Better lives through
livestock
Foot-and-mouth disease impact
studies
Theo Knight-Jones
Scientist
International Livestock Research Institute
European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease online workshop on
‘Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of FAST diseases’
22–23 September 2020

• Areas of impact
• Data to be collected
• Impact study approaches
Presentation Outline

Workshop on ‘’Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of FAST diseases’’, 22-23 September 2020
- Comprehensive estimation of FMD impact mostly assessed following outbreaks in free countries
- Impact rarely assessed in endemic settings, but more estimates appearing
Challenges
- How to measure impact on food security and nutrition, if not replaced
- What about cultural, non-monetary value of livestock?
- Externalities and free loaders – who should pay for control
- Wildlife and ecological impact of control/zonation
Considerations

Workshop on ‘’Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of FAST diseases’’, 22-23 September 2020
1. Herd level impacts
- Modelling herd dynamics and FMD impacts on herd structure, productivity and efficiency
2. Farm-household level impacts
- Impact on household resource allocations
- Details of who is affected (men, women, children) and how (less food, more work, more
stress).
3. Sector and economy wide impacts
- FMD reduces flows of animals and products to the market
- In complex economies requires sector and possibly economy wide models.
- Assessments would have to capture how benefits and costs affect different groups (public
sector and revenues, holdings of different types and location including those outside FMD-
free zones, consumers, environment and wildlife).
Levels of impact

What are the impacts
Ongoing or sporadic impacts – Often difficult to measure
?
May be other trade barriers:
Disease, reliable meat quality, competition
Modified from Rushton et al. 1999

Measuring impacts
Impacts Significance Gaps
Visible production losses
Milk loss – short and long term Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation - Moderate but
variable
Some studies have estimated short to medium
term losses.
Easier to measure in dairies with milk data, but
difficult to measure in pastoral systems or when
calves are suckling. Uncertain affect on milk
quality and how losses translate into reduced
nutrition and food security
Loss of draught power Significance –Variable
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation – Difficult
Has been considered but is hard to quantify due to
the seasonality of demand
for animal power. Lameness may contribute to
other production losses, e.g.
through reduced grazing and water access, and
fertility
Reduced weight gains,
poor feed conversion
Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation – Moderate
Some studies have estimated short to medium
term losses. Losses over a
cow’s lifetime may be significantly greater
Deaths Significance –Moderate
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation – Simple
Few descriptions of outbreaks accurately describe
mortality. Estimates are
often based on opinion and reported/unconfirmed
cases

Measuring impacts
Impacts Significance Gaps
Invisible production losses
Reduced fertility Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation -
Moderate
As a long term impact this has not been captured
but could be modelled
Changes in herd structure Significance –Variable
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation –
Difficult
As a consequence of reduced fertility more adults
will be maintained per unit of outputs (milk, cattle
for meat) leading to an overall need for greater
inputs per unit of output
Delay in the sale of animals and
products
Significance –Variable
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation –
Difficult
Timing of sales may be suboptimal as a
consequence of reduced weight gains or salvaging
cull animals

Measuring impacts
Impacts Significance Gaps
Expenditure – additional costs
Vaccines Significance –High
Knowledge – Adequate
Ease of estimation - Simple
Variable but easy to measure
Vaccine delivery/administration Significance –High
Knowledge – Adequate
Ease of estimation – Moderate
Will vary depending on setting but can measure
Movement controls Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation – Difficult
Important but seldom measured
Surveillance and diagnostic tests Significance –Moderate
Knowledge – Adequate
Ease of estimation – Simple
Rarely quantified
Culled animals Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation – Difficult
Direct culling of FMD affected animals can easily be
estimated, but culling for low productivity resulting
from FMD is harder to measure

Measuring impacts
Impacts Significance Gaps
Reactions leading to revenue foregone
Use of suboptimal breeds and production
systems
Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation - Difficult
FMD may be one of many factors limiting this
Denied access to markets Significance –High
Knowledge – Limited
Ease of estimation - Difficult
Includes not only international trade in FMD-free
markets but also trade between endemic countries
and domestic trade, the latter are particularly
hard to estimate. Trade barriers other than FMD
may also prevent trade.
Can affect other products, Maize??
Knight-Jones, T. J. D., McLaws, M. and J. Rushton, 2016: Foot-and-mouth disease impact on smallholders -
What do we know, what don’t we know and how can we find out more? Transbound Emerg Dis

