OTt synonymous with the provision of quality information.
1.1 Disclaimer.2. The FAQ.
1.2 The Story Behind this FAQ.
1.3 Reference Information about the FAQ itself.
2.1 What is Foot and Mouth Disease?3. References.
2.1.1 How do animals catch FMD?2.2 Isn't there a treatment, a drug or vaccination that will prevent or cure this disease?
2.1.2 What are the symptoms and when do they appear?
2.1.3 How long does the illness last? Does FMD inflict permanent damage?
2.1.4 Virus 'factories'.
2.1.5 What happens after the animal recovers?
184.108.40.206 The carrier state.
2.2.1 Antibiotics.2.3 Can other animals catch FMD? What about horses? What about people?
2.2.2 Other remedies.
2.2.3 Homeopathic remedies.
220.127.116.11 How does vaccination work?
18.104.22.168 Complications and problems associated with FMD vaccination.
22.214.171.124 Where is FMD vaccine made and stored?
126.96.36.199 When can vaccination be used?
188.8.131.52 Types of FMD vaccine and vaccination programmes
2.3.1 Horses.2.4 Deer and FMD.
2.3.2 Dogs and cats.
2.4.1 Do deer catch FMD?
2.4.2 Can deer pass FMD on to other animals?
2.4.3 Have wild/feral deer caught FMD in the current outbreak in Britain?
2.4.4 What can be done about it?
This document is provided as is without any express or implied warranties. While every effort has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this article, the author/maintainer/contributors assume no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
Hypertext links from this document are provided for convenience only. Links are provided to World Wide Web locations only. The material kept at any World Wide Web location to which this document provides a link is the responsibility of the operator of the server on which it is held. In particular, the provision in this document of a link to another World Wide Web location does not constitute any authorisation by the author of this document to the user to access material held at that location, nor is it evidence of any endorsement by the author of this document of the material held there.
On the 4th May 2001 in a Farmers Weekly article entitled "Internet to be election battleground?" Isabel Davies wrote
"Discussion groups such as uk.business.agriculture have also proved a lifeline for farmers hungry for information about the disease.
This newsgroup was first to report the disease. Farmers who have used it have stayed ahead of events by sharing information with producers across the country."
In the initial days of the epidemic, a dearth of hard background information about the disease soon became apparent. A consequence of this was a number of newsgroup contributors independently researching resources worldwide and reporting the results on the newsgroup. This in turn fostered a considerable volume of informed and detailed discussion. Scientific papers were analysed and compared. A number of experts were contacted and their opinions on particular aspects of the disease, preventative and eradication methodologies were solicited.
As the weeks passed the body of informed opinion within the newsgroup improved both qualitatively and quantitatively. More often than not, particular aspects were analysed and tentative conclusions reached well in advance of either Media focus on those aspects or official decisions associated with those aspects. Neither Media or official positions always reflected the informed conclusions arrived at earlier in the newsgroup.
Although much of the newsgroup discussions are accessible via various newsgroup article archive resources, the volume of discussions spread over many weeks may deter all but seasoned researcher. This FAQ is an attempt to bring together in one document the substance of those discussions. This FAQ concentrates on animals/facts important in the UK FMD 2001 epidemic.
Last-Updated : 19 June 2001
Posting-Frequency : TBA
Newsgroups : uk.business.agriculture
Version : 2.01.00
Master Document Author/Compiler :
Sarah Wroot <mailto:email@example.com>
Web Edition Presentation :
Chris Salter <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Web Edition : <URL:http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/faq/fmd/v2/index.html>
PDF Edition : <URL:http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/faq/fmd/v2/ubafmd.pdf>
Web Edition : <URL:http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/fmd/ubafmdfaq.html>
PDF Edition : <URL:http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/fmd/ubafmdfaq.pdf>
Text editions will soon be available via anonymus FTP and automated email response.
FMD is a highly contagious disease of cloven-hoofed animals such as sheep, goats, pigs, cattle and deer. Rarely, other animals including humans can catch FMD. (See 'Can other animals catch FMD?' for more information about this.)
The cattle plague described by Aristotle in 350BC might have been FMD or rinderpest, but the first detailed description is from Venice in 1546 by the Italian physician Fracastorius. FMD was first recorded in Britain in 1839. It's caused by a virus (of the family Picornaviridae, genus Apthovirus) with seven different strains or serotypes: A, O, C, SAT1, SAT2, SAT3 and Asia1. FMD virus is very adaptable and very variable; each of these seven serotypes has evolved sub-types that may be more or less infective, or affect different species in different ways, and may require slightly different vaccines.
The current outbreak (began early spring of 2001) in Britain is caused by the Pan-Asian type O strain. This strain first appeared in India in 1990 and is now the most widely distributed of the seven. It is endemic in many South American, African and Asian countries. It has several sub-types each of which is associated with a particular areas and species; for example, the strain prevalent in the Middle East affects primarily sheep and cattle (perhaps because there are few pigs in the area), whereas the Far East type O is responsible for major outbreaks in pigs. Nucleotide sequencing can distinguish between sub-types causing outbreaks in areas with both cattle and pigs such as Vietnam.
In 'Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Sources of Outbreaks and Hazard Categorisation of Modes of Virus Transmission' (1994), the USDA assessed the risk of carrying FMD virus on various items/substances (virus survival is longest time reported in the literature they surveyed):
The OIE recommendations at
<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/MCode/A_00028.htm> are a useful summary of some treatments used to ensure products such as straw are FMD-free before export.
After infection there is an incubation period of 2-14 (OIE) 1-21(USDA) days during which the virus multiplies. It's important to note that the speed with which the symptoms appear and the severity of the symptoms depend on:
Classic symptoms are that after the incubation period, in addition to a fever (103-105°F, 39.4-40.6°C) and loss of appetite, FMD causes vesicles (blisters) to develop on various parts of the body of infected animals. The virus affects the throat first, where it multiplies in the primary vesicles. Eventually virus particles enter the blood stream and are carried to different parts of the body where they cause secondary vesicles. Affected animals have nasal discharges and salivate excessively. As the name suggests, the most obvious secondary vesicles are on the feet and in/on the nose, mouth and tongue, but others may appear on/in the mammary gland or udder and internal organs such as the rumen. A high death rate in young animals is associated with vesicles or lesions on the myocardium (heart muscle).
These vesicles often rupture after about 24 hours, leaving large, painful open wounds that bleed easily. Vesicles on the coronary band (where the hoof joins the ankle) may result in sloughing of the hooves, leaving animals unable to stand.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ep/fad_training/VESVOL7/page22_7.htm and subsequent pages illustrate the symptoms of FMD.
Pregnant animals often abort their young, or the young are born dead; lactating females lose 50-60% of their milk for that lactation. Draught animals such as oxen lose 60-70% of their draught power in the first month of an outbreak: the Vietnamese authorities have estimated that each case of FMD in working cattle or buffalo results in the loss of 3 tons of rice.
The acute phase (when the symptoms are obvious) lasts about 8-15 days. Afterwards those animals that can recover will do so, gradually. Sheep and goats tend to be less badly affected than cattle, which may be left with scarring on their tongues and in their mouths that makes it difficult or painful to eat; deformed feet; mastitis or other permanent drop in milk production and damaged heart muscle. Some lose the ability to regulate their body temperature. Animals that have recovered from FMD gain weight more slowly and (as a result of secondary infections and mastitis) produce less milk than uninfected animals, a overall decrease of 10-25% in productivity for both beef and dairy cattle.
It's very important to remember that infected animals are also virus 'factories', producing large quantities of virus particles and shedding them into the environment where they can infect other animals. The most important route is through the lungs: infected animals exhale virus particles that can be inhaled by other animals. In the acute phase and during convalescence there are virus particles in all fluids secreted by the animals, such as blood, saliva, tears, faeces, urine, milk, and semen.
