Prev Vet Med. 2016 Nov 1;134:39-48. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.09.025. Epub 2016 Sep 29.
- 1Department
of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, 1000 E.
University Avenue, Laramie, WY, 82071, United States.
- 2Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., 200 South 2nd Street, Laramie, WY, 82070, United States.
- 3Department
of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wyoming, 1000 E.
University Avenue, Laramie, WY, 82071, United States. Electronic
address: dpeck@uwyo.edu.
- 4Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 432 Mill Street, Pinedale, WY, 82941, United States.
- 5Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1174 Snowy Range Road, Laramie, WY, 82070, United States.
Abstract
Recent
cases of bovine brucellosis (Brucella abortus) in cattle (Bos taurus)
and domestic bison (Bison bison) of the southern Greater Yellowstone
Area (SGYA) have been traced back to free-ranging elk (Cervus elaphus).
Several management activities have been implemented to reduce
brucellosis seroprevalence in elk, including test-and-slaughter,
low-density feeding at elk winter feedgrounds, and elk vaccination. It
is unclear which of these activities are most cost-effective at reducing
the risk of elk transmitting brucellosis to cattle. In a companion
paper, a stochastic risk model was used to translate a reduction in elk
seroprevalence to a reduction in the risk of transmission to cattle.
Here, we use those results to estimate the expected economic benefits
and costs of reducing seroprevalence in elk using three different
management activities: vaccination of elk with Brucella strain 19 (S19),
low-density feeding of elk, and elk test-and-slaughter. Results
indicate that the three elk management activities yield negative
expected net benefits, ranging from -$2983 per year for low-density
feeding to -$595,471 per year for test-and-slaughter. Society's risk
preferences will determine whether strategies that generate small
negative net benefit, such as low-density feeding, are worth
implementing. However, activities with large negative net benefits, such
as test-and-slaughter and S19 vaccination, are unlikely to be
economically worthwhile. Given uncertainty about various model
parameters, we identify some circumstances in which individual
management activities might generate positive expected net benefit.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Brucella abortus; Cattle; Economics; Low-density feeding; Strain 19 vaccination; Test-and-slaughter
