green guy:

Can someone tell me - if foot and mouth disease went un-noticed for a month on one holding, and the animals were unaffected with the lesions healing in the mouth and on the feet, why does there have to be such an aggressive killing policy?

Hello

Yes foot and mouth doesn't usually kill the animal, but it does cause suffering as they lose condition which brings into play the '5 freedoms' for livestock, 1 of which is freedom from pain and suffering and foot and mouth will bring suffering to the animals as they don't eat as much due to the pain/discomfort the lesions cause.

With foot and mouth being contagious, and the governments lack of knowledge in how to deal with it/cope with it, killing appears to be their idea of successful control. Whether this is ethically right in regards the animals and the farmers, who am I to say...?

 

I work in an agricultural merchants in the Scottish Borders, and one of our customers said that the government knew that foot and mouth was a problem and have been buying railway sleepers from Poland for the fires...is this true...?

green guy:

Can someone tell me - if foot and mouth disease went un-noticed for a month on one holding, and the animals were unaffected with the lesions healing in the mouth and on the feet, why does there have to be such an aggressive killing policy?

For the best part of a month, these animals will have suffered, having difficulty in eating and drinking and in standing and walking. And for the best part of a month, these animals have passed the disease on to other animals to suffer likewise. On welfare grounds alone, you have to support the eradication of the disease.

katastrophe:

I work in an agricultural merchants in the Scottish Borders, and one of our customers said that the government knew that foot and mouth was a problem and have been buying railway sleepers from Poland for the fires...is this true...?

That was a rumour that certainly was circulated in 2001. I think the Government has now rejected pyres in favour of carting carcases around the country to incinerators/rendering plants.

It concerns me that the papers are reporting that the farmer at Klondyke farm in Egham could be prosecuted for not reporting lesions in his cattle for a month. If the infection wasn't a heavy one, would the symptoms be as intense as the second case where the poor farmer described how his favourite bull literally collapsed in front of him? There must be different degrees of infection, even with the same strain. The cattle could be another breed and less susceptible. Cattle tend to drool a bit anyway, - you are not going to be able to catch them every day to shove your hand into their mouths. If they are eating and seem to be acting normally, why would you worry?

Anyway, it is a bit rich to prosecute someone for not being an expert at FMD diagnosis when no mention has been made of prosecuting anyone for letting the virus out in the first place! When in the wrong, always blame the other guy!

TAC

"It concerns me that the papers are reporting that the farmer at Klondyke farm in Egham could be prosecuted for not reporting lesions in his cattle for a month. If the infection wasn't a heavy one, would the symptoms be as intense as the second case where the poor farmer described how his favourite bull literally collapsed in front of him? There must be different degrees of infection, ... "

I too, find this odd. Not that Defra should turn the big guns onto 'farmers' for not reporting symptoms, attack is the best form of defence after all. It takes the edge off facing their own financial straightjacket which encouraged lax management at the Pirbright site, or lack of provision of up-to-date RT-PCR for early diagnosis to the teams who are allegedly screening farms in the surveillance zone - which this one is. But the symptoms. Very odd.

My understanding from vets on the ground was that this outbreak was the result of a partially attenuated virus which  walked out escaped and was thus a 'mutant'. (It wasn't quite dead, deactivated for use in dead vaccines) As such symptoms could be mild, certainly more mild than the live virus which was its seed strain. The description of the bull, doesn't fit this at all. Neither does the level of infection in cattle in some herds where all, or a very high proportion, were or had been, 'infected.'  

FMD, if I understand its progress correctly, ripples through a flock / herd. Initially with just one or two animals having exposure, passing it to a few more and so on. The original couple have then recovered and bloods will show antibodies. So for all animals to be infected / showing antibodies either means a widespread initial dose or the spread has been over a longer time frame and unnoticed.

 

According to the epidemiology report the animals were all clinically normal - they were slaughtered because the sheep had antibodies. Only when the animals were slaughtered did they find lesions in the cattle and sheep but the 2 pigs (housed separately but presumably fed etc by the same people) were negative for everything.

Now, one doesn't know how much the farmer saw or knew. If he did know and didn't report, then, yes, it was wrong but personally I can sympathise in a way - would you really want DEFRA's storm troopers descending if you weren't sure and the animals were not that sick? There are many other diseases with similar symptoms.  However, that aside, the case is interesting because of the result - i.e. one month later and you wouldn't know clinically that they had been infected. We have had very little experience in this country of recovered animals. As Mad Cow says, the mild symptoms were probably due to attenuation of the strain but it does show that the virus isn't as clear cut in producing devastating symptoms as we are all led to believe.

katastrophe/malcolm

If, as you say, foot and mouth has 'cause suffering as they lose condition as they don't eat as much due to the pain/discomfort the lesions cause' and 'for the best part of a month, these animals will have suffered, having difficulty in eating and drinking and in standing and walking. And for the best part of a month, these animals have passed the disease on to other animals to suffer likewise'

will the person in charge of these animals be prosecuted and banned from keeping animals in the future?

