Premium
DO BIRDS TRANSMIT FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE?
Author(s) -
Murton R. K.
Publication year - 1964
Publication title -
ibis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.933
H-Index - 80
eISSN - 1474-919X
pISSN - 0019-1019
DOI - 10.1111/j.1474-919x.1964.tb03711.x
Subject(s) - outbreak , geography , transmission (telecommunications) , east coast , socioeconomics , physical geography , biology , virology , sociology , electrical engineering , engineering
Summary Evidence regarding the role of birds in the transmission of foot and mouth disease is briefly reviewed. Bird movements in Europe are briefly considered and while some autumn migrants and winter visitors to Britain could transmit disease to livestock on the east coast, it seems unlikely that summer migrants could be involved as vectors between France and the south coast. Outbreaks of “obscure” origin tend to be concentrated in the eight coastal counties, Lincolnshire to Dorset. There is a correlation between the autumn outbreaks on the east coast (Lincolnshire‐Essex) and a high incidence of disease in the Low Countries and Denmark; and a correlation between a high level of infection in summer in France and outbreaks on the south coast (Kent‐Dorset). Very few coastal outbreaks occurred in Britain at migration times during the war years of 1940–44 at a time when the level of Continental infection was apparently high. Outbreaks in Britain in 1951–52 showed a clockwise movement from the east to the south coast paralleling the swing in the peak of infection from the Low Countries to France. During this period British outbreaks showed a marked tendency to be clustered round various seaports. The relative importance and the volume of coastal infection has increased since the late 1930s and these facts cannot be reconciled with the bird transmission theory. The tendency for a later spread of the disease in Britain has lessened in recent years, presumably because control methods have improved. The pattern of spread of disease within the Continent is also shown to be inconsistent with a theory involving birds as vectors. In Sweden the disease pattern has changed since Bullough (1942) examined the problem and it is very unlikely that bird movements have altered to account for this. It is concluded on the evidence so far available that some explanation other than one incriminating birds is necessary to account for the incidence of foot and mouth outbreaks of “obscure” origin in the English coastal counties.