Avian Influenza - Related Issues

Reportedly on the 16th more than 80 million chickens had been slaughtered and the Highly Pathogenic strain of Avian Influenza [HPAI] had been detected in 10 Asian countries. [China, Indonesia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Lao DPR, Thailand, Japan and the Republic of Korea] Other less pathogenic strains of AI have been identified in Taiwan province of China, Pakistan, USA and Canada.

The region's poultry industry is said to be devastated and FAO has advised vaccination as a control measure as the culling programmes in operation are failing to halt progress of the disease.

Negative Socio-economic effects include:

• The most dramatic effect of the disease is in the reported deaths of 22 people in Thailand and in Viet Nam who have contracted avian influenza through contact with infected birds. Fortunately, so far, human to human transfer of infection has not been detected. The danger of being in contact with infected birds has caused a drop in consumption put at as high a level as 80% in parts of India [where the disease has not been reported].

• Culling birds in order to eradicate and control the spread of the disease is having a negative impact on the livelihoods of all classes of poultry owners and producers and their employees. Such an impact is most serious on the smaller family operated commercial producers for whom poultry production is their sole source of income generation. This facto has been specifically reported from Viet Nam.

• In addition to the culling several countries have discontinued imports of poultry and poultry meat. These include China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Republic of Korea all of which have banned imports from USA following a reported outbreak of a less virulent strain of AI and India which has banned imports of poultry and poultry meat from everywhere.

• The markets lost through the reduced ability to export, through restriction of movement of birds and the closure of some domestic markets has further affected income generating ability, especially for the smaller producers. (Singapore, parts of China)

• The restriction of movement of birds, newly introduced market regulations in several countries has reduced the ability of producers to sell their poultry thereby reducing their incomes.

• Restriction of imports to Hong Kong and to Singapore both of poultry meat and of eggs has had a negative impact on the animal protein intake of a large sector of the population.

• Singapore has banned all small scale poultry farming which will critically reduce the incomes of many poorer households.

• Tourism has been negatively affected in Thailand, but less seriously than it was during the SARS outbreak, with the consequent negative impact on incomes.

• It has been reported from Viet Nam that the virus has been isolated from a small number of pigs. And from past experience of other strains of AI it is possible that the virus will cross this species barrier potentially placing even more livelihoods at risk in Asia.

• It has also been reported from Thailand that the infection has been found in a leopard and in open billed storks and from Hong Kong in a peregrine falcon. The implication of this is not good either for wildlife or for biodiversity.

Source:WATT Poultry Global e-News: on 9, 12 and 16/02/2004

Transboundary diseases are a permanent threat for livestock keepers. They have major economic implications - both through the private and public costs of the outbreak, and through the costs of the measures taken at individual, collective and international levels in order to prevent or control infection and disease outbreaks.

The paper argues the economic rationale for public intervention, based on the public good nature of many control efforts. The need for public intervention frequently extends to the international level and calls for international and regional co-operation, without which in many cases control efforts can not be expected to be effective. However, in practice it can be more difficult to determine which is the appropriate level and type of control, or what is the proper mix between private and public and national and international action.

One problem is that the paucity of accurate data and information on the costs of both transboundary animal diseases and of control efforts make decisions difficult on the most cost-effective interventions. It can also be difficult to ensure the necessary collective action, particularly at the international level, as involved parties and countries may have quite different incentives to participate in control efforts. Closely related to this is the question of the proper sharing of costs of controlling transboundary animal diseases.

The recent years have seen both progress and retreat. The technical ability to control old problems has greatly advanced and improved information exchange has facilitated reaction to the emergence of transboundary animal diseases. At the same time, however, increased movements of people and goods have facilitated the spreading of many transboundary animal diseases, while a number of new forms of diseases have appeared - the emergence and spreading of BSE in Europe and SARS in East Asia being notable examples.

These developments strengthen the case for collective action at the regional and international level. Some of the challenges are the following:

• Improve the economic evaluation of the costs of transboundary animal diseases and of various control efforts. This will help in choosing technically effective and cost-effective solutions and in devising appropriate mechanisms for cost-sharing and funding of preventive and remedial action. In many instances, new ways of managing the economic impacts (e.g. through insurance schemes) may be more cost effective than controlling the transboundary animal disease directly. Strengthen international and regional co-operation; the public good nature of prevention and control of transboundary animal diseases calls for collectively agreed, funded and managed responses.

• Enhance the capacity of developing countries both for national action and for participation in collective efforts; not all countries can by themselves face the cost of prevention and reaction to transboundary animal diseases. In particular, a clear need exists to help developing countries meet the requirements of the SPS Agreement of WTO in order to fully participate in the international trading system. Particular attention to their needs in terms of assistance is required.

In the light of the Avian Influenza crisis in SE Asia, it may be helpful for countries to review the use of poultry litter and poultry by-products in animal feed.

Poultry manure/poultry litter is fed to ruminants in some countries as a source of non-protein nitrogen (mixed on the farm with corn and other ingredients). It is however banned in the European Union and Canada. There is also now a proposal by the United States Food and Drug Administration to ban this practice.

Given that poultry manure/poultry litter containing droppings, feathers and waste feed is a potentially high-risk material, FAO recommends that the feeding of poultry manure/poultry litter should be banned in countries affected by or at risk from avian influenza, even if correctly composted, ensiled or dried with heat treatment.

Even when not used as feed, poultry manure/poultry litter should be subject to careful control. It may be incinerated or subject to steam treatment at a temperature of 70^oC. Alternatively, it may be buried, ensiled or composted and kept covered for 42 days to prevent access by vermin, wild birds and scavenging animals. Run-off into water courses must be prevented.

Processed and rendered by-products from slaughtered poultry are also used in animal feeds.

