Oh NO! Not again...Foot & Mouth

[catalyst]

i wonder whether the disease is only a problem to animals whose immune systems are already overstretched - much the same as childhood diseases normally cause few side effects, except unpleasantness for the child concerned (when i was a kid my mother toof us to visit children with mumps and measles so we would catch it to boost our immune systems - nowadays parents are scared into vaccinating).

all the articles i can find state that F&M has severe economic consequences ie the animals lose weight and cows produce less milk. and it seems that much of the third world just live with f&m, and they lose a percentage of their profits, and lose the odd weak animal (a good thing surely, as the remaining animals are the stronger or immune ones?).

the state of modern animal husbandry is such that most animals are bombarded with chemicals and antibiotics - leaving them wide open to severe impact from f&M. if they were reared in a more natural way, would it just be like a quick harmless infection?

anyone here more knowledgable about such things?

[Peggy Sue]

My visit to Argentina, where F&M is part of life, might contradict this? The Estancia had a cow's perfect life. Wide open countryside for miles, a mixture of hills, mountains, rugged grass. Massive herds but you had so much space you ahd to really search for hours for them. The beef was the only beef I have ever eaten and enjoyed and I put that doen to the life it lead (and the death too as there was no transport involved, they were just killed round the back of the BBQ that evening!)

F&M has to be vaccinated for there, it's the law. So they round all the cattle up and the ministry superivise & administer. Because the Estancias are so vast a few cattle are missed if the just can't be found, and so the disease survives.

I turely believe these animals have good lives though.

[catalyst]

i think i have to go back to my childhood diseases comparison.

measles in the UK is rarely dangerous. but in countries where malnutrition is part of life (mainly caused by iinequitable land ownership, and an emphasis on cash crops - but thats another debate!) it is often fatal.
so, big pharma companies make a vaccine. then set about lobbying the govt to make it part of doctors jobs to get all children vaccinated (using a mix of scare tactics, pressure and bribery ie ensuring that docs get a bonus if they can vaccinate 95% of the under fives in their care).
so now parents are scared that if they dont have their kids vaccinated they may die or suffer so other complications.

so anyone not aware that measles WAS regarded as normally harmless, and in fact beneficial to childrens immune systems, could think that the UK must have a big problem with measles... and it is only the vaccines that protect us from a vast epidemic, killing thousands...

when in fact it is STILL the same disease it used to be.
and the main reason to vaccinate the entire population, i can see, is profits for the pharma companies...

not sure now whether this explains what i am trying to say!! :)
ultimately health comes from living a healthy lifestyle, eating good food grown on good healthy soil. and it is easier to vaccinate than to try to change farming practises so ensure food is healthy, or to reduce pollution so our immune systems are under less strain. or with cows it is easier to blame a virus and cull the cattle (also very profitable for some farmers i heard last time round - so much so that i heard of farmers in cornwall deliberately contaminating their herds), than to insist farming practises change, so that healthy animals live with the virus, without serious impacts.

[ina]

why do farmers in Europe not have to slaughter their animals like out farmers do? thats what I have been told anyway so I want to get the info clear and from folks who are likey to know because you have animals that it affects.

Do you know any more about this - i.e. which countries in Europe don't require slaughter of infected animals?

I've just checked the German law on the net - don't speak or read any of the other languages well enough - and in Germany the regulations are, if anything, even stricter than here...

[Peggy Sue]

You know Catalyst, I think rather than my visit to Argentina contradicting you, it may just support what you ahve said. F&M isn't regarded as the outrageously contageous disease. A few cattle get it now and then, not the end of the world.

Mind you contageous disease is far less likely to spread through this herd in a healthy thousand or so acres than in a 10 acre field crammed, or worse still the winter barn knee deep in litter.

[ina]

Mind you contageous disease is far less likely to spread through this herd in a healthy thousand or so acres than in a 10 acre field crammed, or worse still the winter barn knee deep in litter.

That's very true, too. But another reason why infected animals would have to be slaughtered here is that in the UK (and other European countries) animal welfare is much higher on the agenda than in some other countries. F&M is very painful for the animal, and we are obliged to prevent unnecessary suffering.

[Peggy Sue]

Very good point Ina

[Stonehead]

People really should check the facts. I've been looking in on this thread from time to time, but have avoided posting until now because of the ill-informed arguments that arise.

FMD is one of the most contagious diseases that affects either animals or people. It's a virus and while poor animal husbandry can contribute to (or cause) an initial outbreak, once the outbreak has started it doesn't matter how well animals are housed, cared for, managed, etc. FMD will spread unless contact and transmission are stopped in their tracks.

