THE optimism expressed here last Friday that the foot-and-mouth outbreak could be contained was sadly misplaced. The number of confirmed incidents late yesterday afternoon had risen to 30.

Despite the best efforts of ministry vets and officials, the contagion has spread all over the country. Amazingly, North Yorkshire is one corner of the UK which so far appears to have escaped.

The effects of the outbreak have been felt everywhere nevertheless. The countryside is virtually paralysed. Whether it is a ramblers' club walk, a Young Farmers' club meeting or a point-to-point, everything is coming to a halt. The fear has been almost palpable as the number of cases has risen.

The potential damage to the industry and the country is hard to estimate but it will be more than most people think. The compensation paid to farmers who have their animals slaughtered is peanuts compared to the cost of lost markets at home and abroad. As we saw during the BSE crisis, other countries will take every opportunity to boost their own domestic farm industries. Even when foot-and-mouth is eradicated every bureaucratic hurdle imaginable will be placed in the way of Britain resuming its export trade. Whilst saner voices on the Continent have said: "There but for the grace of God go us", others have grasped the opportunity to suggest that British agricultural methods are somehow inferior to European ones, an idea which could not be further from the truth.

What has become very clear in the course of this week is that changes in the way animals are slaughtered and traded, in Britian and elsewhere, have meant the established systems for dealing with the disease are now in doubt.

The transportation of cattle, sheep and pigs long distances to huge markets and abattoirs has made the tracing of infection that much harder.

To an extent this is the fault of European regulations which have put out of business the smaller slaughterhouses which could not cope with the red tape and slaughter standards introduced in the wake of the BSE crisis. Blame, if that is the right word, can also be laid at the door of the industry's desire to become more efficient. The trend of market closures and amalgamations has been part of that process and has led to animals being moved much greater distances than at the time of the last foot-and-mouth outbreak in 1967.

As and when the outbreak is contained, a host of questions will need to be answered about the future of British livestock farming. Should the regulations be changed in an attempt to turn the clock back to the days when animals where reared, slaughtered/process- ed and consumed in a relatively restrictive geographical area? Is that feasible when the retailing of meat and meat products is dominated by big players like supermarkets which can only operate on a national or even global scale?

Should greater efforts be made to find a more effective vaccine against the disease? The existing vaccine is not 100pc reliable, which seems incredible given that foot-and-mouth has been a known animal disease for almost 100 years. Perversely, use of the existing vaccine is discouraged because use of it implies that the host country has a foot-and-mouth problem.

Such questions will need serious consideration in the light of our alarming inability to deal with a disease which may not be as old as the hills but has certainly been a known threat in the modern agricultural era.