 An interesting dissertation:

www.warmwell.com/2sept3stockdale.html  

snip
From the turn of the century until 1920 discriminate slaughter rapidly eliminated new incursions of FMD, arguably justifying the original rationale behind slaughter. However, in 1922, the disease spread through an infected market (following delayed notification) and became widespread. This…

"… was an entirely new context for the application of slaughter and certainly not one which the original framers of the slaughter policy had foreseen or intended" (Woods 2001:4),

and, following a particularly severe and long- lasting outbreak, triggered a revolt by farmers against the cull, (Woods 2001, citing information drawn from the 'Cheshire Observer' and 'Crewe Chronicle', newspapers, December 1923 - February 1924, located in the Cheshire Public Records Office [P.R.O.]), so much so that in some specific instances farmers were permitted to isolate rather than slaughter infected stock. The 2nd Duke of Westminster's stock at Eaton Hall, Cheshire, (November 1923), were a case in point. The surrounding stock having been mostly slaughtered, the Duke, who opposed the slaughter policy, opted, (at his own expense and at risk of forfeiting compensation should slaughter become necessary), to treat his stock, primarily with saline solution, Stockholm tar, copious fresh bedding, 24 hour a day stockmanship, warm mash and soft hay; mortalities were no worse than an average year, milk yield returned to normal the following lactation, and all classes of stock bred as normal the following year. At the Royal Show of 1924 several previously infected dairy cows won prizes, a draft sale at Eaton that same July saw 77 lots of cattle achieve excellent prices, and Galloway steers who had been treated also made excellent carcasses (Whitlock 1969).

 

I heard the other day that DEFRA had phoned a contractor in N.Yorks that organised a lot of the C&D in that area in 2001, to see if he would be ready and willing to do the same again if the need arose. The phone call was at the beginning of July after he hadn't had any contact with them for several years.

 I also know for a fact that our vet attended a big meeting at Worcester, at that same time, to discuss the UK's F&M contingency plan.

 Coincidence, perhaps, that they happened to choose to review the UK's readiness just a couple of weeks "before" the leak from Pirbright.

 That last time that I heard, from someone working for DEFRA, that they had been carrying out an audit of wellies, waterproofs, disinfectants, etc, "just in case there was a F&M outbreak", was in December 2000.   

 

It would be interesting to know how many scares/outbreaks there have been for FMD in the "older" part of the EU between 2001 and 2007. I fear nothing has been said or done as yet to convince me that we have had anything other than one source of FMD infection in the last 6 years in this country. The multimillion pound refurbishment is welcome, but should have been done at least ten years ago

Another suspect case and close enough to the others to sound plausible:

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/09/26/107037/foot-and-mouth-disease-temporary-control-zone-set-up-in.html

On the subject of Blue Tongue. Can anyone explain why the cattle who have tested positive have to be slaughtered when they are not apparently showing any signs of distress & suffering ? The Defra website says that the disease can only be transmitted to sheep, which are the principle sufferers from this disease, by a vector, namely a midge. The website also says that mechanical transmission MAY be possible e.g. people handling,needles etc. A bit like saying you can catch Aids by shaking hands with a sufferer I should think !!. Or all the distress caused by slaughtering millions of cattle in the BSE fiasco when there never has been a link proved between BSE & CJD to this day.

Exmoor

im not in favour of all this killing for the sake of it

if they had a chance to stop f/m its becoming a nightmare the so called experts cant tell it so what hope farmers have or a decent stockmanthe weather is right for the spread of it are we sitting on a time bomb

the b/t is here so we realy wont know till next spring if its realy here are they hoping thhe cold will knock it back then they dont have to say its got out or the midges are more widespread so you pays your money take your choice

time will tell  

As always with anything like foot and mouth in the news, all sorts of stories do the rounds many of which are just urban myths. Well here's one doing the rounds up here just now. With the first case large straw Heston bales were used to contain or coral the infected herd and after they were slaughtered they were of coarse disposed of - - - - Properly. Well they would be wouldn't they seeing as it was DEFRA who was in charge, well the story is they were sold to a farmer down the road. Now as they are the ones who advise us on bio-security and they being bright young things to a man or woman as the case might be, this can not be true can it. Can it?

 The midge bites the infected cattle and then spreads it to more animals and then more midges!!