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.

    30/370 (page 6)
    25 January 1912.] [ Continued. in a very mysterious manner in two premises at Leith, near Edinburgh, and also in a farm in Derbyshire. On the 3lst December a further outbreak occurred in a dairyman’s premises near the London Cattle Market. These cases were all dealt with promptly, and the disease was apparently then extinguished. 53. Then, what about next year; there were other outbreaks, were there not P—There were two outbreaks in 18938, one in London and the other in Sussex, and in 1894 there were three outbreaks; there was one in Essex, one in Cambridge, and one in Kent. 54. You say there were three in 1894 ?—There were three outbreaks in 1894, 55. In Hssex, Cambridge, and Kent. Now, was there any knowledge at that time how those outbreaks occurred, because that is two years afterwards P—No, in that series of cases so far as I am aware, no definite information could be obtained of the origin of the disease. And that is true also of the two outbreaks in 1893. No inquiries that were made could establish any reliable history of the origin of the disease. 56. Then, from 1894 to 1900, there were no out- breaks, were there ?—No, there was a period of com- plete freedom from disease, 57. You had stamped it out?—To all appearances; in fact one may say with certainty that the disease was completely stamped out, and it did not reappear until the 29th January 1900, which was the commencement of a severe outbreak that continued in the following year, and was eventually brought to an end in April 1901. The Committee have before them the Reports for 1900 and 1901, from which they will be able to see, if they so desire, the full history of these out- breaks. In 1900 the disease was first reported on premises at Fritton, near Yarmouth in Norfolk, on the 29th January. On the lst February another case was reported at Freethorpe, near Norwich, and on the 5th of the month one at Ormesby, St. Michael’s, near Yar- mouth. This last case was connected with one of the former ones. On the 8th February another case was reported at Freethorpe, no doubt connected with the former one, and another on the 10th February at Great Ormesby, near Yarmouth. On the 12th February the disease appeared at Shefford, in Bedfordshire. On the 20th a case occurred at Reedham in Norfolk, which was connected with the previous outbreaks in that locality. 58. Norfolk seems rather a bad place I am afraid? —It was bad there that year. On the 23rd April a case was discovered at Wakehampton, in Norfolk, also connected with the other Norfolk cases, and on the 12th May the disease appeared at Codicote, in Hertfordshire. There was no further outbreak until the 2nd August, when disease was discovered at Mar- fieet in Yorkshire, and on the 13th of that month, at Rhyl in Flintshire, where another outbreak occurred on the 24th August, and a further outbreak on the 30th. On the 12th September the disease was re- ported at Melksham, in Wiltshire, and two other out- breaks occurred in the county on the 17th and on the 21st. 59. I was going to ask you, was the source of this outbreak ever found out P—No, sir, there was no satis- factory clue to the introduction of the disease. 60. In this big outbreak P—No. On the 5th Octo- ber the disease appeared at Lichfield, in Staffordshire, and on the 12th December at Harlow in Essex, followed by outbreaks at Dunmow in Hssex on the 13th and at Stansted on the 15th, and at Ongar on the 18th. These Essex outbreaks were all connected one with the other. That makes a total of the outbreaks for the year of 21 in nine different counties. No sug- gestion could be offered as to the source of the infec- tion in either of the original outbreaks in Suffolk, Flintshire, Wiltshire, and Essex, nor as to the out- breaks in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, but in respect of the outbreak in Yorkshire there was a considerable suspicion attached to trimmings from sheeps’ heads which had been imported from Holland. The suspicion was rather a strong one, but it was never sufficiently substantiated for the Board to be able to take up the positive view that that was the undoubted source of the disease. 61. Well then, we come to 1901 P—1901. 62. What outbreaks were there in that year P— That was really a continuation of the same big out- break. 63. The same outbreak P—The disease appeared on the 27th January 1901 at Ipswich in Suffolk; two further cases occurring at practically the same time in the locality which was connected with the original outbreak. Further outbreaks occurred in Suffolk on the Ist, 18th, and 24th of February, and on the 7th March, Again, in spite of full investigation no evidence as to the origin of the disease could be traced. On the 31st January the disease had also appeared in the County of Kent amongst a flock of sheep. No cause for this particular outbreak could be traced. Another outbreak occurred in Kent in the immediate vicinity of the one above mentioned, and finally two outbreaks occurred in the County of Hssex, one on the 8th April and the other on the 12th. No origin could be estab- lished for the first of these Essex outbreaks, but there is no doubt that the second was due to indirect con- tact in Romford market with animals concerned in the former case. That concludes a short account of the outbreaks of 1901. 64. Then, there was an outbreak in 1902 which I suppose was. the same carried on ?—The disease ap- peared on the 27th March 1902, in Kent, within a short distance from the place at which the 1901 out- break occurred, so that the inference might possibly be that by some means the infection was left behind in that case, which I think is one of the very few cases in which that inference can be set up in any way. 65. Well again, the country was free I think from 1902 to 1908, was it not ?—That is so, sir. In 1908 we come to the outbreak in Edinburgh which I have referred to in connection with the Foreign Hay and Straw Order. At that time no case of foot-and-mouth disease had occurred in Scotland for a period of 15 years, which re-enforced the view that the disease must have been brought in from abroad by this hay and straw. There canbe no possible suggestion that it could have been contracted in the country. In con- nection with the outbreak there was a further outbreak on the 23rd February also in the dairies in Hdin- burgh, but the disease never spread beyond that. Then, in 1910 there were two outbreaks at Ripon in Yorkshire, and that completes the list of outbreaks until we come to last year. 66. 1911 P—As regards the Yorkshire outbreaks I may mention that no satisfactory origin of the disease could be discovered. The only article upon which suspicion could be thrown was a cattle cake; that cake was of British origin. 67. Linseed P—I could not say offhand whether linseed or cotton cake. It was made in Hull, and the only possible theory that one could set up was that it became contaminated in transit in Hull, which is one: of the ports at which a number of the foreign substances to which reference has been made are landed. For instance, it is one of the ports to which calves in their skins come, and some of these foreign offal and various other substances are also no doubt carried about in the lorries connected with the docks, and itis just possible that the cake may have become contaminated there, but we have got no evidence; that is really only hypothesis. 68. Surmise P—Surmise. 69. Now, we will come to the big outbreak of last year, 1911; they are in five groups I think, Surrey, Middlesex, Essex, Derby, and Somerset P—Yes, sir. I have given, for the use of the members of the Com- mittee, a copy of a memorandum giving shortly the account of these outbreaks. I do not know whether you would like me to go through it in full. 70. I think the Committee would like to hear about these as they are so recent. I think these are the ones they would like to look into more particularly P—The disease was first reported to the Board on the 9th March 1911, on farm premises near Chobham in Surrey. There were on the farm premises and in the adjoining fields 24 cattle, 5 pigs, and 165 sheep, of which 6 cattle and 3 swine were diseased. The slaughter of these animals and of 1 cow and 2 pigs which had