Workshop on ‘’Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of FAST diseases’’, 22-23 September 2020
- Ex ante – Modelled predictions of future FMD
- Ex poste – Based on actual field data
- How to estimate control effect?
- Who benefits from control – benefits and costs are not evenly shared
- e.g. beef-export market access mostly benefits wealthier producers
-But trickle-down effect on smallholder
- Compare with and without FMD
- Look at similar places with different FMD
- Before and after
- Trial intervention
- Modelled simplified version of reality
- Estimates are highly speculative
Design Considerations

Brazil - FMD outbreaks and vaccination.
Naranjo & Cosivi, Proc Roy Soc B, 2013
South America – Export of meat
from FMD-susceptible species
FMD and exports – South America

Cost of control
• Impact of wildlife control
• Fencing and zonation restricts movement of wildlife and
people
• FMD freedom may be fragile – especially near African
Buffalo populations
• Commodity based trade – a sustainable alternative?
• Vaccination is expensive $1 per dose (often more)
• >2 billion doses per year worldwide
• Requires ongoing programme (Europe & S. America –
took decades)

France - FMD outbreaks and vaccination.
Lombard et al, OIE, Rev. sci. tech., 2007.
The Netherlands - FMD outbreaks
and vaccination. Dekker, A. Foot-
and-mouth disease vaccine induced
protection. (2010).

How to measure?
• Mixture of:
• Retrospective ex post studies
• Field impact studies (before Vs after, or trials)
• Modelling studies
• Need to capture:
• Herd & household, sector impacts, wider economy
• Household impact as % of annual income
• Consider both affected and population level impact
• Trade effects – Important but difficult to capture
• Food security – difficult to capture – important if
dependent on milk

Examples – No comprehensive analysis
Jemberu, W. T., M. C. Mourits, T. Woldehanna and H. Hogeveen, 2014: Economic impact of foot and
mouth disease outbreaks on smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med, 116, 26-36.
Young, J. R., S. Suon, C. J. Andrews, L. A. Henry and P. A. Windsor, 2013: Assessment of financial impact
of foot and mouth disease on smallholder cattle farmers in Southern Cambodia. Transbound Emerg
Dis, 60, 166-174.
Young, J. R., S. Suon, L. Rast, S. Nampanya, P. A. Windsor and R. D. Bush, 2014: Benefit-cost analysis of
foot and mouth disease control in large ruminants in Cambodia. Transbound Emerg Dis.
Nampanya, S., S. Khounsy, R. Abila, J. R. Young, R. D. Bush and P. A. Windsor, 2015a: Financial Impacts
of Foot-and-Mouth Disease at Village and National Levels in Lao PDR. Transbound Emerg Dis.
Nampanya, S., S. Khounsy, A. Phonvisay, J. R. Young, R. D. Bush and P. A. Windsor, 2015b: Financial
Impact of Foot and Mouth Disease on Large Ruminant Smallholder Farmers in the Greater Mekong
Subregion. Transbound Emerg Dis, 62, 555-564.
Casey, M. B., S. Cleaveland, D. Mshanga, T. Kibona, H. Auty, T. Marsh, J. Yoder, B. Perry, R. Kazwala, D.
Haydon, D. King, S. Parida, D. J. Paton, R. Reeve and T. Lembo, 2014: Household level impacts of FMD
on traditional livestock keeping systems of Northern Tanzania, Oral presentation EuFMD Open Session,
Cavtat, Croatia, 29-31 Oct 2014.
Shankar, B., S. Morzaria, A. Fiorucci and M. Hak, 2012: Animal disease and livestock-keeper livelihoods
in Southern Cambodia. International Development Planning Review, 34, 39-63.
Garabed R.B., Johnson W.O., Gill J., Perez A.M. & Thurmond M.C. (2008). – Exploration of associations
between governance and economics and country level foot-and-mouth disease status by using
Bayesian model averaging. J Roy Stat Soc A, 171 (3), 699-722.
Knight-Jones, T. J. D., McLaws, M. and J. Rushton, 2016: Foot-and-mouth disease impact on smallholders -
What do we know, what don’t we know and how can we find out more? Transbound Emerg Dis, In press.

THANK YOU