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.

    46/370 (page 22)
    25 January 1912.) all. I suppose that is one of the reasons why we have been free of the disease in Ireland for 29 years ?—I think it might be a possible reason. 368. I said one of them ?—Yes. 369. As to the disease in Ireland at that time, I remember it well because we had tremendous incon- venience in the trade. We had to get the cattle and sheep all inspected; we were only allowed to keep them so many days and put them on a certain field and all that kind of thing. However, the disease was got rid of by means of those regulations without slaughtering the cattle, so that I agree with you it can be stopped without slaughtering. I also coincide with you that slaughtering is the proper way when you get hold of the centre of the disease at once and stop it almost immediately. There is just a point with regard to foreign Governments. I have often thought of it, long before this Committee was appointed. Could any arrangement be made to get foreign Governments to co-operate with our Board of Agriculture in respect of giving notice immediately one of these serious out- breaks of disease occurs? Because if the human health is to be safeguarded in that manner—of course you cannot put the human race in comparison with cattle— I do think that some safeguard of that kind could be introduced in France, Germany, Denmark, and all those other countries with whom we are in friendship. I think we ought to have some co-operation with them? —We get regularly the disease-returns from the foreign Governments; they come in generally once a month. We lmow what the condition as regards disease is, broadly speaking, in the foreign countries, and in the case of a country like America, where they are im- porting animals for slaughter, we have a definite arrangement now with the American Government and the Canadian Government that they will inform the Board at once of an outbreak. 370. Does that hold with the European Govern- ments; have you the same arrangement ?—No; in effect we do know as regards the countries where the disease has not been prevalent. We got immediate information of the least outbreak in Sweden, for instance, within a few days of the outbreak. We arrange with His Majesty’s representatives in those countries that in the event of a country having been free of disease for some time, if the disease appears there they should telegraph to us at once in order that we may put in operation the Foreign Hay and Straw Order or other restrictions; but as regards a country where the disease has gone on prac- tically continuously, we rely on the monthly returns that come in. We make arrangements to get them at the earliest possible date. JI think now we shall be able to get them more regularly than we have done. 371. I do not know whether I am of sufficient importance to make a suggestion of that kind, but I do think that there should be some kind of official co- operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Offices of Agriculture in the various countries, because obviously it would be a general advantage that we should act together in a matter of this kind. Whether anything further could be done in that direction or not, it is not for me to say ?—TI do not think there would be much advantage in getting more frequent returns from the countries in which the disease is prevalent than at present, because we can take no further steps. 372. Could not the Governments themselves ar- range with you not to import hay and straw from those countries, or anything that youthought would help the disease from being imported, an amicable arrangement with them ?—In that case we have got nothing to bar- gain with if we are not taking animals from that particular country. As a matter of fact, we did draw the attention of the French Government to the point at the time when France was practically clear from foot-and-mouth disease. They then raised the question of whether we could not admit French animals into this country in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. The Board went into the question of their laws and their organisation and many other things, and said that in order to satisfy them that under the Act they could safely import cattle from France, they should make similar laws in France with regard to importa- tion of hay and straw. As a matter of fact the French [ Continued. Government found themselves unable to do so. That is the only case in point. 373. It is because we are a free import country, and we have nothing to bargain for, 1 suppose. Your case of 1908 proves to me at least thatthe hay in Edinburgh undoubtedly transmitted the disease to the cattle there ? —That is certainly our belief. 374. Well, it is mine, too. Scotland is not as good as we are, because they had no outbreak for 15 years, and we have had no outbreak for 29 years, which is nearly twice as long. I understand that the 1896 Act prohibits animals for slaughter from countries where foot-and-mouth disease prevails. We are acting up to that ?—That prevents an animal being imported into this country otherwise than for slaughter except in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in Section 27 of the Act. 375. How many countries now are free to admit live cattle to be killed on landing ?—Only the United States of America and Canada. 376. Only those two; all the rest are more or less diseased P—Al] the countries from which there would be any trade. 377. That is a serious state of things. Now, with regard to the management of ships and having ships disinfected, and the vehicles, which is a suggestion I think you make to safeguard us in the future, would you prefer what I think is the most practicable way, to refer that to the Board of Trade probably and the Home Office to give us a report on it, and see whether that could not be carried out, because if you had the co-operation of those people I do not think it would dislocate trade much; it might cause a certain amount of delay in certain cases, but I do not think it would interfere very much with trade ?—I agree you ought to look at the question from the wider point of view than merely foot-and-mouth disease, because, as I said, the question of human plague comes in and that of human anthrax. 578. Human anthrax in my opinion is more im- portant than the other. I had some other questions to ask, but they were all anticipated, and it is no use delaying the Committee by repeating questions which have already been answered. But I wanted to know whether you have any suggestion to make to this Com- mittee, any definite practicable suggestion which you could put before us that we could put into cur report in order further to safeguard this conntry from foot- and-mouth disease and from anthrax ?—No, I do not thinkI have. I have suggested certain lines of inquiry for the Committee which in my judgment they might profitably follow, but I have no information to lead me to come to any definite opinion on any of these subjects yet. 379, My last question is, do you agree with me that in considering and reporting on this question we ought also to take into consideration the question of prevent- ing the introduction of anthrax into this country, which in my opinion is as important as foot-and-mouth disease >—I have said that, to my mind, any informa- tion you get with regard to foot-and-mouth disease will be very useful to the Department in connection with anthrax. It would be useful, in my opinion, if the Committee keep the point of anthrax in mind in making any inquiries with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. 380. (Chairman.) There are just one or two things I want to ask before we adjourn. ‘They are rather on the point which Mr. Field has made on which I asked you a question in the later part of your evidence; it is about these foreign countries. I think you said that you have no knowledge of what the regulations are in foreign countries for stamping out these diseases P—I meant to convey that I was not prepared to give off- hand the information. The Board of Agriculture, in their Intelligence Division, have the information, but I did not come prepared with that. 381. If we call Mr. Rogers, we could get it?—Mr. Rogers, or one of Mr. Middleton’s division. 382. If we ask them to come and give evidence they would be able to tell us what the regulations are which foreign countries adopt to stop the disease in