IMPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK

Evening Post, Issue 82, 6 April 1936, Page 8

IMPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Respect for your generosity with regard to space forbids me to reply in detail to "Farmer's" criticisms and arguments published on the 3rd instant. I may, perhaps, however, be allowed to answer some of these as briefly as possible.

That the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is not affected by climatic conditions is a fact borne out by its existence in countries with climates ranging from tropical to frigid. It is not admitted that Britain is an infected country. Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth in Britain are intermittent and depend upon reintroduction of infection from countries where the disease is always in existence and through the medium of contaminated material—not through livestock. Since all affected and incontact stock are slaughtered there are no recovered cases to act as possible reservoirs of infection, and the disease therefore cannot be conveyed from Britain overseas. Realising the value of trade in pedigree stock the British Ministry of Agriculture has established what is probably the most up-to-date quarantine system in the world entirely under veterinary control. No case of foot-and-mouth has ever occurred at the quarantine station or among the hundreds of animals which have passed through it to all parts of the Empire other than New Zealand. Foot-and-mouth first broke out in Britain in 1839 and livestock have been imported into New Zealand since 1840 during periods long before any elaborate quarantine regulations existed.

I do not intend to discuss the question which "Farmer" raises of ulterior motives, but I have authority for stating that the Government Veterinarians of this country—surely an impartial body of observers- whose opinion should carry weight—are unanimous in considering that the importation of stock is necessary in the interests of the Dominion.- and ■ that sueh1 importations would not, under present safeguards, be attended by any risk of introducing foot-and-mouth disease.

Whatever experience "Farmer" may have gathered ■in his thirty years he can have little knowledge of breeding problems when he characterises as "amazingly absurd" the statement that revertive changes tend to occur among New Zealand livestock and that fresh blood is needed, to maintain types.1 What does "Farmer" think, I wonder, of- the recent action of the Australian Federal Government in subsidising the importation of British purebred stock? Is New Zealand to be regarded as the only sagacious member of. the Empire family, or is she merely perversely joining with "Farmer" in the. contention that the opinions of experts, of whom some have devoted over thirty years to the study of j these questions, should be rejected with contempt?

In conclusion, I would ask "Farmer" who keeps the . New Zealand ship afloat if not the consumers of 82 per cent, of our produce marketed in Britain? —I am, etc.,

ANOTHER FARMER.

April 4,