NatureScot Research Report 1345 - Investigating the role of badgers (Meles meles) in lamb predation on Scottish farms 2022-23

Year of publication: 2024

Authors: George, S.C., Campbell, S., Hale, C., Kaden, J., and Webster, L.I.M. (SASA, Wildlife Management Unit and Wildlife Forensics Unit)

Cite as: George, S.C., Campbell, S., Hale, C., Kaden, J., and Webster, L.I.M. 2024. Investigating the role of badgers (Meles meles) in lamb predation on Scottish farms 2022-23. NatureScot Research Report 1345.

Keywords

wildlife; predation; scavenging; lambs, badgers; foxes; gross pathology; molecular tools

Background

In recent years, concerns have grown in the Scottish farming sector over suspected predation of lambs by badgers and several recent surveys have canvassed views. Ipsos MORI, on behalf of the Scottish Government, carried out a large-scale survey of Scottish sheep farmers to assess the scale of attacks, including predation, on sheep by dogs and wildlife.  They also asked farmers which species they thought were responsible for attacks (Murray et al., 2019). The survey had 1931 respondents, 37% of which said wildlife had attacked, chased or killed their sheep in the last 12 months. Badgers were implicated in 11% of attacks and this varied geographically, with badgers thought to account for 32% of attacks in NE Scotland and 30% of attacks in the Scottish Borders.

A follow up survey carried out by the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) in 2020 focused on badger damage, with 132 respondents (NFUS, unpublished). Of those, 20% reported experiencing attacks on livestock by badgers including 15 reports of attacks on lambs and 11 on adult sheep. While these surveys reveal strong opinion about the role of badgers in sheep predation, attacks are rarely witnessed and supporting evidence for such attacks remains scarce.

In spring 2022 and 2023, SASA, through a partnership with NatureScot, NFUS and Scottish Land and Estates, used gross pathology and molecular methods to establish whether predation or scavenging had occurred, and the species responsible, where badgers were suspected of lamb predation on 27 Scottish farms.

Main findings

• Twenty-seven participating farms were identified through circulation to members of National Farmers Union Scotland and Scottish Land and Estates and through word of mouth. During spring 2022 and 2023, participants notified researchers when they believed a lamb may have been attacked or killed by a badger.
• Twenty-nine carcasses were provided by farmers for post-mortem examination. Of these, 14 lambs (48%) had wounds consistent with predation; predation could not be ruled out for six lambs (21%) and the remainder (31%) showed no evidence of predation, but wounds present were consistent with scavenging after death.
• Swabs were collected from 39 dead or injured lambs for potential predator/scavenger DNA recovery. Badger DNA was detected on partial remains of two (5%) lambs but was not present on any of the carcasses submitted for post-mortem or from any living, wounded lambs. Fox DNA was obtained from 34 (87%) dead or injured lambs, including all lambs that exhibited evidence consistent with predation at post-mortem. Dog DNA was present on 12 (31%) lambs. Dog DNA was also present on 40% of control live lambs, suggesting that its presence on dead or injured lambs could have resulted from contact with farm dogs.
• Most participating farmers suspected badgers to be responsible for a predation incident based on the nature of the injuries observed. A stripped carcass with organs removed, or head and neck wounds were the most common descriptions of badger damage, while injuries to the body, back legs/rump, tail injuries or broken bones were cited less frequently. All of these wounds were observed to some degree on the dead or injured lambs submitted, but they almost all occurred alongside the presence of fox DNA, and in the absence of badger DNA.
• While the results of this study cannot fully rule out the occurrence of badger predation, we did not find any direct evidence that it does occur. The presence and density of badgers, confirmed by direct observations in lambing fields and the visibility of their signs, could explain why they are sometimes suspected of lamb predation. While signs of fox presence may be less obvious, the results strongly suggest that foxes are active in areas on and around participating farms, even where some fox control is underway, and that they are responsible for the lamb predation reported. For livestock managers, a thorough review of their fox control regime should be a key response to prevent such losses in future.

Acknowledgements

This was a partnership project with a project team including representatives from SASA, NatureScot, NFUS and Scottish Land and Estates. We are grateful to NatureScot for funding towards post-mortem and DNA analysis and for comments on the draft report. Thanks go to veterinary staff at SAC Craibstone, Dumfries and St. Boswells, and to Henny Martineau and Hasita Dodhia from Royal Veterinary College, London for carrying out post-mortem analyses in 2022 and 2023 respectively. Thanks also to Agricultural Officers at Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Division, NatureScot regional staff and colleagues at SASA who helped with carcass collection. We are grateful to the NFUS and Scottish Land and Estates for their participation in the project group and for help identifying potential participants. And finally, thanks go to all of the participating farmers for taking part, providing information, collecting DNA swabs and supplying carcasses during their busy lambing period.

1. Introduction

The Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is a member of the family Mustelidae (Rogers et al., 1998), which includes the weasel, stoat, polecat, wolverine, pine marten, beech marten and otter (Neal, 1977). One of the largest badger populations in Europe is found in Britain and Ireland (Moore et al., 1999), where they have adapted to a wide range of habitats including woodland, hedgerows, open fields, moorland and uplands (Neal, 1977).

The most recent survey of badger distribution in Scotland by Rainey et al., 2009, found the highest estimated sett densities in the former Scottish administrative regions of the Borders and Lothians, moderate densities in Fife, Grampian and Dumfries and Galloway, and lower densities in Central, Highland and Tayside regions. Highest estimated sett densities were associated with arable farmland, intensive grassland and deciduous woodland, moderate densities in urban areas and lower densities in coniferous woodland, natural grassland and acidic woodland. Heather and bog-dominated areas showed the lowest estimated sett density (Rainey et al., 2009). Although the raw survey results suggested a substantial increase in the number of badger setts since the 1990s, survey methods were not directly comparable to previous surveys so methodological differences may have contributed to this apparent change.

Badgers have a fluid social structure, influenced by food availability, forming social groups with a single territory occupied by males, females and their young (Rogers et al., 1998). They have a broad, omnivorous diet (Moore et al., 1999) and are opportunistic feeders, with insects, small mammals, carrion, amphibians, cereals, nuts, fruit and tubers contributing to their diet (Roper, 2010). Earthworms are often the dominant prey species, with badger group size and density in Scotland found to be correlated with earthworm biomass (Kruuk and Parish, 1981). Badgers have been observed preying upon ground-nesting birds (Isaksson et al., 2007) and there are reports of predation on poultry. 

There is some circumstantial evidence that badgers scavenge on sheep carcasses (Hewson and Kolb, 1976) but lack of remains in faeces and stomach contents suggests the behaviour is not common (Roper, 2010). There have been anecdotal reports of badgers killing lambs as prey, including a viral video in 2022 appearing to show a badger chasing and attacking lambs in a field, but such reports are difficult to follow up and verify (Roper, 2010). Neal, 1977, mentioned several instances where evidence that a badger had killed a lamb was certain, or highly probable, attributing those cases to single individuals struggling to find regular food items. In 2007, SASA investigating reports of badger predation on lambs at a single farm but based on the extensive CCTV footage and other evidence, concluded that foxes were the most likely culprit for predation in this case (SASA unpublished).

Several recent surveys have highlighted that farmers are concerned about predation and attacks by badgers on their livestock (Murray et al., 2019, NFUS unpublished). While these surveys reveal strong opinion about the role of badgers in sheep predation, attacks are rarely witnessed and supporting evidence for such attacks remains scarce. 

To investigate the potential role of badgers in predation or scavenging of lambs and sheep, SASA carried out a study spanning 2022 and 2023 lambing seasons, involving 27 farms from across Scotland, where farmers suspected they had previously lost lambs due to predation by badgers.

2. Methods

2.1 Farms and initial visits

Potential candidate farms were identified through circulation to members of the NFUS and Scottish Land and Estates. Additional participants were identified through word of mouth. Candidates were contacted by telephone or email and 27 farms agreed to participate. Farms were located in Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Lothians and the Scottish Borders. All participating farms had badgers present on the farm, or in the surrounding area, and suspected that they had lost lambs to badgers previously. An initial farm visit was carried out at each of these farms and a questionnaire-based interview was undertaken on a subset of 19 farms to establish badger presence and activity, history and nature of predation, management practices and any other issues.

