Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

[AlaskaDenise]

[Friday 07 December 2007]

THE environment department Defra has come under heavy attack from the Royal Society for Birds for trying to blame the Norfolk bird 'flu epidemic on wild birds when alleged failed biosecurity measures are the most likely culprits.

Thousands of turkeys, ducks and chickens have been slaughtered in East Anglia, raising fears of a turkey shortage this Christmas. But Defra attempts to blame the spread of the disease on wild birds has infuriated the RSPB.

It issued a highly critical statement which read: "Defra's preliminary epidemiological report, published on its website, ignores the likelihood that one infected commercial turkey or duck brought the disease to the farm. Defra also failed to take action quickly enough to prevent the potential spread of the virus into wild birds after its discovery."

Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's Conservation Director, said: "There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that wild birds are to blame for bird flu in Suffolk. A migrating bird could have carried the disease here without showing symptoms but imported poultry could have done exactly the same.

"Defra has stepped up its monitoring of wild birds in the area and has unearthed nothing to say that wild birds are the carriers. The government openly admits that biosecurity at the farm is poor. It has been poor ever since bird flu was found and there is no reason to think it was any better before the outbreak.

"There have been no cases of bird flu in wild birds in the UK or western Europe since August and the source of the Suffolk outbreak remains a mystery. It is staggering that Defra has taken almost three weeks to take action to prevent wild birds becoming the latest victims of the disease."

http://www.daelnet.co.uk/countrynews/country_news_07122007_2.cfm

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!--function validateForm(form){ if(document.directoryForm.securitycode.value==""){ alert("Required Field - Security Code"); document.directoryForm.securitycode.focus() document.directoryForm.securitycode.select() return false; } if(document.directoryForm.name.value==""){ alert("Required Field - Name"); document.directoryForm.name.focus() document.directoryForm.name.select() return false; } if(!e_check(document.directoryForm.email.value)) { alert("Please enter a valid E-mail address") document.directoryForm.email.focus() document.directoryForm.email.select() return false } return true}function e_check(email) { invalidChars="/:,;!?$%^&*()+={}|?~#\<>[]" if(email == "") {return false} for(i=0;i<invalidChars.length;i++) { badChar = invalidChars.charAt(i) if(email.indexOf(badChar,0) > -1) {return false} } atPos = email.indexOf("@",1) if(atPos == -1) {return false} if(email.indexOf("@",atPos+1) != -1) {return false} periodPos = email.indexOf(".",atPos) if(periodPos == -1) {return false} if(periodPos+3 > email.length) {return false} return true }//--> </SCRIPT>

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

There have been no cases of bird flu in wild birds in the UK or western Europe since August and the source of the Suffolk outbreak remains a mystery. It is staggering that Defra has taken almost three weeks to take action to prevent wild birds becoming the latest victims of the disease."

- Wild birds don't fly from eastern Europe to western Europe?

- Just how can wild birds be protected?


.

 

[tropical]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

- Wild birds don't fly from eastern Europe to western Europe?

"... no cases of bird flu in wild birds ..."

I think that the reporter who wroted that, probably means "... no reported cases of death of bird flu in wild birds since ..." .

Presumable, that reported text wan't to stressed that supposition:

- yes, the wild birds carry on bird flu strains, and are asimptomatic, also

- but in this case they supposed, the way of infection was the oposite:

1 - independently of the wilds, the some of the free range farm fowl from X provenience (imported, contaminated previously elsewhere, or by contaminated feed) carry on bf asimptomaticaly, also
2 - than the contaminated farm fowl first spread the bf to other farm fowls,
3 - after that, some free range fowl (at the lake, or elsewhere) contaminate in the oposite direction some other wild birds at the lake (or ...), and some of the low resistence wild birds (swans) than succumbe to bf (if the specialists found their bodyes)

_____

- Just how can wild birds be protected? .

Wild birds (and at the same time domestic fowl) can be protected from domestic fowl bf infection by the (stressed) biosecurity measures:

1. farm fowl must be the whole year (minimaly when is winter) in closed objects with netted vents, and orifices
2. previously free range fowl must be closed at "roofed" structures with metalic "very small eye" net, with feed indoor - this way no wild bird can eat, drop, last feathers, or mingle within the fowl
3. all human activities linked to 1. and 2. must be biosecured:
- no mixing with domestic, and wild fowl
- work only with fowl of certified provenience without bf
- no open, or rural fowl markets anywhere
- sanitization, and desinfection of humans when working with fowl, fowl waste, ...
- cracking down smugled fowls and contaminated feed
- etc.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

".............Wild birds (and at the same time domestic fowl) can be protected from domestic fowl bf infection by the (stressed) biosecurity measures:

1. farm fowl must be the whole year (minimaly when is winter) in closed objects with netted vents, and orifices
2. previously free range fowl must be closed at "roofed" structures with metalic "very small eye" net, with feed indoor - this way no wild bird can eat, drop, last feathers, or mingle within the fowl
3. all human activities linked to 1. and 2. must be biosecured:
- no mixing with domestic, and wild fowl
- work only with fowl of certified provenience without bf
- no open, or rural fowl markets anywhere
- sanitization, and desinfection of humans when working with fowl, fowl waste, ...
- cracking down smugled fowls and contaminated feed
- etc.

To expect all of the above to be practiced by everyone who raises poultry, just to "Protect wild birds" is unrealistic. People love their backyard flocks. The whole point of having poultry for many many people is that they are a cheap source of protein - not requiring expensive feed and relative free of disease, since they don't need to be raised in confined quarters. For some, if they can't have free range poultry, they may not have any poultry. It's the same logic used by people who eat wild meat - some people simply prefer protein from sources that minimize disease and maximize utilization of natural feed.

It's a mistake to assume there could not possibly be infection of poultry by wild birds.

.

 

[tropical]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

To expect all of the above to be practiced by everyone who raises poultry, just to "Protect wild birds" is unrealistic. People love their backyard flocks. The whole point of having poultry for many many people is that they are a cheap source of protein - not requiring expensive feed and relative free of disease, since they don't need to be raised in confined quarters. For some, if they can't have free range poultry, they may not have any poultry. It's the same logic used by people who eat wild meat - some people simply prefer protein from sources that minimize disease and maximize utilization of natural feed.
It's a mistake to assume there could not possibly be infection of poultry by wild birds.
.

Hi Denise, I agreed with you that "the above" will not be practiced by everyone who raises poultry - especialy in the "third world".
But that's the only way to separate the wild birds (if they are the primary infectious bf vector) from the "domestic" ones.
At the same time we spare, protect, and preserve the wild birds and their fabulous singing from re-infection of health units through free range infected fowl, but more -
- by shielding fowl, we preserve the wild birds from stermination if in 3km range from the infected farm, and maybe in 10km, also.

Unfortunately, if the wild birds will start to propagate with much more intensity the illness, the only way to spare the domestic fowl is "the above".

Like you better know, for now there are little alternatives, because the vaccination of poultry with some bf strains (we can read that from FT threads also) produced some shedding of virus from aparently asimptomatic healthy fowl.
Because of that, coercitive biosecurity measures of domestic fowl shielding must be conduced in countries that can forced it's implementation by law (and order).
If not shielded those fowl can be infected, and than they are "massacred" (hopefuly by gass, not buried or flamed alive like somewhere happened).
If the stermination of the flocks are not strictly controled we will have biosecurity breaches, and a problem of possible infected meat circulation.

I think that shielding is a more "humanistic" method, even if they will be already killed for meat.

I'm sorry that I must say that the "people who eat wild meat" are at more risk because many don't take the meat to the vets for testing.

And finaly, I didn't said that there could not possibly be infection of poultry by wild birds, because it is obvious that such infections happens in various places (swans seems to be the puer "canarians" of wild bf).
I previously wroted:
"- yes, the wild birds carry on bird flu strains, and are asimptomatic, also"

Other speculations will maybe remains for future evaluations.

 

[HenryN]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

- Wild birds don't fly from eastern Europe to western Europe?

- Just how can wild birds be protected?


.

This story is just more "dead birds don't fly" and "wild birds as victims" which has been propagated by these groups for years (and intensified after Qinghai Lake in May, 2005).
</IMG></IMG>

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

This story is just more "dead birds don't fly" and "wild birds as victims" which has been propagated by these groups for years (and intensified after Qinghai Lake in May, 2005).
</IMG></IMG>

Yep, same song, different choir.

.

 

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

Tropical:

I'll have to take issue with your comments about wild meat. Lots of folks here eat wild meat almost 100% and never get sick. The only meat that I know needs to be tested (by health dept) is bear meat - for trichonosis. A caribou that spends it's time traveling hundreds of miles over pristine tundra is far cleaner than beef which spend weeks living on a manure hill in a feed lot. If there is a disease known to be circulating among a wild species, folks will not eat it.

.

 

[tropical]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

Well, apart of "these groups", if we like nature we must say, because the wild birds carry an deadly infection:
than they are indeed "wild birds as victims",
no matter that they are at the same time our possible "bug vector".

Maybe the goal will be to "exterminate all those deadly bird vectors flying into the woods, and jumping to our parks", like we do now with the chickens?

Must we all thinking like the few dozen (jailed) who cutted the buterfly sanctuary park?
_____

I am glad that you folks are in health, but like we can read here at FT, we have an changing of microbial ecosystem linked to global warming, I will not be such secure ...

I agreed with you that:
"a caribu ... cleaner than beef which spend weeks living on a manure hill in a feed lot", but, unfortunately seems that many alien microbes colonizate the previous "virgin" zones.
If the folks think they must not check the meat, ok., they will be the ones who eat it.
If your place environment is enaugh clean to do this today, congratulations!


_____
Lots of folks here eat wild meat almost 100% and never get sick. The only meat that I know needs to be tested (by health dept) is bear meat - for trichonosis.

 

[canagica]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

This story is just more "dead birds don't fly" and "wild birds as victims" which has been propagated by these groups for years (and intensified after Qinghai Lake in May, 2005).
</IMG></IMG>

As so often happens in these cases, the discussion devolves into religion: one side says, "No evidence, must be imported poultry!" The other side says, "No evidence, must be wild birds!" In their defense, how the RSPB folks are reacting comes directly from what the authorities are saying regarding the outbreak. Where is the propaganda? More often than not, applying a tag of propaganda to anything you disagree with is, well, another form of propaganda. I suppose it could be a massive international conspiracy, but since "the x-files" finished up a few years back I just don't seem to find them plausible

Why is it so hard to say that A LOT isn't known? Belief isn't going to get us very far into figuring out what is driving these persistent outbreaks, whether you believe that imported poultry or wild birds (or both!) are the culprit.

As for "protecting the birds", if I am reading the news release correctly, what the RSPB speaker was upset about was after BF was found at the farm (not that every small backyard poultry producer everywhere needs to always have unimpeachable biosecurity). That it took Defra so long to impose stringent biosecurity onsite increased the risk to wild birds of infection (or reinfection, as the case may be). Whether for the welfare of the wild birds, or the desire for this outbreak to be transmitted to/by local wild birds, it's hard to fault that logic.

In other words, "protecting wild birds" is in our best interests if they are playing a significant role in transmitting H5N1.

 

[HenryN]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

As so often happens in these cases, the discussion devolves into religion: one side says, "No evidence, must be imported poultry!" The other side says, "No evidence, must be wild birds!" In their defense, how the RSPB folks are reacting comes directly from what the authorities are saying regarding the outbreak. Where is the propaganda? More often than not, applying a tag of propaganda to anything you disagree with is, well, another form of propaganda. I suppose it could be a massive international conspiracy, but since "the x-files" finished up a few years back I just don't seem to find them plausible

Why is it so hard to say that A LOT isn't known? Belief isn't going to get us very far into figuring out what is driving these persistent outbreaks, whether you believe that imported poultry or wild birds (or both!) are the culprit.

As for "protecting the birds", if I am reading the news release correctly, what the RSPB speaker was upset about was after BF was found at the farm (not that every small backyard poultry producer everywhere needs to always have unimpeachable biosecurity). That it took Defra so long to impose stringent biosecurity onsite increased the risk to wild birds of infection (or reinfection, as the case may be). Whether for the welfare of the wild birds, or the desire for this outbreak to be transmitted to/by local wild birds, it's hard to fault that logic.

In other words, "protecting wild birds" is in our best interests if they are playing a significant role in transmitting H5N1.

The sequences are VERY clear. H5N1 in England was from wild birds (as was Krasnodar, Kuwait, Czech Republic, Germany, and France).

 

[tropical]

Re: Row over bird 'flu escalates (UK)

The sequences are VERY clear. H5N1 in England was from wild birds (as was Krasnodar, Kuwait, Czech Republic, Germany, and France).

Like "canagica" well wroted:
"In other words, "protecting wild birds" is in our best interests if they are playing a significant role in transmitting H5N1."