Bird Flu: another perspective

Ok, here is an article I'd published in the Examiner farming pages on Bird Flu.

At present, there is only one dominant perspective on preventing the spread of bird flu. This perspective presents the problem as wild birds and outdoor birds, and the solution as indoor, regulated birds. In the interest of balance I think it is worth keeping an open mind to other perspectives.

While it is important to avoid overstating the risk, there are serious consequences at stake.

These include global human health, international trade, the survival of the small poultry farmer and indeed rural communities in the majority world, the survival of organic poultry production in the 1^st world, genetic diversity, co-existence between different ideologies of farming and animal welfare.

While I don�t necessarily fully endorse the position, it is noteworthy that another perspective is emerging on how to treat the most virulent strain of bird flu, the H5N1 strain.

The alternative scenario has been most strongly put recently by the biodiversity-supporting international NGO, Grain.

Firstly, they make the point that bird flu has been around for years, but that the current virulent strain is new, and it is as new as the transnational chicken industry. The countries in south east Asia where the disease has been most prominent, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, along with China, are the countries with the most intensive production and the widest geographical reach of produce.

The argument is that densely populated chicken houses, with a genetic uniformity, are the perfect breeding ground for ever more rapid strains of diseases in general, including H5N1. This, coupled with the speed of and range at which poultry and poultry by-products are transported is spreading the disease.

When wild birds do come into contact with the stronger strain, they cannot cope and they die. Wild birds have �co-existed� with a weaker stain for years, but cannot cope with this �industrially-led and spread� version.

"Everyone is focused on migratory birds and backyard chickens as the problem," says Devlin Kuyek of GRAIN. "But they are not effective vectors of highly pathogenic bird flu. The virus kills them, but is unlikely to be spread by them."

So it is the occasional geographical proximity between the two systems, �open� and �closed� that is the problem, not the existence of an open system.

Indeed, the genetic diversity of the open system acts as a buffer against disease spread. According to Grain, �there are reports from the World Organisation of Animal Health of local chickens surviving the H5N1 virus�.

The Laos anomaly is used to back up this thesis. Laos does not have anything like the intensive production system of its neighbours, and importantly, there is very little contact between the two systems, intensive and backyard. (In neighbouring countries, day-old chicks and feed are sold from the intensive to the backyard systems) Laos has not had anything like the bird flu problems of its neighbours � the ones mentioned earlier. It�s only problems have been in and around the few intensive poultry farms it has. According to Grain, �Laos effectively stamped out the disease by closing the border to poultry from Thailand and culling chickens at the commercial operations�.

Grain claim that outbreaks in south east Asia have been specifically liked to large scale trade in poultry and feed from a particular Thai company. Likewise, trade between the Netherlands and Nigeria has been cited as a cause for an outbreak in the latter. Indeed, acting on the basis of trade as a cause and not migration prevented further outbreaks in Nigeria, it is claimed.

In lay terms, the argument is that backyard flocks can accommodate a mild but fairly widespread version of the problem, but intensive systems amplify and develop the problem for all concerned - including, potentially, humans.

In this context, ironically, the solution of global restructuring towards more regulated, closed and intensive system is also the cause.

Along with this, doubt is being cast on the migratory bird thesis itself. According to Birdlife, �When plotted, the pattern of outbreaks follows major road and rail routes, not (bird) flyways� according to Birdlife�s Dr. Richard Thomas. He cites various countries that should have gotten the H5N1 strain last autumn, but didn�t, �if wild birds are the primary carriers�.

This thesis is both challenging and troubling, on many levels. But is deserves to be heard.

You can access the full report from Grain at: http://www.grain.org/go/birdflu