Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Sep 27;364(1530):2643-55.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0097.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Brian Perry et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

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?

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Impacts of livestock on livelihoods: positive and negative, direct and indirect. Black arrows, direct link; red arrows, indirect link.

References

    1. Adak G. K., Meakins S. M., Yip H., Lopman B. A., O’Brien S. J.2005Disease risks from foods, England and Wales, 1996–2000. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11, 365–372 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baumgartner B., Belevi H.2001A systematic overview of urban agriculture in developing countries. Zurich, Switzerland: EWAG
    1. Bennett R. M., IJpelaar J.2005Updated estimates of the costs associated with 34 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. J. Agric. Econ. 56, 135–144 (doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00126.x) - DOI
    1. Blench R.2001‘You can’t go home again’, pastoralism in the new millennium London, UK: ODI
    1. Blench R., Chapman R., Slaymaker T.2003A study of the role of livestock in poverty reduction strategy papers Rome, Italy: FAO