Global Burden of Animal Diseases: a novel approach to understanding and managing disease in livestock and aquaculture.

Investments in animal health and Veterinary Services can have a measurable impact on the health of people and the environment. These investments require a baseline metric that describes the burden of animal health and welfare in order to justify and prioritise resource allocation and from which to measure the impact of interventions. This paper is part of a process of scientific enquiry in which problems are identified and solutions sought in an inclusive way. It poses the broad question: what should a system to measure the animal disease burden on society look like and what value would it add? Moreover, it aims to do this in such a way as to be accessible by a wide audience, who are encouraged to engage in this debate. Given that farmed animals, including those raised by poor smallholders, are an economic entity, this system should be based on economic principles. These poor farmers are negatively impacted by disparities in animal health technology, which can be addressed through a mixture of supply-led and demand-driven interventions, reinforcing the relevance of targeted financial support from government and non-governmental organisations. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme will glean existing data to measure animal health losses within carefully characterised production systems. Consistent and transparent attribution of animal health losses will enable meaningful comparisons of the animal disease burden to be made between diseases, production systems and countries, and will show how it is apportioned by people's socio-economic status and gender. The GBADs Programme will produce a cloud-based knowledge engine and data portal, through which users will access burden metrics and associated visualisations, support for decisionmaking in the form of future animal health scenarios, and the outputs of wider economic modelling. The vision of GBADs, strengthening the food system for the benefit of society and the environment, is an example of One Health thinking in action.

Les investissements réalisés en santé animale et dans les Services vétérinaires ont un impact mesurable sur la santé des personnes et de l'environnement. Le système de mesure appliqué à ces investissements doit reposer sur un référentiel de base décrivant l'impact de la santé et du bien-être animal de manière à justifier et classer par priorités les ressources allouées et à mesurer les effets des interventions. Les auteurs présentent une étude conduite dans le cadre d'une enquête scientifique destinée à identifier les problèmes et à rechercher des solutions de manière inclusive. L'étude pose la question de savoir à quoi devrait ressembler un système conçu pour mesurer l'impact sur la société des maladies animales, et quelle serait sa valeur ajoutée. En outre, l'étude est conduite de manière à être accessible à une large audience afin d'encourager cette dernière à participer aux discussions. Étant donné que les animaux d'élevage constituent une entité économique, y compris les animaux appartenant à des éleveurs pauvres, le système de mesure doit reposer sur des principes économiques. Les exploitants pratiquant une agriculture de subsistance subissent les effets négatifs des disparités entre les différentes technologies applicables à la santé animale, disparités auxquelles il est possible de remédier par le biais d'interventions associant des mesures dictées par l'offre et par la demande et en renforçant l'efficacité du soutien financier ciblé apporté par les organisations gouvernementales et non gouvernementales. Le Programme « L'impact mondial des maladies animales ¼ (GBADs) aura pour tâche de glaner les données existantes afin de mesurer les pertes associées à la santé animale au sein de systèmes de production qui auront été soigneusement caractérisés au préalable. Grâce à l'élucidation cohérente et transparente des pertes imputables à chaque problème de santé animale, des comparaisons pertinentes pourront être effectuées concernant l'impact des maladies animales par maladies, par systèmes de production et par pays, et la répartition de cet impact dans les populations concernées suivant le statut socio-économique et le genre des intéressés sera mieux comprise. Le Programme GBADs entend créer un moteur de recherche et un portail de données qui seront disponibles sur le Cloud et donneront aux utilisateurs l'accès à des outils de mesure de l'impact des maladies et à d'autres informations présentées sous forme graphique, ainsi qu'à des outils d'aide à la décision sous forme de scénarios prospectifs sur la santé animale et aux résultats d'études plus larges de modélisation économique. La vision du GBADs, renforcer le système de production de denrées alimentaires au profit de la société et de l'environnement, est un exemple de mise en oeuvre du concept Une seule santé.

