Subject: FMD future - Some good news!

Author wrote:
Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not have been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong with them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets can take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of testing in March Maff refused it. Why?
You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What about all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc etc etc... It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.
Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according to the so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows what else was brought home to me last year.
We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland was killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.
This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their breeding flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts were moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what we could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves beyone a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.
Coleen

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Coleen

Antibodies are not produced until about three days into the infection, and
don't show up in the bloodstream until about 5 days, sometimes a lot

longer.

Rapid result testing will not detect antibody if no antibody is there.

Bill.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

                        

... wrote:

Coleen

Antibodies are not produced until about three days into the infection, and
don't show up in the bloodstream until about 5 days, sometimes a lot longer.

Rapid result testing will not detect antibody if no antibody is there.

Bill.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an appeal

to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as infected and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited number of

animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The animals they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to do so

if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least one in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared their

appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was, destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able to

continue their line.

Author wrote:
Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not have

been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong with them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets can take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of testing in March Maff refused it. Why?

You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What

about all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc etc etc... It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.

Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according to

the so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows what else was brought home to me last year.

We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland was

killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.

This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their breeding

flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts were moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what we could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves beyone a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.

Coleen

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

                        

                        
... wrote:

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an appeal to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as infected and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited number of animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The animals they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to do so if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least one in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared their appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was, destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able to continue their line.

Doesn't this rather indicate that lowering sheep numbers was the important task, aided by the FMD excuse?
Joyce
                        

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: "joyce" <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

... wrote:

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an appeal

to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as infected and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited number

of animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The animals they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to do

so if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least one in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared their

appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was, destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able to

continue their line.

Doesn't this rather indicate that lowering sheep numbers was the
important task, aided by the FMD excuse?
Joyce

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

                        

                        
At 14:54 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Doesn't this rather indicate that lowering sheep numbers was the
important task, aided by the FMD excuse?

There were far too many sheep to be sustainable – does anyone question that? And all kinds of questionable practices – many of which compounded the problems that arose when FMD struck – abounded in the industry to exploit 'loopholes' in the subsidy regulations.

My view is that because of that less concern was shown that might otherwise have been about 'overkill' of sheep. And for the most part farmers were happy to take the compensation. So, yes, in a sense, FMD was 'convenient' WRT reducing sheep numbers; but that's not the same as suggesting that FMD was deliberately introduced in order to reduce sheep numbers.

Andrew
                        

                        
At 12:48 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not have
been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong
with them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets
can take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of
testing in March Maff refused it. Why?

A) Test kits were not validated (would you ewant for example to use a non-CORGI gas installer to fit your central heating boiler?) – an unreliable test is worse than useless – and only in limited availability production phase, b) cos think about how long – and how many people – it takes to blood sample hundreds and thousands of animals – recall the huge teams and the days and days it took in the Brecon Beacons?

You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What about
all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc etc etc...

And how many of those stories proved to be 'rural myths'? Most if not all as I recall when push came to shove for real evidence – besides some of that activity SHOULD be part of contigency planning.

It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing
results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.

If you wish to believe that UK Govt deliberately sparked an epidemic that cost the country billions – at a time it wanted to divert more money to public services and caused Govt a lot of political problems – so be it.

Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according to the
so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows what
else was brought home to me last year.

We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland was
killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C
Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.

That as the 'craziness' that resulted from the draconian and simplistic 24/48 contiguous cull – an unjustified and unnecessary policy we all agree.

This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their breeding
flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts were
moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what
we could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves
beyone a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.

It goes to show what happens when there is no effective contigency planning, I agree.

Bit like not having enough boots or desert clothing for the Army? even when they months and months to get it togther.

Andrew
                        

                        
At 15:12 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Author wrote:

At 09:59 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

But how many machines were readily available. And one doesn't

usually have

the luxury of deploying novel technology in the face of an epidemic

which

one is already struggling to cope with due to insufficient adequately
trained/knowledgeable folk on the ground.
Andrew

All the more reason to accept any help that was offered, surely?

