Quote:
It's funny that you should use foot-and-mouth disease as an example. One can certainly argue that it proves exactly the OPPOSITE of the point you intend.
FMD is *not* generally fatal in cows sheep etcetera... it just makes the animal sickly for a few months and then the animal recovers.
The *ONLY* reason for the mass-slaughter tactic that is used in the UK, US etcetera is that large commercial producers find it less costly to slaughter a bunch of animals, thus limiting the disease's spread, than to have a whole bunch of animals lose condition and fall behind on the profit-making. (Plus, mass slaughter when a case is detected helps keep a country free of FMD, for countries like the UK and US where it is not already endemic, thus, again, preventing ongoing low-level economic losses to mega-corporations).
There are LOTS of parts of the world where FMD is endemic, i.e. occurs at a low ongoing rate, and you know what, there are cattle and other ruminants there, and farming, and everyone does pretty much okay. You just can make a slightly better profit margin with the mass-slaughter program, IF you are a giant corporation that can absorb occasional regional losses.
A small farmer, however, gets completely wiped out in the event a case is discovered near him. Like COMPLETELY wiped out. But because he's not a giant corporation, that does not, apparently, really matter
I honestly don't know enough about the epidemiology of chicken diseases to have an intelligent opinion on whether mass slaughter is sometimes genuinely justified (for everyone's good, not just for giant mega-corporations') for chicken diseases. Just dunno. But don't be citing FMD as an example.
The only reasons an outbreak of FMD is a disaster for cattle (etc) farmers is because GOVERNMENTS DECIDED IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY.
Pat
It's funny that you should use foot-and-mouth disease as an example. One can certainly argue that it proves exactly the OPPOSITE of the point you intend.
FMD is *not* generally fatal in cows sheep etcetera... it just makes the animal sickly for a few months and then the animal recovers.
The *ONLY* reason for the mass-slaughter tactic that is used in the UK, US etcetera is that large commercial producers find it less costly to slaughter a bunch of animals, thus limiting the disease's spread, than to have a whole bunch of animals lose condition and fall behind on the profit-making. (Plus, mass slaughter when a case is detected helps keep a country free of FMD, for countries like the UK and US where it is not already endemic, thus, again, preventing ongoing low-level economic losses to mega-corporations).
There are LOTS of parts of the world where FMD is endemic, i.e. occurs at a low ongoing rate, and you know what, there are cattle and other ruminants there, and farming, and everyone does pretty much okay. You just can make a slightly better profit margin with the mass-slaughter program, IF you are a giant corporation that can absorb occasional regional losses.
A small farmer, however, gets completely wiped out in the event a case is discovered near him. Like COMPLETELY wiped out. But because he's not a giant corporation, that does not, apparently, really matter

I honestly don't know enough about the epidemiology of chicken diseases to have an intelligent opinion on whether mass slaughter is sometimes genuinely justified (for everyone's good, not just for giant mega-corporations') for chicken diseases. Just dunno. But don't be citing FMD as an example.
The only reasons an outbreak of FMD is a disaster for cattle (etc) farmers is because GOVERNMENTS DECIDED IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY.
Pat