Table 9.
Cost benefit analysis of alternative PRRS vaccination programs
| SO in 2008 | Scenario 1, θ>26% | Scenario 2, θ>68% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||
| No vaccination | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Alternative 4 | |
| Price of vaccine (VND) | Non vaccine | 40,000 | 40,000 | 40,000 | 40,000 |
| Subsidy for reducing vaccine price (VND/pig) | 0 | 5,000 | 0 | 20,000 | 0 |
| Compensation for culling infected pigs (% of market price of culled pigs)1 | 70 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 100 |
| Vaccination (%) | 0 | 31.42 | 27.22 | 78.51 | 72.60 |
| Vaccinated number (head) | 0 | 22,6132 | 19,797 | 49,779 | 46,826 |
| Culled number (head) | 2,441 | 287 | 574 | 24 | 27 |
PRRS, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome; VND, Vietnam Dong; SIR, susceptible infected recovered.
1
To distinguish the ‘government expenditure for reducing the vaccine price’ and the ‘government expenditure for culling infected pigs’, we use the word ‘Subsidy’ to present the ‘government expenditure for reducing the vaccine price’, and use the word ‘Compensation’ to present the ‘government expenditure for culling infected pigs’.
2
Numbers of vaccinated pigs and culled pigs were estimated by modified SIR model.