Foot and Mouth

Environment Food and Rural Affairs written question – answered on 6th November 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tim Yeo Tim Yeo Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms included in the foot and mouth cull but not recognised as infected premises have had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth; and what proportion of these recorded positive results.

Photo of Elliot Morley Elliot Morley Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

holding answer 25 June 2001

As at 22 October a total of 7,294 Dangerous Contacts (DC) and 255 Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) cases, which had not been recognised as Infected Premises, had laboratory tests conducted. Of these, five yielded positive results and subsequently became IPs and were recorded as such.

Notes:

In addition to IPs and SOS cases, contiguous premises and DC premises have had samples taken from sheep at slaughter to further inform the Department as to origin and spread of disease. Some of these were subsequently recorded as IPs as they yielded positive laboratory results. A negative result does not necessarily mean that disease was not present. In the main, testing was for antibody, ie looking for evidence of origin (older disease).

Source:

DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 22 October—these figures may be subject to change as quality assurance of the data are carried out.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.