FAO-ANIMALHEALTH-L Archives

Establishment of a PPR Global Research and Expertise Network (PPR-GREN)

FAO-AnimalHealth-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nick Honhold <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nick Honhold <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:23:54 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 kB) , text/html (9 kB)
Hhmm, as one of the field epidemiologists working on FMD in the centre 
of the outbreak (Cumbria) during 2001, I can certainly share some of the 
lessons. As a group we published quite a lot on it during and after the 
outbreak.

In infected herds, there was no resistance to the cull. The compensation 
scheme was based on full market value and was paid rapidly. farmers 
hated seeing their animals killed but the fear of the speed with which 
FMD can spread was enough to produce compliance. If the compensation 
scheme had not been as generous and well operated as it was, I think 
things would have been very different. But as it was, the culling of 
infected farms was rarely resisted. There were issues of how quickly we 
could get them dead and then disposal and these would need to be taken 
into account.

However, the dangerous contact "at risk" pre-emptive culling policy used 
during the 2001 outbreak was a different matter. For much of the 
outbreak it driven to a large extent by computer modelling and the 
extent of the cull created by this led to great resentment amongst 
farmers even though there was a full value compensation scheme. They 
would rather have kept their animals than allow them to be culled when 
they didn't think the decision to cull was justified. Where we could 
demonstrate a real risk based on contact, they mainly accepted the 
decision, albeit sometimes reluctantly. Where the decision was based 
purely on being a neighbour of an infected farm, it produced fury, 
resistance and left a long lasting legacy of mistrust of government 
veterinary services. And in retrospect we have shown that such an 
automatic culling policy was not required. The farmers felt that they 
knew that at the time.

I think this emphasises that any stamping out policy must be developed 
in peace time, in collaboration with the livestock keepers and hand in 
hand with a compensation policy.

Nick Honhold
BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH

On 12/02/2014 12:05, Serge T. NZIETCHUENG wrote:
> It will be useful to know the lessons learnt of the use of SO during 
> the FMD outbreak in UK will be useful. Is there anyone who can share 
> with us the main lessons learnt?
>
> Serge Nzietchueng
>
>
> Le Mercredi 12 février 2014 11h16, Nick Honhold 
> <[log in to unmask]> a écrit :
> Dear All
>
> In my opinion, a stamping out policy for infected units with ring 
> vaccination is perhaps ideal. However, I am not sure that a stamping 
> out policy is necessary as there is no carrier state and little or no 
> spread via fomites. Nor is there any risk to human health. The reason 
> for stamping out would be to stop local spread within a village. For 
> any stamping out policy to be effective, there will NEED to be a 
> properly funded and functioning compensation scheme so that owners do 
> not simply more animals out of an infected village, something that is 
> easy to do with sheep and goats, particularly young ones. Compensation 
> schemes have often not been functional and/or funded.
>
> As animals will either die or recover and have no carrier status, 
> stamping out may not be necessary and could be counter productive.
>
> Nick Honhold
> BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH
>
> On 11/02/2014 14:53, Paul Rossiter wrote:
> Dear Moderator,
> Just one question to be raised:
> *Would it be easy to put PPR to an end without stamping out policy*?
> Best regards
> Wade
>
> -- 
> Dr Abel WADE (DVM, MSc, PhD in View)
> Director of National Veterinary Laboratory (LANAVET) Annex
> Head of the Laboratory
> Yaounde - Cameroon
> Consultant
> Animal Production and Health Laboratory
> Joint FAO/IAEA’S Laboratory, Seibersdorf
> Nuclear Sciences and Application
> International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
> A-1400 Vienna, Austria
> E.mail. [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (IAEA office only)
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (personal)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
>
>


########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1


ATOM RSS1 RSS2