<http://aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/A010-fmd/tools/3-chrt-virus-production.html> shows virus levels in different fluids from different species, but note there is no information about the conditions (temperature, for example) in which survival was determined.
Some virus may be shed even after the animal recovers (see 'The Carrier State' below).
Although the animals that survive the acute phase may not show any symptoms, they still have virus particles circulating in their bodies. The concentration of these particles normally decreases over time as the animals' immune systems fight the infection, but while there are virus particles present any animal that has FMD will be shedding virus. The amount and duration varies according to the species involved (see above). Some animals become carriers: they continue to shed virus from the pharynx, and may infect other animals although they themselves display no symptoms. Sheep and goats may continue to shed virus for about 9 months after infection, cattle for up to 2.5-3 years. Pigs do not become carriers.
Transmission from 'true' carrier cattle (those that have had the disease and recovered, but show virus in pharyngeal fluid) to susceptible cattle has not been demonstrated under experimental conditions (Salt, 1994) and it sounds as though they've tried really hard. Nonetheless, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that such transmission occurs.
There is some experimental evidence that over time in the carrier animal the virus becomes less virulent to other members of the same spp as the carrier, but retains its virulence towards other spp. Virus isolated from carrier cattle was less cytopathic in culture than wild-type virus, and was less virulent towards susceptible cattle. But it retained its virulence for pigs and guinea pigs, regaining its virulence for cattle after a single passage in pigs.
Vaccination doesn't prevent animals becoming carriers: please see section 2.2.4 on Vaccination for more information.
<http://aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/A010-fmd/mod4/4411-infection.html> Animals that have recovered from FMD are immune to that strain for some time; the strength of the immunity normally decreases with time after infection. Cattle have been demonstrated to retain immunity against the original virus for up to 5.5 years - this is thought to be related to the carrier state that lasts up to 30 months. Both may be a function of continuing challenge from trace amounts of virus. AVIS state that little is known about the immune response/duration of immunity for sheep and goats. Pigs appear to retain immunity for a much shorter period than cattle, perhaps 3-6 months.
Antibiotics have no effect on viral diseases such as FMD, although they can be used to treat secondary infections.
Other publicised remedies, such as Jeyes fluid (a phenolic compound), may act as disinfectants to prevent or treat secondary infections in wounds but according to the OIE  have no effect on the virus: 'Resistant to iodophores, quaternary ammonium compounds, hypoclorite and phenol, especially in the presence of organic matter'.
Borax 30 is a homeopathic remedy said to ease the symptoms of FMD. The MAFF has NOT APPROVED its use against FMD <http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/disease/borax.asp>:
"Use of Borax 30
Products that are presented for the treatment or prevention of disease in animals, or which have that function, must be authorised under the terms of the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 before they can be legally sold or supplied in the United Kingdom. This ensures that such products are properly assessed and are demonstrated as being safe, of consistent good quality and effective when used in accordance with the label instructions.
We are aware that some pharmacies have advertised a homeopathic product called Borax 30 as a preventative measure against foot and mouth disease. However this product has not been authorised under these regulations. We have received no scientific evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness against foot and mouth disease and we have not assessed its safety or quality. For further information contact - Simon Hack at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, 01932 338306, email: email@example.com If foot and mouth disease is suspected it must, by law, be notified to the MAFF Divisional Veterinary Manager or the police."
Other homeopathic treatments are discussed at <http://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/Foot%20and%20Mouth.htm> Readers should note this statement made towards the end of that document: "Organic and biodynamic farms may have a certain resistance to the disease but its certainly not worth taking any chances since any outbreak must be reported and dealt with in accordance with MAFF eradication policy."
