Back to East Penrest
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: FMD
Hello,
I am on organic beef and sheep farmer.
I have just read your article in 'Organic farming' .....
You write with a lot of common sense. I am looking for more information on vaccination
and this contiguous cull. The present policy seems to be totaly lacking in common
sense.
I was wondering what your views are? Would you mind anything you say going up
on the intermet?
regards
Jo Rider
Received 17.04.01
Dear Jo
I am certainly not an expert on FMD and wrote the column for Organic Farming
long before the outbreak started (in January, in fact). Whilst I do not fully
agree with the Soil Association and Elm Farm campaign for vaccination, I have
been supporting their FMD help desk (at Foot and Mouth Disease Helpline 01488
657813, Elm Farm Research Centre www.efrc.com ) with information and comments.
- I do appreciate that the MAFF policy on FMD does not make sense all the time
but also tend to agree with most of what has been done so far. The only thing
that really has gone wrong is the poor execution of slaughter and carcase handling.
But that was almost to be expected of the poorly resourced MAFF field veterinary
service that was virtually decimated in the 1990's.
The vaccination for FMD is an extremely complex issue: the vaccine is poor,
creates carrier animals and - the export issues aside - is expensive and probably
impossible to contemplate on a continuous basis in sheep (particularly in hill
and upland situations). I.e. ring vaccination that will allow better planning
of slaughter and carcase disposal would probably be the best option at the moment.
This would still lead to destruction of all vaccinated animals but would give
time to organise the slaughter better. - As far as I understand, MAFF has always
kept this option open and the most resistance has actually come from the farmers
and the veterinary profession (having said this, the British Cattle Veterinary
Association has been quietly supporting the idea of vaccinating cattle but not
sheep in order to protect dairy herds in Cumbria and Devon).
I would suggest that the control POLICY HAS BEEN RIGHT up till now as far as
efficient control of FMD is concerned. Buffer vaccination might be a good option
at this point, accepting that vaccinated animals need to be culled later (see
the points about vaccine in my other e-mail). It is the EXECUTION OF POLICY
that has been POOR. My worry is that a good policy is going to be rubbished
based on poor execution. To remedy the latter, we need to look at MAFF and its
veterinary field services and the way veterinary surveillance is organised in
this country. - A parallel of all this would be the closed herd policy that
I write about in my article in Organic Farming. The policy is absolutely great
in controlling disease. The execution of that policy often falls flat when a
farmer goes to the market and sees a good bargain, rents a bull or grazes his
sheep on common land with other flocks - and brings these animals back into
his herd without a proper quarantine or health cheques. He will often still
argue that he has a closed herd/flock and will tell me that the policy did not
work as the sheep are riddled with scab after winter keep or a previously BVD
herd turns out to be positive...
I also forward to you an earlier e-mail about the problems with the FMD vaccine.
Regards
Malla
********************************************
Malla Hovi DVM MSc MRCVS
Research Fellow
Organic Livestock Research Group
Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit
University of Reading
Subject: FMD, homeopathy,vaccination 12th March 2001.
Dear All,
I met Stephen Briggs in London last Thursday and promised to put
something on the OAS advisors' mailing list re. FMD, homeopathy and
vaccination.
As I understand it, both the Soil Association and the OF&G have
cautioned their producers against using homeopathy to prevent FMD or to
mask symptoms of FMD in their livestock. This is very good news, as the
organic farmers do not/should not want to get blamed for spreading the
disease by having unsymptomatic carrier animals on their farms. A few
points to clarify the issue:
*
My understanding is that the homeopathic remedies on offer for
FMD are based on borax, which in "chemical" concentrations is corrosive
and causes blisters. In homeopathic concentrations, the same aims at
preventing blisters, i.e. masks the symptoms of viral infection by the
FMD virus.
*
The remedy does not prevent infection by FMD virus, i.e. animals
treated prophylactically with homeopathic FMD remedy would still carry
the infection but would not suffer from the clinical disease. I have
discussed this with a couple of classical homeopaths and they both agree
that there is no homeopathic remedy that actually would prevent animals
from carrying the virus.
*
The animals would obviously excrete much lower levels of the
virus as blisters are the sites of virus multiplication but, as we know
from humans who can carry and transmit the virus in their upper
respiratory tract, would still be able to transmit the disease.
*
This situation would obviously be extremely counterproductive
for the statutory disease control efforts carried out by MAFF at the
moment. I do not think that farmers who have to sacrifice their herds
and flocks to protect others would look kindly on farmers, who
deliberately "hide" infection on their farms, avoiding culling but
spreading the disease.
*
I have come across some gleeful comments re. MAFF having to
finally admit that homeopathy works by cautioning against the use of the
FMD remedy. I do not think there is any room for schadenfreude here;
rather the opposite: I think the pharmacies that are marketing these
remedies at the moment are acting highly irresponsible and exhibit (once
more) total lack of understanding of livestock industry, animal health
legislation and animal diseases.
