The economic benefits of targeted response strategies against foot-and-mouth disease in Australia

Simulation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Spread and Effects of Mitigation Strategies to Support Veterinary Contingency Planning in Denmark

“…In general, market behaviour in the event of an FMD outbreak and the reaction of various countries are difficult to predict, since they might not obey WOAH guidelines [ 40 ]. This is supported by Seitzinger et al’s [ 34 ] analysis of historical trade data in countries formerly infected with FMD; their study indicates that WOAH waiting periods can underestimate trade losses, since the trade recovery period can be longer (as described in WOAH guidelines and shown in the present study by comparing Calculation Approach 1 and 2). In general, the calculated economic impact between studies is difficult to compare due to different data inputs and how the suggested trade recovery based on WOAH guidelines was down- or upwardly adjusted for livestock and/or individual livestock products.…”

“…Analysis of trade data from historical FMD outbreaks from various countries indicated that using the defined trade ban period based on the WOAH guidelines can underestimate the time to trade recovery (i.e., when trade value returns to a moving average for trade value in the months immediately prior to the outbreak [ 34 ]). In terms of the estimation of the full trade recovery period, Seitzinger et al [ 34 ] proposed adding four months plus 3.8 months for each 30-day epidemic control (referred to as Calculation Approach 2).…”

“…Analysis of trade data from historical FMD outbreaks from various countries indicated that using the defined trade ban period based on the WOAH guidelines can underestimate the time to trade recovery (i.e., when trade value returns to a moving average for trade value in the months immediately prior to the outbreak [ 34 ]). In terms of the estimation of the full trade recovery period, Seitzinger et al [ 34 ] proposed adding four months plus 3.8 months for each 30-day epidemic control (referred to as Calculation Approach 2). We used their suggested trade recovery period for all livestock and livestock product consignments delivered to non-EU countries and for all farms located in PZs and SZs delivering to the EU if a non-vaccination or suppressive vaccination strategy was applied.…”

“…In terms of using a protective vaccination strategy, no good estimations for trade ban periods were available from historical data. Thus, the present study used the suggested trade recovery period by Seitzinger et al [ 34 ] for all consignments into EU and non-EU countries, and the period when all post-outbreak management activities were completed, if a protective vaccination strategy were used. The economic model used control duration and post-outbreak management duration, as well as data on the simulated number and type of farms and herds in PZs, SZs, and FZs, as well as changes in farms between zones during the epidemic.…”

“…The selected economic outcomes of the model presented in this study are: Total operation costs for Surveillance Culling Disposal Disinfection Vaccination Control centres Compensation Total production losses Total post-outbreak management costs for Surveillance Culling (applicable for suppressive vaccination) Disposal (applicable for suppressive vaccination) Compensation (applicable for suppressive vaccination) Total economic costs (direct and indirect) using Calculation Approaches 1 (WOAH) and 2 [ 34 ] Days out of market How often resource constraints occurred during simulation runs, stratified by Scenarios 1 and 2 …”