Invited Review : Economic consequences of beef cow-calf disease mismanagement: Bovine viral diarrhea virus

Applied Animal Science 35:606–614 https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2019-01861 © 2019 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists. All rights reserved.

PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT: Invited Review

Invited Review: Economic consequences of beef cow-calf disease mismanagement: Bovine viral diarrhea virus John M. Riley,* Derrell S. Peel, Kellie C. Raper, and Courtney Hurt Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, 314 Agriculture Hall, Stillwater 74078

ABSTRACT Objective: This research focuses on the costs associated with adopting a herd health management protocol for eradicating bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDv) from US beef cattle herds. Materials and Methods: Production and market parameters from previous literature, USDA reports, and industry experts were used within a partial budget analysis. Results and Discussion: Potential losses of $54.25/ bred cow were found for cow-calf herds that do not have BVDv present (96% of US herds) and a gain of $278.28/ bred cow for herds with BVDv present (4% of US herds) when assessed over a 10-yr period, and yearly cash flows were discounted to present dollars. Implications and Applications: The outcomes from this analysis are useful for industry participants and policy makers as baseline incentive levels for cow-calf producers to adopt protocols to eliminate BVDv. Key words: bovine viral diarrhea virus, economics, cattle

INTRODUCTION Bovine viral diarrhea virus and persistently infected bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDv and BVDv-PI, respectively) continue to be a leading cause of morbidity and, to a lesser extent, mortality across the various sectors of the cattle industry (Ridpath, 2012; Smith et al., 2014). Although economic impacts related to these cattle health issues have been assessed, the estimates vary widely, and few have estimated the costs for individual beef cattle sectors. Estimated losses that are associated with BVDv have a wide range across multiple sources and locations, with most using differing databases (for a recent review of impact studies globally, see Pinior et al., 2017, and Richter et al., 2017). For example, an outbreak of BVDv in a cow herd is estimated to cost $50 to $100/cow (USDA APHIS,

The authors declare no conflict of interest. *Corresponding author: john.m.riley@​okstate​.edu

2007), $20 to $33/cow (Larson et al., 2002), and $46 to $103/animal (Hessman et al., 2009). Considering a national beef cow-herd of approximately 32 million breeding-age cows, it is understandable how some studies have reported a total cost to the US beef industry of $1.5 to 2.5 billion annually (Ishmael, 2016). Bovine viral diarrhea virus eradication strategies and outcomes are scarcer in the literature, especially with respect to efforts in the United States. Pasman et al. (1994) used a state-transition model to determine economic impact for Dutch dairy herds. They reported, for a 100-cow herd, losses of 34.78 Dfl/cow (approximately $33/cow, adjusted to 2018 dollars). Stott and Gunn (2008) report a gain to Scottish cow-calf herds of £2 to £28/cow per year (approximately $5 to $73/cow, adjusted to 2018 dollars). With this study, we synthesize multiple resources that have reported productivity impacts related to BVDv in beef cattle. These are implemented in an economic partial budget framework. The results provide a sector-specific cost/benefit to BVDv-PI testing and mitigation, both for beef herds with known and unknown BVDv prevalence. The focus of this study was cow-calf operations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The incidence and infection rate of BVDv-PI cattle throughout the United States is relatively low. With approximately 4% of herds across the United States having at least one or more persistently infected (PI) animals in their herds and the incidence rate within the herd being approximately 0.3%, the disease’s severity is underestimated (Wittum et al., 2001; O’Connor et al., 2007). Most BVDv infections occur in the first trimester of gestation, leading to calves that are PI (Larson, 2015). Persistently infected cows always give birth to PI calves and are much more likely to infect other cows, who will, in turn, give birth to PI calves (Stokka et al., 2000). The presence of multiple PI calves in a herd suggests the presence of multiple susceptible females in the herd. Herds with PI calves have a 3% lower pregnancy percentage than non-PI infected cattle. Persistently infected calves that survive to weaning are a constant source of the virus to the rest of the herd and could result in additional PI calves born in

607

Riley et al.: Economics of cow-calf disease management

Table 1. Production and price parameters used in the analysis Description Cow-calf herds (no.)   Noninfected cow-calf herds (no.)    Cows per herd (no. of animals)    Pregnancy rate (%)    Weaning rate (%)    Steer weaning weight (kg)    Heifer weaning weight (kg)   Infected cow-calf herds (no.)    Cows per herd (no. of animals)    Pregnancy rate (%)    Weaning rate (%)    Steer weaning weight (kg)    Heifer weaning weight (kg) Prices1   Real steer price ($/kg)   Real heifer price ($/kg)   Real cull cow price ($/kg)   Pooled BVDv-PI test ($/test)   Individual BVDv-PI test ($/animal)   Vaccine: cow, bulls, other ($/cow)   Vaccine: calf ($/calf)   BVDv-PI treatments (noninfected): cows, bulls, other ($/animal)   BVDv-PI treatments (noninfected): calves ($/calf)   BVDv-PI treatments (infected): cows, bulls, other ($/animal)   BVDv-PI treatments (infected): calves ($/calf)

Yr 1

Yr 2

Yr 3–10

1,000 960 50 86.00 100.00 226.8 215.5 40 50 83.30 98.00 220.0 209.0   3.54 3.23 2.21 8.00 4.00 3.84 2.54 0.92 0.94 3.67 3.76

1,000 960 50 86.00 100.00 230.2 218.7 40 50 84.65 99.00 226.6 215.27

1,000 960 50 86.00 100.00 233.7 222.0 40 50 86.00 100.00 233.7 222.0

                       

                       

All prices are adjusted for inflation, presented in 2018 US dollars. BVDv-PI = persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus.

1

Table 2. Noninfected herd results, yr 1 Item Additional cost   Initial testing   Pooled testing  Vaccination   Cows   Other   Calves  Total Additional revenue  Total Reduced revenue  Total Reduced cost   Morbidity treatment    Cows and other   Calves  Total Total negative effects Total positive effects Net gain or loss per cow

  Unit   No. of pools   Animal Animal Animal  

No. of units  

11   50 5 43  

$/unit  

8.00   3.84 3.84 2.54  

Total $  

88.00   191.99 19.20 109.03  

$/cow  

1.76   3.84 0.38 2.18 8.16

 

 

 

 

0.00

 

 

 

 

0.00

  Animal Animal        

  2 2

  0.92 0.94

       

       

  1.83 1.88   8.16 0.07 (8.09)  

  0.04 0.04 0.07

608

Production and Management

the following year without proper intervention (Wittum et al., 2001). Fulton et al. (2009) estimated the prevalence of BVDvPI cattle in beef breeding herds using 30 herds with 4,530 calves located in southern Oklahoma and north-central Texas. The samples were collected by ear notches and tested for BVDv antigens using immunohistochemistry and antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The authors report that 25 of the 4,530 calves were PI (0.6%). Current methods of marketing, assembling, and commingling cattle allow PI cattle to enter stocker and feedlot operations and expose many additional cattle to BVDv. For example, a recent study demonstrated that of 21,743 cattle entering a feedlot, 0.4% were PI (Fulton et al., 2006). These cattle were purchased by order buyers from 10 southern and southeastern states and delivered into 240 separate pens; 74 (30.8%) of these pens had a PI animal. To improve protection against BVDv-mediated disease, cattle entering the feedlot should have effective immunity to BVDv and be free of exposure to PI cattle (Fulton et al., 2009). Detecting and eliminating PI cattle is used as a method to control BVDv in infected herds and prevent the introduction of BVDv into noninfected herds. Persistent infection develops after in-utero exposure to BVDv that results in immunotolerance. Grooms et al. (2001) reported that, among 1,952 adult cows tested in

the study, BVDv was detected in 5 cows (0.26%) from 3 of the 13 farms. In each of the 5 cows, the virus was detected in serum and white blood cell preparations. The BVDv was again isolated from serum and white blood cell preparations from each of the 5 cows, indicating that these cattle were persistently infected with the virus (Grooms et al., 2001). Larson (2015) reported that the prevalence of PI for cattle entering a feedlot was 0.3% at arrival, 2.6% in chronically ill cattle, and 2.5% in dead cattle. Furthermore, Loneragan et al. (2005) determined the rate of an initial treatment for respiratory-tract disease was 43% greater in cattle exposed to a PI animal, compared with those not exposed to a PI animal. Overall, 15.9% of initial respiratory-tract disease events were attributable to exposure to a PI animal. In addition, they are associated with an increase in the incidence of respiratory-tract disease of in-contact cattle (Loneragan et al., 2005). Based on these statistics, Table 1 provides the parameters used for this economic analysis. Parameters are based on the presented literature with limited discretion taken by the authors to maintain a conservative outcome. Health management prices (costs) are from discussions with industry participants. Cow and calf prices are from USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS, 2018a,b; LMIC, 2019) and were adjusted for inflation us-

