Problem

Prohibitive cost of animal disease control

Other Names:
High cost of controlling epizootic and enzootic diseases
Nature:
The cost of developing vaccines for certain diseases or the cost of using the vaccines adequately to eradicate the risk of disease may cause other less effective methods to be used, or the vaccine to be used in a less effective way. Slaughtering may be a relatively cheaper method of disease control than vaccination; but without compensation to the farmer, it also causes great economic loss, and slaughter policy may be avoided or reluctantly or sparingly carried out, raising the risk of the spread of disease. Farmers may be unwilling to notify authorities of the possibility of disease if they feel that they will lose their stock. Quarantine measures may also incur economic loss to farmers and breeders. Disinfection measures, especially for pastureland, and carcass disposal measures, may be insufficient owing to cost. A national surveillance system has to be operated to prevent spreading of a contagious disease from the primary outbreak.
Incidence:
Where foot-and-mouth disease is enzootic, vaccination measures are taken, but not 'overall' vaccination because of the cost. Therefore 'frontier' or 'ring' vaccination is practised - vaccination of all susceptible animals within a given radius of an outbreak. Where the disease is not enzootic, but may become epizootic, a 'stamping out' policy is followed with compensation for farmers.
Problem Type:
F: Fuzzy exceptional problems
Related UN Sustainable Development Goals:
GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and ProductionGOAL 15: Life on Land
Date of last update
01.01.2000 – 00:00 CET