Partial equilibrium analysis of vaccination as an avian influenza control tool in the U.S. poultry sector

Authors

  • Aklesso Egbendewe-Mondzozo,

    Corresponding author
    1. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei & Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change, Corso Magenta, 63, 20123 Milan, Italy
      Tel: +39-025-203-6983, fax: +39-025-203-6946. E-mail address: emaklesso@gmail.com (Aklesso Egbendewe-Mondzozo).
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Levan Elbakidze,

    1. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 442334, Moscow, ID 83844, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Bruce A. McCarl,

    1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, 2124 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael P. Ward,

    1. Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • John B. Carey

    1. Department of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, 2472 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Tel: +39-025-203-6983, fax: +39-025-203-6946. E-mail address: emaklesso@gmail.com (Aklesso Egbendewe-Mondzozo).

Abstract

The study addresses the economic effectiveness of vaccination in the case of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks. The effectiveness is evaluated in a U.S. case study comparing the outbreak costs under the currently recommended HPAI control practice versus one which also includes vaccination. An integrated economic-epidemic partial equilibrium model is used to empirically simulate HPAI outbreaks in three different poultry regions within the State of Texas. The simulation results show that the effectiveness of vaccination depends on flock density in the region and risk aversion preferences of the decision maker. In regions with high flock densities, if the decision maker is less risk averse the currently recommended strategy—which includes depopulation, movement restrictions, and flock testing—is more cost-effective than the same strategy supplemented with vaccination. Addition of vaccination improves cost effectiveness only if the decision maker is highly risk averse or if surveillance, carcass disposal, and cleaning costs are high. In regions with medium and low flock densities, adding vaccination to the currently recommended strategy is not cost-effective except in the case of high surveillance, carcass disposal, and cleaning costs.

Ancillary