« Making sense of the evolving situation in Egypt | Main | Much concern regarding Egyptian H5N1 flareup »

So why was 2007 milder than 2006 for H5N1?

Posted on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 01:42PM by Registered CommenterScott McPherson in , | Comments2 Comments

The post-mortem (forgive the expression) for H5N1 around the world in 2007 shows, by any yardstick, an improved situation.  There were fewer reported human cases; fewer nations experienced the disease; and fewer human deaths.

Poultry, however, did not fare so well.  The numbers of poultry culled were in the tens of millions of birds.  There may be no real way to measure how many ducks, geese, swans, turkeys and chickens gave their lives for the eradication of H5N1.  Well, most of them were going to give their lives sooner or later, anyway.  Some 600,000 birds were culled in Russia in one week in late 2007. 

uploaded-file-81664It reminds me of the 1976 swine flu scare, when it was revealed to President Ford how many eggs were going to have to be laid in order to produce enough vaccine for every American.  Ford called in the ever-jovial Earl Butz, whose joviality eventually cost him his job as Secretary of Agriculture.  When Ford queried him about the sheer volume of eggs required for 200 million-plus doses of vaccine, Butz replied in deadpan:

"Mr. President, the roosters of America are prepared to do their duty!"

The economic impact of H5N1 was especially felt hard in Britain this year.  Roughly two hundred thousand British turkeys, geese and chickens in total were culled in February, November and December of 2007.  Holiday fowl had to be imported from as far away as Brazil.  And Britons were shelling out as much as $200 for a holiday bird! 

Britons Buy $200 Turkeys as Bird Flu Shrinks Christmas Supplies
By Brian Lysaght

Dec. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The 1,800 turkeys on Sheepdrove Farm in Britain's Berkshire Downs spent the summer and autumn feasting on grubs and wheat and roaming through meadows.

This month, these Norfolk Bronze birds with dark plumes and scarlet beaks were being slaughtered, hand-plucked and hung for 14 days on the 2,500-acre organic farm 60 miles west of London. It's the end of their rural idyll and the first step toward a hallowed British holiday tradition -- Christmas Day lunch.

Organic farms such as Sheepdrove are flourishing after one of the toughest-ever years for Britain's poultry industry. Nearly 200,000 birds were culled after outbreaks of a deadly form of bird flu and feed prices surged on higher wheat costs. That's pushed up holiday bird prices by as much as 38 percent and increased demand for organic turkeys, which cost as much as 100 pounds ($205).

Although Sheepdrove Farm stopped taking orders on Dec. 10, ``we've had about 100 calls since we sold out,'' said Michael Benson, the farm sales manager. He plans to raise 2,500 turkeys next year.

Sales of organic turkeys, which must be free ranging and raised on additive-free feed, will jump 46 percent this year, the British Retail Consortium predicts. That compares with a 7 percent increase the industry group forecasts for total turkey sales.

Consumers say the organic birds are safer and tastier.

Helen Day, a 36-year-old administrative assistant in London, said she'll splash out on a free-range turkey for Christmas. ``The flavor's better, and it's worth the money,'' she said.

A Better Bird

Richard Corrigan, chef at the Michelin-starred Lindsay House restaurant in central London, isn't balking at paying 15 percent more this year for organic birds to be served in his festive turkey salads as part of the restaurant's 55 pound tasting menu.

``The food I put in my mouth has to have lived a certain life,'' Corrigan said. ``Who wants to have hundreds and hundreds of birds in a shed?''

England had its first outbreak of the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu last February at a turkey farm operated by Bernard Matthews Holdings Ltd., Europe's largest factory poultry producer. More than 150,000 turkeys were killed to control the virus.

In November, another outbreak forced the slaughter of 15,500 turkeys, ducks and geese on two farms in Suffolk, eastern England. That may have been caused by wild birds mixing with free-range farm poultry, the U.K. government said in a report on Nov. 29.

Waitrose Ban

Premium supermarket chain Waitrose said Dec. 7 it won't stock organic Christmas turkeys this year because the farms where the disease was found, Redgrave Park Farm and Hill Meadow Farm in Suffolk, were suppliers.

The cancellation will probably further boost independent organic farmers, according to Anna Bassett, a poultry specialist with Britain's Soil Association. The group advises farmers about organic methods, which include rules about crop rotation, natural fertilizer and additive-free animal feeds.

In addition to the aftermath of the bird-flu outbreaks, farmers also face higher feed prices because of rising commodity costs. Wheat traded in Chicago rose above $10 a bushel for the first time on Dec. 17. The grain's price has more than doubled in the last year as drought reduced output from Canada to Australia.

Tom Copas, who raised 50,000 free-range and organic birds at his farm in Cookham, England, boosted his prices by 10 percent.  A medium-size organic Copas turkey is 13 pounds a kilo (2.2 pounds) with free-range, non-organic birds costing 9 pounds a kilo.

American Import

``Orders are coming in very well,'' said Copas, whose family has raised turkeys for 50 years and said most of the birds have been sold.

