Aggressive Culling Could Have Saved More Animals from Foot and Mouth

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Earlier this year, vast numbers of livestock in Great Britain were affected by a foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic that swept through the countryside. Now, a report published in today¿s issue of the journal Nature examines the effectiveness of treatment strategies used to control the virus, including the slaughter of more than 3.5 million animals. "This is the most thorough analysis yet of the epidemic," says co-author Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London. "It has enabled us to evaluate the different policies in turn and it clearly shows the need for a rapid and complete contiguous culling policy for disease control and eventual elimination."

The scientists used farm animal census data, along with disease and slaughter information, for all the farms in Great Britain to develop models of transmission rates and of the epidemic's control, which began in early February. Their findings suggest that extended culling programs¿which called for killing animals on infected premises, as well as those on adjacent farms even before infection was confirmed¿were essential to controlling the epidemic. Swiftness to slaughter is paramount in controlling FMD because infected animals can transmit the disease before they show symptoms and because the virus can live outside a host. The Imperial team proposes that the culling policy could have reduced the number of cases by 16 percent¿and saved 30 percent of the culled animals¿had it been fully implemented by April 1.

The study also highlights risk factors for farms in Great Britain: large farms are more vulnerable than smaller ones; cattle farms are most at risk, followed by sheep and pig farms; and farms composed of many scattered fields have a higher risk of transmission due to increased movement of personnel and vehicles between separated land areas.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In their report, the researchers refrain from making any predictions regarding the extinction of the English epidemic. And because the virus may be more viable in colder temperatures, the scientists now urge farmers not to lift movement restrictions or relax biosecurity controls, such as the use of disinfectant on vehicles and clothing. "We will not have learnt the lesson of 1967 if restrictions are relaxed," warns co-author Christl Donnelly, referring to England's last major outbreak of FMD.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe