Farmtalking - Government - Slaughter without Tests

Government - FMD Slaughter without tests - 5th November 2007

If anyone is intending to send comments to the Anderson Inquiry (closing date 16th November) this information confirms that for DEFRA test results are not important to them in determining whether to kill livestock or not.
That decision is taken before they are received. This is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age.

I have received the following information following answers to questions asked by Peter Ainsworth in Parliamentary Questions on FMD and killing.

It does not make good reading. The statement ‘At least one animal tested positive for foot and mouth disease at all eight of the infected premises’ means that we could have the situation where only one animal tested positive on one of the holdings and yet all the other holdings owned by the same farm were automatically slaughtered out, with not a single animal on them infected.

There were killings on 8 IPs.

Then one has the added complication if one looks at the actual number of holdings that each Premises comprises:

For the 8 IPs there were 24 holdings

For the 7 DCs and 2 SOS there were a minimum of 9 holdings
(but undoubtedly more and we hope to receive an answer as to how many more soon)

These comprised twenty-four (24) holdings but there were also killings on another seven (7) as Dangerous Contacts and two (2) as Slaughtered on Suspicion, which totals seventeen (17) Premises, not just eight (8) i.e. A minimum of 33 holdings. (PQ 158644)

In this day and age with sophisticated diagnostic tests this is totally unnecessary and therefore not acceptable.

The animals are not "going anywhere" and with movement controls and strict surveillance, they could have been left - precisely the advice of Dr. Paul Kitching in 2001.’

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/text/71018w0003.htm#07101833000051

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been culled (a) on infected premises, (b) on the basis of slaughter on suspicion and (c) as a result of dangerous contact following the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [158644]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 16 October 2007]: A total of 2,160 animals have been compulsorily culled as a result of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A breakdown of the statistics are shown as follows:

18 Oct 2007 : Column 1197W

Current premises status	Number of premises	Number culled and disposed^{( 1)}
Infected premises⁽²⁾	8	1,578
Dangerous contacts	7	195
Slaughter on suspicion⁽³⁾	2	387
Totals	17	2,160
^{(1) Figures as of 12 October 2007 and may be subject to change. ⁽²⁾ Includes slaughter on suspicion and dangerous contact premises subsequently confirmed as infected premises. ⁽³⁾ Excludes those cases which were subsequently confirmed as infected premises.}

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many infected premises livestock have been slaughtered in relation to the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease; and how many individual holdings make up the number of infected premises. [157931]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: Livestock have been culled on eight infected premises during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. These eight infected premises comprised a total of 24 individual locations where susceptible livestock were culled.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on which premises livestock was culled during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease on the basis of (a) being on infected premises, (b) the policy of slaughter on suspicion, (c) dangerous contact and (d) being on contiguous premises. [157932]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: DEFRA policy is not to name individual affected premises. In addition to the eight infected premises there have been two premises on which animals were culled as part of the policy of slaughter on suspicion, and a further seven premises where animals were culled as dangerous contacts. There are no premises where animals have been culled solely on the basis that they were contiguous to an infected premises.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) infected premises, (b) slaughter on suspicion premises, (c) dangerous contacts and (d) contiguous premises were tested during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease for signs of the disease; and how many in each category returned positive tests. [157933]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: Animals have been tested at all premises where culling has taken place for disease control reasons. At least one animal tested positive for foot and mouth disease at all eight of the infected premises. No animals at the two remaining slaughter on suspicion and seven dangerous contact premises tested positive for foot and mouth disease.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/text/71018w0004.htm

Foot and Mouth Disease: Disease Control

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at how many premises during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease culling was undertaken before the receipt of test results. [157934]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: With the exception of the first infected premises (IP1) where provisional positive laboratory results were available, authorisation to cull the remaining premises was made under the slaughter on suspicion or dangerous contact policies. Some of the subsequent premises may have been subject to earlier surveillance visits and blood testing, but culling was initiated at all the remaining 16 premises prior to the final laboratory test results being received. Premises have only been confirmed as infected premises on the basis of positive laboratory results and none of the premises have been confirmed on clinical grounds alone.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many test results which were available before culling during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease were negative. [157935]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 October 2007]: Of the 17 premises culled for disease control purposes, with the exception of the first infected premises (IP1) where provisional positive laboratory result were available, 16 were culled on the basis of suspicious clinical signs under the slaughter on suspicion policy or after having been assessed as dangerous contacts.
24 Oct 2007 : Column 310W
No definitive negative tests from contemporaneous samples were available at the time culling was authorised.