Modern vaccines are manufactured from chemically inactivated FMD
virus grown in tissue culture (see
<http://aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/A010-fmd/mod4/4413-vacc-manufacture.html> for detailed information about the manufacturing process). The inactivated virus or antigen may then be combined with an adjuvant which alters the effectiveness of the vaccine in different species (oil-based adjuvants are effective in all species; aluminium hydroxide adjuvanted vaccines are not effective in pigs) and stored ready for use, or stored as a concentrate over liquid nitrogen to be made up into vaccine as required. Stocks of ready-to-use vaccine have a shelf-life of about 18 months. When an animal is vaccinated the inactivated virus shows the animal's immune system what FMD virus looks like; the immune system then produces antibodies to the virus which circulate in its body, ready to attack any live, wild virus that tries to infect the animal. "It should be noted, however, that during the 14 days following the vaccination of cattle and 7 days following the vaccination of pigs, virus transmission can occur from those species to susceptible animals in contact with them".
Without further 'challenge' (exposure to virus) the amount of circulating antibody decreases over time, so animals have to be re-vaccinated regularly if protection is to continue. It's important to note that each vaccine protects against only one of the seven strains of FMD. Countries regularly threatened by several strains may choose to use bi- or tri-valent vaccines combining antigens from two or three strains of FMD.
The manufacture of the vaccine requires the most stringent precautions because live virus is used. (The US is so concerned about the dangers of FMD that in the 1950s it was made illegal to possess FMD virus - even in the form of vaccine - on the US mainland. Their only FMD research laboratory is on Plum Island, off the east coast of the US.) Some countries rely on commercial production of vaccine, while others have arranged access to the international vaccine banks. A useful summary of vaccine bank facilities is available at <http://aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/>, from which the following is an extract:
"Strategic FMD vaccine reserves have been in existence since the 1970s as part of FMD control programmes. However, the shelf-life of conventional formulated FMD vaccines is in the order of one year, and the cost of maintaining these reserves by annual replacement is therefore high. In the 1970s, advances in technology prepared the ground for the introduction of highly concentrated FMD antigen in low volumes stored at ultra-low temperatures over liquid nitrogen or in -80ºC freezers. In this form antigens appear to be extremely stable. Thus the three international FMD vaccine banks comprise pretested FMD antigen concentrates of a spectrum of virus types and subtypes which are stored for rapid formulation into vaccines in the event of an FMD emergency situation. 'Strategic FMD Antigen Reserve' is perhaps a more appropriate title for these banks.
The first essential component of an FMD antigen bank is the concentrated, inactivated antigen supplied by a commercial source. The antigen needs to be capable of producing a highly potent vaccine when reformulated. Thus, the manufacturer should specify the expected dose volume to yield a vaccine with minimum potency in excess of the commercial prophylactic FMD vaccines.
The second element of an FMD antigen bank is a capacity to store the antigen at ultra-low temperatures, either at -80ºC in freezers or over liquid nitrogen at -130ºC.
The third essential element is the facility to reformulate the antigens rapidly into potent vaccines. The three international banks have different arrangements for this part of the process. The European Union Vaccine Bank (EUVB) has an ad hoc arrangement to return the antigen to the manufacturer for reformulation at 2.5 million doses over a 10-day period. The International Vaccine Bank (IVB) maintains its own emergency manufacturing facility to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards and holds both Product and Manufacturing Licences for aqueous FMD vaccines. This facility can manufacture up to 200,000 doses of vaccine over a 24-hour period. The North American Vaccine Bank (NAVB) is seeking an arrangement with a commercial FMD vaccine manufacturer to produce 2 million doses in the first week."
