ALREADY it is clear that the main lesson of the foot-and-mouth catastrophe will not be learned. Clinging doggedly to the no-vaccination policy, both the NFU and the Ministry of Agriculture fail, or refuse, to recognise that the mass destruction of animals, their preferred alternative, is incompatible with the modern pattern of farming. The irony that this is also largely a beast of their own creation seems equally lost on them.

Even in the 1967 outbreak, which was confined to Shropshire and Cheshire, over 400,000 animals had to be slaughtered. Today's larger herds and more complex animal movements make it almost inevitable that, unless an outbreak is spotted immediately, the slaughter of infected animals risks turning very quickly into the kind of holocaust we are now witnessing.

For we delude ourselves if we scapegoat the Government, which has followed its chief vet's advice throughout. The claims of delay on this or that mirror the near-impossible logistics of mass slaughter rather than incompetence by anyone. Except, of course, that belief, shared by Maff and the NFU, that there were no more than 2,000 sheep movements in the fortnight between the probable outbreak of the disease and its detection, when there were 1.35 billion.

Looking at the grim pyres and death pits, I find it hard to imagine anyone, including the slaughter-advocates of the NFU and Maff, regards the destruction of animals on this scale as acceptable.

Mind you, Ben Gill, NFU president, gives a very good impression. He repeatedly trots out the anti-vaccine arguments. The loss of exports, for example. Often quoted as "up to £1.2bn annually'', these have actually been running at around £570m a year. The tourist industry earns as much every fortnight.

Then there is the claim that vaccination is not "100 per cent effective". We aren't told what per cent effective it is. Very high, I suspect, not least because today's vaccines are much improved on those available 30 years ago. Since foot-and-mouth presents no threat to humans, and the great majority of its animal victims recover quickly, there is a strong case for accepting the disease as part of farming. But vaccines give us the power to control it benignly, sparing the animals' discomfort.

Of course, both vaccination and tolerance shave profits. Which underlines that what fuels the funeral pyres is economics rather than any health fear. And yet the result is the economic meltdown of the entire rural community. Madness. I've said it now four weeks in a row.

Given the slight impact of the disease, the world-wide ban on trade in meat or animals from countries with the disease rests on flimsy foundations. Last week, I quoted a retired farmer who, when foot-and-mouth ran through his herds in Kenya, found the effects to be "minimal". Closer to home is the remarkable example of what happened when the Duke of Westminster's Cheshire estate was exempted from the slaughter policy during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth in 1922.

The Duke's herdsmen nursed 400 cattle, 300 sheep and 250 pigs through the outbreak. The chief treatment was to syringe the mouth and feet with a mixture of salt and water. Kept clean and dry throughout, the feet were later dressed with mild tar. Only two cows and very few of the other animals died. The others were back to full health within two to three weeks, and - here's the cruncher - the next summer several won prizes at the Royal Show.

How many potential prize winners of this and future summers have been burned or dumped in a pit? All arguments of detail aside, mass slaughter, if it involves more than a localised handful of farms, is a barbarism which should have no place in this new century.

Published: Wednesday, April 04, 2001