I HAVE two queries that, perhaps, some of the vocal supporters of the proposed badger cull may be able to answer.

Firstly, the dictionary definition of cull is "to select, pick out and destroy individuals as inferior or superfluous members of a group".

Does this mean that the proposal is to kill only infected badgers and leave healthy ones alone?

I think not. My understanding of the people calling for the cull is that, far from selecting inferior or surplus individuals, they are in favour of what would more correctly be called wholesale slaughter or extermination.

I have to conclude that they simply use the word "cull" because it sounds less inhumane.

After all, in human terms, ethnic cleansing sounds so much less unpleasant than genocide, even if it amounts to the same thing.

Secondly, if bovine tuberculosis is not a disease that originated in cattle why is it called bovine? Then why are the badgers accused of giving a disease of cattle to the animals that had it? I assume the badger-killers would be happy enough for badgers to have TB if there was no danger of them passing it back to the cows.

So the obvious solution to the problem would surely be to immunise the cows, the animals which started the disease in the first place.

Then they wouldn't catch it at all, either from the badgers or from other cattle. Or am I being too simplistic?

Paul Hansford, Stroud