The EU (and therefore the United Kingdom) and other countries wishing to maintain FMD-free status are required to attempt to bring an FMD outbreak under control by using a 'stamping out' policy (swift slaughter and disposal of infected herds and contacts) before considering vaccination. Only if an outbreak threatened to become extensive or affect particularly valuable livestock is consideration would be given to 'emergency' vaccination as an additional control measure. 'The control measures for foot-and-mouth disease laid down in Directive 85/511/EEC are aimed at eradicating the disease as quickly as possible by stamping out of infected, contaminated or in-contact herds, applying strict movement controls on animals of susceptible species and products derived from such animals and surveillance in the affected area to substantiate prior to lifting the control measures the absence of virus circulation' (2001/257/EC, 31.3.2001). Provision is made for emergency vaccination 'where the disease expands'.
So the UK could not simply decide to vaccinate against FMD: the EU, the International Vaccine Bank (of which the UK was a founding member) and the OIE all either recommend or require that 'stamping out' be used to control or eliminate FMD. The UK could expect to receive permission to use vaccination to control an FMD outbreak only if the 'stamping out' policy had demonstrably failed, or if particularly rare animals were at risk. The UK did in fact apply for permission to vaccinate, and received it on the 30 March 2001. After noting that the UK had not only initiated a 'stamping out' policy, but also the pre-emptive killing of susceptible animals in close proximity to infected or suspect holdings, taking into account the density of the livestock population and the exigencies of carcass disposal, the Commission Decision permitted vaccination of bovine animals over 1 week of age in the counties of Devon and Cumbria subject to certain conditions .
Broadly speaking there are two types of vaccine that can currently be used to protect animals from FMD, each of which is used in different ways. Contrary to some media reports, research on oral, pelleted FMD vaccine is at an early stage: no oral vaccine is currently available.
a) Conventional vaccine and prophylactic vaccination programme.
Conventional vaccines are administered in two doses, 3-4 weeks apart,
and may take up to two weeks (after the first injection) to provide
protection against FMD. Re-vaccination will be required after 6
months  or 12 months
<http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/vaccination/keyfacts.asp> (the variation depends on the average immune response of the animals and the level of challenge after vaccination). Because it requires two injections, and takes so long to protect vaccinated animals, conventional vaccine is generally used as part of a prophylactic vaccination programme in which an effort is made to vaccinate as many susceptible animals as possible (85% coverage is regarded as the minimum acceptable ) each year, regardless of whether or not there has been an FMD outbreak. Prophylactic vaccination is simply intended to reduce the number of FMD outbreaks: by itself it does not completely eradicate the disease. It was used to good effect to control FMD in Europe prior to 1990-91, but a slaughter policy was required to eradicate FMD.
Prophylactic vaccination is currently used in combination with zones
of infection to protect FMD-free areas from infection. Such a system
is used in South Africa near the Kruger National Park, where Cape
Buffalo carry the disease
Arguments for and against the use of widespread prophylactic vaccination in the UK during the current outbreak:
b) Emergency vaccine and a programme of ring vaccination or 'damping down' vaccination.
Emergency vaccine is a high-potency preparation designed to elicit a rapid immune response. Animals vaccinated with emergency vaccine are protected within about 4 days of vaccination , which protection lasts about 6 months . Emergency vaccines may be used in a 'ring' or 'protective' vaccination programme (susceptible animals on holdings around an outbreak are vaccinated to protect them against aerosol infection), or 'dampening down'. 'Dampening down' is the vaccination of a chosen group of animals at risk from an outbreak. It is intended to reduce virus spread by reducing the number of susceptible animals, assisting a pre-emptive slaughter policy in places where poor infrastructure, inadequate manpower, delayed stamping out or other factors result in insufficient capacity to dispose of carcasses, and to reduce the severity of direct economic losses from the outbreak (presumably on the assumption that only the most valuable livestock would be vaccinated) .
Arguments for and against the use of emergency vaccination in the UK during the current outbreak:
Non-cloven hoofed animals known to catch FMD naturally include hedgehogs, rats, cats, and dogs. At least 16 other types of animals including mice and guinea pigs can be infected with FMD in the laboratory.
Horses are resistant to FMD infection themselves, but can spread infection by carrying virus on tack, their body, or mud on their hooves from an infected area to an uninfected area.
