121
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur?

      review-article
      a , b , * , b
      Preventive Veterinary Medicine
      Elsevier Scientific Publishing
      Economics, FMD, Review, Impact

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although a disease of low mortality, the global impact of foot and mouth disease (FMD) is colossal due to the huge numbers of animals affected. This impact can be separated into two components: (1) direct losses due to reduced production and changes in herd structure; and (2) indirect losses caused by costs of FMD control, poor access to markets and limited use of improved production technologies. This paper estimates that annual impact of FMD in terms of visible production losses and vaccination in endemic regions alone amount to between US$6.5 and 21 billion. In addition, outbreaks in FMD free countries and zones cause losses of >US$1.5 billion a year.

          FMD impacts are not the same throughout the world:

          • 1.

            FMD production losses have a big impact on the world's poorest where more people are directly dependent on livestock. FMD reduces herd fertility leading to less efficient herd structures and discourages the use of FMD susceptible, high productivity breeds. Overall the direct losses limit livestock productivity affecting food security.

          • 2.

            In countries with ongoing control programmes, FMD control and management creates large costs. These control programmes are often difficult to discontinue due to risks of new FMD incursion.

          • 3.

            The presence, or even threat, of FMD prevents access to lucrative international markets.

          • 4.

            In FMD free countries outbreaks occur periodically and the costs involved in regaining free status have been enormous.

          FMD is highly contagious and the actions of one farmer affect the risk of FMD occurring on other holdings; thus sizeable externalities are generated. Control therefore requires coordination within and between countries. These externalities imply that FMD control produces a significant amount of public goods, justifying the need for national and international public investment.

          Equipping poor countries with the tools needed to control FMD will involve the long term development of state veterinary services that in turn will deliver wider benefits to a nation including the control of other livestock diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001.

          The authors present estimates of the economic costs to agriculture and industries affected by tourism of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001. The losses to agriculture and the food chain amount to about Pound Sterling3.1 billion. The majority of the costs to agriculture have been met by the Government through compensation for slaughter and disposal as well as clean-up costs. Nonetheless, agricultural producers will have suffered losses, estimated at Pound Sterling355 million, which represents about 20% of the estimated total income from farming in 2001. Based on data from surveys of tourism, businesses directly affected by tourist expenditure are estimated to have lost a similar total amount (between Pound Sterling2.7 and Pound Sterling3.2 billion) as a result of reduced numbers of people visiting the countryside. The industries which supply agriculture, the food industries and tourist-related businesses will also have suffered losses. However, the overall costs to the UK economy are substantially less than the sum of these components, as much of the expenditure by tourists was not lost, but merely displaced to other sectors of the economy. Overall, the net effect of FMD is estimated to have reduced the gross domestic product in the UK by less than 0.2% in 2001.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor.

            Poverty is now at the heart of development discourse; we discuss how it is measured and understood. We next consider the negative and positive impacts of livestock on pro-poor development. Taking a value-chain approach that includes keepers, users and eaters of livestock, we identify diseases that are road blocks on the 'three livestock pathways out of poverty'. We discuss livestock impacts on poverty reduction and review attempts to prioritize the livestock diseases relevant to the poor. We make suggestions for metrics that better measure disease impact and show the benefits of more rigorous evaluation before reviewing recent attempts to measure the importance of disease to the poor. High impact of a disease does not guarantee high benefits from its control; other factors must be taken into consideration, including technical feasibility and political desirability. We conclude by considering how we might better understand and exploit the roles of livestock and improved animal health by posing three speculative questions on the impact of livestock diseases and their control on global poverty: how can understanding livestock and poverty links help disease control?; if global poverty reduction was the aim of livestock disease control, how would it differ from the current model?; and how much of the impact of livestock disease on poverty is due to disease control policy rather than disease itself?
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The 2010 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in Japan.

              Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) occurred recently for the first time in a decade in Japan. The index case was detected on a beef-breeding farm in Miyazaki Prefecture, Southern Japan, on April 20, 2010. After confirmation of this first case, control measures such as stamping out, movement restriction and disinfection were implemented. However, these strategies proved insufficient to prevent the spread of FMD and emergency vaccination was adopted. Up until the last outbreak on July 4, 2010, a total of 292 outbreaks had been confirmed, with about 290,000 animals having been culled. The epidemic occurred in an area with a high density of cattle and pigs, making disease control difficult. Invasion of the disease into a high-density area aided its rapid spread and led to difficulties in locating suitable burial sites. Epidemiological investigations indicated that the disease was introduced into Japan approximately one month before detection. This delay in initial detection is considered to have allowed an increased number of outbreaks in the early stage of the epidemic. Nevertheless, the epidemic was contained within a localized area in Miyazaki Prefecture and was eradicated within three months because of intensive control efforts including emergency vaccination. Although this epidemic devastated the livestock industry in Japan, many lessons can be learnt for the future prevention and control of infectious diseases in animals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Prev Vet Med
                Prev. Vet. Med
                Preventive Veterinary Medicine
                Elsevier Scientific Publishing
                0167-5877
                1873-1716
                01 November 2013
                01 November 2013
                : 112
                : 3-4
                : 161-173
                Affiliations
                [a ]The Pirbright Institute, Ash Road, Pirbright, Surrey GU24 0NF, United Kingdom
                [b ]The Royal Veterinary College (VEEPH), Hawkshead Road, North Mymms, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: The Pirbright Institute, Ash Road, Pirbright, Surrey GU24 0NF, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1483 232441. theodore.knight-jones@ 123456pirbright.ac.uk
                Article
                S0167-5877(13)00239-0
                10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013
                3989032
                23958457
                28a3a646-a7e8-4fdb-8c48-2f934587e7e8
                © 2013 Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

                History
                : 29 January 2013
                : 15 July 2013
                : 17 July 2013
                Categories
                Article

                Veterinary medicine
                economics,fmd,review,impact
                Veterinary medicine
                economics, fmd, review, impact

                Comments

                Comment on this article