Assessment of the cost effectiveness of compulsory testing of introduced animals and bulk tank milk testing for bovine viral diarrhea in Japan

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1.. Evaluation of the control measures. The numbers of detected (A) and missed cattle (B), and total cost (C) in each of six scenarios were compared. NN; implementation of neither compulsory testing of introduced animals nor BTM testing, NB; implementation of BTM testing but no compulsory testing of introduced animals, HN; implementation of compulsory testing of introduced heifers but no BTM testing, HB; implementation of compulsory testing of introduced heifers and BTM testing, AN; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced animals but no BTM testing, AB; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced animals and BTM testing. The bar indicates the median number of each output, and the ends of the whiskers of each bar represents 5th percentiles.

• 

  Fig. 2.. Evaluation of the control measures in different vaccination coverage in outside. The numbers of detected (A) and missed cattle (B), and total cost (C) in each of four scenarios were compared under each of five vaccination coverages in outside from which animals would be transferred to the target area (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). HN; implementation of compulsory testing of introduced non-vaccinated heifers but no BTM testing, HB; implementation of compulsory testing of introduced non-vaccinated heifers and BTM testing, AN; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced non-vaccinated animals but no BTM testing, AB; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced non-vaccinated animals and BTM testing. The bar indicates the median number of each output, and the end of the whiskers of each bar represents 5th percentile.

• 

  Fig. 3.. Evaluation of the control measures under low BVDV prevalence. The number of detected (A) and missed cattle (B) in each of three scenarios were compared under each of three vaccination coverages in outside (0%, 50%, and 100%), and under each of two BVDV prevalence (0.1% or 0.025%) in the target area. HB; implementation of compulsory testing of introduced non-vaccinated heifers and BTM testing, AN; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced non-vaccinated animals but no BTM testing, AB; implementation of compulsory testing of all introduced non-vaccinated animals and BTM testing. The bar indicates the median number, and the end of the whiskers of each bar represents 5th percentile.

• 

  Fig. 4.. Simulation of BVDV prevalence after continuous implementation of the control measures. The BVDV prevalence in each year was assumed using the number of missed cattle despite all control measures in the scenario and estimated natural infection. Simulations of each control measure were repeated from 0.40% of prevalence (0 year) to 15 years. Abbreviations of the scenarios were same as ones in Fig. 1.

• 

  Fig. 5.. Simulation of BVDV prevalence after continuous implementation of the control measures in different vaccination coverage in outside. The BVDV prevalence in each year was assumed using the number of missed cattle despite all control measures in the scenario and estimated natural infection. Simulations of each control measure were repeated from 0.40% of prevalence (0 year) to 15 years. Abbreviations of the scenarios were same as ones in Fig. 2.