the economic impact of peste des petits ruminants...

Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2017, 36 (1), 245-263

The economic impact of peste des petits ruminants in India

D. Bardhan (1)*, S. Kumar (2), G. Anandsekaran (1), J.K. Chaudhury (3), M. Meraj (1), R.K. Singh (1), M.R. Verma (1), D. Kumar (1), N. Kumar P.T. (1), S. Ahmed Lone (1), V. Mishra (1), B.S. Mohanty (1), N. Korade (1) & U.K. De (4)

(1) Division of Livestock Economics, Statistics & Information Technology; Indian Council of Agricultural Research–Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.), India(2) Agricultural Research Information System (ARIS)/Computer Cell, Indian Council of Agricultural Research–Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.), India(3) Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Central Agricultural University, Aizawl (Mizoram), India(4) Division of Veterinary Medicine, Indian Council of Agricultural Research–Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.), India*Corresponding author: [email protected]

SummaryPeste des petits ruminants (PPR) is an economically important livestock disease which affects a vast section of the small ruminant population in India. However, data on the incidence of PPR are limited and scant literature is available on the economic losses caused by the disease. In the present study, a structured sampling design was adopted, which covered the major agro-climatic regions of the country, to ascertain the morbidity and mortality rates of PPR. Available estimates of the economic losses in India due to various livestock diseases are based on single values of various epidemiological and economic parameters. Stochastic modelling was used to estimate the economic impact of PPR. Overall annual morbidity and mortality rates of PPR for small ruminants in India have been estimated from the sample as being 8%and 3.45%, respectively. The authors have analysed variations in these rates across species, age group, sex, season and region. The expected annual economic loss due to PPR in India ranges from as little as US $2 million to $18 million and may go up to US $1.5 billion; the most likely range of expected economic losses is between US $653 million and $669 million. This study thus reveals significant losses due to the incidence of PPR in small ruminants in India.

KeywordsAnimal disease – Caprine – Economic impact – Economics – Epidemiology – Goat – India – Ovine – Peste des petits ruminants – Sheep – Small ruminant – Stochastic modelling.

IntroductionPeste des petits ruminants (PPR) is an acute contagious disease affecting goat and sheep populations in the Indian subcontinent (1). Morbidity and mortality rates vary, but have been reported to be as high as 100% in goats and 90% in sheep (2). In a study based on official Government of India reports for a 15-year period (1991–2005), it was reported that PPR accounted for up to one-third of the disease incidence (32.3%) in goats in India and two-fifths of their deaths (41.5%) from all diseases (3). At present, PPR outbreaks are reported regularly and the disease is considered endemic in many parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa (4).

From an economic perspective, disease control should involve optimising resources at the farm level, as well as the national level, since resources are scarce and have alternative uses. An estimation of the economic impact of the disease is needed for an economic analysis to optimise resource allocation (5). Such estimations provide a description of the actual situation and allow us to explore the balance between production losses and control costs, so that we can identify areas in which losses can be avoided by reducing the risk of disease. The available literature documenting the economic impact caused by PPR within the Indian context is scarce.

Singh et al. (6) estimated the economic losses due to PPR in India at US $0.25 million/year, using official data on the incidence and number of deaths. This estimate would

doi: 10.20506/rst.36.1.2626

246 Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (1)

appear to be too low and reflects the under-reporting of animal disease. Each year, the Department of Dairying, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries of the Government of India reports the annual number of cases and deaths due to major livestock diseases in the various states of India. In the case of PPR, combined data are reported on the incidence of PPR and the number of deaths in ovines and caprines. Based on the last five-year data sets (between 2011 and 2015), average estimated morbidity and mortality rates are very low, ranging between 0.0003% and 0.001% for morbidity and 0.002% and 0.07% for mortality in different states.

The authors also used surveys to estimate losses due to PPR, and this figure was approximately US $1.338 million/year. The more refined estimate is probably closer to the reality of PPR in India, but is not based on pan-India morbidity and mortality rates. Therefore, an all-India study is needed to determine the annual incidence rate of PPR, estimate the economic losses caused by the disease and fill the gaps in our knowledge. Such a study would ideally take into account the uncertainty of the epidemiological and economic parameters, both in time and across the different geographical regions of India.

The present study will address the identified gaps. The authors have the specific objective of assessing the morbidity and mortality patterns of PPR in small ruminant populations in different agro-climatic regions in India, in order to estimate the economic losses caused by this disease.

Materials and methodsThe study was planned according to the overall framework given by Rushton et al. (7) to assess the impact of livestock diseases. The study was conducted at the farm level and the target groups were owners of small ruminants in India. As there is under-reporting in the official data, the authors relied upon primary data collected on the farm in the major agro-climatic regions of the country. Simple mathematical models were used to assess the economic impact of PPR and stochastic analysis of these economic losses was then carried out.

Sampling

Primary data were collected using a household survey in 12 of the 15 different Indian agro-climatic regions (as identified by the Planning Commission of India). The study was restricted to mainland India, so the island region was not covered. The Eastern Coastal Plains and Hills region and the Western Coastal Plains and Ghats region are two thin strips of land on either side of the coast in the lower part of India. These two regions have very low densities of sheep and goats, and so were not covered in the survey.

A stratified multi-stage sampling technique was used to select the households (the ultimate sampling unit). For each agro-climatic zone, the state with the largest population of small ruminants was selected. Uttar Pradesh, the largest Indian state in terms of geographical area, covers three agro-climatic zones. Two districts were selected from each agro-climatic zone in each selected state. One of these districts was the one with the largest population of sheep and goats; the other was selected randomly (see Table I). Two blocks were selected within each district, and three villages were randomly selected from each block. From each village, 20 households, with at least one goat or sheep, were interviewed. A total of 1,280 households and 54,803 small ruminants were included in the survey (see Table II for further details).

Data

Data were collected on the epidemiological and economic parameters of PPR using indirect visual surveillance (8) and participatory disease surveillance (9, 10, 11, 12). Focused group discussions were held at village level to understand how farmers identified the various diseases that affected their animals, and to rank these diseases in order of importance.

Table I Districts selected for the study in each agro-climatic region

Region State Districts

Western Himalayan Region Jammu and Kashmir BandiporaRajouri

Eastern Himalayan Region Meghalaya Western Garo HillsWestern Khashi Hills

Middle Gangetic Plains Uttar Pradesh BehraichBijnor

Upper Gangetic Plains Uttar Pradesh KheriKaushambi

Trans-Gangetic Plains Haryana BhiwaniHissar

Lower Gangetic Plains West Bengal MurshidabadBurdwan

Eastern Plateau and Hills Orissa MayurbhanjKeonjhar

Central Plateau and Hills Uttar Pradesh JalaunBanda

Western Plateau and Hills Maharashtra NashikAhmed Nagar

Southern Plateau and Hills Tamil Nadu ErodeNamakkal

Gujarat Plains and Hills Gujarat KaachBanaskantha

Western Dry Region Rajasthan BarmerBikaner

247Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36 (1)

The researchers contacted the local Government Veterinary Officer in each of the administrative blocks where the survey was being carried out, to explain the objectives of the survey and focus groups. The Veterinary Officer then nominated several farmers for the focus group, based on his or her information about reports of disease outbreaks among small ruminants in the selected villages. In addition, a few members of the focus group were randomly selected by the group moderator/interviewer. Ten members in total formed the focus group for each selected block.

Each household selected for the sample was surveyed to collect detailed information using a questionnaire, supported by a disease identification checklist based on clinical symptoms and photographs. The questionnaire was divided into five sections. The first section asked for a description of the sample household and its characteristics. The second section covered the household’s livestock holding and details of breedable animals (small ruminants). The third section dealt with the details of live animals, their produce and sales (yield, uses, amount of produce or number of livestock sold, sale price of produce and livestock). The fourth section covered animal health management and details of any PPR-infected animals (species, sex, age). The fifth section dealt with the effects of the disease (mortality and morbidity) and contained questions on the market value of the animal, disease duration, decreases in milk/wool production, loss of body weight, abortion, increased inter-kidding/lambing period, the price of any new-born animals, and the costs of treatment and vaccination. The questionnaire was comprehensive and pre-tested. Data were collected between January and December 2015.

Estimation of losses due to peste des petits ruminants

The total economic losses due to PPR were worked out as the sum of morbidity and mortality losses and treatment costs. The components of losses due to PPR in sheep and goats are summarised in Table III. The methodology for sheep and goats is as follows.

The total economic loss (TL) due to PPR in goats is worked out as the sum of (A) mortality loss, (B) direct loss in milk yield, (C) losses due to reproductive failure, (D) loss in body weight and (E) the costs of treatment for affected goats. In the case of sheep, the total economic loss (TL) due to PPR is worked out as the sum of (A) mortality loss, (B) direct loss in wool yield, (C) losses due to reproductive failure, (D) loss in body weight and (E) the costs of treatment for affected sheep.

Thus, the total economic loss in either sheep or goats is expressed as:

TL = A + B + C + D + E

Loss from mortality

This was worked out as the product of the number of animals that died due to PPR (DA: more than 12 months of age; DY: between 6 to 12 months; and DK/L: below 6 months of age), and the probable market value (PA, PY, and PK/L, respectively) of the animal. Mortality losses were categorised by age group because earlier studies have reported significant differences in deaths according to age (5, 6).

A = DAPA+ DY PY + DK/LPK/L

Value of direct loss through reduction in milk yield (goats)

When examining direct losses due to PPR in goats per year, these losses were expressed in terms of the reduction in milk yield. Using the price of the milk, these losses could

Table II Number of animals surveyed, by agro-climatic region

RegionNo. of animals surveyed

Goats Sheep Total

Western Himalayan Region 3,652 6,865 10,517

Eastern Himalayan Region 218 8 226

Middle Gangetic Plains 876 197 1,073

Upper Gangetic Plains 1,408 215 1,623

Trans-Gangetic Plains 1,751 5,003 6,754

Lower Gangetic Plains 954 126 1,080

Eastern Plateau and Hills 2,222 489 2,711

Central Plateau and Hills 323 232 555

Western Plateau and Hills 2,304 2,368 4,672

Southern Plateau and Hills 1,888 3,358 5,246

Gujarat Plains and Hills 6,291 10,508 16,798

Western Dry Region 1,667 1,880 3,547

Total 23,554 31,249 54,803

Table III Components of losses due to peste des petits ruminants in sheep and goats

Sheep Goats

A. Mortality loss A. Mortality loss

B. Wool loss B. Milk loss

C. Reproductive failure C. Reproductive failure

a. Increased inter-lambing period a. Increased inter-kidding period

b. Increased abortions b. Increased abortions

D. Body weight loss D. Body weight loss

E. Treatment cost E. Treatment cost


be directly converted into monetary terms. The loss due to a direct decline in milk production (which is not regained when the animal recovers) was calculated using the formula:

B = (I – D) PL L Z M

Value of direct loss through reduction in wool yield (sheep)

When examining losses in sheep of shearing age per year, these losses were expressed in terms of reduced wool yield. The price of wool can also be directly converted into monetary terms. The fall in wool production in diseased sheep is never regained, and thus constitutes a significant form of loss. The loss caused by the direct decline in wool yield is estimated using the formula:

B = (I – D) PH YL YW MW

Losses due to reproductive failure

Goats:

C = C1 + C2

C1 : losses due to increased abortions.

C1 = C11 + C12

C11: milk loss due to increased abortions.

Peste des petits ruminants can cause abortions, particularly in late pregnancy, and, in addition to the loss of kids, leads to an increased inter-kidding period. Assuming abortion occurs at around 3.5 months from conception, and there is a delay of six months until the next conception, the inter-kidding period is increased by 9.5 months in animals which abort. The milk loss due to increased abortions was estimated from the following equation.

C11 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + 9.5)}] (I – D) PL AZ M

C12: cost of live weight loss due to increased abortions.

The reduction in the number of kids, due to an increased number of abortions in goats after infection, caused a loss in live body weight, which was estimated by the formula:

C12 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + 9.5)}] (I – D) PL ANK PC

C2: losses due to increased inter-kidding interval.

C2 = C21 + C22

C21: milk loss due to increase of inter-kidding interval.

Non-conception as a result of disease increases the inter-kidding period and thus fewer goats will be in milk at any given time, and milk output is reduced. The loss of milk was calculated by the reduction in lactating goats in any year multiplied by the average milk yield per in-milk goat per year and by the price, M.

C21 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + W)}] (I – D) PL (1 – A) ZM

C22: cost of loss in live weight, due to increased inter-kidding interval.

The reduction in the number of kids, due to the increased inter-kidding period after infection, caused a loss in live body weight. Such losses were obtained by the formula:

C22 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + W)}] (I – D) PL (1 – A) NK PC

Sheep

C = C1 + C2

C1: loss in body weight due to increase in abortions.

A reduction in the number of lambs born, due to the increase in abortions, causes a loss in live body weight. Such losses are estimated by the formula:

C1 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + 9.5)}] (I – D) PL A NK BW PW

C2: loss in body weight due to increased inter-lambing period.

Fewer lambs born due to an increased inter-lambing period after infection causes a loss in body weight. Such losses are estimated by the formula:

C2 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + W)}] (I – D) PL (1– AI) NK BW PW

Loss in body weight

The direct loss due to the reduction in body weight is estimated by the formula:

D = (I – D) (1 – PL) WL WA PW

Cost of treatment

E = I TC

The original models were deterministic, based upon single values of various epidemiological and economic parameters. To take account of variation and uncertainty, a stochastic simulation model was developed to determine variations in


the economic losses (13). Simulation runs were carried out, based on 2,000 iterations. The output from these iterations was used to develop probability distributions of expected economic losses due to PPR in India.

A sensitivity analysis was also carried out, to ascertain the parameters to which the estimates of economic loss were most sensitive. Economic losses were calculated with all parameters set to their mean, except for one parameter. For this parameter, the maximum and minimum values were taken separately and the new value of economic loss computed. This exercise was repeated for all the parameters.

Results and discussionMorbidity and mortality rates of peste des petits ruminants

Considering all the categories and sub-categories of small ruminants, the overall annual morbidity and mortality rates in India have been estimated from this sample as 8% and 3.45%, respectively (Fig. 1). In areas in South Asia in which outbreaks have occurred, very high morbidity and mortality rates of between 35% and 60% have been reported in individual flocks (14, 15). However, in endemic areas, it is understood that morbidity and mortality are comparatively low (8). From the samples in this study, the morbidity and mortality rates for goats (11.51% and 4.36%, respectively) were significantly higher than those for sheep (5.35% and

2.77%, respectively). Earlier studies had also reported a more pronounced severity of the disease in goats than in sheep (2, 16, 17, 18). The case fatality rate, on the other hand, was higher in sheep (51.89%) than in goats (37.83%) (Fig. 2), indicating that, although goats are more susceptible to PPR infection, the pathogenicity of the disease is greater in sheep. These observations need to be further supported by controlled trials.

Fig. 1 Morbidity and mortality rates in animals surveyed

Fig. 2Case fatality rates among sheep and goats

11.51

5.35

8

4.36 2.77

3.45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Goats Sheep Total

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

37.83

51.89

43.19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Goats Sheep Total

Perc

enta

ge

Table IV Proportional morbidity and mortality due to peste des petits ruminants, by species

Species Population at risk Cases Deaths Proportional morbidity (%) Proportional mortality (%)

Goats 23,554 2,711 1,027 61.88 54.20

Sheep 31,249 1,672 866 38.12 45.80

Total 54,803 4,383 1,893 100.00 100.00

Goats accounted for a higher proportion of morbidity and mortality (61.88% and 54.20%, respectively) due to PPR than sheep (38.12% and 45.8%, respectively) (Table IV) (Figs 3a and 3b).

The incidence rates may vary across age group, sex, season and region, as well as species. Morbidity rates (15.52% for goats and 9.69% for sheep) were highest in kids and lambs, followed by young animals (10.78% for goats and 7.15% for sheep) (Figs 4a and 4b). Mortality rates (8.16% for goats and 9.1% for sheep) were also highest in kids and lambs, followed by young animals (2.08% and 2.66%, respectively, for goats and sheep). Case fatality rates were also highest in kids and lambs (52.56% for goats and 93.91% for sheep) (Fig. 5). This indicates that susceptibility to PPR and pathogenicity differs across species, and age group within species, with the most susceptible animals being kids and young goats.


Fig. 3aProportional morbidity among sheep and goats

Fig. 5 Fatality rates among sheep and goats, by age group

Fig. 3b Proportional mortality among sheep and goats

54.2

45.8

Goats Sheep

Fig. 4b Morbidity and mortality rates among sheep, by age group

9.69

7.15

3.36

9.1

2.66

0.95

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Lambs Young animals Adults

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

61.88

38.12

Goats Sheep

0

20

40

60

80

100

Young animals Kids/Lambs Adults

Perc

enta

ge

Goats Sheep

Fig. 4a Morbidity and mortality rates among goats, by age group

15.52

10.78

7.92 8.16

2.08 1.61

20

15

10

5

0Kids Young animals Adults

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

Although morbidity rates were lowest among adult animals, this age group accounted for the highest proportion of PPR cases (41.45% and 39.77%, respectively, for goats and sheep), followed by kids (34.33%) and young goats (24.19%), and lambs (31.28%) and young sheep (28.95%) (Table V) (Figs 6a and 6b). However, looking at all age groups, mortalities due to PPR were highest in kids and lambs (57.99% and 57.18%, respectively) (Figs 7a and 7b).

In goats, morbidity and mortality rates were higher in males (16.02% and 5.89%, respectively) than in females (7.97% and 2.11%, respectively) (Fig. 8a). In sheep, morbidity and

Table V Proportional morbidity and mortality due to peste des petits ruminants in sheep and goats, by age group

Age group Population at risk Cases Deaths Proportional morbidity (%) Proportional mortality (%)

Goats

Kids 5,378 931 596 34.34 58.03

Young 5,462 656 154 24.19 14.99

Adults 12,714 1,124 277 41.46 26.97

Total 23,554 2,711 1,027 100.00 100.00

Sheep

Lambs 5,276 523 495 31.28 57.16

Young 6,617 484 181 28.95 20.90

Adults 19,356 665 190 39.77 21.93

Total 31,249 1,672 866 100.00 100.00


Fig. 6b Proportional morbidity among sheep, by age group

Fig. 6a Proportional morbidity among goats, by age group

31.28

28.95

39.77 Lambs

Young animals

Adults

34.33

24.22

41.45

Kids

Young animals

Adults

Fig. 7b Proportional mortality among sheep, by age group

Fig. 7a Proportional mortality among goats, by age group

57.18 20.93

21.89

Lambs

Young animals

Adults

57.99

15.01

26.99

Kids

Young animals

Adults

Fig. 8b Morbidity and mortality rates in sheep, by sex

Fig. 8aMorbidity and mortality rates in goats, by sex

4.93 5.32

2.66 2.69

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Male Female

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

16.02

7.97 5.89

2.11

0

5

10

15

20

Male Female

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

mortality rates in males (4.93% and 2.66%, respectively) did not differ significantly from those in females (5.32% and 2.69%, respectively) (Fig. 8b).

In both species, however, case fatality ratios were higher for males (36.8% in goats and 53.94% in sheep) than for females (26.41% in goats and 50.6% in sheep) (Fig. 9).

In the case of sheep, females accounted for a significantly higher share of morbidities and mortalities due to PPR

(76.91% and 75.75%, respectively) than males (23.11% and 24.28%, respectively) (Table VI) (Figs 10a and 10b). In goats, while there was a higher incidence of disease among females (54.69%) than among males (45.3%), more mortalities were observed in males (53.55%) than in females (46.45%) (Figs 11a and 11b).

Peste des petits ruminants was reported mostly during the winter (from November to February) and the rainy season (July to October). Among goats, the morbidity and


mortality rates were highest in the rainy season (6.21% and 2.19%, respectively), followed by those in the winter season (3.97% and 0.95%, respectively) (Fig. 12a). Among sheep, the morbidity and mortality rates were highest in the winter (3.22% and 1.92%, respectively), followed by the rainy season (1.99% and 0.76%, respectively) (Fig. 12b).

Indeed, the rainy season accounted for the highest number of cases and deaths due to PPR in goats (60.18% and 68.18%, respectively), followed by the winter season (38.44% and 29.61%, of cases and deaths, respectively) (Figs 13a and 13b). On the other hand, the highest Fig. 9

Fatality rates in sheep and goats, by sex

36.8

53.94

26.41

50.6

0

20

40

60

Goat Sheep

Perc

enta

ge

Male Female

Fig. 10a Proportional morbidity in sheep, by sex

Fig. 10b Proportional mortality in sheep, by sex

Male Female

23.09

76.91

Male Female

24.25

75.75

Fig. 11a Proportional morbidity in goats, by sex

Fig. 11b Proportional mortality in goats, by sex

45.3 54.70

Male Female

53.55 46.45

Male Female

Table VI Proportional morbidity and mortality due to peste des petits ruminants, by sex

Sex Population at risk Cases Deaths Proportional morbidity (%) Proportional mortality (%)

Goats

Males 6,876 1,228 550 45.30 53.55

Females 16,678 1,483 477 54.70 46.45

Total 23,554 2,711 1,027 100.00 100.00

Sheep

Males 7,656 386 210 23.09 24.25

Females 23,593 1,286 656 76.91 75.75

Total 31,249 1,672 866 100.00 100.00


Fig. 12a Morbidity and mortality rates in goats, by season

Fig. 13a Proportional morbidity in goats, by season

Fig. 14aProportional morbidity in sheep, by season

Fig. 12b Morbidity and mortality rates in sheep, by season

Fig. 13b Proportional mortality in goats by season

Fig. 14bProportional mortality in sheep, by season

0.14

3.97

6.21

0.07 0.95

2.19

76543210

Summer Winter Rainy

Perc

enta

ge

Morbidity Mortality

1.37

38.44

60.18 Summer

Winter

Rainy

0.18

61.58

38.22

Summer

Winter

Rainy

3.53

2.52

1.51

0.50

Morbidity Mortality

0.01

3.22

1.99

0.01

1.92

0.76

Summer Winter Rainy

Perc

enta

ge

2.20

29.61

68.18 Summer

Winter

Rainy

0.23

71.29

28.46

Summer

Winter

Rainy

morbidities and mortalities for sheep were recorded during the winter season (61.58% and 71.29%, respectively) (Figs 14a and 14b).

Figures 15a and 15b show the differing PPR morbidity and mortality rates in goats and sheep for the various agro-climatic regions in India. The highest morbidity and mortality rates were observed on the Lower Gangetic Plains

and in the Eastern Plateau and Hills zone. On the Lower Gangetic Plains, morbidity and mortality rates were higher for goats (39.73% and 31.45%, respectively) than for sheep (34.92% and 24.6%, respectively). The same was also true in the Eastern Plateau and Hills region – morbidity and mortality rates were higher in goats (36.59% and 10.48%, respectively) than in sheep (14.72% and 2.86%, respectively).


Apart from these two regions, high morbidity and mortality rates were also observed in goats in the Western Dry Region (11.16% and 10.98%, respectively), Western Himalayan region (11.91% and 1.56%, respectively), Southern Plateau and Hills region (10.22% and 2.01%, respectively), and Western Plateau and Hills region (9.98% and 1.65%, respectively).

In the case of sheep, apart from on the Lower Gangetic Plains and in the Eastern Plateau and Hills region, high morbidity and mortality rates were observed in the Gujarat

Fig. 15a Morbidity and mortality rates in goats, by agro-climatic region

Morbidity Mortality

11.91

0 3.2 4.19

6.05

39.73

36.59

0

9.98 10.22

4.37

11.16

1.56 0 2.74

0.43 0

31.45

10.48

0 1.65 2.01 2.38

10.98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

WesternHimalayan

EasternHimalayan

MiddleGangetic

Plains

UpperGangetic

Plains

Trans-Gangetic

Plains

LowerGangetic

Plains

EasternPlateauand Hills

CentralPlateauand Hills

WesternPlateauand Hills

SouthernPlateauand Hills

GujaratPlains

and Hills

WesternDry

Perc

enta

ge

Fig. 15bMorbidity and mortality rates in sheep, by agro-climatic region

Morbidity Mortality

2.62 0

2.54 0

2.74

34.92

14.72

0 4.18 4.82

8.76

2.81 0.41 0 2.03 0

0.02

24.6

2.86 0 0.72 0.68

6.79

1.97

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Perc

enta

ge

WesternHimalayan

EasternHimalayan

MiddleGangetic

Plains

UpperGangetic

Plains

Trans-Gangetic

Plains

LowerGangetic

Plains

EasternPlateauand Hills

CentralPlateauand Hills

WesternPlateauand Hills

SouthernPlateauand Hills

GujaratPlains

and Hills

WesternDry

Plains and Hills region (8.76% and 6.79%, respectively), Southern Plateau and Hills region (4.82% and 0.68%, respectively), and in the Western Plateau and Hills region (4.18% and 0.72%, respectively).

The Eastern Plateau and Hills region, Lower Gangetic Plains, Western Himalayan Region and Gujarat Plains and Hills region accounted for the major proportion of the total number of PPR cases and deaths among goats in India (Table VII) (Figs 16a and 16b). About 30% of the total morbidities were in the Eastern Plateau and Hills region,


Table VII Proportional morbidity and mortality due to peste des petits ruminants among goats, by region

Region Population at risk Cases Deaths Proportional morbidity (%) Proportional mortality (%)Western Himalayan Region 3,652 435 57 16.04 5.56Eastern Himalayan Region 218 0 0 0.00 0.00Middle Gangetic Plains 876 28 24 1.03 2.34Upper Gangetic Plains 1,408 59 6 2.18 0.58Trans-Gangetic Plains 1,751 106 0 3.91 0.00Lower Gangetic Plains 954 379 300 13.97 29.24Eastern Plateau and Hills 2,222 813 230 29.98 22.42Central Plateau and Hills 323 0 0 0.00 0.00Western Plateau and Hills 2,304 230 38 8.48 3.70Southern Plateau and Hills 1,888 193 38 7.11 3.70Gujarat Plains and Hills 6,291 283 150 10.44 14.62Western Dry Region 1,667 186 183 6.86 17.83

Total 23,554 2,712 1,026 100.00 100.00

Fig. 16a Proportional morbidity in goats, by agro-climatic regionNo morbidity was recorded in the Eastern Himalayan Region and the Central Plateau and Hills region

16.04

1.03

2.18

3.91

13.97

29.98

8.48

7.11

10.44

6.86

Western Himalayan

Middle Gangetic Plains

Upper Gangetic Plains

Trans-Gangetic Plains

Lower Gangetic Plains

Eastern Plateau and Hills

Western Plateau and Hills

Southern Plateau and Hills

Gujarat Plains and Hills

Western Dry

Fig. 16b Proportional mortality in goats, by agro-climatic regionNo mortality was recorded in the Eastern Himalayan Region, the Trans-Gangetic Plains or the Central Plateau and Hills region

Western Dry

5.56 2.34

0.58

29.24

22.42 3.7

3.7

14.62

17.83 Western Himalayan


Upper Gangetic Plains







Fig. 17a Proportional morbidity in sheep, by agro-climatic regionNo morbidity was recorded in the Eastern Himalayan Region, the Upper Gangetic Plains or the Central Plateau and Hills region

10.77

0.3

8.2

2.63

4.31

5.92

9.69

54.99

3.17

Western Himalayan








Western Dry

Table VIII Proportional morbidity and mortality due to peste des petits ruminants among sheep, by region

Region Population at risk Cases Deaths Proportional morbidity (%) Proportional mortality (%)

Western Himalayan Region 6,865 180 28 10.77 3.23

Eastern Himalayan Region 8 0 0 0.00 0.00

Middle Gangetic Plains 197 5 4 0.30 0.46

Upper Gangetic Plains 215 0 0 0.00 0.00

Trans-Gangetic Plains 5,003 137 1 8.20 0.11

Lower Gangetic Plains 126 44 31 2.63 3.58

Eastern Plateau and Hills 489 72 14 4.31 1.61

Central Plateau and Hills 232 0 0 0.00 0.00

Western Plateau and Hills 2,368 99 17 5.92 1.96

Southern Plateau and Hills 3,358 162 23 9.69 2.65

Gujarat Plains and Hills 10,507 919 712 54.99 82.12

Western Dry Region 1,880 53 37 3.17 4.27

Total 31,248 1,672 866 100.00 100.00

followed by the Western Himalayan Region (16.04%), Lower Gangetic Plains (13.97%), and the Gujarat Plains and Hills region (10.44%). The highest number of deaths occurred on the Lower Gangetic Plains (29.24%), followed by the Eastern Plateau and Hills region (22.42%), the Western Dry Region (17.83%), and the Gujarat Plains and Hills region (14.62%). Among sheep, the proportion of morbidities and mortalities was highest in the Gujarat Plains and Hills region (54.99% and 82.12%, respectively) (Table VIII) (Figs 17a and 17b). Other regions where a relatively high incidence of PPR was observed in sheep were the Western Himalayan Region (10.77%), the Southern

Plateau and Hills region (9.69%), and the Trans-Gangetic Plains region (8.2%).

Table IX presents the proportion of morbidity and mortality of PPR in sheep and goats in different states, based on official data. West Bengal, representing the Lower Gangetic Plains, accounted for the highest incidence of PPR (27.38%), followed by Gujarat (20.96%), representing Gujarat Plains and Hills region. The highest proportion of deaths were found in Gujarat (23.40%), followed by West Bengal (23.24%). Rajasthan followed, representing the Western Dry Region (16.91% and 7.19%, respectively), then Tamil


Fig. 17b Proportional mortality in sheep, by agro-climatic regionNo morbidity was recorded in the Eastern Himalayan Region, the Upper Gangetic Plains or the Central Plateau and Hills region

3.23 0.46 0.11 3.58

1.61 1.96

2.65

82.12

4.27 Western Himalayan








Western Dry

Nadu, representing the Southern Plateau and Hills region (10.69% and 17.09%, respectively). These figures are in line with the proportional morbidity and mortality obtained in this study, specifically for the Lower Gangetic Plains, Gujarat Plains and Hills region, Southern Plateau and Hills region, Western Dry Region and Trans-Gangetic Region. The figures on proportional morbidity and mortality obtained from the

sample survey carried out in this study diverge from those in the official data, reported by the Government of India, in the cases of Odisha (Eastern Plateau and Hills region) and Jammu and Kashmir (the Western Himalayan Region). While Odisha accounted for the highest incidence of PPR, as in the sample survey data, only 2.64% of morbidities in India were reported from this state in the official figures. In the

Table IX Proportion of morbidity and mortality (%) due to peste des petits ruminants in different statesSource: Official reports of the number of cases and deaths due to livestock diseases between 2011 and 2015, published in various issues of Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics produced by the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries

State Region(a)Sheep and goats

Morbidity Mortality

Uttar Pradesh Spans three regions* 4.65 0.00

Haryana Trans-Gangetic Plains 7.38 9.76

West Bengal Lower Gangetic Plains 27.38 23.24

Odisha Eastern Plateau and Hills 2.64 4.82

Maharashtra Western Plateau and Hills 9.40 14.51

Tamil Nadu Southern Plateau and Hills 10.69 17.09

Gujarat Gujarat Plains and Hills 20.96 23.40

Rajasthan Western Dry Region 16.91 7.19 a) No incidence of peste des petits ruminants was officially reported during the period 2011–2015 in Jammu and Kashmir (representing the Western Himalayan Region) and Meghalaya (representing the Eastern Himalayan Region)*The state of Uttar Pradesh represents three agro-climatic regions in India, i.e. the Upper and Middle Gangetic Plains and the Central Plateau and Hills region


Table X Estimates of parameters for the effects of peste des petits ruminants on goats

Parameters Notation Goats Maximum Minimum Standard Error

Number of infected animals I 15,558,423 15,563,830 15,553,016 –

Kids (<6 months) 5,341,748 – –

Young animals (6–12 months) 3,767,899 – – –

Adults (>12 months) 6,448,776 – – –

Number of animals that died D 5,893,547 5,896,250 5,890,843 –

Kids (<6 months) 5,893,547 – – –

Young animals (6–12 months) 884,844 – – –

Adults (>12 months) 1,591,095 – – –

Proportion of animals in lactation (%) PL 34.28 – – –

Average annual milk yield in kg Z 122.31 398.05 29.85 0.24

Average market value of animal (INR) V 5,546.901 18,000 300 2,830.76

Kids (<6 months) 1,833.73 3,500 300 1,139.55

Young animals (6–12 months) 4,854.99 8,000 1,000 2,726.01

Adults (>12 months) 6,526.08 18,000 200 7,053.85

Increased abortion rate (%) A 0.44 0.51 0.37 0.07

Proportion of lactation lost (%) L 2.33 – – –

Kidding interval (months) KI 9.27 15 4 1.68

Price of milk per kg (INR) M 19.95 25 10 3.28

Delay in conception (months) W 4 4 4 0

Price of live weight per kg (INR) PW 339.90 400 200 66.42

Treatment cost of an infected animal (INR) TC 235.81 500 50 380.74

Number of live kids born NK 1.16 3 1 0.46

Birth weight (kg) BW 1.86 2.5 0.8 0.48

Proportion of body weight lost (%) WL 20.88 62.50 1.88 14.58

Price of new-born kid (INR) PC 1,097.31 3,000 200 789.01

Average body weight (kg) WA 16.65 40 2.50 6.62

Kids (<6 months) 5.607,515 9 2.50 1.86

Young animals (6–12 months) 14.30 25 9 4.88

Adults (>12 months) 19.69 40 18 4.85 INR: Indian rupees

cases of Jammu and Kashmir, no incidence or deaths have been officially reported during the last five years. This points towards the relatively greater under-reporting of livestock disease in these two states, as compared to other states.

Economic losses due to peste des petits ruminants in IndiaData analysis generated economic and epidemiological parameters for PPR in sheep and goats (Tables X and XI). These were used to estimate the economic losses due to PPR at the farm level in India. Figures 18a and 18b present the proportional contribution of different components of the total loss in goats and sheep, respectively, when the total

economic loss was computed using the mean values of the different parameters (a deterministic model). The greatest share of the total economic losses due to PPR were made up of mortalities among sheep and goats (56.41% and 70%, respectively), followed by loss in body weight (about 20% in both sheep and goats).

The deterministic model was converted to a stochastic one, using spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel), by taking into account the maximum and minimum values of each parameter and its standard errors. India being a vast country, the different epidemiological and economic parameters tend to vary over different regions. The model was run for 2,000 iterations, using the means and standard


deviation to generate the parameters on each run. Normal distributions were used for the parameters. The outputs from these iterations were used to generate the probability distribution of the expected annual economic losses due to PPR in India (Fig. 19). Based upon the minimum and maximum expected economic loss –– as obtained from the simulation runs –– 100 class intervals (each of US $0.16 million) of losses were obtained. The X-axis in the figure represents these class intervals (the range of economic losses) and the Y-axis represents the probabilities for each of these class intervals as obtained from the simulation runs.

Table XI Estimates of parameters for the effects of peste des petits ruminants on sheep

Parameters Notation Sheep Maximum Minimum Standard Error

Number of infected animals I 3,481,202 3,482,502 3,479,900 –

Lambs (<6 months) 1,089,079 – – –

Young animals (6–12 months) 1,007,773 – – –

Adults (>12 months) 1,384,350 – – –

Number of animals that died D 1,802,416 1,808,923 1,795,909 –

Lambs (<6 months) 1,030,568 – – –

Young animals (6-12 months) 377,300 – – –

Adults (>12 months) 394,548 – – –

Proportion of sheep of shearing age (%) PH 58.03 – – –

Average annual wool yield (kg) YW 1.13 2.50 0.25 0.43

Average market value of animal (INR) V 8,326.81 28,000 200 7,053.85

Lambs (<6 months) 1,564.87 4,200 200 603.61

Young animals (6–12 months) 4,820.98 10,000 800 2,228.36

Adults (>12 months) 10,064.37 28,000 2,000 7,358.19

Increased abortion rate (%) A 0.05 – – 0.02

Proportion of wool yield lost (%) YL 15.01 100 16.67 24.11

Price of wool per kg (INR) MW 60 – – 20

Lambing interval (months) KI 9.12 15 6 1.64

Price of milk per kg (INR) M 20.31 25 10 2.98

Delay in conception (months) W 7 7 7 0

Price of live weight per kg (INR) PW 333.47 400 200 76.62

Treatment cost of an infected animal (INR) TC 207.23 500 50 389.14

Number of live lambs born NK 1.22 3 1 0.56

Birth weight (kg) BW 1.94 2.5 0.5 0.37

Proportion of body weight lost (%) WL 33.51 75 5 15.38

Price of new-born lamb (INR) PC 1,104.87 3,000 300 768.26

Average body weight (kg) WA 18.03 45 2.50 7.89

Lambs (<6 months) 5.20 9 2.50 1.09

Young animals (6–12 months) 14.03 24 10 4.87

Adults (>12 months) 20.68 45 24 7.04 INR: Indian rupees

The expected annual economic loss due to PPR in India ranged between US $2 million and US $1.6 billion. The most likely range of expected economic loss, based upon maximum frequencies for a class interval, was US $653–669 million.

A model sensitivity analysis was carried out to ascertain the parameters to which the estimates of economic loss were most sensitive. The results of this analysis are presented in the form of tornado diagrams in Figures 20a and 20b, for goats and sheep, respectively. The tornado diagram puts


Fig. 19 Probability distributions for annual economic losses due to peste des petits ruminants in India

Fig. 18a Components of total loss due to peste des petits ruminants in goats

Fig. 18b Components of total loss due to peste des petits ruminants in sheep

56.41

0.51

12.98

20.22

9.88

Loss from mortality

Value of direct loss through reduction in milk yield


Loss in body weight

Cost of treatment

Loss from mortality

Direct loss in wool yield


Loss in body weight

Cost of treatment

70 0.09

2.57

20.51

6.82

Prob

abili

ty

US$ (�100million)


Fig. 20a Results of a sensitivity analysis (goats)Parameters with the biggest effect on estimates of economic loss appear at the top and those with the least impact at the bottom

Fig. 20b Results of a sensitivity analysis (sheep) Parameters with the biggest effect on estimates of economic loss appear at the top and those with the least impact at the bottom

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of dead animals

Number of infected animals

Price of milk

Price of live weight/kg

Number of live kids born

Market rate of young animals

Price of new born kids

Treatment cost

Market rate of kids

Average annual milk yield

Average body weight

Market rate of adults

Maximum Minimum

In USD 100 millions

Maximum Minimum

In USD 100 millions

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Number of died animals

Number of animals infected

Average annual wool yield

Birth weight

Number of live kids born

Price of Live weight/kg

Treatment cost

Market rate of young animals

Market rate of kids

Average body weight

Market rate of adults

the parameters whose uncertainty affects the output of the model (expected economic loss) most severely at the top of the graph (tornado), and those that have the least impact at the bottom. It can be seen from Figure 20a that, in the case of goats, the model output was most strongly influenced by the market value of adult goats, followed by the average body weight, average milk yield, market value of kids and treatment cost. When it came to sheep, the factors most important in influencing the model output were the market values of animals (adult animals, lambs and young animals) and also the average body weight (Fig. 20b).

ConclusionThe current study has generated information about the economic losses caused by PPR at the farm level in India. The analysis involved determining the incidence, mortality and morbidity rates of PPR across the agro-ecological zones of India, using a survey tool and participatory methods. This demonstrated that the official data underestimate PPR in India and are not necessarily a reliable parameter for economic assessments. Disease identification using checklists, photographs and other participatory methods


L’impact économique de la peste des petits ruminants en Inde

D. Bardhan, S. Kumar, G. Anandsekaran, J.K. Chaudhury, M. Meraj, R.K. Singh, M.R. Verma, D. Kumar, N. Kumar P.T., S. Ahmed Lone, V. Mishra, B. Mohanty, N. Korade & U.K. De

RésuméLa peste des petits ruminants (PPR) est une maladie du bétail à fort impact économique. En Inde, une grande partie de la population des petits ruminants est affectée. Cependant, les données disponibles sur l’incidence de la PPR sont rares et très peu d’articles ont été consacrés aux pertes économiques causées par la maladie. Les auteurs présentent une étude basée sur un échantillonnage structuré couvrant les principales régions agro-climatiques du pays, visant à déterminer avec certitude les taux de morbidité et de mortalité de la PPR. Les estimations disponibles des pertes économiques induites par diverses maladies des animaux d’élevage sont basées sur des valeurs uniques correspondant à divers paramètres épidémiologiques et économiques. Les auteurs ont évalué l’impact économique de la PPR en utilisant un modèle stochastique. En se basant sur l’échantillon, les taux annuels de morbidité et de mortalité de la PPR chez les petits ruminants en Inde ont été respectivement estimés à 8 % et à 3,45 %. Les auteurs ont également analysé les variations de ces taux en fonction de l’espèce, du groupe d’âge, du sexe, de la saison et de la région. Les pertes annuelles attendues imputables à la PPR en Inde fluctuent d’un minimum de 2 millions de dollars US (USD) à 18 millions d’USD, mais elles peuvent atteindre 1,5 milliard d’USD ; la fourchette la plus probable des pertes économiques attendues se situe entre 653 millions et 669 millions d’USD. Cette étude souligne l’importance des pertes économiques liées à la présence de la PPR en Inde.

Mots-clésCaprins – Chèvres – Économie – Épidémiologie – Impact économique – Inde – Maladie animale – Modèle stochastique – Mouton – Ovins – Peste des petits ruminants – Petits ruminants.

does not give confirmatory diagnosis of the incidence of disease. However, it is widely acknowledged that, for diseases such as PPR, farmers are well aware of the symptoms associated with these diseases, mostly specific syndromes which usually have fairly descriptive names in the local vernacular. Thus, for a vast country like India, there is considerable scope to use methods like these for collecting data to estimate disease incidence and associated economic parameters. Losses due to mortalities contributed the most to the total economic loss caused by PPR in both sheep and goats, followed by loss in body weight. This study has revealed significant losses due to the incidence of PPR in small ruminants in India. Thus, PPR should be considered an important disease from a policy perspective when it comes to mitigating losses due to disease in livestock. This calls for investments in research on PPR and the implementation of a vaccination schedule as a preventative measure.

AcknowledgementsThis survey was supported under the research projects, ‘Economic effects of livestock disease burden in India and cost benefit analysis of targeted interventions,’ sponsored by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI), and ‘Impact assessment of agricultural research and development,’ funded by ICAR through the ICAR–National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NIAP). The authors express their gratitude to Dr R.K. Singh, the Director of IVRI, for providing all the necessary support to carry out this study. Dr P.S. Birthal, ICAR National Professor, and Dr Shiv Kumar, Principal Scientist with the ICAAR-NIAP and Project Coordinator of the ICAR-NIAP SSN project referred to above, are also thanked for extending all the academic and financial support required for this study.


Impacto económico de la peste de pequeños rumiantes en la India

D. Bardhan, S. Kumar, G. Anandsekaran, J.K. Chaudhury, M. Meraj, R.K. Singh, M.R. Verma, D. Kumar, N. Kumar P.T., S. Ahmed Lone, V. Mishra, B. Mohanty, N. Korade & U.K. De

ResumenLa peste de pequeños rumiantes (PPR) es una enfermedad del ganado que reviste importancia económica y afecta a un vasto segmento de la población de pequeños rumiantes de la India. Sin embargo, existen pocos datos sobre su incidencia y muy escasas referencias bibliográficas sobre las pérdidas económicas que ocasiona. Los autores describen un estudio encaminado a determinar las tasas de morbilidad y mortalidad por PPR a partir de un muestreo estructurado que abarcaba las principales regiones agroclimáticas del país. Las estimaciones existentes de las pérdidas económicas causadas en la India por diversas enfermedades del ganado están basadas en valores únicos de diversos parámetros epidemiológicos y económicos. Para estimar el impacto económico de la PPR se utilizó una modelización estocástica. A partir de la muestra se calculó que, en los pequeños rumiantes del país, los índices anuales de morbilidad y mortalidad totales por PPR se cifran en un 8% y un 3,45%, respectivamente. Los autores analizaron después las variaciones que exhiben esos índices por especie, grupo de edad, sexo, estación y región. La cuantía prevista de las pérdidas económicas anuales causadas por la PPR en el país oscila: de apenas 2 a 18 millones de dólares estadounidenses puede llegar hasta los 1 500 millones. El intervalo más probable de pérdidas económicas se sitúa entre 653 y 669 millones. El estudio demuestra pues que la incidencia de la PPR entre los pequeños rumiantes de la India provoca pérdidas de importante magnitud.

Palabras claveCabra – Caprino – Economía – Enfermedad animal – Epidemiología – Impacto económico – India – Modelización estocástica – Oveja – Ovino – Pequeño rumiante – Peste de pequeños rumiantes.

References 1. Fentahun T. & Woldie M. (2012). – Review on peste des petits

ruminants (PPR). Eur. J. Appl. Sci., 4 (4), 160–167.

2. Dhar P., Sreenivasa B.P., Barrett T., Corteyn M., Singh R.P. & Bandyopadhyay S.K. (2002). – Recent epidemiology of peste des petits ruminants virus (PPRV). Vet. Microbiol., 88 (2), 153–159. doi:10.1016/S0378-1135(02)00102-5.

3. Singh B. & Prasad S. (2008). – Modelling of economic losses due to some important diseases in goats in India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 21 (2), 297–302.

4. Singh R.P. & Bandyopadhyay S.K. (2015). – Peste des petits ruminants vaccine and vaccination in India: sharing experience with disease endemic countries. Virus Dis., 26 (4), 215–224. doi:10.1007/s13337-015-0281-9.

5. Senturk B. & Yalcin C. (2008). – Production losses due to foot-and-mouth disease in cattle in Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 32 (6), 433–440.

6. Singh B., Bardhan D., Verma M.R., Prasad S. & Sinha D.K. (2014). – Estimation of economic losses due to PPR in small ruminants in India. Vet. World, 7 (4), 194–199. doi:10.14202/vetworld.2014.194-199.

7. Rushton J., Thornton P.K. & Otte M.J. (1999). – Methods of economic impact assessment. In The economics of animal health (B.D. Perry, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 18 (2), 315–342. doi:10.20506/rst.18.2.1172.

8. Roeder P.L. & Obi T.U. (1999). – Recognizing peste des petits ruminants: a field manual. FAO Animal Health Manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 28 pp. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/003/x1703e/x1703e00.HTM (accessed on 12 February 2017).

9. Rushton J. (2009). – Economics of animal health and production. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, 364 pp. doi:10.1079/9781845931940.0000.


10. Hussain M., Afzal M., Ali Q., Taylor W., Mariner J. & Roeder P. (2008). – The epidemiology of peste des petits ruminants in Pakistan and possible control policies. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 27 (3), 869–876. doi:10.20506/rst.27.3.1849.

11. Jost C.C., Nzietchueng S., Kihu S., Bett B., Njogu G., Swai E.S. & Mariner J.C. (2010). – Epidemiological assessment of the Rift Valley fever outbreak in Kenya and Tanzania in 2006 and 2007. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 83 (Suppl. 2), 65–72. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2010.09-0290.

12. Kihu S.M., Gitao G.C., Bebora L.C., John N.M., Wairire G.G., Maingi N. & Wahome R.G. (2015). – Economic losses associated with peste des petits ruminants in Turkana County Kenya. Pastoralism: Res., Pol., Pract., 5 (9). doi:10.1186/s13570-015-0029-6.

13. Pfeiffer D.U., Williamson N.B. & Thornton R.N. (1997). – A simple spreadsheet simulation model of the economic effects of Neospora caninum abortions in dairy cattle in New Zealand. In International Symposia on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics proceedings, ISVEE 8. Proc. of the 8th Symposium of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Paris. Available at: www.sciquest.org.nz/isvee (accessed on 30 March 2015).

14. Majumder P. (1997). – Studies on an incidence of peste des petits ruminants in the regional goat breeding farm at Debipur, Tripura. Int. J. Anim. Hlth, 36 (2), 169–171.

15. Shankar H., Gupta V.K. & Singh N. (1998). – Occurrence of peste des petits ruminants-like disease in small ruminants in Uttar Pradesh. Int. J. Anim. Sci., 68 (1), 38–40.

16. Awase M. (2012). – Estimation of economic losses due to prominent diseases of ruminants in Indore division of Madhya Pradesh. MVSc thesis submitted to the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India.

17. Mahajan S., Agrawal R., Kumar M., Mohan A. and Pande N. (2013). – Incidence of peste des petits ruminants in nomadic sheep and goat of Jammu region. Vet. World, 6 (7), 384–387. doi:10.5455/vetworld.2013.384-387.

18. Sahu B. (2013). – Analysis of morbidity and mortality due to foot and mouth disease and peste des petits ruminants in livestock of Chhattisgarh. MVSc thesis submitted to the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, India.

the economic impact of peste des petits ruminants...

Documents