2.2 Carcass collection

During spring 2022 and 2023, farmers notified researchers when they believed a lamb may have been attacked or killed by a badger. Carcasses were swabbed (Section 2.4), bagged and collected, usually within 24 hours. If the carcass was too badly scavenged to allow post-mortem, or if the lamb survived an attack, swabs were collected for DNA analysis. In 2022, carcasses were taken directly to veterinary laboratories for post-mortem. In 2023, carcasses were frozen at -20^oC until post-mortem examination.

2.3 Post-mortem examination

Post-mortems were carried out by vets at SAC veterinary facilities in 2022 and at Royal Veterinary College London in 2023. The main purpose of the post-mortem was to confirm whether predation of lambs had occurred or if they had been scavenged after death. Haemorrhage into surrounding tissues is generally indicative of injuries sustained while the animal was still alive, suggesting predation. Where there was evidence of predation, veterinary professionals were asked to provide an opinion, if possible, on the likely predator species responsible and to identify any underlying health issues that could have increased susceptibility to predation. Where there was no evidence of predation, they were asked to provide an opinion on the presence of disease or conditions present from gross examination that could explain alternative causes of death. 

2.4 DNA swab collection

Participating farmers were each provided with packs containing materials and instructions for DNA sampling. For each incident, one wet control swab sample was collected to verify that the batch of swabs and the water were free of contamination. Wearing clean gloves, a clean swab was removed from its tube, dipped in an Eppendorf vial containing nuclease-free H₂O and returned to its tube and labelled as a swab control.

Where possible for each incident, another control sample was taken from an unaffected lamb in the same field to investigate environmental levels of potential predator DNA. To collect this, a second swab was removed from its tube, dipped in the nuclease-free H₂O and gently rubbed in a location corresponding to the location of the injuries on the dead or injured lamb. The swab was returned to its tube and labelled as a live lamb control.

For each lamb, up to three injury locations were identified for swabbing, on areas where saliva transfer was most likely, but avoiding areas with a lot of sheep blood present. Taking each location in turn, a swab was dipped into the nuclease-free H₂O and gently rubbed on the sample area, then returned to its tube and labelled as lamb[ID] sample 1. The process was repeated at remaining two sample areas if required. 

Farmers were asked to wear clean gloves, and to take the swabs and then bag carcasses before moving them from their position in the field. They were also asked to prevent farm dogs from interacting with lambs in order to reduce the risk of DNA contamination. Swabs were stored at -20ºC until processed.

2.5 DNA sample analysis

Pairs of DNA swabs were analysed from each of 39 lambs/ewe. DNA was extracted from the swabs using standard protocols and separate tests were applied which target and amplify short regions of any badger, dog or fox DNA detected. Positive results from these tests were sequenced and analysed to compare against a validated reference database of sequences from UK mammals and enable formal identification of predator/scavenger DNA present. Detailed laboratory methods follow those outlined in Hull et al. (2021).

2.6 Statistical analysis

Data were formatted in Microsoft Excel. Summary statistics and statistical analyses were carried out in R version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2023). Fishers Exact Test was used to compare DNA results between dead or injured lambs and control live lambs.

3. Results

3.1 Questionnaire responses

Detailed questionnaire responses were gathered from 19 of the 27 farms involved in the study. Where responses are reported as a percentage, they are percentages of these 19. 

Twenty-six per cent of the farms lambed on hill ground, 48% used enclosed fields and 26% lambed indoors. Over half (58%) of farmers stated that badgers had been responsible for some lamb losses in the previous 12 months. All farmers reported that badger numbers had increased locally over the past 10 years and that badger activity had also increased.

No farmers had directly witnessed an attack by badgers on a lamb. When asked what evidence they used to identify badgers as the predator, most farmers cited the nature of the injuries sustained. To a lesser extent, the presence of badger signs near a lamb carcass or proximity to badger setts was taken as evidence of badger involvement. When asked what they considered to be classic injuries associated with badger predation, a stripped carcass with organs removed, or head and neck injuries were the most common answers, while injuries to the body, back legs/rump, tail injuries or broken bones were cited less frequently.

