tmpC990 TMP

G Model
PREVET-4168; No. of Pages 16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Preventive Veterinary Medicine xxx (2016) xxxxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Veterinary Medicine

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed
A systematic review of nancial and economic assessments of bovine

viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities
worldwide
Beate Pinior a, , Clair L. Firth a , Veronika Richter a , Karin Lebl b , Martine Traufer b ,
Monika Dzieciol c , Sabine E. Hutter a , Johann Burgstaller d , Walter Obritzhauser a ,
Petra Winter e , Annemarie Ksbohrer a,f
a
Institute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
Previously: Institute for Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria
c
Institute of Milk Hygiene, Milk Technology and Food Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
d
University Clinic for Ruminants, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
e
University of Veterinary Medicine, 1210 Vienna, Austria
f
Department for Biological Safety, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 May 2016
Received in revised form 19 October 2016
Accepted 20 December 2016
Keywords:
Economic analysis
Eradication
Control
Vaccination
Surveillance
Biosecurity
a b s t r a c t
Infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) results in major economic losses either directly through
decreased productive performance in cattle herds or indirectly, such as through expenses for control programs. The aim of this systematic review was to review nancial and/or economic assessment studies of
prevention and/or mitigation activities of BVDV at national, regional and farm level worldwide. Once all
predened criteria had been met, 35 articles were included for this systematic review. Studies were analyzed with particular focus on the type of nancially and/or economically-assessed prevention and/or
mitigation activities. Due to the wide range of possible prevention and/or mitigation activities, these
activities were grouped into ve categories: i) control and/or eradication programs, ii) monitoring or
surveillance, iii) prevention, iv) vaccination and v) individual culling, control and testing strategies. Additionally, the studies were analyzed according to economically-related variables such as efciency, costs
or benets of prevention and/or mitigation activities, the applied nancial and/or economic and statistical methods, the payers of prevention and/or mitigation activities, the assessed production systems, and
the countries for which such evaluations are available.
Financial and/or economic assessments performed in Europe were dominated by those from the United
Kingdom, which assessed mostly vaccination strategies, and Norway which primarily carried out assessments in the area of control and eradication programs; whereas among non-European countries the
United States carried out the majority of nancial and/or economic assessments in the area of individual
culling, control and testing. More than half of all studies provided an efciency calculation of prevention
and/or mitigation activities and demonstrated whether the inherent costs of implemented activities were
or were not justied. The dairy sector was three times more likely to be assessed by the countries than
beef production systems. In addition, the dairy sector was approximately eight times more likely to be
assessed economically with respect to prevention and/or mitigation activities than calf and youngstock
production systems. Furthermore, the private sector was identied as the primary payer of prevention
and/or mitigation activities.
This systematic review demonstrated a lack of studies relating to efciency calculations, in particular
at national and regional level, and the specic production systems. Thus, we conrmed the need for more
well-designed studies in animal health economics in order to demonstrate that the implementation and
inherent costs of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities are justied.
2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Beate.Pinior@vetmeduni.ac.at (B. Pinior).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.12.014
0167-5877/ 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: Pinior, B., et al., A systematic review of nancial and economic assessments of bovine viral diarrhea
virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities worldwide. PREVET (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.12.014
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Pinior et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine xxx (2016) xxxxxx
1. Introduction
Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) is a Pestivirus related to
both the causative agent of classical swine fever (CSF) and border disease virus (BDV), which was rst described in New York in
1946 by Olafson and Rickard (1947). BVDV exists in most cattleproducing countries worldwide (Truyers et al., 2010). Infection
leads to substantial costs to the private-public sector through
decreased reproductive performance as direct losses, and increased
control efforts as indirect losses (Otte and Chilonda, 2000). The
direct losses of bovine viral diarrhea infection, such as reduced milk
yield, respiratory disorders, congenital defects, growth retardation,
extended calving intervals, reduced rst service conception, and
increased mortality of animals due to immunosuppression (Houe,
1999), can all justify the implementation of programs to prevent
or mitigate the disease (Moennig et al., 2005). Prevention activities
may comprise biosecurity measures aiming to prevent transmission of infection between infected and uninfected herds, i.e. by
avoiding contact with PI animals (movement restrictions) and/or
vaccination and/or testing of cattle before movement (Houe et al.,
2006). Mitigation activities may include surveillance and intervention measures (Howe et al., 2012). Surveillance measures intend
to detect the presence or demonstrate the absence of the disease
(Howe et al., 2012). Intervention measures such as control or eradication programs aim at reducing disease prevalence, but differ in
the degree of disease reduction (Houe et al., 2006). Control measures aim to reduce disease prevalence to a relatively low level,
while the purpose of eradication is to provide a continued absence
of the disease (Andrews and Langmuir, 1963; Houe et al., 2006) by
testing and removal of infected cattle. The relationship between
prevention, surveillance and interventions measures and avoided
production losses should be considered simultaneously from an
economic point of view (Howe et al., 2012). High investments
in prevention activities at the farm level can lead to minor costs
incurred for mitigation of the disease at the national level or vice
versa. With respect to BVDV, the eradication of persistently infected
(PI) animals is the primary goal of mitigation programs (Lanyon and
Reichel, 2013). PI animals were infected in utero prior to 120 days
gestation and subsequently their immune systems fail to recognize
the BVD virus as a non-self antigen (Tizard, 2009). As such, they
excrete large amounts of virus, but are unable to develop specic
antibodies to BVDV. PI animals are, therefore, essential in transmitting infection (Houe, 1999) and are often considered to be the
primary source of BVDV introduction to a cattle herd (Niskanen
et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2014; Burgstaller et al., 2016). In contrast, transiently infected (TI) cattle show mild clinical signs and
shed small amounts of virus particles for a period of approximately
14 days (Brownlie et al., 1987).
It is clear that mitigation activities for nonregulated animal diseases, such as BVDV in the European Union, can vary substantially
between countries (Heffernan et al., 2009) and even within a single country, if no national form of coordination exists (Geraghty
et al., 2014). The degree of variation in mitigation activities depends
on the perceived importance of the disease by policy makers
(Heffernan et al., 2009), the geographical level at which mitigation
activities are implemented (Lindberg et al., 2006; such as national,
regional or farm level) and/or whether compulsory or voluntary
regulations exist; all of which have an inuence on the costs and
benets of the implemented measures.
The lack of economic data relating to the prevention and/or mitigation activities of animal diseases has been discussed in many
veterinary studies (Drewe et al., 2012; Pinior et al., 2015a,b). As yet,
no global review exists that provides information on the availability
of nancial and/or economic assessments with regard to BVDV prevention and/or mitigation. Thus, the aim of this systematic review
was to review nancial and/or economic assessment studies of pre-
Table 1
Terms used for the systematic search of scientic studies.
Section
Search terms
BVDV AND
Prevention and/or
mitigation activities
control program/me* OR eradication*OR

intervention* OR mitigation* OR surveillance* OR
freedom from disease*OR biosecurity* OR
Scandinavian strategya
nancial impact* OR cost analysis* OR cost benet*
OR economics* OR economic models* OR
expenses* OR production losses* OR disease losses
Financial and/or
economic
Due to the high number of studies available, the search terms control program/me,
diseases losses and production losses were set in quotation marks to ensure that
the search engine returned only items where these combinations of terms were
adjacent to each other.
a
The term Scandinavian strategy refers to the assessment of the BVDV status
of herds by monitoring BVDV herd health using serological diagnostic methods, on
clearance of the virus from the herd (Lindberg and Alenius, 1999) and livestock
movement controls.
vention and/or mitigation activities of BVDV at national, regional

