LIVE STOCK EMBARGO.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 206, 31 July 1937, Page 5

LIVE STOCK EMBARGO.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I have read Mr J. C. Byman’s letter published in the “Evening Standard” of July 15 on the above subject, based on the theories of several professors, two of whom, Loffler and Waldeman, have been quoted by the opponents to the lifting of the embargo on the direct importation of stock from Great Britain over and over again. Loffler claimed in 1392 that he had discovered that seven months after recovery (note the word recovery) from foot and mouth disease an animal could excrete the virus. Waldeman claimed that after recovery he showed it to be present in six animals out of 50 at varying intervals from six to 246 days. Nothing seems to be reported of what happened to their contacts. This information is about 45 years old. Scientific knowledge does not stand still. In 1924 the best scientific brains in Great Britain were appointed as a research committee to study foot and mouth disease at Pirbright. They soon came to the conclusion that an animal with the germs of foot and mouth disease must develop the disease within 14 days (note the word must). After 13 years’ continuous work the committee have never found any reason to alter their first decision. On this knowledge, the whole of the regulations of the British authorities, before the animals arc admitted into the quarantine station and during detention there, are based. I have a letter dated January 9, 1935, from the British Minister of Agriculture in which he states that “During the period of nearly seven years approximately 3000 animals have been exported through the station. Not one of these animals has been found to be suffering from foot and mouth disease on arrival in the importing country. Moreover, no case of foot and mouth disease has ever occurred in the London Quarantine Station.” To Mr Hyman and those who take the view that no stock should be admitted from Great Britain by any route, I would say that this or . any other Government dare not take such a drastic step. Mr ltyman is afraid that tlic nation will suffer if the embargo is lifted. 1 and others have an entirely diffetent standpoint. We deny that there is any danger in importing stock direct and contend that fresh blood and more British breeds of both cattle and sheep are badly wanted in New Zealand if we are not to remain stagnant, or worse still, slide back. We also want it landed at less cost, and no valid reason lias been brought forward against these contentions. Let those who desire to amuse themselves and gain some experience which they evidently do not possess at present, go ahead'in producing their New Zealand types. Most leading breeders prefer to build up by importing established types Mr Byman evidently considers that

I am inconsistent when I say that there is a danger of foot and mouth disease reaching New Zealand by some other vehicle than stock. 1 have written many letters on the embargo question, but have never deviated from the stand I took up when I signed the petition to the House of Representatives asking that it be lifted, and I still support the finding of the British committee that no previously healthy animal can carry the germs about in its system for more than 14 days without showing the disease, whilst Mr Hyman’s bunch of professors report recovered animals as carriers for an indefinite period. Since no animals which have the disease or their contacts are allowed to escape slaughter in England, there cannot be, and never has been, any animal carrying the disease into the London quarantine station. The British authorities are perfectly, aware that a diseased animal by its saliva which hangs in strings from its lips can contaminate any foodstuffs, etc., with which it comes in contact, and also do the same with the pus from its hoofs; hence their reason for not waiting to see how many of the contacts are affected, but completing the slaughtering within a few hours of the outbreak. Every possible care is taken that all fodder, etc.. for the voyage comes from a clean district. Like Mr Rvman’s father I had personal experience with foot and month disease many years ago, but. scientists have taught us a lot about it since, and one thing is that we need have no fears of such an easily detected disease with our experienced staff of veterinary surgeons allowing it to spread very far if it ever does arrive by other means than through the animal. Years ago an outbreak of anthrax occurred in the Waikato (in Mr Clilruth’s time). He stated that iinlcss drastic steps were taken W nilcnto would become one of the worst hotbeds of the disease in the world. Provision was at once made that all bone manure from India should be sterilised before leaving there and the disease was stamped out. Bone manure is still used and fed largely to stock in the shape of licks.

It is true that the British Government has power to place an embargo on all produce from infected countries, and that power has occasionally been used as in the case of fresh pork from Holland some years ago which is now shut out as it was definitely proved that it was the cause of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. One has only l to visit Covent Garden and Spitalfields markets to realise how dependent Great Britain is for Continental supplies, and that she cannot afford to shut out any produce on suspicion only, although if it coukl bo proved, no doubt the Continental produce is the cause of many of the outbreaks, ft is to be deplored that many writers opposing the lifting of the embargo do not take steps before making some of their statements to see that they are absolutely correct. I believe the proposals put forward by the executive of the Wellington Provincial District

of the Farmers’ Union have been circulated throughout their 400 odd branches. They contain a statement that the slaughtering of all animals and their contacts in Great Britain is not compulsory, and that there is a possibility that some of the animals escaping slaughter may eventually reach New Zealand and be carriers of foot and mouth disease. This statement may' have been made in all innocence, but there is no denying the fact that the intention of those supporting the carrier theory was to convince the farmers that we are taking a grave risk in importing under the present British regulations. In iny letter to the “Evening Standard” of July 6 I pointed out that the statement of the union was incorrect, and that I had it on the authority of the Director of the Live Stock Division that clause 21 of the Act was misleading and that the sole power to spare animals has been taken over by the Ministry for at least ten years, and that no . animal has been spared for treatment since the adoption of jtlmt policy. This information has been published in more than otte paper and the union have had attention drawn to their mistake. Yet the executive have made no public announcement in acknowledgment of their error, and so the impression remains ■ probably- with the majority of the members of the union that this misleading and damaging statement has not been challenged and proved incorrect. —I am, etc., E. J. ELLIS. Bulls. July 28, 1937.