   |
|
afrol News, 6 January - A virulent strain of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe in 2001 led to the controversial slaughter of almost four million animals. But East Africa's cattle-raising Maasai people don't kill their infected cattle. For them, foot-and-mouth disease has almost become a part of everyday life. According to a report from the UN fodd and agriculture agency FAO, the animal disease is so common the Maasai refer to it using the same word they use for the common cold: oloirobi. It occurs almost every rainy season with minimal loss of life. - This is the crucial difference between the strictly commercial approach to livestock and the Maasai approach, which is far more complex and incorporates both modern and traditional husbandry techniques, FAO reports. "Because the disease occurs infrequently in Europe, the farmers' response is to quickly eliminate infection by killing the infected animals and so avoid long-term financial losses caused by public fears of tainted meat." FAO notes that the Maasai people consider their cattle as more than simply financial assets - "a man and his herd are bound together in relationship defined by centuries of culture and survival in a harsh environment, and tempered by the changes brought about by European influences." Maasai communities in Tanzania and Kenya are "in a critical transition period," the UN agency notes. A pastoralist people, their traditional economy is based on nomadic herding of cattle from water hole to water hole. This process is at odds with the settled imperatives of commercial farming, which is central to both countries' developing economies. - FAO, which is working to maintain and strengthen food security for all, tries to balance the needs of the predominant cash economy with the cultural sensitivities of traditional peoples such as the Maasai, the agency states. - One of the points of difference between Maasai herders and commercial livestock farmers in Europe is vaccination, FAO notes. "In developing countries vaccination is the prime measure for controlling foot-and-mouth disease. It is about 80 percent effective," says FAO's Mark Rweyemamu, an expert in livestock diseases. Animals who get the disease and recover are slow to regain weight, and they produce less milk. Commercial farmers in Europe reject vaccination because of the risk of masking disease and the associated loss of productivity and the loss of trade, while Maasai herders vaccinate their animals when they can afford it. - A commercial farmer in Europe would not accept a mixed herd of healthy and recovered cattle, Dr. Rweyemamu told FAO. "The disease hampers productivity. Foot-and-mouth is like a wildcat strike in the manufacturing industry - it doesn't shut down the factory, but it does compromise the production." And, he says, it does the same with the Maasai herds. "The disease traps the Maasai into an 'ethnic poverty' trap," he explains. "Their cow recovers, but its value is compromised and this can lead to a rift with neighbouring commercial farmers who see the Maasai cattle as contaminated." In Maasailand, however, simply organizing a mass vaccination without taking into account the cultural role of cattle would be inappropriate, if not impossible, FAO notes. - We have to work with communities' values, not despite them, says Dr. Rweyemamu. "Vaccination is our primary weapon against the disease, but we have to understand and respect the whole social and economic dimension of a clinical problem."
|