*
If FMD was endemic in the UK, the use of these remedies would
probably be acceptable, but even then the situation would have to be
evaluated in the light of the legislation that was in force.
The other issue that I feel still needs clarification is the one
concerning FMD vaccination:
· Vaccination is banned from use by the EU. It can only be used
in specific conditions that involve endemic existence of disease or
known areas of disease incidence where ring vaccination will slow the
spread. None of the EU countries has resorted to even ring vaccination
since 1991, in spite of having had outbreaks. Turkey has an endemic
situation where ring vaccination is used virtually every time an
outbreak occurs.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
· If vaccination was implemented in the UK now, it would only
reduce the numbers of animals suffering from this terribly painful,
debilitating disease, which would continue to occur for some years.
· Vaccination does not work in the presence of maternal
antibody. Calves have active maternal protection up to 4-5 months of
age and would be protected. Vaccination can only be carried out once the
maternal ABs have disappeared. Immunity from vaccination takes two to
four weeks to form, leaving calves vulnerable to disease for a period
that is longer than the incubation period for the disease, i.e. this
would be a weak link in a vaccination policy. This would be an even
greater problem in pigs that would be vulnerable to the disease for most
of the post-weaning period even if vaccinated immediately after the
maternal antibody disappears, i.e. another weak link in vaccination.
· Vaccination in the face of an outbreak is not particularly
successful and is variable due to the lack of time for a response to
occur with a very short incubation period.
· Immunity in vaccinated animals can be overcome by field viral
load, i.e. vaccinated animals can succumb to disease even when
antibodies have been formed.
· Vaccinated animals can carry infection without overt clinical
signs of disease.
· The risk of FMD entering a country when vaccination is
undertaken increases. Germany had 96 outbreaks between 1970 and 1987,
whereas the UK had only 1.
· I am sure you have all already seen the figures that show that
the costs of a vaccination policy are far greater than a slaughter and
eradicate policy. Also, I am sure you are aware of the fact
that serology cannot discriminate between vaccinated and exposed
animals.
*
If the rest of the Europe stick to the non-vaccination policy
and the UK decides to start vaccinating, no exports can occur until the
minimum of three years after the last vaccination. This would
effectively close the doors for export of pigs, sheep and cattle and
their meat from the UK for at least 4 years from now. Whilst the beef
sector would not notice much of a change as we are still under the
export restrictions caused by the BSE, pig sector would suffer further
losses, particularly on high value exports of breeding stock. The
biggest problems, however, would be caused to the sheep sector as the UK
is the biggest sheep producer and exporter in Europe (exporting some 40%
of sheep production). Many might say that a serious down-scaling of the
UK sheep production would not be such a bad thing (cessation of live
export of sheep would be a bonus - to sheep in particular, a better
balance of beef and sheep on farm level would be helpful in establishing
those mixed grazing systems for parasite control, not to mention the
fact that we do have too many sheep. period.) but the way this
down-scaling is done by FMD vaccination is probably not the most
farmer-friendly or animal-friendly way of doing it.
Having said all this, it is still possible that MAFF might have to
consider vaccination in the face of a virtually endemic situation. No
European country has seen such a widely-spread outbreak since 1960's.
With wind and human beings being such potent carriers of the virus, FMD
might become virtually endemic in spite of cull and burn policy. - As
you have read above, the vaccination is not all roses either.
Additionally:
*
Livestock would have to be vaccinated every 6 months.
*
It would be difficult to decide which strains of the virus need
to be covered and we might even have to vaccinate with several
monovalent vaccines as multivalent varieties are in early development
and very expensive.
*
A US company is developing a cheaper multivalent vaccine but
this is based on genetically modified virus and would not be acceptable
(?) in organic livestock.
*
For drug companies and vets, vaccination policy would be "good"
news as their would make a mint out of this statutory measure (in many
EU countries vets were vociferously opposed to the cessation of
statutory FMD vaccination in the 80's as many of them lost a big part of
their income, and in deed, many large animal practices went out of
business as a result). It must be noted, however, that all UK veterinary
association and societies are very much opposed to vaccination and
currently strongly support MAFF's policy.
Some food for thought there...
Regards
Malla
----- Original Message -----
From: J Rider
To: Malla Hovi
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: FMD
Dear Malla,
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer me.
I am becoming increasingly confused about vaccination. Some of what you say
directly contradicts what is said in the Elm Farm document. I imagine you have
seen the letter from Ruth Watkins from the Elm Farm Site, plus the letters from
European vets. I am enclosing the 50 questions from the NFU and the MAFF answers.
I am pasting here a letter from a group of vets calling themselves Vets for
Vaccination, that they have sent to their colleagues.
