am perfectly happy that husbandry should be brought in as a factor.

  124. We are told, and I had not learnt this until I read this evidence, by the Forest of Dean Badger Patrol that "in the Republic of Ireland the Irish Government emphasises the need for farmers to: avoid contact between cattle in neighbouring herds; exercise care in buying in cattle; and avoid the use of dirty vehicles and shared equipment (eg muck-spreaders) that have not been properly cleaned and disinfected. It is apparent", they say, "that this is a major concern and considered a significant transmission route in the Republic", but we do not talk about it in the UK.
  (Professor Krebs) Well, have you looked at the MAFF guidelines on husbandry?

  125. No, I have not yet, to be honest, and I will do that.
  (Professor Krebs) Because they have been issuing guidelines for many years which make most of these points.

  126. The reason I am pushing on this so hard is that really there are three main areas for debate, are there not? One is that we are all agreed that a vaccine is the ideal and that is what we all want to work towards, that if there is a cattle vaccine, the problem actually goes away. The other issue is what we have been debating at length, the culling strategy. Then the third thing is what farmers can do now quickly to try and address the problem in the short term because farmers are in crisis, many farmers, and the disease is spreading fast, in Diana Organ's constituency, my constituency up to Paul's constituency and across to Mark Todd's constituency, so it is a problem, a real problem that is growing. I am trying to get from you as a scientist a feel for how much importance you attach to this husbandry question. It is such an important plank in the Wildlife Trust's and the badger groups' evidence to this Committee that it would actually make a difference.
  (Professor Krebs) Well, what are you asking me to do? I have said that I think it is significant and important and that it is something in which the farming industry has to be involved. I used the word "ownership" and you do not like that, but you cannot implement improved husbandry by simply issuing leaflets; you have got to convince farmers that there is something in it for them and that is what I mean by the farming industry taking ownership of it. The difficulty is where do you start. Do you start with giving cattle cobalt and selenium supplements? Do you start by fencing off badger setts? Do you start by raising water-troughs? All of these things, as you have said, cost money, so you need to have some preliminary basis on which to make a start and I have suggested that this analysis of risk will point in some directions.

  127. Is ownership the same thing as funding? I understand that the farming community will need to feel committed to making it work.
  (Professor Krebs) Yes.

  128. But is that the same thing as funding?
  (Professor Krebs) Not necessarily, no.

  129. It is a shame, is it not, that this whole crisis is happening at a time when there is a state of crisis in the farm incomes of the farmers who are affected by these problems as well which makes it even more difficult. One last and totally different question which is on the Bern Convention: was your review group aware of the Bern Convention and did you know the potential implications of the culling experiment when you made your advice to Ministers?
  (Professor Krebs) When we wrote the report, we took legal advice from MAFF's legal team and we asked them to describe to us the legal framework within which badger culling has taken place in the past and would, under our recommendation, continue to take place. That is described in section 1.5 of our report. It does not specifically mention the Bern Convention, so that was judged by the legal advisers not to be relevant or perhaps for other reasons was not brought to our attention. Having looked at the Bern Convention's critical paragraphs since this issue arose, my understanding is that the Bern Convention would allow for the killing of protected wildlife, such as the badger, in the interests of either animal health or human health or research, so it would not have actually altered my conclusions, recommendations had I been aware of it at the time.

  130. As far as I am concerned, that is all the questions this Committee wants to ask you, but I must give you the opportunity, so if there are issues you think we should have raised with you or points you would like to make or, on reflection, things you have said you would like to clarify before we let you go, please take this opportunity to do so.
  (Professor Krebs) No, I think we have covered everything.

  131. What I may ask you, Professor Krebs, is if we, on reflection, look back at the evidence you have so kindly given us today and think there are issues that we should have asked you, can we write to you again on specific points?
  (Professor Krebs) Yes, absolutely.

  Chairman: Can I express this Committee's deep gratitude to you for coming and expressing your views so clearly for the benefit of the scientific amateurs. We are very grateful to you for your courtesy and good humour and thank you very much indeed.