RoW and F&M

That's not true now apparently. There are genetic tests that are acceptable to the EU.

Again, latest word is that they WILL allow the sale of vaccinated animals.

Steve

But not necessarily to the buyers of said animals.

Again, *allowing* the sale doesn't mean you can sell them if nobody wants to buy them.

One of our main selling points at the moment is that any animal from the UK is unconditionally guaranteed to be F&M free. If we lose that, then our livestock is just like livestock from any country where the disease is endemic, so we have no commercial advantage regarding perceived quality, which means that exports (live and dead) are harder to sell & the British Consumer will no doubt go for the cheaper option of imported meat, "knowing" there's no difference in risk.

How long did it take for sales of British meat to recover last time, & how many people still avoid British beef because of BSE? You can do all the tests in the world, but people will remember that F&M & BSE were present in British meat, so why take the chance that they still might be. It's facts against perception.

Tciao for Now!

John.

That's right John and from what I am told the major supermarkets would not buy vaccinated animals if unvaccinated disease free animals were available.

AJH

Well someone is bringing in a hell of a lot of South American meat, and that sure as hell ain't FM free. Here we have a highly contagious, but non communicable to human disease, which has a very very low morbidity, and whose longterm consequences for the animal are a slight reduction in weight gain rates, destroying people's livelihoods because of the application of 19th century standards of animal care, when the possibility of vaccination exists. I don't see how this is a quality issue. Does it taste the same ? Steve

I agree

Prior to 2001 Argentina, Chile, Guyana and Uruguay claimed and were accepted to have FMD free status, I'm not sure since.

Actually I believe it is but it is a relatively minor illness.

Will your business stand a reduction of 10% off the bottom line?

It's not, it's a commercial decision by the buyer

How would I know? I suspect I couldn't tell the difference but steak tartare may be a bit off putting.

AJH

I was amused today to see that the two farm shops I visited early this morning were open as usual, actually out on working farms, with no precautions in evidence. On going to the local Scats store in the middle of a town however they had "Foot and Mouth Precautions" signs up all over the place and disinfectant foot baths! As I approached the door there was a woman stood in front of the door picking her lip with a worried look on her face and asking me in a confused voice "what should I do?". I was tempted to tell her to go home and hide.

I also read on I think the Times website that the people investigating the outbreak reckon it's sabotage as it's very hard for humans to spread the disease, even when they've been heavily contaminated. I think the quote ran along the lines of people having to hug and kiss the cows, mind you this is Dorset!

There was argument about this during the last outbreak, and some heated dispute over the long-term effects of an animal having the disease.

One big problem is that the margins in the livestock business are low enough that the drop in weight gain can make the difference between profit and loss. People want cheap meat.

Also, vaccination doesn't cure the disease. It prevents infection. And it takes some time before it takes effect. So, assuming the basic Pirbright theory of where the disease came from this time, you could have vaccinated every animal in Surrey and not prevented a single case.

The vaccination option today is better than it was in 2001. It's quite possible that the secondary costs--the effects on sales--still make it a poor choice in the current situation.