No -because all USDA wanted was to conduct field tests with a couple of
machines – ie. 'play' with their new toys –

That seems a somewhat arrogant statement, Andrew!

Did you read the statement the USDA man gave to the Enquiry? – which was posted here a day or so ago – that's what he said!

Yes, field testing to get real world data for validation and approval would have been useful (for those purposes) but it would NOT (and could not) have had any impact at all on the way the epidemic was handled.

It's one thing to have promising technology – that looks as if it could be useful in the future – in semi-protoype form – quite another to have robust systems that can be deployed effectively on a massive scale in the face of a real world epidemic. Even now, what 2 years, on that has not AFAIK been done anywhere in the world.

Andrew
                        

Author wrote:

At 14:54 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Doesn't this rather indicate that lowering sheep numbers was the
important task, aided by the FMD excuse?

There were far too many sheep to be sustainable – does anyone question
that? And all kinds of questionable practices – many of which compounded
the problems that arose when FMD struck – abounded in the industry to
exploit 'loopholes' in the subsidy regulations.
My view is that because of that less concern was shown that might otherwise
have been about 'overkill' of sheep. And for the most part farmers were
happy to take the compensation. So, yes, in a sense, FMD was 'convenient'
WRT reducing sheep numbers; but that's not the same as suggesting that FMD
was deliberately introduced in order to reduce sheep numbers.
Andrew

Author wrote:

Author wrote:

At 09:59 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

But how many machines were readily available. And one doesn't usually have
the luxury of deploying novel technology in the face of an epidemic which
one is already struggling to cope with due to insufficient adequately
trained/knowledgeable folk on the ground.
Andrew

All the more reason to accept any help that was offered, surely?

No -because all USDA wanted was to conduct field tests with a couple of
machines – ie. 'play' with their new toys –

That seems a somewhat arrogant statement, Andrew!
Joyce

Author wrote:
Dear Joyce and Friends: You are all losing the main point....you had an epidemic to fight...and were offerred one machine to test....which was refused outright, by your own people.
That is absolutely ludicrous....especially since advancement of science and technology seems to be so important to your FMD authorities.
The opportunity to utilize this machine and it's technology was refused....yet less than a year later...your Pirbright fellows sent live virus to at least six European laboratories in at least six different countries to "test" the very same machines, and technology....with better results than from an Elisa test.
The REFUSAL TO USE AN RT-PCR WAS PURPOSEFUL.
That decision to not test it during your outbreak is unacceptable.
Burkie in Kansas

Author wrote:

Author wrote:

At 09:59 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

But how many machines were readily available. And one doesn't usually have
the luxury of deploying novel technology in the face of an epidemic which
one is already struggling to cope with due to insufficient adequately
trained/knowledgeable folk on the ground.
Andrew

All the more reason to accept any help that was offered, surely?

No -because all USDA wanted was to conduct field tests with a couple of
machines – ie. 'play' with their new toys –

That seems a somewhat arrogant statement, Andrew!
Joyce

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an appeal

to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as infected and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited number of

animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The animals they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to do so

if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least one in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared their

appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was, destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able to

continue their line.

Author wrote:
Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not have

been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong with them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets can take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of testing in March Maff refused it. Why?

You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What

about all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc etc etc... It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.

Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according to

the so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows what else was brought home to me last year.

We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland was

killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.

This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their breeding

flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts were moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what we could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves beyone a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.

Coleen

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

                        

Author wrote:
This story is incorrect. We appealed against the decision to kill our rare
breed sheep. Our appeal was deliberately IGNORED. They would not allow any
animals to live and they even killed some outside the 3 Km zone.
In our case they operated a scorched earth policy and killed EVERYTHING. And
yes they were ALL healthy with no disease whatsover.
Appeals were totally ignored both ours and those of other farmers.
Frances
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an appeal

to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as infected
and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited number of

animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The animals
they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to do so

if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least one
in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared their

appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a
breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was,
destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able to

continue their line.

