" UUL:

I

z TA245.7

B873

NO.1534 B- 4
, April 6

i

a

ECQNCMIC AND EPIDEMIQLQGIC
   ANALYSIS CF
 U. S. BQVINE BRUCELLQSIS PRQGRAMS

[IBPARY

THE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION! Neville P. Clarke, Director! The Texas AMI University System! College Station Texag

Table of Contents

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Source of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6

Epidemiologic and Econometric Models Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

The Epidemiologic Brucellosis Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

The Econometric Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..8

Scenarios Employed For Analyzing Alternative Brucellosis Progams . . . . . . . . . .9

Base Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

Current Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

Eradication Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

Changes in Program Efficiency in High Incidence States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

No State-Federal Program Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..9

Base Program Projections and Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Epidemiologic Analysis of Alternative Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Economic Analysis of Alternative Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . .19

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Preface

Details concerning the contract report, “Economic and Epidemiologic Analysis
of U.S. Bovine Brucellosis Programs” consisting of Volumes I, II, and III are avail-
able from Veterinary Services, APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
Maryland, 20782. Volume I is the primary report; Volume II contains the
epidemiological model, the computer program, and the input data; and Volume
III contains the national epidemiological summaries of the nine programs simulated
and regional summaries of the 1984 current program. These reports are also available
from the Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, 77843 as follows:

Volume I-Departmental Technical Report DTR86-1,
Volume II-Departmental Technical Report DTR86-2,
Volume III-Departmental Technical Report DTR86-3.

Economic and Epidemiologic Analysis
of U.S. Bovine Brucellosis Programs

Authors

RAYMOND A. DIETRICH, Associate Professor
The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
(Department of Agricultural Economics)

STEPHEN H. AMOSSON, Former Visiting Assistant Professor

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
(Department of Agricultural Economics)

RICHARD P. CRAWFORD, Professor
The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
(Department of Veterinary Public Health)

Highlights

The Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradica-
tion Program, established in 1934, has been highly suc-
cessful in reducing brucellosis infection in U.S. cattle
herds. Reactor rates in U.S. adult cattle decreased from
11.5 percent in 1935 to a Market Cattle Identification
reactor rate of 0.3 percent in 1984. Weaner calf and milk
losses t0 producers decreased from $100 million in the
l940’s to $32 million in 1983. Forty states, which were
classified Class Free or Class A states in 1985, accounted
for two-thirds of the U.S. cow population and 5 percent
of the quarantined herds. At the same time, 1O states
were classified Class B or Class C and contained one-
third of the U.S. cow population and 95 percent of the
U.S. quarantined cattle herds.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the
economic and epidemiologic impact of specified alter-
native bovine brucellosis programs and to provide a
benefit-cost analysis of these alternative brucellosis con-
trol and/ or eradication strategies. These strategies and/ or
alternative brucellosis programs were examined in terms
of their costs and benefits to society, consumers, pro-
ducers, and related agricultural industries.

BRUSIM, a systems simulation model, was developed
to measure the impact of various program components
upon selected epidemiologic parameters and for deter-
mining associated costs and physical losses of brucellosis
control/ eradication programs given epidemiologic coef-
ficients and economic criteria from 1976 through 2005.
The United States was delineated into 16 regions based
upon such factors as prevalence, producer
characteristics, and cattle population. TECHSIM, an
econometric model, was used for determining the total
and net benefits accruing to society, consumers, pro-
ducers, and related industries as a result of changes in
beef and milk losses from alternative programs.

A base program and eight alternative bovine
brucellosis programs were simulated for the contiguous
48 states from 1976 through 2005. The base program
served as a basis for determining changes in physical
losses and program expenditures for alternative pro-
grams. The eight alternative programs included a cur-

rent program, two eradication programs, two programs
with changes in program efficiencies in Class C regions,
and three no state-federal program scenarios.

Four programs, the theoretical eradication program,
the realistic eradication program, the base program with
a 25 percent increase in efficiency in Class C regions,
and the current program were highly effective in reduc-
ing brucellosis infection and physical losses from 1984
to 2005. Brucellosis infection and physical losses in-
creased in all other programs simulated, especially the
no state-federal program scenarios. Calfhood vac-
cination was highly effective in reducing infection and
physical losses under the no program scenarios but the
no state-federal program scenarios with and without
calfhood vaccination were inferior to other alternative
programs simulated.

The highest positive change in benefits to society, net
change in benefits, and most acceptable benefit-cost
ratios accrued from the eradication programs, followed
by the base program with a 25 percent increase in effi-
ciency in Class C regions, and the current program. The
largest losses or negative changes in benefits to society,
including generation of economically unacceptable
benefit-cost ratios, accrued from the three no state-
federal programs even with application of calfhood vac-
cination at relatively high levels.

The realistic eradication program was the most cost
effective program since it ranked above other alternative
programs, except the theoretical eradication program,
in total benefits, net benefits, and benefit-cost ratios. The
theoretical eradication program demonstrated that the
present “state of the arts” within the U.S. bovine
brucellosis program is highly capable of detecting suffi-
cient numbers of infected herds for achieving eradica-
tion. Results showed that strict adherence to the re-
quirements of the Uniform Methods and Rules was
highly beneficial in terms of reducing infection and
physical losses. Consumers were the major beneficiaries
of investments in publicly funded bovine brucellosis pro-
grams which decreased losses and increased supplies of
meat and milk.

Economic and Epidemiologic Analysis
of U.S. Bovine Brucellosis Programs

Introduction

Bovine brucellosis, an infectious reproductive disease
which can cause calf deaths, abortions, light calves,
reduced milk production, and undulant fever in humans,
is a major economic problem affecting the beef and dairy
industries, consumers, and related agricultural in-
dustries. U.S. cattle producers incurred production losses
exceeding $32 million from brucellosis in 1983 (Beal
1984). While such production losses are substantial, in
some instances catastrophic, producers incur additional
costs associated with testing and prevention practices.
Consumers are impacted adversely through higher prices
and smaller supplies of meat and milk. Related
agricultural industries may incur losses from reductions
in sales of products and services as the volume of cattle,
meat, and milk declines.

The prevalence of brucellosis in the United States has
decreased from an on-farm reactor rate of 11.5 percent
in 1935-36 when the State-Federal Cooperative
Brucellosis Eradication Program was launched on a na-
tional scale to a Market Cattle Identification (MCI) reac-
tor rate of 0.97 percent in 1966 with a further decline
to 0.3 percent in 1984 (Beal 1985). The State-Federal
Cooperative Brucellosis Eradication Program has
undergone numerous changes since its inception as
discussed by Beal and Kryder 1977; Anderson et al. 1978;
jones 1979; and Amosson 1983. Some of the major events

v_ which have occurred with respect to the State-Federal
' Cooperative Brucellosis Program since 1935-36 are:

(1) Strain 19, a live vaccine, was introduced and used
in 39 states in 1941.

(2) The first edition of Uniform Methods and Rules
(UM&R) for the eradication of bovine brucellosis
was adopted in 1947.

(3) The Brucellosis Ring Test (BRT) was adopted as
a surveillance tool for dairy cattle in 1952.
Through the use of BRT and follow-up cattle
blood testing, suspicious herd milk samples de-
clined from 26 percent in 1954 to 0.3 percent in
1976.

(4) In the fall of 1954, Congress appropriated addi-

tional funding to launch an all out effort to
eradicate brucellosis. The basic thrust was area
testing with quarantine and retesting of infected
herds.

(5) The MCI program was developed as a surveillance
tool during the early 1960’s. This program was
designed to test blood samples of cows slaughtered
at packing plants (SPT). Some states have in-
creased the MCI coverage to include all cows and
eligible heifers passing through the marketing
channels, which is often referred to as first point
of concentration testing (F PC).

(6) Program officials made a decision to de-emphasize
Strain 19 vaccination in 1967.

(7) F PC testing received added emphasis in high in-
cidence states in 1974.

(8) As a result of increased infection in U.S. cattle
herds, Strain 19 vaccination was once again
emphasized by program officials in 1975.

(9) Congress appropriated additional federal funding
in 1975 for brucellosis eradication with emphasis
on herd depopulation, adjacent herd testing, and
FPC testing.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture appointed
the National Brucellosis Technical Commission
(NBTC) in 1976 to conduct an impartial study of
the National Brucellosis Eradication Program.
The NBTC study, completed in 1978, provided
detailed findings and recommendations con-
cerning program improvement to the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the United States
Animal Health Association.

(10)

The distribution of bovine brucellosis infection in the
United States as of April 1985 is broadly defined by the
four level state classification system used by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Figure 1). The Class Free
states are primarily the northern-tier states-the North-
east, the Lake States, the Northern Plains, the Inter-
mountain area, and the Atlantic Coast. Alaska and
Hawaii are also Class Free states. The Class A states are

Figure 1. Brucellosis state/area classification, United States, 1985.

  

BRUCELLOSIS STATE/AREA CLASSIFICATION

' ' , Q Q v0

J

 
 
  

0:0 .

 
 

Q O Q
0.0

  
 

0O

C

° ' 0 0 o o

p o o o 0.0;}. ~%'o o o v. ,

. ‘av; ogo.z,z,z.ta'_ofo,o,o, ,4
9 ' q .o.0.0, 0

   

A\A$lA _-
VIIGIN IHANDS

    

  

_ ’  Apmt 1a, was 
$.59 Easr: A a - 533;‘;-

o <o.2sz <1-sx >1-sx '
<0-0Sl <0-1Z <03! >031
Nmaea 0F States f 20 ? 3

if‘ T‘

Hem) lrrscnm RATE
Anusnsu MCI Rm:

U. i. DCPAIIIINI OI Af-IICULIUII

(Cowman)

primarily in the West, the Northern Plains, the Corn
Belt, and Atlantic Coast states. Class B and C states are
primarily in the West and East South Central states and
the Southeast.

The current distribution of cows in the United States
by area classification reveals several important statistics.
Class A states contained about 40 percent of the January
l, 1985 cow population, followed by Class Free states
with 25 percent, Class B states with 20 percent, and
Class C states with 15 percent (Table 1). Dairy cows
comprised more than 52' percent of the total cows in
Class Free states compared to 20 percent in Class A
states, 8 percent in Class B states, and 7 percent in Class
C states. Dairy cows in Class Free and Class A states
comprised more than 87 percent of the U.S. dairy cow
population in 1985. Although exceptions exist, these data
reveal that the areas with greater concentrations of dairy
herds, which routinely undergo a minimum of three to
four BRT tests per year, also generally had the lowest
levels of brucellosis infection. The net results are that
states with relatively high concentrations of dairy cows,
historically, have had to meet minimum health stan-
dards imposed by various cities and municipalities to
qualify their products for sale within such areas. For ex-
ample, the Chicago Board of Health stated in 1950 that
within 5 years only milk from brucellosis-free herds

would be acceptable for human consumption. Such
market incentives encouraged predominant dairy states
to institute animal health programs which permeated
their cattle industry. However, there are exceptions in
the predominant beef states as indicated by their cur-
rent Class Free classification as well as the large number
of beef states currently classified Class A (Table 1).

Another measure for determining the relative level of
brucellosis infection is the infected herd rate per 1,000
herds at risk. States which had an infected herd rate of
5 or greater per 1,000 herds as of March 31, 1985, were
led by Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Mississip-
pi, and Oklahoma (Table 2). These six states accounted
for more than 86 percent of the known infected herds
in the United States as of March 1985. These states, plus
Missouri, Kentucky, and Alabama, all reported 100 or
more infected herds as of March 1985 and together ac-
counted for almost 95 percent of the known infected
herds in the United States.

The Problem
Bovine brucellosis reactors as identified by the MCI
program decreased from 0.97 percent of the total cattle
tested in 1966 to 0.31 percent in 1984. Further, initial
follow-up tests of BBT suspicious herds which were

vi

i

Table 1. Distribution of beef and dairy cows by state and bovine brucellosis area class, United States, April 1985

Beef cows“ Dairy cows“ Total cows Beef cows“ Dairy cows“ Total cows
Area classs 1,000 1,000 1,000 Area classs 1,000 1,000 1,000
and state Head Percent Head Percent Head Percent and state Head Percent Head Percent Head Percent
Free: Class A continued.
Alaska 3 l ‘l Nebraska 1 808 102 i 910
Connecticut 7 48 55 New Jersey 16 39 55
89198.99 2 l0 l2 New Mexico 555 65 620
llaYla" 82 l2 94 ohio l 360 380 740
Mallle ll 59 7° Oregon 639 96 735
malllalilfl n 7g lil7 22g South Dakota 1,627 161 1,788
Miacsfiélganuse S 160 390 550 Tennessee 1,050 210 1,260
. Virginia 643 162 805
mllllltefflca 1  83g 1 Washington 398 211 609
N31; ilaampshire r 5 31 r 36 West Virginia 275 33 308
New york 33 942 1,030 Subtotal 14,689 41.5 3,746 34.6 18,435 39.9
North Carolina 458 127 585
North Dakota 964 97 1,061 Class B1
Pennsylvania 190 735 925 Alabama 871 49 920
Rhode island 1 4 5 K811111819 1,033 232 1,270
South Carolina 272 47 319 Missouri 2.000 225 2.225
Utah 239 3O 369 Nevada 307 18 325
Vermont 11) 133 193 Oklahoma 1,993 107 2,100
Wisconsin 230 1,840 2,070 West Texas 2,100 141 2,241
Wv9rr11r18‘ 918 12 630 Subtotal 8,309 23.5 772 7.1 9,081 19.6
Subtotal 5,411 15.3 5,706 52.8 11,117 24.1 C] B&C
ass
Clsss A1 Florida 1,161 3.3 164 1.5 1,325 2.9
Arizona 272 83 355
California 1.011 974 1,985 (Jags C
Cololado 855 75 930 Arkansas 914 79 993
0991819 771 118 889 Louisiana 670 95 765
1919119 538 182 788 Mississippi 753 84 837
11115199    East Texas 3,486 173 3,659
Igwljlla 1 305 345 1,650 Subtotal 5,823 16.4 431 4.0 6,254 13.5
Kansas 1,512 108 1,620 United States 35,393 100.0 10,819 100.0 46,212 100.0

sArea classification as of April 16, 1985. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS, VS. Washington, D.C.
“January 1, 1985 beef and dairy cows that have calved. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Cattle. Washington, D.C.
sNinety percent or more of the cattle in Montana and Wyoming are in Class Free counties.

F found to be infected declined from 1,653 in 1967 to 197

in 1984. The NBTC (1978) estimated that the combined
economic losses to U.S. beef and dairy herds from
brucellosis totaled $48 million in 1976 compared to $32
million in 1983 (Beal 1984).

While this data represents program progress in all
dimensions, U.S. Department of Agriculture data in-
dicates that bovine brucellosis infection was still present

~in 31 of the 50 states as of April 16, 1985. Given the wide

variation in reactor rates between the non-Class Free
states and the concentration of infection in nine states
where 9O percent or more of the infection in the United
States exists, it is essential that current and alternative
bovine brucellosis programs are analyzed periodically

to assure that the most economical and epidemiologically
efficient programs are being utilized.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the
economic and epidemiologic impact of specified alter-
native bovine brucellosis programs and to provide a
benefit-cost analysis of these alternative brucellosis con-
trol and eradication strategies. These strategies and/or
alternative brucellosis programs were examined in terms
of their costs and benefits to the state and federal govern-
ments, the cattle industry, and society.

Source of Data

Data for this study were obtained from both primary
and secondary sources. Much of the basic information

and epidemiologic data for 1975-76 were obtained from
the 1978 NBTC study. These data were supplemented
and updated by information from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, V.S.
APHIS Forms 4-33D and 4-35, and unpublished U.S.
Department of Agriculture, VS, APHIS, program
records as required.

A national survey of quarantined and non-
quarantined Texas producers provided epidemiologic in-
formation concerning quarantine duration, number of
tests, and initial and cumulative reactor rates with
respect to herdsize structure. Data sources also includ-
ed the expert judgement of NBTC personnel, Texas
A&M University and state-federal epidemiologists, and
state and federal program officials.

Epidemiologic and Econometric
r Models Employed

An epidemiologic simulation model and an
econometric model were employed to analyze alternative
U.S. bovine brucellosis programs (Figure 2). The
epidemiologic model was designed to simulate selected
herd and management characteristics, incidence and
spread of infection, and the effects of prevention, con-
trol and/ or eradication program components on the level
of infection and physical losses, including associated pro-
ducer and state-federal expenditures. The econometric
model determines the economic impact of the change
in physical losses of meat and milk, which are associated
with alternative programs, on consumers, producers,
and related industries.

The Epidemiologic Brucellosis Simulation Model

The epidemiologic brucellosis simulation model,
BRUSIM, was redesigned and modified based upon
previous research by Beal and Kryder (1977) and the
NBTC (1978).‘ The Beal and Kryder (1977) model was
modified by the NBTC to divide the United States into
additional regions. The NBTC model also allowed af-
fected herds to move into a quarantine status or
undetected status, allowed the disease to spread between
beef and dairy herds, allowed for early quarantine
release, and included effects of the cattle cycle on
replacement and cull rates.

The eight regions of the NBTC simulatin model were
replaced by 16 regions inBBUSIM (Figure 3). Regions
were specified on the basis of similarity with respect to
such criteria as level of brucellosis infection, herd size
distribution, method of operation, trading patterns, and
effectiveness of brucellosis control.

Another major modification of the NBTC model in
BRUSIM is the specification and separation of the ef-
fects of major program components. A series of equa-
tions representing MCI, FPC, and adjacent herd testing,
secondary epidemiologic tracing, post-quarantine
testing, and private or owner testing is contained in

‘For a detailed discussion of previous brucellosis simulation
studies see the National Brucellosis Technical Commission
Report (1978) and Amosson (1983).

6

Table 2. Number of cattle operations, infected herds, and infected herd .2’

rate per 1,000 operations, by region, contiguous 48 states, March 31, 
1985

Operations Number of Infected herd

Region with cattle“ infected herdsb rate per 1,000
N E-LakeC 398,120 18 0.045
Atlantic“ 115,000 4 _ 0.035
Alabama 42,000 108 2.571
Georgia 37,000 43 1.162
Kentucky 65,000 119 1.831
Mississippi 36,000 340 9.444 .
Tennessee 77,000 47 0.610 f
Florida 21,000 742 35.333
Arkansas 40,000 545 13.625
Louisiana 25,000 665 26.600
Oklahoma 66,000 352 5.333
West Texase 57,225 135 2.358
East Texase 94,650 1,492 15. 763

' N-Plains‘ 298,500 261 0.874
Wests 138, 600 43 0.310
California 35,000 26 0.743
Total 1,546,125 4,940 3.195

"Any place having one or more head on hand at any time
during the year for 1984. Source: U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1985. Cattle. Washington, D.C.

blnfected herds as of March 31, 1985. Source: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. 1985. Washington, D.C.

°Includes Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hamp-
shire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

dlncludes North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia.

°West Texas and East Texas correspond to Class B and Class
C counties, respectively, as of March 31, 1985.

‘Includes Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
and South Dakota.

glncludes Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

BRUSIM. Separation of the epidemiological model in-
to major program components facilitates more realistic
analysis concerning the contribution of such program
components to the efficiency and costs of various pro-
grams analyzed. In addition, the three level vaccinal
protection effectiveness function of the NBTC was i.
modified to reflect a continuous vaccinal protection 
function in BRUSIM. ;

BRUSIM modifications from the NBTC simulation
model also included expansion of the planning horizon 
to 30 years from 1976 to 2005, projected changes in cow o ; ~
inventories, and the effects of cyclical factors on replace- ' l
ment and cull rates. Expansion of the model planning
horizon allows for potential lagged effects, which may
accrue from certain program components, to be fully
accounted for in the various programs simulated.

 

Figure 2. Epidemidogic-economic systems flow.

—BRUSIM—
Epidemiologic simulation model
computes the effects of alternative _ Change in state and
brucellosis contro|/ eradication pol- ' federal expenditures

icies on the beef and dairy industries

Change in pounds of weaner Change in producer

calf losses and milk losses program compliance cost
Quarantined herds 1
Undetected infected herds ii
Results of:
Area testing —TECH$|M—
Post-quarantine testing Computes total welfare impacts Formulation of
Adjacent herd testing and equity implications to re- benefit-cost ratios
Epidemiological tracing lated industries
BRT surveilance

MCI surveilance
FPC surveilance

Monetary effects on affected
market, and horizontally and
vertically related markets

-__-> Change in
total welfare

Figure 3. Regional demarcations of BR USIM, United States, 1984.

Table 3. BRUSlM input factors as related t0 region, herdsize, year of infection and quarantine, and beef and dairy sector, i984

Dimemsion of matrix

Input matrix description Region

Herd size

Beef
sector

Year of
quarantine

Year of
infection

Dairy
sector

Total number of cows X
Proportion of replacements purchased X
Source ratio of replacements purchased
Total number of herds

Number of undetected affected herds
Quarantined herds

Average number of cows per herd
Undetected within herd infection rates
Undetected infected clean-up rates
Regional sales probability

BRT Rate

Cull .Rate*

Replacement rate*

MCI rate

FPC rate

FPC testing percentage

Quality control factor

Neighborhood spread factor

Weight loss for undected infected
Weight loss for detected infected

Milk loss for undetected infected

Milk loss for detected infected
Producer test cost per cow

Quarantine herd tests

Clean-up rate for quarantine herd tests
Residual infection rates

Weighted population proportions
Weighted infection rates

Area testing coefficients*

Contact herd year keys*

Number of contact herds

Percent contact herds tested

Herdsize management parameter
Owner testing percentage

Secondary epidemiologic testing percentage
Post-quarantine testing percentage

><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><>< ><><><><><><><><

><><><><><><><

><><><><><

><>< ><><><>< ><><

><>< ><
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><
><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

*Dimensioned by model year.

Epidemiological factors and/ or parameters relating to
herd characteristics, herd management, epidemiology,
and physical losses used in BRUSIM for the beef and
dairy sectors are shown in Table 3 and Appendix 1.
These coefficients varied by region, herdsize, year of in-
fection, year of quarantine, and beef and dairy sector.

The Econometric Model

The econometric model is designed to measure the
economic impact of the change in physical losses
associated with various program alternatives which ac-
crue to consumers, producers, and related industries. In
this study, TECHSIM, a general equilibrium
econometric model developed by Collins in 1980, was

used to determine the equity impacts of changes in
physical losses. TECHSIM consists of systems of equa-
tions describing the interrelationships of industries in-
volved in the crop and livestock sectors of the United
States.

The discounted value of the change in benefits accru-

ing to consumers, producers, and related industries is.

calculated by the econometric model from the change
in physical losses of the alternative program compared
to a base program. This procedure is discussed in detail
by Amosson (1983). The change in benefits along with
comparisons of program costs associated with various
program alternatives compared to a base program
facilitates the estimation of net change in benefits,

a

change in program costs and benefit-cost ratios for deter-

.mining economic acceptability of the programs

analyzed.

Scenarios Employed for Analyzing
Alternative Brucellosis Programs

A base program and eight alternative bovine
brucellosis programs were simulated for the contiguous
48 states. Prime consideration in the selection of program
alternatives included potential or most likely industry
requirements and potential federal funding for
brucellosis programs. The nine programs simulated from
1976 to 2005 in the contiguous 48 states are defined as
follows:

Base Program

The base program was designed to simulate the U.S.
bovine brucellosis program on a regional basis from 1976
to 1984 along with changes in program procedures
which maintained the disease at a relatively steady state
from 1985 to 2005. Maintenance of the disease at a
relatively steady state provided a base or benchmark
from which changes in program efficiency could be
measured for alternative bovine brucellosis programs
simulated in BRUSIM.

Current Program

The current program represents the existing bovine
brucellosis program in the contiguous 48 states from 1976
through 1984. Changes in program efficiencies and pro-
gram progress which were incorporated in the U.S.
bovine brucellosis program from 1976 to 1984 were then
simulated from 1985 through 2005 to determine the ef-
fectiveness of the current bovine brucellosis program.

Eradication Programs
The eradication scenarios were modeled under a
(1) theoretical mode and (2) a realistic mode.

(1) Theorectical mode-assumed that obstacles related to
program financing, manpower resources, and producer
cooperation are non-existent. It was further assumed that
given current levels of technology, program applications
were conducted under optimal conditions and that there
would be strict adherence to the requirements of the
UM&R. This scenario was designed to provide an in-
dication of the time limits, benefit-cost ratios, and fund-

=" ing requirements associated with a rapid eradication

program under which program and industry conditions
are optimal.

(2) Realistic mode-assumed that, given current levels of
technology, existing obstacles associated with producer
cooperation, program financing, and manpower
resources, industry conditions and program application
would continue but that strict adherence to the re-
quirements of the UM&B would be practiced.

Changes in Program Efficiency in High Incidence States

Two programs were designed under this scenario to
measure the impact upon overall program efficiency and
benefit-cost ratios as program efficiencies undergo

change in high incidence or Class C states or regions
while program efficiencies remained at 1984 base pro-
gram levels in all other regions as follows.

(1) A 25 percent increase in program efficiency in Class
C regions-assumed that the steady state or base pro-
gram assumptions applied to Class Free, A, B, and
C regions from 1984 to 2005. It further assumed that
there would be a 25 percent increase in program
efficiency in terms of adherence to the UM&R after
1984 in Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, East Texas,
Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Oklahoma is officially
classified as a Class B state, but it was included with
high incidence states in this study because of its
proximity to East Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

(2) A 25 percent decrease in program efficiency in Class
C regions-assumed that the steady state or base pro-
gram assumptions applied to Class Free, A, B, and
C regions from 1984 to 2005. However, it further
assumed a 25 percent decrease in program efficiency
in terms of adherence to the UM&B after 1984 in
Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, East Texas, Mis-
sissippi, and Oklahoma.

No State-Federal Program Scenario

The following programs were modeled under this
scenario.

(1) N0 state-federal program-assumed that producers
relied solely on natural clean-up rates, no vaccina-
tion, and that there would be a milk ordinance en-
forced brucellosis program at producers’ expense.

(2) N0 state-federal program with calfhood vaccination
supported by industry-assumed that annual state-
federal funding would be limited to $6 million, that
producers rely solely on natural clean-up rates, and
that there would be a milk ordinance enforced
brucellosis program in dairy cattle. One of the pro-
grams modeled under this scenario assumed a 45 per-
cent vaccination level of female calves entering the
herd and the other program assumed a 75 percent
vaccination level of fem ale calves entering the herd
to measure the effectiveness of calfhood vaccination
under a no state-federal program scenario.

Base Program Projections And Model Validation

The epidemiological model developed for this research
contains a beef sector and a dairy sector. Results are
simulated on a national and regional basis for each beef
and dairy sector as follows (1) an epidemiological sum-
mary, (2) a brucellosis program test summary, (3) a non-
primary surveillance summary, (4) brucellosis livestock
producer expenditures, and (5) state and federal ex-
penditures. Output results for the base program are
presented in Appendices 2 through 11 to provide an
insight into the detailed parameters generated by
BRUSIM for the programs simulated in this study.

Appendices 2 and 3, for example, present the U.S.
epidemiologic summary of the base program for the beef
and dairy sectors, respectively. Year 1 in the
epidemiologic model represents 1976, year 9 is 1984, and
year 3O is 2005. The epidemiologic output generated by

BRUSIM for years 1 through 9 (1976-84) is identical for
the base program and alternative programs since those
years represent the bovine brucellosis programs existing
in the contiguous 48 states during 1976-84. The
epidemiologic summary provides projections of infected
herds and infected cows, both quarantined and
undetected, weaner calf and milk losses, and program
expenditures. The simulation model, for example, pro-
jected total quarantined beef and dairy herds at 8,467
for 1984 (model year 9), Appendices 2 and 3. APHIS,
U.S. Department of Agriculture records reported 8,449
quarantined beef and dairy herds for the contiguous 48
states during 1984, a deviation of 0.2 percent between
projected versus actual quarantined herds.

The base program was designed to hold infection
levels “relatively steady” from 1984 to 2005. This was
accomplished with considerable success considering the
fact that the epidemiologic model, BBUSIM, was de-
signed to reflect the dynamics of the existing U.S. cattle
industry by incorporating existing and projected changes
in such factors as herd size, cattle numbers, and cattle
cycles. This is demonstrated by the projections of in-
fected herds, infected cows, weaner calf and milk losses,
and total program costs in Appendices 2 and 3.

Data and information from APHIS Forms 4-33D and
4-35, as well as epidemiological data developed by
APHIS personnel, were used to validate the
epidemiological parameters and output generated by the
epidemiological model. Projected quarantined herds,
quarantined cows, on-farm tests, MCI cattle tested, and
official vaccinates closely track official APHIS, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, program data from 1976
through 1984, Appendices 12-16. For example, the
average annual deviation for projected quarantined
herds versus actual quarantined herds, without regard
to sign, was 2.8 percent, Appendix 12. Average annual
deviations for the projections in Appendices 12-16 ver-
sus APHIS program data were about 5 percent for 1976
through 1984.

Epidemiologic Analysis Of Alternative Programs

The current U.S. bovine brucellosis program plus
seven alternative programs were simulated in BRUSIM
to determine their epidemiological and physical impact
upon the beef and dairy sectors. Economic analyses and
related implications of these results are presented in the
next section.

Table 4 summarizes the epidemiological and physical
impact upon the beef and dairy sectors of alternative
bovine brucellosis programs. Four programs, the
theoretical eradication program, the realistic eradica-
tion program, the base program with a 25 percent in-
crease in efficiency in Class C regions, and the current
program, were highly efficient in reducing brucellosis
infection and physical losses from 1984 to 2005.
Brucellosis infection and physical losses increased
substantially from 1984 to 2005 when the base program
with a 25 percent reduction in Class C regions was im-
plemented, but not as dramatically as under the three
no program scenarios.

The theoretical eradication program, which assumed

10

that finance, industry and manpower impediments were
non-existent, with only current levels of technology
or the “state of the arts” preventing immediate detec-
tion of all infected cattle, was most efficient with respect
to reducing infection and physical losses. Although it is
unrealistic to assume that all program conditions includ-
ed under this program scenario exist in the real world
environment, the results provide an estimate of the time
required for achieving eradication when impediments
to eradication are minimized.

Simulation results showed that almost 99 percent of
the total infected cows could be eradicated within 3 years
under the theoretical scenario. Depopulation of infected
herds under this scenario varied with regional classifica-
tion, herd-size, and year of infection. Herd depopula-
tion schedules for the theoretical eradication program
by regional classification and year of quarantine were
as follows: (1) first-year quarantine-Free and Class A,
499 head or less; Class B, 99 head or less; Class C, 49
head or less; (2) second-year quarantine-Free and Class
A, 999 head or less; Class B, 399 head or less; Class C,
199 head or less; (3) third-year quarantine-all herds in
all classifications. Indemnity payments were based on
$50 per head for commercial cattle and $250 per head
for purebred cattle and dairy cows. Even then, very low
levels of infection persisted for 10 to 12 years suggesting
that total and immediate depopulation of all known in-
fected herds may be essential for achieving rapid eradica-
tion when such levels of infection are present. Other
problems may include the difficulty of detecting in-
fection in small herds from which cattle are marketed
infrequently and also problems associated with detecting
vaccinated infected herds (Amosson and Dietrich 1984).

The realistic eradication scenario, which assumed pro-
gam budget levels similar to 1984 but a strict adherence
to the requirements of the UM&R by all program per-
sonnel, demonstrated a potential to sharply reduce in-
fection and physical losses, Table 4. Herd depopulation
schedules for the realistic eradication program by
regional classification were as follows: Free and Class
A, 499 head or less; Class B, 399 head or less; and Class
C, 199 head or less. Indemnity and depopulation pay-
ment schedules were identical to the theoretical eradica-
tion program. Using total infected cattle as a barometer,
the realistic eradication program reduced total infected
cattle 95 percent below the 1984 base level to about
7,200 head within 8 years (by 1992). The realistic
eradication program would require about 14 years to
decrease infection and physical losses to the same level
accomplished by the theoretical scenario in 3 years. The
theoretical program, however, enjoyed advantages over
the realistic program stemming from the assumptions
relative to the non-existence of program impediments
other than state of the arts technology and higher
depopulation schedules.

The base program with a 25 percent increase in effi-
ciency in Class C regions was the third most efficient
program followed closely by the current program with
respect to reducing infection and physical losses, Table
4. By increasing the program efficiency 25 percent in
Class C regions, the infection and physical loss

5

Table 4. Percentage change in quarantined herds, quarantined infected cows, undetected infected herds, undetected infected cows, total infected
cows, weaner calf and milk losses, and total costs, by program alternative compared to the base program, United States, 1984 to 2005*

Baseline- Baseline- No program No program
25% increase 25% increase with 45% with 75%
Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Item program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
Percent Change
Quarantined
herds -89.2 -99.2 -99.9 -94.9 -18.4 27,0798" 4,909.4” 701.7“
Quarantined
cows -83.5 -99.8 400.0‘ -92.5 22.3 32,3148" 4,747.7'° 5043b
Undetected
infected herds -86.3 -99.4 -100.0 -93.9 80.0 4,887.9 2,264.4 775.7
Undetected
infected cows -82.0 -99.2 400.0‘ -92.7 163.7 15,505.4 5,021.0 1,209.3
Total infected
cows -82.9 -99.5 4000C -92.6 78.0 6,926.2 2,049.2 432.3
Weaner calf
losses -83.1 -99.5 400.0‘ -92.6 83.2 6,101.4 1,891.6 390.6
Milk losses -80.5 -97.8 -99.7 -90.5 1.6 36,194.1 5,272.4 558.8
Total costs 49.2 -50.1 -39.5 -22.6 1.9 -76.4 -65.8 -47.6

H1984 baseline simulation results for the above parameters were as follows: quarantined herds, 8,467; quarantined cows, 88,756; undetected
infected herds, 12,008; undetected infected cows, 57,724; total infected cows, 146,480; weaner calf losses, 19,454,818 (pounds); dairy milk losses,
98,680 (hundredweight); and total costs, $168,894,576. NOTE: Quarantined herds and cows for the no program scenarios reflect identified in-

fected dairy herds and dairy cows only.

bReflects changes in identified infected dairy herds and cows only after 1984. Quarantined dairy herds and cows in 1984 were 297 and 3,961,

respectively.
°Less than 0.005 percent.

parameters were generally decreased 92 percent or more
by 2005 compared to 1984. Comparable reductions in
infections and losses for the current program were
generally in the low- to mid-80 percent range.

The base program with a 25 percent reduction in
efficiency in Class C regions resulted in substantial in-
creases in infection and physical losses, Table 4. Because
of program inefficiencies, quarantined herds declined
as program efficiencies were decreased, but undetected
infected herds and cows, total infected cows, and weaner
calf losses increased 80 percent or more by 2005 over
1984.

Changes in program efficiency in Class C regions had
the greatest impact on program parameters within Class
C regions, although they also had a strong indirect im-
pact on non-Class C regions (Class Free, A and B
regions). Total infected cows, for example, decreased
more than 80 percent in Class C regions and almost 40
percent in non-Class C regions during 1990 when pro-
gram efficiency was increased 25 percent in Class C
regions. Further, total infected cows decreased 98 per-
cent in Class C regions by 2005, compared to a 70 per-
cent decline in non-Class C regions as a result of the in-
creased efficiency in Class C regions. Similarly, a 25 per-
cent decrease in program efficiency in Class C regions
resulted in a 12 percent increase in total infected cows
by 1990 in Class C regions compared to a 2 percent in-

crease in non-Class C regions. By 2005, total infected
cows had increased more than 80 percent in Class C
regions, compared to a 32 percent increase in non-Class
C regions, when program efficiency was decreased 25
percent in Class C regions. These results demonstrate
the direct impact of changes in program efficiency upon
the regions where such changes are incorporated, and
the “spill-over” effect from changes in program efficiency
in Class C regions to non-Class C regions.

The three no program scenarios, including the no pro-
gram and the no program with a 45 percent and a 75
percent calfhood vaccination level, all revealed sharp in-
creases in infection and physical loss parameters com-
pared to the current program and the other program
alternatives analyzed, Table 4. Total infected cows, for
example, increased more than 69-fold under the no pro-
gram scenario, more than 20-fold under the no program
plus 45 percent calfhood vaccination scenario, and more
than 4-fold under the no program plus 75 percent
calfhood vaccination scenario by 2005 compared to
1984. It is significant to note that calfhood vaccination
reduced infection and physical losses as calfhood vac-
cination levels increased under the no program scenario.
It is also significant to note, however, that even at
calfhood vaccination levels of 75 percent under the no
program scenario, both infection and physical losses
were a minimum of 3-fold‘to a maximum of 13-fold

11

higher than the other non-program alternatives, Table 4.

The importance 0f program efficiency levels, strict
adherence to the UM&R by individuals and agencies,
and decisions regarding program components as adja-
cent herd testing and depopulation are highlighted by
the simulation results with respect to quarantined and
infected beef and dairy herds in Tables 5 and 6. This
is especially important with respect to the simulation
results for the theoretical and realistic eradication pro-
grams, the base program with a 25 percent increase in
program efficiency in Class C regions, and the current
program. Decisions concerning depopulation schemes,
for example, are paramount depending upon the
time frame desired for achieving eradication. Table 6
revealed that low levels of infection existed in the
theoretical eradication program from 1990 to 2005 even
under assumptions of high program efficiency levels since
depopulation for larger infected herds occurred only
after infected herds were in their third year of quaran-
tine. These results suggest that low levels of infection
would likely remain in the cattle population, even at
high program efficiency levels, in the absence of total
eradication of known infected herds at a specific
minimum level of infection.

Table 7 further illustrates the importance of decisions
concerning depopulation along with high levels of pro-
gram efficiency to assure identification of relatively high
proportions of infected herds. For example, implemen-
tation of the theoretical eradication program in 1985
resulted in a 95 percent decrease of undetected infected
herds from 1984 to 1985. These results, which were in-
fluenced by high efficiency levels in such program com-
ponents as secondary epidemiologic tracing, adjacent
herd testing, and post-quarantine testing along with a
depopulation program, resulted in a decrease in total
infected herds of 88 percent from 1984 to 1986 and
almost 96 percent from 1984 to 1987 in the theoretical
program. The rapid decrease in infection in the
theoretical program is primarily because of the relatively
higher program efficiency levels assumed than current-
ly exist, especially in the Class C regions. Implementa-
tion of the realistic eradication program, although highly
effective, resulted in a decrease of undetected herds of
almost 3O percent from 1984 to 1985, Table 7. Total in-
fected herds in the realistic eradication program, which
also assumed a lower depopulation scheme than did the
theoretical eradication program, decreased 4O percent
from 1984 to 1986 and 55 percent from 1984 to 1987.

Simulation results for such program parameters as
quarantined, undetected, and total infected beef and
dairy cows, including weaner calf and milk losses (Ap-
pendices 17-21), parallel the simulation results for
quarantined and undetected infected beef and dairy
herds. Decreases in infection and physical losses were
achieved most rapidly by the theoretical eradication pro-
gram by 1990, as anticipated, followed by the realistic
eradication program, the base program with a 25 per-
cent increase in efficiency in Class C regions, and the
current program. The realistic eradication program and
the base program with a 25 percent increase in efficiency
in Class C regions, other than the theoretical eradica-

12

tion program, continued to make the most progress
leading toward eradication from 1990 to 2005. The base
program with a 25 percent decrease in efficiency in Class
C regions revealed substantial increases in infection, but
not as dramatically as the three no program scenarios.
For example, total infected cows for the three no pro-
gram scenarios, depending upon vaccination levels, were
from 3O to more than 400 times greater than those for
the current program by 2005.

Economic Analysis of
Alternative Programs

Economic considerations for determining the accep-
tability of alternative programs in this study include such
criteria as benefit-cost ratios, changes in benefits, net
change in benefits, and change in program costs. In ad-
dition to these criteria, it is important to analyze the
equity implications of changes in physical losses and
benefits not only to producers, but to consumers and
related industries. Benefits or losses to society are an im-
portant consideration in analyzing the economic impact
of alternative bovine brucellosis programs since the ma-
jor source of funding for such programs is from public
funds.

A primary criterion used for analyzing the acceptabili-
ty of alternative programs was benefit-cost ratios.
Benefit-cost ratios are calculated by dividing the present
value of the projected change in benefits over the rele-
vant planning horizon by the present value of the pro-
jected change in costs. Benefit-cost ratios, which are
greater than one, are generally construed as economical-
ly acceptable. Since many programs or projects derive
benefits and costs beyond the inception of the program,
it is necessary to sum the benefits and costs over the en-
tire time horizon of the program analyzed. The change
in benefits and program costs accruing to alternative pro-
grams compared to the base program resulting from
changes in infection were calculated in 1982 real dollars
using a 4 percent discount rate? This procedure places
benefits and costs on a common time pattern while ap-
plication of the discount rate results in conversion of
benefits and costs to a present value basis for the entire
time horizon analyzed.

Other criteria used for determining economic accep-
tability or program ranking include net change in
benefits (net present value) and change in program costs.
The net change in benefits is defined as the present value
of the change in benefits minus the change in program
costs.

In estimating changes in economic benefits which ac-
crue to each alternative program, the differences in the
market value of annual beef and milk losses associated
with each program alternative were measured from the
levels of losses projected for the base program. The equi-
ty impact of such changes in physical losses upon con-

lThe real discount rate in this report is the nominal interest
rate for non-real estate loans, minus the rate of change in the
consumer price index for all items as reported by the U.S.
Department of Commerce.

0v

x2

Table 5. Quarantined beef and dairy herds, by program, United States, 1975-2005’

Baseline Baseline N0 program N0 program
25% increase 25%» decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency N0 calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C region programb vaccinationb vaccinationb
1976 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407 14,407
1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445
15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852 15,852
1980 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294 11,294
843 843 843 843 843 843 843 843 843
12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137 12,137
1985 5,072 6,976 8,710 13,069 8,431 4,963 0 0 0
254 234 388 432 241 250 425 425 425
5,326 7,210 9,098 13,501 8,672 5,213 425 425 425
1990 3,912 2,699 1,305 45 1,565 4,078 0 O 0
214 ‘i118 99 14 85 222 2,586 1,437 852
4,126 2,817 1,404 59 1,650 4,300 2,586 1,437 852
1995 3,976 1,720 372 6 800 4,464 0 0 0
214 75 35 6 49 243 11,653 3,432 1,089
4,190 1,795 407 12 849 4,707 11,653 3,432 1,089
2000 4,046 1,192 113 1 488 5,139 0 0 0
218 53 17 5 35 280 35,532 7,519 1,597
4,264 1,245 130 6 523 5,419 35,532 7,519 1,597
2005 4,483 880 55 1 406 6,590 0 0 0
213 37 11 5 29 320 80,724 14,878 2,381
4,696 917 66 6 435 6,910 80,724 14,878 2,381
“Data by year and program reflect beef, dairy and total, respectively.
“Quarantined dairy herds after 1984 are identified infected dairy herds.
Table 6. Undetected infected beef and dairy herds, by program, United States, 1976-20051
Baseline- Baseline- No program No program
25% increse 25% decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical In efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
1976 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784 21,784
218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218
22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002 22,002
1980 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359 19,359
114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 -114
19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473 19,473
1985 12,479 10,445 8,518 654 8,891 12,585 21,916 21,916 21,916
38 31 24 3 30 38 174 174 174
12,517 10,476 8,542 657 8,921 12,623 22,090 22,090 22,090
1990 11,130 5,344 1,827 28 2,686 12,327 63,853 48,757 39,420
28 14 5 0 12 28 708 365 200
11,158 5,358 1,832 28 2,698 12,355 64,561 49,122 39,620
1995 11,376 3,689 562 4 1,530 14,399 190,023 98,888 54,659
27f. 9 2 0 7 29 3,266 919 280
11,403’ 3,698 564 4 1,537 14,428 193,289 99,807 54,939
2000 10,869 2,226 158 1 905 16,452 383,697 180,262 76,611
26 7 1 0 5 30 10,139 2,125 438
10,895 2,233 159 1 910 16,482 393,836 182,387 77,049
2005 11,887 1,644 69 0 730 21,585 577,057 279,913 104,515
26 5 1 0 5 34 21,892 4,010 645
11,913 1,649 70 0 735 21,619 598,949 283,923 105,160

“Data by year and program reflect beef, dairy, and total, respectively.

13

Table 7: Quarantined and undetected beef and dairy herds, theoretical and realistic eradication programs, by year, United States, 1984-90

program Beef herds Dairy herds Total herds
and Undetected Undetected Undetected Total
year Quarantined infected Quarantined infected Quarantined infected infected
Theoretical
eradication:
1984 8,170 11,970 297 38 8,467 12,008 20,475
1985 13,069 654 432 3 13,501 657 14,158
1986 1,814 442 298 2 2,112 444 2,556
1987 561 180 146 0 707 180 887
1988 223 80 41 0 264 80 334
1989 91 44 24 0 115 44 159
1990 45 28 14 0 59 28 87
Realistic
eradication:

1984 8,170 11,970 297 38 8,467 12,008 20,475
1985 8,710 8,518 388 24 9,098 8,542 17,640
1986 5,464 6,511 300 19 5,764 6,530 12,294
1987 3,979 4,852 234 14 4,213 4,866 9,079
1988 2,910 3,591 188 9 3,098 3,600 6,698
1989 2,163 2,399 133 7 2,296 2,406 4,702
1990 1,305 1,827 99 5 1,404 1,832 3,236

sumers, producers, and related industries is dependent
upon such factors as direction of change in infection,
elasticity of demand for beef and milk, infection status
of producers, etc. The ramification of these considera-
tions is discussed in detail by Amosson (1983) and Liu
(1979).

Before analyzing the equity impact of changes in
benefits, benefit-cost ratios, and other selected economic
criteria, it is important to analyze the annual state-
federal, producer, and total costs associated with the
various programs simulated, Table 8. The state-federal
expenditures simulated by BRUSIM closely track actual
state-federal expenditures as reported by APHIS, U.S.
Department of Agriculture after adjusting for the
reported state (non-federal) expenditures which included
producer expenditures but which were reported as state
or non-federal expenditures. This adjustment was
necessary to assure that costs were not duplicated since
BRUSIM calculates total producer expenditures
separately from state-federal expenditures.

With the exception of the three no program scenarios,
annual program costs for the alternative programs by
2005 were lowest for the realistic eradication program,
followed by the theoretical eradication program, the
base program with a 25 percent increase in efficiency
in Class C regions, and the current program (Table 8).
Although infection under the theoretical eradication pro-
gram was virtually eliminated by 1990, program costs
for this program remained at relatively high levels
because program activities associated with SPT and FPC
remained at high levels of activity and efficiency
throughout the time horizon simulated. While secondary

14

epidemiologic tracing and adjacent herd testing efficien-
cy levels also remained at high levels, the activities
associated with these program components tended to
decrease as infection levels or primary source herds
decreased.

Producer costs which accumulate under the no pro-
gram scenario reflect producer costs associated with an
assumed city/ municipal milk ordinance enforced BRT
system. The additional producer costs which accumulate
under the no program scenario with 45 percent and 75
percent calfhood vaccination reflect producer costs
associated with maintaining calfhood vaccination at the
specified levels from 1985 to 2005.

Total annual costs associated with the theoretical
eradication program, the realistic eradication program,
the base program with 25 percent increase in efficiency
in Class C regions, and the current program were lower
than annual costs in the base program for all years ex-
cept the first 3 or 4 years of the simulation period after
1984, Table 8. Lower annual program costs along with
declining infection levels of the above programs com-
pared to the base program indicate they were both more
cost efficient and more epidemiologically efficient than
the base program. For example, annual program costs
for the realistic eradication program were above annual
costs of the base program from 1985 through 1987, but
below annual costs of the base program at a decreasing
rate from 1988 to 2005, Figure 4. Higher annual pro-
gram costs for the realistic eradication program from
1985 through 1987 compared to the base program results
from higher program efficiency levels associated primari-
ly with the MCI program and secondary epidemiological

Table 8. State-federal, producer, and total bovine brucellosis costs, by program, United States, 1976-20051

Baseline— Baseline— N0 program N0 program
25% increase 25% decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
Thousand dollars
1976 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835 122,835
50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082 50,082
172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917 172,917
1980 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185 103,185
48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463 48,463
151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648 151,648
1985 85,474 95,818 112,366 131,816 101,540 84,921 0 0 0
50,930 55,249 51,613 51,388 55,018 50,772 556 36,278 65,709
136,404 151,067 163,979 183,204 156,558 135,693 556 36,278 65,709
1990 78,481 76,336 69,959 54,753 74,221 80,004 0 0 0
49,525 50,626 34,023 39,746 48,045 49,817 2,351 37, 740 67,190
128,006 126,962 103,982 94,499 122,266 129,821 2,351 37,740 67,190
1995 83,334 74,901 57,165 54,015 71,502 85,919 0 0 0
52,200 51,742 31,270 38,981 49,198 53,000 7,671 43,334 74,478
135,534 126,643 88,435 92,996 120,700 138,916 7,671 43,334 74,478
2000 89,534 76,893 51,158 59,249 72,911 94,764 0 0 0
56,093 54,857 32,176 43,035 52,258 57,756 20,271 48,005 78,611
145,627 131,750 83,334 102,284 125,169 152,520 20,271 48,005 78,611
2005 97,214 78,634 51,453 59,317 75,420 107,948 0 0 0
60,674 57,830 32,815 42,790 55,325 64,089 39,788 57,717 88,458
157,888 136,464 84,268 102,107 130,745 172,037 39,788 57,717 88,458

aCosts by year and program reflect state-federal, producer, and total costs, respectively. Costs are in 1982 dollars.

program components of adjacent herd testing, post
quarantine testing, and epidemiologic tracing. The net
results were that infection decreased as well as associated
program costs.

Questions often arise concerning equity impacts of ex-
penditures for publicly funded programs such as
brucellosis. Table 9 reveals the benefits accruing to con-
sumers, producers, and related agricultural industries
from changes in weaner calf losses associated with alter-
native programs compared to the base program. Beef
and dairy weaner calf losses were decreased most
dramatically by the theoretical eradication program
followed by the realistic eradication program, the base

a program with a 25 percent increase in efficiency in Class
' C regions, and the current program, Appendix 20. Beef

and dairy weaner calf losses increased for all other alter-
native programs simulated compared to the base pro-
gram. Consumers are the largest beneficiaries from ef-
ficient bovine brucellosis programs which decrease
weaner calf losses as the theoretical and realistic eradica-
tion programs, the base program with a 25 percent in-
crease in efficiency, and the current program, Table 9.

g Consumers incur the largest decrease in benefits when

weaner calf losses increase as under the no program
scenarios. The net results are that programs which
decrease weaner calf losses increase supplies of beef and
exert a downward pressure on price which is favorable
to consumers. Benefits to related agricultural industries,

which provide services and/ or products to the cattle in-
dustry, parallel benefits to consumers but at a lower
level, Table 9.

Producers are faced with a dilemma with respect to
economic implications arising from the alternative pro-
grams simulated. Producers with affected herds can and
often do incur catastrophic economic losses from infec-
tion in their herds. Producers whose herds remain free
of infection through good herd health management prac-
tices tend to benefit at the expense of infected herd
owners since they tend to receive higher prices for beef
when supplies are decreased as a result of infection. The
net results are that programs which decrease weaner calf
losses will increase beef supplies and depress prices at
the producer level as shown in Table 9. The opposite
results can be anticipated for cattle producers as weaner
calf losses increase and beef supplies decrease.

The overall results are that positive benefits accrue
to society from programs which decrease weaner calf
losses, Table 9. Care should be exercised in placing un-
due emphasis on the absolute values generated in Table
9 since the direction of anticipated change in benefits
accruing to alternative programs is of prime considera-
tion. For example, the results show that the largest
decrease in total benefits accrues from the no program
scenarios and the greatest positive benefits to society are
projected to result from the eradication programs.

Program benefits and program costs associated with

15

Figure 4. Comparison of base program and realistic eradication total program costs, 1985-2005.

1 7 0 Base Program

150-
140-
130-‘
120-‘

110-"

MILLION DOLLARS

100*

90-‘

8O —*
‘L
I I I I
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEARS

Table 9. Change in benefits from weaner calf losses which accrue to consumers, livestock producers, related agricultural industries, and total
benefits, by program alternative compared to the base program, United States

Change in Change in
Change in livestock related Change in
Program consumer producer agricultural total
alternative benefits benefits industry benefits benefits
Million dollars

Current 552.64 -225.18 140.13 467.59
Realistic

eradication 848.63 -345.50 220.23 723.36
Theoretical

eradication 961.01 -391.06 256.11 826.06
Baseline-25%

increase in

efficiency in

Class C regions 724.31 -295.00 198.47 627.78
Baseline-25%

decrease in

efficiency in

Class C regions -280.07 114.40 -39.63 -205.30
No program -23,905.03 9,564.62 -2,620.34 -16,960.75

No program with

45% calfhood

vaccination -7,271.71 2,952.50 -866.82 -5,186.03
No program with

75% calfhood

vaccination -1,810.54 737.68 -269.93 -1,342.79

16

Table 10. Summary of program alternatives, by selected criteria, compared to the base program“

Change in Total annual Total annual Net change
producer Total increase in decrease in Net change in producer
Program and consumer program program program in program and consumer
alternative benefits costs costs costs costs benefits
Million dollars
Current 473.50 2,089.33 27.33 94.98 -67.65 540.96
Realistic
eradication 733.12 1,732.60 45.16 469.54 -424.38 1,157.50
Theoretical
eradication 837.70 1,728.69 41.60 469.89 -428.29 1,265.99
Baseline-25%
increase in
efficiency in
class C regions 636.05 2,032.54 30.52 154.96 -124.44 760.49
Baseline-25%
decrease in
efficiency in
class C regions -206.15 2,203.55 47.88 1.31 46.57 -252.72
N0 program -18,338.17 447.14 0 1,709.84 -1,709.84 -16,628.33
No program with
45% calfhood
vaccination -5,429.78 872.69 0 1,284.29 -1,284.29 -4,145.49
No program with
75% calfhood
vaccination -1,387.93 1,267.32 0 889.66 -889.66 -498.27

“Dollars are in 1982 realdollars along with a 4 percent real discount rate. Total program costs for the base program were $2,156.98 million.

alternative programs are presented in Table 10 and
Figure 5. The largest positive change in benefits to socie-
ty resulted from the theoretical eradication scenario,
followed by the realistic eradication scenario, the
baseline with 25 percent increased efficiency in Class C
regions, and the current program. The largest negative
change in benefits or loss to society resulted from the no
program scenario with accumulated losses to 2005 ex-
ceeding $18 billion. Programs with the next largest losses
were the other two no program scenarios with 45 per-
cent and 75 percent calfhood vaccination, respectively.
The baseline program with a 25 percent reduction in ef-
ficiency in Class C regions also exhibited a loss in benefits

a to society exceeding $206 million.

v7

The relative large positive change in benefits accru-
ing to society from the eradication programs reflects the
decreases in physical losses of meat and milk in these pro-
grams compared to the base program. Such decreases
in physical losses result from increased efficiency in
detection of infected herds, depopulation of detected in-
fected herds as specified, and the decline in the spread
of infection as infected cattle are eliminated. While the
annual cost of some programs, as the realistic eradica-
tion program, exceeded the annual base program costs
for the first 3 years (Figure 4), program costs for the re-
mainder of the time horizon simulated were below the
base program costs resulting in net declines of more than
$424 million in total costs of the realistic eradication pro-

gram compared to the base program, Table 10. Similar-
ly, the base program with a 25 percent increase in pro-
gram efficiency in Class C regions demonstrated that in-
creased program effort in high incidence states, even
though annual program costs increased over the base
program during the first 4 years, resulted in substantial
reduction of infection during the life of the program.
In addition, program costs declined almost $125 million
compared to the base program. The current program
paralleled the base program with a 25 percent increase
in efficiency in Class C regions but at a slightly lower
level with respect to reductions in physical losses and
total program costs.

Although the largest declines in program cost accrued
to the no program scenarios, accompanying declines in
benefits to society because of large increases in infected
herds and cattle were even more dramatic. Analysis of
the total annual decrease in program costs versus change
in benefits to producers and consumers (society) revealed
that for each $1 decline in program costs of the no pro-
gram scenario, benefits to society declined more than
$10 compared to the base program, Table 10. Similar
comparisons of the no program scenarios with 45 per-
cent and 75 percent calfhood vaccination resulted in
declines of $4.23 and $1.56 in total benefits, respective-
ly, for each $1 decline or savings in program cost of these
no program scenarios. While relatively large negative
declines in total benefits result from the no program

17

Figure 5. Change in total producer and consumer benefits and change in program cost, by alternative bovine brucellosis

program, compared to the base program, United States, 1985-2005.

   

BILLION DOLLARS

_12-l

 

Change In Benefits

2 Change In Total Costs

_14-

 

I I I
Current Real Theo.

Erad. Erad. Erad. Inc. Eff.

Class C

scenario, declines in benefits are mitigated as the level
of vaccination is increased. All other programs, with the
exception of the base program with a 25 percent decrease
in efficiency in Class C regions, revealed positive net
changes in total benefits over the time horizon simulated.

Benefit-cost ratios revealed similar patterns of accep-
tability and ranking as did net change in total benefits,
Table 11. Benefit-cost ratios which exceed 1.0 are
economically acceptable. When the base program is used
as the base (Column 1, Table 11) for estimating benefit-
cost ratios, the eradication programs, the baseline pro-
gram with a 25 percent increase in efficiency in Class
C regions, and the current program are economically
acceptable. However, the no program scenarios and the
base program with a 25 percent reduction in efficiency
in Class C regions all had benefit-cost ratios under 1.0
indicating economic unacceptability. This was especially
true for the no program and the no program with a 45
percent calfhood vaccination level. When the no pro-
gram with 45 percent and 75 percent calfhood vaccina-
tion levels are used as a base (Columns 7, 8, and 9, Table
11) it is evident that the eradication programs, the
baseline program with a 25 percent increase in efficien-
cy in Class C regions, and the current program are
economically desirable programs compared to the three
no program scenarios. When the no program is used as
a base, the relative high benefit-cost ratios of the no pro-
gram scenarios with a 45 percent and 75 percent

18

Base:25% Base'-25%
Dec. Eff.
Class C

Nb Nto Nio
Program Program Program
45% CV 75% CV

calfhood vaccination level demonstrate the benefits ac-
cruing to vaccination programs if state-federal
brucellosis programs were eliminated. These benefit-cost
ratios suggest that additional expenditures for vaccina-

tion under no program scenarios would be highly
beneficial.

A summary of the rankings of program alternatives
by selected economic criteria is shown in Table 12. The
two eradication scenarios, including the theoretical and
the realistic programs, reduced infection and meat and
milk losses to lower levels and at a faster rate than other
programs analyzed. The efficiency of these two pro-
grams is revealed in Table 12 where theoretical and
realistic eradication programs ranked 1 and 2, respec-
tively, in total and net change in consumer benefits, and
benefit-cost ratios. The base program with a 25 percent
increase in efficiency in Class C regions and the current
program ranked third and forth, respectively, in total
and net change in benefits and benefit-cost ratios. The
no program scenarios ranked below all other program
alternatives simulated, except in program cost, where
they ranked above other programs because of greater
reductions in program costs. However, this larger reduc-
tion in program costs compared to other programs
simulated was offset by proportionally larger decreases
in benefits to society resulting in negative benefit-cost
ratios to society from the no program scenarios.

7%. ..

Table 11. Comparison of regular benefit-cost ratios, by alternative bovine brucellosis programs, United States, 1985-2005“

Base

Program
versus Baseline
base program

Theoretical
eradication

Realistic
eradication

Current
program

Baseline—
25% increase
in efficiency
in C regions

Baseline—
25% decrease

in efficiency No
in C regions program

No program
with 45%
cahhood

vaccination

No program
wit6h 75%
calfhood
vaccination

Current

program
Realistic

eradication 1.68 1.36 — 0.94
Theoretical

eradication 1.73 1.42 1.06 —
Baseline-

25% in-

crease in

efficiency

in C

region 1.37 1.11 0.80 0.75
Baseline-

25% de-

crease in

efficiency

in C

region 0.89 0.64 0.36 0.31
No

program -36.19 -37.40 -38.78 -39.02
N0 program

with 45%

calfhood

vaccination -3.75 -4.37 -5.08 -5.20
No program

with 75%

calfhood

vaccination 0.61 0.18 -0.31 -0.39

1.26 — 0.71 0.65

-37.89

-4.62 -3.46

Ratio

0.90 1.38 9.22 3.24 1.50

1.23 1.81 11.27 4.06 1.96

1.29 1.88 11.35 4.13 2.02

— 1.50 9.56 3.41 1.62

0.54 — 8.43 2.77 1.11

-35.62 — -26.92 -35.07

15.30 — -3.18

0.01 0.81 13.73 3.88 —

aBenefit-cost ratio of the current program versus the baseline program is calculated as change in benefit under the current pro-
gram relative to the baseline program costs/current program costs. Change in benefits are the sum of producer and consumer benefits.

Summary and Implications

The Cooperative State-Federal Brucellosis Eradica-
tion Program, established in 1934, has been highly suc-
cessful in reducing brucellosis infection in U.S. cattle
herds. This is demonstrated by a decrease in reactor rates
from 11.5 percent in 1935 (Becton 1977) to a MCI reac-
tor rate of 0.3 percent in 1984 (Beal 1985). Weaner calf
and milk losses to producers decreased from $100 million
in the 1940’s (Becton 1977) to $32 million in 1983 (Beal
1984). Forty states, classified Class Free or Class A in
1985, accounted for two-thirds of the U.S. cow popula-
tion and 5 percent of the quarantined herds. The re-
maining 10 states, classified Class B or Class C, con-
tained about one-third of the U.S. cow population and
95 percent of the U.S. quarantined cattle herds as of
March 1985. The net results are that 31 states accounted
for one or more quarantined herds during 1985 with
more than three-fourths of the quarantined herds con-

centrated in the five states or regions currently classified
Class C.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the
economic and epidemiologic impact of specified alter-
native bovine brucellosis programs for Veterinary Ser-
vices, APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and to
provide a benefit-cost analysis of these alternative
brucellosis control and eradication strategies. These
strategies and/ or alternative brucellosis programs were
examined in terms of their costs and benefits to society,
consumers, producers, and related agricultural in-
dustries. In addition, alternative criteria such as change
in benefits, change in program costs, and net benefits
were estimated to provide guidelines to decision makers
concerning optimum alternative bovine brucellosis con-
trol and/or eradication programs.

BRUSIM, a systems simulation model, was developed
to measure the impact of various program components

19

Table l2. Ranking of program alternatives, by selected criteria, com-
pared to the base program

Change Net change Change
in producer in producer in Regular

Program and consumer and consumer program benefit-cost
alternative benefits benefits costs ratio
Current

program 4 4 7 4
Realistic

eradication 2 2 5 2
Theoretical

eradication l 1 4 1
Baseline-25%

increase in

efficiency in

C regions 3 3 6 3
Baseline-25%

decrease in

efficiency in

C regions 5 5 8 5
No program 8 8 l 8
No program

Wlll"| 450/0

cahhood

vaccination 7 7 2 7
No program

with 75%

calfhood

vaccination 6 6 3 6

upon selected epidemiologic parameters and to deter-
mine associated costs and physical losses of brucellosis
control/eradication programs, given epidemiologic coef-
ficients and economic criteria from 1976 through 2005.
The United States was divided into l6 regions based
upon such factors as prevalence, producer
characteristics, and cattle population.

TECHSIM, an econometrics model, was used for
determining the net benefits accruing to society, con-
sumers, producers, and related industries as ‘a result of
changes in beef and milk losses from alternative pro-
grams compared to a base program. The discounted
values and associated program costs were used for deter-
mining benefit-cost ratios and related economic decision
criteria.

A base program and eight alternative bovine
brucellosis programs were simulated for the contiguous
48 states. Prime consideration in the selection of program
alternatives included potential or most likely industry
requirements and potential federal funding for
brucellosis programs. The nine programs simulated for
1976 to 2005 included the following: (1) base program,
(2) current (1976-84) program, (3) rapid eradication
with theoretical and realistic modes, (4) base program
with 25 percent increase in program efficiency in Class
C regions, (5) base program with 25 percent decrease

20

in program efficiency in Class C regions, (6) no state-
federal program with no vaccination, and (7) no state-
federal program with calfhood vaccination supported
by industry.

Major findings resulting from the alternative bovine
brucellosis programs analyzed in this study are as
follows:

(1) Control and/or eradication 0f brucellosis infection.
Four programs, the theoretical eradication program, the
realistic eradication program, the base program with a
25 percent increase in efficiency in Class C regions, and
the current program, were highly effective in reducing
brucellosis infection from 1984 to 2005. The theoretical
eradication program demonstrated that eradication
could be achieved within 3 to 5 years when program con-
straints are eliminated with the only limiting factors be-
ing the current state of technology. These results
demonstrate that the current state of technology is suf-

~ ficient to achieve eradication. The time frame for achiev-

ing eradication will depend on financial and manpower
commitment, level of program efficiency, producer and
agency cooperation, and depopulation programs for
known infected herds. These research results parallel the
recent field experience of the Canadian Department of
Agriculture (Agriculture Canada 1985) which reported
no known bovine brucellosis infection in Canada since
March 1984 after initiating a strong market cattle testing
program, along with an indemnity and depopulation
program which encouraged producer cooperation in
1979.

The realistic eradication program, which assumed
1982-84 funding levels, strict adherence to the UM&R
by program authorities, and a modified depopulation
scheme, reduced total infected cows by more than 92
percent from 1984 to 1990. Increased emphasis on
depopulation of detected herds, although increasing pro-
gram costs in the realistic eradication program, would
likely have decreased infected cows at a faster rate than
reported above. The net results are that the realistic
eradication program would be a powerful tool leading
to eradication given increased producer cooperation
through incentives or educational programs plus pro-
ducer incentives for depopulating known infected herds.

The base program with a 25 percent increase in pro-
gram efficiency in Class C regions, although revealing
infection levels ranging from 5 to 7 percent higher in
all infection parameters than did the realistic eradica-
tion program by 2005, was more effective in reducing
infection than the current program. Results reveal that
a 25 percent increase in program efficiency in high in-
cidence or Class C regions through stricter adherence
to the UM&R or other incentives would be highly ef-
fective in reducing infection levels.

The base program with a 25 percent decrease in pro-
gram efficiency in Class C regions demonstrated that
reductions in program efficiency in high incidence
regions would result in substantial increases in infection.
The most dramatic increases in bovine brucellosis infec-
tion were generated by the three no state-federal pro-
gram scenarios. Total infected cows increased 69-fold
under the no state-federal program without calfhood

6

vaccination from 1984 t0 2005 compared to a 4-fold in-
crease in infected cows for the no program scenario with
a 75 percent calfhood vaccination level. These results
demonstrate that (1) calfhood vaccination would be
highly beneficial under a no state-federal program
scenario or when bovine brucellosis infection exists at
relatively high levels and (2) no state-federal programs
with calfhood vaccination, even at high levels of
calfhood vaccination, were substantially inferior with
respect to reducing bovine brucellosis infection com-
pared to other alternative programs simulated.

(2) Reduction ofphyical losses. Weaner calf and milk
losses were reduced most effectively by the theoretical
eradication program, followed closely by the realistic
eradication program. The base program with a 25 per-
cent increase in program efficiency ranked third in
reducing physical losses followed by the current pro-
gram. All other programs simulated, including the base
program with a 25 percent decrease in program efficien-
cy in Class C regions and the three no program scenarios
increased physical losses with the sharpest increase oc-
curring under the no program scenario.

(3) Program costs. Total discounted program costs
over the 30-year period simulated were lowest for the
no state-federal program without calfhood vaccination
followed by the no state-federal program with calfhood
vaccination. Costs accruing to these programs were at-
tributable to producer costs associated with a milk or-
dinance enforced brucellosis program in dairy cattle and
calfhood vaccination. The highest program cost occurred
under the base program with a 25 percent decrease in
program efficiency in Class C regions as a result of
additional secondary epidemiologic tracing, adjacent
herd testing, and herd testing as infection increased.

The lowest total program costs associated with alter-
native programs which were most effective in reducing
brucellosis infection and physical losses were almost
identical at $1.7 billion for the realistic and theoretical
eradication programs as were net declines or savings in
program costs at more than $400 million for both pro-
grams. The base program with a 25 percent increase in
program efficiency in Class C regions and the current
program ranked third and fourth, respectively, in total
costs and declines in costs for those programs most ef-
fective in reducing infection and physical losses. Net
declines in total costs accrue from lower program costs
attributable to program efficiency resulting in fewer
numbers of secondary epidemiologic traces, adjacent
herd tests, quarantine and post-quarantine herd tests,
and lower handling costs.

(4) Economic benefits. The highest positive change in
benefits to society, net change in benefits to society, and
benefit-cost ratios accrued from the theoretical eradica-
tion program, followed closely by the realistic eradica-
tion program. The base program with a 25 percent in-
crease in program efficiency and the current program
ranked third and fourth, respectively, relative to positive
changes in benefits and benefit-cost ratios. The three no
state-federal program scenarios and the base program
with a 25 percent decrease in program efficiency in Class
C regions all produced negative changes in benefits to

society, compared to the base program, as well as
generating economically unacceptable benefit-cost
ratios.

(5) Equity impact. Equity analysis revealed that con-
sumers would accrue substantial positive benefits from
programs which decrease infection as the eradication
programs followed by the base program with a 25 per-
cent increase in efficiency in Class C regions and the cur-
rent program. Further, consumers would incur large
negative benefits or losses from programs which increase
infection as the no state-federal program scenarios.
Benefits to related agricultural industries parallel those
of consumers but at a lower level. Although producers
with infected herds may incur catastrophic losses, pro-
grams which decrease infection increase supplies of meat
and milk, exert a downward pressure on price, creating
negative benefits to producers. However, summation of
benefits over all sectors revealed that substantial benefits
would accrue to society from alternative programs which
decrease infection, as the eradication programs, and that
large negative benefits would accrue to society from
alternative programs which increased infection and
physical losses.

Some epidemiologic and economic considerations
emanating from this study may be summarized as
follows:

(1) The realistic eradication program appears to be
the most epidemiologically sound and cost effective pro-
gram of the alternative programs analyzed since it
ranked above other alternative programs, except the
theoretical eradication program, in total benefits, net
benefits, and benefit-cost ratios. The theoretical eradica-
tion program demonstrated that the present “state of the
arts” within the U.S. bovine brucellosis program is
highly capable of detecting sufficient numbers of in-
fected herds for achieving eradication. Application
and/or utilization of current program components at
higher efficiency levels through stricter adherence to the
requirements of the UM&R, continuation of producer
incentives through indemnity payments, along with the
incorporation of a depopulation program, would likely
result in an annual increase in program costs for an in-
terim period over the program costs currently incurred.
However, simulation results of this study, as well as the
recent experience of the Canadian Department of
Agriculture, suggest that such an approach would be cost
effective while leading toward the goal of eradication.

(2) joint consideration of economic and epidemiologic
efficiency is paramount to animal disease programs as
bovine brucellosis, given the wide variation in infection
among and between states as evidenced by the bovine
brucellosis classification system, and as states reach or
approach Class Free status. Future cost considerations
may suggest that the market cattle surveillance system,
depending upon regional classification, be based on a
sampling basis provided it meets the requirements of an
epidemiologically sound and efficient disease monitor-
ing system.

(3) Research by the NBTC (1978) and Amosson (1983)
revealed that contact or adjacent herd testing was an
important epidemiologic tool and highly cost effective

21

in detecting and eliminating brucellosis infection. Results
of this study suggest that maximization of adjacent herd
testing, post quarantine and post ownership testing, and
secondary epidemiologic tracing efficiencies, along with
an efficient primary surveillance system as MCI and
BRT, are essential in all area classification systems if
bovine brucellosis is to be eradicated.

(4) Simulation results again revealed the importance
of calfhood vaccination in combating brucellosis infec-
tion in high incidence regions as under the no state-
federal program scenario where benefits of calfhood vac-
cination greatly exceeded costs. However, utilization of
calfhood vaccination in low incidence regions, where
programs are maintained at high efficiency levels, is not
cost effective (NBTC 1978 and Amosson 1983). This
study further demonstrated that calfhood vaccination,
by itself or in the absence of other current program com-
ponents, will keep brucellosis infection from spreading
as rapidly as it would in the absence of vaccination, but
calfhood vaccination did not eradicate brucellosis.

(5) Equity analysis revealed that consumers were the
major beneficiaries of investments in publicly funded
bovine brucellosis programs, which decreased physical
losses and increased supplies of meat and milk.

References

Agriculture Canada. “Brucellosis Eradication In Canada-
Progress Report.” Food Production and Inspection Branch,
Canadian Department of Agriculture. March 1985.

Agriculture Canada. “Evaluation of Alternative Brucellosis
Programs By Benefit-Cost Analysis.” Management Con-
sulting Services, Ottawa, Canada, 1979.

Amosson, Stephen H. , Raymond A. Dietrich, and Richard P.
Crawford. “Economic and Epidemiologic Analysis of U.S.
Bovine Brucellosis Programs - Volume II.” Prepared for
Veterinary Services, APHIS, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland, 1985.

Amosson, Stephen H. “Economic and Epidemiologic Implica-
tions of National Bovine Brucellosis Programs—A Case
Study.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M
University, 1983.

Amosson, Stephen H. and Raymond A. Dietrich. “Theoretical
Basis and Empirical Implications of the Bovine Brucellosis
Market Slaughter Testing Program in the United States.”
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 3(1984/5) 53-64, 1984.

Anderson, Robert K., David T. Berman, W.T. Berry, John
A. Hopkin, and Robert Wise. “Report - National Brucellosis
Technical Commission.” Prepared for Veterinary Services,
APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
Maryland, 1978.

Beal, Victor C., ]r. “Current Estimated Brucellosis Losses.”
Veterinary Services, APHIS, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland, 1984.

Beal, Victor C., Ir. Personal Communication. Veterinary Ser-
vices, APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
Maryland, 1985.

Beal, Victor C., Ir. and Harvey A. Kryder, Ir. “Brucellosis
Program Analysis.” Veterinary Services, APHIS, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1977.

22

Becton, Paul. “The National Brucellosis Program of The United
States.” Bovine Brucellosis An International Symposium,
eds. Richard P. Crawford and Richard]. Hidalgo, College
Station, Texas A&M University Press, 1977.

Collins, G.S. “An Econometric Simulation Model for
Evaluating Aggregate Economic Impacts of Technological
Change on Major U.S. Field Crops.” PhD. Disseration,
Texas A&M University, 1980. ~.

Jones, Robert E.L. “Brucellosis Losses and the~*Feasibility of
an Annual Brucellosis Prevention Program for Texas Beef
Producers.” M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 1979.

Liu, Chun-Ian. “An Economic Impact Evaluation of Govern-
ment Programs: The Case of Brucellosis Control in the
United States.” Southern journal of Agricultural
Economics. Volume II, Number 1, 1979, pp. 163-168.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cattle. Washington D.C.
1985.

Acknowledgement

Information in this report is based primarily on
“Economic and Epidemiologic Analysis of U.S Bovine
Brucellosis Programs—Volume l,” a contract report
prepared for Veterinary Services, APHIS, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, August 1985, by the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. Funding for this
research was provided by Veterinary Services, APHIS,
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. The Brucellosis Policy
Advisory Committee aided in the development of alter-
native bovine brucellosis programs. The Committee was
composed of ]ack Dahl, rancher, Gackle, North Dakota;
Dr. William Cowart, epidemiologist, Elba, Alabama;
and Dr. David Hird, epidemiologist, University of
California, Davis, California. Helpful suggestions were
also provided by Dr. Victor C. Beal, ]r. Veterinary Ser-
vices, APHIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyatts-
ville, Maryland.

2h

Appendix 1. Epidemiological factors included in the 1976 APHIS, the 1978 NBTC, and the 1985 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES)
bovine brucellosis analyses

1976 1978 1985
Epidemiological Factors APHIS NBTC TAES

Probability of buying infected animals X3 X X

All 3 binomial methods include:
Proportion of herds infected
Number of source herds

><><
><><
><

Double & triple binomials permits:
Less than 100% infection in herd
Number of replacements per source herd

><>.<
><><
><><

Third binomial changes replacement infection:

Infectiousness of replacements

Age difference in replacements

Quarantined herds

1st concentration point testing

Vaccine effect in initiating infection
lncubating infection in replacements

I |><><><><
Z
l >

Stratify by herd size

Stratify by year of herd infection
Stratify by dairy and beef

Natural clean-up

Stratified by region (management)
Regional purchase probability
Fence or neighborhood spread
Vaccine effect on infection rate in herd
MCI detection and efficiency

BRT detection and efficiency
Organized clean-up
Depopulation

><><><><><><><><><><><><
|><><><><><><><><><><><
><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><§><><

 First point testing effect on MCI:

increase traceability
Increase number tested

| ><
l

Differential cull rate for MCI —
Stratify quarantined herds —
Residual infection -
Area testing —
Adjacent herd testing — —
Epidemiological testing — —
Post quarantine testing - —

l><><l
><><><><><><>< ><><

aAn ”X” indicates the factor or activity was included in the study while a ”—" indicates the factor or activity was not included in the study.
”NA” denotes not applicable.
From: Beal, V.C., Jr. 1983. The use of mathematical models in animal disease program evaluation. Proc. 87th Ann. mtg. U.S. An. Health Assn. 386402.

