Economic Impact of Lumpy Skin Disease

  • Eyal Klement


The incidence of LSD is the first factor which determines its direct economic impact. This depends on the abundance of vectors, the susceptibility of the host and the use of preventive measures (Gari et al. 2011). It can reach even 85% in an affected herd if no preventive measures are applied (Tuppurainen and Oura 2011). Case fatality is also an important factor, influencing the economic impact of a disease. However, accurate estimation of case fatality is very difficult to provide as in most of the developed countries, sick animals are culled and in developing countries, the exact pathological reason for natural animal death is not always provided. In an interview-based study performed in Ethiopia, a case fatality of 9.3% and 21.9% was reported in zebu and crossbred/Holstein Friesian cattle, respectively (Gari et al. 2011). In Albania the case fatality reported was 5.8% (364/6235) (AHAW 2017). Turkish researchers reported a much higher case fatality in cattle in Turkey, reaching 54.8% in Holstein cattle (Sevik and Dogan 2016). Mortality (which is the product of incidence and case fatality) usually does not exceed 1%–3% for LSD in most situations (Tuppurainen and Oura 2011).


  1. Agianniotaki EI, Tasioudi KE, Chaintoutis SC, Iliadou P, Mangana-Vougiouka O, Kirtzalidou A, Alexandropoulos T, Sachpatzidis A, Plevraki E, Dovas CI, Chondrokouki E (2017) Lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Greece during 2015-16, implementation of emergency immunization and genetic differentiation between field isolates and vaccine virus strains. Vet Microbiol 201:78–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alemayehu G, Zewde G, Admassu B (2013) Risk assessments of lumpy skin diseases in Borena bull market chain and its implication for livelihoods and international trade. Trop Anim Health Prod 45:1153–1159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Gera J, Klement E, Khinich E, Stram Y, Shpigel NY (2015) Comparison of the efficacy of Neethling lumpy skin disease virus and x10RM65 sheep-pox live attenuated vaccines for the prevention of lumpy skin disease: the results of a randomized controlled field study. Vaccine 33:4837–4842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) (2015) Scientific opinion on lumpy skin disease. EFSA J 13(1):3986. Scholar
  5. Gari G, Bonnet P, Roger F, Waret-Szkuta A (2011) Epidemiological aspects and financial impact of lumpy skin disease in Ethiopia. Prev Vet Med 102:274–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Irons PC, Tuppurainen ES, Venter EH (2005) Excretion of lumpy skin disease virus in bull semen. Theriogenology 63:1290–1297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Peck D, Bruce M (2017) The economic efficiency and equity of government policies on brucellosis: comparative insights from Albania and the United States of America. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz 36:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sevik M, Dogan M (2017) Epidemiological and molecular studies on lumpy skin disease outbreaks in Turkey during 2014-2015. Transbound Emerg Dis 64(4):1268–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Thrusfield M (2005) The economics of infectious diseases. In: Veterinary epidemiology. Blackwell Science, London, pp 357–367Google Scholar
  10. Tuppurainen ES, Oura CA (2011) Lumpy skin disease: an emerging threat to Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Transbound Emerg Dis 59:40–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eyal Klement
    • 1
  1. 1.Koret School of Veterinary MedicineThe Hebrew UniversityRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations