Economic Impact of Lumpy Skin Disease
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).
- 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
- 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
- Thrusfield M (2005) The economics of infectious diseases. In: Veterinary epidemiology. Blackwell Science, London, pp 357–367Google Scholar