Excerpt: The animals that had been detained and subsequently dispersed were also later re-examined by veterinary inspectors. None of the animals that had been in the market developed foot-and-mouth disease as a result of contact with animals from Bryn Farm.I have looked once again at this governments hellish approach to the "Contiguous Cull" holocaust and compared it - probably very foolishly - to the 1967/8 case which started that crisis, and it still astounds me the gulf of difference to what was defined as needing killed.Your comments are, as always, very true.June 11/12 ~"The UK Government blindly defended its contiguous cull policy throughout the crisis, and still does, stating it to be the approach that left most animals alive...."Look at what MAFF's attitude was back in 1967 !Take a guess at the outcome of having two cows that were on the same farm as the FMD diseased pigs that started the affair; consider also that these two cattle were moved to market before the farm was officially declared an Infected Place. Also be aware the two cattle were present with 1,963 other cattle in that market (who were free from disease) and that the two cattle were later moved back to the now officially declared FMD hit farm.One would never guess MAFF officials would allow those 1,963 cattle to survive...........not even be placed under a "contiguous cull" order/warrant/classification...........or that they were "Dangerous Contacts"...........or Slaughter on Suspicion cases...........would you ?Well back in 1967 the MAFF and the Vets on scene, and fully aware of what those two cattle went through did not kill those other animals in that market, even though they knew the FULL circumstances. Was that the correct decision ?The Northumberland Inquiry tells us,"None of the animals that had been in the market developed foot-and-mouth disease as a result of contact with animals from Bryn Farm."This present Government is a disgrace; and that one factual story from the 1967/8 FMD outbreak shows they did not learn a single jot from the past.You and your readers may wish to read the actual excerpt from that Report...........reproduced below.Best wishes,Bryn--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. The sequence of events relating to the outbreak onBryn Farm was as follows.
OnSaturday, 21st October the owner noticed that one sow was lame; one day later a second sow was seen to be lame. Both animals were removed from the yard and housed.
By Wednesday, 25th Octobera third sow and eleven store pigs were ailing and at this stage veterinary advice was sought. Before the veterinary inspector arrived at the farm, two cows had been sent in the morning to Oswestry market.
The inspector diagnosed foot-and-mouth disease immediatelyon examining the pigs and found that seventeen were infected.
( It is probable that the outbreak on this farm had started in the sows that had been seen to be lame on 21st and 22nd October and that they had transmitted the disease to the remaining pigs).
As soon as the disease was diagnosed, the usual restrictions were applied to the farm and to the market.
There were 1,963 animals still in Oswestry market and these were detained in the sale yard. One of the two cows that had been sent to the market from Bryn Farm had already left the market by vehicle but was stopped by the police and returned to the farm; the other cow was returned to the farm direct from the market.
These two animals were included in a veterinary examination of all the stock at Bryn Farm on the morning of Thursday, 26th October by which time it was found that 28 pigs were infected although no cattle showed any clinical signs.
The entire stock on the farm, consisting of71 Cattle, 67 pigs and 47 sheep, were slaughtered and buried that day.
66. It was decided that none of the stock that had passed through, or were detained in, Oswestry market should be slaughtered as the two cows which had been sent there from Bryn Farm had not shown any signs of being infected with food-and–mouth disease.
The decision was therefore taken to clear the market of the detained animals which were inspected and licensed to move either to slaughter-houses or to various farms in the Infected Area. This decision caused much concern among farmers since it was feared that as a result of this dispersal the disease would spread.
Neverthelessthe market was cleared by the morning of Saturday, 28th October.
Many of the animals that had been sent to the market on the Wednesday had been dispersed before movement restrictions were applied, and some had gone as far afield as Banffshire and Devon.
These were traced and examined by the veterinary staff of the Ministry of Agriculture. The animals that had been detained and subsequently dispersed were also later re-examined by veterinary inspectors.None of the animals that had been in the market developed foot-and-mouth disease as a result of contact with animals from Bryn Farm.