Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:40:31.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRRS and the North American Swine Trade: A Trade Barrier Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Mark Petry ,
Philip L. Paarlberg  and
John G. Lee
Mark Petry
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Philip L. Paarlberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
John G. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The partial equilibrium model links the infection risk from imported products to a premium, which compensates the importing country for the risk incurred by allowing imports from infected countries. The model is applied to the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and Mexican live swine imports. The premium is sensitive to the expected loss from a PRRS outbreak and to the magnitude of the risk. As the risk or severity of PRRS rises, so does the level of the barrier. If swine imports are categorized and appropriate restrictions applied, an acceptable level of disease protection can be achieved while improving national welfare.

Keywords

livestock health riskPRRStrade barriers
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , December 1999 , pp. 425 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1999

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

Berentsen, P. and A. Dijkhuizen, . “A Dynamic Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis of FMD Control Strategies.” Preventative Veterinary Medicine 12(1992):229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkhuizen, A. and J. Renkema, . “Modeling to Support Animal Health.” Agricultural Economics 5(July 1991):263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economic Research Service. Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook. Washington, D.C.: ERS, USDA, various Issues (1993–1995).Google Scholar
Foreign Agricultural Service. Import Health Requirements of Mexico for Slaughter Swine Exported from the United States. United States Embassy, Mexico City, Mexico, November 1997.Google Scholar
Gardner, I. and T. Carpenter, . “Financial Evaluation of Vaccination and Testing Alternatives for Control of Parnovirus-induced Reproductive Failure in Swine.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 208(March 15, 1996):863–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardiner, W., Roningen, V., and K. Liu, . Elasticities in the Trade Liberalization Database. Washington, D.C.: ERS, USDA, 1989.Google Scholar
Hillman, J.Nontariff Agricultural Trade Barriers Revisited. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Hillman, J.Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Hurd, S. “The Acute PRRS Investigative Study: An Update,” Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO., 1997.Google Scholar
Josling, T. “An Analytical Framework for Assessing the Trade Impact of SPS and TBT Regulations.” Contribution to the NRI Project on Classification and Analysis of SPS Regulations and TBT's in Agriculture, paper presented at the Technical Barriers to Trade Workshop, September 1997.Google Scholar
Krissoff, B., Calvin, L., and D. Gray, . “Barriers to Trade in Global Apple Markets.” Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation Outlook. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, USDA, (August 1997):42–51.Google Scholar
National Animal Health Monitoring Service. Swine '95. Washington, D.C.: NAHMS, USDA, 1996.Google Scholar
Ndayisenga, F. and J. Kinsey, . “The Structure of Nontariff Trade Measures on Agricultural Products in High-Income Countries.” Agribusiness 10, 4(1994):275–292.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orden, D. and D. Roberts, . “Determinants of Technical Barriers to Trade: The Case of US Phytosanitary Restrictions on Mexican Avocados, 1972–1995.” Understanding Technical Barriers to Trade, Proceedings of a Conference of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, (January 1997):117–160.Google Scholar
Orden, D. and E. Romano, . “The Avocado Dispute and Other Technical Barriers to Agricultural Trade Under NAFTA.” Invited paper presented at the conference on NAFTA and Agriculture: Is the Experiment Working? San Antonio, TX. November 1996.Google Scholar
Paarlberg, P. and J. Lee, . “Import Restrictions in the Presence of a Health Risk: An Illustration using FMD.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(February 1998):175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendleman, M. and Spinelli, F.. “An Economic Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of African Swine Fever Prevention.” Animal Health Insight. Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, pp. 18–17, Spring/Summer 1994.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. and K. DeRemer, . “An Overview of Technical Barriers to U.S. Agricultural Exports.” Staff Paper No. AGES-9705. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. March 1997.Google Scholar
Rodriques, C. and I. Gardner, . “Financial Analysis of Pseudorabies Control and Eradication in Swine.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 197(November 15, 1990): 1316–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberger, N.Prevalence of PRRS in the United States. Washington, D.C.: APHIS, USDA, 1997.Google Scholar
Sullivan, J., Wainio, J., and V. Roningen, . A Database for Trade Liberalization Studies. US Department of Agriculture. ERS Staff Report, No. AGES89–12, March 1989.Google Scholar