Table 3. Noninfected herd results, yr 2 to 10 Item Additional cost   Initial testing   New cattle  Vaccination   Cows   Other   Calves  Total Additional revenue   Increased calving percentage (+0%)   Steers   Heifers   Increased weaning weight (+1.5%)   Steers   Heifers  Total Reduced revenue  Total Reduced cost   Morbidity treatment    Cows and other   Calves  Total Total negative effects Total positive effects Net gain or loss per cow

 

Unit   Animal   Animal Animal Animal $100.00

No. of units  

1 50 5 43

  Animal Animal   Animal Animal  

       

   

 

 

4.00   191.99 19.20 109.03  

$/cow  

0.08   3.84 0.38 2.18 6.48

  0.015 0.015  

  0.00 0.00   12.03 10.43  

  0.00 0.00   0.24 0.21 0.45

 

 

 

0.00

 

  0.92 0.94

2 2

 

4.00   3.84 3.84 2.54  

Total $

  802.31 695.38   802.31 695.38  

0 0

    Animal Animal        

$/unit

       

  1.83 1.88   6.48 0.52 (5.96)

  0.04 0.04 0.07  

609

Riley et al.: Economics of cow-calf disease management

ing the domestic farm production consumer price index (USDL, 2018). All parameters were incorporated into partial enterprise budgets where only changes to outcomes of a herd health management protocol of testing for and controlling BVDvPI were included for both herds without BVDv present (96% of US cow-calf herds) and those with BVDv present (4% of US herds).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables 2 and 3 report the outcome of a herd without BVDv present for the initial year (Table 2) and all following years (Table 3). In the first year, the entire herd was tested using the pooled testing method. (Note: Although pooled testing is commonly used, the risk of false negatives in pooled tests appears to be higher and may indicate that individual testing is preferred. In that case, testing costs presented here would be underestimated.) Given that no BVDv was present, we found that the costs exceeded

the benefits. The small reduction in yr-1 costs stems from increased management, thus lower morbidity in the calfcrop (Roeber et al., 2001; Macartney et al., 2003; Lalman et al., 2005). Partial budget results for yr 2 through 10 are reported in Table 3, which shows additional costs due to individual testing of replacement breeding animals brought into the herd to maintain BVDv-free status and additional health management vaccinations. Similar to yr 1, morbidity costs were reduced while a small gain in revenue resulted from the increased hands-on management. Collectively, a herd without BVDv present will not recover the additional costs associated with the introduction of a health protocol. Tables 4, 5, and 6 report the outcome of herds that have BVDv present. Similar to the noninfected herd, all cattle in the herd were tested using the pooled testing method in yr 1 (Table 4). However, given that the pooled tests indicated the presence of BVDv, additional individual testing was required, which included additional handling and labor costs. The individual tests revealed specific breeding

Table 4. Infected herd results, yr 1 Item Additional cost   Initial testing   Pooled testing   Additional testing avg   Infected   Labor  Vaccination   Cows   Other   Calves  Total Additional revenue   Increased calving percentage (+0%)   Steers   Heifers   Increased weaning weight (+1.5%)   Steers   Heifers  Total Reduced revenue   Eradication of infected animals    Cows and other   Steers   Heifers  Total Reduced cost   Morbidity treatment    Cows and other   Calves  Total Total negative effects Total positive effects Net gain or loss per cow

 

Unit   No. of pools   Animal Animal   Animal Animal Animal  

No. of units  

11 63 95 50 5 40

  Animal Animal   Animal Animal  

0 0

$/unit  

   

   

  0.3078 0.3078  

8.00   2.00 1.00   3.84 3.84 2.54  

88.00   126.00 95.00   191.99 19.20 101.42  

 

