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.

    47/370 (page 23)
    25 Janwary 1912.] [ Continued. each country ?—Yos, and I think Mr. Stockman has a lot of information on that. 383. If Mr. Stockman has it, we can get it from him to-morrow, but in my judgment—I am only speaking for myself—I look upon this as one of the most important parts of the whole inquiry, because as long as the disease is rampant in Europe—I am not talking about the Argentine or America—to my mind, we are always liable to an outbreak of disease in this country, and therefore, my question to you, and it has been put by Mr. Field also, was this, whether some arrangement, some friendly arrangement with the Boards of Agriculture of foreign countries could not be come to by our own Board of Agriculture to take common action against these diseases, both foot-and- mouth disease and anthrax? I know your point that we may have to give something; they will ask us to give something at the same time, but that is a matter for consideration afterwards ?—Of course, you have to ascertain their laws; you have also to get information as to the administration of the laws, which is more import- ant than the laws themselves, and in my opinion you will find all the principal countries in Europe are as keen and anxious to suppress foot-and-mouth disease as we, and really do everything in their power to bring that about. I would not like to say so much about Russia, but that is true of all the adjacent European countries. I am quite certain you will find that the laws, for instance, of Germany, on paper, are good laws, but I do not know much as to the administration of them. I am not prepared to be cross-examined on the point. 384. But their regulations, be they good or bad, cannot be very much use when we see the state of Europe at the present time—— 385. (Mr. Field, M.P.) May I just ask one question ? Do you know whether they have a Slaughtering Order in those countries or not >—I could not say off-hand. 386. (Chairman.) There is one other question I want to ask, which Mr. Nunneley and Mr. Bathurst alluded to; it is the question of the hay and straw for packing purposes. I have a strong impression too that that has a great deal to do with it. There isa great fear of infection from that too. In Ireland, for this hay and straw have they any prohibition >—They had an Order similar to our Order. 387. For feeding, but have they any prohibition for hay and straw for packing ?—I think, speaking from recollection, the Order follows the lines of ours. 388. In Ireland ?—I would suggest that you should get a copy of the Irish Order. 389. There is a certain amount comes into Ireland for packing ?—I should imagine so. 390. Anyhow, they have the same Order as we have im this country ?—As far as I recollect their Order, it follows precisely the line of ours, and was made after (Mr. Field, M.P.) That is right; quite the same. 391. (Chairman.) Only one word more. Alluding to what Mr. Bathurst said about the size of the zone, I take it to be the view of the Board that they never wish, as a general rule, to have the zone less than of 15 miles radius in the presence of an outbreak. That is the view of the Board, I take it, from your past experience?—As regards that, the 15-mile radius, I believe, was first of all adopted as the radius in which cattle are likely to be moved about locally, on the assumption that you might not have got the actual centre of the disease. Supposing the ease of a local animal, an animal going by road, it would not be likely to have been moved more than 15 miles. That was set up as a rule, and it has often been pressed upon us that it should be reduced, and as a matter of fact im the Derbyshire outbreak the area was rather smaller than usual; but I have always argued, as I have already mentioned, that if you once begin to tamper with regulations which you know to be effective you will almost certainly be pressed to go on, and you may modify them so far that you may find that they prove a failure. Personally, I am not pre- pared to make any recommendation in that direction. 392. (Mr. Bathurst, MP.) Surely that must depend on the situation, character, and proximity of the mar- ket of the district ,—Yes, but at the moment when we make that Order we know little or nothing about the circumstances. On several occasions we have reduced the outer zone and not maintained the 15 miles for the whole period when we knew the whole of the facts. That was certainly the case in the Ripon district of Yorkshire, but we did not maintain the 15-mile limit for the whole period there, because we discovered from the physical characteristics of the country that the Order applied to a certain part of the country in the North and West Ridings which was divided from Ripon by hills and mountains and so on, and there was no actual need for restrictions between those two parts of the scheduled area. 393. You do take intoaccount the local conditions ? —Certainly we do; we do not always maintain the 15 miles for the whole time. But my point is that we must have something definite to go upon, and the basis of a 15-mile area has been taken, and personally Iam not prepared to advise that it should be altered. 394. You do not feel hidebound by the particular area just because in a general way it would appear to be a suitable limit?—No. Ii you take the Edinburgh outbreak, although we hada 15-mile area we did not take in the country across the Firth of Forth. We regarded the Firth of Forth as a seaboard, and we did not include any part of Fife in the area on that occasion. 395. May I puta case in point? The nearest local market to me is provided with cattle from a much more limited area than 15 miles, whereas the most im- portant market for my constituents—Salisbury—is fed from a considerably larger area ?—Yes. 396. It appeared to be strong evidence in favour of adapting regulations as far as possible to individual cases ?—I hope we always do that, but we must start by rule of thumb. We know practically nothing but that the disease has broken out in a certain place, and we must act within 12 hours. 397. (Mr. Field, M.P.) It is not a cast-iron rule 2— No. Sir CHARLES D. Ros, Bart., M.P. Sir Harry VERNEY, Bart., M.P. Sir J. BowEN BowEn-Jonss, Bart. Mr. CHARLES BatHurst, M.P. Mr. WILLIAM Frevp, M.P. Mr. JouHN Hinps, M.P. Mr. Grorae R. LANE-Fox, M.P. Mr. RicHARDSON CARR. Major E. Marten DuNNE. Mr. E. E. Morrison. Mr. E. M. NuNNELEY. Mr. W. H. F. Lanpon (Secretary). 398. (Chairman.) You are the Chief Veterinary Officer to the Board of Agriculture P—Yes. 399. For how long have you been that ?—Since the beginning of 1905.