A dynamic model for cost-benefit analyses of foot-and-mouth disease control strategies

Berentsen, P.B.M.; Dijkhuizen, A.A.; Oskam, A.J.

doi:10.1016/0167-5877(92)90052-h

Cited by 90 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Berentsen, Dijkhuizen, and Oskam (1992) and Mangen, Burell, and Mourits (2004) which used single-sector models to examine alternate FMD control measures in the Netherlands. Paarlberg, Lee, and Seitzinger (2002) modeled the U.S. agricultural sector with three market levels to quantify the economic impacts of a FMD outbreak in the U.S. Schoenbaum and Disney (2003) used a multi-sector model to compute welfare impacts of alternate FMD control scenarios in the U.S.…”

Section: Economic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economic Impacts of a Foot-And-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis

Pendell

Leatherman

Schroeder

et al. 2007

J. Agric. Appl. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contagious animal diseases like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are often referred to as economic diseases because of the magnitude of economic harm they can cause to producers and to local communities. This study demonstrates the local economic impact of a hypothetical FMD outbreak in southwest Kansas, an area with high density of cattle feeding. The expected (most probable) economic impact of the disease hinges heavily on where the incidence of the disease occurs. If the disease were to occur in a cow-calf herd in the region economic impact is expected to be relatively small compared to if it were introduced simultaneously in five large feedlots in southwest Kansas. Disease surveillance, management strategies, mitigation investment, and overall diligence clearly need to be much greater in concentrated cattle feeding and processing areas at the large feeding operations in the region.2

show abstract

Section: Economic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Economic Impacts of a Foot-And-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis

Pendell

Leatherman

Schroeder

et al. 2007

J. Agric. Appl. Econ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several models 5,8,[12][13][14][15][16]19,[20][21][22]24,25 have been constructed to help evaluate the spread or control (or both) of FMD. None of them reported the consideration of intraherd transmission dynamics of the disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simulation Model of Intraherd Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease with Reference to Disease Spread before and after Clinical Diagnosis

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Intraherd transmission of foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV) was examined using a simulation model for a hypothetical 1,000-cow dairy, assuming clinical diagnosis was made when at least 1% (10 cows) or 5% (50 cows) had clinical signs of FMD, 1 index case cow, and transition state distributions for the latent, subclinically infectious, and clinically infectious periods of FMD calculated from published data. Estimates assumed for the number of animal-to-animal contacts (k) adequate for transmission ranged from 0.6 to 9.0 per hour (13.7-216.0 per day). A total of 40,000 iterations (5,000 for each scenario, assessing 4 adequate contact rates and 2 detection criteria) were run. The model predicted that FMD would not be diagnosed in the herd until 10.0-13.5 days after the index case cow had become infected, at which time between 65% and 97% of the cows (646-967 cows) to nearly 100% (978-996 cows) would already have become infected with the virus, if the number of cows showing clinical signs of FMD at the time of diagnosis were 10 or 50, respectively. At the time of diagnosis, the simulated number of infectious cattle varied substantially from 82-472 to 476-537 cows, depending on adequate contact rate and whether the diagnosis was made when 10 or 50 animals were showing clinical signs, respectively. The simulated number of infectious cows increased rapidly during the first few days after diagnosis. In the scenario where at least 10 cows showing clinical signs was necessary before a clinical diagnosis was made, each day after diagnosis, the number of infectious animals increased by nearly 100 to more than 200 cases per day up to day 5, assuming 0.57-9.0 animal-to-animal contacts per hour, respectively. Results obtained when it was assumed that at least 50 clinical cases were present at the time of diagnosis showed smaller relative increases because nearly one-half of the herd was projected to be infected at the time of diagnosis. From these results, it is clear that once an individual in a herd becomes infected with FMDV, herd infectivity is not static, rather it accelerates as would be expected as long as there are sufficient susceptible animals to sustain the increasing transmission rate, after which time the rate at which new infections occurs will diminish. Results indicate that biosecurity strategies aimed at minimizing both intraherd and interherd contact will be critical in minimizing the spread of FMD before the initial diagnosis is made. In addition, simulations suggest that very early clinical diagnosis of FMD and effective isolation or depopulation and disposal will be critical in limiting the number of infectious animals capable of transmitting the virus to other herds and thus in timely control of an epidemic. Early diagnosis will rely on early virus detection from animals in the preclinical phase of infection, rather than waiting for clinical signs to manifest in sufficient numbers to be noticed and to warrant investigation.Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is one of the most economically important l...

show abstract

“…[3][4][5][6] Similarly, emergency use of vaccination in cattle in the area surrounding a new outbreak of FMD has not been considered to be a cost-effective strategy, because vaccinated herds may have to be slaughtered after the epidemic is controlled. However, with recent technologic advances for development of vaccines, such as development of high-potency vaccines that can elicit host immune responses within 4 days after administration, [7][8][9] and improved diagnostic tests that may permit clinicians to discriminate between vaccinated and naturally infected groups of animals, 10 reassessment of the potential benefit for emergency use of vaccination against FMD in the United States can be justified.…”

Section: Results Of Decision Analyses For Regions In Which Fmdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter as a means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease

Bates¹,

Carpenter²,

Thurmond³

2003

ajvr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination with a highly efficacious vaccine may be a cost-effective strategy for control of FMD if vaccinated animals are not subsequently slaughtered and there is no future adverse economic impact, such as trade restrictions. Although less preferable than the baseline eradication program, selective slaughter of highest-risk herds was preferable to other preemptive slaughter strategies. However, indirect costs can be expected to contribute substantially more than direct costs to the total cost of eradication programs.

show abstract

A dynamic model for cost-benefit analyses of foot-and-mouth disease control strategies

Cited by 90 publications

References 4 publications

The Economic Impacts of a Foot-And-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis

The Economic Impacts of a Foot-And-Mouth Disease Outbreak: A Regional Analysis

A Simulation Model of Intraherd Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease with Reference to Disease Spread before and after Clinical Diagnosis

Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter as a means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About