23

Appendix 2. Baseline program - epidemiological summary of U.S. brucellosis program

**#******************************************* BRUSH" Shnuhflon Inodel**********************************************

Beef model Baseline program

*******#********************************************* U S totak *****************************************************

Undetected Quarantined Quarantined Undetected Total Calf loss Total cost Cum. costs
Year inf. herds herds inf. cows inf. cows inf. cows pounds 1982 dol. discounted
1 21,784. 14,407. 207,101. 130,304. 337,406. 47,028,720. 133,303,856. 168,671,856.
2 20,537. 13,518. 167,230. 116,908. 284,138. 37,540,400. 124,558,768. 320,216,576.
3 19,818. 12,890. 128,252. 105,569. 233,821. 31,545,152. 116,862,464. 456,929,024.
4 20,142. 12,674. 117,031. 107,101. 224,133. 30,700,224. 110,989,136. 581,776,640.
5 19,359. 11,294. 127,096. 105,393. 232,489. 31,781,568. 115,622,416. 706,833,664.
6 17,552. 11,939. 139,314. 95,286. 234,600. 31,787,072. 134,477,216. 846,689,792.
7 15,881. 11,188. 131,728. 84,996. 216,725. 29,539,488. 140,347,072. 987,036,672.
8 13,069. 9,623. 102,472. 65,602. 168,074. 22,555,216. 138,230,832. 1,119,950,850.
9 11,970. 8,170. 84,795. 57,486. 142,281. 19,365,264. 142,549,520. 1,251,745,790.
10 12,479. 5,072. 55,373. 59,551. 114,923. 15,992,933. 114,654,656. 1,353,673,220.
11 12,256. 5,077. 58,339. 58,263. 116,602. 15,919,974. 119,702,128. 1,455,995,140.
12 11,790. 5,116. 57,465. 54,793. 112,258. 15,216,403. 124,136,832. 1,558,026,500.
13 11,406. 4,999. 54,770. 51,944. 106,714. 14,484,265. 123,714,080. 1,655,799,300.
14 11,053. 4,358. 47,434. 50,727. 98,161. 13,307,932. 113,506,400. 1,742,054,660.
15 11,130. 3,912. 44,646. 53,428. 98,074. 13,322,744. 102,217,088. 1,816,743,680.
16 11,055. 3,655. 43,700. 55,635. 99,336. 13,435,901. 98,698,144. 1,886,087,680.
17 11,021. 4,246. 52,131. 55,554. 107,685. 14,548,806. 110,178,016. 1,960,519,940.
18 11,012. 3,810. 47,077. 57,624. 104,701. 14,254,356. 103,568,784. 2,027,796,220.
19 11,240. 4,028. 52,221. 60,661. 112,883. 15,361,806. 107,955,744. 2,095,225,090.
20 11,376. 3,976. 53,075. 63,823. 116,898. 15,971,345. 109,113,968. 2,160,755,970.
21 11,366. 4,846. 65,548. 63,258. 128,806. 17,562,400. 128,240,176. 2,234,811,390.
22 10,880. 5,272. 67,299. 58,348. 125,647. 17,169,632. 140,270,000. 2,312,698,370.
23 10,890. 4,195. 54,153. 60,346. 114,499. 15,718,087. 119,229,360. 2,376,355,840.
24 10,772. 3,868. 51,940. 61,283. 113,223. 15,361,629. 113,998,112. 2,434,879,230.
25 10,869. 4,046. 55,584. 62,283. 117,867. 16,018,961. 117,230,416. 2,492,747,260.
26 10,862. 4,036. 55,863. 63,146. 119,009. 16,234,174. 118,566,896. 2,549,024,000.
27 11,086. 4,001. 56,981. 66,345. 123,326. 16,877,456. 118,172,256. 2,602,956,290.
28 11,034. 4,159. 60,151. 66,908. 127,059. 17,323,040. 123,142,384. 2,656,995,330.
29 11,558. 4,234. 63,439. 72,738. 136,177. 18,789,360. 123,990,304. 2,709,313,540.
30 11,887. 4,483. 70,008. 78,183. 148,192. 20,518,688. 131,335,120. 2,762,599,680.

Appendix 3. Baseline program - epidemiological summary of U.S. Brucellosis program
********************************************** BRLEHAA S"nLHaflOn 'nOde| **********************************************

Dairy model 

***************************************************** U S

Baseline program

“flab *****************************************************

Year

‘Q G>\lO\U1b-UJk)—*

Undetected
Inf. herds
218.
170.
144.
130.

Quarantined
herds
1,445.
1,213.
1,162.
1,075.

843.
720.
487.
365.
297.
254.
221.
216.
215.
212.
214.
211.
202.
220.
205.
214.
209.
214.
218.
214.
218.
220.
219.
217.
219.
213.

Quarantined
inf. cows
26,317.
15, 712.
13,526.
11,952.
10,782.
9,806.
7,532.
5,088.
3,961.
3,507.
3,074.
3,002.
2,991.
2,984.
3,010.
2,966.
2,902.
3,094.
2,939.
3,083.
3,074.
3,178.
3,222.
3,156.
3,178.
3,183.
3,179.
3,189.
3,233.
3,216.

Undetected
inf. cows
1,449.
1,191.
939.
855.
708.
480.
371.
272.
238.
236.

r 196.
176.
171.
170.
161.
158.
164.
152.
163.
159.
171.
174.
171.
163.
152.
149.
149.
151.
152.
161.

Total
inf. cows
27,766.
16,902.
14,465.
12,807.
11,490.
10,285.
7,902.
5,359.
4,199.
3,743.
3,271.
3,178.
3,162.
3,155.
3,171.
3,124.
3,066.
3,247.
3,103.
3,242.
3,245.
3,352.
3,393.
3,320.
3,330.
3,332.
3,328.
3,340.
3,385.
3,378.

Calf loss
pounds
578,558.
377,101.
316,109.
282,020.
252,492.
221,595.
169,297.
114,008.
89,554.
79,722.
68,896.
67,359.
67,407.
67,376.
67,729.
66,928.
65,698.
69,470.
66,689.
69,393.
69,657.
71,761.
72,648.
71,085.
71,445.
71,748.

71,717.

71,968.
72,922.

72,782.

Milk loss
pounds

61,919,312.
38,254,592.
32,785,136.
29,076,144.
26,266,384.
23,810,128.
18,793,584.
12,669,701.
9,867,967.
8,726,738.
7,624,870.
7,396,574.
7,339,524.
7,316,455.
7,357,225.
7,241,006.
7,092,317.
7,496,022.
7,142,176.
7,448,806.
7,419,056.
7,648,344.
7,731,643.
7,564,681.
7,584,360.
7,572,875.
7,549,127.
7,561,498.
7,647,667.
7,609,882.

Total cost
1982 dol.

39,613,424.
34,088,496.
33,300,176.
32,507,952.
36,026,112.
33,307,696.
33,056,912.
29,443,840.
26,345,056.
21,749,840.
22,102,912.
23,728,096.
24,231,632.
24,027,776.
25,789,200.
25,909,696.
24,085,296.
28,038,368.
24,501,552.
26,420,416.
24,378,400.
24,529,776.
25,354,544.
26,161,424.
28,395,888.
29,098,320.
28,813,120.
28,356,128.
28,533,600.
26,552,624.

Cum. costs
discounted

50,123,600.

91,597,456.
130,553,936.
167,120,944.
206,086,768.
240,726,768.
273,783,552.
302,094,848.
326,452,224.

345,787,648.
364,681,216.

384,183,808.

403,334,400.

421,593,344.
440,437,248.

458,640,896.

474,912,000.

493,125,120.

508,428,544.

524,295,936.
538,373,632.

551,994,112.

565,530,880.
578,961,408.

592,978,176.

606, 789,376.

619,939,072.
632,382,464.

644,422,144.

655,195,136.

25

Appendix 4. Baseline program-brucellosis program component test summary
***********************************************    ***********************************************

Beef model - - - Baseline program

************************************=I=***************** U S  ******************************************************

FPC
cows
Year tested
1 3,003,894.
2 3,124,041.
3 3,367,423.
4 3,427,235.
5 3,297,318.
6 3,952,536.
7 4,037,473.
8 4,088,851.
9 5,012,588.
10 3,860,068.
11 4,098,070.
12 4,291,049.
13 4,388,993.
14 3,772,408
15 3,357,374.
16 2,951,022.
17 3,642,275.
18 ~3,095,137.
19 3,358,415.
20 3,183,670.
21 4,133,521.
22 4,680,864.
23 3,633,678.
24 3,255,599.
25 3,523,003.
26 3,467,525.
27 3,432,045.
28 3,515,297.
29 3,650,377.
30 3,726,419.

SPT
cows
tested

6,666,029.
6,501,146.
5,562,879.
3,886,849.
3,566,368.
4,347,426.
4,928,607.
6,786,816.
6,848,591.
6,648,802.
7,239,200.
8,198,268.
8,331,908.
7,321,889.
5,766,646.
5,250,658.
6,325,249.
5,504,034.
5,411,802.
5,312,989.
7,024,462.
9,034,539.
6,658,590.
6,052,644.
6,104,719.
6,200,013.
5,703,507.
6,299,585.
5,452,996.
5,816,334.

MCI
herds

quarntd.

9,342.
7,831.
6,336.
5,215.
5,183.
5,754.
5,680.
4,922.
4,194.

3,217

3,425.
3,531.
3,468.
2,897.
2,507.
2,281.
2,864.
2,438.
2,657.
2,601.
3,453.
3,881.
2,860.
2,596.
2,786.
2,782.
2,745.
2,910.
2,960.
3,184.

MCl
reactors
detected

59,395.
48,363.
36,521.
30,715.
29,158.
32,169.
31,834.
26,206.
26,430.
20,895.
22,123.
22,420.
21,998.
17,905.
15,808.
14,017.
18,086.
14,931.
16,822.
16,109.
21,935.
24,178.
17,441.
15,609.
17,238.
16,946.
17,013.
17,670.
18,875.
20,043.

herds
tested

13,886.
32,447.
39,217.
22,774.
13,714.
9,422.
8,871.
6,860.
5,183.

?????????????????????

Area Test Area Test

herds
quarntd.

49.
174.
308.
661.
704.
388.
393.
280.
143.

9????????????????????

Non-Primary Sur.

Herds
tested

124,958.
123,957.
124,533.
125,948.
140,007.
147,203.
148,662.
147,178.
145,728.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,994.
132,944.
132,944.
132,994.
132,994.

Herds
quarntd.

3,900.
3,423.
3,279.
3,430.
4,394.
5,046.
4,701.
3,997.
3,560.
1,536.
1,584.
1,511.
1,442.
1,355.
1,334.
1,328.
1,371.
1,297.
1,341.
1,327.
1,375.
1,310.
1,201.
1,207.
1,221.
1,200.
1,204.
1,206.
1,223.
1,259.

Heifers

vaccinatd.

2,916,407.
2,916,407.
3,080,424.
3,923,985.
4,519,871 .
5,458,767.
6,013,894.
6,352,222.
7,250,514.
6,393,669.
6,578,440.
6,714,604.
6,644,099.
6,590,942.
6,488,120.
6,654,856.
6,740,698.
6,898,424.
6,989,476.
7,273,238.
7,483,430.
7,713,160.
7,603,630.
7,643,163.
7,648,505.
7,806,058.
7,896,604.
8,131,127.
8,218,123.
8,664,361.

On farm
tests

7,315,604.
6,477,280.
5,913,792.
5,442,857.
5,560,188.
6,209,907.
6,302,816.
5,473,912.
5,108,438.
3,914,084.
3,980,149.
3,923,670.
3,830,775.
3,512,463.
3,417,937.
3,362,187.
3,697,340.
3,564,850.
3,800,690.
3,887,735.
4,405,376.
4,501,848.
4,051,625.
3,894,050.
4,058,801.
4,105,172.
4,206,489.
4,324,785.
4,590,867.
4,916,648.

26

Appendix 5. Baseline program-brucellosis program component test summary
***********************************************    ***********************************************

Dairy

model - - - Baseline program

****************************************************** US  ******************************************************

FPC
cows
Year tested
1 791,794.
2 845,845.
3 935,108.
4 1,008,592.
5 1,204,736.
6 1,094,430.
7 1,018,882.
8 890,064.
9 804,081.
10 569,207.
11 602,246.
12 695,538.
13 721,273.
14 706,586.
15 802,994.
16 806,384.
17 700,180.
18 914,401.
19 712,815.
20 813,372.
21 693,191.
22 694,108.
23 734,748.
24 778,132.
25 899,692.
26 934,170.
27 916,095.
28 884,902.
29 888,638.
30 771,601.

SPT
cows
tested

3,067,230.
2,939,561.
2,929,904.
2,670,792.
3,490,203.
2,869,817.
3,265,128.
3,328,258.
2,688,762.
2,132,424.
2,257,440.
2,611,121.
2,708,088.
2,652,286.
3,013,073.
3,025,698.
2,623,110.
3,434,496.
2,670,536.
3,051,282.
2,595,732.
2,598,978.
2,752,721.
2,916,855.
3,377,172.
3,507,557.
3,438,838.
3,320,422.
3,334,334.
2,890,679.

MCI
herds
quarntd.

1,096.
813.
711.
621.
582.
517.
384.
295.
248.
229.
201.
198.
197.
194.
196.
193.
184.
203.
186.
197.
192.
197.
201.
197.
202.
203.
202.
201.
203.
197.

MCI
reactors
detected

9,552.
5,433
4,588.
3,777.
4,240.
3,265.
2,558.
1,715.
1,240.
831.
763.
850.
874.
851.
962.
944.
801.
1,096.
814.
963.
812.
843.
899.
920.
1,056.
1,089.
1,061.
1,025.
1,040.
901.

Area Test Area Test

herds
tested

S3$399999FDQPFDQQFPPPQQQQQQPQFDQQQP?

herds
quarntd.

9.9.9.9$399539999999F399Q9@99@9F3F3@P9

Non-Primary Sur.

herds
tested

39,196.
39,1 70.
39,054.
39,124.
41,425.
41,730.
41,576.
41,406.
41,198.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.
40,645.

herds
quarnted.

232.
171.
143.
138.
.186.
189.
185.
136.
100.
38.
33.
31.
30.
30.
30.
28.
27.
29.
26.
27.
24.
27.
28.
26.
26.
26.
25.
25.
26.
25.

Heifers

vaccinatd.

924,140.
924,140.
977,521.

1,165,404.

1,315,949.

1,409,657.

1,535,242.

1,501,939.

1,569,360.

1,300,107.

1,300,427.

1,316,000.

1,325,095.

1,333,575.

1,342,100.

1,352,172.

1,362,314.

1,372,530.

1,302,024.

1,393,194.

1,403,643.

1,414,170.

1,424,776.

1,435,461.

1,446,226.

1,457,072.

1,460,000.

1,479,009.

1,490,100.

1,501,276.

On farm
tests

2,044,097.
1,600,347.
1,502,027.
1,499,012.
1,405,792.
1,374,749.
1,204,564.
949,459.
075,140.
033,031.
016,395.
020,926.
025,605.
027,017.
039,346.
043,973.
040,131.
066,730.
055,292.
071,656.
060,794.
070,219.
000,650.
093,002.
900,069.
917,330.
922,375.
926,700.
934,046.
932,510.

27

Appendix 6. Baseline program - brucellosis livestock producer expenditures
**********************************************    **********************************************

Beef model
******4‘********************************************** U S

Baseline program

 *****************************************************

-<
(D
DJ
-1

UJNJNJN)l\Jl\Jl\>l\JI\JI\Jl\>——*—‘—‘—*—‘—*—‘—"-‘—‘
3RD@\lU‘\U'l-hUUI\)-—‘$kD@\lQ\U'l->UJI\)-—\@‘~D%\IQ“\U'I-I>~LAJI\J-—*

' Producer

MCI test
costs

18,302,656.
17,230,256.
16,295,895.
14,475,057.
14,102,351.
16,887,152.
17,799,984.
19,506,672.
21,602,944.
18,253,248.
19,585,088.
21,048,656.
21,375,536.
18,511,904.
15,760,784.
14,152,131.
17,306,544.
14,925,301.
15,659,332.
15,147,014.
19,765,792.
23,326,256.
17,792,624.
16,068,894.
16,932,816.
16,915,136.
16,355,465.
17,275,712.
16,897,136.
17,686,224.

Producer
area test
costs
804,593.
1,297,595.
1,494,631 .
854,752.
676,093.
729,038.
749,71 1 .
526,883.
468,142.

QFD9PSDSDFDFPQQQQFDQPPQPF>FDQ

Producer
post quar.
costs
80,696.
96,646.