Farmer were also asked to list any other species that had attacked or scavenged on their lambs. Over half of farmers said they had lost lambs to foxes, followed closely by crows and ravens and, to a lesser extent, buzzards and gulls were named. Twelve per cent of farmers had also previously experienced dog attacks on lambs. Some form of fox control was carried out on 88% of farms, to varying degrees of intensity, and 59% of them controlled crows.

3.2 Post-mortem results

The carcasses of 29 lambs from 13 farms were submitted for post-mortem analysis. Post-mortem results were categorised as predation, scavenging and inconclusive (Table 1). The predation category included lambs that exhibited evidence of predation at post-mortem; the inconclusive category included lambs for which post-mortems could not fully rule out or confirm predation; and the scavenging category were lambs that had died of other causes and been scavenged after death.

Fourteen lambs (48%) had wounds consistent with predation (Figure 1); predation could not be ruled out for six further lambs (21%); and the remainder (31%) showed no evidence of predation but had injuries consistent with scavenging after death (Figure 2).  

3.3 DNA results

Swabs were collected from 33 dead lambs, 5 injured living lambs and one injured ewe from 15 farms, a total of 39 different individuals. Hereafter, the ewe is included in references to dead or injured lambs. Fox DNA was present on 87% of lamb remains, including on swabs from all 14 carcasses that showed evidence consistent with predation and on swabs from four live lambs exhibiting wounds consistent with a predation attempt. Badger DNA was detected on 5% of lamb remains and dog DNA was detected on 31% of lamb remains (Table 1).

Wet control swabs were collected from 36 incidents of suspected predation. No DNA was detected on 35 of the 36 wet control swabs, indicating that swabs were free of contamination. One wet control swab had a faint positive for dog DNA. Control swabs were collected from 20 living lambs. Of these, 20% tested positive for fox DNA and badger DNA was detected on 5% of lambs. Dog DNA was detected on 40% of control lamb swabs. Fox DNA was detected on a significantly higher proportion of dead or injured lambs than on control live lambs (p<0.001) but there was no significant difference between the proportion of dead or injured lambs and live control lambs with dog DNA present (p=0.565). Badger DNA was detected on too few samples from either source to allow statistical analysis.

 

Table 1. Summary of post-mortem conclusions and DNA results.

Post-mortem result	Farm ID	Breed of sheep	Litter	Age	DNA Present
Predation	1	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Day old	Fox
Predation	1	Scotch mule	Twin	5 days	Fox
Predation	2	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Day old	Fox
Predation	2	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Day old	Fox
Predation	2	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Day old	Fox
Predation	1	Scotch Mule	Twin	3 weeks	Fox
Predation	9	Texel cross	Twin	2 days	Fox
Predation	10	Texel cross	Single	newborn	Fox
Predation	11	Texel cross	Twin	3 days	Fox
Predation	12	Cheviot	Twin	1day	Fox and dog
Predation	13	Scottish Blackface	Twin	2 days	Fox
Predation	13	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Unknown	Fox and dog
Predation	3	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Fox and dog
Predation	3	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Fox
Predation attempt	11	Texel cross	Twin	3 days	Fox
Predation attempt	12	Cheviot	Twin	2days	Fox and dog
Predation attempt	12	Cheviot	Twin	2weeks	Fox and dog
Predation attempt	1	Scottish Blackface	Twin	Day old	Fox
Inconclusive	2	Scottish Blackface	Unknown	Day old	Fox
Inconclusive	1	Scotch mule	Twin	Day old	Fox
Inconclusive	10	Suffolk cross	Twin	2 weeks	Fox
Inconclusive	14	Texel x Shetland	Single	newborn	Dog
Inconclusive	15	Scottish Blackface	Twin	2 days	Fox and dog
Inconclusive	15	Scottish Blackface	Single	2-3days	Fox and dog
Scavenging	1	Scotch Mule	Twin	Newborn	Fox and dog
Scavenging	3	Highlander	Quad	Newborn	No result
Scavenging	1	Scottish Blackface	Twin	3 weeks	Fox
Scavenging	5	Cheviot	Twin	Day old	Fox
Scavenging	6	Lleyn cross	Twin	1 week	Fox
Scavenging	1	Scottish Blackface	Single	3 weeks	Fox
Scavenging	7	Texel cross	Twin	3 weeks	Fox
Scavenging	7	Texel cross	Twin	5 weeks	Fox and dog
Scavenging	1	Scottish Blackface	Twin	16 weeks	Fox
No PM	8	Scottish Blackface	Single	12 weeks	No result
No PM	4	Cheviot	N/A	Adult	No result
No PM	4	Cheviot	Unknown	Unknown	Fox
No PM	4	Cheviot	Twin	Day old	Badger, dog
No PM	8	Scottish Blackface	Single	3 days	Fox
No PM	4	Cheviot	Single	Newborn	Badger, fox, dog

