Health & Management / Foot & Mouth Disease Module / List of hyperlinked Techniques & Protocols:
< > 

Assessing the Costs (Actual and Potential) and Consequences of FMD and its Control:

Click image to return to Foot-and-Mouth Disease CONTENTS
FLOWCHART

Introduction and General Information

In making decisions about programmes to control foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), whether in regard to outbreaks in "FMD free" countries or control and possible eradication in endemic areas or those at high risk of the disease, it is important to assess the costs, direct and indirect, associated with the disease and with various control strategies.

"To select the most effective policy, it is necessary to predict the effects of different feasible programmes upon the incidence and prevalence of the disease." ... "In many cases more than one control strategy will be technically feasible and so the economic problem becomes one not only of deciding whether the control of FMD is worthwhile, but also determining the optimal control strategy. This is achieved by appraising all the feasible policies by social benefit-cost analysis and selecting the one which shows the best returns." (J35.134.w1)

Calculating losses from FMD itself is not easy, as this may vary with a range of factors such as the species, age, breed, condition, production state and immune status of the animals concerned, as well as the virus strain and environmental factors increasing or decreasing secondary infections etc. It is even more difficult to calculate indirect costs, or to separate out the components of losses which may arise from several causes.

However, it is important to at least identify all the various possible costs, before attempting to put a monetary value on them. Calculations of the potential costs associated with outbreaks must also allow for a wide variety of variables associated with the size of the outbreak and the time to bring it under control.

The risks and costs associated with Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) and its consequences may be divided into several areas (as follows) and each area should be examined in detail to assess possible losses:

The disease
  • Direct risks and costs associated with the clinical disease as it affects:
    • The animals (health, welfare and length of life)
    • Their productivity (growth rate, milk production, body condition and production of offspring)
    • Therefore, the farmer's income
  • Indirect costs of the disease itself:
    • Loss of consumer confidence (concerns about food safety)
    • Loss of export markets in animal products (FMD free countries limiting their own risk by not importing from high risk countries)
The control strategies
  • Direct costs of different disease control strategies:
    • Cost of decreased animal production (due to stock slaughtered in disease control and time delay prior to restocking)
    • Cost of animal foodstuffs becoming more expensive (due to inaccessibility hay/silage etc. due to possible viral contamination)
    • Cost of animal movement restrictions and increased border controls (tracing animal movements, administration associated with imposing movement restrictions, forms for allowing movement etc.)
    • Cost of veterinary and laboratory manpower for surveillance (examination and blood-testing of animals for FMD in and around infected areas) 
    • Cost of manpower associated with stamping-out (slaughter, carcass disposal and disinfection of infected premises)
    • Cost of manpower associated with administration (emergency contact centres, compensation payments, payment to contractors/vets)
    • Cost of manpower associated with monitoring (environmental contamination and animal welfare considerations)
    • Cost of direct compensation to the farmers for stock (slaughtered for disease control and due to welfare problems associated with movement restrictions)
    • Cost of loss of irreplaceable stock (specific pedigree / genetics, minimal disease herd units, hefted / gated herd (herd memory))
    • Cost of vaccination (maintaining vaccine banks, producing vaccines and carrying out vaccination campaigns; also additional surveillance to regain FMD-free status)
  • Indirect costs of different disease control strategies:
    • Cost of rising price of local meat to the consumer (reduced local supply)
    • Cost of movement bans to internal trade (movement of uninfected stock for slaughter, sale of animal products nationally from infected zones)
    • Cost of massive disruption of agricultural practice, associated trades and businesses, and other rural industries such as tourism (e.g. hotels, tourism) (movement restrictions and disease perceptions)
    • Cost to public health (burning carcasses, burying carcasses, psychological effects of losing herds, income etc.)
    • Cost to the environment of burning, burial and disinfection (air quality, water etc.)
    • Cost of loss of wildlife species (biodiversity and ecological knock-on effects)
    • Cost of loss of international trade (international sale of animals/animal products from infected or vaccinated zones, depending on international trade restrictions)

The Gowers Committee and the Northumberland Committee in response to Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreaks in the 1950's and 1960's noted the essential role of a slaughter policy in the control of FMD but also recognised the emotional costs of such a policy through the following statement:

"We wish to make it clear at the outset that we are not among those who regard stamping-out [the slaughter policy] with complacency. We sympathise with the widely expressed view that it is a crude and primitive way of dealing with a disease. We know what a harrowing duty it is for the officers of the Ministry who have to carry it out. We recognise the mental anguish it may cause to those who suffer its consequences, and the shattering disaster, not computable in terms of money, that it may bring to a farmer who has to see the work of a lifetime destroyed in a day." (D36.Paragraph 175)

Economic losses due to the 2001 FMD outbreak in the UK were variously estimated at:

  • Government expenditure of about £2,797 million, losses to agricultural producers £355 million, losses to the food industry £170 million, losses to tourism industry £2,700-£3,205 million (gross value added), plus additional indirect effects resulting in £85 million to agriculture/food industry and £1,835-£2,180 million to the tourism industry. (B494.14.w14 - full text provided)
  • To agriculture and the food chain, £3.1 billion (after compensation £355 million, 20% of total farming income for 2001) and £2.7 - 3.2 billion to tourism, plus losses to associated businesses and industries. (J64.21.w29)
  • Estimated at about "£3,800 million on a comparable basis (£3,100 million for the livestock industry, food chain and central Government costs; and £700 million for the estimated lost tourism sector “value added” not transferred elsewhere in the economy)". (W66.Aug07.w2)
  • Direct and uncompensated impact on the UK livestock sector of nearly £1 billion. (J64.21.w30)

The Royal Society Report Infectious diseases in livestock noted that in addition to assessment of the disease situation (the outbreak itself), control option decisions (e.g. use of emergency vaccination) should also the relative effects of different control strategies on a national level (on export markets and on the rural economy) and for the area affected (economy and community stability, effects of movement restrictions or ability to relax these (both for livestock and people undertaking rural activities), and additionally, the exit strategy if vaccination were to be used (B495.9.w9). 

The Foot and Mouth Disease 2001: Lessons to Be Learned Inquiry Report recommended that at both UK and EU levels, "cost-benefit analyses of FMD control strategies should be updated and maintained." (B494.14.w14 - full text provided)

(B494.12.w12 - full text provided, B494.14.w14 - full text provided, D36.Paragraph 175, J3.148.w5, J13.64.w4, J35.134.w1, J64.12.w1, J64.21.w29, J64.21.w30, W18.Apl01.sib1, W66.Aug07.w2)

Published Guidelines linked in Wildpro

Return to top of page

... to the animal

For the animal, the risks/costs are those directly associated with the disease in that animal, and the directs effects of different control strategies.
From foot-and-mouth disease itself (Effect of the disease varies with age, species and breed, virus strain, immune status etc.)
  • Severe clinical disease may occur with associated extreme pain and suffering.
  • High mortality may occur, particularly in young animals and in susceptible species with virulent virus strains.
  • Convalescence may be prolonged (e.g. six months for cattle) and some animals may not make a full recovery. Permanent lameness and infertility are frequently observed (this is only applicable when a slaughter policy is not used.)
From disease control strategies
Slaughter policy:
  • Serious welfare problems have occurred due to a combination of methods and conditions under which animals are killed in FMD outbreaks, particularly where large numbers of herds have been slaughtered. There is a particular risk where inexperienced slaughterers are working in less than ideal conditions in the field, especially when combined with the presence of nervous, aggressive or frightened animals.
  • Premature slaughter of healthy animals may be instigated as part of disease control operations.
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • These may lead to prolonged maintenance of animals in winter accommodation/pasture, resulting in:
    • Overgrazing
    • Poaching of ground (development of deep mud)
  • Feed restriction/substitution of inferior or inappropriate foodstuffs may occur due to inadequate food stores and/or attempts to reduce growth/fattening rates, resulting in:
    • Associated behavioural/intraspecific competition problems
    • Potentially inadequate nutrition
  • Movement to sheltered land/buildings for lambing, calving etc. may be prevented leading to animals giving birth in cold, wet, exposed or muddy conditions.
  • Overcrowding of stock which cannot be sold may lead to associated behavioural/intraspecific competition problems
  • Premature slaughter may be required due to an inability to maintain acceptable welfare standards
Vaccination:
  • Risks of injury and stress during gathering for vaccination
  • Risk of injury and stress while being held for vaccination (domestic animals) or darted (non-domestic animals)
  • Slight risk of tissue reaction to vaccine adjuvants and other hypersensitivity reactions (this risk is reduced by the use of modern highly-purified vaccines manufactured under GMP)
  • Risks of injury and stress during additional gathering and sampling for testing (blood sampling, possibly probang) associated with additional testing to confirm FMD-free status.
  • Slaughter of healthy animals if testing indicates the vaccinated herd has come into contact with FMDV.

(B494.12.w12 - full text provided, B495.1.w1 - full text provided, J35.134.w1, J64.21.w31, J64.21.w32, J112.25.w4, V.w6, V.w23, W18.Apl01.sib1)

Associated techniques linked from Wildpro

Return to top of page

... to the environment

For the environment, the risks/costs are those directly associated with the disease in wild animals that are part of the natural ecosystems, and the direct damage caused by disinfection and disposal of carcasses.
From foot-and-mouth disease itself
  • Foot-and-Mouth Disease could in some cases be so severe as to cause extinction of populations.
    • Endangered species with small populations are particularly susceptible to disease events, particularly to very infectious diseases such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease. Free-ranging cloven-hoofed animals, hedgehogs, and elephants are some of the groups of wild animals susceptible to foot-and-mouth disease. In some of these species the numbers of fatalities can be extremely high, and as some cloven-hoofed species have not been exposed to FMD virus the seriousness of the disease in such species is not known - either with respect to the number that will die in large numbers (e.g. Gazella gazella - Mountain gazelle), or indeed those species which may be carriers without clinical signs (e.g. Syncerus caffer - African buffalo).
    • If a species (particularly a large grazing animal) is lost to an ecosystem it may lead to dramatic changes in that ecosystem, with the consequent loss of other dependant species.
From disease control strategies
Slaughter policy:
  • There are potential negative effects from all methods of mass disposal of carcasses.
    • Advice from the Environment Agency following the 2001 FMD epidemic, to the Royal Society Infectious Diseases in Livestock Inquiry was a preference for, in order, rendering; commercial incineration; disposal in licensed landfill sites; on-site burning; and on-site burial. This order was based on both risk to the environment and risks to human health. (Infectious Diseases in Livestock [Royal Society Inquiry Report] B495.9.w9 - full text provided)
  • Pollution may be caused directly by seepage of body fluids into water courses which then cause:
Movement Restrictions, Quarantine and Disinfection:
  • Run-off of disinfection to watercourses can cause severe damage, killing large numbers of fish, invertebrates and possibly other species. Unofficial Reports indicated that in the River Ure there were massive loss of fish stocks (especially coarse fish) from the 1967 outbreak. These were thought locally to take 20 years to recovery.
  • Movement restrictions of Environmental Officers to River-banks prevent the monitoring of river courses and waterways at the time when maximum damage is likely to occur. This restricts early actions that could be taken to minimise damage seen to occur, such as changing disinfection practices or disinfectants used in run-off areas.
  • Disruption of the normal means by which farm effluents are disposed of may have negative effects on the environment
Vaccination:
  • No identifiable risks.

(B494.14.w14 - full text provided, B495.9.w9 -full text provided, J35.134.w1, V.w6)

Associated techniques linked from Wildpro

Return to top of page

... to the farmer

For the farmer, direct and indirect risks/costs are associated both with the disease in his stock, and with different control strategies.

There are immense psychological pressures on farmers and their families associated with the suffering of animals under their care: through disease, slaughter, inadequate food, muddy/dirty conditions etc., especially when animal welfare problems are beyond the direct control of the farmer. These stresses are compounded by restrictions on personal freedom of movement, particularly when combined with the actual and potential massive financial loss which can lead to financial ruin. These pressures have led to mental breakdown and suicide in some cases and long term stress, difficult to quantify, in others.