One thing that has troubled me all along, is the lack of urgency in slaughtering
on infected farms, and then the leaving of bodies for days. We had an outbreak
near here, at the abattoir and farm at South Petherwin. Diagnosis was quick,
(apparently the vet concerned was reprimanded for acting 'too swiftly' even
though the abattoir owner and farmer agreed with the diagnosis --- 'it spread
like wild-fire through the cattle'). Slaughter was quick (making use of the
abattoir's slaughtermen). The fires were built properly (with the same use of
manpower) and between slaughter and burning, a 24 hour watch was kept over the
bodies to drive all predators away. That was 6 weeks ago and there have been
no other farms in the area infected.
It seems to me, that where diagnosis and slaughter are swift there is no need
for the contiguous cull. The contiguous cull is being used to cover up the inefficiency
of the original slaughter and disposal, but at the same time it is removing
resources from it. In the early days, before the army was called in, vets were
being held up on farms for days whilst they organised the logistics. There are
still infected bodies being left in the open for days and foxes, crows and buzzards
have been seen taking parts of them away (including parts with bones). Rats,
according to MAFF are also susceptible to the disease.
Given that FMD is probably now firmly in the deer and rat population, (MAFF
are only now testing deer in the infected areas in Devon), I do not see what
alternative there is to vaccination, though I am disappointed that it does not
seem as efficacious as Elm farm are suggesting.
On another point, closed flocks and herds. We do maintain both. A ram bought
in is always quarentined for 2 weeks. During the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth
we have kept our animals in since the 27th February (though we will soon have
to put them out). We have kept cattle and sheep in the same sheds together,
so that if the sheep were infected we would see it in the cattle. No vehicles
have been in or out of the farm since the 2nd March. No one other than ourselves
has come onto the farm since the 12th March. When we (very rarely) go out we
shower, wash hair, and change clothes both coming and going. Yet if our neighbour,
whose animals have had no contact with ours, is infected, we will have no defense
against contiguous culling.
To my unscientific mind, MAFF's policy of contiguous culling could be likened
to the Fire Brigade watching a house on fire, watching the sparks flying, and
then proceeding to knock down all the surrounding houses. They could rightly
claim to have stopped the fire from spreading, but at what cost? This will undoubtedly
seem over-simplistic to you, but I return to the infection at South Petherwin.
Thanking you once more for your time
regards
Jo Rider
Dear Jo
I think your example of efficient handling of an outbreak in South Petherwin
underlines the importance of GOOD EXECUTION of RIGHT POLICY. Unfortunately,
we have seen too many examples of bad execution of the same policy.
- I fully agree with all the scientific points, re. vaccine, that are made in
the MAFF briefing for NFU. - It is disappointing that the vaccine is no better.
Perhaps we would already have a multivalent genetically modified vaccine strain
if vaccination had been maintained as the main control of FMD in the developed
world, and there had been more commercial interest in developing such a vaccine.
The letter from the Vets for Vaccination is, in fact, talking about going back
to a situation that was prevalent in most continental EU countries only 12 years
ago, i.e. continuous 6-monthly vaccination programme. Whilst this policy has
its supporters both in continental Europe and, obviously, here in the UK, it
has to be remembered that the policy is costly, far from 100% proof (particularly
in the absence of multivalent vaccine) and probably fairly difficult to execute
in the more extensive livestock production areas in the UK. On the plus side
are: great income generation for rural large animal vets (!?), very limited
nature of outbreaks (that are likely to occur as the German example shows),
an end to the ridiculous export subsidies for livestock and their products going
outside the EU and, potentially, a pressure to cut down on the mad export orientation
and overstocking of livestock production in many EU countries (UK, Denmark and
Holland, in particular).
Summa summarum: the decisions re. vaccine use are likely to be both scientifically
and politically motivated. We can only hope that the powers that be (including
the farmers own reps, i.e. NFU and MLC) get the mixture of these two better
balanced than they did with BSE.
I can only admire your closed herd/flock policy and wish that more farmers had
internalised the true meaning of closed herd policy in the same manner. But,
as you point out, it will not do you much good if your neighbour's livestock
get FMD. We can only hope that the contiguous cull can be discontinued in more
areas in the near future as the epidemic get more "under control".
Regards,
Malla Hovi
An answer from my brother Chris Coleman
Some observations.
I was interested to read the correspondence with Malla Hovi. I must admit to being surprised that she raises so many inaccuracies and red herrings.
If I accept that the hysteria surrounding this disease is indeed "endemic and out of control", then I would very reluctantly concede that that we need an eradication and control policy. However, I think that we need to keep our eye on the ball.
Opponents of vaccination have raised many spurious objections several of which Malla Hovi continues to repeat.
Amongst these are
a) The public will be reluctant to buy vaccinated meat.