 

4. Discussion

The primary aim of this project was to investigate reports of badger predation of lambs on Scottish farms. Lamb carcasses were examined to confirm if predation had occurred and we used DNA evidence to identify, where possible, the predators involved. DNA swabs were obtained from 39 lambs, 29 of which had carcasses available for post-mortem analysis. Badger DNA was found on two sets of partial lamb remains. On the first occasion, these remains consisted of several bare lamb bones, with badger DNA detected alongside dog DNA. On the second occasion, a disarticulated lamb leg was found by the farmer and swabbed, with fox, dog and badger DNA detected. A carcass was not available for post-mortem analysis in either instance so cause of death could not be established. Badger DNA was not present on any lamb carcasses submitted for post-mortem or on any of the remaining lambs for which DNA swabs were submitted. Therefore, we did not find any direct evidence of lamb predation by badgers. Badger DNA was detected on one live control lamb, but it was detected on too few samples from either group to enable statistical comparison. It is possible that the presence of badger DNA on dead lamb remains could be explained by passive transfer in the environment, for example via the badger investigating, scent marking or walking over the remains. However, the persistence of this passive-transfer DNA is likely to be limited and chances of detection could deteriorate rapidly after the first 24 hours (Mcleish et al., 2018).

It did not appear from the DNA evidence that badgers regularly scavenged the carcasses of dead lambs. This aligns with conclusions by Roper, 2010, that such behaviour is uncommon. Young et al., 2015 observed that captive badgers in enclosures did scavenge when presented with deer meat, but scavenging behaviour increased with the degree of decomposition. The lamb carcasses in the current study were generally lifted by the farmer within 8-12 hours of death. Badgers may have been more likely to scavenge older lamb remains if left in situ. However, Young et al., 2015 also observed that wild badgers did not scavenge deposited deer carcasses at all, despite sniffing, investigating and walking past the remains. They concluded that badgers are less likely to scavenge carrion if the habitat provides enough of their preferred food sources. Preliminary findings from an ongoing SASA study, recording badger scavenging behaviour at lamb carcasses, appear to reinforce these conclusions (SASA, unpublished).

Fox DNA was present on 34 of the 39 lambs sampled, including all of the lambs that exhibited evidence of predation at post-mortem. Fox DNA occurred on significantly more dead or injured lambs than on control live lambs, suggesting that presence of fox DNA on dead and injured lambs was unlikely to be due to passive environmental contamination. One of the predated lambs appeared to have been killed via an eye wound, with various ‘plucking’ wounds evident, and the veterinarian concluded that an avian predator was responsible on this occasion. We did not test for the presence of avian DNA but fox DNA was present on this carcass, likely indicating that scavenging by a fox had occurred after death. Fox predation and scavenging of lambs is well documented and the injuries observed here are consistent with those reported by others (Hewson,1984, Gentle, 2005). In general, injuries associated with predation occurred on the head, neck and throat. Dislocation of the cervical vertebrae was common and there was one observation of abdominal wounds inflicted on an incapacitated lamb. All other injuries observed at post-mortem were deemed by vets to have occurred due to feeding or scavenging after death. A broad range of scavenging patterns were observed, including head removal, opening of the thoracic cavity and removal of some or all organs, removal of one or several limbs, removal of the tail and broken ribs. 

