Grave Consequences Of Foot And Mouth Disease

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31539, 29 November 1967, Page 9

Grave Consequences Of Foot And Mouth Disease

(By the London correspondent of “The Press”)

LONDON, Nov. SC The present outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain—which is by far the worst in this century—has disrupted farming throughout England and Wales on a scale which New Zealand farmers may find hard to imagine. City people are being seriously affected, too, both in their pockets and pastimes. Since the first cases of the disease on October 25 there have been more than 700 outbreaks necessitating the slaughtering of almost 150,000 animals. The value of the animals killed—and they include some famous pedigree herds—is estimated at more than £7 million. No slackening in the spread of the disease is yet discernible. With every day bringing new outbreaks, the authorities have introduced increasingly broad measures to confine it The main step has been simply to prohibit the movement of animals throughout the country, except under licence. Precautions Other measures are: A ban on the use in Scotland, England and Wales of unpasteurised milk and whey for stock feeding. Prohibition of store markets a"d the holding of fatstock mark ets only under special licence. Cancellation of annual agricultural shows and of some hunt and race meetings and motor club rallies. Appeals to sports and other clubs to postpone matches and events which could assist the spread of the disease. Appeals to motorists, climbers and walkers to avoid the epidemic areas, to keep to the main roads and not to allow their dogs to run loose. Appeals to other sportsmen who normally go into the countryside at weekends —such as anglers, shooters and even aircraft club members—to stay at home meanwhile. Behind all this is the work of more than 300 veterinary officers drafted in from all parts of Britain and more than 2500 other workers, including police. Many of them have been working 15 hours a day for the last month. Meat Dearer The effect of the outbreak is already being felt quite sharply by British housewives. Extra transport and other costs involved in the closing of normal markets are now being passed on, putting at least 2d per lb on the price of most meat. The disruption of normal marketing patterns has come at a bad time for traders who are already short of New Zealand lamb because of the London dock strike, and the normal seasonal reduction in home production is also a factor. The previous worst postwar epidemic was in 1952 when there were 495 outbreaks: but these covered the whole year not just a matter of weeks as in the present epidemic. In that year £2,400,000 was paid out in compensation for more than 75,000 slaughtered animals. Compensation only partly relieves the economic impact of the disease on farmers. The law requires that all animals infected or exposed to infection must be slaughtered and the State pays compensation to the extent of the market value of the animal immediately before infection or exposure. But this compensation does not protect the farmer from consequential losses, such as having no milk for sale, replacement stock to feed, or not being able to go about marketing even healthy animals in the normal way. Costly Insurance Cover against such consequential loss can be provided by insurance policies. But many farmers, over-optimistic that the disease was beaten,

have not made such provision. Now that they are seeking it, the premiums are naturally very high—as much as 35 per cent of the value of insurance cover provided on stock as much as five miles from confirmed outbreaks.

Justification for the slaughter policy is mainly economic. Foot and mouth disease is seldom a killer of adult animals, but losses of milk, meat and young animals can be huge. Vaccines giving varied periods of protection against infection are available but experts say they are of limited value where the farm livestock population includes not only cattle but large numbers of sheep and pigs. It has been calculated that to have produced and applied vaccine on a scale sufficient to have protected livestock in Britain against the 1952 outbreak would have cost £5O million.

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr Peart, has said that nothing in the present epidemic has convinced him that partial control by vaccination would be preferable to eradication by slaughter. As the epidemic rages, its causes are the subject of hot debate. Farm leaders and others have demanded the cessation of imports of meat from countries, especially South America, where foot and mouth disease is endemic. So far the Government has not responded, arguing that no evidence has been found to link the outbreak with imported meat. Hypothetical Journey

The agricultural correspondent of “The Times,” Leonard Amey, agrees that there is no proof and observes that cynics might say that some farmers would like to

see all competing imports reduced to a minimum. “Nevertheless,” he writes, “Infection in the past has come in that way and could so do again. “The hypothetical journey of the virus across the world could run something like this, an infected beast slips through the veterinary inspection network into the slaughterhouse and chilling chain in a country where the disease exists. Its papers are in order because the veterinary inspectors are too thin on the ground for real supervision. It may even be that some are prepared to sign clearance certificates in blank.

“After slaughter some virus still survives in the carcase and lives happily on at low temperatures. Somewhere in Britain the carcase is cut up and the bones and other waste tissue are cut out On some of these the virus persists. “They are left for some time where a dog or a rat can carry them off, or a bird can peck over them. The bird’s feet become contaminated. The rat carries his spoil into the straw of a cattle yard. “Still live, the virus is picked up by a cow grazing where the bird alighted. The infective bone in the straw is nosed over by an inquisitive bullock.

“After an incubation period of several days the newly-in-fected beast is limping and dribbling about the farm, spreading fresh virus as it goes. By the time it has been noticed some has already escaped next door on somebody's boots.

“In a district where every farm is heavily stocked with susceptible animals, the consequences can only be tragic.”