Dogs and cats can catch FMD, but (as with humans) this is very rare. The USDA considers dogs and cats to be 'moderate hazards'.
Any dogs in an area infected with foot and mouth disease must be kept under control by their owners. This means that they must either:
If you are in an area declared to be infected with foot and mouth disease you must not let your dog run free; if you do, it may be seized by the local authority or the police and treated as a stray. In addition, an inspector may serve a notice on anyone in the infected area to keep a dog under specific controls.
Dogs which are kept under proper control are not prevented from being moved. Certain sporting activities involving dogs are not allowed in areas infected with foot and mouth disease.
If you feed your dog bones, please dispose of the bones carefully once your dog has finished with them so that wildlife cannot gain access to the bones.
The number of documented human cases is small (the virus was found in about 40 cases worldwide to 1994), and humans are thought to be 'quite resistant' to FMD. The most important route of transmission to humans is probably drinking contaminated milk .
This draws on information from the British Deer Society, posts to UBA from those involved in deer management and articles from the press and various websites.
There are very few studies of FMD in deer, partly because
opportunities are rare, and partly because most known outbreaks occur
in farmed populations such as deer parks that, like other outbreaks
in farmed livestock, are controlled by a slaughter policy as quickly
as possible rather than being allowed to run their normal course. But
during an outbreak in California in 1924 22,000 wild mule deer were
culled, of which 2279 are said to have been infected. According to
<http://www.oie.int/hs2/sit_pays_mald_pl.asp?c_pays=162&c_mald=2> the Russians have been 'controlling wildlife reservoirs' since 1998 to control FMD. Outbreaks in deer, cattle, sheep and pigs were reported in both 1998 and 1999. Russia has endemic FMD and would have difficulty eradicating it as most of its neighbours also have endemic FMD.
Studies at Pirbright in 1974 demonstrated that all five species of deer commonly found in Britain can catch FMD. FMD in roe deer and muntjac is thought to produce symptoms similar to the disease in sheep - they lose condition and become lethargic, while red deer and fallow demonstrate even fewer symptoms: it is possible to have FMD in a herd and never recognise it.
<http://aleffgroup.com/avisfmd/A010-fmd/mod1/0241-clinical-other-deer.html> shows some symptoms of FMD in deer.
There are conflicting reports about long term recovery, ranging from the deer recover fully to 'deer thought to have been infected fail to thrive and die during autumn/winter'. It is possible that the difference is a function of the original condition of the animals and the conditions in which they live post-infection.
It appears that in the past FMD has not normally become endemic in wild deer in Britain, possibly because the populations were not dense enough to sustain it. Wild deer were not regarded as significant during the 1967 outbreak in Britain (in essence they were ignored), but the population of wild deer has increased significantly since that time - The Mammal Society recently estimated there are now 20 times as many deer here as there were in 1967.
Yes. Like any animal with FMD, infected animals shed virus and have been shown to pass on the virus under natural conditions. In addition to this, the USDA records a white-tailed deer that remained a carrier for 11 weeks. Although they will graze the same pastures as sheep or cattle, wild deer tend to avoid large concentrations of domestic livestock (especially sheep), and do not shed large quantities of virus, so the MAFF does not regard infection in wild or feral deer as a major threat to livestock. The British Deer Society regard it as more serious, as stated in their press release of 4 April: 'If the current FMD outbreak in domestic stock takes hold throughout Britain, there is a strong possibility that some species of wild life including deer will become infected by contact with stock or through wind-borne infection. This would be a very serious development because even if the official "isolate and slaughter" policy succeeds in controlling the outbreak among domestic animals, a reservoir of infection would remain among wild animals which would cause repeated disease outbreaks. FMD would become endemic in this country.'
It may be worth noting that the USDA Emergency Response to a Highly Contagious Animal Disease plans include the distribution and movements of deer and other susceptible wildlife as a factor to be taken into account when designating an FMD Infected Zone. The USDA FMD Hazard Categorization (1994) classifies deer as 'High Hazard' because they are natural hosts and have been shown to both catch and transmit FMD.