This extensive scavenging behaviour could, without detailed examination, be mistaken for predation and lead to the frequency of lamb predation being overestimated. This highlights the importance of post-mortem examination. However, scavenging could also remove evidence of predation. The clearest evidence supporting mammalian predation observed in this study was the presence of puncture wounds and associated haemorrhaging on the head, neck and throat and dislocation of the cervical vertebrae. However, if the head was missing, this evidence could be lost. The lambs classified as ‘inconclusive’ reflect this uncertainty. Several lambs in this category were missing heads or had extensive scavenging to the face but showed other signs that might point to an instant death as associated with predation. For example, several otherwise healthy lambs had a full stomach of milk indicating a recent feed and one lamb had blood clots on the liver, indicating that abdominal wounds had been inflicted while it was alive. These accounted for 21% of lamb remains examined at post-mortem.

Almost two thirds of farmers reported that they used the pattern of injuries on carcasses to identify badgers as the predator. Many of the patterns of injury that they considered to be indicative of badger predation, including head wounds, organs and limbs removed and broken bones, were observed here alongside the presence of fox DNA and in the absence of badger DNA. Identifying the species responsible for predation from field signs alone can lead to misidentification of the predator (Onerato et al., 2006). Overlapping kill site characteristics between predators, scavenging signs, and level of observer experience (Mumma et al., 2014) as well as body mass of the prey (Gantz et al., 2022) can further impact the chance of error. Use of salivary DNA analysis can verify predator species where there is doubt (Lopez-Bao et al., 2017). In the current study, the presence and number of badgers on site, direct observations and the visibility of their signs, as well as the fact that fox control takes place on most sites, could explain why badgers are sometimes considered the culprits for lamb predation. However, all of the lambs that exhibited evidence of predation had fox DNA present and at least 31% of lamb carcasses analysed were determined to have died of other causes and were scavenged after death. This highlights the challenges associated with relying on injury patterns and other field signs alone to distinguish between predation and scavenging and to identify predator species.

Thirteen of the 27 project farms submitted carcasses. These 13 and an additional two farms submitted DNA swabs. The remainder reported that they didn’t find any carcasses that they suspected could represent badger predation. However, some did report missing lambs for which they had no explanation. This suggests that predation pressure may change year on year and can vary considerably between farms. In a study on two Scottish hill farms, White et al., 2000 found that overall mortality rates of lambs ranged from 2-10%, with fox predation ranging from 0-6% on Farm 1 and 0-2% on Farm 2. They reported that husbandry practices, such as indoor housing during lambing, and level of fox control could influence predation risk. Most farmers in this study carried out some degree of fox control but we did not assess the intensity or timing of these activities, nor determine the fox populations present.

Dog DNA was found on 12 dead or injured lambs and on eight control lamb swabs. On dead or injured lambs, in one instance it was the only DNA detected. On one occasion it was detected alongside badger DNA and on another occasion, badger, fox and dog DNA were detected together. In the remaining nine cases it was found in combination with fox DNA. On control lamb swabs, dog DNA was the only DNA detected on six swabs, it occurred alongside badger DNA on one swab and alongside fox DNA on one swab. There was no significant difference in the proportion of control lamb swabs and killed/injured lambs that had dog DNA present, suggesting that, in most cases, its presence may be due to contact with farm dogs, either directly, or indirectly. As farmers were collecting swabs and handling live lambs and lamb carcasses, it is possible that dog DNA transfer occurred during this sample collection process.

DNA was successfully recovered from 36 (92%) dead or injured lambs swabbed, indicating that it is possible for a layperson to collect the swabs on site following the provided instructions, and that predator or scavenger DNA can be successfully obtained. Of the remaining three animals, one was a live lamb with facial injuries, one was a live ewe with a tail injury, and one was a stillborn lamb that exhibited evidence of scavenging. It is possible that wounds on the injured animals were accidental, rather than wildlife related. DNA retrieval can also be impacted by blood contamination of the host, contact time with the scavenger/predator, environmental conditions and level of decomposition (Hull et al., 2021). 

5. Conclusions

Badger DNA was retrieved from two sets of lamb remains. However, no carcass was available for post-mortem to confirm cause of death in either case. While the results of this study cannot fully rule out the occurrence of predation by badgers more widely, none of the remaining lambs submitted to the study had badger DNA present nor provided evidence supporting predation by badgers. In all cases of confirmed predation, fox DNA was present. In all but one case, fox DNA was retrieved from scavenged lamb carcasses. The findings strongly suggest that even in situations where badgers are suspected of lamb predation, foxes are the primary culprit. For farmers and shepherds, this means that a thorough review of their fox control regime should be a key response to prevent such losses. 

The study sample size was small, perhaps reflecting the variable frequency of wildlife attacks on lambs. However, to our knowledge, this study is the first to use molecular and post-mortem techniques to investigate reports of badger predation of lambs. This study adds to previous work that has shown the importance of using post-mortem analysis and molecular evidence to accurately confirm predation events and to identify predator species responsible.

References

Gantz, T.R., DeVivo, M.T., Reese, E.M. and Prugh, L.R. 2022. Wildlife whodunnit: forensic identification of predators to inform wildlife management and conservation Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Gentle, M.N. 2005. Post-mortem indications of fox and dog predation of sheep and lambs Conference paper.

Hewson, R. 1984. Scavenging and predation upon sheep and lambs in West ScotlandJournal of Applied Ecology, 21, 843-868.

Hewson, R. and Kolb, H.H. 1976. Scavenging on sheep carcases by foxes Vulpes vulpes and badgers Meles melesJournal of Zoology, 804, 496-499.

Hull, K.D., Jeckel, S., Williams, J.M., Ciavaglia, S.A., Webster, L.M.I., Fitzgerald, E., Chang, Y-M. and Martineau, H.M. 2021. Fox Vulpes vulpes involvement identified in a series of cat carcass mutilations Veterinary Pathology, 592, 299-309.

Isaksson, D., Wallander, J. and Larsson, M. 2007. Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: The effectiveness of nest exclosures Biological Conservation, 136, 136-142.

Kruuk, H. and Parish, T. 1981. Feeding specialization of the European badger Meles meles in ScotlandJournal of Animal Ecology, 50, 773-788.

López-Bao, J.V., Frank, J., Svensson, L., Akesson, M. and Langefors, A. 2017. Building public trust in compensation programs through accuracy assessments of damage verification protocols Biological Conservation, 213, 36-41.

Mcleish, K., Ferguson, S., Gannicliffe, C., Campbell, S., Thomson, P.I.T. and Webster, L.M.I. 2018. Profiling in wildlife crime: Recovery of human DNA deposited outside Forensic Science International: Genetics, 35, 65-69.

Moore, N., Whiterow, A., Kelly, P., Garthwiate. D., Bishop, J., Langton, S., and Cheeseman, C. 1999. Survey of badger Meles meles damage to agriculture in England and Wales Journal of Applied Ecology, 36, 974-988.

Mumma, M.A., Soulliere, C.E., Mahoney., S.P and Waits, L.P. 2014. Enhanced understanding of predator-prey relationships using molecular methods to identify predator species, individual and sexMolecular Ecology Resources, 14, 100-108.

Murray, L., Warren, R., and Lovatt, F. 2019. Sheep attacks and Harassment Research Report prepared by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Neal, E. 1977. Badgers. Blanford Press, UK.

Onorato, D., White, C., Zager, P., and Waits, L.P. 2006. Detection of predator presence at elk mortality sites using mtDNA analysis of hair and scat samples Wildlife Society Bulletin, 343, 815-820.

R Core Team 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rainey, E., Butler, A., Bierman, S. and Roberts, A.M.I. 2009. Scottish Badger Distribution Survey 2006 – 2009: estimating the distribution and density of badger main setts in Scotland Report prepared by Scottish Badgers and Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland.

Rogers L.M., Delahay R., Cheeseman C.L. et al. 1998. Movement of badgers Meles meles in a high-density population: individual, population and disease effects Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 1269–1276.

Roper, T.J. 2010. Badger. Volume 114 of Collins New Naturalist Series, Collins, UK.

White, P.C.I, Groves, H.I, Savery, J.R, Conington, J., and Hutchings, M.R. 2000. Fox predation as a cause of lamb mortality on hill farms Veterinary Record, 147, 33-37.

Young, A., Marquez-Grant, N., Stillman, R., Smith, M.J. and Korstjens, A.H. 2015. An investigation of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Eurasian badger (Meles meles) scavenging, scattering, and removal of deer remains: Forensic implications and applications Journal of Forensic Science, 60(S1).

Document downloads