scholarly journals Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Impact based on more extensive data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Health Agency ◽  
First Year ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Incidence Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of a trial where badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005. This trial, known as the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), was performed across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of new herd incidence data. It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially and sustainably reduced cattle TB in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase TB in the surrounding areas. In fact New Herd Incidents (NHI’s) between 2006 and 2012 dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the number of NHI’s prevented since 1998, a break-even cost to complete a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,454 per km2. This figure may be under-estimated because it takes no account of any NHI’s prevented after 2012. The more limited reactive culls were found to have no significant impact. This applied to both the treated area and outer 2km ring. The data also showed that the culls only reduced confirmed TB with no significant impact on unconfirmed TB. This was also found by the ISG when they reported results in 2007. Conclusions in the RBCT final report were made based on incomplete data so are poorly grounded. In addition to this, many mass media outlets are already adversely reporting the impact for culls which started in South West England in 2013. In the RBCT, after the first year of substantial culling, 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped when the data was not time-shifted. It is likely that the impact of the 2013 culls will not become clear until sometime between 2020 and 2025.

scholarly journals Bovine tuberculosis in cattle from 1986 to 2012 in and around badger-culled areas of the RBCT

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Bovine Tuberculosis ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
Incidence Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
South West England

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of a trial where badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005. This trial, known as the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), was performed across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of new herd incidence data. It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence on neighbouring farms. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates data supplied in March 2016 by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. It appears that whilst cattle TB noticeably reduced in areas subjected to proactive culling, TB did not significantly increase in the surrounding areas. The more limited reactive culls were found to have no significant impact either positively or negatively. This applied to both the treated and surrounding areas. The more extensive data also showed that culling badgers only reduced confirmed TB with no significant impact on unconfirmed TB. This was also found by the ISG in 2007 when using their model. The delay before culling benefit became apparent was about 5 years after the first substantial cull. This has implications for the culls which started in South West England in 2013. If account is taken for the need to average the data, the number of years needed to see TB drop, and the reporting delay, it may not be until September 2023 before the impact of these culls become clear. Also, if culls stop after year four in each zone, this risks benefits falling short of those achieved in the RBCT.

scholarly journals Bovine tuberculosis in cattle from 1986 to 2012 in and around badger-culled areas of the RBCT

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Bovine Tuberculosis ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
Incidence Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Media Hype ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of a trial where badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005. This trial, known as the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), was performed across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of new herd incidence data. It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially and sustainably reduced cattle TB in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase TB in the surrounding areas. In fact New Herd Incidents (NHI’s) between 2006 and 2012 dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the number of NHI’s prevented since 1998, a break-even cost for a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,454 per km2. This figure may be under-estimated because it takes no account of any NHI’s prevented after 2012. The more limited reactive culls were found to have no significant impact. This applied to both the treated area and outer 2km ring. The data also showed that the culls only reduced confirmed TB with no significant impact on unconfirmed TB. This was also found by the ISG when they reported results in 2007. Arguments surrounding badger culling in the UK have been poorly based due to incomplete data. In view of this and media hype, it should be emphasised that after the first year of substantial culling across the study area, 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped in the RBCT. This has implications for the culls which started in South West England in 2013. If the current reporting delay of 20 months persists, it may be the autumn of 2023 at the earliest before the impact of these culls becomes clear. Also, if culls stop after year four in each zone, this risks benefits falling short of those achieved in the RBCT.

scholarly journals Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Impact, based on more extensive data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Health Agency ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Extensive Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005 across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of New Herd Incidence (NHI). It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially and sustainably reduced cattle TB in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase TB in the surrounding areas. NHIs between 2006 and 2012 dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the number of NHIs prevented since 1998 in the combined area, a break-even cost to complete a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,693 per km2. This figure may be under-estimated because it takes no account of any NHIs prevented after 2012. The more limited reactive culls had no impact on both the treated area and outer 2km ring. Proactive culling only reduced confirmed TB with no significant impact on unconfirmed TB. Conclusions in the RBCT Final Report, which were based on the results of a model of time-shifted early data, poorly reflect the overall greater benefits seen in this more extensive data. Badger culling is highly contentious in the UK and many press reports adversely report the effectiveness of badger culling in general and the culls which started in 2013 in particular. The RBCT conclusions are often cited to add credence to these press reports. After the first year of substantial culling in the RBCT, this work found that 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped when plotted against calendar year. This delay should be reflected on when accounting for the circumstances and assessing impact of the 2013 culls. This work was restricted to looking at data showing total TB breakdowns over all zones. Further work to examine breakdowns by zone or groups of zones may reveal more.