Turkeys first arrived in Britain in 1526, brought by Yorkshireman William Strickland, who acquired six birds from American Indian traders, according to the British Turkey Association. The tradition of eating turkey at Christmas dates from the 19th century, when it began to replace goose and more exotic fare such as swan and peacock. Last year, Britons bought 10 million Christmas turkeys.

Wholesale prices for turkeys have risen as much as 38 percent, according to a Nov. 30 survey by the U.K. government. Birds of up to 9 kilos are selling for 2.60 pounds a kilo compared with 1.88 pounds a year earlier, the survey said.

Last year, retail sales of organic products in the U.K. rose 22 percent to 1.94 billion pounds, the Soil Association said. The country's market for organic goods has grown 27 percent annually on average over the last decade. It's still a relatively small market, with organic making up 3 percent of all meat, poultry and fish sales, the group estimates.

Farmers say they believe the crisis will continue to drive sales.

``Our customers have the money to spend, they want the best for their families and are willing to pay the price,'' said Sheepdrove's Benson.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aohK8JhZoZLo&refer=europe with a hat-tip to Shannon of FluTrackers.

So why was 2007 more moderate for H5N1 than 2006?  I would give the following reasons:

Climate.  The year 2007 was, on balance, a much milder year than 2006. http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/winter-2007-global.html  The effects of climate on Influenza A are still not clearly understood, but the rule of thumb has been the milder the winter, the milder the virus.

Surveillance.  Surveillance has dramatically improved since 2003.  The world is, for the most part, operating solidly when it comes to surveillance.  There are far too many surveillance holes for us to become even remotely comfortable, but it is a much more favorable situation than in 2003.

Education.  People in remote areas have learned to better handle sick, dying and dead wildfowl, and to practice better hygiene.  People are also learning how to fully cook the virus out of their food. Word travels fast, even in remote areas of the planet, when death and disease are concerned.

Payments.  Compensation to farmers is becoming more equitable, and farmers are thus more apt to report when their flocks are infected.  This is not the rule everywhere, sadly.  It needs to become more prevalent.

Culling.  While difficult to track all culling operations, indications are that more poultry were culled in 2007 than in 2006.  This equates to fewer opportunities for the virus to mutate.  Also, culling technology and science is improving, as information and knowledge passes in ones and zeros, in real-time over the Internet.

Fewer nations reported the virus.  The FAO reports that 2007 saw initial emergence of H5N1 in five new nations, which is bad.  But the number of nations reporting H5N1 in poultry and in humans declined over the same period in 2006. http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//237149/ah693e.pdf

While we all can light cigars and celebrate this collective series of improvements, we also must recognize the flip side: 

Indonesia continues to worry us.  Sub-Saharan Africa is a powderkeg when it comes to -- well, when it comes to everything, including H5N1.  The new cluster cases in Pakistan and Egypt show us the virus is continuing to confound the experts. 

And finally, the sobering conclusion from the FAO:

In conclusion, in 2007 there has been an improvement in the general HPAI (H5N1) situation worldwide, but

there is still a risk of recurrence and spread of the infection, and the disease is becoming enzootic in some

regions.

Happy New Year.  Keep watching.

Reader Comments (2)

Indonesia quit reporting cases to the WHO in the early spring of 2006, as part of its ploy to withhold virus samples from the WHO so as to maintain exclusive access to them to try to extract free vaccine from the world community. Cases were still reported in the Indonesian press, but they were not fully caught up with when Indo. again began reporting cases to the WHO. If you check out the Flu Clinic Forums news sites through the period, you'll see that lethality and sheer number of cases through Jan-June 2006 was greater in Indonesia (and hence the world) than ever reported. Hence whether 2007 was lower actually in lethality or number of cases than 2006, and if so by how much, is open to some doubt.

January 9, 2008 | Unregistered Commenterrsm

It is easy at this time to confuse years (anyone write "2007" on their checks yet?), so I offer the friendly rejoinder that Indonesia withheld their samples beginning in early 2007.

The WHO obsesses over statistics, which is understandable since that is what medical professionals use to gauge the effectiveness of any remedy. I peruse virtually every flu site worth perusing, and if you read my entire blog history you will see that I tend to be skeptical of official pronouncements. But the WHO also will count Indonesian lab-generated positives, even if the WHO lacks the ability to confirm the test results themselves, so I think the WHO figures, compared to previous years, are indeed accurate.

Whether that actually traces the real number of infected is, of course, a matter of speculation. Most of us believe the actual number of infected, dead, false negatives and asymptomatic infected is magnitudes higher than what the WHO is reporting. And I sincerely believe that is where the "flublogosphere" comes into play.

That is also where I think I come into play. A lot of policy makers read my blogs in an effort to get the "big picture" and make some sense of the chatter out there. I try to distill all these reports into some sort of panorama in order to give readers a context of what is happening. I also felt it very important to get in early on the inevitable argument to occur about preparing for a pandemic when the numbers declined from 2006. People will use the declining figures as prima facia evidence for not preparing. I felt it important to give our side some talking points to refute the naysayers.

Many thanks for the post! keep them coming.
Scott

January 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterScott McPherson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>