Author wrote:
Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not have

been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong with
them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets can
take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of
testing in March Maff refused it. Why?

You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What

about all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc etc
etc... It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing
results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.

Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according to

the so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows what
else was brought home to me last year.

We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland was

killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C
Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.

This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their breeding

flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts were
moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what we
could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves beyone
a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.

Coleen

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Hi Francis!

I know only too well what happened to you and that your appeal was

'ignored' along with the appeals of others too.

I also understand yours were healthy livestock and rare breeeds as well,

which makes it all doubly tragic. Not to mention the fact that you were prevented from leaving your home to visit your sheep.

Nevertheless, the story is NOT incorrect!

It is absolutely true!

Some, as in this case, had their appeal upheld and saved some of their

stock while others were unsuccessful.

I guess it may well have depended upon several factors.

For instance, the DVM at the time and how familiar he was with the

proceedure.

The manner in which the appeal was presented, (I believe it had to include

quite a bit of relevent info).

What be considered and could allow bearing in mind his duty to judge what

he thought would be best to achieve control.

From my description he may seem to have been a bit of a lottery but that

was how it was and rightly or wrongly how every appeal was judged.

The fact that farmers with rare breeds were 'allowed' to appeal does not

mean they would, or even knew that they could, nor did it guarantee they persuade MAFF/SERAD and be successful in retaining some of their stock.

Some were, very few AFAIK, and sadly some were not.

However, the story is not incorrect

Author wrote:
This story is incorrect. We appealed against the decision to kill our

rare

breed sheep. Our appeal was deliberately IGNORED. They would not allow

any

animals to live and they even killed some outside the 3 Km zone.
In our case they operated a scorched earth policy and killed EVERYTHING.

And

yes they were ALL healthy with no disease whatsover.
Appeals were totally ignored both ours and those of other farmers.
Frances
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: [farmtalking] RE: Subject: FMD future – Some good news!

Hi Coleen!

AFAIK it was always the case that Farmers were allowed to lodge an

appeal

to MAFF/SERAD against slaughter if their stock was not diagnosed as

infected

and if their stock was a rare variety.

If they won their appeal they would be allowed to keep a limited

number of

animals as a breeding nucleus, the rest would be slaughtered. The

animals

they were allowed to keep would be monitored.

I don't think many farmers did appeal, although I did advise them to

do so

if they had rare breeds that were healthy, but I do recall that at least

one

in Scotland did.

I was told at the time by a SERAD vet that the farmer had prepared

their

appeal in a most professional way and they would be allowed to keep a
breeding nucleus although the majority of their stock would be and was,
destroyed.

I also know they neer became infected and at least they were/are able

to

continue their line.

Author wrote:
Why could the test kits that R Lawson (the Green party offered not

have

been used) Quick ten minute result from a blood sample. What was wrong

with

them? That was technology that existed and most farmers and ALL vets can
take blood samples. A simple test. Prof Brown even offered this way of
testing in March Maff refused it. Why?

You say nothing was planned Andrew regarding fmd, but it was. What

about all the ordering of wood for pyres, all of the closed signs etc

etc

etc... It was just that the planning did not include any quick testing
results. That would have defeated the object of the exercise.

Just how not about fmd this really was, and a virus, that according

to

the so called exports was travelling miles over fells and heaven knows

what

else was brought home to me last year.

We visited someone in the Dumfries area you will remember Scotland

was

killing anything that moved – even pet goats and sanctuary animals. C
Houghs saga was played out for the whole world to see.

This person told us they were allowed to select 25 from their

breeding

flock and KEEP them. So suddenly for whatever reasons the goal posts

were

moved. This comment is NOT aimed at that person, heavens we ALL did what

we

could to try and get some humanity from these people. But it proves

beyone

a shadow of a doubt just how lie ridden the whole episode was.

Coleen

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...