News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Horse flu leaves industry split on vaccine 

Horse flu leaves industry split on vaccine

25/08/2008 6:12:00 AM
One year since swabs taken at Sydney's Centennial Park confirmed Australia's first case of equine influenza, the horse industries remain divided on whether compulsory vaccination is the best way to prevent another break-out.

Racing NSW wants compulsory vaccination of thoroughbreds and other competition horses nationally, arguing these horses are most likely to spread any new outbreak because they travel extensively.

"We believe that in any commercial industry you've got to have risk management. By not having vaccination you've got no risk management whatsoever," the head of Racing NSW, Peter V'Landys, said.

Mr V'Landys believes Australia is at a high risk of a recurrence because no country has eradicated the disease.

He said Australia should copy England in vaccinating competitive horses as they have only lost a week's worth of racing in 20 years.

Mr V'Landys said every thoroughbred in NSW had already been vaccinated with the exception of the horses that had contracted equine influenza last year.

While vaccination has been criticised because of the likelihood that mutations will become resistant, Mr V'Landys argued that "with booster shots you can contain any mutation".

The NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, supported Racing NSW's proposal to restrict vaccination to competition horses.

"You would vaccinate twice annually your performance horses and it wouldn't be compulsory for all other horse breeders. It would be optional," he said.

With a national summit on the issue due next month, Mr Macdonald said it would be necessary for the racing industry to lobby the Commonwealth because there was resistance from other states.

"Most of the world does vaccinate," he said. "There is a massive risk of not vaccinating."

But the Equestrian Federation of Australia and Pony Club Australia opposed compulsory vaccination.

"Compulsory vaccination is not only quite costly in the long term, it also does not offer guarantees against future outbreak and the imposition of movement restrictions," the federation's chief executive, Franz Venhaus, said.

"It will also make the detection of any infection much more difficult."

Fiona Carruthers, who has just published The Horse In Australia, said vaccination is controversial because it was so traumatic for horse owners.

"From all the parties I talked to, I can see both points of view," she said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size



Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
When the first outbreak occurred and in the weeks that followed, the equine industry began the blame game with AQIS the prime target. The industry attempted to divert attention from its own inadequate controls and lax standards of quality assurance - now it is looking for compulsory rules, perhaps it should start with its own paddock first. Competition horses are a business and each is a seperate enterprise; how about the right to choose whether to minimise the rise or not and by how much without regulation - that way the responsibility is on the business owner to look out for the best interests of the industry as a whole. The bottom line is investment over risk and let the market set the price.
Posted by The Realist on 26/08/2008 8:38:29 AM
For anything horse related the media always looks to the racing industry. While they are the most profitable, they do not represent all Australian horse owners. My horses were not vaccinated during EI and I don't want my horses vaccinated. I compete in a horse sport that involves distance travel on weekends.

I also work with vets and was involved in the response to EI and vaccination to me sounds like a dangerous route to take. Firstly, the virus has been eradicated, ongoing vaccination is expensive, I don't see how it will work with some horses vaccinated and some not, and should another strain come in (on another racehorse) vaccinated horses will be the ones carrying the disease around the country because they won't be showing symptoms and the disease will be masked. If this is the case it will in more than two States and perhaps not eradicable.

What's good for the racing industry isn't good for all and at the end of the day why is it THEIR decision? Perhaps money talks?

Posted by getreal on 26/08/2008 9:59:16 AM
In the USA I have heard people are killing and eating their horses because they cannot afford to keep them. Unfortunately this is no longer regulated as horse abattoirs or knackeries have been closed down by animal activists. Who should pay for the horse habit? DPI? RLPB? Who will be left to eradicate the next exotic disease that may well lead us to famine. Why are chickens with flu killed but horses allowed to live? Are not both influenzas capable of crossing species to humans?
Posted by Common Cents on 26/08/2008 10:33:50 AM

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
A long year … the author of The Horse In Australia , Fiona Carruthers, with her horse Charlie in stables near Centennial Park yesterday. Photo: Dean Sewell
A long year … the author of The Horse In Australia , Fiona Carruthers, with her horse Charlie in stables near Centennial Park yesterday. Photo: Dean Sewell

Q: Do you support AWB's decision to extend the voting period for its push to restructure the shareholding system?

Yes
(48%)

No
(41%)

Undecided
(11%)

Total Votes: 273
Poll Date: 24/08/2008

11/12/2008 | Farm lobby groups will decide next week whether the future of farm representation will stay as it is or be broadened to bring in the big end of town.
NQR Subscriptions
 
Rural Bookshop
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...