No abstract

While bovine tuberculosis (BTB) has been eliminated in some industrialized countries, it prevails worldwide, particularly in Africa. In Ethiopia, BTB is prevalent as numerous studies have shown its occurrence in livestock and in abattoirs but it has not been demonstrated in wildlife and only very few cases have been found in humans. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost of BTB to Ethiopia with the aim of informing Ethiopian policy on options for BTB control. BTB in livestock affects both animal productivity and herd demographic composition. The Livestock Development Planning System (LDPS2, FAO) was modified to allow for stochastic simulation of parameters. We performed an incremental cost of disease analysis, comparing livestock production with and without BTB. For the rural scenario we considered an endemically stable 4 % comparative intradermal test (CIDT) prevalence and for the urban scenario an endemically stable 32 % CIDT prevalence among cattle. The net present value of rural Ethiopian livestock products in 2005 is estimated at 65.7 billion (thousand million) Ethiopian Birr (95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 53.8-77.7 billion Birr), which is the equivalent of 7.5 billion US$ (95 %CI 6.1-8.9 billion US$) at a rate of 8.7 Birr per US$ in 2005. The cost of BTB ranges from 646 million Birr (75.2 million US$) in 2005 to 3.1 Billion Birr in 2011 (358 million US$) but is within the range of uncertainty of our estimate and can thus not be distinguished from zero. The cost of disease in the urban livestock production ranges from 5 to 42 million Birr (500,000-4.9 million US$) between 2005 and 2011 but is also within the range of uncertainty of our estimate. Our study shows no measurable loss in asset value or cost of disease due to BTB in rural and urban production systems in Ethiopia. This does not mean that there is not a real cost of disease, but the variability of the productivity parameters and prices are high and would require more precise estimates. This study does not preclude in any way the urgent need to control BTB in the urban dairy herd of Addis Ababa for other than financial reasons.

Animal diseases and zoonoses abound among pastoralist livestock, which is composed of cattle, sheep, goats, yak, camels, llamas, reindeer, horses and donkeys. There is endemic and, periodically, epidemic transmission of highly contagious viral and bacterial diseases in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Pastoralist livestock is often multiparasitised with endo- and ectoparasites, as well as being affected by vectorborne viral and protozoal diseases. Pastoral livestock can be a reservoir of such diseases and can also, conversely, be at risk from exposure to wildlife reservoirs. Public and private animal health services currently underperform in almost all pastoral areas due to structural reforms and lack of income, as indicated in assessments of national Veterinary Services by the World Organisation for Animal Health. Control of infectious disease in industrialised countries has been achieved through large-scale public funding of control measures and compensation for culled stock. Such means are not available in pastoralist areas of most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While the cost-effectiveness and profitability of the control of animal diseases and zoonoses is less of a consideration for industrialised countries, in the experience of the authors, understanding the economic implications of a control programme is a prerequisite for successful attempts to improve animal health in LMICs. The incremental costs of animal disease control can potentially be shared using crosssector assessments, integrated control, and regional coordination efforts to mitigate transboundary disease risks. In this paper, the authors discuss cost-effective animal disease and zoonoses control in LMICs. It illustrates frameworks and examples of integrated control and cross-sector economics, showing conditions under which these diseases could be controlled in a cost-effective way.

Pastoral regions are challenged by social and ecological changes. Yet, there is increasingly robust evidence that pastoralism is a viable and sustainable livelihood and that pastoralists play a role in attaining the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this issue of the Scientific and Technical Review of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the authors take a broad view of pastoralism and pastoral livestock production from a number of different perspectives, taking into account societal and ecological viewpoints as well as issues of animal and human health. Thematic reviews are complemented by regional perspectives from Central Asia, China, Europe, East, Central and West Africa, and Latin America. The broader issues of pastoral livestock production and its potential for improving and sustaining animal health are of great interest to the OIE. Summarising the diverse contributions, it appears that pastoral socialecological systems are hotspots of cultural and biological diversity. They are multifunctional in that they generate diversified sources of income and contribute to sustained natural resource management. Pastoral populations require favourable institutional and legal frameworks, so governance structures must be improved and reformed through effective participation and the empowerment of pastoralists. To sustain functional pastoral production systems, the key ingredients are decentralised governance of natural resources, better locally adapted social services, and high flexibility for maintaining mobility. Young people should be actively encouraged to engage in pastoral livelihoods, which should be supported by improved legal systems for land use by all interested parties. There is still untapped potential to optimise extensive livestock production through adapted genetic improvement and better transformation, stocking and marketing of animal-source food. Modern concepts of disease surveillance and response, combining human and animal health as 'One Health', are particularly suited to pastoral systems. The OIE's interest in pastoralism is highly justified given its economic and environmental importance and its significance for livelihoods. Sustainable improvements require understanding and discussion of diverse social and ecological interactions, and it is to this discussion which the authors and editors of this issue of the Review have endeavoured to contribute.

This chapter summarizes evidence from the literature to demonstrate how companion animals (particularly dogs) might help to reduce the risk for obesity and non-communicable diseases such as heart diseases, depression and diabetes mellitus. It also explores current research on the potential use of dogs to detect medical problems in their owners.