Las inversiones en sanidad animal y en los Servicios Veterinarios pueden tener un efecto mensurable en la salud de las personas y el medio ambiente. Para efectuar estas inversiones se precisan parámetros que describan y cuantifiquen la situación de partida y el impacto de los problemas de sanidad y bienestar animales, a fin de poder, a partir de ahí, justificar y jerarquizar la asignación de recursos y medir los efectos de las intervenciones. Este artículo, inscrito en un proceso de indagación científica encaminado a detectar problemas y buscar soluciones de forma incluyente, plantea la cuestión general de cómo debería ser y qué valor añadido aportaría un sistema destinado a medir el impacto que imponen a la sociedad las enfermedades animales. Los autores, además, tratan de exponer la cuestión de manera que sea accesible a un público amplio, al que se alienta a participar en este debate. Dado que los animales de granja (incluidos los de pequeñas explotaciones) constituyen una entidad económica, tal sistema debería estar basado en principios económicos. Los productores que trabajan en régimen de subsistencia se ven negativamente afectados por las disparidades existentes en materia de tecnología zoosanitaria, disparidad que cabe corregir con una combinación de intervenciones marcadas por la oferta y otras marcadas por la demanda, dirigiendo así más selectivamente el apoyo económico de entidades gubernamentales y organizaciones no gubernamentales. El programa GBADs (El impacto global de las enfermedades animales) servirá para compilar datos ya existentes con el fin de medir las pérdidas zoosanitarias dentro de sistemas productivos cuidadosamente caracterizados. La atribución coherente y transparente de estas pérdidas zoosanitarias permitirá efectuar comparaciones significativas del impacto que representan las enfermedades animales en el caso de diferentes dolencias, sistemas productivos o países y pondrá de relieve cómo se distribuye este impacto en función del género y la condición socioeconómica de las personas. Por medio del programa GBADs se creará un motor de conocimiento y portal de datos ubicado en la nube que permita al usuario acceder a mediciones del impacto de enfermedades y representaciones gráficas conexas, a herramientas de apoyo a la adopción de decisiones, en forma de hipotéticas situaciones zoosanitarias futuras, y a los resultados de modelizaciones económicas más generales. La aspiración del programa GBADs ­ reforzar el sistema alimentario en beneficio de la sociedad y el medio ambiente ­ constituye un ejemplo de aplicación en la práctica del pensamiento en clave de Una sola salud.

An estimation of US horse-owner/caregiver willingness-to-pay for daily use and infectious upper respiratory disease treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Equine injury and disease cause two types of costs for those financially responsible for treating and caring for the infected horse(s); direct costs of treating the horse and indirect cost of lost use of the horse for a period of time to the user of the horse (daily horse use). Indirect costs are more difficult to estimate but pose significant financial implications for equine-owners/caregivers. Additionally, there exists a gap in existing research regarding the valuation of infectious treatment options in horses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value a US horse-owner/caregiver places on daily horse use and describe respondents' willingness-to-pay for various attributes of equine treatment options. STUDY DESIGN: Online questionnaire survey. METHODS: An online questionnaire was provided to equine-owners and caretakers, and owner demographic, horse care and horse use information from respondents were requested. Additionally, respondents were presented with hypothetical disease treatment options with the following attributes: daily dosage, number of days of rest required, route of administration and out-of-pocket cost to the owner/caretaker through a choice experiment. Data were analysed using a rank-ordered logit analysis and willingness-to-pay estimates for daily use and treatment options were calculated. RESULTS: Results suggest that the average horse-owner with an uninsured and insured horse is willing to pay $12.07 (95% confidence interval: -$15.01, -$9.69) and $17.95 (95% confidence interval: -$25.30, -$11.20) per day to reduce lost use days required (due to need for rest) respectively. Respondents showed preferences for oral administration over treatments requiring i.m. injections. MAIN LIMITATIONS: As this study employed an online survey it was subjected to self-selection bias and a sample size calculation was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: Veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies may use these results when promoting various treatment options to horse-owners/caregivers and in product development. Additionally, promotion efforts may be targeted towards equine-owners with higher daily use values (owners with insured horses).

Animal health economics: an aid to decisionmaking on animal health interventions - case studies in the United States of America.

For animal disease events the outcomes and consequences often remain unclear or uncertain, including the expected changes in benefits (e.g. profit to firms, prices to consumers) and in costs (e.g. response, clean-up). Moreover, the measurement of changes in benefits and costs across alternative interventions used to control animal disease events may be inexact. For instance, the economic consequences of alternative vaccination strategies to mitigate a disease can vary in magnitude due to trade embargoes and other factors. The authors discuss the economic measurement of animal disease outbreaks and interventions and how measurement is used in private and public decision-making. Two illustrative case studies in the United States of America are provided: a hypothetical outbreak of foot and mouth disease in cattle, and the 2014-2015 outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry.

Lors d'un événement sanitaire, les résultats et les conséquences d'une intervention sont souvent incertains ou imprécis, y compris pour ce qui concerne l'évolution attendue des bénéfices (par ex. le profit pour les entreprises ou le prix payé par le consommateur) et des coûts (par ex. le coût de la réponse ou de l'assainissement). De plus, la mesure de l'évolution des bénéfices et des coûts suivant les différentes interventions utilisées pour lutter contre les maladies animales peut s'avérer inexacte. Par exemple, les conséquences économiques de différentes stratégies de vaccination visant à atténuer l'impact d'une maladie peuvent varier en ordre de grandeur du fait des restrictions imposées au commerce suite à la vaccination, ou d'autres facteurs. Les auteurs examinent l'évaluation économique des foyers de maladies animales et des interventions sanitaires ainsi que l'utilisation de ces évaluations dans les prises de décision du secteur privé et public. L'analyse est illustrée par deux études de cas aux États- Unis d'Amérique : l'hypothèse d'un foyer de fièvre aphteuse survenant dans la population bovine, et le foyer d'influenza aviaire hautement pathogène survenu en 2014­2015 chez les volailles.

A menudo los resultados o efectos de ciertos episodios zoosanitarios quedan poco claros o generan incertidumbre, por ejemplo sobre el modo en que en principio modifican los beneficios (réditos para las empresas, precios para el consumidor) y los costos (p.ej. de respuesta o de saneamiento de la explotación). Además, la medición de los cambios que experimenten los costos y beneficios a resultas de distintas intervenciones posibles para combatir un episodio zoosanitario puede resultar inexacta. Por ejemplo: las consecuencias económicas de estrategias alternativas de vacunación para mitigar una enfermedad pueden ser de magnitud variable dependiendo de la existencia de embargos comerciales u otros factores. Los autores examinan la cuantificación económica de los brotes de enfermedades animales y las intervenciones para combatirlos y explican cómo se utilizan esas mediciones para tomar decisiones en los sectores público y privado, ofreciendo como ejemplo casos situados en los Estados Unidos de América: un brote hipotético de fiebre aftosa en el ganado vacuno y el brote de influenza aviar altamente patógena que en 2014 y 2015 afectó a las aves de corral.

National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Phase 1, Face-to-face interviews.

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA) is conducted every 5 yr and was most recently again conducted in 2016. Face-to-face interviews gauged progress in quality associated with live cattle production using procedures first utilized in NBQA 2011. The 2016 NBQA was the first in which interviews concerning fed steers and heifers were combined with an audit of market cow and bull beef. Face-to-face interviews were designed to illicit definitions for beef quality, estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for quality attributes, establish relative importance rankings for important quality factors, and assess images, strengths, weaknesses, potential threats, and shifting trends in the beef industry since the 2011 audit. Individuals making purchasing decisions in 5 market sectors of the steer/heifer and cow/bull beef supply chain were interviewed, including packers (n = 36), retailers (including large and small supermarket companies and warehouse food sales companies; n = 35), food service operators (including quick-serve, full-service, and institutional establishments; n = 29), further processors (n = 64), and peripherally-related government and trade organizations (GTO; n = 30). Face-to-face interviews were conducted between January and November of 2016 using a designed dynamic routing system. Definitions (as described by interviewees) for 7 pre-determined quality factors, including: (1) How and where the cattle were raised, (2) Lean, fat, and bone, (3) Weight and size, (4) Visual characteristics, (5) Food safety, (6) Eating satisfaction, and (7) Cattle genetics were recorded verbatim and categorized into similar responses for analysis. Compared to NBQA-2011, a higher percentage of companies were willing to pay premiums for guaranteed quality attributes, but overall were willing to pay lower average premiums than the companies interviewed in 2011. Food safety had the highest share of preference among all interviewees, generating a double-digit advantage over any other quality factor. The 2 beef industries have an overall positive image among interviewees, and despite lingering weaknesses, product quality continued to be at the forefront of the strengths category for both steer and heifer beef and market cow and bull beef.

Economic Assessment of Zoonotic Diseases: An Illustrative Study of Rift Valley Fever in the United States.

This study evaluates the economic consequences of a Rift Valley Fever outbreak, a virus that spreads from livestock to humans, often through mosquitoes. Developing a 'one health' economic framework, economic impacts on agricultural producers and consumers, government costs of response, costs and disruptions to non-agricultural activities in the epidemiologically impacted region, and human health costs (morbidity and mortality) are estimated. We find the agricultural firms bear most of the negative economic impacts, followed by regional non-agricultural firms, human health and government. Further, consumers of agricultural products benefit from small outbreaks due to bans on agricultural exports.

Definition, willingness-to-pay, and ranking of quality attributes of U.S. pork as defined by importers in Asia and Mexico.

A survey was conducted from November 2009 to April 2010 to determine how importers of pork define 7 predetermined quality categories (food safety, customer service, eating quality, product specification, packaging, visual characteristics, and production history) and to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) and establish best-worst (B/W) scaling (rank) for the 7 quality categories. Interviews were conducted in Hong Kong/China (n = 83), Japan (n = 48), Mexico (n = 70) and Russia (n = 54) with importers of U.S. pork or those who had purchased U.S. pork from distributors in the last 3 yr. Interviews used dynamic routing software and were structured such that economic factors for purchase were addressed first, allowing all responses to focus on quality. Questions about WTP and B/W were asked and then each respondent was asked to define what each quality category meant to them. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze frequency data. Over 70% of interviewees in Hong Kong/China, Japan, and Mexico responded that purchase price was influential in deciding whether or not to purchase imported pork. This number was lower in Russia, where respondents stated tariff rates were also important, indicating market access was a larger issue in Russia. Food safety was the most important quality category (price was not included as a part of quality) for imported pork followed by specifications. Respondents indicated some form of government inspection was how they defined food safety, whereas product size, weight, and subcutaneous fat were all included in the definition of specifications. Interviewees were more likely to pay premiums for customer service and less likely to pay premiums for packaging (P < 0.05). The premiums that were willing to be paid for guarantees of quality for imported pork variety meats were numerically lower than for whole muscle cuts or processed products. A guarantee associated with food safety of processed pork products was found to be the quality attribute for which importers would be willing to pay the highest premium. Production history was found to be the least important quality attribute for importers of all types of U.S. pork, except those in Japan. Exporters could increase profitability if a guarantee of customer service was made. Price, tariffs, and exchange rates are important to pork importers; these results indicated that if certain quality attributes could be guaranteed, exporters could increase profitability.

Phase I of The National Beef Quality Audit-2011: quantifying willingness-to-pay, best-worst scaling, and current status of quality characteristics in different beef industry marketing sectors.

The National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA)-2011 benchmarked the current status of and assessed progress being made toward quality and consistency of U.S. cattle, carcasses, and beef products after the completion of the first NBQA in 1991. Unlike previous NBQA, objectives of the 2011 Phase I study were to determine how each beef market sector defined 7 quality categories, estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the same quality categories by market sector, and establish a best-worst (B/W) scaling for the quality categories. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted and responses were recorded using dynamic routing software over an 11-mo period (February to December 2011) with decision makers in each of the following beef market sectors: Feeders (n = 59), Packers (n = 26), Food Service, Distribution, and Further Processors (n = 48), Retailers (n = 30), and Government and Allied Industries (n = 47). All respondents participated in a structured interview consisting of WTP and B/W questions that were tied to 7 quality categories and then were asked to "define" each of the 7 categories in terms of what the category meant to them, resulting in completely unbiased results. The 7 quality categories were a) how and where the cattle were raised, b) lean, fat, and bone, c) weight and size, d) cattle genetics, e) visual characteristics, f) food safety, and g) eating satisfaction. Overall, "food safety" and "eating satisfaction" were the categories of greatest and second most importance, respectively, to all beef market sectors except for Feeders. Feeders ranked "how and where the cattle were raised" and "weight and size" as the most important and second most important, respectively. Overall, "how and where the cattle were raised" had the greatest odds of being considered a nonnegotiable requirement before the raw material for each sector would be considered for purchase and was statistically more important (P < 0.05) as a requirement for purchase than all other categories except "food safety." When all market sectors were considered, "eating satisfaction" was shown to generate the greatest average WTP percentage premium (11.1%), but that WTP premium value only differed statistically (P < 0.05) from "weight and size" (8.8%). Most notably, when a sector said that "food safety" was a nonnegotiable requirement, no sector was willing to purchase the product at a discounted price if the "food safety" of the product could not be assured.

Post-slaughter traceability.

Traceability programs can cover the whole of life, or parts of it, for individual animals or groups/lots of animals. Of 13 country or community traceability programs for cattle/beef, 11 are mandatory (4 encompass, or are scheduled to encompass, birth to retail; 7 cover birth to slaughter) while 2 are voluntary and encompass birth to slaughter. Of 10 country or community traceability programs for swine/pork, 2 are mandatory (1 covers birth to retail; 1 covers birth to slaughter) while 8 are voluntary. Of 6 country or community traceability programs for sheep/sheep-meat, 3 are mandatory (1 encompasses birth to retail; 2 encompass birth to slaughter) while 3 are voluntary. Mandatory birth to retail programs that include "post-slaughter individual animal identification (IAID) traceability" have been implemented for cattle/beef, swine/pork and sheep/sheep-meat by the European Union and for cattle/beef by Japan. Many of the voluntary as well as mandatory, birth to slaughter traceability programs for all three species are presumed (though that is not specified) to include "post-slaughter group/lot identification (GLID) traceability" - e.g., those qualifying products for shipment to the European Union. "Post-slaughter IAID traceability" can be accomplished in very-small, small, medium, large and very-large packing plants using single-carcass processing units, tagging and separation/segregation, and/or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprinting technology but all of these approaches are time-consuming and costly; and, to-date, in most countries, there has been no reason compelling enough to cause industry to adopt such protocols or technology.