From foot-and-mouth disease itself
Direct:
  • Decreased production (drop in milk yield, loss of condition, reduced growth rates, infertility, abortion)
    • Direct losses in productivity (reduced growth, reduced milk production etc.) may be 25%. (B495.3.w3 - full text provided)
    • Effect of the disease varies with age, species and breed, virus strain, immune status etc.
    • Effects on production may be prolonged, e.g. loss of milk for the whole lactation, permanent reduction in milk production secondary to mastitis.
    • Infertility associated with FMD may lead to a longer calving to conception interval, therefore lower milk yield over a period of time, and decreased calf (and meat) production.
  • Losses of stock due to the disease:
    • Mainly juveniles.
    • Adult mortality is most likely in high-production animals.
    • Also genetically valuable stock may need to be euthanised due to welfare considerations associated with severe FMD/secondary complication and infertility.
  • Costs associated with treatment and nursing during disease and possibly prolonged convalescence (only applicable when a slaughter policy is not used.)
  • Loss of draught power for cultivation, transport of harvested crops etc., associated with lameness from FMD, where cloven-hoofed animals are used for that purpose. This is extremely important in South-East Asia.
Indirect:
  • Drop in the value of sales of animals and animal products due to loss of export markets.
    • Ongoing restrictions affect farmers in countries with FMD and result in loss of potential export markets.
    • Decrease in value of animals and animal products is associated with outbreaks in countries which are normally FMD-free, following loss of OIE "FMD free" status (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET).
From disease control strategies
Slaughter policy:
  • Premature slaughter of animals as part of disease control operations (particularly young animals, replacement stock, and breeding and draught stock). The extent of the number of farmers affected by this loss depends on the extent of the slaughter policy used.
  • Associated lost production prior to restocking, after the reduction in output for feed is taken into account.
  • For hill/moorland "hefted" sheep flocks which roam many thousands of hectares of unfenced moorland/upland, considerable additional losses would be expected following restocking. This is due to the time required for animals to adapt, acclimatise and develop the essential "herd memory" (whereby knowledge of shelter and seasonal grazing is passed from parent to offspring).
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • Loss of income from milk
  • Loss of income from stock which cannot be moved to market or slaughter due to movement restrictions
    • e.g. in the UK in Infected Areas or premises under Form D. (W32.Apl01.sib1)
    • Loss of income due to restrictions on which slaughterhouses stock can be moved to, and additional costs associated with veterinary inspections, potentially greatly increased travel distances and cost of "approved" hauliers
  • Loss of production due to restrictions on artificial insemination services
    • Therefore delayed pregnancy and start of next lactation
  • Loss of income associated with loss of exports to "FMD-free" countries (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET):
    • During the time of the disease.
    • Until FMD-free status is restored.
  • Loss of other farm income associated with ancillary activities.
    • Loss of farm bed-and-breakfast income.
    • Loss of at-the-door sales of eggs etc.
  • Cost of disinfectant and application e.g. to disinfect necessary vehicles such as milk tankers and for general biosecurity arrangements such as footbaths.
Vaccination:
  • Risk of losses from injury and stress to stock gathered and held for vaccination, particularly under emergency conditions which may be less than ideal.
  • Cost of vaccination (vaccine storage, production and distribution and carrying out of vaccination)
    • May not be a cost to the farmer for vaccination in the face of an outbreak
    • Ongoing cost for farmers where prophylactic/general vaccination is carried out
  • Loss of export markets due to loss of OIE "FMD free" status after emergency vaccination. (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET)
    • The period before return to "FMD free" status (with its consequent increase in the sale value of animals and animal products) may be extended after the last case of FMD if vaccine is used without subsequent culling of vaccinated animals.
    • However, these losses may be negated if vaccination sufficiently increases the speed of disease control.

(B494.14.w14 - full text provided, B495.3.w3 - full text provided, D37.Para147, J35.134.w1, J64.12.w1, J258.331.w1, W18.Apl01.sib1)

Associated techniques linked from Wildpro

Return to top of page

... to the related trades / professions

Ancillary trades and professions are those which depend on the farming industry. They include:
  • Veterinarians
  • Livestock traders (hauliers, local butchers etc.)
  • Feedstuffs traders
  • Businesses providing services such as artificial insemination (AI), sheep-shearing, foot-trimming
  • Milk companies

These are affected in the long term mainly if there is a decrease in the number of animals within an area, and thus their services are required less frequently. In the short-term they may not be able to operate due to movement restrictions and suspension of normal use of service such as AI and sales of animals and animal products.

From foot-and-mouth disease itself
  • If a large number of animals are lost, there is a decreased demand for feedstuffs and ancillary services.
From disease control strategies

Note: Psychological effects may be seen on people in related trades and businesses as well as on farmers. (J258.331.w1)

Slaughter policy:
  • If a large number of animals are lost, there is a decreased demand for feedstuffs and ancillary services.
  • There can be a considerable emotional cost to vets involved with control programmes due to animal welfare issues and the distress of the farmers.
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • Cost of quarantining vehicles and staff.
  • Cost of disinfectants and application tools such as footbaths, sprayers etc.
Vaccination:
  • Very limited losses, except to services directly involved with the export trade, such as hauliers where there may be considerable loss of income due to loss of export markets. (RELEVANT WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET)
Associated techniques linked from Wildpro

Return to top of page

... to the consumer: meat and other animal products

From foot-and-mouth disease itself
  • Risk of disease from infected milk, meat - NEGLIGIBLE
From disease control strategies
Slaughter policy:
  • Reduction in availability of locally-produced meat, milk etc.
  • Increased cost of meat etc. due to decreased supplies of locally-produced items
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • Reduction in availability of locally-produced meat, milk etc.
  • Increased cost of meat etc. as decreased supplies of locally-produced items
Vaccination:
  • Perceived risk of disease from meat/other products from vaccinated stock:
    • There are no risks to human health from FMD vaccines (which are inactivated vaccines) entering the food chain (W32.Apl01.sib1).
    • In the EU, Council Directive 2003/85/EC notes that "Dairy and meat products from vaccinated animals may be placed on the market in accordance with the relevant Community legislation." Additionally, it states (Article 51) that, in the event of emergency vaccination being used, "Member States shall ensure that an information programme shall be put in place to inform the public about the safety of meat, milk and dairy products from vaccinated animals for human consumption."(W19.Sept07.w1)
Associated techniques linked from Wildpro
  • --

Return to top of page

... to the FMD affected region

From foot-and-mouth disease itself
  • Direct: reduction in locally-produced animal products.
  • Indirect: loss of farmers' income due to animal losses and decreased production results in less input from farmers into local economy in general.
From disease control strategies
Slaughter policy:
  • Aesthetic costs of piles of rotting carcasses, pyres burning carcasses etc.
  • Possible and perceived health risks associated with pyres burning carcasses.
  • Possible (likely to be exceedingly low) and perceived risk of BSE from cattle associated with buried or burned carcasses.
  • Risk of contamination of water supplies from buried carcasses.
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • General restrictions of movement including dog walking, hiking, etc.
  • Loss of social activities.
  • Restrictions on agricultural shows, horse shows, dog shows etc.
  • Cost of disinfectants used to assist in decreasing local spread of disease.
  • Potential contamination of watercourses with disinfectants and associated effects on wildlife.
Vaccination:
  • Loss of export markets resulting in indirect losses from reduced farmers' income due to animal losses and decreased production results in less input from farmers into local economy in general (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET).
    • Ongoing, for countries without OIE "FMD free" status;
    • During and following outbreaks, prior to regaining OIE "FMD free" status, in countries normally free of the disease)

GENERAL

Losses associated with Tourism in some countries can be massive and may be associated with the disease itself (reluctance of people to visit a "diseased" area, loss of disposable income from farmers and those in associated businesses) ALSO with disease control measures (reluctance of tourists to visit an area with pyres or rotting carcasses nearby, official movement restrictions, voluntary movement restrictions due to worry over possible risks of transporting the virus).:

N.B. these will vary depending on the importance of tourism and leisure activities in the overall income of an area

To hotels, bed & breakfast establishments, restaurants etc. in affected areas:

  • Loss of income from cancelled bookings as tourism decreased
  • Loss of income from local population while movement restricted
  • Loss of income from local population as local income decreased.

To traders in other goods in farming areas:

  • Loss of income from sales of general goods other than necessities to farmers while movement is restricted
  • Loss of income from sales of goods to farmers and other traders with reduced income.
  • Loss of income from businesses supplying food and other commodities to hotels, restaurants etc.

To fishing, falconry and game shooting associated businesses:

  • Loss of income through cancellation of these sports through closure of river banks, grouse moors etc.

To "attractions in affected areas":

  • Loss of income from decreased visitors.
  • Loss of income to zoos etc. due to closure associated with risk of infection of animals.

Proper risk assessments could be carried out to both ensure adequate disease control and avoid shutting off access to the countryside where this was not necessary .

Note: Psychological effects may be seen on people in the affected area who are not farmers or in directly related trades/businesses, but whose lives and sometimes income are disrupted. (J258.331.w1)

(B494.8.w8 - full text provided, B494.14.w14 - full text provided, B495.1.w1 - full text provided, J64.21.w33, J112.25.w2, J258.331.w1, W32.Apl01.sib1, W39.04Jun01.sib1, W39.31May 01.sib2)

Associated techniques linked from Wildpro
  •  

Return to top of page

... to the FMD affected country as a whole

From foot-and-mouth disease itself
  • Direct: Reduction in home-produced animal products
  • Indirect: Loss of export markets (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET)
    • Ongoing, for countries without OIE "FMD free" status;
    • During and following outbreaks, prior to regaining OIE "FMD free" status, in countries normally free of the disease)
From disease control strategies
Surveillance:
  • Cost of inspections, diagnostic services etc. associated with:
    • policies to reduce the risk of introduction of FMD from outside the country
    • minimising the time to diagnosis
Slaughter policy:
  • Cost of direct compensation to the farmer for stock slaughtered in disease control.
    • Increased costs likely with increasing average herd size (J35.134.w2).
  • Cost in manpower and materials to slaughter and dispose of stock, and disinfect premises.
  • Indirect: loss of income from tourism and general leisure activities in some countries
Movement Restrictions and Disinfection:
  • Loss of income from tourism in some countries.
  • Administrative and manpower costs associated with defining controlled areas and controlling movement of animals and their products
  • Cost of disposal of products (e.g. milk) where movement restriction prevent their being marketed
  • Cost of disinfectant to disinfect farms following slaughter.
  • Indirect: loss of income from tourism and general leisure activities in some countries
Vaccination:
  • Cost of developing and maintaining emergency vaccine banks.
    • Development costs are sunk costs.
    • The maintenance costs are quite low.
  • Cost of producing vaccines from emergency vaccine banks, distribution and vaccination programme.
  • Costs of additional surveillance to confirm FMD-free status OR costs of slaughtering vaccinated herds for faster return to FMD-free status.
  • Ongoing costs where prophylactic/general vaccination is carried out (cost may be borne by farmers).
  • Loss of potential export markets from countries where routine prophylactic vaccination is practised.
  • Loss of export markets due to loss of OIE "FMD free" status after emergency vaccination (ONLY OF RELEVANCE WHERE A COUNTRY HAS A SIGNIFICANT EXPORT MARKET):
    • Period before return to "FMD free" status may be longer after the last case of FMD following the use (together with a "stamping out" policy of "ring vaccination without culling", "barrier vaccination" or "mass vaccination" than following "stamping out" without vaccination or the use of "vaccination with culling" alongside "stamping out".
      • Note: with the development of serological tests which can distinguish between herds of vaccinated animals and those which have been infected with FMDV, the OIE now permits a return to "FMD free" status in six months after the last case or last vaccination, if vaccination is used, vaccinated animals are not culled, and appropriate serological testing is carried out. (W31.Sept07.w2)

    The OIE prescribes the following for recovery of FMD-free status: (W31.Sept07.w2)

"Recovery of free status

1. When an FMD outbreak or FMDV infection occurs in an FMD free country or zone where vaccination is not practised, one of the following waiting periods is required to regain the status of FMD free country or zone where vaccination is not practised:
a) 3 months after the last case where a stamping-out policy and serological surveillance are applied in
accordance with Appendix 3.8.7.; or
b) 3 months after the slaughter of all vaccinated animals where a stamping-out policy, emergency vaccination and serological surveillance are applied in accordance with Appendix 3.8.7.; or
c) 6 months after the last case or the last vaccination (according to the event that occurs the latest), where a stamping-out policy, emergency vaccination not followed by the slaughtering of all vaccinated animals, and serological surveillance are applied in accordance with Appendix 3.8.7., provided that a serological survey based on the detection of antibodies to nonstructural proteins of FMDV demonstrates the absence of infection in the remaining vaccinated population.

Where a stamping-out policy is not practised, the above waiting periods do not apply, and Article 2.2.10.2. or 2.2.10.4. applies."

(W31.Sept07.w2)

  • Note: the period to full control of the disease may be shorter and total loss of livestock may be decreased when vaccination (e.g. ring vaccination) is used alongside a "stamping out" policy.

(J35.134.w1, J64.12.w1, J112.25.w2, V.w23)

The Foot and Mouth Disease 2001- Lessons to Be Learned Inquiry Report recommended that "where the control of exotic animal diseases has wider economic or other implications, the Government ensure that those consequences for the country as a whole are fully considered. "(B494.4.w4 - full text provided)

Associated techniques linked from Wildpro

Return to top of page

Authors & Referees

Authors Dr Debra Bourne MA VetMB PhD MRCVS
Referee Suzanne I Boardman BVMS MRCVS

Return to top of page