Where animal husbandry practices and stocking rates come into play is in the prevalence of FMD at a particular location (prevalence is also affected by species, FMD strain and initial transmission mechanism) and the rate of spread at that location. So when FMD infects a farm, one with good animal husbandry and low stock density will probably have lower prevalence of FMD among the livestock than a farm with poor animal husbandry and high stocking densities. (Although that will not be true all of the time.) And it may well spread less quickly - especially if the weather is unfavourable to the virus and the farm has good biosecurity practices.

The virus is spread in urine, dung, milk, semen, expired breath, saliva, nasal fluids, by direct contact with infected animals, and by transfer through contaminated material on clothing, handling equipment, vehicles, bedding and feedstuffs. It can go from animal to truck to road to car to farm to animal. It can spread via contaminated water.

It can cross a farm on the wind almost as quickly as it can spread through a winter barn full of cattle in contact with each other - and in favourable weather can travel for miles in the air. That's why very fast and immediate action is needed to stop the spread of FMD, and it's why all movement has to stop as soon as the disease is suspected.

FMD is primarily a disease of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and deer, but it also affects hedgehogs, rats, alpacas, llamas and elephants (hence the elephant mention on pig movement forms) among others.

Yes, the disease has serious economic consequences, but that's not the main reason to keep it at bay in my opinion.

The main reason is animal welfare. As Ina says, animals with FMD suffer serious pain from the disease itself, but the welfare implications go much further.

When the blisters burst, they get infected and this leads to the animal going lame at the least. More serious infections can lead to the loss of a hoof or leg, or become gangrenous.

Cows with FMD suffer a dramatic fall in milk production, which of course has economic consequences but also means much less milk for calves at foot, so they don't thrive. That's an animal welfare issue.

Cows with FMD also get mastitis, which is also very painful to the animal and results in abscesses, scarring etc.

All animals with FMD have a chance of contracting chronic heart disease, which is another welfare issue.

And despite what some people believe, FMD does kill. It kills young animals in vast numbers, while severe forms of some of the seven types of FMD kill large numbers of adult animals as well.

One of the difficulties in combating FMD is balancing the welfare (and economic) issues of it spreading against the welfare (and economic) issues of a total shutdown. Do you risk FMD spreading or do you allow a farmer to move livestock to cleaner ground when the land they're on is poached and food is short? What about cows that need to be moved for milking?

As for slaughter versus vaccination, well, I don't see it as either/or. Both are tools that need to be used appropriately - although mass slaughter is more a sign of panic when the situation has got out of hand due to incompetence.

So please, go back to original and accurate sources of scientific information about FMD (and other diseases) rather than relying on hearsay, rumour and innuendo.

[red]

well said Stonehead.

[Silver Ether]

why do farmers in Europe not have to slaughter their animals like out farmers do? thats what I have been told anyway so I want to get the info clear and from folks who are likey to know because you have animals that it affects.

Do you know any more about this - i.e. which countries in Europe don't require slaughter of infected animals?

I've just checked the German law on the net - don't speak or read any of the other languages well enough - and in Germany the regulations are, if anything, even stricter than here...

I believe the Dutch vaccinate also the greeks have done ... but I cant find anything to confirm any where else to be honest... but apprantly you can vaccinate infected animals because you know the strain of bugs and it sucsesful ... I think Canada also vaccinate.. and thet were doing well in brazil and argentina for a while .. then they had some out breaks ... I suppose it would have been a different strain ...

This is an interesting link ... http://www.sheepdrove.com/article.asp?art_id=232

[Thomzo]

Thank you, Stoney for your clear explanation. I know a lot more now than I did before.

Cheers
Zoe

[Peggy Sue]

I'll second that!

[Shirley]

Very informative - thanks Stoney!

[catalyst]

thanks stonehead - my postings werent meant to come across as any statement of facts - i was just asking because i dont know.

[red]

I believe the Dutch vaccinate

I could be wrong - and maybe one of our members from the Netherlands could confirm? but my understanding is that the Netherlands used vaccinations when F&M arrived there at the same time as the last outbreak here - they used vax to control the disease where we had used culling - not the animals that had the disease but the ones that might. - and perhaps they were right in their approach - UK certainly made a mess of things. But the vaccinated animals could not be bred from, etc - so still economic misery for farmers concerned. I do not believ they usethe vax as routine.