Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the president of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to enquire into foot-and-mouth disease.

  • Great Britain. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Committee.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the president of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to enquire into foot-and-mouth disease. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    28/370 (page 4)
    25 January 1912.] slaughtered at the port of landing, except under the exceptions that I have mentioned. This Act led to the making of the Foreign Animals Order, 1896. 35. Well, then, under the Act of 1896 the landing of animals otherwise than for slaughter, except for certain exceptional purposes, was forbidden, and the power and duty of absolute prohibition still remained to be exercised by the Board; is not that so?—Yes, certainly, sir. Animals under that Act may be landed for slaughter unless the landing is prohibited. Sec- tion 25 of the Act of 1894, which I have just quoted, was in no way affected, and it remained for the Board to prohibit the landing of animals, even for slaughter, from countries from which foot-and-mouth diseased animals may be brought, and that power has been put into force on several occasions. 36. How often ?—On the 31st December 1897 Nor- way was prohibited ; on the 30th April 1901 Argentina and Uruguay were added to the list of prohibited coun- tries, and in 1901 Chili. Then, owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Channel Islands, the importation of animals from those islands was pro- hibited on the 27th April 1902, Jersey being released on the 19th June 1902, and Alderney on the 8th August 1902. Then, later, owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States of America, the landing of animals brought from certain States of the Union was prohibited on the 5th December 1902. On the 3rd February 1903 an Order came into opera- tion allowing the landing for slaughter of animals from Argentina and Uruguay, which I have mentioned as having been prohibited in 1900. On the 9th February 1903 Mexico was prohibited. Then, owing to foot- and-mouth disease again appearing in Argentina, that country and Uruguay were again prohibited on the 12th May 1903; that is, only a few months you see after the restrictions had been taken off. On the Ist August 1903 the Foreign Animals’ Order of that year came into operation, and the following countries were included in the list of prohibited countries scheduled under the Order of 1896, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Cape Colony, Chili, Columbia, Ecuador, Guiana (British, French, and Dutch), Paraguay, Peru, Morocco, and six States of the United States of America and Venezuela. The States of America were, however, released from the list of prohibited countries in September 1903. There was no alteration in the position thus created till Novem- ber 1908, when owing to foot-and-mouth disease again appearing in America, certain States were scheduled as prohibited countries, and the restrictions were main- tained until March and April of the following year, when they were withdrawn. 37. What Order is now in force; what Foreign Animals Order is now in force ?—The Foreign Animals Order now in force is the Order of 1910, of which I have asked the Secretary of the Committee to supply members of the Committee with copies. 38. Now in force at this present moment ?—That Order is now in force at the present moment; it came into operation on the Ist January last, 1911. 39. These restrictions all relate to the landing of animals, do they not ?—These restrictions all relate to the landing of animals entirely, sir. The list of pro- hibited countries in that Order is the same as in the Order of 1903 which I have quoted, except that no portion of the United States of America is now in- cluded, and certain of the Islands in the Atlantic were excluded to prevent the provisions of Article 4 (1) applying to animals belonging to a non-scheduled country in a vessel calling at ports in these islands. The Canary Islands and the Cape de Verde Islands are technically part of Spain and Portugal, but obvi- ously for disease purposes need not beregardedas parts of those countries, and at these Islands vessels coming from Argentina always have to call; and, in the event of the Board being able to withdraw the restrictions from Argentina, it was thought undesirable that they should be directly re-imposed by including those Islands in the list of prohibited countries. I should like also, if I may, to mention that this Order gontained another new feature. If the Committee will look at Article 2 of the Order they will see that it prohibits the bringing in of foreign animals into a port. This is the first time that [ Continued. that provision was ever inserted in an Order. Up to that time the Order had related merely to animals which were landed, and although the Board always resisted the bringing of cargoes of animals en route from other countries into our ports, no specific provision had been made regarding them, and it was not found possible under the Order in its old form to control the bringing in of such animals into the ports as ship’s stores. It was found that a very considerable number of animals in the total, although the number in each vessel was small, were carried as ships’ stores and brought into our ports, and perhaps remained here for weeks, having come from prohibited countries, and it was thought that this was a practice which was very desirable to bring to anend. The Order was accordingly framed in such a manner as to make it illegal to bring into the port anything which had been carried from a prohibited country. 40. Then, have the Board ever considered any further precaution that might be necessary ?—Yes. I have dealt entirely so far with the landing of animals ; but the Board have frequently considered whether some such precaution should not be taken as regards the landing of such things as skins, and hides, and sheep’s heads; and, although it was not till1908 that the Board made any use of their powers to regulate the landing of anything but animals as a safeguard against the. intro- duction of foot-and-mouth disease, they had frequently taken these matters into consideration. Perhaps I may say that, in deciding a matter of this kind, it is neces- sary to consider, not only the articles which might be contaminated before they are introduced into the country, but the chance that such contaminated articles would be brought into contact with susceptible animals in this country. The articles that may be considered prima facie to be dangerous are hay and straw, milk and similar products, hides, heads and feet, carcases, including calves in their skins, and any of these might be possibly a vehicle of contagion. As regards the danger attributed from a professional point of view to any of these articles, the Committee will have the advantage of hearing the views of Mr. Stockman, who is to give evidence after me; but I think it is clear that one must consider not only whether the article itself is dangerous, but whether it is likely to come into contact with animals in this country. For instance, hay and straw obviously may come into contact with susceptible animals after importation. Milk and similar products are not likely themselves to come into direct contact with animals, but there is a certain risk existing from the fact that the waste products are thrown into the pig-pail, and may be carried directly to pigs, and be consumed by pigs, so that if the milk itself was in- fected, or vegetables, or other such things as are brought into this country, and go into the pigs’ pail, there is a certain risk, not a very great one, perhaps, that they might carry the disease in that way. Again, hides, heads, and feet are not the least likely to be brought into direct contact with animals after they arrive here. They go as a general rule to factories, cleaners, and so on, and they are dealt with at once; and carcases, in the same way, go to a butcher’s pre- mises, and even, in the case of calves in theirskins, when they have arrived in this country they are, generally speaking, taken to places where they are not likely to come into direct contact with animals on a farm. 41. Here there are no restrictions on these things that you have mentioned ?—There were no restrictions up to the year 1908. 42, Thatisthe Edinburgh outbreak you are alluding to, I suppose P—I refer there to the Edinburgh out- break. There had been no direct evidence at that time that foot-and-mouth disease had been conveyed by any of these particular articles; at any rate, the evidence was not sufficient to warrant their exclusion, but in the Edinburgh outbreak the evidence was clear that the infection had been brought in by hay imported from Holland, and used as fodder for dairy cows. The hay had been brought directly into the dairyman’s premises, had been retained until it was used for the cows. The Committee will see if they refer to the account of the outbreak which is in the report for 1908, that within, I think it was some forty-eight hours, the great