I agree with David that the avian influenza stamping out /compensation
policy is more applicable than is FMD in the UK to PPR in the countries
affected to date. I was involved in the implementation of the stamping
out/compensation policy for avian influenza in village poultry in Turkey
and there it worked well in the end and particularly when targeted
rather than blanket. But in many countries it has not worked well. It
has either been too draconian or had poor compensation or both.
I know I am repeating myself, but a culling policy needs to be well
planned and to be accepted by the livestock owners and to be linked to a
properly funded functional compensation policy. Luckily, for PPR we have
a good vaccine that seems to decrease shedding as well as stopping
infection. That is what gives a chance of controlling/eradicating PPR
and puts it on a par with RP and smallpox as the next best candidate.
Nick Honhold
BVSc MSc PhD MRCVS DipECVPH
Independent veterinary epidemiologist
On 12/02/2014 18:46, david shamaki wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> They experience of Nick with FMD control using stamping and
> compensation may not be applicable with PPR especially in some control
> where there financial resources are limited and lack of political. PPR
> is disease mailnly small ruminants which are mostly by rural framers
> who have little or no political influence on the political class and
> therefore it may be very difficult to push policy of control using
> stamping out and compensation.
>
> The only stamping out and compensation strategy which I have seen
> worked in Nigeria for example is the case of bird flu. This policy
> succeeded because there a number people in government that were
> interested in protecting their investment in the poultry industry.
> Even the compensation fund was from a World Bank facility.
>
> I am not sure whether in the case of PPR you can find the financial
> resources to implement the stamping out policy and compensation
> globally or on regional basis.
>
> There are number of PPR control strategies which have been developed
> by some controls and regions. It will interesting to see the control
> strategies that have been suggested.
>
> David Shamaki
> National Vetrinary Research Institute Vom
> Nigeria
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:56 PM, Nick Honhold
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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]> <mailto:[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
>
>
########################################################################
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
|