1.76   2.52 1.90   3.84 0.38 2.03 10.67

  0.00 0.00   246.92 214.01  

  0.00 0.00   4.94 4.28 9.22

  1,127.25 2,557.36 2,216.52  

  22.55 51.15 44.33 118.02

  1.125 3.19 3.19  

  1,002.00 802.31 695.38  

  Animal Animal        

  1.725 1.275

         

 

$/cow

  802.31 695.38   802.31 695.38  

  Animal Animal Animal  

       

Total $

0.92 0.94

  1.58 1.20   128.69 9.27 (119.42)

  0.03 0.02 0.06  

610

Production and Management

Table 5. Infected herd results, yr 2 Item Additional cost   Initial testing   New cattle  Vaccination   Cows   Other   Calves  Total Additional revenue   Increased calving percentage (+3%)   Steers   Heifers   Increased weaning weight (+3%)   Steers   Heifers  Total Reduced revenue  Total Reduced cost   Morbidity treatment    Cows and other   Calves  Total Total negative effects Total positive effects Net gain or loss per cow

  Unit   Animal   Animal Animal Animal  

No. of units  

  Animal Animal   Animal Animal       Animal Animal        

animals and calves with BVDv-PI, and these animals were removed from the herd, resulting in lost animal value. The increased management did not provide increased pregnancy percentages in yr 1, but lower morbidity resulted in lower treatment costs and increased calf weaning weight. For the infected herd, we found that yr-1 resulted in a large additional cost relative to the benefit with a net loss of $119.42/bred cow. Benefits are reported in yr 2 (Table 5) of the health management protocol for the infected herd. Because of eradication of BVDv-PI animals, pregnancy percentages improved from 83.33 to 84.65% and weaning weights improved 3% (6.6 kg/steer and 6.27 kg/heifer). Further, morbidity treatment costs were reduced. As was the case with the noninfected herd, replacement breeding animals were tested individually and the health management protocol resulted in additional vaccinations. To better capture the long-term impact, yr 3 through 10 were reported separate from yr 2 for herds with BVDv-PI present—as opposed to combining yr 2 through 10 with non-BVDv-PI herds—to address the incremental improvements of BVDv-PI eradication. Similar results were shown for yr 3 through 10 (Table 6) of this herd, but the boost in productivity plateaued and equaled that of the noninfected herd starting in yr 3. Still, relative to the conditions of having BVDv present, the net effect resulted in a benefit. Collectively, yr 2 for

       

2.125   50 5 42  

$/unit  

4.00   3.84 3.84 2.54  

Total $  

8.50

$/cow  

  191.99 19.20 106.50  

0.17   3.84 0.38 2.13 6.52

  1.5 1.5   0.6164 0.6164  

  802.31 695.38   802.31 695.38  

  1,203.47 1,043.07   494.53 428.62  

  24.07 20.86   9.89 8.57 63.39

 

 

 

0.00

  8.25 6.45

       

  3.67 3.76

    30.24 0.60 24.24 0.48   1.09 6.52 64.48  57.96  

this scenario showed a gain of $57.96/bred cow, whereas yr 3 through 10 showed a gain of $49.76/bred cow per year. Finally, we considered the results over a 10-yr period where future gains/losses were discounted back to present dollars using a 2.5% discount rate (this rate was used to keep pace with inflation). Table 7 provides the results of this analysis. The first 2 columns of Table 7 report the gains/losses—relative to not implementing a BVDv health protocol—stemming from the partial budgeting analysis (Tables 2 through 6). The net present value of the testing and health management protocol across the 10-yr period for the noninfected herd resulted in a loss of $54.25/bred cow, whereas we found that the infected herd had a net present value gain of $278.28/bred cow. Based on the assumption that 96% of herds do not have BVDv present and 4% do, we determined an overall expected value of −$40.95/bred cow, which provides a market level response needed to overcome the BVDv-PI issue through the implementation of a cow-calf eradication protocol. Johnson and Pendell (2017) estimated a market-level effect of reduced bovine respiratory disease in the United States. They concluded that gains in productivity result in short-run suppression of market prices, but these return to long-run equilibrium shortly after the market shock of increased supplies. Weldegebriel et al. (2009) report estimated market outcomes for the dairy industry following eradication

