Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Thomas W. Bates x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search

Abstract

Objective—To develop a spatial epidemic model to simulate intraherd and interherd transmission of footand- mouth disease (FMD) virus.

Sample Population—2,238 herds, representing beef, dairy, swine, goats, and sheep, and 5 sale yards located in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties of California.

Procedure—Using Monte-Carlo simulations, a spatial stochastic epidemic simulation model was developed to identify new herds that would acquire FMD following random selection of an index herd and to assess progression of an epidemic after implementation of mandatory control strategies.

Results—The model included species-specific transition periods for FMD infection, locations of herds, rates of direct and indirect contacts among herds, and probability distributions derived from expert opinions on probabilities of transmission by direct and indirect contact, as well as reduction in contact following implementation of restrictions on movements in designated infected areas and surveillance zones. Models of supplemental control programs included slaughter of all animals within a specified distance of infected herds, slaughter of only high-risk animals identified by use of a model simulation, and vaccination of all animals within a 5- to 50-km radius of infected herds.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The FMD model represents a tool for use in planning biosecurity and emergency-response programs and in comparing potential benefits of various strategies for control and eradication of FMD appropriate for specific populations. (Am J Vet Res 2003;64:195–204)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective—To assess estimated effectiveness of control and eradication procedures for foot-andmouth disease (FMD) in a region of California.

Sample Population—2,238 herds and 5 sale yards in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties of California.

Procedure—A spatial stochastic model was used to simulate hypothetical epidemics of FMD for specified control scenarios that included a baseline eradication strategy mandated by USDA and supplemental control strategies of slaughter or vaccination of all animals within a specified distance of infected herds, slaughter of only high-risk animals identified by use of a model simulation, and expansion of infected and surveillance zones.

Results—Median number of herds affected varied from 1 to 385 (17% of all herds), depending on type of index herd and delay in diagnosis of FMD. Percentage of herds infected decreased from that of the baseline eradication strategy by expanding the designated infected area from 10 to 20 km (48%), vaccinating within a 50-km radius of an infected herd (41%), slaughtering the 10 highest-risk herds for each infected herd (39%), and slaughtering all animals within 5 km of an infected herd (24%).

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results for the model provided a means of assessing the relative merits of potential strategies for control and eradication of FMD should it enter the US livestock population. For the study region, preemptive slaughter of highest-risk herds and vaccination of all animals within a specified distance of an infected herd consistently decreased size and duration of an epidemic, compared with the baseline eradication strategy. (Am J Vet Res 2003;64:205–210)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective—To assess relative costs and benefits of vaccination and preemptive herd slaughter to control transmission of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) virus (FMDV).

Sample Population—2,238 herds and 5 sale yards located in Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties of California.

Procedure—Direct costs associated with indemnity, slaughter, cleaning and disinfecting livestock premises, and vaccination were compared for various eradication strategies. Additional cost, total program cost, net benefit, and benefit-cost value (B/C) for each supplemental strategy were estimated, based in part on results of published model simulations for FMD. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results—Mean herd indemnity payments were estimated to be $2.6 million and $110,359 for dairy and nondairy herds, respectively. Cost to clean and disinfect livestock premises ranged from $18,062 to $60,205. Mean vaccination cost was $2,960/herd. Total eradication cost ranged from $61 million to $551 million. All supplemental strategies involving use of vaccination were economically efficient (B/C range, 5.0 to 10.1) and feasible, whereas supplemental strategies involving use of slaughter programs were not economically efficient (B-C, 0.05 to 0.8) or feasible.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Vaccination with a highly efficacious vaccine may be a cost-effective strategy for control of FMD if vaccinated animals are not subsequently slaughtered and there is no future adverse economic impact, such as trade restrictions. Although less preferable than the baseline eradication program, selective slaughter of highest-risk herds was preferable to other preemptive slaughter strategies. However, indirect costs can be expected to contribute substantially more than direct costs to the total cost of eradication programs. (Am J Vet Res 2003;64:805–812)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective—To estimate direct and indirect contact rates on livestock facilities and distance traveled between herd contacts.

Sample Population—320 beef, dairy, goat, sheep, and swine herds, 7 artificial insemination technicians, 6 hoof trimmers, 15 veterinarians, 4 sales yard owners, and 7 managers of livestock-related companies within a 3-county region of California.

Procedure—A questionnaire was mailed to livestock producers, and personal and telephone interviews were conducted with individuals.

Results—Mean monthly direct contact rates were 2.6, 1.6, and 2.0 for dairies with < 1,000, 1,000 to 1,999, and ≥ 2,000 cattle, respectively. Mean indirect contact rates on dairies ranged from 234 to 743 contacts/ mo and increased by 1 contact/mo as herd size increased by 4.3. Mean direct monthly contact rate for beef herds was 0.4. Distance traveled by personnel and vehicles during a 3-day period ranged from 58.4 to 210.4 km. Of livestock arriving at sales yards, 7% (500/7,072) came from ≥ 60 km away, and of those sold, 32% (1,180/3,721) were destined for a location ≥ 60 km away. Fifty-five percent (16/29) of owners of large beef herds observed deer or elk within 150 m of livestock at least once per month.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Direct and indirect contacts occur on livestock facilities located over a wide geographic area and at a higher frequency on larger facilities. Knowledge of contact rates may be useful for planning biosecurity programs at the herd, state, and national levels and for modeling transmission potential for foot-and-mouth disease virus. (Am J Vet Res 2001;62:1121–1129)

Full access
in American Journal of Veterinary Research