This deceitfully ignores the fact that livestock is already vaccinated against other diseases.
b) That vaccination is expensive.
The BCVA said in a reply to me that "if farmers cannot make a living from the livestock they farm, they can no longer provide the best possible facilities for those animals to provide the best welfare. The whole is inter-related". Well, if a dog breeder could not afford necessary vetinary treatment for his animals I am sure that he would get short shift from the courts as well as the vetinary profession and it would be firmly suggested that he found another occupation.
c) The animal welfare issue is raised.
Again from the BCVA "this disease causes serious pain and distress to those animals it infects, a serious welfare problem. It must be controlled for this reason alone, and not be allowed to continue sporadically in the future."
Even were it possible to alleviate the clinical symptoms of the disease one would not be legally allowed to do so. I understand that there are remedies homeopathic or otherwise which might mask these clinical symptoms and thus reduce pain or distress. I suspect that the use of such remedies would be discouraged by those in charge of controlling this outbreak for obvious reasons, but I find it strange to hear a vet speaking so vehemently against those using or supplying them. Vets might want to use eradication rather than control for this disease but I query their use of the welfare card at the same time as they accept the political and economic arguments which preclude any preventative or remedial action and forces slaughter of even uninfected "contacts"
d) Livestock would have to be vaccinated every 6 months.
Another attempt to distract people from the immediate priority which should be to control this particular outbreak.
e) Vaccination does not work in the presence of maternal antibody.
This is another distraction. I don't think anyone is arguing that vaccination is 100% successful. I thought that it's use was being considered as a tool which would help reduce "amplifiers". Reducing the number of animals susceptible to the disease also reduces the sources of infection. It doesn't need to eliminate it altogether to have beneficial effect.
f) Malla Hovi makes at least 3 related points i.e.
Vaccination in the face of an outbreak is not particularly successful and is variable due to the lack of time for a response to occur with a very short incubation period.
Immunity in vaccinated animals can be overcome by field viral load, i.e. vaccinated animals can succumb to disease even when antibodies have been formed.
Vaccinated animals can carry infection without overt clinical signs of disease.
Again, distractions. Anything to reduce the overall viral load should be used. The fact that animals become infectious even before clinical signs of the disease become apparent is not used as an argument against slaughter. Why should less than 100% effectiveness be used as an argument against vaccination?
g) Malla Hovi also says that "serology cannot discriminate between vaccinated and exposed animals."This it seems is not true. Maybe opponents of vaccination wish that it were for why has Pirbright declined offers of help in this matter?
h) Vaccination would effectively close the doors for export of pigs, sheep and cattle and their meat from the UK for at least 4 years from now.
If this were indeed true I would have thought that a dedicated Vetinary practitioner would welcome the resulting benefit to animal welfare with the banning of live animal exports. Again, in the unlikely event of it being true, how does one explain the fact that we import meat from countries that vaccinate or have endemic foot and mouth problems? Also the loss of export trade is vastly outweighed by the losses to other sectors of the economy by the continuation of this outbreak.
i) It would be difficult to decide which strains of the virus need to be covered and we might even have to vaccinate with several monovalent vaccines as multivalent varieties are in early development and very expensive.
A huge red herring. Unless the authorities are even more deceitful than I thought, we are only talking about one strain in this outbreak.
j) It would be difficult to get farmers to co-operate with a vaccination scheme.
Oh really? I don't think so if compensation for loss of stock was withheld from those not co-operating.
k) The costs of a vaccination policy are far greater than a slaughter and eradicate policy.
Really? This has got to be nonsense particularly if the figures relate only to the control of this particular outbreak. Also, at the moment, I didn't know that anyone was talking about a vaccination policy on it's own. I would not have thought that a vet should be putting forward such arguments even if they were true. See b) above. There are large financial incentives for some farmers to co-operate with the slaughter policy. It is undoubtedly true that many of those against vaccination are making a "killing" out of this outbreak and lots of these I would not describe as farmers at all but as graziers or dealers. Why on earth should the rest of the community be subsidising them and supporting the present policy to the huge inconvenience and expense of the rest of us?
Yes it would be nice to be able to trust the figures that they are putting out for numbers of cases but as I said in a recent email to someone If we were thrown tit bits of food by politicians or officials we would surely wash it carefully before swallowing. We should do the same with any tit bit of information. It is stating the obvious to say that they would not be throwing it to us were it not to their advantage to do so, and the chances are it is tainted.I liked your analogy about the fire brigade, also the brilliant article from Libby Purvis
A quote from an email I read on the net " it is certainly time that somebody told Tony Blair that the "countryside" is the bits with grass on it, not plastic Vikings at Jorvik"
That’s enough of the rant for now.
Chris
Email cc@vvc.org.uk Web http://www.vvc.org.uk
Back to East Penrest