scholarly journals Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Impact, based on more extensive data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Health Agency ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Extensive Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005 across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of New Herd Incidence (NHI). It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially and sustainably reduced cattle TB in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase TB in the surrounding areas. In fact NHIs between 2006 and 2012 dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the number of NHIs prevented since 1998, a break-even cost to complete a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,693 per km2. This figure may be under-estimated because it takes no account of any NHIs prevented after 2012. The more limited reactive culls had no impact on both the treated area and outer 2km ring. Proactive culling only reduced confirmed TB with no significant impact on unconfirmed TB. Conclusions in the RBCT Final Report, which were based on the results of a model of time-shifted early data, poorly reflect the greater benefits seen in this more extensive data. Badger culling is highly contentious in the UK and many press reports adversely report the effectiveness of badger culling in general and the culls which started in 2013 in particular. Unfortunately the RBCT conclusions are often cited to add credence to these press reports. In the RBCT, after the first year of substantial culling, this work found that 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped when plotted against calendar year. The impact of the culls, which started in late 2013, may not become clear until late 2023 after a 2-year reporting delay. This work was restricted to looking at data showing total TB breakdowns over all triplets. Further work to examine breakdowns by triplet or groups of triplets should reveal more.

scholarly journals Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Impact, based on more extensive data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Health Agency ◽  
Outer Ring ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Extensive Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005 across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of confirmed New Herd Incidence (NHI). It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially reduced confirmed NHI in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase NHI in the surrounding outer ring. In fact, between 1998 and 2012 these NHI slightly reduced in the outer ring . Between 2006 and 2012 they dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the total number of confirmed NHIs prevented between 1998 and 2012, a break-even cost to complete a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,693 per km2 with benefits continuing in 2012. Proactive culling only reduced confirmed NHIs with no significant impact on unconfirmed NHIs. The more limited reactive culls had no impact on both the treated area and the outer 2km ring. Conclusions in the RBCT Final Report, which were based on the results of a model of time-shifted early data, poorly reflect the overall greater benefits seen in this more extensive data. Badger culling is highly contentious in the UK and many press reports adversely report the effectiveness of badger culling in general and the culls which started in 2013 in particular. The RBCT conclusions are often cited to add credence to these press reports. After the first year of substantial culling in the RBCT, this work found that 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped when plotted against calendar year. This delay should be reflected on when accounting for the circumstances and assessing impact of the 2013 culls. This work was restricted to looking at data showing total TB breakdowns over all zones. Further work to examine breakdowns by zone or groups of zones may reveal more.

scholarly journals Randomised Badger Culling Trial: Impact, based on more extensive data

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hendy
Keyword(s):  
Health Agency ◽  
Outer Ring ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Extensive Data ◽  
Badger Culling ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Scientific Group ◽  
Surrounding Areas ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

