aistand south~ern afrkca - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

elated to the control of ECF. In addition private
firms and international organisations invest
large sums of money on research aimed at
developing new acaricides, treatment drugs,
vaccines and other improved control methods,
Other indirect losses
There are other indirect losses which can be
attributed to ECF. For instance, the depletion
of scarce foreign exchange arising from
expenditure for importing livestock products in
short supply. In addition, losses in beef, milk and
hides due to dis. ase which reduces the supply of
these products as raw materials and thereby
retards the development of the livestock product
processing industry. Furthermore, the loss of
beef and milk diminishes the supply of food
protein and consequently impoverishes househoid
nutrition.
Estimates of regional economic
losses due to ECF
Estimates of farm level losses from tick control
and treatment have been discussed above.
Country levels or regional estimates of ECF
losses are few. Miller et al (1977) estimated that
ECF caused halfa million cattle deaths per year
in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Young et al,
1988).
Most recently, Mukhebi et al (1992)
calculated annual economic losses due to ECF in
the 11 affected countries in the region. The
estimates indicate that the total direct loss (in
beef, milk, traction and manure, in treatment,
acaricide, research and extension costs) caused
by the disease in the region is US$ 168 million a
year (Table 2), including an estimated mortality
of 1.1 million cattle. The reduction in milk
production represented the greatest financial
loss, followed by the cost of acaricides, traction
and beef in that order.
The diminished value of beef and milk from
cattle morbidity was estimated to be three times
as high as that from mortality (Table 2).
Similarly, the value of beef and milk losses was
three times the cost of acaricide applications.
Often it is the mortality and the acaricide cost
that appears t -- ceive the greatest attention
and concern fron. ose interested in controlling
the disease. This ay be due to the fact that
mortality is more discernible than morbidity,
and acaricide expense is a more direct cost than
output reduction on beef and milk.
Sparse and insufficient data exist on how
ECF affects livestock production. Therefore
there is a need to improve estimates by conducting
a survey of economic losses country by
country taking into account differences in cattle
types and production circumstances.
Limitations of currentmethods of
ECF control
Although ECF is currently managed by the
control of the vector ticks with acaricides and the
use of drugs to treat infections, the widespread
application of these methods in Africa has limitations.
As discussed above, governments incur
huge expenses in the provision of curative and
tick control services.
In recent timeo, government budgets in most
oftheaffectedAfricancountrieshaveshrunkand
the scarcity of foreign exchange for imports has
grown more acute. As the competition for limited
government resources has heightened from
other pressing national development needs, the
quantity and quality of animal health services
and infrastructure has declined considerabiy
(Haan and Nissen, 1985). The ability of govern-
Table 2. Estimated regional losses in 1989 due to East Coast fever in 11African countries affected by
the disease.
Item
Beef loss, total (t)
- mortality loss (t)
- morbidity loss (t)
Milk loss, total (t)
- mortality loss (t)
- morbidity loss (t)
Animal traction loss (ha)
Manure loss (t)
Treatment
Acaricide application
Research and extension
Total loss, US$
ECF loss per cattle head
ECF loss per ha
Sourcc. Mukheabl t el (1992).
Quantity
19,428
16,246
3,182
97,482
9,284
88,198
488,000
701
109
Loss In US$
thousand
20,607
17,232
3,375
78,697
7,495
71,202
21,306
66
8,114
3,008
6,550
168,402
US$ 7.00
US$ 1.10
% of total loss
12
-
-
47
-
-
13
0
5
20
4
100