for National Geographic News
The foot-and-mouth epidemic that swept Great Britain last spring
commanded the world's attention as images of thousands of sheep and
cattle carcasses being destroyed in huge bonfires spilled across the
media.
The culling policy instituted by the British government to
stem the spread of the highly infectious disease was highly
controversial. Officials estimated that under the program, more than 3.8
million farm animals had been put to death as of last month.
This week, however, two groups of researchers reported findings showing that the culling program was essential to bring the epidemic under control.
To reach their conclusions, the two groups of researchers analyzed data to determine how the epidemic spread, what factors made farms most susceptible, and what control measures were most effective.
Both groups came to the same conclusion: The mandated culling of infected animals on neighboring properties was essential in controlling the epidemic to the extent achieved.
Moreover, they suggested that if the culling had been implemented earlier and more intensively, there may have been fewer cases of the disease and less impact on farms whose animals were slaughtered as a precautionary measure.
One of the studies was conducted by researchers at the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine in London, who reported on their findings in the October 4 issue of Nature. A second group of researchers, led by Matt J. Keeling at the University of Cambridge, published their findings in the October 5 issue of Science.
Control Measures
Foot-and-mouth disease is one of the most devastating livestock diseases because of the ease and quickness with which it spreads. It is highly contagious—nearly all animals exposed to the disease become infected.
The economic loss to Great Britain resulting from the epidemic is estimated to be as high as 4.1 billion pounds (U.S. $6 billion).
The foot-and-mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom began earlier this year with a massive outbreak of infection. In late February, officials restricted the movement of livestock.
|
SOURCES AND RELATED WEB SITES
|