1 14,745.
129,305.
298,835.
356,188.
429,144.
371,875.
344,794.

F3999F>99$3999F399$39F3¢9F39

Producer
private
costs

2,906,992.
2,906,992.
2,906,992.
3,045,653.
3,464,741.
3,737,077.
4,055,824.
3,946,570.
4,106,402.
4,225,071.
4,312,520.
4,267,237.
4,233,093.
4,167,054.
4,274,140.
4,329,271.
4,430,569.
4,489,047.
4,671,293.
4,806,289.
4,953,828.
4,883,479.
4,908,871.
4,912,300.
5,013,483.
5,071,637.
5,222,257.
5,278,130.
5,564,725.
5,806,781.

Producer
sec. epi.
costs
37,495.
31,046.
32,636.
61,226.
134,737.
193,209.
201,697.
172,256.
162,848.

PSDFDFDFDPFDQQSDPQQPFPFDQPFDFPF’

Producer
adj. test
costs
130,695.
103,952.
1 1 1,808.
168,436.
352,975.
520,630.
526,189.
439,268.
402,656.

FPQFDSDQPPPQFDFD9QQSDPQPQQ9

Producer
vaccinatn.
costs

9,430,154.

9,430,154.

9,332,458.
10,723,407.
11,225,305.
13,529,154.
15,008,331.
15,393,999.
18,712,320.
15,500,958.
15,977,824.
17,329,248.
17,147,280.
17,010,095.
15,744,730.
17,175,040.
17,395,592.
17,803,548.
18,038,540.
18,770,992.
19,313,440.
19,905,352.
19,523,548.
19,725,595.
19,739,472.
20,145,095.
20,379,775.
20,985,055.
21,209,558.
22,351,232.

Producer
quarntd.
costs

8,840,849.
8,072,120.
7,470,615.
7,331,381.
6,429,410.
6,954,224.
6,608,489.
5,450,886.
4,835,383.
3,465,665.
3,473,137.
3,415,492.
3,297,237.
2,852,330.
2,654,742.
2,532,217.
3,003,158.
2,771,544.
3,057,721.
3,126,990.
3,882,233.
4,092,879.
3,348,360.
3,098,724.
3,315,312.
3,361,522.
3,455,662.
3,623,562.
3,921,002.
4,328,611.

Producer
total cost
1982 dol.
40,534,096.
39,168,704.
37,759,744.
36,789,168.
36,685,408.
42,906,640.
45,379,328.
46,808,368.
50,635,472.
42,444,928.
44,348,576.
46,060,640.
46,053,152.
42,541,376.
39,434,368.
38,188,656.
42,136,864.
39,989,520.
41,426,976.
41,851,264.
47,915,296.
52,208,976.
45,673,488.
43,805,584.
45,001,072.
45,494,400.
45,413,120.
47,162,480.
47,592,400.
50,182,848.

28

 

Appendix 7. Baseline program - brucellosis livestock producer expenditures
********************************************** BRUS|M Simuhtion mode| **********************************************

Dairy model

***************************************************** U S

Baseline program

 *****************************************************

<

m
UuI\>l\JI\.>|\.>I\JI\Jl\Jl\)l\JI\->—*—d—‘—-‘-—‘—*—*—‘-*-"
©&DOO\lO\U1-b-L»JI\J—*@\DOO\IO\U1-I>U.>I\J—-*Q\OOO\IO\U1J>UJI\J—\E

Producer
MCI test
costs

5,283,068.
5,202,969.
5,380,870.
5,294,076.
6,591,597.
5,688,954.
5,883,100.
5,596,793.
4,737,007.
3,600,813.
3,803,643.
4,389,156.
4,549,964.
4,457,130.
5,058,165.
5,079,064.
4,411,532.
5,759,491.
4,491,794.
5,124,899.
4,369,844.
4,376,730.
4,632,306.
4,903,258.
5,666,589.
5,883,121.
5,769,441.
5,573,603.
5,597,593.
4,862,267.

Producer
area test
costs

9.9953‘F9999$39Q$39F399F>99999QF3F399@@F3

Producer

post quar.

costs
9,868.
6,737.
4,543.
5,916.
12,133.
13,011.
13,117.
7,801.
5,572.

QQFDQQPSDPPQQFDQFDQQQSDQFDFD

Producer
private
costs

466,331.
466,331.
466,331.
487,781.
518,188.
552,176.
554,199.
491,552.
480,492.
483,566.
486,660.
489,726.
492,859.
496,013.
499,732.
503,480.
507,256.
511,060.
514,892.
518,753.
522,643.
526,563.
530,512.
534,490.
538,498.
542,537.
546,605.
550,704.
554,834.
558,995.

Producer
sec. epi.
costs
2,798.
2,418.
1,432.
2,454.
4,079.
5,439.
5,673.
3,745.
2,772.

QFDQPPFDQQFDFDPP99QQQ$DFDPQ

Producer
adj. test
costs

0.
1,930.
1,356.
1,573.
5,905.
9,120.

11,614.
8,127.
4,843.

PQQQQQFDSDQPQQFDQFDPFPFDFDPQ

Producer

vaccinatn.

COStS

3,204,193.
3,204,193.
3,396,355.
3,946,667.
4,333,040.
4,618,826.
4,995,891.
5,004,367.
5,229,012.
4,331,873.
4,359,596.
4,387,494.
4,415,133.
4,443,385.
4,471,819.
4,505,357.
4,539,144.
4,573,186.
4,607,483.
4,642,038.
4,676,852.
4,711,926.
4,747,264.
4,782,863.
4,818,734.
4,854,874.
4,891,283.
4,927,968.
4,964,925.
5,002,159.

Producer

quarntd.
costs

582,092.
466,140.
445,609.
398,259.
312,987.
271,596.
175,699.
108,335.
85,125.
69,346.
60,315.
59,477.
59,713.
59,296.
61,224.
61,101.
58,351.
64,716.
60,181.
63,500.
61,451.
63,034.
64,912;
64,979.
67,708.
69,207.
69,361.
69,193.
70,213.
68,096.

Producer
total cost
1982 dol.
9,548,355.
9,350,720.
9,696,497.
10,136,729.
11,777,929.
11,159,128.
11,639,294.
11,220,716.
10,544,822.
8,485,606.
8,710,221.
9,325,861.
9,517,673.
9,455,830.
10,090,946.
10,149,007.
9,516,289.
10,908,458.
9,674,356.
10,349,195.
9,630,795.
9,678,264.
9,974,998.
10,285,598.
11,091,536.
11,349,745.
11,276,692.
11,121,472.
11,187,571.
10,491,522.

29

Appendix 8. Baseline program - state and federal brucellosis expenditures

**********************************************    **********************************************

Baseline program

*****************************************************   *****************************************************

-<
(D
DJ
-1

UUN)I\>I\>I\)I\JI\Jl\JI\Jl\Jl\J—\-d-—‘—*—‘—-‘-*-"-‘-‘
CDKD@\IC\U'1J>UJI\>@@'~D@\IC\U'I-§UJI\J-—‘@KD@\IO\U1-BUJI\)—\

MCI
sur.
cost

24,071,000.
24,491,120.
22,404,592.
10,224,240.
17,050,170.
20,059,504.
22,353,792.
27,401,010.
29,554,520.
25,042,050.
27,002,304.
30,534,432.
31,095,520.
27,134,730.
21,192,040.
19,044,970.
23,203,040.
19,907,712.
20,433,904.
19,012,410.
27,107,010.
33,504,320.
24,049,000.
21,757,240.
22,400,000.
22,577,010.
21,300,144.
22,922,004.
21,173,104.
22,217,032.

lnit. MCI
farm test
cost
12,807,521.
8,530,579.
6,673,007.
5,867,568.
6,637,183.
7,572,174.
7,803,568.
6,985,916.
6,224,140.
5,378,010.
5,742,108.
5,760,510.
5,604,075.
4,767,659.
4,185,618.
3,962,326.
4,895,898.
4,337,652.
4,817,288.
4,862,589.
6,346,782.
6,780,527.
5,273,424.
4,836,150.
5,193,476.
5,247,331.
5,303,685.
5,580,019.
5,894,062.
6,458,530.

lnit. area
farm test
cost

3,984,545.
6,233,610.
7,105,279.
4,106,523.
3,639,717.
4,631,655.
4,812,034.
3,321,818.
3,052,999.

FD.OF>.O.°SDF>.Q.Q?>FDFD.QFJQPFD.OFD.QP

Beef model

Herd depop. lnit. test

& indemnity non-prim.
payments cost

12,426,105. 9,113,678.

10,033,814. 9,041,159.
7,695,119. 9,149,476.
7,021,914. 9,843,050.
7,625,795. 12,717,496.
8,358,870. 14,882,856.
7,903,718. 16,079,997.
6,148,324. 15,071,886.
5,087,717. 15,090,397.
3,322,351. 11,167,377.
3,500,346. 11,398,517.
3,447,914. 11,270,970.
3,286,222. 11,180,793.
2,846,019. 11,006,361.
2,678,787. 10,899,147.
2,622,022. 11,018,279.
3,127,854. 11,303,790.
2,824,593. 11,424,918.
3,133,270. 11,917,956.
3,184,477. 12,262,368.
3,932,865. 13,059,915.
4,037,956. 12,874,451.
3,249,177. 12,524,089.
3,116,401. 12,532,834.
3,335,022. 12,791,001.
3,351,788. 12,939,360.
3,418,871. 13,323,644.
3,609,061. 13,466,187.
3,806,320. 14,197,386.
4,200,502. 14,814,952.

Vaccinatn.
cost

3,440,678.

3,440,678.

5,124,773.

9,336,659.
13,402,201.
16,275,484.
17,690,640.
17,487,792.
19,805,856.
17,350,256.
17,851,664.
18,187,360.
17,996,384.
17,852,400.
17,152,656.
17,539,376.
1 7,935,184.
18,181,312.
18,597,104.
19,352,128.
20,208,992.
20,829,392.
20,231,216.
20,336,400.
20,350,592.
20,769,808.
21,010,736.
21,634,736.
21,866,208.
23,053,520.

Retest
quar. herd
cost

26,326,336.
23,619,216.
20,890,576.
19,800,128.
17,856,512.
19,190,144.
18,324,064.
15,005,161 .
13,098,498.
9,349,201.
9,178,624.
8,875,101 .
8,497,994.
7,357,959.
6,673,983.
6,322,630.
7,515,497.
6,843,171 .
7,629,222.
7,788,808.
9,608,781.
10,034,502.
8,228,369.
7,613,568.
8,090,467.
8,186,672.
8,402,141 .
8,767,109.
9,460,912.
10,407,236.

Total cost
1982
dollars

92,769,824.
85,390,128.
79,102,784.
74,200,032.
78,937,072.
91,570,656.
94,967,776.
91,422,496.
91 ,914,1 12.
72,209,808.
75,353,632.
78,076,256.
77,660,960.
70,965,104.
62,782,816.
60,509,584.
68,041,248.
63,579,344.
66,528,800.
67,262,768.
80,324,944.
88,061,104.
73,555,936.
70,192,608.
72,229,424.
73,072,560.
72,759,200.
75,979,952.
76,397,968.

Total cost
nominal
dollars
53,919,696.
53,351,280.
52,914,064.
54,756,720.
66,164,144.
85,252,448.
94,967,776.
94,632,336.
95,141,264.
74,745,168.
77,999,296.
80,817,552.
80,387,680.
73,456,720.
64,987,136.
62,634,096.
70,430,208.
65,811,648.
68,864,672.
69,624,384.
83,145,184.
91,152,992.
76,138,496.
72,657,088.
74,765,424.
75,638,160.
75,313,824.
78,647,648.
79,080,320.
84,001,616.

30

81,152,336.

Appendix 9. Baseline Program—state and federal brucellosis expenditures
***********************************************    ***********************************************

****************************************************** U S  ******************************************************

Year

RO@\IO'\U'I->UUI\J—-\

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

fszs

29
30

MCI
sur.
cost

9,295,548.
9,092,134.
9,223,356.
8,670,310.
1 1,047,120.
9,283,105.
10,065,455.
9,621,937.
7,953,895.
6,145,539.
6,500,742.
7,510,423.
7,789,128.
7,629,006.
8,667,394.
8,703,767.
7,548,005.
9,877,723.
7,684,418.
8,777,723.
7,469,902.
7,479,349.
7,920,891.
8,392,275.
9,714,034.
10,088,526.
9,870,179.
9,531,043.
9,571,040.
8,300,1 13.

Init. MCI.
farm test
cost

2,847,437.
1,872,132.
1,500,624.
1,392,215.
1,332,340.
1,224,084.
1,062,232.
721,634.
642,734.
636,731.
599,300.
612,786.
616,271.
608,920.
633,429.
633,583.
605,402.
683,647.
622,337.
663,896.
634,267.
647,439.
663,415.
662,869.
694,356.
705,949.
701,881.
697,948.
706,746.
678,738.

Init. area
farm test
cost

9.999.999.9999?9999999999F3$399F399P

Dairy model - - - Baseline program
Herd depop. lnit. test
& indemnity non-prim.
payments cost

6,579,338. 3,817,453.
3,927,893. 3,752,154.
3,381,580. 3,683,236.
2,988,085. 3,863,928.
2,695,517. 4,273,810.
2,451,412. 4,611,411.
1,882,980. 4,681,439.
1,271,927. 3,981,519.
990,256. 3,793,387.
876,757. 3,619,595.
768,593. 3,641,715.
750,580. 3,662,681 .
747,779. 3,686,117.
746,074. 3,709,704.
752,383. 3,737,524.
741,430. 3,765,552.
725,378. 3,793,790.
773,609. 3,822,241.
734,817. 3,850,905.
770,675. 3,879,781.
768,436. 3,908,878.
794,518. 3,938,190.
805,535. 3,967,723.
789,070. 3,997,475.
794,447. 4,027,459.
795,777. 4,057,658.
794,798. 4,082,505.
797,308. 4,113,122.
808,348. 4,143,967.
804,048. 4,1 75,041 .

Vaccinatn.
cost

579,271.

571,092.

586,612.

933,942.
1,341,852.
1,500,169.
1,722,350.
1,400,231.
1,460,052.
1,209,551.
1,212,360.
1,213,594.
1,221,239.
1,229,054.
1,236,917.
1,246,194.
1,255,539.
1,264,957.
1,274,442.
1,284,000.
1,293,629.
1,303,332.
1,313,105.
1,322,952.
1,332,874.
1,342,870.
1,327,711.
1,337,668.
1,347,699.
1,357,807.

Retest
quar. herd
cost

6,946,178.
5,522,528.
5,228,384.
4,522,849.
3,557,733.
3,078,525.
2,003,328.
1,225,973.
960,020.
776,107.
670,013.
652,222.
653,529.
649,287.
670,741.
670,265.
640,964.
707,887.
660,369.
695,264.
672,571.
688,757.
708,993.
711,305.
741,315.
757,958.
759,491.
757,688.
768,353.
745,474.

Total cost
1982
dollars

30,065,168.
24,737,920.
23,603,776.
22,371,312.
24,248,352.
22,148,704.
21,417,760.
18,223,216.
15,800,346.
13,264,288.
13,392,729.
14,402,291.
14,714,069.
14,572,048.
15,698,393.
15,760,794.
14,569,083.
17,130,064.
14,827,295.
16,071,343.
14,747,690.
14,851,587.
15,379,669.
15,875,953.
17,304,480.
17,748,736.
17,536,560.
17,234,768.
17,346,144.
16,061,225.

Total cost
nominal
dollars

17,474,528.
15,456,130.
15,789,246.
16,509,183.
20,324,704.
20,620,464.
21,417,760.
18,863,024.
16,355,100.
13,730,003.
13,862,952.
14,907,958.
15,230,685.
15,083,675.
16,249,567.
16,314,164.
15,080,607.
17,731,504.
15,347,888.
16,635,613.
15,265,487.
15,373,030.
15,919,655.
16,433,363.
17,912,048.
18,371,888.
18,152,272.
17,839,888.
17,955,168.
16,625,141.