611

Riley et al.: Economics of cow-calf disease management

Table 6. Infected herd results, yr 3 to 10 Item Additional cost   Initial testing   New cattle  Vaccination   Cows   Other   Calves  Total Additional revenue   Increased calving percentage (+2.4%)   Steers   Heifers   Increased weaning weight (+4.5%)   Steers   Heifers  Total Reduced revenue  Total Reduced cost   Morbidity treatment    Cows and other   Calves  Total Total negative effects Total positive effects Net gain or loss per cow

 

Unit   Animal   Animal Animal Animal  

No. of units  

50 5 43

  Animal Animal   Animal Animal       Animal Animal        

of BVDv; similar to the estimates reported in this study, they show increases in milk output of previously infected cows, which in turn results in downward milk price pressure in subsequent years. Therefore, the results here may be considered a minimum threshold for eradication efforts; however, given that fewer than 5% of US cow-calf herds are infected, the supply shock most likely would be dampened. The results to this point assumed no market adjustment for the sale of calves that have been managed within a strict BVDv-PI health management protocol. Previous research suggests that premiums are offered for cattle that are managed more intensely, although none have focused solely on BVDv health management. Avent et al. (2004) reported premiums of $10.60 and $6.22/100 kg for calves sold in a preconditioning program sale that was, respectively, VAC45 only (VAC45 is a 45-d postweaning program in which the specifics may vary but typically carries requirements for nutrition, health, and calf management) and sales that included calves of varied preconditioning regimens. Dhuyvetter et al. (2005) found premiums of $16.62 and $6.94/100 kg for calves sold, respectively, in a fall and winter preconditioning program sale. Zimmerman et al. (2012) reported premiums of $5.03, $8.97, $8.00, and $9.90/100 kg for cattle that were sold after being in VAC24, VAC34, VAC45, and weaned-only man-

1

       

$/unit  

 

 

4.00   3.84 3.84 2.54  

Total $  

4.00   191.99 19.20 109.03  

$/cow  

0.08   3.84 0.38 2.18 6.48

  1.19 1.19   0.6492 0.6530  

  802.31 695.38   802.31 695.38  

  955.13 827.83   520.84 454.12  

  19.10 16.56   10.42 9.08 55.16

 

 

 

0.00

  8.25 6.45

       

  3.67 3.76

  30.24 24.24   6.48 56.25 49.76

  0.60 0.48 1.09  

agement programs, respectively. The VAC24 and VAC34 programs required calves be vaccinated against infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, parainfluenza-3, bovine viral diarrhea, bovine respiratory syncytial virus, and Mannheimia haemolytica or Pasteurella multocida and with a clostridial 7-way. The VAC24 program required vaccination on the cow at 2 to 4 mo of age and VAC34 required vaccination on the cow 2 to 6 wk prior to shipping. See Table 2 (page 134) of Zimmerman et al. (2012) for more specific requirements. Williams et al. (2012) indicated premiums of $7.78/100 kg for calves sold in a preconditioning program sale, whereas Burdine et al. (2014) and Schulz et al. (2015) found premiums of $12.32 and $16.51/100 kg, respectively, for calves sold in similar programs and marketing venues. All premiums reported from these studies were adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars using the same consumer price index discussed in the Materials and Methods section (USDL, 2018). Collectively, the average of these results is $9.90/100 kg. This premium level was incorporated into the net present value analysis, and the right 2 columns of Table 7 adjust outcomes from the partial budget analysis based on the average premium in the market for preconditioning cattle. The premium is slowly reduced to zero by the end of the 10-yr period assuming that, if the BVDv health management program is widely adopted, then cattle sold under this premise will be considered nor-

612

Production and Management

Table 7. Net present value (NPV)1 of herd health management, 10-yr period Without market adjustment2 Item $/bred cow   Yr 1   Yr 2   Yr 3   Yr 4   Yr 5   Yr 6   Yr 7   Yr 8   Yr 9   Yr 10 NPV ($/bred cow) Incidence (%) Expected value4 ($)

With market adjustment3

Noninfected

Infected

 

Noninfected

Infected

(8.09) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (5.96) (54.25) 96

(119.42) 57.96 49.76 49.76 49.76 49.76 49.76 49.76 49.76 49.76 278.28 4

                         

14.34 11.98 8.39 5.52 3.22 1.39 (0.08) (1.26) (2.20) (2.95) 38.35 96

(97.00) 75.90 64.12 61.25 58.95 57.11 55.64 54.47 53.53 52.77 436.74 4

(40.95)

54.29

The NPV was calculated using a discount rate of 2.5%. No premium provided for proof of BVDv-PI–free calves. BVDv-PI = persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus. 3 Premium provided for proof of BVDv-PI–free calves; however, the premium decreased through time as fewer instances of bovine viral diarrhea virus were prevalent, thereby reducing the market incentive. 4 Expected value considers the probability of incidence and the corresponding NPV. 1 2

mal and not garner a premium. Again, the expected value was calculated based on the observed rate of BVDv incidence, resulting in a gain $54.29/bred cow. To summarize, BVDv at the cow-calf level affects few herds. Implementing a BVDv health management protocol is costly, and we found that the net effect for noninfected herds results in losses each year over a 10-yr period. Given a BVDv prevalence of approximately 4% of US herds, the incentive for the typical cow-calf operation to adopt the BVDv health management protocol is nonexistent. However, the majority of BVDv economic impacts are incurred further down the supply chain at the stocker and feedlot sectors as cattle are aggregated and commingled, which increase the probability of in-contact susceptibility. Loneragan et al. (2005) reported that when cattle enter the feedlot and encounter other PI cattle, even though these are typically fewer than 1% of incoming cattle, the probability of treatment increased approximately 43% for exposed cattle. Given that feedlots represent large volumes of confined animals, it is assumed that an increased number of cattle are exposed, resulting in an increase of treatments and, therefore, increased costs to cattle feeders. Incidence at the cow-calf level is roughly equal to that of incoming feedlot cattle; however, the numbers affected should be lower due to less animals confined at the cowcalf level. Still, it is important to recognize that for the infected herds, the effect on reproduction and performance is likely more meaningful for those producers because ex-

posure could reach 100% of animals within the operation. As a result of this dynamic, the cost of BVDv control would be unduly placed on cow-calf operations, yet the other beef sectors would derive significant benefit from those actions. As a result, a market failure issue is present in the cattle industry given that the full costs of BVDv are not fully reflected in market outcomes.

APPLICATIONS This study provides an estimate of necessary market reaction to overcome BVDv market failure at the beef cowcalf sector. One possible path is to address the issue internally whereby operators further down the supply chain incentivize input suppliers to eradicate BVDv. Assuming premiums present for preconditioned cattle are representative, this outcome could be underway. However, buyers would be wise to implement more strict requirements related to BVDv-PI–free status at these premiums. Even so, many cow-calf operators do not adhere to health management protocols for premium-based sales (USDA-NAHMS, 2009) and still market their cattle through traditional channels. As a result, industry or government intervention may be required. A parallel from agronomy is cotton’s boll weevil–eradication program. In this case, the entire industry coordinated efforts, along with government-supported research and education. The government’s role was minimal, largely administrative and educational (exten-

Riley et al.: Economics of cow-calf disease management

613

sion) costs, with the majority of the costs paid by cotton producers (Smith and Swink, 2003).

LMIC (Livestock Marketing Information Center). 2019. USDA-AMS Livestock Price Data. Accessed Jan. 25, 2019. http:​/​/​www​.lmic​.info/​ tac/​spreadsheets/​spreadsheets​.html.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Loneragan, G. H., D. U. Thomson, D. L. Montgomery, G. L. Mason, and R. L. Larson. 2005. Prevalence, outcome, and health consequences associated with persistent infection with bovine viral diarrhea virus in feedlot cattle. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 226:595–601. https:​/​/​doi​ .org/​10​.2460/​javma​.2005​.226​.595.

This material is based on work that is supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch projects OKL03029 and OKL02943. The authors thank participants of the SE ARPAS Symposium and reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback, which greatly improved the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Macartney, J. E., K. G. Bateman, and C. S. Ribble. 2003. Health performance of feeder calves sold at conventional auctions versus special auctions of vaccinated or conditioned calves in Ontario. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223:677–683. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.2460/​javma​.2003​ .223​.677.

Avent, R. K., C. E. Ward, and D. L. Lalman. 2004. Market valuation of preconditioning feeder calves. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 36:173–183.

O’Connor, A. M., M. C. Reed, T. N. Denagamage, K. J. Yoon, S. D. Sorden, and V. L. Cooper. 2007. Prevalence of calves persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus in beef cow-calf herds enrolled in a voluntary screening project. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 230:1691– 1696. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.2460/​javma​.230​.11​.1691.

Burdine, K. H., L. J. Maynard, G. S. Halich, and J. Lehmkuhler. 2014. Changing market dynamics and value-added premiums in southeastern feeder cattle markets. Prof. Anim. Sci. 30:354–361. https:​/​/​doi​ .org/​10​.15232/​S1080​-7446(15)30127​-3.

Pasman, E. J., A. A. Dijkhuizen, and G. H. Wentink. 1994. A statetransition model to simulate the economics of bovine virus diarrhea control. Prev. Vet. Med. 20:269–277. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​0167​ -5877(94)90060​-4.

Dhuyvetter, K. C., A. M. Bryant, and D. A. Blasi. 2005. Case study: Preconditioning beef calves: Are expected premiums sufficient to justify the practice? Prof. Anim. Sci. 21:502–514. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​ .15232/​S1080​-7446(15)31256​-0.

Pinior, B., C. L. Firth, V. Richter, K. Lebl, M. Trauffler, M. Dzieciol, S. E. Hutter, J. Burgstaller, W. Obritzhauser, P. Winter, and A. Käsbohrer. 2017. A systematic review of financial and economic assessments of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) prevention and mitigation activities worldwide. Prev. Vet. Med. 137:77–92. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.prevetmed​.2016​.12​.014.

Fulton, R. W., B. E. Hessman, B. J. Johnson, J. F. Ridpath, J. T. Saliki, L. J. Burge, D. Sjeklocha, A. W. Confer, R. A. Funk, and M. E. Payton. 2006. Evaluation of diagnostic tests used for detection of bovine viral diarrhea virus and prevalence of subtypes 1a, 1b, and 2a in persistently infected cattle entering a feedlot. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 228:578–584. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.2460/​javma​.228​.4​.578. Fulton, R. W., E. M. Whitley, B. J. Johnson, J. F. Ridpath, S. Kapil, L. J. Burge, B. J. Cook, and A. W. Confer. 2009. Prevalence of bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) in persistently infected cattle and BVDV subtypes in affected cattle in beef herds in south central United States. Can. J. Vet. Res. 73:283–291. Grooms, D. L., L. Kaiser, P. H. Walz, and J. C. Baker. 2001. Study of cattle persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus that lack detectable virus in serum. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 219:629–631. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.2460/​javma​.2001​.219​.629. Hessman, B. E., R. W. Fulton, D. B. Sjeklocha, T. A. Murphy, J. F. Ridpath, and M. E. Payton. 2009. Evaluation of economic effects and the health and performance of the general cattle population after exposure to cattle persistently infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus in a starter feedlot. Am. J. Vet. Res. 70:73–85. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​ .2460/​a jvr​.70​.1​.73. Ishmael, W. 2016. “How much money have you lost to BVD?” Beef Magazine. Accessed Mar. 9, 2019. https:​/​/​www​.beefmagazine​.com/​ blog/​how​-much​-money​-have​-you​-lost​-bvd. Johnson, K. K., and D. L. Pendell. 2017. Market impacts of reducing the prevalence of bovine respiratory disease in United States beef cattle feedlots. Front. Vet. Sci. 4:189. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​fvets​ .2017​.00189. Lalman, D., A. Hutson, C. Shearhart, and C. Ward. 2005. Preconditioning reduces sickness and death loss in weaned calves. J. Anim. Sci. 83(Suppl. 2):21. Larson, R. L. 2015. Bovine viral diarrhea virus–associated disease in feedlot cattle. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 31:367–380. Larson, R. L., V. L. Pierce, D. M. Grotelueschen, and T. E. Wittum. 2002. Economic evaluation of beef cowherd screening for cattle persistently-infected with bovine viral diarrhea virus. Bov. Pract. (Stillwater) 36:106–112.

Richter, V., K. Lebl, W. Baumgartner, W. Obritzhauser, A. Käsbohrer, and B. Pinior. 2017. A systematic worldwide review of the direct monetary losses in cattle due to bovine viral diarrhoea virus infection. Vet. J. 220:80–87. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.tvjl​.2017​.01​.005. Ridpath, J. 2012. Preventive strategy for BVDV infection in North America. Jpn. J. Vet. Res. 60(Suppl.):S41–S49. Roeber, D. L., N. C. Speer, J. G. Gentry, J. D. Tatum, C. D. Smith, J. C. Whittier, G. F. Jones, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2001. Feeder cattle health management: Effects on morbidity rates, feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and beef palatability. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:39–44. Schulz, L. L., K. C. Dhuyvetter, and B. E. Doran. 2015. Factors affecting preconditioned calf price premiums: Does potential buyer competition and seller reputation matter? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 40:220–241. Smith, J. W., and W. D. Swink. 2003. Boll weevil eradication: A model for sea lamprey control? J. Great Lakes Res. 29(Suppl. 1):445–455. Smith, R. L., M. W. Sanderson, R. Jones, Y. N’Guessan, D. Renter, R. Larson, and B. J. White. 2014. Economic risk analysis model for bovine viral diarrhea virus biosecurity in cow-calf herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 113:492–503. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.prevetmed​.2013​.11​.013. Stokka, G. L., R. Falkner, P. Bierman, and J. V. Boening. 2000. Bovine Virus Diarrhea. January (49). Kansas State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Coop. Ext. Serv., Manhattan. Stott, A. W., and G. J. Gunn. 2008. Use of a benefit function to assess the relative investment potential of alternative farm animal disease prevention strategies. Prev. Vet. Med. 84:179–193. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.prevetmed​.2007​.12​.001. USDA-AMS. 2019a. Oklahoma National Stockyards, OKC, OK, Cow and Bull Auction Report. KO_LS151 (various dates). USDA-Agric. Market. Serv., Washington, DC. USDA-AMS. 2019b. Oklahoma National Stockyards, OKC, OK, Feeder Cattle Summary Report. KO_LS795 (various dates). USDA-Agric. Market. Serv., Washington, DC.

614

Production and Management

USDA APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2007. Info Sheet: Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus. Vet. Serv., Centers Epidemiol. Anim. Health, Dec. 2007. Accessed Apr. 11, 2017, and Jan. 3, 2019. https:​/​/​www​.aphis​.usda​.gov/​animal​_health/​emergingissues/​ downloads/​bvdinfosheet​.pdf. USDA-NAHMS. 2009. Beef 2007–08, Part II: Reference of Beef CowCalf Management Practices in the United States, 2007–08. February 2009. USDA, Nat. Anim. Health Monit. Syst., Washington, DC. USDL (US Department of Labor). 2018. Consumer price indexes. Bureau Labor Stat., US Dept. Labor, Washington, DC. Accessed Jan. 29, 2019. https:​/​/​download​.bls​.gov/​pub/​time​.series/​cu/​cu​.data​.20​ .USCommoditiesServicesSpecial. Weldegebriel, H. T., A. W. Stott, and G. J. Gunn. 2009. Evaluation of producer and consumer benefits resulting from eradication of bovine

viral diarrhoea (BVD) in Scotland, United Kingdom. Prev. Vet. Med. 88:49–56. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.prevetmed​.2008​.07​.001. Williams, G. S., K. C. Raper, E. A. DeVuyst, D. Peel, and D. McKinney. 2012. Determinants of price differentials in Oklahoma valueadded feeder cattle auctions. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 37:114–127. Wittum, T. E., D. M. Grotelueschen, K. V. Brock, W. G. Kvasnicka, J. G. Floyd, C. L. Kelling, and K. G. Odde. 2001. Persistent bovine viral diarrhea virus infection in US beef herds. Prev. Vet. Med. 49:83– 94. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0167​-5877(01)00181​-7. Zimmerman, L. C., T. C. Schroeder, K. C. Dhuyvetter, K. C. Olson, G. L. Stokka, J. T. Seeger, and D. M. Grotelueschen. 2012. The effect of value-added management on calf prices at superior livestock auction video markets. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 37:128–143.