Returns on investment to the British bovine tuberculosis control programme

Abstract

In the animal health arena, government-mandated testing, herd movement restrictions, and culling of reactor (infected) animals are common practices in the midst of an infectious disease outbreak. These policies create a significant economic trade-off-on one hand, such control efforts represent a public good by reducing the negative externality of private actions associated with the transmission of infectious disease; on the other hand, they impose substantial economic costs on the affected farms. This paper empirically evaluates the economic trade-offs created by disease control efforts in the context of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain. We find that-in this context-government control efforts are clearly costeffective. Mandatory testing, imposition of movement restrictions on infected herds, and culling of reactor animals generate an annual external value of approximately £152 million to the British beef sector with a social returnon-investment of 3.46. Moreover, coupled compensation averts approximately 75% of the farm exits that would otherwise have resulted from these policies.

Economic analysis of biosecurity adoption in dairy farming: evidence from Ireland

“…Maintaining good animal health is important for farm businesses; and livestock disease outbreaks can have considerable economic consequences affecting trade, food prices, and public health ( Hennessy and Wolf, 2018 ). Government control efforts, such as government-mandated testing, herd movement restrictions, and culling of reactor animals to eliminate diseases, are often a last resort, which is cost-effective ( Schaefer et al, 2021 ). Specifically, Schaefer et al (2021) showed that government control efforts on bovine tuberculosis (BTB) generated a positive external value for the British beef sector.…”

“…Government control efforts, such as government-mandated testing, herd movement restrictions, and culling of reactor animals to eliminate diseases, are often a last resort, which is cost-effective ( Schaefer et al, 2021 ). Specifically, Schaefer et al (2021) showed that government control efforts on bovine tuberculosis (BTB) generated a positive external value for the British beef sector. Thus, implementing farm-specific biosecurity plans can help to mitigate disease spread in the first place, and as such avoid ‘last resort’ measures.…”