from Richard Thomas; works with Birdlife International, here in his personal capacity:
Where’s his evidence for this? There’s circumstantial evidence this is not true in the Nigerian case, and I find it hard to believe in several other countries too.
A clear distinction needs to be made between farms that have in place sound biosecurity systems, which usually remain free from disease, and those where production systems are inadequate to prevent entry of pathogens.
So, an admission that even those with sound biosecurity systems only “usually remain free from disease”. Not always then – and what happens when they get it? They’re the biggest single producers who export the furthest.
USDA and FAO both used this term to describe them.
True, but it’s not these farms that ship their products world-wide.
This article also suggests that the virus needs to circulate in poultry to become pathogenic. This is not the case with the H5N1 viruses circulating currently. These are already highly pathogenic from the moment they enter a flock and have been since 1996.
That’s what I understood the article to be saying.
Agreed it’s predominantly a poultry disease – so why this misguided focus on migrant birds? Where’s the FAO reports on the international poultry trade?
Cheers
Richard
Post edited by: martin, at: 2006/03/02 11:47