http://www.electronicipc.com/JournalEZ/detail.cfm?code=04290010640702&CFID=993209&CFTOKEN=E9D3C460-C214-40E9-AB3C8215A01FEC56

American Journal of
VETERINARY RESEARCH   Am.J.Vet.Res (Vol 64, No 7, p 805):


Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter as a means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease
Thomas W. Bates, PhD; Tim E. Carpenter, PhD; Mark C. Thurmond, DVM, PhD

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess relative costs and benefits of vaccination and preemptive herd slaughter to control transmission of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus (FMDV).

Sample Population2,238 herds and 5 sale yards located in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties of California.

ProcedureDirect costs associated with indemnity, slaughter, cleaning and disinfecting livestock premises, and vaccination were compared for various eradication strategies. Additional cost, total program cost, net benefit, and benefit-cost value (B/C) for each supplemental strategy were estimated, based in part on results of published model simulations for FMD. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

ResultsMean herd indemnity payments were estimated to be $2.6 million and $110,359 for dairy and nondairy herds, respectively. Cost to clean and disinfect livestock premises ranged from $18,062 to $60,205. Mean vaccination cost was $2,960/herd. Total eradication cost ranged from $61 million to $551 million. All supplemental strategies involving use of vaccination were economically efficient (B/C range, 5.0 to 10.1) and feasible, whereas supplemental strategies involving use of slaughter programs were not economically efficient (B-C, 0.05 to 0.8) or feasible.

Conclusions and Clinical RelevanceVaccination 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. (Am J Vet Res 2003;64:805812)

Received October 16, 2002.
Accepted March 12, 2003.
From the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. Dr. Bates present address is L-174, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551.
Supported in part by USDA Animal Health Formula Funds, the USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (grant No. 35204-10173), the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the USDA: Animal Plant Health Inspection Service: Veterinary Services.