The likely routes of transmission to/from livestock and deer during an outbreak are by inhalation of virus particles or by grazing pasture on which infected animals have shed virus (in urine, feces, etc). Inhalation is the most important route: current MAFF advice is that the risk of transmission from sheep to deer is 'unlikely' over distances greater than 10 metres. Oral transmission from grazing infected pasture requires relatively large quantities of virus, so this too is regarded as low risk. The official MAFF advice on deer <http://www.bds.org.uk/fmd/Risk.htm> states that 'By analogy with sheep, the greatest risk of transmission occurs during the 7-10 days following the onset of clinical signs'.
Probably yes. There have so far been numerous reports of deer found dead (possibly as roadkills) with symptoms of FMD such as blisters around the mouth/feet. There have also been reports of others, particularly roe, which are more seriously affected, but none have tested positive for FMD; it has been suggested that the ELISA test used is less effective on deer than on sheep. The current combination of Close Seasons and a ban on shooting since March means it has not been legally possible to sample the health of the UK wild deer herd. The British Deer Society called (4 April 2001) for a limited, carefully planned, sample cull for scientific purposes only in areas where infection in wild deer is suspected. New Scientist 5/5/2001 reports this is to be permitted from 5 May, 2001, but the government has apparently refused to pay to have the carcasses tested for FMD (the Deer Initiative, which is organising the cull, is to apply to the EU for funding).
To be blunt, very little.
NB: It is crucially important to note that all the authorities (including the British Deer Society and the MAFF) agree that any attempt to cull a deer population likely to be infected will only make matters worse: the cull will not only miss many animals, but will cause the (infected) survivors to scatter over a wide area, taking the disease with them.
It seems that the risk of transmission from deer to livestock is low, so in the short term infected deer may not cause large numbers of outbreaks. Official advice from the MAFF is that farmers in areas where deer are thought likely to be infected should confine livestock to areas where they are unlikely to encounter deer, housing them if necessary.
1. Office International des Epizooties (OIE) World Organisation
for Animal Health
Foot and Mouth Disease <http://www.oie.int/eng/maladies/fiches/A_A010.HTM>
2. EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare
(adopted 10 arch 1999) Strategy for Emergency Vaccination against
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).
4. Brownlie, J (2001) Strategic Decisions to Evaluate before Implementing a Vaccine Programme in the Face of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Outbreak. BCVA 2001.
5. Sobrino, F, M Saiz, M A Jiminez-Clavero, J I Nunez, M F Rosas, E Baranowski, V Ley (2000) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus: a long known virus, but a current threat. Review Article. Vet. Res. 32 (2001) 1-30.
6. USDA:APHIS:VS (1994) Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Sources of Outbreaks and Hazard Categorization of Modes of Virus Transmission. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/Fmdps.pdf>
8. Office International des Epizooties (OIE) World Organisation
for Animal Health
International Animal Health Code (2000)
9. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000. Produced by: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department; Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland); National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department. HMSO. Available as PDF from www.maff.gov.uk
10. Commission Decision of 30 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kindom in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC.
Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000. Produced by: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department; Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland); National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department. HMSO. Available as PDF from www.maff.gov.uk
The ALEFF Group have assembled a great deal of information about FMD in an online example of AVIS (the Advanced Veterinary Information System).
http://www.anth.org.uk/biodynamic/Foot%20and%20Mouth.htm Bernard Jarman's article on Foot and Mouth presents an alternative view of the disease and its treatment, including a description of biodynamic and homeopathic remedies and treatments. But note the warning implied by the quote from the MAFF!
Brownlie, J (2001) Strategic Decisions to Evaluate before Implementing a Vaccine Programme in the Face of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Outbreak. BCVA 2001.
