Results Of Footrot Survey In Dominion

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28784, 3 January 1959, Page 9

Results Of Footrot Survey In Dominion

In a recent issue of an Australian journal Mr R. A. Barton, senior lecturer in sheep husbandry at Massey Agricultural College, gives a summary of results obtained by the Economic Service of the New Zealand Meat and Wool Boards in a survey of footrot on New Zealand farms.

On the basis of 338 replies received to a questionnaire it was found that of the farms surveyed 82 per cent, in the North Island and 50 per cent, in the South Island experienced footrot every year. Thus, on a national basis, 67 per cent, of farmers who replied have some footrot in their flocks every year.

Rainfall appeared to outweigh the effect of buying-in stock as a factor in the incidence of footrot among flocks, but it was quite clearly shown that buying-in replacement sheep was frequently the cause of bringing in footrot. It also appeared that there was some slight association between carrying capacity and incidence of footrot—the higher the carrying capacity the higher the incidence of footrot. It was pointed out in the report, however, that carrying capacity was associated with rainfall and high rainfall was a major factor in determining the- incidence of footrot on farms.

Soil drainage was also established as a factor associated with footrot. Farms classified as wet and difficult to drain had a 76 per. cent, incidence of footrot in their flocks every year, farms classified as wet, but well drained, had a similar incidence of the trouble, while 61 per cent, of the flocks on farms with open, freedraining soil were affected every year.

Only 48 per cent, of North Island farmers felt they could eradicate footrot. South Island farmers were much more optimistic since 79 per cent, of them replied that they could clear up footrot by present methods of treatment. Likewise only 58 per cent, of North Island farmers believed • they could keep their farms clear of footrot, but 81 per cent; of South Island farmers replied that they could do this. On average about 10 per cent, of sheep in affected flocks were treated but naturally there was a considerable variation about this figure. In 1953, a bad footrot year, some farmers reported they had to treat upwards of 40 per cent, of the sheep in their flocks. This treatment was additional to the normal treatment given to the whole flock. Time spent in footrotting averaged about seven days a year in the North Island and about 10 days in the South Island. Ope North Island owner of 4000 sheep spends 120 man days in footrotting most years and in, the South Island one

owner with 4480 sheep devoted 160 man days to footrotting in 1953.

Replies indicated that it costs about 6s to 6s 3d to treat each sheep suffering from footrot. On a flock basis the average estimated cost of treatment for every 100 sheep carried was £4 in 1954 and £3 in 1955. This reduction in cost in 1955 was due to the lower incidence of footrot in that year.

A number of farmers had views on the influence of footrot on wool and lamb production. One hundred and ninety-two considered that footrot in the flock adversely. affected that wool, but 56 farmers did not agree that this was so. A few farmers said that ewes with footrot at shearing time almost invariably yielded cotted wool.

In general there was agreement that the specific organism causing footrot was controllable given adequate labour, time and facilities, using the standard treatments. There was also an appreciation by farmers of the need for quarantine to prevent the disease being introduced anew on farms that had been cleared of the trouble. This had raised the following points: (1) breeding of replacement stock was preferable to buying; (2) even breeders must guard against reinfection from bought-in rams; (3) fence lines and other boundaries must be stockproof; and (4) community ■ use of yards, dips and sheds should be avoided.

Many farmers emphasised the need for cleaning up saleyards and disinfecting rail waggons and transport trucks,.to guard against the risk of clean stock being infected and a small number were emphatic that no final success could be achieved without rigorous legislation to prevent infected sheep from becoming a source of contamination to others in any way.