EGHAM, England - British farmers expect to learn later on Thursday whether an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in southern England is the same strain as one which infected nearby cattle herds in July and August.

If it is the same, concerns of a more widespread outbreak will be eased. Confirmation of the disease on Wednesday prompted the European Union to ban British exports of meat, live animals and dairy products until Oct. 15.

A government official said initial tests showed the virus was similar to the foot and mouth strain that had infected cattle at nearby farms, but further tests were needed to confirm whether it was exactly the same.

Britain suffered a crippling outbreak of foot and mouth in 2001 when more than 6 million animals had to be culled. The outbreak hit agriculture and tourism hard, costing the economy an estimated 8.5 billion pounds ($17.3 billion).

The new case in Egham, Surrey, came less than 24 hours after EU veterinary experts had agreed to declare Britain free of foot and mouth from Nov. 9 and lift an export ban -- imposed after the disease was found on two farms in July and August.

Foot and mouth is a highly contagious disease which spreads easily on the wind. It can cause animals to foam at the mouth, collapse and leave them with serious health problems.

On Wednesday, the agriculture ministry placed a surveillance zone of 6 miles around the affected farm, about 30 miles from the scene of the last confirmed outbreak in August, and ordered the herd to be culled.

The ministry has imposed an immediate ban on the movement of livestock in England, Scotland and Wales.

It also sealed off a farm in the eastern county of Norfolk because of a suspected outbreak. The presence of the disease there had not been confirmed.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn told BBC radio it was too soon to speculate on the source of the confirmed outbreak before the completion of tests on the infected cattle.

"What is puzzling is that more than a month has elapsed since the last confirmed case. The incubation period is two to 14 days," he said. "The question is whether this is in effect a continuation of the previous outbreak."

An investigation into the July/August outbreak highlighted biosecurity breaches at a nearby government-funded laboratory, the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright.

Benn denied the all-clear had been given too soon.

"The reason the surveillance zone was lifted was that we had completed the 30-day period required after the secondary disinfection of the second infected premises in the previous outbreak," he said.