↓ Skip to main content

Market Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies: A UK Case Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Market Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies: A UK Case Study
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siyi Feng, Myles Patton, John Davis

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) poses a serious threat to the agricultural sector due to its highly contagious nature. Outbreaks of FMD can lead to substantial disruptions to livestock markets due to loss of production and access to international markets. In a previously FMD-free country, the use of vaccination to augment control of an FMD outbreak is increasingly being recognized as an alternative control strategy to direct slaughtering [stamping-out (SO)]. The choice of control strategy has implications on production, trade, and hence prices of the sector. Specific choice of eradication strategies depends on their costs and benefits. Economic impact assessments are often based on benefit-cost framework, which provide detailed information on the changes in profit for a farm or budget implications for a government (1). However, this framework cannot capture price effects caused by changes in production due to culling of animals; access to international markets; and consumers' reaction. These three impacts combine to affect equilibrium within commodity markets (2). This paper provides assessment of sectoral level impacts of the eradication choices of FMD outbreaks, which are typically not available from benefit-cost framework, in the context of the UK. The FAPRI-UK model, a partial equilibrium model of the agricultural sector, is utilized to investigate market outcomes of different control strategies (namely SO and vaccinate-to-die) in the case of FMD outbreaks. The outputs from the simulations of the EXODIS epidemiological model (number of animals culled/vaccinated and duration of outbreak) are used as inputs within the economic model to capture the overall price impact of the animal destruction, export ban, and consumers' response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 18 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#4,163
of 6,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,409
of 316,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#50
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.