Most world markets remain shut to British breeders

Originally from: lina
                        
Most world markets remain shut to British breeders

At the current rate of progress it could be the end of
the decade before all the British pig industry's world
markets are reopened.

Three-quarters remain closed, following the 2001 foot
and mouth epidemic. The 45 countries concerned include
Korea, Japan, China, Mexico, Russia and Brazil. The
United States will take pigs but not semen.

British pig producers are in little doubt that in some
countries at least other agendas are at work – more to
do with protection of markets than animal health.

But there is also the question of whether the UK
government has devoted sufficient resources to the
problem.

The Defra team responsible for certification is about
the same size now as it was pre foot and mouth, and
swine fever. Pig breeders believe it is significantly
under resourced for the task of renegotiating the
terms of export certificates with so many reluctant
countries.

They would like to see outside staff brought in on
short-term contracts. Otherwise, they fear, it will be
several years before all markets are reopened.

Some of the markets – for instance Korea – are of huge
importance to British breeding companies.

Meanwhile, some overseas producers, having been
deprived of British genetics for so long, have no
option but to make other arrangements.

One way UK breeders apply pressure is to continue
talking to their former customers about the
world-beating characteristics of British breeding
stock, so that the producers in turn put pressure on
their own governments.

The current tardiness with which export markets are
being reopened must be borne in mind when considering
whether vaccination should be used in any future
outbreak of foot and mouth or swine fever.

It would be essential to ensure Britain's trading
partners were convinced that any risks involved with
vaccination were acceptable.

Whilst vaccination can be a useful weapon it remains
bedevilled by grey areas, which is why a slaughter
policy will remain the main tool for combating foot
and mouth.

In any future outbreak, the UK government will be
bound, by EU law, to consider vaccination, but this
does not mean an end to the slaughter-and-burn scenes
we saw nightly on our televisions during the peak of
the 2001 epidemic.

The fear with vaccination is that an animal might be
incubating foot and mouth at the time it was
vaccinated. The vaccine would suppress clinical
symptoms of the disease but the animal might become a
carrier, with the potential for becoming viraemic at
some future stage.

Pigs cannot become carriers but cattle can, and to a
lesser extent, sheep. There is no evidence that
carriers would infect other animals, but equally it is
difficult to prove that it couldn't happen.
Government's view will be that though the risk is low,
it cannot be ignored.

Although PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) tests could
detect carriers immediately post infection they cannot
after 28 days, whereupon more sensitive detection
testing would be required.

Vaccinated animals could not be exported, even after
foot and mouth free status had been regained, except
for breeding nucleus of animals indispensable for the
survival of a breed, and zoo animals.

Importantly, the decision on vaccination in the event
of a future outbreak would be transparent, Vaccinated
animals would be eartagged. – D.S.

http://www.npa-uk.net/

Originally from: lina
                        
Hi Joyce,
I think they will vaccinate to keep the disease from
spreading and then slaughter anyway. Or as Bryn put it
stamp out. So both are right.
Lina

--- joyce <...> wrote:
"Whilst vaccination can be a useful weapon it
remains bedevilled by grey
areas, which is why a slaughter policy will remain
the main tool for
combating foot and mouth.
In any future outbreak, the UK government will be
bound, by EU law, to
consider vaccination, but this does not mean an end
to the
slaughter-and-burn scenes we saw nightly on our
televisions during the
peak of the 2001 epidemic."

or from warmwell:

Sept 30 – Oct 6 ~"Emergency vaccination is moved to
the forefront of
control measures instead of being the last resort.
The new legislation
is a true reform." David Byrne

So which is right? I seem to remember the UK
government considered
vaccination many times in 2001.

--
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:

...

Originally from: Joyce
                        
"Whilst vaccination can be a useful weapon it remains bedevilled by grey areas, which is why a slaughter policy will remain the main tool for combating foot and mouth.
In any future outbreak, the UK government will be bound, by EU law, to consider vaccination, but this does not mean an end to the slaughter-and-burn scenes we saw nightly on our televisions during the peak of the 2001 epidemic."

or from warmwell:

Sept 30 – Oct 6 ~"Emergency vaccination is moved to the forefront of control measures instead of being the last resort. The new legislation is a true reform." David Byrne

So which is right? I seem to remember the UK government considered vaccination many times in 2001.

Originally from: Burkie
                        
Hi you kids: That's because our wonderful govenment doesn't want you to send us your "obviously diseased genetics" to the U.S. Another form of "protectionism"...but possibly not un-warranted....why import any live animal from the U.K. today...there are already gene pools of eggs and semen to the max. Who needs to import some bull or heifer from the U.K. Your shining day of Glory in the U.K..is history....same goes for the French Limousin...Charolais...the geneticists have seen to that...the gene pools are now held by the companies that imported those cattle long ago...and the Rockefellers, too. (Angus)...the Glory Days are over. I saw them...Jerry Litton should have been President of the United States, but was suddenly killed in a dumb plane crash. That's how competition gets eliminated.

Burkie in Kansas

Originally from: Burkie
                        
Hi you kids: That's because our wonderful govenment doesn't want you to send us your "obviously diseased genetics" to the U.S. Another form of "protectionism"...but possibly not un-warranted....why import any live animal from the U.K. today...there are already gene pools of eggs and semen to the max. Who needs to import some bull or heifer from the U.K. Your shining day of Glory in t

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Lina is right – vaccination will halt disease spread (see Uruguay 2001!) but slaughter afterwards? I don't think so!

Remember the uproar created when they did that in Holland?
The vets all said they would not be party to that again and the people and farmers demonstrated against it in horror.

Holland had agreed it would never happen again in their country.

