Culling badgers to control the transmission of bovine tuberculosis (TB) between this wildlife reservoir and cattle has been widely debated. Industry‐led culling began in Somerset and Gloucestershire between August and November 2013 to reduce local badger populations. Industry‐led culling is not designed to be a randomized and controlled trial of the impact of culling on cattle incidence. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor the effects of the culling and, taking the study limitations into account, perform a cautious evaluation of the impacts. A standardized method for selecting areas matched to culling areas in factors found to affect cattle TB risk has been developed to evaluate the impact of badger culling on cattle TB incidence. The association between cattle TB incidence and badger culling in the first 2 years has been assessed. Descriptive analyses without controlling for confounding showed no association between culling and TB incidence for Somerset, or for either of the buffer areas for the first 2 years since culling began. A weak association was observed in Gloucestershire for Year 1 only. Multivariable analysis adjusting for confounding factors showed that reductions in TB incidence were associated with culling in the first 2 years in both the Somerset and Gloucestershire intervention areas when compared to areas with no culling (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72–0.87, p < .001 and IRR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.34–0.51, p < .001, respectively). An increase in incidence was associated with culling in the 2‐km buffer surrounding the Somerset intervention area (IRR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.09–1.75, p = .008), but not in Gloucestershire (IRR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77–1.07, p = .243). As only 2 intervention areas with 2 years of data are available for analysis, and the biological cause–effect relationship behind the statistical associations is difficult to determine, it would be unwise to use these findings to develop generalizable inferences about the effectiveness of the policy at present.

The objective was to measure the association between badger culling and bovine tuberculosis (TB) incidents in cattle herds in three areas of England between 2013–2017 (Gloucestershire and Somerset) and 2015–2017 (Dorset). Farming industry-selected licensed culling areas were matched to comparison areas. A TB incident was detection of new Mycobacterium bovis infection (post-mortem confirmed) in at least one animal in a herd. Intervention and comparison area incidence rates were compared in central zones where culling was conducted and surrounding buffer zones, through multivariable Poisson regression analyses. Central zone incidence rates in Gloucestershire (Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.39, p < 0.001) and Somerset (IRR 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.69, p < 0.001) were lower and no different in Dorset (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27, p = 0.168) than comparison central zone rates. The buffer zone incidence rate was lower for Gloucestershire (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.70, p < 0.001), no different for Somerset (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.767) and lower for Dorset (IRR 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54, p < 0.001) than comparison buffer zone rates. Industry-led culling was associated with reductions in cattle TB incidence rates after four years but there were variations in effects between areas.

The role of badgers in the geographic expansion of the bovine tuberculosis (bTB) epidemic in England is unknown: indeed there have been few published studies of bTB in badgers outside of the Southwest of England where the infection is now endemic in cattle. Cheshire is now on the edge of the expanding area of England in which bTB is considered endemic in cattle. Previous studies, over a decade ago when bovine infection was rare in Cheshire, found no or only few infected badgers in the south eastern area of the county. In this study, carried out in 2014, road-killed badgers were collected through a network of local stakeholders (farmers, veterinarians, wildlife groups, government agencies), and Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 21% (20/94) badger carcasses. Furthermore, there was strong evidence for co-localisation of M. bovis SB0129 (genotype 25) infection in both badgers and cattle herds at a county scale. While these findings suggest that both badgers and cattle are part of the same geographically expanding epidemic, the direction of any cross-species transmission and the drivers of this expansion cannot be determined. The study also demonstrated the utility of using road-killed badgers collected by stakeholders as a means of wildlife TB surveillance.

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is an important animal health issue in many parts of the world. In England and Wales, the primary test to detect infected animals is the single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test, which compares immunological responses to bovine and avian tuberculins. Inconclusive test reactors (IRs) are animals that demonstrate a positive reaction to the bovine tuberculin only marginally greater than the avian reaction, so are not classified as reactors and immediately removed. In the absence of reactors in the herd, IRs are isolated, placed under movement restrictions and re-tested after 60 days. Other animals in these herds at the time of the IR result are not usually subject to movement restrictions. This could affect efforts to control TB if undetected infected cattle move out of those herds before the next TB test. To improve our understanding of the importance of IRs, this study aimed to assess whether median survival time and the hazard of a subsequent TB incident differs in herds with only IRs detected compared with negative-testing herds. Survival analysis and extended Cox regression were used, with herds entering the study on the date of the first whole herd test in 2012. An additional analysis was performed using an alternative entry date to try to remove the impact of IR retesting and is presented in the Supplementary Material. Survival analysis showed that the median survival time among IR only herds was half that observed for clear herds (2.1 years and 4.2 years respectively; p < 0.001). Extended Cox regression analysis showed that IR-only herds had 2.7 times the hazard of a subsequent incident compared with negative-testing herds in year one (hazard ratio: 2.69; 95% CI: 2.54, 2.84; p < 0.001), and that this difference in the hazard reduced by 63% per year. After 2.7 years the difference had disappeared. The supplementary analysis supported these findings showing that IR only herds still had a greater hazard of a subsequent incident after the IR re-test, but that the effect was reduced. This emphasizes the importance of careful decision making around the management of IR animals and indicates that re-testing alone may not be sufficient to reduce the risk posed by IR only herds in England and Wales.

Summary The incidence of recreational water–associated outbreaks in the United States has significantly increased, driven, at least in part, by outbreaks both caused by Cryptosporidium and associated with treated recreational water venues. Because of the parasite's extreme chlorine tolerance, transmission can occur even in well-maintained treated recreational water venues, (e.g., pools) and a focal cryptosporidiosis outbreak can evolve into a community-wide outbreak associated with multiple recreational water venues and settings (e.g., child care facilities). In August 2004 in Auglaize County, Ohio, multiple cryptosporidiosis cases were identified and anecdotally linked to Pool A. Within 5 days of the first case being reported, Pool A was hyperchlorinated to achieve 99.9% Cryptosporidium inactivition. A case-control study was launched to epidemiologically ascertain the outbreak source 11 days later. A total of 150 confirmed and probable cases were identified; the temporal distribution of illness onset was peaked, indicating a point-source exposure. Cryptosporidiosis was significantly associated with swimming in Pool A (matched odds ratio 121.7, 95% confidence interval 27.4–∞) but not with another venue or setting. The findings of this investigation suggest that proactive implementation of control measures, when increased Cryptosporidium transmission is detected but before an outbreak source is epidemiologically ascertained, might prevent a focal cryptosporidiosis outbreak from evolving into a community-wide outbreak.