and farm level. Studies were analyzed with particular focus on the
type of nancially and/or economically-assessed prevention and/or
mitigation activities and nancial and economic variables such as
the efciency, costs or benets of these prevention and/or mitigation activities, the applied nancial and/or economic and statistical
assessment methods, the payers of prevention and/or mitigation
activities, the assessed production systems, and the countries for
which such assessments are available.
2. Material and methods
In order to identify studies focusing on the economics of BVDV
prevention and/or mitigation activities at national, regional or farm
level, an extensive literature search with no restriction on the
date of study publication was performed between December 2014
and January 2015 using the following scientic online databases:
PubMed (from 1879 until present), ISI Web of Science (from 1900
until present) and Scopus (from 1960 until present). The restricted
number of search terms used for this systematic review was applied
to all databases and are described in Table 1. No restrictions were
made with respect to article language. Depending on the original
article language, multilingual authors (CF, MT, MD, SH), as well as
professional translators such as from the Department of East Asian
Studies, University of Vienna, assisted in the translation of a variety
of articles.
In the systematic review presented here, the term prevention
and/or mitigation referred to the following activities as described
by Lindberg and Houe (2005): prevention (biosecurity) measures,
vaccination, monitoring and/or surveillance, testing and/or virus
elimination measures e.g. within the context of control and/or
eradication programs, and the subsidization of these activities e.g.
compensation payments to the farmer for the elimination of PI animals at national, regional and farm level. Our systematic review
comprises nancial and/or economic assessments of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities. Financial assessments focused on
private entities (farm or organization level) and investigated (Otte
and Chilonda, 2000), e.g. the changes of cash ows (inow and/or
outow), repayments, income statements, balance sheet, nancial returns to the private sector regarding the implementation of
BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities, whereas economic
assessments determine e.g. whether investments in the prevention and/or mitigation activities are justied to a society (national
level) as a whole (Otte and Chilonda, 2000).
Different nancial and economic assessment methods exist,
which can inform decision makers about the efciency, costs
or benets of prevention and/or mitigation activities. Methods
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
to assess efciency include e.g. cost-benet analysis, costeffectiveness analysis, least-cost analysis (Hoinville et al., 2013),
cost-utility analysis, budget impact analysis (Simoens, 2009), or
partial-budget analysis. The latter assesses the costs and benets
associated with a specic business change e.g. on a farm due to different production practices (Dijkhuizen et al., 1997; Rushton et al.,
1999). The results of these methods can be expressed in different
forms. For instance, the outcome of a cost-benets analysis can be
presented as net costs/benets, net present value, benet-cost ratio
or in form of internal rate of return (Rushton et al., 1999; Cellini
and Kee, 2010). Overviews of the different applied nancial and
economic methods as a function of different assessments levels
(farm, regional or national) have been published by Dijkhuizen et al.
(1995), Rushton et al. (1999), and Otte and Chilonda (2000). However, in our systematic review the term nancial and/or economic
assessments not only covers studies that calculated the efciency
of prevention and/or mitigation activities using general nancial
or economic methods, but also studies that assessed the costs or
benets (e.g. prevented losses) regarding economic impacts of prevention and/or mitigation activities by describing the monetary
costs or benets of eradication programs e.g. in Tabular overviews.
Thus, the systematic review presented here provides as much detail
as possible on the economics of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation.
In order to identify relevant studies for the purpose of this
review a two-step process was applied. First, all articles identied via the search terms in the databases (primary articles) were
reviewed in full by one reviewer (BP) and were reviewed again for
validation by three independent reviewers (VR, JB, KL) with different educational backgrounds (economics, veterinary medicine
and statistics). Two of these reviewers read all articles in full and
one reviewer received notes from the rst reviewer (BP). In a second step, the references lists of the relevant primary articles were
screened by title and abstract according to the search terms dened
in Table 1 (secondary articles). Of these, studies that contained
nancial and/or economic assessments of the considered prevention and/or mitigation activities were also reviewed and validated
in full. Any disagreements regarding the inclusion of studies were
resolved by consensus through discussion between all reviewers.
Primary and secondary articles were excluded if they were not
available in full or were published as a specic document type such
as a book chapter (primary exclusion criteria). Additionally, studies
were excluded which had no own inherent nancial and/or economic assessments such as review studies or studies that did not
provide monetary outcomes or studies not related to the topic, such
as those that did not assess prevention and/or mitigation activities
economically (e.g. studies which focused only on prevention and/or
mitigation or production losses) or those which focused on BVDV in
species other than cattle (secondary exclusion criteria). The number of identied articles (primary and secondary articles) and the
exclusion process (primary and secondary exclusion criteria) are
illustrated in Fig. 1.
Each relevant article and conference proceeding was evaluated
in terms of the nancial and economic assessment criteria initially
described by Evers et al. (2005) and modied for the purpose of
this review. The evaluation scale is shown in Table 2 and ranged
from completely fullled (class 1) to scarcely fullled (class 3) the
criteria. Additionally, studies from all classes have been analyzed
according to the criteria provided in Table 3. To perform a descriptive statistical analysis, we grouped the analyzed criteria of the
studies into different categories (Table 3).
3. Results
Overall, 7% (n = 35) of the identied articles (N = 487) published
nancial and/or economic assessments (Fig. 1) of prevention and/or
Table 2
Classication criteria for the assignment of the studies in class 1 (all criteria are
completely fullled) to class 3 (criteria are scarcely fullled).
Classes
Classication criteria
(1) baseline
Financial and/or economic analysis of BVDV prevention

and/or mitigation activities was the main aim.
Allocation of the costs/benets per payer were
available.
Financial and/or economic assessment methods and
corresponding data sources were traceable.
Study outcomes regarding costs/benets of prevention
and/or mitigation activities were measured in
quantitative units.
All important variables, for which values are uncertain,
were subjected to a sensitivity analysis.
Data regarding the payers were not provided AND/OR
Financial and/or economic assessment methods or
corresponding data sources were not traceable.
Important variables, for which values are uncertain,
were not subjected to a sensitivity analysis.
Data regarding the payers were not provided AND/OR
No general nancial and/or economic assessment
methods were applied and corresponding data sources
were not traceable.
Important variables, for which values are uncertain,
were not subjected to a sensitivity analysis AND/OR
Financial and/or economic analysis of BVDV prevention
and/or mitigation activities was not the main aim.
(2)
(3)
Class 1 was used as baseline. N.B Conducting a sensitivity analysis was only used
as evaluation criteria in studies with a modeling approach.
mitigation activities with regard to BVDV and were considered relevant for this systematic review. The majority of the studies were
published after 2000 (74%; n = 26), in particular in 2005 (13%; n = 5).
Approximately, half of the studies (n = 18) were identied as modeling studies. According to the predened criteria listed in Table 2,
23% (n = 8) of these nancial and/or economic assessments could be
assigned to class 1, 34% (n = 12) to class 2 and 43% (n = 15) to class
3. The studies aimed mainly to assess prevention and/or mitigation
activities in economic terms (n = 29) or to describe them (n = 6).
Fig. 2 shows that the majority of nancial and/or economic
assessments are based primarily in the area of control and/or
eradication programs (34%; n = 12), followed by individual culling,
control and/or diagnostic testing strategies (17%; n = 6). The
remaining studies cover more than one area, with most of the
intersections being found between the areas of prevention (e.g.
biosecurity) and vaccination strategies. Most frequently, nancial
and/or economic assessments related to BVDV prevention and/or
mitigation activities were performed in Europe (77%; n = 27), dominated by the United Kingdom (Scotland), Norway, Germany, and
Switzerland; non-European countries, such as the United States
of America, New Zealand and Canada, made up 23% of the studies (n = 8). Fig. 2 shows that Norway carried out most economic
assessments in the control and eradication area, whereas the United
Kingdom, in contrast to the other countries, often assessed the costs
and/or the benets of vaccination strategies and the United States
assessed mostly individual culling, control and diagnostic testing
strategies at the farm level. Fig. 2 also reveals that only a small
number of studies (n = 3) economically assessed surveillance and
monitoring programs.
The 35 studies of prevention and/or mitigation activities
included in this systematic review were classied according to the
analyzed nancial and/or economic variables and payers of prevention and/or mitigation activities (Fig. 3a and b), applied nancial
and/or economic and statistical methods (Fig. 3c and d), assessed
production systems and the geographical level of the nancial
and/or economic assessments (see Table 3). Fig. 3a shows that the
majority of the studies calculated the efciency (relation between
costs and benets or comparison of various activities in terms of
G Model
4
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Flow chart describing the number of identied articles and the exclusion process for the systematic review.
their costs) at farm level (n = 9) rather than at national (n = 7) or

regional level (n = 1). The studies at farm level primarily assess
the efciency of prevention (e.g. biosecurity) measures (14%; n = 5)
such as the protability of closed farm systems or avoiding contact
with PI animals through quarantine or reducing the replacement
rate. Further studies (11%; n = 4) analyze the efciency of testing or
vaccination strategies. Examples of this include attempts to make
herd-level control measures more economical by determining e.g.
the optimal number of samples needed to detect PI animals. In
general, one third of the studies focused on the prevented production losses due the implementation of prevention and/or mitigation
activities at the farm level. The other studies at farm level analyzed the least cost options of different diagnostic testing schemes.
Studies at national or regional level revealed a net benet/cost
(compared the costs of the program with the prevented production
losses) of hypothetical or previously implemented control and/or
eradication programs (17%; n = 8) after a specic period of time. In
total, 84% of all studies at the national and regional level focused
on the eradication, 11% on the control and 5% on the prevention

(through biosecurity measures) of BVDV. Individual costs or benets were mainly published in studies at all geographical levels and
focused on the costs and benets of national or regional control
and/or eradication programs (n = 10), prevention (biosecurity) programs (n = 3) and, the costs or benets of different testing strategies
(n = 5).
In total, 65% (n = 23) of all analyzed studies mentioned the
payers of the prevention and/or mitigation activities (Fig. 3b),
who were primarily located in the private sector. Germany provided the most information regarding subsidized nancing of BVDV
control and eradication programs through farmer organizations
such as animal disease funds (Tierseuchenkasse). Fig. 3c shows
that most studies at all geographical levels describe the costs and
benets (38%; n = 14) e.g. in a tabular listing, followed by studies that applied partial budget analysis (18%; n = 7), cost-benet
analysis (16%; n = 6) or other nancial and/or economic methods such as production function, economic welfare methodology,
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 3
Analyzed criteria of the studies assigned to classes 13.
Analysis criteria
Categories
Denition and assignment of the studiesa
Study type
Descriptive
Modeling
Type of nancial
and/or
economically
assessed
prevention and/or
mitigation
activities
Control
Eradication
Prevention
Monitoring/Surveillance
Vaccination
Individual culling/control/diagnostic
testing
Combination of these areas
Geographical level
National level
Regional level
Farm level
Financial/
Economic variables
Efciency
Cost
Benet
Payers
Private sector
Public sector
Methodology
Financial/Economic
Statistical
Production system
Cattle
Dairy
Beef
Dairy and Beef
Calves and youngstock
The study type descriptive does not use statistical models in combination with nancial
and/or economic methods in order to assess current data.
Modeling studies used statistical (simulation) models in combination with nancial
and/or economic methods to analyze current or prospective scenarios under a variety of
conditions.
The area control summarized assessments to reduce the disease prevalence.
The area eradication summarized assessments to provide a continued absence of disease.
The area prevention summarized assessments of biosecurity measures such as avoiding
contact with PI animals, no further purchase, testing of cattle before movement etc.
The area monitoring covered all assessments to monitor the disease without a
pre-dened action plan (Hoinville et al., 2013).
The area surveillance covered all assessments to detect the presence or demonstrate the
absence of the disease with a pre-dened action plan.
The area of vaccination covered all assessments were vaccination strategies were
mentioned.
The area individual culling/control/diagnostic testing summarized assessments of single
mitigation activities at farm level.
The area combination of these areas covered more than one area, e.g. the use of vaccine
to prevent BVDV infection covers both the prevention and vaccination areas.
A regional level covers one or more than one geographical units (e.g. regions, provinces
or states) of a country, but did not cover the entire country (representative proportion of
the entire country = national level).
Financial assessments at herd level or per animal or per farm were assigned to the
geographical category farm level.
Studies that determine the relationship (e.g. net present value or benet-cost ratio)
between monetary assessments of prevention and/or mitigation activities (Input) and
avoided production losses (Output) were assigned to the category efciency. In this
context, two categories can be distinguished: Optimization (maximization of the net
benet) and Acceptability (prevented production losses averted through mitigation
activities should at least cover its costs).
Studies that determine the minimum costs can be distinguished in least costs or
cost-effectiveness (without quantication of the monetary benet) with reference to
ensuring the target of prevention and/or mitigation activities were included in the
category efciency (Hoinville et al., 2013).
The term cost covered xed (costs vary in the long-term) and/or variable costs (costs
vary in the short-term) and/or expenses and/or in-kind contribution/opportunity costs
(vary in the long and/or short term) (Pinior et al., 2015a,b).
The term benet included the economic value of international trade, the mitigation of
production losses, testing strategies, losses saved, new revenue.
Payers in the private sector covers farmers, farmer organizations, and the farming
industry in general.
Payers in the public sector covers governments and political authorities in general.
The methodologies in the category nancial and/or economic range from the
descriptions of costs/benets to general methods such as cost-benet analysis, partial
budget analysis.
Statistical methodologies range from basic statistics such as calculation of condence
intervals, odds ratio (assigned to category N.S.) to stochastic (simulation) models.
The term cattle summarized all studies, for which more than one production system
(ranged from dairy to calves and youngstock systems) could be determined.
The assignment of a study to the categories is based on their study outcome.
return on investment calculation, linear programing or contingency claim analysis. Beside the usage of nancial or economic
methods, statistical methods were also applied. The most commonly applied statistical methods were stochastic (simulation)
models. Sensitivity analysis and PERT distributions were mainly
performed in connection with a stochastic model in order to
evaluate the uncertain variables. Stochastic (simulation) models
included the methodology of Markov Chain/state-transition models and/or Monte Carlo-methods, Reed-Frost (SIR) models and
Bayesian approaches.
With regard to the different production systems, we have identied that dairy production systems were approximately eight
times more likely to be assessed economically with regard to
BVD prevention and/or mitigation activities than calf and youngstock production systems. Beef production systems were primarily
assessed by the United States and the United Kingdom. The results
indicate that three times more countries take the dairy sector into
account than beef production systems. Overall, 51% (n = 18) of the

studies made direct reference to cattle in general. The analyses of
the prevention and/or mitigation activities at the geographical level
(studies from all classes 13) show that 34% (n = 12) of the assessments could be allocated to national level, 20% (n = 7) to regional
level, and 46% (n = 16) to farm level. A tabular overview of these
studies (studies assigned to classes 13) regarding the considered
prevention and/or mitigation activities, applied assessment methods, and nancial and/or economic outcomes of the studies can be
found in Tables 46 .
4. Discussion
As far as the authors are aware, this is the rst global systematic
review to be carried out regarding the economics of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities. In contrast to other reviews with
a similar focus (Greiser-Wilke et al., 2003; Houe, 2003; Moennig
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (million EUR)1
Cattle population size
Conclusion
Norway
Valle et al., 2000
(Va00)
Testing
Culling
Production losses
Treatment
Test equipment
Field Work
Cost-Benet Analysis
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
NPV: +5.1 (19931997)

(5 years)
Break-even point:
2 years
Total: 24,000 dairy

herds (1993)
Total: 4000 beef herds
(1993)
Valle et al., 2005

(Va05)
Sampling
(Re-)Testing
Culling
Production losses
Treatment
Mailing expenses
Field Work
Salary of the project
manager; Test-Kits
Value of animals
culled
Cost-Benet Analysis
Stochastic (Simulation)
model
NPV: +14 (19932003)

(10 years)
Total: 26,000 dairy

herds
(14 cows/herd; 1993)
19,000 dairy herds
(2002)
1800 beef herds (1993)
3500 beef herds
(2002);
Lken and Nyberg,

2013 (Lo13)
Sampling
Testing
Culling
Movement restrictions
Production losses
Economic description
N.S.
Cost: 5.7 (19932003)

(10 years)
Benet: 5.421.6/year
Nyberg et al., 2004

(Ny04)
Program
in general
N.S.
N.S.
Net Benet: +14

(19922003; 10 years)
Total: 27,000 dairy

herds (340,000 cows;
12.6 cows/herd; 1992);
2600 beef herds
(12,000 cows; 4.6
cows/herd; 1992)
19,000 dairy herds
(290,000 cows; 2002);
5800 beef
herds (47,000 cows;
2002)
Total: 26,424 dairy
herds
Ireland
Stott et al., 2012
(St12)
Sampling
(Re-)Testing
Culling
Surveillance
(Vaccination)
Production losses
Partial-Budget
Treatment
Analysis/
(Veterinary
Cost-Benet Analysis/
visit/service/medicine/vet
and other fees)
Replacement
Opportunity costs
Value of cull cow/
Material
Disposal
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Markov-Chain;
Compartment
Methodology)
Switzerland Hsler
et al., 2012
(H12)
(Re-)Sampling
(Re-)Testing
Culling
Surveillance
Movement bans
Production losses
Treatment
Postage; Vet
service/visits/fees
Material
Rendering
Slaughter animal
IT database
Labour
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Compartment,
State-transition
/Markov-Chain
Methodology)
Cost: 6/year
cow-calf (suckler) herds
Cost: 4/year
dairy herds
Benet: 27/year
Cow-calf herds
Benet: 55/year
dairy herds
Benet cost ratio (6 years):
5 for cow-calf herds
14 for dairy herds
Cost: 62
Benet: 120
+58 available for
surveillance
(20082017;
over 10 years)
Break-even point:
5 years (2012)
The program was

economically benecial in
the second year and the
private sector bore 75% of
the costs.
The eradication program
was benecial. The
production losses were
estimated conservatively
because the losses were
based on herds, which
were already enrolled
in the program. Thus, the
NPV could be
underestimated.
The eradication costs were
calculated at EUR5.7
million.
The cattle owners paid 43%
of the costs. Freedom from
BVD has been
demonstrated
by subsequently
surveillance program in
2004. (Surveillance was not
economically assessed.
The eradication program
generates an economic
gain for Norway.
A economic benet of
eradication was
demonstrated. The benet
exceeded the costs by a
factor of 14 in dairy herds
and a factor of 5 in cow-calf
herds. The total eradication
costs was EUR55 million.
The payback period were
calculated to be 1.2 (cowcalf) and 0.4 years (dairy).
The mean cumulative
discounted benet of the
mitigation program was
calculated to be EUR120
million. The costs to
documented freedom from
BVDV were less than the
margin potentially
available
for the surveillance.
Cost-Benet
Analysis/Least-CostAnalysis
Total: 24,267 dairy

herds (1,140,533 cows;
2008)
Total: 63,770 cow-calf
(suckler) herds
(905,110 cows;
2008)
Total: 1,520,859 cattle

(2008)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Others
G Model
Prevention/Mitigation
activities
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)
Table 4
Overview of assessed prevention and/or mitigation activities, applied methods and study outcomes at national level.
Others
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (million EUR)1
Conclusion
Buchwalder, 2006
(Bu06)
Program
in general
Production losses
N.S.
Cost: 55 (3 years)
Losses: 7.39.2/year
N.S.
Presi and Heim,

2010 (Pr10)
Program
in general
N.S.
N.S.
Cost: 40 (approx. 3 years)
Total: 1.57 million

cattle
France
Dufour et al.,
1999 (Du99)
Sampling
Testing
Culling
Production losses
Compensation
Veterinary services
Cost-Benet Analysis
N.S.
Denmark
Bitsch and
Rnsholt, 1995
(Bi95)
Testing
Control of favorable
status
Eradication
BVD certicates
(trade) after
testing
N.S.
Cost: 1.6 (rst year)

Benet: 0.9 (rst year)
Break even point:
15 years
Total cost: 24.8 (3 years)
Cost: 10.4 (3 years; dairy)
Cost: 2.97 (2 years; beef)
Cost certication (Trade):
11.4
235,000 cattle
(sample);
Total: 20 million cattle
(National)
6000 dairy herds
(50 cows/herd;
sample, 1995)
750 beef herds
(10 cows/herd;
sample)
(Total: 15,000 dairy
herds and 15,000 beef
herds, 1995; National)
The eradication costs were

estimated at
EUR3.60/farm/yr
Approx. EUR13 million of
the eradication costs is
paid by the farmers.
The eradication would be
economical benecial
after 15 years.
United Kingdom
Bennett and
Done, 1986
(Be86)
Testing
Elimination
Vaccination
Production losses
Cost-Benet-Analysisa
N.S.
NPV: 10.4
N.S.
(Total: 12.6 million
cattle, 1986; National)2
Bennett and
IJpelaar, 2005
(Be05b)
Monitoring
Control in general
Production losses
Treatment
Animal Welfare
N.S.
Cost: 3.5-4.4
163,000-579,000 cattle
(sample)
(19962001)
The economic analysis of

