Back
to ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage
Control of Bluetongue in livestock:
the lack of planning and delay
in decision making is alarming
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 03 Nov 97
©www.land-care.org.uk
An article in today's The Scottish Farmer (November
3rd, 2007) by journalist Gordon Davidson, entitled " Bluetongue
clash", makes depressing and alarming reading. How come at
this late date, with all the warnings we have had over the past
year, or longer, have the key decisions apparently not yet been
made as to how we are to control its inevitable resurgence in the
south of England, and its vicious spread northwards, next year.
There are two main issues that can have a major
effect on what happens to UK livestock next year in terms of Bluetongue.
The movement of livestock
Vaccination of livestock in uninfected areas
against Bluetongue serotype 8 (BTv8) in advance
of the virus reaching them
The Movement of livestock
Incredibly the Pedigree Beef Society Group is
reportedly calling for an extension of the current control zone
to cover the whole of the UK. This would allow their members to
trade cattle anywhere up and down the length of "the country".
But what "the country" means in these days of devolution
is not clear. But whether or not it means England or the whole of
the UK, such a policy would be foolhardy in the extreme. BT spreads
by the movement of infected cattle and by the movement of the disease
vector, midges. Unless a secure and effective vaccination programme
had already been achieved throughout the UK, it would be an absurd
thing to do.
The proposal, reportedly also made by the Pedigree
Beef Breeders Group, that "breeding stock of "superior
genetic merit" should be allowed to move in and out of control
zones using pre- and post- movement testing. Otherwise, they say,
"huge numbers of of important pedigree animals are unable to
follow established seasonal sales routes within the United Kingdom".
This is an incredibly self-serving attitude, risking the welfare
of the much more substantial commercial sector: indeed those who
buy their bulls. We all have to make sacrifices in the combined
effort to control this disease. The Pedigree Breeders should manage
to get by reasonably well by supplying bulls within the control
zones in which they may find themselves. That will not cause any
great major breakdown in the genetic lines available in the UK over
the period it may take to get clear of BT in the UK and be safe
from its resurgence.
Vaccination
At last, at this very late date, there appears
to be a unanimous call for vaccination, as soon as possible, against
BTv8 in the five susceptible species. That decision should have
been taken many months ago because of the lag time in the manufacture
of the vaccine.
But there appears to be indecision as to how extensive
that vaccination should be.
The vaccine manufacturers claim that the problems
they face in producing a new vaccine are
making the vaccine in the first place, but not
in providing as many millions of doses as wanted once the vaccine
has been made and properly tested
somebody has to commit payment for the vaccine
in advance of them starting a production programme. But that is
likely to need integration through the EC.
But can the EC make up its mind fast enough? Can
the EC manage to get an integrated vaccination policy for its EU
Member States? So far it would appear to have spent most of the
invaluable time arguing about matters of trade, rather than how
to effectively control the disease.
Hilary Benn (Secretary of State for Environment
at Westminster) announced in a News Release two days ago (November
1st) that he is to issue a tender for a BTv8 vaccine bank of between
10 to 20 million doses (1). How
these doses were to be used and who was paying for them had still
to be decided. Negotiations with the EC had apparently yet to take
place. The number of doses mentioned in the proposed tender seemed
far too small to be effective.
Even whether BT vaccination would be voluntary
or compulsory still seems up in the air. Clearly, if vaccination
were to be effective it would have to follow a plan that was compulsory,
rather than leaving it to the whim of individual livestock holders.
What is the Scottish position on Bluetongue?
At the moment Scotland is in a relatively fortunate
position. It does not have BT and if it plays its cards properly
it might manage to avoid getting it. But only if it develops an
intelligent strategy based on science, and does it very soon indeed.
That strategy should ne
No movements of susceptible livestock from south
of the border into Scotland: be they pedigree breeding stock of
" superior merit" or not. To this end it is reassuring
that no entries from south of the Border will attend the postponed
Pedigree Bulls sales that are about to take place at Perth.
Vaccinate all Scotland's susceptible livestock
for BTv8, starting at the Border and working northwards, using the
disease-free opportunity to create an increasingly wide barrier
against the spread of the disease northwards in England.
In this context It was extraordinary to read the
comment (The Courier, November 3rd) allegedly made by Scottish Cabinet
Secretary for Rural Affairs, Richard Lochhead, when addressing a
meeting in Perth, November 1st.
"I know there are those arguing for the
whole of Great Britain to become one protection zone, but that
is something which I have to debate with the industry when we
meet next week
"For instance, there is a degree of ambiguity
about vaccination. EU member states can use it within the disease
protection zone but it is not clear whether it would be allowed
in disease free areas such as Scotland is now. We should have
an answer to that early next week."
The situation is barely credible. How come that
the EC apparently has not reached the basic understanding as to
how the long-proven effectiveness of vaccination works, be it in
relation to human or animals diseases? Vaccination works best by
preventing disease before it gets there. It is an invaluable tool
when the spread of disease can be predicted to be a high risk.
Scotland is certainly at high risk from BTv8 next
Spring or early Summer, whenever temperatures rise sufficiently
to get the midges going. What kind of Animal Health Policy makers
do we have at the EC who can persist with such an ambiguity, as
referred to by Richard Lochhead?
On the part of NFU Scotland, James Withers dithers
over whether or not Scotland should vaccinate. Perhaps if thought
were given to the cost to farmers of caring for animals suffering
from BT, and the cost of disposing of those that succumb, it would
be realised that vaccination throughout Scotland in the face of
such risks would be the much better option, at an estimated cost
of 50p per dose.
Quite apart from the economics, the ethical argument
for preventative vaccination throughout Scotland in terms of humane
management of our livestock is overwhelming.
What all this is revealing is that none of the
contingency planning that has been done (be it for Foot and Mouth
Disease, Avian Influenza or Bluetongue) has ever, to my knowledge,
addressed the problem of vaccination. It has been left "to
be considered when an outbreak occurs". We are paying a sore
price for such neglect.
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2007). Defra
press release concerning tendering for Bluetongue v8 vaccine makes
incredulous reading.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 02 Nov 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Further Reading Recommended by Land-Care
Watkins, Ruth (2007). Vaccination against Bluetongue
serotype 8: a proposal for discussion.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 01 Nov 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Watkins, Ruth (2007). Bluetongue serotype 8 vaccination
policy for England and Wales.
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 02 Nov 07,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
Finis
"
|
