Combating bird flu
BANGLADESH'S poultry industry is one of the world's largest, producing 220 million chicken and 37 million ducks annually, while millions of households rely on poultry production for income and food. The industry was first hit by bird flu in February 2007, that mainly affected backyard chicken belonging to hapless poverty stricken people in the back country when bird flu wasn't high on Bangladesh's list of things to solve. It resurfaced in January 2008, affecting 271 farms in 78 upazilas in 43 districts till date. The industry is now confronted with its greatest challenge since large-scale poultry farming was first introduced in the 1980s, and, with an investment of about $1.457 billion, is on the verge of collapse following the outbreak of bird flu.
Worldwide, the mainstream practice is to cull the poultry population on detection of the disease. This practice has very adversely impacted poultry sectors in China, Thailand, and some other countries where large scale culling was carried out. The Food and Agricultural Organisation's (Fao) prescription of culling of all the fowls within a 1 mile radius of an infected farm can be an ideal preventive measure, which is economically viable for any European country where, for mile after mile around a farm, no human habitation and no other susceptible poultry farms exist.
Usually, a farming community in Bangladesh is developed in a village or a specific area, where farms are located next to each other because of dense population, and for supporting each other logistically. When a single farm, whatever its size, is infected, hundreds of surrounding farms need to be brought under surveillance, and concurrent culling of all the birds, including healthy ones, has to be undertaken.
In a country like Bangladesh, which is trying desperately to tone down the menace of poverty of its vast population, the Fao prescription to defend against bird flu has hurt us economically. Almost 5 million Bangladeshis are directly or indirectly affiliated to the poultry industry for their livelihood, with almost 1.5 lacs farms dispersed country wide adding some $833 million to the country's GDP. Added to that are another 7.5 million households maintaining small backyard coops that provide almost 70 percent of the country's annual chicken output.
The poultry industry has been registering 20 percent growth over the last few years -- the fastest growth rate for any industry in the country. With the present bird flu panic, and culling of 8,83,613 chicken and destruction of 11,02,669 eggs from 271 farms (The Daily Star, 22.2.08), this budding industry has plummeted, and has forced the closure of 40 percent of the nation's poultry farms, leaving thousands jobless. According to a rough estimate, bird flu has caused a loss of about $714 million to the poultry industry.
With Bangladesh having 50% infants stunted and undernourished (IFPRI, 2004), chicken and eggs getting off the menu out of panic and scarcity has increased the menace of undernourishment. The Fao prescription, with the resulting deepening poverty and malnutrition, is causing substantial harm to our economy and staking the health and lives of our already economically hard-pressed population.
Without gearing up many other preventive measures, adoption of the extreme option of culling the fowls is an unsustainable self-destructive approach. Cooking the chicken flesh at 600 C or above and boiling the eggs make them safe enough for consumption, but many are unaware of this reality and get panicky. It is incessantly being brought to our notice by the media that fowls are being handled by the sellers without gloves and face-masks, and dead birds are littered indiscriminately. This increases our vulnerability.
We have appallingly failed to educate our poultry farmers about bird flu, which is the fundamental need in the present context. We could not effectively propagate the simple message to all that life is more important than transient economic loss, or offer adequate incentive to farmers to go voluntarily to the appropriate authority with their sick poultry, to strengthen the ongoing preventive measure. That is why forced culling has become the key option.
In Bangladesh, chickens are traditionally bought live from the market and slaughtered at home -- and this presents a challenge. After the bird's throat is slit, it thrashes about and its blood splashes all over the courtyard. The blood is not washed away, nor are the remains properly disposed of. Instead, the bird is thrown away where wild birds may eat it. Home-grown chickens generally roam about the courtyard and defecate, with residents carrying the faeces into their homes on their bare feet. Amongst the very poorest people, residents and animals, including chickens, often share the same house -- and chicken faeces are either dumped in the backyard or spread over the kitchen garden as manure. These traditional practices are most dangerous, as they allow the bird flu virus to spread, but these issues remain mostly ignored in our set-mind approach.
In the wake of spreading of the bird flu, panicked people in urban areas have stopped eating chicken, ducks and eggs, while most restaurants and hospitals have taken chicken out of their menus.
Prices of chicks and eggs have also come down heavily. Unemployment and mounting poverty among Bangladeshis at the bottom of the economic ladder are daunting challenges in the fight against bird flu. In a flash, one of the world's most dynamic areas of poultry farming has been practically ruined, and the livelihoods of millions of poor families pushed to the brink. This has been caused not so much by bird flu as by the response to it.
Paradoxically, Fao is silent about the irreparable loss of diversity that the culling would entail, and about the alternatives that have been successfully employed in some countries. The message raised at the conference in Delhi by some within the Fao ranks, about the need to consider the social impacts of responses and the importance of "targeted" culls, was quickly forgotten. Not that such matters are high on the agenda of the international community anyway, judging from the disturbing inability to resolve international disputes over the sharing of virus samples and vaccines. The row that flared up in February 2007 over patenting issues -- between the powerful pharmaceutical interests, led by the US and the UK, and the poor countries most vulnerable to bird flu, led by Indonesia -- is yet to be resolved.
Any policy decision imposed from outside will be unfriendly to local interests. We cannot expect any outsider to plan for our best, taking into cognisance our limitations and strengths. A policy that does not consider local influencing factors can never help materialise the aspirations of our populace. For us, for all the above reasons, selective culling of fowls with highest bio-security measures and education is the most appropriate strategic option to fight against bird flu. We can do no better for the population when policy itself invites catastrophe and sufferings for the habitants.
Comments