Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T19:15:51.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invasive Species Management: Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the U.S. Beef Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Zishun Zhao ,
Thomas I. Wahl  and
Thomas L. Marsh
Zishun Zhao
Affiliation:
School of Economic Sciences at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington
Thomas I. Wahl
Affiliation:
School of Economic Sciences at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington
Thomas L. Marsh
Affiliation:
School of Economic Sciences at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A conceptual bioeconomic framework that integrates dynamic epidemiological-economic processes was designed to analyze the effects of invasive species introduction on decision making in a livestock sector (e.g., production and feeding). The framework integrates an epidemiological model, a dynamic livestock production model, domestic consumption, and international trade. The integrated approach captures producer and consumer responses and welfare outcomes of livestock disease outbreaks, as well as alternative invasive species management policies. Scenarios of foot-and-mouth disease are simulated to demonstrate the usefulness of the framework in facilitating invasive species policy design.

Keywords

livestockinvasive speciesfoot-and-mouth diseasebeef cattle production
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 98 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aadland, D. 2004. “Cattle Cycles, Heterogeneous Expectations and the Age Distribution of Capital.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 28(10): 1977–2002.Google Scholar
Amer, P.R. Kemp, R.A. Buchanan-Smith, J.G. Fox, G.C. and Smith, C. 1994. “A Bioeconomic Model for Comparing Beef Cattle Genotypes at Their Optimal Economic Slaughter End Point.” Journal of Animal Science 72(1): 38–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Berentsen, P.B.M. Dijkhuizen, A.A. and Oskam, A.J. 1992. “A Dynamic Model for Cost-Benefit Analyses of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 12(3-4): 229–243.Google Scholar
Blake, A. 2001. “The Economy-Wide Effects of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the UK Economy.” Christel Dehaan Travel and Research Centre, Nottingham University. Available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ttri/pdf/2001_3.PDF (accessed December 1, 2005).Google Scholar
Brooke, A. Kendrick, D. and Meeraus, A. 1988. GAMS: A User's Guide. Redwood City, CA: The Scientific Press.Google Scholar
Coffey, B. Mintert, J. Fox, S. Schroeder, T. and Valentin, L. 2005. “The Economic Impact of BSE on the U.S. Beef Industry: Product Value Losses, Regulatory Costs, and Consumer Reactions.” Publication No. MF-2678, Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
Ekboir, J. Jarvis, L.S. and Bervejillo, J.E. 2003. “Evaluating the Potential Impacts of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak.” In Sumner, D.A. ed., Exotic Pests and Diseases: Biology and Economics for Biosecurity. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuz, D.M. Ward, C.E. and Schroeder, T.C. 1989. “Fed Cattle Pricing: Grid Pricing Basics.” Publication No. F-557, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Services, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
Fox, D.G. and Black, J.R. 1984. “A System for Predicting Body Composition and Performance of Growing Cattle.” Journal of Animal Science 58(3): 725–740.Google Scholar
Fox, D.G. Sniffen, C.J. and O'Connor, J.D. 1988. “Adjusting Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle for Animal and Environmental Variations.” Journal of Animal Science 66(6): 1475–1495.Google Scholar
Gamer, M.G. and Lack, M.B. 1995. “An Evaluation of Alternate Control Strategies for Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Australia: A Regional Approach.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 23(1): 9–32.Google Scholar
Jarvis, L.S. 1974. “Cattle as Capital Goods and Ranchers as Portfolio Managers: An Application to the Argentine Cattle Sector.” Journal of Political Economy 82(3): 489–520.Google Scholar
Mahul, O. and Durand, B. 2000. “Simulated Economic Consequences of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Epidemics and Their Public Control in France.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 47(1-2): 23–38.Google Scholar
Marsh, T.L. Huffaker, R.G. and Long, G.E. 2000. “Optimal Control of Vector-Virus-Plant Interactions: The Case of Potato Leafroll Virus Net Necrosis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(3): 556–569.Google Scholar
Miller, W. 1979. “A State-Transition Model of Epidemic Foot and Mouth Disease.” In McCauley, E.H. Aulaqi, N.A. Sundquist, W.B. New, J.C. Jr., and Miller, W.M. eds., A Study of the Potential Economic Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease in the United States. University of Minnesota and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.Google Scholar
New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA). 2003. FSB NEWS—Official Newsletter of the NZVA Food Safety and Biosecurity Branch. Issue No. 3 (December). Wellington, New Zealand: NZVA.Google Scholar
Rich, K.M. 2004. “DISCOSEM: An Integrated Epidemiological-Economic Analysis of Foot and Mouth Disease in the Southern Cone.” Discussion Paper No. REAL 04-T-16, Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. Murphy, K.M. and Scheinkman, J.A. 1994. “Cattle Cycles.” Journal of Political Economy 102(3): 468–492.Google Scholar
Schoenbaum, M.A. and Disney, W.T. 2003. “Modeling Alternative Mitigation Strategies for a Hypothetical Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 58(1-2): 25–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Standiford, R.B. and Howitt, R.E. 1992. “Solving Empirical Bioeconomic Models: A Rangeland Management Application.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(2): 421–433.Google Scholar
USDA [see U.S. Department of Agriculture].Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003a. “Historical Beef Grading Volumes.” Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mgc/Reports/BeefHistory2005.pdf (accessed December 1, 2003).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003b. “International Macroeconomic Data Set.” Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/macroeconomics/ (accessed December 1, 2003).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003c. Production, Supply and Distributions Database. Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/ (accessed December 1, 2003).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Red Meat Yearbook 2004. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Available at http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/data-sets/live[-]stock/94006/ (accessed February 1, 2005).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2005. World Trade Atlas (Internet Version 4.4d). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C. (Publisher: Global Trade Information, Inc.)Google Scholar
Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis (3rd edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Google Scholar