SIR — Setting aside the plethora of European Union and government regulations to which British agriculture is subjected, in order to supply beef, milk, butter and cheese to the predominantly urban-based great British public at a price that they are prepared to pay whilst still giving the supermarket moguls a handsome profit margin, British farmers, if they are to receive slightly more than subsistence level income, find it necessary to keep their cattle at higher densities, both indoors and out, than the majority of them would wish.

Hence it is inevitable that these conditions are potential breeding grounds for disease such as bovine TB.

The badger population in Britain has never been higher, the hedgehog population has never been lower. "Haute cuisine" for a badger is hedgehog. Earthworms are just sustenance.

It seems anomalous to me, a mere country man (retired) that it is acceptable to cull cattle that test positive for TB at enormous cost both to the public purse and to the morale and livelihood of the farmer, and allow TB infected badgers to roam free.

Simple logic, to me, would say that one should cull both infected cattle and infected badgers.

Should the badger population be reduced to a more sustainable level, were supermarket owners to be less avaricious and the great British public prepared to pay a more economic price for their meat, milk, butter and cheese, it might be possible for the farmers to reduce the density of their stock holding.

In time this might have the chance to reduce the incidence of bovine TB in both cattle and badgers.

I am of course aware that I am just a simple person who looks for simple answers.

Peter Donnelly,

Great Meadow,