BVD eradication clearly
demonstrated that BVDV
should be eradicated. The
authors compared their
own calculated costs of the
program with the
calculated production
losses of other studies.
Farmers were the main
payers of mitigation
activities.
The control program and
vaccination program would
be too costly together.
Authors recommend to
focus
on more selective
mitigation activities in
order to improve
the benet cost ratio.
The costs of the mitigation
activities were calculated
to
be EUR3.4-4.4 million.
The NPV was not
calculated. The production
losses
amounted to
EUR29.173-9 million.
N.S. = not specied; a presumed; N.B. Monetary values have been converted into euros (without adjusting for ination). Prevention and/or mitigation activities in brackets were passively included in the calculation. Costs are
expenses of prevention and/or mitigation activities, unless stated otherwise; Benets are e.g. losses prevented, new revenue, economic value of testing; NPV = Net present value is dened as the sum of total discounted benets
minus the sum of total discounted costs; Net benets/costs = Total costs are subtracted from the total benets.
1
Exchange rates throughout the document are taken from the following website: http://www.xe.com/ (accessed 22 April 2016) EUR1 = approx. USD1.12, GBP0.78, CHF1.09, NZD1.64, CAD1.42, SEK9.13, NOK9.23, DKK7.44 as
at 22 April 2016.
2
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/structure-of-the-livestock-industry-in-england-at-december (accessed 12 August 2016).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
activities
G Model
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)
Table 4 (Continued)
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (million
EUR)1
Conclusion
United Kingdom
Weldegebriel
et al., 2009
(We09)
(Vaccination)
(Biosecurity)
Removal
Production losses
Veterinary service
and medicine
Replacement
Feed
Value of culled cows
/Saleable livestock
Economic welfare
methodology/
Economic
surplus
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Markov-Chain/
Monte Carlo;
Reed-Frost;
Compartment)
171,768 dairy
cows (sample,
2006)
(Total: 10.3
million cattle,
2006; National)2
The Scottish eradication

program produced overall
a net economic surplus. In
contrast to the farmer
without BVD, the farmer
with BVD and consumers make
the highest gains
from BVD eradication.
Germany
Pauels, 2002
(Pa02)
Testing
Vaccination
Culling
Subsidization
N.S.
22,600 cattle (sample;

2000)
(Average: Total: 4.71
million cattle,
19862000;
Bavaria)
Timm, 1997
(Ti97)
Culling
Subsidization
Production losses
Decision-Tree
analysis
Net benet: 49.9

(infected herds; 10
years);
Net costs: 3
(uninfected herds)
Net benet: 13.9 (milk
consumer)
Net economic surplus:
60.8
Costs3 : 6.6 (premature
culling)
(19862000)
Costs: 11.5
(vaccination)
Costs: 0.4-0.5/year
(testing)
Costs: 0.06
Schnrch and
Gerisch, 2003
(Sc03)
Testing
Subsidization
N.S.
Costs: 1.5/per animala
Austria
Rossmanith et al.,
2005 (Ro05)
Program
in general
N.S.
N.S.
Costs: 1.5/per animala
Austria
Obritzhauser,
2000 (Ob00)
Testing
Production losses
N.S.
United States
Ridpath, 2012
(Ri12)
Testing
Subsidization
Economic
description
N.S.
Costs6 : 1.1
Scandinavian model
(rst year); 2.2 Antigen
model Costs: 0.4
Scandinavian model
(6 year); 1.4 Antigen
model
Costs: 1.95/animala
The Bavarian animal disease

organizations provided
nan-cial support for
vaccination (EUR11.5 million)
and
testing (EUR0.4-0.5 million)
per year.
The culling of 146 PI
animals in 27 livestock
holdings in Lower Saxony
incurred subsidized costs
(EUR63,000) from the
animal disease organization.
The animal disease
organization in Lower
Saxony provided nancial
support of EUR1.50 per
diagnostic test of PI animals.
The total annual costs of
the regional eradication
program were estimated at
EUR1.50 per animal.
The costs of the antigen testing
strategy would be two to three
times higher than the costs of
the Scandinavian testing
approach.
146 cattle in 27
holdings (sample,
1997)
cattle, 1997;
Lower Saxony)
185 holdings and
149,842 cattle
(sample); (Total: 0.36
million, 2003; Lower
Saxony)4
Total: 0.46 million
cattle, 2005;
Lower Austria)5
Total: 0.36 million
cattle; 0.15 million
dairy cows, 1999;
Styria)7
Total: 585 herds

(190,000 cattle,
sample; 2012)
Farmers in the biosecurity

project in Montana received
nancial support of EUR1.74
per test.
N.S. = not specied; a not presented in million EUR; N.B. Monetary values have been converted into euros (without adjusting for ination). Prevention and/or mitigation activities in brackets were passively included in the
calculation. Costs are expenses of prevention and/or mitigation activities, unless stated otherwise; Benets are e.g. losses prevented, new revenue, economic value of testing; NPV = Net present value is dened as the sum of total
discounted benets minus the sum of total discounted costs; Net benets/costs = Total costs are subtracted from the total benets.
1
Exchange rates throughout the document are taken from the following website: http://www.xe.com/ (accessed 22 April 2016). EUR1 = approx. USD1.12, GBP0.78, CHF1.09, NZD1.64, CAD1.42, SEK9.13, NOK9.23, DKK7.44 as
at 22 April 2016.
2
3
The German mark (DM) no longer exists. Thus, an ofcial exchange rate to euros was used: http://frankfurt-interaktiv.de/specials/euro/eurorechner.html (accessed 23 April 2016).
4
http://www.statistik.thueringen.de/presse/2004/pr 204 04.htm (accessed 24 July 2016).
5
http://www.noe.gv.at/Land-Forstwirtschaft/Landwirtschaft/Gruener-Bericht.html#47051 (accessed 24 July 2016).
6
The Austrian schilling (ATS) no longer exists. Thus, an ofcial exchange rate to euros was used: http://de.coinmill.com/ATS EUR.html#ATS=19791058 (accessed 03 August 2016).
7
http://www.verwaltung.steiermark.at/cms/beitrag/11680323/74835962/ (accessed 24 July 2016).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Others
G Model
activities
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)
Table 5
Overview of assessed prevention and/or mitigation activities, applied methods and study outcomes at regional level.
Others
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (EUR)a
Conclusion
Canada
Chi et al., 2002 (Ch02)
Vaccination
Movement
Introduction and
vaccination check;
Culling
Purchase source
Production losses
Treatment
Replacement
Slaughter value
Partial-Budget Analysis
Regression
model (Tobit)
90 dairy herds
(50 cow herd)
Minimizing BVD
production losses will not
generally also minimize
the total costs. Vaccination
was determined as an
important factor to reduce
the total costs.
United States Smith

et al., 2014 (Sm14)
Testing
Vaccination
Production losses
Treatment
Labour
Sale price
Weaning weight
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model (MonteCarlo; ReedFrost; Compartment)
Minimum direct losses

and prevention costs:
494/herd (vaccination
and purchasing from a
dealer)
Minimum direct losses
and prevention costs:
1609/herd (purchasing
from a dealer)
Lowest median costs:
18,750 (testing) and
7142 (vaccination of
breeding animals;
testing imported
adults) for
400 breeding females,
60 pregnant heifers,
4 imported bulls,
100 imported stockers.
(10 years)
Various herd proles:

50400 breeding
females
860 (non)pregnant heifers,
14 bulls,
100 stockers
(Total: 88 million
cattle, 2014;
National)1
Larson et al., 2002

(La02)
Testing
Production losses
Weaning weight
Others i.e. balance

sheet
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
Testing and vaccination

measures decrease in most
cases the risk of high-BVD
cost outbreaks. Authors
conclude that there is no
perfect biosecurity and
testing strategy to t all
herd types and sizes, and
thus the choice of
prevention activities
should be made
individually for each
livestock holding.
The money available to
remove PI cattle may (not)
justify the testing scheme.
Larson et al., 2005

(La05)
Testing
N.S.
Basic statistics
United States
Nickell et al., 2011
(Ni11)
Testing
Production losses
Health costs
Market value
Weaning weight
Revenue
analysis
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Monte Carlo)
Yan et al., 2011

(Ya11)
Testing
Pooling samples
N.S.
Others i.e. equations
N.S.
Benet (without PI
animal): 17.27/cow
(1991)
10.05/cow (1995)
Break-even costs: 2472
for two test strategy
and 6908 for single test
strategy
Benet: 299/50
animals; 530/100
animals;
1826/500 animals
128 herds (Total: 96

million cattle, 2002;
National)1
Costs: 1.88/25 pool size

Costs: 1.81/50 pool size
27,932 cattle
938 cattle in 2 stocker

operations
(Total: 95 million
cattle, 2005; National)
50, 100, 500 cows
(Total: 93 million
The break-even costs for

the single test was higher
than for the two-test
strategy.
Implementation of any
testing strategy led to a
benet if herds were BVDV
infected, whereby the
economic value of testing
varied across e.g. the herd
size and type of the testing.
The least cost pool size was
50 (with a prevalence of
0.25-0.5%) and 25
(prevalence of 0.75-2%).
Pool sizes of 25 samples
tested by ACE and
RT-PCR led to a cost
reduction of 6090% per
animal compared with
individual testing.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
activities
G Model
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)
Table 6
Overview of assessed prevention and/or mitigation activities, applied methods and study outcomes at farm level.
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (EUR)a
Conclusion
United Kingdom Stott

et al., 2003
(St03)
Double fencing Vermin

control Protective
clothing/boots
Production losses
Veterinary service
Replacement
Opportunity costs
Linear
Programing/
Production function/
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Compartment,
Markov-Chain/
Monte Carlo;
Reed Frost)
100 cow-calf herd

(sample)
By consideration of the
whole-farm nancial risk,
the least-cost BVDV control
option might not be the
optimal strategy in all
cases.
Santarossa et al., 2005

(Sa05)
Vaccination Biosecurity
Production losses
Contingency
claim analysis
(Utility
Function)
100-cow calf herd

(sample)
The effectiveness of
prevention and mitigation
activities has an inuence
on the risk-free nancial
returns to the farmer.
United Kingdom
Stott et al., 2010 (St10)
Biosecurity
Production losses
Veterinary service
Replacement
Opportunity costs
Reduced sale weight
and/or price per kg
Economic
description
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Monte Carlo/
Markov-Chain
Methodology)
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Markov-Chain;
Reed Frost;
Compartment
Methodology)
60 and 120 cows

(Total: 9.9 million
Stott and Gunn, 2008

(St08)
Vaccination Biosecurity
Production losses
Opportunity costs
Production/
Benet function
Stochastic
(Simulation)
model
(Markov-Chain/
Monte Carlo;
Reed-Frost;
Compartment
Methodology)
The average BVDV

production losses changed
signicantly (P > 0.05) if the
avoided contact (q)
between animals exceeded
the value
0.9 (q is dened between 0
and 1).
The mean net benet
differs between the disease
status and
applied control options,
an 80% vaccination
strategy was identied as
the best control measure.
Wright, 2013
(Wr13)
Testing
Vaccination
Production losses
Production costs
(e.g. marketing,
transport,
vet fees)
Sale value
Partial Budget analysisb
N.S.
Minimum expected
direct costs and
prevention costs:
28/cow/year (unknown
herd status)
26/cow/year
(susceptible
herd status)
(10 years)
NPV: approx. 9000 (10
years) (80% efciency
of vaccination)
NPV: approx. 7300
(80% efciency of
biosecurity)
Direct losses:
4555/cow/year (60%
efciency of
biosecurity);
Direct losses:
654/cow/
year (90% efciency of
biosecurity)
Mean net benet:
33/cow/year (free 50
cow herd; 80% efcient
of vaccination)
Mean net benet:
18/cow/year (unknown
status: 50 cow herd;
80% efcient of
vaccination)
New revenue/income:
130/cow
(20062011)
Harkness, 1987 (Ha87)
Sampling
Testing
Vaccination
(Culling)
N.S.
N.S.
Costs: 786789/herd
(2 years)
Cow-calf
(suckler) herd
(50 or 120 cows)
(Total: 8.8
National)4
Beef herd
(120 cows)
(Total: 9.6 million
Cattle herd
(140 cattle)
In the case study, BVDV

losses were compared both
with and without
implementation of
prevention activities. The
prevention activities
generate additional income
per breeding cow to the
farmer.
Test and culling strategy
incurred similar costs as
vaccination. The authors
preferred the vaccination
of cattle because it is easier
to operate.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Others
G Model
activities
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)
10
Table 6 (Continued)
Others
Financial/Economic
methods
Statistic methods
Outcome (EUR)a
Conclusion
New Zealand Reichel

et al., 2008 (Re08)
Testing
Culling
Vaccination
Electried outrigger
Production losses
Return on investment
Decision-Tree Analysis
Dairy herd
(332 cows)
(Total: 4.2
National)6
Over the long term, all

implemented prevention
and mitigation activities
appear cheaper than
living with BVDV infection.
Netherlands
Pasman et al., 1994
(Pa94)
(Re-)Testing
Culling
Production losses
Rearing
Market value
No more purchase
Double fencing;
Protective
boots/clothing
Dis-infecting basinc
Production losses
Veterinary visits
Value of sold heifers
Replacement
Rearing
Partial-Budget
Analysis
Dairy herd
(100 cow) (Total: 4.5
National)8
Dairy herd
(55 cow)
(Total: 3.8 million
Culling infected herds in

the rst year incurred
net costs to the farmer.
van Schaik et al., 2001

(VS01)
Deterministic
model
(State-transition;
Compartment)
Deterministic
model
Denmark
Houe et al., 1994
(Ho94)
Sampling
Testing
Production losses
Slaughtering
Others i.e. equations
Least costs:
13,20016,148
(8595% efcient of
biosecurity; Direct
losses and costs of
biosecurity)
Return on investment:
123%
(10 year)
Net costs: 1578 (rst
year)7
Net benet: 406
(second year)
Benet: approx. 940
(5 years)
Net Benet: 1152
(for BVDV, BHV-1;
L. hardjo, S. dublin; 5
years)
Average direct losses:
18/animal (testing risk
group); Benet:
5/animal
(compared with direct
losses 23/animal (no
testing); Average direct
losses: 22/animal
(testing all
animals): Benet:
1/animal
(compared with direct
losses 23/animal (no
testing)
Decision-Tree
analysis
Eight dairy herds

(956 cows)
Risk group: 132 cows
(Total: 2 million cattle,
1994; National)8
In order to prevent BVDV

production losses, the
operation of a moreclosed farming system
could be benecial.
Testing the risk groups of a
farmer was in the most
cases benecial. The
removal of PI cattle can
also reduce the infection
risk for other herds and
thus it could be also
benecial to the total
Danish cattle population.
N.S.=not specied; a not presented in million EUR; b presumed, c It was assumed that vaccination was only considered in BHV-1 introduction; N.B. Monetary values have been converted into euros (without adjusting for ination).
Prevention and/or mitigation activities in brackets were passively included in the calculation. Costs are expenses of prevention and/or mitigation activities, unless stated otherwise; Benets are e.g. losses prevented, new revenue,
economic value of testing; NPV = Net present value is dened as the sum of total discounted benets minus the sum of total discounted costs; Net benets/costs = Total costs are subtracted from the total benets.
1
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx (accessed 12 August 2016).
2
3
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IWLU5CR2wvcJ:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/le/414334/structure-dec2014-uk-19mar15.
pdf+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at&client=refox-b (accessed 12 August 2016).
4
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/le/69220/pb13572-cattlebook-2008-090804.pdf (accessed 12 August 2016).
5
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IWLU5CR2wvcJ:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/le/414334/structure-dec2014-uk- 19mar15.
pdf+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at&client=refox-b (accessed 12 August 2016).
6
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oWcegphO9voJ:www.lic.co.nz/user/le/DAIRY%2520STATISTICS%25202012-13-WEB.pdf+&cd=2&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at&client=refox-b (accessed 12 August 2016).
7
The Netherland Guilder (NLG) no longer exists. However, the Dutch authorities have published an ofcial exchange rate to euros: http://www.dnb.nl/en/payments/exchanging-guilders/rules-for- exchanging-guilder-notes/
(accessed 12 August 2016).
8
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x055cHHl4hsJ:www.uni-mannheim.de/edz/pdf/statinf/04/KS-NN-04-008-EN-N-EN.pdf+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=at&client=refox-b (accessed 12 August 2016).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
activities
G Model
Country References
(Abbreviations of
Fig. 2)

11
Table 6 (Continued)
G Model
12
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Connection between the nancial and/or economic assessments of each country (gray blocks around the circumference refer to the country abbreviation) and the
corresponding areas in which the nancial and/or economic assessment was conducted: Control and eradication program (red), surveillance (yellow), prevention (biosecurity)
(green), vaccination (blue) and individual culling, control and diagnostic testing strategies (orange) are shown. The different colored lines in the circle represent the different
studies assigned to specic countries. One color is associated with each individual study. Each study of a particular country is labeled with an abbreviation consisting of the
rst two letters of the main author of the study and the associated year of the publication (the corresponding full name of the author and the study name can be found in
Table 46). The thickness of the line represents the different assignments of the studies to the three different classes (see Table 2). Studies in class 1 are represented with the
thickest line. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
et al., 2005), our study incorporates a worldwide systematic search

approach (Fig. 1) over an extended period (18792015). To assess
studies specically emphasizing the nancially and/or economic
assessment of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities, we
reviewed 487 articles in full regarding the type of nancial and/or
economically assessed BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities, provided economic variables, such as the efciency, costs
or benets of these prevention and/or mitigation activities, the
applied economic and statistical assessment methods, the payers
of prevention and/or mitigation activities, the assessed production
systems and the countries for which such assessments are available.
In all, 35 articles were considered for this systematic review.
The studies showed great variability regarding i) study design,

such as modeling assumptions, herd size, included economic
parameters, epidemiological initial situation (e.g. if BVDV is introduced to a nave herd or if herds are BVDV endemic), ii) timescale
of the nancial and/or economic assessment, which ranged from
a few months to 20 years (results not shown here), iii) type of
assessed prevention and/or mitigation activities, which ranged
from biosecurity measures at the farm level to national control
and/or eradication programs, or iv) economic calculations, which
ranged from net benets to single costs of prevention and/or mitigation activities. Additionally, we found a great heterogeneity in
the nancial methods applied at farm level (Fig. 3c). The economic
methods applied at the national level were mostly cost-benet
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
13
Fig. 3. Study distribution was stratied by the analyzed nancial and economic factors (a), considered payers (b), applied nancial and economic (c) and statistical methods
(d). The studies were distinguished according to geographical level: national (green), regional (azure) and farm (brown) with respect to their nancial and/or economical
outcome. N.B. Fig. 2a, 2c and 2d contain duplicates. One study comprises both the costs and benets. Two studies include more than one nancial and/or economic methods
such as partial budget analysis and cost-benet analysis; Production function and linear programing. Fig. 2d covers a study, which applied a simulation model with a regression
analysis. (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
analyses and economic descriptions of the costs/benets of BVDV

control and/or eradication program. However, one limitation of
this method is that the cost-benet ratio does not provide useful information about the use of potentially superior alternative
mitigation activities. Thus it cannot be applied as a criterion for
optimal resource allocation, which is a necessary consideration
as public resources become more limited (Howe et al., 2012). In
order to inform decision-makers about efcient resource allocation
of mitigation activities more ex-ante assessments (prospective) at
national/regional level are necessary (Howe et al., 2012). Approximately 56% of the economic assessments of BVDV mitigation
activities at national and regional level in this systematic review
were ex-post-assessments (retrospective). Our systematic review
revealed that none of the analyzed studies incorporated all of the
following items which should, in the authors opinion, be taken
into account when conducting an economic efciency analysis
(Rushton et al., 1999): price elasticities, societal welfare effects,
technical efciency (Howe et al., 2012), discount rate, the costs
and benets of national BVDV programs and alternative strategies.
Further identied issues at all geographical levels were the reporting of currencies, time frame and cattle population size over time.
All these issues made a comparison between the studies difcult.
These issues have also been reported in other systematic reviews
of animal health economics such as those reporting on control
and eradication programs of bovine tuberculosis (Caminiti et al.,
2016). In some studies, we also noted an inconsistent mixture of the
economic terminology, in that studies used cost-benets analysis
and cost-effectiveness evaluation as synonyms while it was clear
that differences existed between them (see Table 2). Since these
were heterogeneous studies, an in-depth comparison and statistical analysis are difcult to carry out. All these factors restricted
our analysis to a descriptive summary of the results obtained. Consequently, no recommendations can be made with respect to the
economically optimal prevention and/or mitigation strategy, as this
clearly depends on the study design, herd (Houe, 2003; Moennig
et al., 2005) and country-specic conditions.
Our systematic review identied only four countries (Norway
(Valle et al., 2000, 2005), Ireland (Stott et al., 2012), France (Dufour
et al., 1999), and Switzerland (Hsler et al., 2012)) that demonstrated that the implementation and inherent costs of mitigation
activities at the national level are justied economically after a specic time period. Additionally, some studies (Bitsch and Rnsholt,
1995; Houe, 1999, 2003) concluded that eradication in Denmark
would be also efcient if the direct (Houe et al., 1993) and indirect costs, calculated in different studies, would be compared. Only
one study from the United Kingdom showed that control measures
at the national level would not be economically justied (Bennett
and Done, 1986). No comparison of the costs and benets of control and/or eradication programs at the regional level were found.
It is perhaps surprising that no more studies concerning efciency
at the national or regional levels are available, in particular for
countries that conducted mitigation activities as part of compulsory or voluntary regulations,1 such as Austria, Belgium, Germany,
Sweden, Finland or regions in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, the
United States, and Spain. Howe et al. (2012) emphasized the need
for a closer integration of economic frameworks in the planning of
animal disease mitigation activities. Reasons for the lack of assessments of the efciency of mitigation activities could be the difculty
in accessing or identifying economic data (Drewe et al., 2013) on a
large-scale and/or voluntary control and eradication activities, such
as in the Netherlands and United States, where a lack of national
coordination exists. A further reason could be that animal health
economics is a relatively young discipline (Houe, 2003) and these
methods have the potential to be improved (Howe et al., 2012). In
contrast to studies focusing on other animal diseases (Pinior et al.,
2015a), we did not nd nancial and/or economic assessments of
prevention and/or mitigation activities with regard to BVDV, which
revealed heterogeneous temporal and spatial distributions of the
costs and/or benets between different regions of a country.
However, the economic optimum depends on the monetary
benets of avoided production losses, monetary expenditure of
mitigation activities and technical efciency. Therefore, optimal
economic efciency (maximum net benet) of mitigation activities is dened when the marginal benets (prevented production
1
Legislation in some countries, such as Denmark, Austria, Germany, UK (Scotland), Ireland, Belgium and regions of Italy have been adjusted regarding voluntary
and compulsory control activities during the period covered by this systematic
review.
G Model
14
ARTICLE IN PRESS
losses) cover at least the marginal mitigation costs (Howe et al.,

2012). The marginal benets are often measured as the avoided
direct losses averted through prevention and/or mitigation activities and are challenging to quantify. Difculties in calculating
production losses may reect variations in the severity of the outbreak itself, which depends, for example on herd immunity, the
time and duration of infection, virulence of the infecting virus strain
(BVDV genotypes 1 or 2) and methodological differences, such as
selection of herds on the basis of clinical and non-clinical outbreaks
(Carman et al., 1998; Houe, 1999; Fourichon et al., 2005; Barrett
et al., 2011). Perhaps this is the reason why one third of the studies (n = 12) provided only the costs or benets of prevention and/or
mitigation activities at national and regional level instead of analyzing nancial and/or economic efciency. In this context, we have
identied that the majority of studies neglected the virulence of the
virus strain in order to estimate the production losses (results not
shown here), which inuenced the efciency conclusions of prevention and/or mitigation activities. Another explanation for the
lack of efciency calculations could be that not all countries have
prevention and/or mitigation activities in place, or that if countryspecic nancial and/or economic assessments are available, they
are not in the public domain or studies have not been identied
by the selected databases, restricted search terms, time frame or
because of predened exclusion criteria.
Barrett et al. (2011) and Hessman et al. (2009) pointed out that
economic data regarding BVDV in beef herds are more limited than
in dairy herds. Our analyses can conrm this claim and indicate that
the countries and studies included here take the dairy production
system three times more often into account than beef production
systems. Dairy production systems were approximately eight times
more frequently assessed than calf and youngstock production systems. We identied a number of studies that used data from dairy
production systems to estimate production losses in the beef sector.
However, applying data in this way should be treated with caution, as the infection status of beef herds is generally lower than
that of dairy herds (Bitsch and Rnsholt, 1995). Most beef herds
have a limited breeding season and thus a shorter risk period for
PI animal development (Smith et al., 2014). With regard to the
epidemiology of BVD, other differences exist between dairy and
beef herds and details of these have been published by Gunn et al.
(2004). The differing infection statuses between dairy and beef cattle can result in the nding that the negative effects of BVDV are
more easily measurable in dairy (e.g. reduced milk production)
than in beef production systems; and perhaps this is why more
data are available. A further explanation for the different number of assessed production systems could be that it is difcult to
motivate beef cattle owners, for economic reasons, to implement
prevention and/or mitigation activities because individual blood
samples taken from beef herds are less cost-efcient than bulkmilk testing in the dairy sector (Hult and Lindberg, 1998, 2005).
Previous studies have pointed out that BVDV is largely perceived
as an individual farmer problem (Heffernan et al., 2016) instead of
a public issue. Perhaps this is the reason why farmers or farmer
organizations were identied as the main payer of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation activities in this systematic review. A study
by Weldegebriel et al. (2009) demonstrated that the cost of eradication activities should be shared between taxpayers and farmers
of infected cattle rather than being borne completely by livestock
owners due to subsequent benets to the consumer. Alternatively,
government decisions on intervention and nancial support may
be inuenced by the perceived time frame and ease with which
animal diseases can be managed (Carslake et al., 2011), whereby
BVDV is an animal disease that is difcult to control. It has been
shown that farmer motivation to participate in BVDV programs is
inuenced by nancial incentives (Brtzke et al., 2011; Heffernan
et al., 2016) and thus cost-sharing between the private and public
sector appears to be an optimum solution with regard to control or

eradication of BVDV.
A major subject in the veterinary eld is trade in livestock and
livestock products, not only because it represents an important economic sector, but also because it is one of the major routes for the
spread of animal diseases (Fritzemeier et al., 2000; Pinior et al.,
2012a,b, 2015c; Lebl et al., 2016). We did not nd studies that
assessed the costs of international trade restrictions as a (hypothetical) prevention or mitigation measure. However, considering the
possible spread of BVD between contiguous herds (Graham et al.,
2016), it appears to be more effective to implement prevention
and/or mitigation activities at regional or national level rather than
at individual farms (Houe, 2003).
Although, the nancial and/or economic assessment of prevention and/or mitigation activities is considered vital by public health
authorities to demonstrate that prevention and/or mitigation activities were economically efcient, most veterinary studies neglect
this type of analysis (Drewe et al., 2012). Our systematic review
has shown that this is particularly true with respect to BVDV mitigation at national or regional level. More studies are necessary in
order to demonstrate the long-term economic efciency of BVDV
mitigation programs. An economic efciency analysis could motivate and assist the private and/or public sectors in the decision
making process, when deciding whether to introduce prevention
and/or mitigation activities on a large-scale or determine the most
efcient and effective prevention and/or mitigation strategies.
5. Conclusion
Our analyses highlight a distinct lack of accurate economic studies regarding the efciency of BVDV prevention and/or mitigation
activities, in particular at national and regional levels, and with
respect to the individual production systems. Additionally, issues
were found in the methodology of some studies at all geographical
levels, such as neglecting price changes, discount rate or differences in cattle population size over time. Statistical analyses of
the reviewed studies could not be carried out due to the great
variability in study designs and outcomes. Consequently, no recommendations on economic prevention and/or mitigation strategies
can be made because this clearly depends on study, herd and
country-specic conditions. We can conrm the need for more
well-designed studies (e.g. strict implementation of economic efciency analyses) in animal health economics in order to support the
private and public sector in the decision-making process on prevention and/or mitigation activities and to demonstrate the long-term
economic efciency of these activities. To fulll this obligation,
however, researchers must gain access to reliable information on
costs and benets of prevention and/or mitigation activities, which
currently represent a limiting factor in the eld of animal health
economics.
Conict of interest statement

None of the authors of this paper has a nancial or personal
relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately inuence or bias the content of the paper.
Funding
This work was supported by the Project VET-Austria (B. Pinior
and V. Richter), a cooperation between the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety and
the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria.
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Authors contributions
Conceived and designed the study: BP; Collected and analyzed
the data: BP, VR, CF, KL, JB. Translation of non-English studies: BP,
CF, VR, MT, MD, SH; Supervised the data analysis: BP, WO, PW,
AK; Wrote the paper: BP, CF; Incorporated all changes during the
revision process: BP.
References
Andrews, J.M., Langmuir, A.D., 1963. The philosophy of disease eradication. Am. J.
Publ. Health 53, 16.
Barrett, D.J., More, S.J., Graham, D.A., OFlaherty, J., Doherty, M.L., Gunn, H.M., 2011.
Considerations on BVD eradication for the Irish livestock industry. Ir. Vet. J. 64,
12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-0481-64-12.
Bennett, R.M., Done, J.T., 1986. Control of BVD: a case for social cost-benet
analysis? In: Proc. of the Meeting of the Society of Veterinary Epidemiology
and Preventive Medicine, 24 April 1986, Edinburgh, pp. 5465.
Bennett, R., IJpelaar, J., 2005. Updated Estimates of the Costs Associated with Thirty
Four Endemic Livestock Diseases in Great Britain: a note. J. Agric. Econ. 56,
135144.
Bitsch, V., Rnsholt, L., 1995. Control of Bovine viral diarrhea virus infection
without vaccines. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Food 11, 627640.
Brtzke, A., Donat, K., Truyen, U., 2011. Bekmpfung der Bovinen
Virusdiarrhoe/Mucosal Disease im Landkreis Kamenz auf freiwilliger Basis
Wege, Erfolge, Grenzen. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 124, 4857.
Brownlie, J., Clarke, M.C., Howard, C.J., Pocock, D.H., 1987. Pathogenesis and
epidemiology of bovine virus diarrhoea virus infection of cattle. Ann. Rech. Vet.
18, 157166.
Buchwalder, G., 2006. In: Buchwalder, G., Falk, M., Geiser, F., Maret, C. (Eds.), der
Schweiz schlgt die Stunde der Ausrottung. BVET Magazin, Bundesamt fr
Veterinrwesen, Bern, Switzerland, pp. 1319.
Burgstaller, J., Obritzhauser, W., Kuchling, S., Kopacka, I., Pinior, B., Kfer, J., 2016.
The impact of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) and management factors on
fertility in dairy herds Two case-control studies in the province of Styria,
Austria. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 129, 103110.
Caminiti, A., Pelone, F., LaTorre, G., De Giusti, M., Saulle, R., Mannocci, A., Sala, M.,
Della Marta, U., Scaramozzino, P., 2016. Control and eradication of tuberculosis
in cattle: a systematic review of economic evidence. Vet. Rec. 179, 7075.
Carman, S., van Dreumel, T., Ridpath, J., Hazlett, M., Alves, D., Dubovi, E., Tremblay,
R., Bolin, S., Godkin, A., Anderson, N., 1998. Severe acute bovine viral diarrhea
in Ontario, 19931995. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 10, 2735.
Carslake, D., Grant, W., Green, L.E., Cave, J., Greaves, J., Keeling, M., McEldowney, J.,
Weldegebriel, H., Medley, G.F., 2011. Endemic cattle diseases: comparative
epidemiology and governance. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 19751986.
Cellini, S.R., Kee, J.E., 2010. Cost-effectiveness and Cost-benet analysis. In:
Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, pp. 493530.
Chi, J., Weersink, A., Van Leeuwen, J.A., Keefe, G.P., 2002. The economics of
controlling infectious diseases on dairy farms. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 50, 237256.
Dijkhuizen, A.A., Huirne, R.B.M., Jalvingh, A.W., 1995. Economic analysis of animal
diseases and their control. Prev. Vet. Med. 25, 135149.
Dijkhuizen, A.A., Jalvingh, A.W., Huirne, R.B.M., 1997. Cost-Benet analysis in
animal disease control. Proceedings of a Symposium Vienna: Towards
Livestock Disease Diagnosis and Control in the 21st Century.
Drewe, J.A., Hoinville, L.J., Cook, A.J.C., Floyd, T., Strk, K.D.C., 2012. Evaluation of
animal and public health surveillance systems: a systematic review.
Epidemiol. Infect. 140, 575590.
Drewe, J.A., Hsler, B., Rushton, J., Strk, K.D.C., 2013. Assessing the expenditure
distribution of animal health surveillance: the case of Great Britain. Vet. Rec.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.101846.
Dufour, B., Repiquet, D., Touratier, A., 1999. Place des tudes conomiques dans les
decisions de sant animale: exemple du rapport cout/bnce de lradication
de la diarrhe viral bovine en France. Rev. Sci. Tech. 18, 520532.
Evers, S., Goossens, M., de Vet, H., van Tulder, M., Ament, A., 2005. Criteria list for
assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on
Health Economic Criteria. Int. J. Technol. 21, 240245.
Fourichon, C., Beaudeau, F., Bareille, N., Seegers, H., 2005. Quantication of
economic losses consecutive to infection of a dairy herd with bovine viral
diarrhoea virus. Prev. Vet. Med. 72, 177181.
Fritzemeier, J., Teuffert, J., Greiser-Wilke, I., Staubach, C., Schlter, H., Moennig, V.,
2000. Epidemiology of classical swine fever in Germany in the 1990. Vet.
Microbiol. 77, 2941.
Geraghty, T., Graham, D.A., Mullowney, P., More, S.J., 2014. A review of bovine
Johnes disease control activities in 6 endemically infected countries. Prev. Vet.
Med. 116, 111.
Graham, D.A., Clegg, T.A., Thulke, H.H., Osullivan, P., McGrath, G., More, S.J., 2016.
Quantifying the risk of spread of bovine viral diarrhoea virus (BVDV) between
contiguous herds in Ireland. Prev. Vet. Med. 126, 3038.
Greiser-Wilke, I., Grummer, B., Moennig, V., 2003. Bovine viral diarrhoea
eradication and control programs in Europe. Biologicals 31, 113118.
Gunn, G.J., Stott, A.W., Humphry, R.W., 2004. Modelling and costing BVD outbreaks
in beef herds. Vet. J. 167, 143149.
15
Hsler, B., Howe, K.S., Presi, P., Strk, K.D.C., 2012. An economic model to evaluate
the mitigation program for bovine viral diarrhoea in Switzerland. Prev. Vet.
Med. 106, 162173.
Harkness, J.W., 1987. The control of bovine virus diarrhoea virus infection. Ann.
Rech. Vet. 18, 167174.
Heffernan, C., Misturelli, F., Nielsen, L., Gunn, G.J., Yu, J., 2009. Analysis of
Pan-European attitudes to the eradication and control of bovine viral diarrhea.
Vet. Rec. 164, 163167.
Heffernan, C., Azbel-Jackson, L., Brownlie, J., Gunn, G., 2016. Farmer attitudes and
livestock disease: exploring citizenship behaviour and peer monitoring across
two BVD control schemes in the UK. PLoS One 11 (3), e0152295, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152295.
Hessman, B.E., Fulton, R.W., Sjeklocha, D.B., Murphy, T.A., Ridpath, J.F., Payton, M.E.,
2009. Evaluation of economic effects and the health and performance of the
general cattle population after exposure to cattle persistently infected with
bovine viral diarrhea virus in a starter feedlot. Am. J. Vet. Res. 70, 7385.
Hoinville, J.L., Alban, L., Drewe, J.A., Gibbens, J.C., Gustafson, L., Hsler, B.,
Saegerman, C., Salman, M., Strk, K.D., 2013. Proposed terms and concepts for
describing and evaluating animal-health surveillance systems. Prev. Vet. Med.
112, 112.
Houe, H., Pedersen, K.M., Meyling, A., 1993. A computerized spread sheet model for
calculating total annual national losses due to bovine viral diarrhea virus
infection in dairy herds and sensitivity analysis of selected parameters. In:
Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Pestiviruses, France, pp. 179184.
Houe, H., Lloyd, J.W., Baker, J.C., 1994. Decision tree analysis of control strategies in
Danish dairy herds with outbreaks of mucosal disease. Prev. Vet. Med. 21,
133146.
Houe, H., Lindberg, A., Moennig, V., 2006. Test strategies in bovine viral diarrhea
virus control and eradication campaigns in Europe. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 18,
427436.
Houe, H., 1999. Epidemiological features and economical importance of bovine
virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV) infections. Vet. Microbiol. 64, 89107.
Houe, H., 2003. Economic impact of BVDV infection in dairies. Biologicals 31,
137143.
Howe, K.S., Hsler, B., Strk, K.D.C., 2012. Economic principles for resource
allocation decisions at national level to mitigate the effects of disease in farm
animal populations. Epidemiol. Infect. 141, 91101.
Hult, L., Lindberg, A., 1998. The Swedish national control scheme on BVD tips,
tricks and traps. Proc. XX World Association for Buiatrics Congress, 100995.
Hult, L., Lindberg, A., 2005. Experiences from BVDV control in Sweden. Prev. Vet.
Med. 72, 143148.
Lken, T., Nyberg, O., 2013. Eradication of BVDV in cattle: the Norwegian project.
Vet. Rec. 172, 661, http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.101525.
Lanyon, S.R., Reichel, M.P., 2013. Understanding the impact and control of bovine
viral diarrhoea in cattle population. Springer Sci. Rev. 1, 8593.
Larson, R.L., Pierce, V.L., Grotelueschen, D.M., Wittum, T.E., 2002. Economic
evaluation of beef cow herd screening for cattle persistently-infected with
bovine viral diarrhea virus. Bov. Pract. 36, 106112.
Larson, R.L., Miller, R.B., Kleiboeker, S.B., Miller, M.A., White, B.J., 2005. Economic
costs associated with two testing strategies for screening feeder calves for
persistent infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
226, 249254.
Lebl, K., Lentz, H.H., Pinior, B., Selhorst, T., 2016. Impact of network activity on the
spread of infectious diseases through the German pig trade network. Front.
Vet. Sci. 3, 48, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2016.00048.
Lindberg, A.L.E., Alenius, S., 1999. Principles for eradication of bovine viral
diarrhoea virus (BVDV) infections in cattle populations. Vet. Microbiol. 64,
197222.
Lindberg, A., Houe, H., 2005. Characteristics in the epidemiology of bovine viral
diarrhea virus (BVDV) of relevance to control. Prev. Vet. Med. 72, 5573.
Lindberg, A., Brownlie, J., Gunn, G.J., Houe, H., Moennig, V., Saatkamp, H.W.,
Sandvik, T., Valle, P.S., 2006. The control of bovine viral diarrhoea virus in
Europe: today and in the future. Rev. Sci. Tech. 25, 961979.
Moennig, V., Houe, H., Lindberg, A., 2005. BVD control in Europe: current status
and perspectives. Anim. Health Res. Rev. 6, 6374.
Nickell, J.S., White, B.J., Larson, R.L., Renter, D.G., Sanderson, M.W., 2011. A
simulation model to quantify the value of implementing whole-herd Bovine
viral diarrhea virus testing strategies in beef cow-calf herds. J. Vet. Diagn.
Invest. 23, 194205.
Niskanen, R., Lindberg, A., Traven, M., 2002. Failure to spread bovine virus
diarrhoea virus infection from primarily infected calves despite concurrent
infection with bovine coronavirus. Vet. J. 163, 251259.
Nyberg, O., Osters, O., Plym Forshell, K., 2004. Eradication of BVDV-infection in
norwegian cattle 19922003-a sucess story. In: proc. of the 2nd european
symposium on BVDV control, 2022 october, Oporto, Portugal. Rev. Port. Cienc.
Vet. 99, 5253.
Obritzhauser, W., 2000. Beitrag zur BVD-Bekmpfung: Verfahren,
Kostenschtzung, Fehlermglichkeiten. Proc. DVG Tagungsband der
Internationale Tagung der Fachgruppe Epidemiologie und Dokumentation,
164174.
Olafson, P., Rickard, C.G., 1947. Further observations on the virus diarrhea (new
transmissible disease) of cattle. Cornell Vet. 37, 104106.
Otte, M.J., Chilonda, P., 2000. Animal Health Economics: An Introduction. Animal
Production and Healthy Division (AGA). FAO, Rome, Italy (12 pp).
G Model
16
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Pasman, E.J., Dijkhuizen, A.A., Wentink, G.H., 1994. A state-transition model to

simulate the economics of bovine virus diarrhea control. Prev. Vet. Med. 20,
269277.
Pauels, F.J., 2002. Leistungen der Bayerischen Tierseuchenkasse im Rahmen der
BVD/MD-Bekmpfung 1986 bis 2001. In: kaaden, O.R. 2002.
BVD/MD-Erkrankungen und Immunprophylaxe und Manahmen zur
BVD/MD-Sanierung. bersichtsartikel zu dem Gleichnamigen
BVD/MD-Symposium der Intervet Deutschland GmbH in Schwabenheim.
BVD/MD infections, vaccination and eradication measures: a review. Tierarztl.
Umschau. 57, 293302.
Pinior, B., Konschake, M., Platz, U., Thiele, H., Petersen, B., Conraths, F., Selhorst, T.,
2012a. The trade network in the dairy industry and its implication for the
spread of contamination. J. Dairy Sci. 95, 63516361, http://dx.doi.org/10.
3168/jds.2012-5809.
Pinior, B., Platz, U., Ahrens, U., Petersen, B., Conraths, F., Selhorst, T., 2012b. The
German Milky Way: rade structure of the milk industry and possible
consequences of a food crisis. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 12, 2539, http://dx.doi.org/
10.3920/JCNS2012.x001.
Pinior, B., Lebl, K., Firth, C., Rubel, F., Fuchs, R., Stockreiter, S., Loitsch, A., Kfer, J.,
2015a. Cost analysis of bluetongue virus serotype 8 surveillance and
vaccination programs in Austria from 2005 to 2013. Vet. J. 206, 154160.
Pinior, B., Brugger, K., Kfer, J., Schwermer, H., Stockreiter, S., Loitsch, A., Rubel, F.,
2015b. Economic comparison of the monitoring programs for bluetongue
vectors in Austria and Switzerland. Vet. Rec. 176, 464, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1136/vr.102979.
Pinior, B., Conraths, F., Petersen, B., Selhorst, T., 2015c. Decision support for risks
managers in the case of deliberate food contamination: the Dairy Industry as
an example. Omega Int. J. Manage. Sci. 53, 4148, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
omega.2014.09.011.
Presi, P., Heim, D., 2010. BVD eradication in Switzerland a new approach. Vet.
Microbiol. 142, 137142.
Reichel, M.P., Hill, F.I., Voges, H., 2008. Does control of bovine viral diarrhoea
infection make economic sense? N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 6066.
Ridpath, J., 2012. Preventive strategy for BVDV infection in North America. Jpn. J.
Vet. Res. 60 (Suppl), 4149.
Rossmanith, W., Janacek, R., Wilhelm, E., 2005. Control of BVDV-infection on
common grassland the key for successful BVDV-eradication in Lower Austria.
Prev. Vet. Med. 72, 133137.
Rushton, J., Thornton, P.K., Otte, M.J., 1999. Methods of economic impact
assessment. Rev. Sci. Tech. 18, 315342.
Santarossa, J.M., Stott, A.W., Humphry, R.W., Gunn, G.J., 2005. Optimal risk
management versus willingness to pay for BVDV control options. Prev. Vet.
Med. 72, 183187.
Schnrch, P., Gerisch, V., 2003. Erreichter Stand und Erfahrungen nach 5 Jahren
BVD/MD-Sanierung in Thringen. Proc. 4th Internationalen Symposiums zur
BHV1-/BVD-Bekmpfung 12.-14.03.2003.
Simoens, S., 2009. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 6, 29502966.
Smith, R.L., Sanderson, M.W., Jones, R., NGuessan, Y., Renter, D., Larson, R., White,
B.J., 2014. Economic risk analysis model for bovine viral diarrhea virus
biosecurity in cow-calf herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 113, 492503.
Stott, A.W., Gunn, G.J., 2008. Use of a benet function to assess the relative
investment potential of alternative farm animal disease prevention strategies.
Prev. Vet. Med. 84, 179193.
Stott, A.W., Lloyd, J., Humphry, R.W., Gunn, G.J., 2003. A linear programing
approach to estimate the economic impact of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) at
the whole-farm level in Scotland. Prev. Vet. Med. 59, 5166.
Stott, A.W., Humphry, R.W., Gunn, G.J., 2010. Modelling the effects of previous
infection and re-infection on the costs of bovine viral diarrhoea outbreaks in
beef herds. Vet. J. 185, 138143.
Stott, A.W., Humphry, R.W., Gunn, G.J., Higgins, I., Hennessy, T., OFlaherty, J.,
Graham, D.A., 2012. Predicted costs and benets of eradicating BVDV from
Ireland. Ir. Vet. J. 65, 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-0481-65-12.
Timm, H., 1997. Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse des BVD/MD Sanierungskonzepts der
Tierseuchenkasse Niedersachsen: Wirtschaftlich-Epidemiologische Befragung
von Ausgewhlten Betrieben und Modellierung Wirtschaftlicher Verluste
durch das BVD-Virus. PhD Thesis. Hannover (95p).
Tizard, I.R., 2009. Immunity in the Fetus and Newborn In: Veterinary Immunology,
8th edition. Saunders Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, pp. 223238.
Truyers, I.G.R., Mellor, D.J., Norquay, R., Gunn, G.J., Ellis, K.A., 2010. Eradication
program for bovine viral diarrhoea virus in Orkney 20012008. Vet. Rec. 167,
566570.
Valle, P.S., Skjerve, E., Martin, S.W., Larssen, R.B., sterts, O., Nyberg, O., 2000. A
cost benet evaluation of the Norwegian bovine virus diarrhoea control and
eradication program. Proc. 9th International Symposium on Veterinary
Epidemiology and Economics, http://www.sciquest.org.nz/node/63157
(accessed 16.05.16).
Valle, P.S., Skjerve, E., Martin, S.W., Larssen, R.B., sters, O., Nyberg, O., 2005. Ten
years of bovine virus diarrhoea virus (BVDV) control in Norway: a cost-benet
analysis. Prev. Vet. Med. 72, 189207.
Weldegebriel, H.T., Gunn, G.J., Stott, A.W., 2009. Evaluation of producer and
consumer benet resulting from eradication of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) in
Scotland, United Kingdom. Prev. Vet. Med. 88, 4956.
Wright, N., 2013. Economic Impact of Health and Welfare Issues in Beef Cattle and
Sheep in England, Accessed 04.01.16 http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/Economic-Impact-of-Health-Welfare-Final-Rpt170413.pdf.
Yan, L., Zhang, S., Pace, L., Wilson, F., Wan, H., Zhang, M., 2011. Combination of
reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction and antigen capture
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of animals persistently
infected with Bovine viral diarrhea virus. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 23, 1625.
van Schaik, G., Nielen, M., Dijkhuizen, A.A., 2001. An economic model for on-farm
decision support of management to prevent infectious disease introduction
into dairy farms. Prev. Vet. Med. 51, 289305.

tmpC990 TMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

tmpC990 TMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

PREVET-4168; No. of Pages 16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Preventive Veterinary Medicine

A systematic review of nancial and economic assessments of bovine

control program/me* OR eradication*OR

vention and/or mitigation activities of BVDV at national, regional

Financial and/or economic analysis of BVDV prevention

their costs) at farm level (n = 9) rather than at national (n = 7) or

on the eradication, 11% on the control and 5% on the prevention

Denition and assignment of the studiesa

The assignment of a study to the categories is based on their study outcome.

account than beef production systems. Overall, 51% (n = 18) of the

Outcome (million EUR)1

Cattle population size

NPV: +5.1 (19931997)

Total: 24,000 dairy

Valle et al., 2005

NPV: +14 (19932003)

Total: 26,000 dairy

Lken and Nyberg,

Cost: 5.7 (19932003)

Nyberg et al., 2004

Net Benet: +14

Total: 27,000 dairy

The program was

Total: 24,267 dairy

Total: 1,520,859 cattle

B. Pinior et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine xxx (2016) xxxxxx

PREVET-4168; No. of Pages 16

Outcome (million EUR)1

Cattle population size

Presi and Heim,

Cost: 40 (approx. 3 years)

Total: 1.57 million

Cost: 1.6 (rst year)

The eradication costs were

The economic analysis of

PREVET-4168; No. of Pages 16

B. Pinior et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine xxx (2016) xxxxxx

Cattle population size

The Scottish eradication

22,600 cattle (sample;

Net benet: 49.9

Costs: 1.5/per animala

Costs: 1.5/per animala

The Bavarian animal disease

Total: 585 herds

Farmers in the biosecurity

B. Pinior et al. / Preventive Veterinary Medicine xxx (2016) xxxxxx

PREVET-4168; No. of Pages 16

Cattle population size

United States Smith

Minimum direct losses

Various herd proles:

Larson et al., 2002

Others i.e. balance

Testing and vaccination

Larson et al., 2005

Yan et al., 2011

Others i.e. equations

128 herds (Total: 96

Costs: 1.88/25 pool size