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
. 2013 Nov 1;112(3-4):161-73.
doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013. Epub 2013 Aug 16.

The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease - what are they, how big are they and where do they occur?

T J D Knight-Jones  1 , J Rushton
Affiliations
Review

The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease - what are they, how big are they and where do they occur?

T J D Knight-Jones et al. Prev Vet Med. .

Abstract

Although a disease of low mortality, the global impact of foot and mouth disease (FMD) is colossal due to the huge numbers of animals affected. This impact can be separated into two components: (1) direct losses due to reduced production and changes in herd structure; and (2) indirect losses caused by costs of FMD control, poor access to markets and limited use of improved production technologies. This paper estimates that annual impact of FMD in terms of visible production losses and vaccination in endemic regions alone amount to between US$6.5 and 21 billion. In addition, outbreaks in FMD free countries and zones cause losses of >US$1.5 billion a year. FMD impacts are not the same throughout the world: FMD is highly contagious and the actions of one farmer affect the risk of FMD occurring on other holdings; thus sizeable externalities are generated. Control therefore requires coordination within and between countries. These externalities imply that FMD control produces a significant amount of public goods, justifying the need for national and international public investment. Equipping poor countries with the tools needed to control FMD will involve the long term development of state veterinary services that in turn will deliver wider benefits to a nation including the control of other livestock diseases.

Keywords: Economics; FMD; Impact; Review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Global burden of FMD in cattle; burden of FMD in sheep and goats had a similar distribution. Measured as a prevalence score based on estimates of incidence, population distribution and other risk factors, adapted from Sumption et al. (2008).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The impacts of foot-mouth-disease (Rushton, 2009).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Density map of FMD susceptible livestock species, i.e. combined cattle, pigs, sheep and goats (Wint and Robinson, 2007; Di Nardo et al., 2011).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Anderson I. Report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; London, UK: 2008. Foot and Mouth Disease 2007: A Review and Lessons Learned.
    1. Askaroglu H. EU Project for the Control of FMD in Turkey; West Eurasia Roadmap FMD Control 2010–2020, 7–9 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey; 2009.
    1. Backer J., Bergevoet R., Hagenaars T., Bondt N., Nodelijk G., van Wagenberg C., van Roermund H. Vaccination against Foot-and-Mouth Disease; Differentiating strategies and their epidemiological and economic consequences; CVI report 09/CVI0115. LEI report 2009-042; 2009. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-8615-349-7, pp. 158.
    1. Barasa M., Catley A., Machuchu D., Laqua H., Puot E., Tap Kot D., Ikiror D. Foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in South Sudan: benefit–cost analysis and livelihoods impact. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2008;55:339–351. - PubMed
    1. Bates T.W., Carpenter T.E., Thurmond M.C. Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter as a means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2003;64:805–812. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources