Abstract
Immunization through vaccination has been a commercially available pre-harvest intervention to reduce E. coli shedding in cattle for about five years. Despite demonstrated substantial improvement in human health that vaccine adoption offers, it has not been widely adopted. This highlights the need for understanding the economic situation underlying limited adoption. Using an equilibrium displacement model, this study identifies the economic impact to U.S. feedlots implementing this vaccination across a series of alternative scenarios. Producers face $1 billion to $1.8 billion in welfare losses over 10 years if they adopt this technology without any associated increases in demand for fed cattle. Retail beef demand increases of 1.7% to 3.0% or export demand increases of 18.1% to 32.6% would each individually make producers economically neutral to adoption. Retail or packer cost decreases of 1.2% to 3.9% would likewise be sufficient to make producers neutral to adoption.
Highlights
Vaccination against E. coli O157:H7 and fecal shedding has been available in the United States for over five years with the first licensed vaccine approved in February 2009
The equilibrium displacement model (EDM) is composed of four sectors in the beef industry: 1) retail, 2) wholesale, 3) fed cattle, and 4) farm
When feedlot operators implement E. coli vaccination protocols one main direct impact serves as the initial shock in our EDM
Summary
Vaccination against E. coli O157:H7 and fecal shedding has been available in the United States for over five years with the first licensed vaccine approved in February 2009. A couple of noteworthy studies have examined the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing fed cattle fecal concentrations of E. coli O157:H7 and in its impact on cattle feeding performance. Thomson et al (2009) found use of the SRP® vaccine reduced fecal shedding concentrations in fed cattle by up to 98% and cattle feeding performance was unaffected. Cull et al (2012) identified a small, but statistically and economically important, reduction in cattle feeding performance associated with vaccinating. The reduction in animal performance was hypothesized to be associated with the second vaccination where the vaccinated animals were processed in a chute an additional time relative to the control non-vaccinated cattle. In Thomson et al (2009) the control cattle were vaccinated with a placebo each time, so the numbers of chute processes were the same for the control and E. coli vaccinated cattle. Running cattle through a chute can result in cattle shrink that may not be fully recaptured when placed back on feed and can temporarily disrupt cattle feed intake (Blasi et al 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
