Cost of stamping out brucellosis

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32565, 26 March 1971, Page 8

Cost of stamping out brucellosis

It is easy to understand and sympathise with the opposition of farmers, already under serious financial strain and with good cause for anxiety about the future, to the suggestion by the Minister of Agriculture that they should pay half the cost of eradicating brucellosis from the country’s cattle. They should pay something; but this is too high a proportion of the cost of a programme that is in the national interest and is, in fact, dictated by international considerations. Clearly the main importers of primary products will not much longer be prepared to trade with countries that tolerate in their herds the prevalence of a disease that is a potential threat to man as well as beast

New Zealand has already made some progress. The compulsory vaccination of all female dairy calves began more than four years ago; a campaign for the testing of all beef and dairy cattle was introduced by legislation in 1969. The Government then began to set aside funds to meet the cost of blood tests and of compensating farmers for the slaughter of infected animals. The results of the tests early in the programme have been better than expected; nevertheless, the cost of the whole programme is likely to be about $5O million. A similar programme to eradicate tuberculosis was begun in 1961; it lasted 10 years and has been remarkably successful. Brucellosis will have to be purged with the same efficiency—for the sake of public health in New Zealand no less than the requirements of the meat markets overseas.

The State, quite rightly, contributed a large share of the cost of the tuberculosis campaign which nevertheless bore heavily on the fanning industry. Farmers are certainly not as well able today to meet, through the Meat Board funds, a major part of the cost of stamping out brucellosis. Nor are all of today’s farmers going to enjoy the benefits of the eventual eradication of the disease. The Government can hardly entertain the proposals made recently by farmers for direct State subsidies to the fanning industry; but it might very well decide to relieve farmers of the additional cost of what is, in essence, an international health programme. Spread over several years and over the whole community, the cost will be small in relation to the benefits. As a charge on the income or the reserves of the Meat Board, or as an additional charge on individual meat producers, the cost would be a heavy and unfair burden.