31

Appendix 10. Baseline program-non-primary surveillance component summary

***********************************************    ***********************************************

7k. ._

Beef model - - - baseline program
******************************************************   ******************************************************
Adjacent Adjacent Post Quar. Post Quar. Private Private Sec. Epi. Sec. Epi. Non-Primary Sur.
herds herds herds herds herds herds herds herds Herds Herds
Year tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd.

1 2,785. 466. 1,422. 157. 119,948. 3,140. 803. 137. 124,958. 3,900.
2 2,112. 356. 1,267. 134. 119,948. 2,824. 630. 109. 123,957. 3,423.
3 2,397. 409. 1,504. 155. 119,948. 2,597. 684. 118. 124,533. 3,279.
4 3,251. 565. 1,694. 174. 119,948. 2,503. 1,056. 188. 125,948. 3,430.
5 6,197. 1,099. 3,462. 350. 128,246. 2,573. 2,101. 372. 140,007. 4,394.
6 8,789. 1,530. 4,610. 455. 130,893. 2,561. 2,911. 501. 147,203. 5,046.
7 8,258. 1,418. 5,119. 479. 132,458. 2,324. 2,827. 481. 148,662. 4,701.
8 7,001. 1,148. 4,729. 435. 132,994. 2,011. 2,454. 404. 147,178. 3,997.
9 6,226. 1,019. 4,250. 381. 132,994. 1,786. 2,259. 374. 145,728. 3,560.
10 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,536. ~ 0. 0. 132,994. 1,536.
11 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,584. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,584.
12 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,511. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,511.
13 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,442. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,442.
14 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,355. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,355.
15 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,334. 0. 0. 132,994 1,334.
16 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,328. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,328.
17 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,371. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,371.
18 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,297. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,297
19 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,341. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,341.
20 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,327. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,327.
21 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,375. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,375.
22 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,310. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,310.
23 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,201. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,201.
24 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,207. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,207.
25 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,221. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,221.
26 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,200 0. 0. 132,994. 1,200.
27 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,204. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,204.
28 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,206. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,206.
29 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,223. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,223.
30 0. 0. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,259. 0. 0. 132,994. 1,259.

32

Appendix 11. Baseline program-non-primary surveillance component summary

***********************************************    *******>l<***************************#***********

Dairy model - - - baseline program
**********************'********************************   ******************************************************
Adjacent Adjacent Post Quar. Post Quar. Private Private Sec. Epi. Sec. Epi. Non-Primary Sur.
herds herds herds herds herds herds herds herds Herds Herds
Year tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd. tested quarntd.
1 0. 0. 257. 14. 38,820. 198. 119. 20. 39,196. 232.
2 93. 8. 165. 10. 38,820. 138. 92. 15. 39,170. 171.
3 66. 6. 110. 7. 38,820. 121. 57. 9. 39,054. 143.
4 75. 7. 134. 10. 38,820. 106. 94. 16. 39,124. 138.
5 295. 31. 311. 24. 40,662. 107. 157. 24. 41,425. 186.
6 389. 44. 340. 22. 40,797. 92. 205. 30. 41,730. 189.
7 458. 60. 324. 22. 40,590. 74. 205. 30. 41,576. 185.
8 369. 43. 237. 14. 40,645. 58. 155. 21. 41,406. 136.
9 251. 26. 186. 11. 40,645. 48. 117. 15. 41,198. 100.
10 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 38. 0. 0. 40,645. 38.
11 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 33. 0. 0. 40,645. 33.
12 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 31 . 0. 0. 40,645. 31 .
13 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 30. 0. 0. 40,645. 30.
14 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 30. 0. 0. 40,645. 30.
15 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 30. 0. 0. 40,645. 30.
16 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 28. 0. 0. 40,645. 28.
17 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 27. 0. 0. 40,645. 27.
18 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 29. 0. 0. 40,645. 29.
19 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 26. 0. 0. 40,645. 26.
20 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 27. 0. 0. 40,645. 27.
21 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 24. 0. 0. 40,645. 24.
22 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 27. 0. 0. 40,645. 27.
23 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 28. 0. 0. 40,645. 28.
24 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 26. 0. 0. 40,645. 26.
25 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 26. 0. 0. 40,645. 26.
26 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 26. 0. 0. 40,645. 26.
27 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 25. 0. 0. 40,645. 25.
28 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 25. 0. 0. 40,645. 25.
29 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 26. 0. 0. 40,645. 26.
30 0. 0. 0. 0. 40,645. 25. 0. 0. 40,645. 25.

RR

Appendix I2. Comparison of projected quarantined herds versus ac-
tual quarantined herds, current bovine brucellosis program, I976-84

Appendix I5. Comparison of projected MCI cattle tested versus ac-
tual MCI cattle tested, current bovine brucellosis program, I976-84

APHIS Projected Actual Percent deviation APHIS Projected Actual Percent deviation
Model fiscal quarantined quarantined projected vs. Model fiscal MCI cattle MCI cattle projected vs.
year year herds herds actual year year tested tested actual
1 1976 15,852 16,910 -6.3 1 1976 13,528,947 15,657,074 -13.6
2 1977 14,731 14,332 2.8 2 1977 13,410,233 14,150,463 -5 2
3 1978 14,052 14,692 -4.4 3 1978 12,795,314 14,377,108 -11.0
4 1979 13,749 13,872 -0.9 4 1979 10,993,468 11,359,104 -3.2
5 1980 12,137 12,751 -4.8 5 1980 11,558,625 11,296,791 2.3
6 1981 12,659 13,218 -4.2 6 1981 12,264,209 12,507,445 -1.9
7 1982 11,675 11,706 -0.3 7 1982 13,250,090 13,102,705 1.1
8 1983 9,988 9,866 1.2 8 1983 15,093,959 15,603,713 -3.3
9 1984 8,467 8,449 0.2 9 1984 15,354,022 15,233,587 0.8

Appendix I6. Comparison of projected number of official vaccinates
versus actual number of official vaccinates, current bovine brucellosis
program, 1976-84

Appendix I3. Comparison of projected quarantined cows versus ac-
tual quarantined cows, current bovine brucellosis program, I976-84

APHIS Projected Actual Percent deviation APHIS Projected Actual Percent deviation
Model fiscal quarantined quarantined projected vs. Model fiscal official official projected vs.
year year cows cows actual year year vaccinates vaccinates actual
1 1976 233,418 186,663 25.0 1 1976 3,840,547 3,840,623 a
2 1977 182,942 161,922 13.0 2 1977 3,840,547 3,757,906 2.2
3 1978 141,778 171,035 -17.1 3 1978 4,057,945 4,057,952 a
4 1979 128,983 141,128 -8.6 4 1979 5,089,389 5,089,403 a
5 1980 137,878 143,888 -4.2 5 1980 5,835,820 5,835,858 a
6 1981 149,120 142,342 4.8 6 1981 6,868,424 6,868,416 a
7 1982 139,260 124,723 11.7 7 1982 7,549,136 7,549,136 0
8 1983 107,560 105,840 1.6 8 1983 7,854,161 8,070,418 -2.7
9 1984 88,756 83,059 6.9 9 1984 8,819,874 8,837,746 -0.2

Appendix I4. Comparison of projected on-farm tests versus actual on-

farm tests, current bovine brucellosis program, I976-84

APHIS Projected Actual Percent deviation
Model fiscal on-farm on-farm projected vs.
year year tests tests actual
1 1976 9,359,701 7,350,000 27.3
2 1977 8,165,627 7,270,000 12.3
3 1978 7,496,619 6,990,000 7.2
4 1979 6,941,869 6,710,000 3.5
5 1980 6,965,980 6,990,000 -0.3
6 1981 7,584,656 7,600,000 -0.2
7 1982 7,507,380 6,920,000 8.5
8 1983 6,423,371 6,240,000 2.9
9 1984 5,983,578 5,445,708 9.9

O0
>J>

aLess than 0.005.

\ Appendix 17. Quarantined infected beef and dairy cows, by program, United States, 1976-2005’

Baseline- Baseline- N0 program No program
25% increase 25% decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency N0 calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program” vaccinationb vaccinationb
1976 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101 207,101
26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317 26,317
233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418 233,418
1980 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096 127,096
10, 782 10,782 10,782 10,782 10,782 10,782 10,782 10,782 10,782
137,878 137,878 137,878 137,878 137,878 137,878 137,787 137,878 137,878
1985 55,373 70,662 59,926 53,208 84,410 53,677 0 0 0
3,507 3,222 3,102 3,088 3,316 3,426 11,154 11,154 11,154
58,880 73,884 63,028 56,296 87,726 57,103 11,154 11,154 11,154
1990 44,646 28,035 3,648 69 14,435 46,653 0 0 0
3,010 1,791 709 78 1,127 3,044 45,413 18,533 7,999
47,656 29,826 4,357 147 15,562 49,697 45,413 18,533 7,999
1995 53,075 21,655 1,349 6 9,180 59,939 0 0 0
3,083 1,297 287 20 672 3,353 195,364 44,203 10,611
56,158 22,952 1,636 26 8,852 63,292 195,364 44,203 10,611
2000 55,584 15,858 175 1 6,214 71,081 0 0 0
3,178 1,016 117 15 485 3,800 582,903 96,961 15,664
58, 762 16,874 292 16 6,699 74,881 582,903 96,961 15,664
2005 70,008 13,875 123 0 6,290 104,115 0 0 0
3,216 729 85 14 410 4,448 1,283,950 192,019 23,936
73,224 14,604 208 14 6,700 108,563 1,283,950 192,019 23,936
“Data by year and program reflect beef, dairy and total, respectively.
bQuarantined dairy cows after 1984 are identified infected dairy cows.
Appendix 18. Undetected infected beef and dairy cows, by program, United States, 1976-20051‘
Baseline- Baseline- No program No program
25% increase 25% increase with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
1976 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304 130,304
1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449 1,449
131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753 131,753
1980 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393 105,393
708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708 708
106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101 106,101
1985 59,551 49,149 38,504 2,089 40,040 61,241 138,212 138,212 138,212
236 192 144 4 170 239 1,991 1,991 1,991
a 59,787 49,341 38,648 2,093 40,210 61,480 140,203 140,203 140,203
1990 53,428 24,381 6,675 108 10,487 62,160 630,240 364,278 225,707
161 88 28 0 56 165 8,951 3,664 1,589
53,589 24,469 6,703 108 10,543 62,325 639,191 367,942 227,296
1995 63,823 19,568 2,569 19 6,986 85,620 2,302,638 846,370 327,270
159  64 11 0 34 170 41,223 9,114 2,154
63,982 3 19,632 2,580 19 7,020 85,790 2,343,861 855,484 329,424
2000 62,283 12,320 799 3 4,357 100,696 5,001,884 1,629,074 482,051
152 51 5 0 24 172 129,349 20,629 3,239
62,435 12,371 804 3 4,381 100,868 5,131,233 1,649,703 485,290
2005 78,183 10,379 455 2 4,182 151,996 8, 706,496 2,913,847 750,698
161 39 3 0 23 208 301,540 42,240 5,066
78,344 10,418 458 2 4,205 152,204 9,008,036 2,956,087 755,764

“Data by year and program reflect beef, dairy and total, respectively.

35

Appendix 19. Total infected beef and dairy cows, by program, 1976-2005“

Baseline- Baseline- N0 program N0 program
25% increase 25% increase with 45% with 45%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
1976 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406 337,406
27,766 27,766 27,766 27,766 27,766 27,766 27,766 27,766 fj 27,766
365,172 365,172 365,172 365,172 365,172 365,172 365,172 365,172  365,172
1980 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489 232,489
11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490 11,490
243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979 243,979
1985 114,923 119,812 98,430 55,297 124,450 114,918 138,212 138,212 138,212
3,743 3,415 3,246 3,092 3,486 3,665 13,145 13,145 13,145
118,666 123,227 101,676 58,389 127,936 118,583 151,357 151,357 151,357
1990 98,074 52,416 10,324 177 24,922 108,813 630,240 364,278 225, 707
3,171 1,879 737 78 1,183 3,210 54,364 22,197 9,588
101,245 54,295 11,061 255 26,105 112,023 684,604 386,475 235,295
1995 116,898 41,224 3,917 25' 16,167 145,558 2,302,638 846,370 327,270
3,242 1,362 298 20 706 3,523 236,588 53,317 12,765
120,140 42,586 4,215 45 16,873 149,081 2,539,226 899,687 340,035
2000 117,867 28,178 975 4 10,571 171,777 5,001,884 1,629,074 482,051
3,330 1,067 122 15 508 3,973 712,253 117,591 18,903
121,197 29,245 1,097 19 11,079 175,750 5,714,137 1,746,665 500,954
2005 148,192 24,254 577 2 10,473 256,111 8,706,496 2,913,847 750,698
3,378 768 88 14 433 4,656 1,585,491 243,260 29,002
151,570 25,022 665 16 10,906 260,767 10,291,987 3,148,107 779,700

aData by year and program reflect beef, dairy, and total, respectively.

Appendix 20. Beef and dairy weaner calf losses, by program, United States, 1976-2005“

Baseline- Baseline- No program No program
25% increase 25% decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency No calfhood calfhood
Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination
, _ One-thousand pounds

1976 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029 47,029
579 579 579 579 579 579 579 579 579

47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608 47,608

1980 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782 31,782
252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252

32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034 32,034

1985 15,993 16,295 13,296 6,892 16,659 16,047 22,790 22,790 22,790
80 72 68 62 73 78 312 312 312

16,073 16,367 13,364 6,954 16,732 16,125 23,102 23,102 23,102

1990 13,323 7,030 1,412 27 3,324 14,833 88,637 48,386 28,577
68 40 16 2 25 69 1,234 478 197

13,391 7,070 1,428 29 3,349 14,902 89,871 48,864 28,774

1995 15,971 5,540 548 4 2,170 19,978 319,773 111,838 40,910
69 29 6 b 15 76 5,337 1,149 263

16,040 5,569 554 4 2,185 20,054 325,110 112,987 41,173

2000 16,019 3,752 142 1 1,420 23,429 671,355 211,223 59,889
71 22 3 b 1 1 86 16,042 2,549 394

16,090 3,774 145 1 1,431 23,515 687,397 213,772 60,283

2005 20,519 3,275 88 b 1,427 35,535 1,171,135 382,437 94,852
73 16 2 b 9 101 35,349 5,033 602

20,592 3,291 90 1 1,436 35,636 1,206,484 387,470 95,454

“Data by year and program reflect beef, dairy, and total, respectively.
bLess than 500 pounds.

36

AAppendiX 21. Dairy milk losses, by program, United State, 1976-2005

Baseline— Baseline— No program No program
25% increase 25% decrease with 45% with 75%
Baseline Current Realistic Theoretical in efficiency in efficiency N0 calfhood calfhood

Year program program eradication eradication in C regions in C regions program vaccination vaccination

Hundredweight
1976 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193 619,193
1980 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664 262,664
1985 87,267 80,737 77,336 75,884 82,200 85,447 293,039 293,039 293,039
1990 73,572 45,744 17,950 1,872 27,258 73,544 1,230,802 505,187 220,145
1995 74,488 33,802 7,255 422 15,913 78,832 5,320,266 1,202,901 289,916
2000 75,844 27,004 2,866 310 11,222 87,157 16,080,474 2,639,852 424,144
2005 76,099 19,235 2,124 299 9,360 100,226 35,815,037 5,301,481 650,074

37

Mention of a trademark or a proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or a warranty of the product by The Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that also may be suitable.

All programs and information of The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station are available to everyone without regard to race, color, . .
religion. sex. age. handicap. or national origin.

2M-—4-86