In 2007 the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) reported to the UK government the impact on bovine tuberculosis (TB) in cattle of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). Badgers were culled between 1998 and 2005 across 100 km2 (nominal) zones in the West of England. The results were based on a model of confirmed New Herd Incidence (NHI). It was concluded that reactive culling generated overall detrimental effects, while proactive culling achieved very modest overall benefits at the cost of elevated incidence in surrounding areas. This work looks at more extensive RBCT data to examine if these findings hold true. Instead of presenting the results of a model, this work directly illustrates the data. The Animal and Plant Health Agency supplied this data in March 2016. Such data covers a greater number of years (1986 to 2012) and includes the prevalence of herd restrictions as well as herd incidence. Whilst the proactive culls substantially reduced confirmed NHI in treated areas, such culls did not significantly increase NHI in the surrounding outer ring. In fact, between 1998 and 2012 these NHI slightly reduced in the outer ring . Between 2006 and 2012 they dropped by 28%, 1% and 18% in the treated, outer 2km ring, and combined areas respectively. Based on the total number of confirmed NHIs prevented between 1998 and 2012, a break-even cost to complete a badger removal exercise was calculated to be £8,693 per km2 with benefits continuing in 2012. Proactive culling only reduced confirmed NHIs with no significant impact on unconfirmed NHIs. The more limited reactive culls had no impact on both the treated area and the outer 2km ring. Conclusions in the RBCT Final Report, which were based on the results of a model of time-shifted early data, poorly reflect the overall greater benefits seen in this more extensive data. Badger culling is highly contentious in the UK and many press reports adversely report the effectiveness of badger culling in general and the culls which started in 2013 in particular. The RBCT conclusions are often cited to add credence to these press reports. After the first year of substantial culling in the RBCT, this work found that 9 years of data were needed to clearly see the full extent by which TB dropped when plotted against calendar year. This delay should be reflected on when accounting for the circumstances and assessing impact of the 2013 culls. This work was restricted to looking at data showing total TB breakdowns over all zones. Further work to examine breakdowns by zone or groups of zones may reveal more.

Evaluation of an Hygienic Intervention in Child Day-Care Centers

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-994
Author(s):  
Jonathan B. Kotch ◽  
Ann H. Faircloth ◽  
Kristen A. Weigle ◽  
David J. Weber ◽  
Richard M. Clifford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Day Care ◽  
Significant Rise ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Day Care Centers ◽  
Incidence Data ◽  
Child Day Care ◽  
Care Givers ◽  
Child Day Care Centers ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

The growing use of child day-care centers (CDCCs) has produced a significant rise in morbidity due to infectious diseases which carry such consequences as discomfort, disability, and parental anxiety.1,2 Haskins conservatively estimated the cost of day-care illnesses among children to be $1.8 billion.3 To this must be added the cost of parents' and care givers' excess illness attributable to CDCCs. No published study describes a successful intervention to reduce the risk of upper respiratory disease in CDCCs. Although many research groups have advocated hand washing and diapering hygiene as a means of reducing the spread of enteric disease in CDCCs,4-11 there are only two controlled studies in the literature. In their pioneering work, Black et al showed the incidence of diarrhea in CDCCs following a rigorously monitored hand-washing program to be nearly twice that in intervention centers.12 Bartlett et al monitored the impact of hand washing in randomly assigned CDCCs and found no intervention effect. However, rates of diarrhea were significantly lower among children in the actively monitored centers regardless of intervention status.13 These studies share several limitations: the sources of incidence data were not blinded to center intervention status, the analyses did not statistically control for potential confounders, and non-independence of multiple diarrhea episodes in the same child were not accounted for. The purposes of our study were to develop a feasible, multicomponent hygienic intervention and to carefully measure its impact while controlling for sources of bias. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or any of the other co-sponsors of this conference.

scholarly journals Earnings quality and the cost of equity capital: evidence on the impact of legal background

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Hassan Ahmed ◽  
Yasean Tahat ◽  
Yasser Eliwa ◽  
Bruce Burton
Keyword(s):  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Institutional Ownership ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Cost Of Equity ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Earnings quality is of great concern to corporate stakeholders, including capital providers in international markets with widely varying regulatory pedigrees and ownership patterns. This paper aims to examine the association between the cost of equity capital and earnings quality, contextualised via tests that incorporate the potential for moderating effects around institutional settings. The analysis focuses on and compares evidence relating to (common law) UK/US firms and (civil law) German firms over the period 2005–2018 and seeks to identify whether, given institutional dissimilarities, significant differences exist between the two settings. Design/methodology/approach First, the authors undertake a review of the extant literature on the link between earnings quality and the cost of capital. Second, using a sample of 948 listed companies from the USA, the UK and Germany over the period 2005 to 2018, the authors estimate four implied cost of equity capital proxies. The relationship between companies’ cost of equity capital and their earnings quality is then investigated. Findings Consistent with theoretical reasoning and prior empirical analyses, the authors find a statistically negative association between earnings quality, evidenced by information relating to accruals and the cost of equity capital. However, when they extend the analysis by investigating the combined effect of institutional ownership and earnings quality on financing cost, the impact – while negative overall – is found to vary across legal backdrops. Research limitations/implications This paper uses institutional ownership as a mediating variable in the association between earnings quality and the cost of equity capital, but this is not intended to suggest that other measures may be of relevance here and additional research might usefully expand the analysis to incorporate other forms of ownership including state and foreign bases. Second, and suggestive of another avenue for developing the work presented in the study, the authors have used accrual measures of earnings quality. Practical implications The results are shown to provide potentially important insights for policymakers, creditors and investors about the consequences of earnings quality variability. The results should be of interest to firms seeking to reduce their financing costs and retain financial viability in the wake of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Originality/value The reported findings extends the single-country results of Eliwa et al. (2016) for the UK firms and Francis et al. (2005) for the USA, whereby both reported that the cost of equity capital is negatively associated with earnings quality attributes. Second, in a further increment to the extant literature (particularly Francis et al., 2005 and Eliwa et al., 2016), the authors find the effect of institutional ownership to be influential, with a significantly positive impact on the association between earnings quality and the cost of equity capital, suggesting in turn that institutional ownership can improve firms’ ability to secure cheaper funding by virtue of robust monitoring. While this result holds for the whole sample (the USA, the UK and Germany), country-level analysis shows that the result holds only for the common law countries (the UK and the USA) and not for Germany, consistent with the notion that extant legal systems are a determining factor in this context. This novel finding points to a role for institutional investors in watching and improving the quality of financial reports that are valued by the market in its price formation activity.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in the UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Bessey ◽  
James Chilcott ◽  
Joanna Leaviss ◽  
Carmen de la Cruz ◽  
Ruth Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. In the UK, the National Screening Committee (NSC) requires screening programmes to be cost-effective at standard UK thresholds. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SCID screening for the NSC, a decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built. Model structure and parameterisation were informed by systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A public service perspective was used and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. Probabilistic, one-way sensitivity analyses and an exploratory disbenefit analysis for the identification of non-SCID patients were conducted. Screening for SCID was estimated to result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,222 with a reduction in SCID mortality from 8.1 (5–12) to 1.7 (0.6–4.0) cases per year of screening. Results were sensitive to a number of parameters, including the cost of the screening test, the incidence of SCID and the disbenefit to the healthy at birth and false-positive cases. Screening for SCID is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY, key uncertainties relate to the impact on false positives and the impact on the identification of children with non-SCID T Cell lymphopenia.

scholarly journals Re-calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Damer P. Blake ◽  
Jolene Knox ◽  
Ben Dehaeck ◽  
Ben Huntington ◽  
Thilak Rathinam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Egg Production ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Chicken Population ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Significant Disease

Abstract Coccidiosis, caused by Eimeria species parasites, has long been recognised as an economically significant disease of chickens. As the global chicken population continues to grow, and its contribution to food security intensifies, it is increasingly important to assess the impact of diseases that compromise chicken productivity and welfare. In 1999, Williams published one of the most comprehensive estimates for the cost of coccidiosis in chickens, featuring a compartmentalised model for the costs of prophylaxis, treatment and losses, indicating a total cost in excess of £38 million in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1995. In the 25 years since this analysis the global chicken population has doubled and systems of chicken meat and egg production have advanced through improved nutrition, husbandry and selective breeding of chickens, and wider use of anticoccidial vaccines. Using data from industry representatives including veterinarians, farmers, production and health experts, we have updated the Williams model and estimate that coccidiosis in chickens cost the UK £99.2 million in 2016 (range £73.0–£125.5 million). Applying the model to data from Brazil, Egypt, Guatemala, India, New Zealand, Nigeria and the United States resulted in estimates that, when extrapolated by geographical region, indicate a global cost of ~ £10.4 billion at 2016 prices (£7.7–£13.0 billion), equivalent to £0.16/chicken produced. Understanding the economic costs of livestock diseases can be advantageous, providing baselines to evaluate the impact of different husbandry systems and interventions. The updated cost of coccidiosis in chickens will inform debates on the value of chemoprophylaxis and development of novel anticoccidial vaccines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document