CORRESPONDENCE LIVE STOCK EMBARGO.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 176, 26 June 1937, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE

LIVE STOCK EMBARGO.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Jn quite recent editions of tire “IVialunvutu is veiling Staudurd" several letters Have apt,eared on this subject, and my object m writing tins letter is to endeavour to draw public jattention to too ever-present uunger jot introducing this vile scourge to toe Dominion. .Sir, 1 submit this is not a jliaroclual question, but a national one, Dor if ever tins scourge becomes established in tile Dominion it will be hero forever, and the wiioie population will !be altected—l mean iiiiancially—lor | whatever happens here to the live stock industry (this being practically a pastoral country) reacts on the rest of the community. Now 1 will proceed to the chance of this disease being introduced to this country. As to carriers, the first three authorities quoted will be the German research workers—Loftier, Waldmanii, and J. Fortner. Loftier (who discovered the virus of foot and mouth disease in 1892) considered that infected cattle could excrete the virus seven months after recovery. Wald-I mann, experimenting with 50 cattle alter recovery, showed the virus to ho! present in six of them at varying intervals from six to 216 days after infection. ,J. Fortner stresses the importance of flic foregoing work of Wa dinann, and further states that in one case an infected guinea pig was still excreting the virus 198 days after infection. According to tlic report of Dr. Andrews, of the f oot and Mouth Keseareli Committee, England, the virus of the disease was found to survive for 80 days on hides and leatner, .102 days on rubber gum boots, and watery nitrates ot the virus, allowed to dry on bran, survived for 20 weeks. I trust the readers of the above have borne with me this far; and as no professional opinion has completely discounted the carrier case, such occurrence must be accepted. There is an erroneous opinion here that all infected stock are slaughtered and the carcases destroyed ; but such is not the case (see Diseases of Animals Act, Great Britain, 1928, under section 21, sub-section (1) (a) and (b).) You will find the following: ‘‘A local authority may if they think fit cause to he slaughtered any infected or in contact animals.” The intelligent reader will understand from the foregoing that slaughter is not compulsory, and many of the local authorities exorcise the option of treating valuable herds where the paying of compensation would be prohibitive. Pedigree herds are the herds usually treated and saved if possible, and when liberated from all restrictions are the herds from which this Dominion may draw its supplies. It appears quite clear from the facts supplied that it is possible for the carrier case to reach New Zealand, so why take the risk? To show the virulence and persistence of foot and mouth disease, J would point out that the first authenticated outbreak in Great Britain occurred in 1839, and as late as February 9, 193(5, in reply to a query from Lieutenant-Colonel Heneage (member for Louth) Mr Elliot (as Minister for Agriculture) wrote in reply: “During the past six months, 93 separate premises were infected with the virus of foot and mouth disease in 21 different localities, between which no connection could he traced.” Just fancy, 93 separate premises infected, in 21 different localities, after having tlic chance for 96 years to eradicate flic disease. No doubt some of the advocates for the lifting of the embargo will bo able to explain why there is no danger—not a bit—no carriers—oh, no!—then how and why. hi rice February 9, 1935, there have been several outbreaks, hut there is no need to go into details, and yet some people aie always seeking to get easier facilities for importing stock. Arc they ignorant af the facts or are they so blind to the scourge that they would take the chance of introducing yet another disease into this country, and probably the most devastating of the lot; anyway, one of the worst in the world? Have we not enough trouble here now in all classes of stock, to mention a Few? Swine fever, first outbreak, 1900; contagious abortion, imported here ibout 1897; Johiine’s disease, prevalent in Taranaki, imported 1912. I could continue (ad lib) but out of respect For your space will not do so. Before concluding I would stress the act that practically everything coming n contact with infected animals is a larrier of the virus of the disease. It s most contagious. Picture to ourielves this disease getting among the mimals in the forests and high eounry—deer of various species, wild pigs, 'oats, etc.—as it assuredly will if ever ntroduced. There is no need to discuss he result; anyone could understand it. 'low, instead of the embargo being ifted or modified, we want a Governnent with the moral courage to say o all infected countries: Show us a lean bill of health among your live tock and we will consider removing he restrictions; until that time as long s infectious diseases are rampant in our country, not a single beast will e allowed to enter here. I want it nderstood that this applies to all ountries, not any particular one. BeLerating the effect this disease (i.e., aot and mouth) will have if introduced n all classes of people in the Dominion, nd sincerely hoping they will sit up lid take notice, I will conclude.—l am, tc., J. C. HYMAN. Kairanga, June 28, 1937.