It would be pointless looking because they have decided that Britain's healthy pigs do not have MRSA.
It's an argument that pleases them. We will see how they get on in court when the British Government faces massive claims for compensation after eleven years of veterinary deceit.
It will be interesting to see how they explain why British pork productivity per pig is about 25 percent lower than Belgium's.
If the Belgian pigs have MRSA, something that has been admitted for years, and yet produce much more pork, imagine the real situation in Britain.
Anyway, the dangers of maintaining a reservoir of MRSA infected pigs to man and other species neatly exposed by the capable Belgians.
Screening of poultry-pig farms for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Sampling methodology and within herd prevalence in broiler flocks and pigs.
...A rather low within flock prevalence of MRSA varying between 0% and 28% was detected in broilers, whereas in pigs on the same farms the within herd prevalence varied between 82% and 92%. No MRSA contamination in the direct barn environment of the broilers was found, this in contrast to the environment of the pigs, indicating a relationship between MRSA prevalence and contamination in the environment.
Two farmers were continuously colonized, while the third one was only once. In conclusion, a major difference was seen in MRSA occurrence between broilers and pigs from the same farm...
... The farmer may play an important role in the dissemination of MRSA from pigs to poultry, especially in mixed farms where pigs are highly colonized and may act as a reservoir for MRSA ST398 carriage in humans.