Commission Decision of 30 March 2001 laying down the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kindom in application of Article 13 of Directive 85/511/EEC.
EU Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (adopted
10 March 1999) Strategy for Emergency Vaccination against Foot and
Mouth Disease (FMD).
Ferguson, N, C Donnelly and R Anderson (2001) The Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic in Great Britain: Pattern of Spread and Impact of Interventions. Sciencexpress www.sciencexpress.org
Harvey, D R (2001) What Lessons from Foot and Mouth? A preliminary assessment of the 2001 epidemic. Available for download from <http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/>
Kitching, R P (1994) Foot and Mouth Disease in the Middle East. Foot
and Mouth Disease Newletter Vol 1; 2. Available at
http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/default.htm The UK Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries webpages have general information about FMD, disinfection and treatments, as well as the progress of the epidemic, regulations and advice.
Office International des Epizooties (OIE) World Organisation for Animal Health
Foot and Mouth Disease
http://www.oie.int/eng/maladies/fiches/A_A010.HTM webpages on the identification and biology of FMD
Office International des Epizooties (OIE) World Organisation for Animal Health
International Animal Health Code (2000)
http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/MCode/A_00028.htm Recommendations for treatment of FMD outbreaks, and infective materials.
Office International des Epizooties (OIE) World Organisation for Animal Health http://www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/a_dsum.htm Information on diseases by country; <http://www.oie.int/hs2> accesses the HANDISTATUS II database of disease/country/year
Salt, J S (1993) The Carrier State in Foot and Mouth Disease - an Immunological Review. Br Vet J (1993) 149, 207
Sobrino, F, M Saiz, M A Jiminez-Clavero, J I Nunez, M F Rosas, E Baranowski, V Ley (2000) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus: a long known virus, but a current threat. Review Article. Vet. Res. 32 (2001) 1-30.
USDA:APHIS:VS (1994) Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Sources of Outbreaks and Hazard Categorization of Modes of Virus Transmission. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/Fmdps.pdf
USDA:APHIS (updated 3/30/01) National Emergency Response to a Highly Contagious Animal Disease. Executive Summary.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ep/fad_training/VESVOL7/ The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Veterinary Services Emergency Program Foreign Animal Diseases training pages appear to be slightly outdated but nonetheless contain useful information.
This section is in the process of being compiled.
Numerous individuals have contributed to the content of this FAQ either directly by alerting UKBA to sources of information or indirectly by participating in the newsgroup discussions analysing the material. Listing specific contributors would not fairly reflect the extent of the collective input without which this FAQ would not have been possible.
The HTML version of this document is automatically generated from the ascii text master document using John A Fotheringham's AscToHTM shareware application. Web Site http://www.jafsoft.com/asctohtm/
The PDF version of this document is automatically generated from the HTML version using Easy Software Products HTMLDOC, a free software application under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. Web Site http://www.easysw.com/htmldoc
This document is provided as a public information service. This document may be may be posted to any USENET newsgroup as long as the newsgroup charter permits it and it is posted in its entirety including this copyright notice. This document may be may be distributed by email as long as it is distributed in its entirety including this copyright notice. This document may be printed for personal use as long as it is printed in its entirety including this copyright notice. This document can be quoted in part within reason as long as full attributions are included (title, author and at least one URL). This document may not be reproduced at any web site without express permission from the author. This is not intended to limit distribution, rather to enable the author to obtain assurances that any copies of this document held on web sites will within a reasonable time frame reflect changes made to the master document. This document may not be otherwise distributed or reproduced without express permission from the author. This FAQ may not be distributed for financial gain.
© Original Content Copyright Sarah Wroot 2001
© Web Presentation Copyright Chris Salter 2001
Document preparation: Chris Salter,
Original Think-tank, Cornwall,
Document Reference: <URL:http://www.originalthinktank.org.uk/fmd/ubafmdfaq.html>
Created: 4th May 2001
Last modification: 25th November 2001
Last information content change: 13th June 2001