No Nation/No foot-and-mouth disease vaccine does not generate commercial differences with meat, experts say

A few years ago, the controversy over whether or not to vaccinate against foot and mouth disease in cattle in the area was fixed. In this regard, farmer and expert in the sector Martín Rapetti, who is also the leader of the Argentine Rural Confederation (CRA), explains that there are currently no differences when it comes to marketing beef of pro-vaccine origin or not.

Rapetti said, in contact with the Pro channel, that this is a somewhat controversial issue and that, based on it, there are two cases, that is, who supports vaccination and who believes that it is not. In addition, he noted that this rift has always existed at the level of Mercosur, but today it has grown as a result of the fact that several states in Brazil have made the decision to stop vaccinating livestock.

“The rift is starting to widen because Brazil has stopped systematic vaccination for several states and we can’t say anything, just talk to them,” he said. On this point, he said that Paraguay takes this fact into account.

Also read: Critical Mobility: They assert dredging should have started in December

He even said that he had heard statements from the authorities of the National Service for Animal Health and Quality (Senacsa) about the Brazilian decision and that it meant too much for our livestock. “I heard that the president of Synaxa said that Brazil’s success would be an alternative to stopping vaccination,” he said.

Rapetti confirmed that the position for or against only speaks of discrimination, which in short does not contradict the quality of the final product. He stressed that “what we want to say and maintain is that it ends with discrimination.”

It may interest you: Fuel: “The Executive has no power to propose or interfere with cost”

On the other hand, he asserted that for US$3 they “couldn’t risk losing their (domestic) status, noting that in 2001, there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Argentina, a fact that left cattle stripping on the ground.” It had to be achieved, only one was achieved, which was to keep the syringe and not do the control,” he said.

The point concluded by addressing the controversial topic from the scientific field and indicated that they had done many works in his country with scientific and technical organizations that proved that there were no significant differences in terms of quality if the beef contained the dose or not. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *