ABSTRACT
This paper investigates how perceived costs and benefits of Salmonella control among Danish pig farmers affect the farmers' choice of action toward reducing the prevalence of Salmonella in their herds. Based on data from an online questionnaire involving 163 Danish pig farmers, we find a considerable uncertainty among pig farmers about the perceived effects of the Salmonella reducing actions. The results indicate large variations in the perceived costs of implementing different types of Salmonella reducing actions (management-, hygiene- and feed-related). For some cases, farmers associate net benefits and positive productivity effects with implementation of the actions while studies by the industry indicate net costs to the farmers. Differences among farmers support the idea of an outcome-based Salmonella penalty scheme but the large uncertainties about costs and effects of actions toward Salmonella control might hamper the effectiveness of such a penalty scheme as a regulatory instrument to affect farmer behavior.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Livestock-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) is a concern in healthcare and a political priority in some countries. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the net societal costs of 2 alternative strategies for controlling LA-MRSA in Denmark: (1) eradicating LA-MRSA in all pig housing units, and (2) containing LA-MRSA within the units. METHODS: Benefits and costs are considered for affected economic sectors: healthcare, pig production, pig-related industries, and public administration. RESULTS: The cost to society of eradication is estimated at 2.3 to 2.5 billion (present value). Containment will cost 55 to 93 million. For both strategies, the main cost lies in primary pig production-for containment this is mainly due to establishing and operating anterooms and shower rooms, and for eradication it is due to production losses, loss of genetic resources, and costs of cleaning and disinfection. CONCLUSION: Compared with these costs, health economic benefits are moderate for both strategies. Containment is superior to eradication when measured by a benefit-cost ratio.
