Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:52:27.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal Disease Pre-Event Preparedness versus Post-Event Response: When Is It Economic to Protect?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Levan Elbakidze  and
Bruce A. McCarl
Levan Elbakidze
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Bruce A. McCarl
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the economic tradeoff between the costs of pre-event preparedness and post-event response to the potential introduction of an infectious animal disease. In a simplified case study setting, we examine the conditions for optimality of an enhanced pre-event detection system considering various characteristics of a potential infectious cattle disease outbreak, costs of program implementation, severity of the disease outbreak, and relative effectiveness of postevent response actions. We show that the decision to invest in pre-event preparedness activities depends on such factors as probability of disease introduction, disease spread rate, relative costs, ancillary benefits, and effectiveness of mitigation strategies.

Keywords

animal diseaseeconomic balancemitigation strategiespreparednessresponseQ1Q18D81
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 2006 , pp. 327 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

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

Akhtar, S. and White, F.. “Animal Disease Surveillance: Prospects for Development in Pakistan.” Scientific and Technical Review International Office of Epizootics 22,3(2003):977–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, R., and May, R.. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apland, J., and Hauer, G.. “Discrete Stochastic Programming: Concepts, Examples and a Review of Empirical Applications.” Staff Paper 93-21, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota, September 1993.Google Scholar
Bates, T.W., Carpenter, T.E., and Thurmond, M.C., “Benefit-Cost Analysis of Vaccination and Preemptive Slaughter as a Means or Eradicating Foot-and-Mouth Disease.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 64(July 2003):805–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, T.W., Thurmond, M.C., and Carpenter, T.E..(a). “Direct and Indirect Contact Rates Among Beef, Dairy, Goat, Sheep, and Swine Herds in the Three California Counties, with Reference to Control of Potential Foot-and-Mouth Disease Transmission.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 62(July 2001): 1121–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, T.W., Thurmond, M.C., and Carpenter, T.E., (b). “Description of an Epidemic Simulation Model for use in Evaluating Strategies to Control an Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 64(Febraary 2003): 195–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, W.T., Thurmond, M.C., and Carpenter, T.E., (c). “Results of Epidemic Simulation Modeling to Evaluate Strategies to Control an Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease.” American Journal of Veterinary Research 64(Febraary 2003):205–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, T.W., Thurmond, M.C., Hietala, S.K., Venkatesvaran, K.S., Wilson, T.M, Colston, B.W. Jr., Trebes, J.E., and Milanovich, F.P., (d). “Surveillance for Detection of Foot-and-Mouth Disease.” Commentary in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 223(September 2003):609–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berentsen, P.B.M., Dijkuizen, A.A., and Oskam, A.J.. “A Dynamic Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth-Disease Control Strategies.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 12(March 1992):229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisvert, R., and McCarl, B.A.. Agricultural Risk Modeling Using Mathematical Programming. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 356. New York: Cornell University, July 1990.Google Scholar
Carpenter, T.E., Thurmond, C.M., and Bates, T.. “A Simulation Model of Intraherd Transmission of Foot and Mouth Disease with Reference to Disease Spread Before and After Clinical Signs.” Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 16(January 2004): 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C.C., and McCarl, B.A.. “The Value of ENSO Information to Agriculture: Consideration of Event Strength and Trade,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25(December 2000):368–85.Google Scholar
Cocks, K.D. “Discrete Stochastic Programming.” Management Science 15(September 1968):72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzig, G. “Linear Programming Under Uncertainty.” Management Science 1(April 1955): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, E. Personal Communication. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, August 2004.Google Scholar
Ekboir, J.M. Potential Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease in California. Davis, CA: University of California Agricultural Issues Center, University of California, 1999.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N.M., Donnelly, C.A., and Anderson, R.M.. “The Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic in Great Britain: Pattern of Spread and Impact of Interventions.” Science 292 (May 2001):1155–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garner, M.G., and Lack, M.B.. “An Evaluation of Alternative Control Strategies for Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Australia: A Regional Approach.” Preventative Veterinary Medicine 23(May 1995):9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, S., and Mazzocchi, M.. “Impact of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy on Agribusiness in the United Kingdom: Results of an Event Study of Equity Prices.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84 (May 2002):370–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiling, M.J., Woolhouse, M.E.J., Shaw, D.J., Mattews, L., Chase-Topping, M., Haydon, D.T., Cornell, S.J., Kappey, J., Wilesmith, J., and Grenfell, B.T.. “Dynamics of the 2001 UK Foot and Mouth Epidemic: Stochastic Dispersal in Heterogeneous Landscape.” Science 294(October 2001):813–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, A.S.L., Swerdlow, D.L., and Juranek, D.D.. “Precautions against Biological and Chemical Terrorism Directed at Food and Water Supplies.” Public Health Reports 116 (January-February 2001):3–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangen, M.J.J., and Burrell, A.M.. “Who Gains, Who Loses? Welfare Effects of Classical Swine Fever Epidemics in The Netherlands.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 30(June 2003): 125–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, E.H., Nasser, A.A., New, J.C., Sundquist, W.B., and Miller, W.M.. A Study of Potential Economic Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease in the United States. St. Paul Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 1979.Google Scholar
Schoenbaum, M.A., and Disney, W.T.. “Modeling Alternative Mitigation Strategies for a Hypothetical Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States.” Preventative Veterinary Medicine 58(April 2003):25–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Texas Department of Agriculture. 2003 Texas Agricultural Statistics. Texas Agricultural Statistics Service, Austin, 2003.Google Scholar
Thompson, D., Muriel, P., Russell, D., Osborne, P., Bromley, A., Rowland, M., Creigh-Tyte, S., and Brown, C.. Economic Costs of Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in United Kingdom in 2001. Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs, UK. 2003. Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/inquiries/lessons/fmdeconcostrev.pdf (Accessed 06 October 2004).Google Scholar
Ziari, H.A., McCarl, B.A., and Stockle, C.. “A Nonlinear Mixed-Integer Program Model for Evaluating Run-Off Impoundments for Supplemental Irrigation.” Water Resources Research 31 (June 1995): 1585–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar