Animals pick up the virus either by direct or indirect contact with an infected animal, or by contact with foodstuffs, which have been contaminated by infected animals. Indirect contact includes airborne contact with infected feedstuffs or people or vehicles that have been in contact with infected animals.
Cattle trucks, Lorries, market places, and loading ramps – where infected animals may have been present – are sources of infection until effectively disinfected. Roads may also become contaminated, and the virus may be picked up and carried on the wheels of passing vehicles such as delivery Lorries, milk tankers etc. Any person who has attended diseased animals can spread the disease; and dogs, cats, poultry, wild game and vermin may also carry infected material.
Infections affect some groups of people/ animals more than others
The spread of the virus can be traced to an extent, the maps below show how in the virus traversed to all corners of the country.
(Fig)
From the 30th December 2002 all restrictions were lifted in the UK thus the above map shows all previously infected areas as now clear.
The 2001 foot and mouth outbreak can be said to be a national epidemic. Whilst many people from the UK and from abroad perceived the disease to have spread to all farms and related countryside, this was an incorrect view. The truth is that there are definite areas worse affected than others, i.e. the Lake District, Scottish boards and Devon were severely affected. Hampshire, Sussex and East Anglia had no cases at all. The pattern of nucleated groups leads us to consider spatial distribution.
This pattern of distribution leads us to ask why?
The spread of disease, to particular areas is due to a combination of two factors physical and human.
Clear patterns can be identified by looking at the distribution. One pattern is that cases of foot and mouth are localised. This is due to foot and mouth being highly contagious and any contact weather it be wind or physical contact will cause the disease to spread to local animals.
Farming practices in areas such as the Lake District require animals to roam over large areas of land, often contacting animals from neighbouring farms; this meant that remote rural areas were very vulnerable to cross infection.
(Fig)
Fig shows a comparison of 2001 out break with 1967 the previous foot and mouth epidemic in the UK; the ‘01 outbreak affected a much larger area. The farming industry and in particular the life stock industry in recent times has suffered a catalogue of disastrous diseases and economic pressures e.g. a strong pound, BSE, reduction in quota. Economic pressures have caused a reduction in numbers of farms. Farms to be profitable have been forced to cut costs and increase in size; this has meant less of the population is involved in traditional rural activities. The consequence of this is lower demand for markets and other service industries; this has helped aid the spread of disease as animals are moved 100s of miles to abattoirs and markets. Once a disease infects one part of the country others are infected simultaneously. Improved road networks have aided transport of animals and helped spread of disease to a wider area. However in 1967 the many more farms, farmers, markets and service industries meant animals were moved shorter distances and disease spread less rapidly and widely.
A further human factor was the system of EU quotas and subsidies this has lead to loop holes in the system where people move animals around keeping them in one place for a very short period of time, this fills quotas and subsidies are paid, the morality and practicality of this activity is questionable. The consequences’ being a contagious disease is able to quickly infect large areas of the country. In reaction to the spread of disease by frequent movement, movement and standstill laws were implemented.
Economic and social decline of the farming industry and associated rural areas
In recent years the farming industry has been in decline, due to a number of reasons causing a cycle of deprivation.
Listed below are a few factors that have lead to the decline of farming in the UK
→ → - →
Farm Incomes and the Exchange Rate
(Fig)
(NFU National Farmers Union internet site, report ‘future of the farming industry’)
Fig shows that farm incomes are negatively proportional to change in exchange rates.
(Fig)
Fig documents an already declining workforce from the 30’s caused by modernisation i.e. mechanisation and the implementation of capital intensive operations rather than labour intensive. Over 67 years there was an average decrease in total of 1% a steady decline. From 98 to 00 there has been a massive decrease in labour 13.6%.
The economic and social implications of the epidemic
(Fig)
(Information taken from DEFRA)
It is recognised that the economic impact of the disease is not restricted to culled farms but all other rural activities have suffered financial loss the Fig estimates the uncompensated costs incurred by farmers on the whole, over and above any payments from government. As shown below, these costs amount to over £900 million.
(Fig)
(NFU report ‘The future of farming’)
Financial loss is only one element of the hardship that farmers face; there are also the social implications of loss your livelihood and way of life. Fig shows the scale of culls and also shows the misery and heart break that farmers had to face. When studying and analysing any disease whether human or animal it is important to realise the geography of the disease but also we must realise the impact there is on people emotionally.
(Fig) (Fig)
(Fig)
(BBC ‘images of FMD’)
Fig are typical images from the time of the foot and mouth epidemic e.g. carcasses being left in the open as ministers decide what to do. The consequence of this is drawn out emotional upset and increased risk of disease spread. In all 3915000 animals were slaughtered; this large number of animals culled shows how disease spread can be aided by a number of geographical factors
Method
The sources used are reasonably reliable, although there obvious differences in opinions and focus. DEFRA is a UK government department and thus defends the government’s actions but should show accurate facts and figure and show the industry with little bias. However politics and bureaucracy may be an influence.
The NFU represents farmers and this source may be biased toward farmers. Information takes the views of farmers who are on the ‘shop floor’ and have specialist knowledge of rural communities and the farming industry
News paper articles and web sites offer subjective view on the epidemic as their objective is to present all arguments and facts to the general public. The BBC, The Telegraph and the Guardian were major sources.
Text books and journals provided a general but not always up to date source of information; concepts and systems are simply documented but with a complex and ever changing industry and rural community other sources are more appropriate and reliable.
Conclusion
What is the future for the rural areas affected and how will this effect the long term prospects for the farming industry
“The farming and food industry is on a path that cannot be sustained in the long term.”
(Curry report ‘lessons learned from foot and mouth’)
Foot and mouth is only one problem in many that the farming industry has had to face in resent times. The disease has exposed many pressures that farming industry and rural areas are being put under. Many can not see a future in UK farming and thus people have taken the opportunity to retire or move out of the industry. This leads us to the question of how rural areas will managed.
In areas such as lake district farming has always been hard with poor soil and high rainfall in the past farmers have survived on sheep and beef prices being high and from subsidies and support payments, now the prices are low and fanatical support is being reduced. Most farmers are only tenants and so do not own any land has meant many farmers are ‘getting out’. In the farming industry average ages are around 50, this has consequences for rural areas as there are no prospects the young, rural areas such as the Lake District may suffer from a cycle of deprivation.
After an epidemic such as the one in 2001 there are subsequent reports and enquires that are published i.e. the Curry report documenting the state of the industry and questioning the future. For many in the industry its findings are hard to take. The NFU also published a report that criticises the government and their handling of the epidemic. The disagreement between the government and industry is typical of the conflict that the rural community faces. As a growing minority the industry will have to change to accommodate the demands put on it by consumers.
To combat problems in the rural community and the countryside management is needed. Many argue that farmers are the best suited to this role as they have the knowledge needed to maintain environment and make a profit. To make this work many may have to Diversify from traditional farming methods i.e. tourism, new crops, horticulture and many other new operations and enterprises that make the best use of land.
Foot and mouth came at a time when the rural community and industry could see openings for a clearer future i.e. ‘the light at the end of the tunnel’. By talking to many life long farmers’ foot and mouth indicates an all time low socially and economically.
Foot and mouth, compounded other problems farmers are facing could spell the end of their career and for many this means their whole lifestyle. By Looking at many sources, pictures, reports and analyses the one under lying impression is that of loss and anger and general deprivation of the farming industry. With this deprivation there are many questions to be asked about what should come next and how operations and management of rural areas should continue.