Feather meal, a product resulting from hydrolysing poultry feathers, is produced in pressurized chambers at 2-3 bar pressure for 30-60 minutes at a minimum of 121^oC, followed by drying, grinding and packaging.

Poultry meal is the dry rendered product from a combination of clean flesh and skin with or without accompanying bone, derived from the parts of whole carcasses of poultry or a combination thereof, exclusive of feathers, heads, feet and entrails. Poultry by-product meal consists of the ground, rendered, clean parts of the carcass of slaughtered poultry, such as necks, feet, undeveloped eggs and intestines. These products are usually produced in batch processes where the minimum temperature is 121^oC and minimum retention time is in excess of 40 minutes. The Office International des Þpizooties (OIE) states that the Avian Influenza virus is inactivated at a temperature of 56^oC for 3 hours or 60^oC for 30 minutes.

In the light of the risk of Avian Influenza spreading between flocks and across borders, FAO considers the feeding of poultry by-product meals as safe and not a contributor to the spread of the virus where processing conditions are in excess of that needed to kill the virus.

Where OIE or industry standards are not being followed in those countries affected by Avian Influenza, FAO recommends that the use of poultry by-products is discontinued including the use of all meat and bone meal containing avian material and/or feather meal.

Unaffected countries should confirm that imported poultry by-product meals and feather meals have been processed to the above standards. Otherwise a temporary ban on feeding of poultry by-product meal and feather meal should be considered.

Note: This modified release updates and supersedes that placed on the website in February 2004.

The South East Asia region accounts for approximately one-quarter of world poultry trade (including re-exports from Hong Kong) with China and Thailand the largest exporters. Accounting for 15 percent of global poultry shipments, these two countries are estimated to have exported almost 1.1 million tonnes in 2003, more than half of which went to Japan. To-date, many of the major poultry importing countries have banned poultry imports from both countries.

The impact of countries banning both Thai and Chinese poultry exports are leading to higher international poultry prices and increasing demand for poultry meat from other major suppliers, such as the United States, Brazil and the EU. This also puts upward pressure on other meat prices which were already increasing due to current bans on US and Canadian beef due to BSE concerns. In particular, meat prices in S.E. Asian markets, such as Japan, Taiwan province of China and the Republic of Korea, where AI is reducing poultry inventories and which are traditionally highly dependent on U.S. beef imports, should rise very quickly.

In the Japanese market, where nearly 70 percent of domestic consumption is supplied by imports. The ban on chicken imports from Thailand and China-suppliers which accounts for nearly three quarters of Japanese poultry imports is expected to result in increased imports from other suppliers such as the United States and Brazil. As a result of market shortages, Japanese wholesale prices for frozen leg quarters are reported to be up nearly 45 percent from pre-ban prices. In Singapore, a market highly dependent on imported poultry, media sources indicate that prices for frozen chicken imports are up by as much as 20 percent since the disease outbreak. Furthermore, meat consumption patterns are shifting with fast food chains in some countries reporting switching to selling fish burgers rather than chicken products.

The disease impact is likely to be most felt by smallholders and smaller specialised broiler and layer operations which lack the bio-security measures put in place by the larger commercial units. This has the potential to accelerate trends towards the industrialisation of poultry operations in the affected countries.

Table: Poultry Exports in 2002, by destination (Source: FAO data trade flow)

To/From:	China	Thailand	China	Thailand
	Volume (1,000 tonnes)		Value (millions $)
Japan	336.6	289	636.9	557
EU:	4	171	7.2	331
Germany	1	50.7	2.7	91.8
UK	0.023	65	0.066	138
Netherlands	2.4	46	2.6	82
Other	219.7	92	223.9	117
Total	560.3	552	868	1005
Share to:
Japan	60%	52%	73%	55%
EU:	1%	31%	1%	33%
Germany	0%	9%	0%	9%
UK	0%	12%	0%	14%
Netherlands	0%	8%	0%	8%
Other	39%	17%	26%	12%

 

The intensive commercial producers are better placed to withstand the shock of the epidemic and rebuild their industry. The poorer farmers and small to medium-scale poultry producers will be the hardest hit and the least able to recover from the crisis. Both the direct and indirect effects of the crisis will have a devastating impact on the livelihoods of both the resource poor households who kept poultry in household flocks as well as the small to medium-scale commercial producers.

In Thailand poultry owning smallholders are the most affected by the crisis as they own 30% of the number of chickens and represent 97% of the number of holdings. Investigation and assessment of the impact of disease in these smallholders system will be a very difficult task, for example in Thailand they represent some 3 million households.

To alleviate the economic and social impact of the avian influenza epidemic on the most vulnerable sectors of society will require a substantive, well prepared and targeted programme of rehabilitation and assistance. Under the mandate of FAO and in the frame of a Regional TCP prepared by AGA, a prerequisite to implementing an effective rehabilitation programme, both in the immediate and longer-term, will be a thorough understanding of the social and economic impact the disease has had on the different poultry production systems in region.

The objectives of this component of the Regional TCP are to analyze and understand the social and economic impact of the avian influenza outbreak on poultry production and producers livelihoods. The results will form a rational basis for comprehensive and meaningful rehabilitation programmes being development by the national authorities with the assistance of FAO.

Reports from the field:

Field Report-Viet Nam
The situation in general and about the impact on smallholders in particular is difficult to get a clear picture of the problem in a country with millions of smallholders, extension and veterinary services over-loaded and erratic information flow. What is certain is that all farmers are affected either directly (diseased/deceased birds) or indirectly (plummeting poultry prices and loss of income). Earlier this week local transport of poultry was banned, so it clearly means incomes lost due to loss of assets (birds) as well as market closure.