Why did they do it? To regain their FMD Free Status quickly.

If any of us seriously think that in the event of an FMD outbreak they would vaccinate and then slaughter, here in the UK or indeed anywhere else in Europe, perhaps it's time to write and ask them if only to prove me wrong!

Originally from: lina
                        
The uproar in Holland was because we did not like what
happened. At first we were taken by surprise, but very
soon after that when things got clear to what they
were planning to do, farmers and vets refused to
cooperate. The breaking point game when they wanted to
destroy Zoo animals also that almost caused a civil
war. Strangely enough our so called FMD outbreak was
pretty soon over after that.

Remember the uproar created when they did that in
Holland?
The vets all said they would not be party to that
again and the people and farmers demonstrated
against it in horror.

Holland had agreed it would never happen again in
their country.

But it did happen again, this time with chickens. If
the Dutch had not reacted the way they did by hiding a
very large amount 80 thousand chickens all over
Holland all the rare breeds would have been destroyed
in that area. So you see we did learn something, we
learned to go against those rules and like the second
world war we found a way to do that. Nothing to do
with our government, a lot to do with sane people
refusing the destruction of animals.

Why did they do it? To regain their FMD Free Status
quickly.

To regain a FMD free status that would not have been
gone if our government had been honest. The FMD crisis
was a lie in Holland.

If any of us seriously think that in the event of an
FMD outbreak they would vaccinate and then
slaughter, here in the UK or indeed anywhere else in
Europe, perhaps it's time to write and ask them if
only to prove me wrong!

I for one still believe that in the event of an
outbreak they will slaughter again. I also believe
that this will go on until the people say NO we have
had enough of this. So yes i think they will vaccinate
but destroy after that. I hope i am wrong but i don't
think so. And neither do others.
Lina

Originally from: coleen
                        
Jane – they are not going to tell us what their real plans are – that is, if they have any.
Of course if we ask them 'will you vaccinate to slaughter', they will say no. They are hardly going to put it in writing, are they? No farmer would entertain it would they?

Perhaps we should look at what changes were made from the previous outbreak in 1967 and how many of the lessons there were implemented? Does that give any of us reassurance that anything would be different when it happens again.

The majority have forgotten, and next time round nothing will close down so there will be NO loss of income to the tourist industry. It was this issue that kept fmd in the media , far longer then the slaughtering did. Andrew is correct when he wrote along the lines, that most farmers did take the money. They will do again I dare say, and those that opposed it first time round will do again – but with NO law to back them up (not that there was much in evidence last time)! Some farmers have seen that you can rise again – after loosing your stock. I think they will see this as more acceptable then having vaccinated cattle, that they probably will not be able to do anything with. After all who knows where we will be in the vaccination stakes when the next outbreak stakes. We may not have moved on, in terms of better vaccines. Although I still say use what we have now – for everyone.

Unless we implement a complete vaccination policy right across the board before the next outbreak then I can not see anything different (except vaccination be used as a fire break – but to slaughter afterwards).

Coleen

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        

Author wrote:
Jane – they are not going to tell us what their real plans are – that is, if they have any.

Of course if we ask them 'will you vaccinate to slaughter', they will say no. They are hardly going to put it in writing, are they?

Why not? I've found MP's do usually answer letters although in 2002 it took them a few months to do so sometimes!

As you know, I don't think they intend to vaccinate and then slaughter so I've not asked the specific question but I'm not afraid to do so and perhaps I will!

 No farmer would entertain it would they?

I'm interested to note you say this here and yet later in your message indicate that you think farmers would comply and go along with it. You could well be right either way!

Perhaps we should look at what changes were made from the previous outbreak in 1967 and how many of the lessons there were implemented? Does that give any of us reassurance that anything would be different when it happens again.

No they weren't and it doesn't, unless we believe a leopard can change it's spots and the lessons have been or are being, learned at last!

The majority have forgotten, and next time round nothing will close down so there will be NO loss of income to the tourist industry. It was this issue that kept fmd in the media , far longer then the slaughtering did.

Yes and if that's the case that's all to the good; better management next time round, if ever, is what we've all been demanding and in some respects still are!

 Andrew is correct when he wrote along the lines, that most farmers did take the money.

 They will do again I dare say, and those that opposed it first time round will do again – but with NO law to back them up (not that there was much in evidence last time)! Some farmers have seen that you can rise again – after loosing your stock. I think they will see this as more acceptable then having vaccinated cattle, that they probably will not be able to do anything with.

Of course Andrew is right but I stillI don't understand why you say this; as of course we'll expect movement restrictions and no doubt some will be stuck with steers, lambs, etc they had hoped to sell for longer than usual, but why should things not return to normal in a short while as they did in Uruguay? Plus wouldn't slaughtering after vaccination hit the tax-payer with a 'double whammy' for no good reason? Surely not the way for the Government, any government, to win friends and influence people!

After all who knows where we will be in the vaccination stakes when the next outbreak stakes. We may not have moved on, in terms of better vaccines. Although I still say use what we have now – for everyone.

To do that would be crossing our bridge before we get to it. We don't have an FMD outbreak and maybe never will, so what is the point of vaccinating now? At present we only have short-term vaccine so would it be sensible to start and then continue to use it on every animal just in case? I don't think so! It would incur huge expense which would be quite unnesccesary at the present time and remove our FMD Free Status into the bargain, so not a very clever move!

Unless we implement a complete vaccination policy right across the board before the next outbreak then I can not see anything different (except vaccination be used as a fire break – but to slaughter afterwards).

Yes Coleen, vaccination will be used but as a fire-break, thus limiting it's use to exactly where it's needed if there's another outbreak, but there's no need to slaughter afterwards – so why would they?