The Press WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1967. Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31539, 29 November 1967, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1967. Foot-and-Mouth Disease

New Zealand’s ability to grow grass abundantly is the foundation of our economy. Our soil, climate, and farming skills are enviable assets. The disastrous outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on British farms should remind New Zealanders that freedom from this disease —a freedom enjoyed by only a few countries in the world—is also an asset of fundamental importance. This asset is precariously held; for the danger of one or more strains of the virus being introduced is always present. The disease cannot be prevented and it has no known cure. Although the origins of outbreaks are seldom traced with certainty, birds are thought to be one of the carriers of the virus. New Zealand’s remoteness from countries in which the disease is endemic may be one of the few benefits of our geographic isolation.

The disease strikes cloven-hoofed animals—cattle, sheep, and pigs—and, although it does not usually kill adult animals, its debilitating effects seriously reduce production. If herds or flocks in New Zealand became infected a slaughter policy similar to that followed in Britain would be inescapable. Even this would offer no assurance against recurring outbreaks. In countries where the disease is endemic, vaccines are used to hold it at bay. This is a costly business. Each of the many strains of virus demands an appropriate vaccine. More expensive vaccines give protection against more than one strain: but the period of immunity is shorter. Acceptance of a vaccination policy means acceptance of the permanent, if suppressed, presence of the disease—and acceptance of a permanent diminution of the quality of livestock. It was estimated that immunisation of British livestock against the 1952 epidemic there would have cost at least £5O million. Furthermore, vaccines are of limited value in protecting sheep and pigs. Britain’s slaughter policy has at least meant freedom from infection in some years, only minor infection in other years, and comparatively few major epidemics. This year’s serious epidemic has already meant a slaughter of animals equal to the normal kill of several weeks. The loss of breeding stock and the loss of meat and milk production have been enormous. The warning inherent in British experience fully justifies the efforts in New Zealand and Australia to keep the virus from our shores. It might come here in many ways—on clothing, in cargoes, in livestock or meat. No effort must be spared to exclude it. The cost of maintaining these efforts is small The cost of their failure would be incalculable harm to our livelihood and the loss of that priceless but invisible asset that keeps New Zealand farms among the most productive in the world.