See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343608820

Economic losses due to brucellosis in India

Article in Indian Journal of Comparative Microbiology Immunology and Infectious Diseases · January 2020
DOI: 10.5958/0974-0147.2020.00002.1

CITATIONS READS
4 961

4 authors:

Dwaipayan Bardhan Shania Kumar

ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institue Zone IX Jabalpur Fiji National University
80 PUBLICATIONS 456 CITATIONS 90 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Med Ram Verma Yogesh C. Bangar

ICAR - Indian Veterinary Research Institute Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences
238 PUBLICATIONS 1,494 CITATIONS 102 PUBLICATIONS 442 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ridge regression and its variations under multicollinearity in multiple linear regression View project

Minimission project on integrated development of horticulture in NE region including sikkim, J&K and HP View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dwaipayan Bardhan on 29 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis. Research Article
Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020: 19-30

ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO BRUCELLOSIS IN INDIA

D. Bardhan1*, S. Kumar2, M.R. Verma3 and Y.C. Bangar4
1
Principal Scientist, Division of Livestock Economics, Statistics and Information Technology, ICAR-Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243122, U.P., India
2
Principal Scientist and Incharge (ARIS/Computer Cell), ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar,
Bareilly-243122, U.P., India
3
Principal Scientist, Division of Livestock Economics, Statistics and Information Technology, ICAR-Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243122, U.P., India
4
Assistant Scientist, Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary Sciences, Lala Lajpat Rai
University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar-125001, Haryana, India

ABSTRACT
The annual economic losses due to brucellosis in different livestock species in India were estimated on the basis of
secondary seroprevalence data collected from published peer-reviewed literature and government reports. Meta-analysis
was carried out to arrive at the pooled prevalence of Bovine brucellosis. Various components of losses included in the study
were reproductive losses (due to abortions and increased infertility), production losses, mortality losses in aborted animals
and draught power losses. Simple mathematical models were developed to estimate the component-wise losses, which were
arrived at INR 9212 crore. To take into account the possibility of variation and uncertainty in various epidemiological and
economic parameters, a sensitivity analysis was also carried out by considering two different scenarios, that is, pessimistic
and optimistic. In the pessimistic scenario, annual losses were estimated up to INR 19,041 crore, while in the optimistic
scenario these are restricted to INR 3169 crore. The Benefit–cost ratio of brucellosis control through vaccination, under
different scenarios, implied economic feasibility of vaccination against brucellosis. The study has thus revealed that
Brucellosis, from policy perspective, is one of the most important diseases when it comes to mitigating losses due to
diseases in dairy animals.

Keywords: Livestock diseases, Prevalence, Losses, Meta-analysis

Received: 05 January, 2020; Accepted: 17 May, 2020

DOI: 10.5958/0974-0147.2020.00002.1

INTRODUCTION targeted preventive animal health care, good feeding

India has the largest livestock population in the world.
According to 20th Livestock Census (GoI, 2019), the
total livestock population in the country is 535.82 million,
registering an increase of about 4.5% during the last inter-
census period (2012–2019). However, the productivity
of livestock sector is very low in India as compared with
developed countries of the world (Rathod et al., 2016).
The factors responsible for the low productivity include
lack of improved breeds and breeding services, lack of
*Corresponding author E-mail: dwaipayanbardhan@gmail.com
strategies and limited access to formal credit facilities
(Torsten et al., 2003). Among these factors, poor
livestock health resulting from multiple endemic diseases
is of primary concern, especially, for resource poor
farmers of the country.
Brucellosis is a widespread highly infectious zoonotic
disease, which has great impact on animal production
and public health (Corbel, 1997). As reported earlier, the
disease has high seroprevalence (2–21%) in Indian
livestock (Verma et al., 2000; Aulakh et al., 2008). In

Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis. 19

 Bardhan et al.
one of the studies, significant annual economic losses to
the tune of about US$ 3.4 billion were reported in India
(Singh et al., 2015), the major share (95.6%) of which
was accounted for by large ruminants. The economic
burden due to the disease mainly stems from abortion
storms in newly infected herds, high prevalence of
retained placenta resulting in endometritis, ultimately
leading to reduced milk production potential and infertility
(Radostits et al., 2000). Besides being a threat to the
livestock, brucellosis has been recognised by World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) as the second most
important zoonotic disease in the world after Rabies
(Priyanka et al., 2019). There is an urgent need to
implement strict control measures to mitigate the losses
incurred due to the disease, both at the farm, sectoral
and national level.
Taking into account the importance of this disease,
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (GoI) launched
National Control Programme on Brucellosis in August
2010, with the provision of 100% assistance to the states
and union territories for mass screening, followed by
vaccination in areas where incidence of the disease is
high. During twelfth five-year plan, the programme was
renamed as Brucellosis Control Programme (Brucellosis-
CP). The Brucellosis-CP envisages vaccination of female
calves between 6 and 8 months in all the states.
Considering the importance of both Foot-and-Mouth
Disease (FMD) and brucellosis, a new targeted
programme, ‘The National Animal Disease Control
Programme (NADCP) for eradicating FMD and
brucellosis’ was launched in September 2019. The
programme has two major components—to control the
diseases by 2025 and eradication by 2030. However, there
is no estimate available, till date, on economic feasibility
indicators for investment made on brucellosis control
through vaccination.
The quantification of economic impact of animal
diseases helps in visualising the impact of the disease in
relational context among diseases per se as well as assisting
in prioritising the disease control/eradication options
(Senturk and Yalcin, 2008). The preliminary requisite for
20
computing economic losses due to animal diseases is
availability of data on prevalence of the disease. However,
in low-income countries, such data availability is a major
problem because of under-reporting (Ahuja et al., 2008).
In the absence of concrete official data on prevalence
and seroprevalence of brucellosis, published literature can
provide a base for estimating the economic losses (Kumar
et al., 2017). Meta-analysis is a statistically powerful
framework that systematically reviews the existing
literature and provides a standard estimate of the
prevalence of various livestock diseases (Barman et al.,
2020).
Therefore, this study was carried out with the
specific objective of computing annual economic losses
due to brucellosis in domesticated animals in India. Singh
et al. (2015) had reported annual economic losses due to
brucellosis in India on the basis of the data of the 19th
livestock census (GoI, 2012). Their estimation of
economic losses was based on prevalence rate reported
in one single study. The study also did not provide the
estimate of economic feasibility indicators of investment
in present brucellosis control programme through
vaccination.
In the above context, this article estimates the annual
economic losses due to brucellosis in India using the latest
(20th) Livestock Census data (GoI, 2019). The study
also uses data as reported in published literature to arrive
at statistically valid pooled prevalence rate. The impact
of present level of investment made on vaccination against
brucellosis is also assessed in this study by carrying out
cost–benefit analyses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data
Evaluation of economic losses due to a disease relies
on relevant data on epidemiological and economic
parameters. Epidemiological parameters mainly refer to
the information/data on disease prevalence. Economic
parameters pertain to information on values of different
parameters associated with the disease and its effect on
production and reproduction traits. These values were
Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020
 Economic Losses Due to Brucellosis in India
collected through sample surveys or published
information (Singh et al., 2014).
To project the economic loss due to brucellosis in
cattle and buffaloes at national level, estimate of
seroprevalence of the disease was collected from
published literature (Verma et al., 2000; Aulakh et al.,
2008; Isloor et al., 1998; Renukaradhya et al., 2002;
Kollanur et al., 2007; Trangadia et al., 2010; Patel et al.,
2014; Shome et al., 2014).
Data Analysis
Meta-analysis of seroprevalence data as reported in
published empirical studies, mentioned above, was carried
out using regression techniques. The estimated effect
reported in the primary study serves as the dependent
variable. The independent or explanatory variables consist
of selected moderator variables, which represent
characteristics of the research design and data structure
(Peake and Marshall, 2009). Thus, the pooled prevalence
of brucellosis in cattle and buffaloes was arrived at by
summarising and synthesising the seroprevalence data
presented in published literature. A literature search for
publications on the prevalence of Brucellosis studies in
India or in different states was performed using the
Table 1: Various Components of Losses due to Brucellosis in Different Livestock Species as Considered in the Study
Components of losses/species
A. Reproductive losses
A.1. Losses due to abortion
A.1.i. Milk Losses due to abortion
A.1.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to increased abortion
A. 2. Losses due to increased intercalving/interkidding/interlambing/
interfarrowing lengths
A.2.i. Milk loss due to increased infertility
A.2.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets that could have been born
B. Production losses
B.1. Direct loss in milk production
B.2. Direct loss in carcass weight
C. Losses due to mortality in adult animals that aborted
D. Draught power loss
Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis.
databases, viz., Google Scholar and PubMed. Search of
data from databases was made using the terms ‘Brucellosis
in India’, ‘Seroprevalence or Brucellosis prevalence’ or
‘Brucellosis infection in India’.
In case of small ruminants and pigs, seroprevalence
studies on brucellosis are scarce. For sheep and goat,
the authors relied upon the seroprevalence data as given
in a report submitted to ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research
Institute, Izatnagar under an Institute research project
report ‘A cross sectional study on seroprevalence of
brucellosis in small ruminants of Uttar Pradesh’ completed
in 2015. In the case of pigs, the seroprevalence data as
reported by Jindal et al. (2017) were used in the study.
Estimation of Economic Loss due to Brucellosis
The total economic loss due to Brucellosis was
worked out (as per the framework given in Singh et al.,
2014) as the sum of reproductive losses (A), production
losses (B), mortality losses in adult animals that aborted
(C) and draught power losses (D). Table 1 presents in
detail the different components of losses due to brucellosis
in different species. Thus, the Total Economic Loss (TL)
may be expressed as per the following equation:
TL = A + B + C + D
Cattle/buffalo Goats Sheep Pigs
√ √ × ×
√ √ √ √
√ √ × ×
√ √ √ √
√ √ × ×
√ √ √ √
√ √ √ √
√ × × ×
21
 Bardhan et al.
A. Reproductive losses
Loss due to reproductive failure is given as:
A = A1 + A2
where A1 denotes losses due to increased abortions and
A2 denotes losses due to increased inter-calving/inter-
kidding/inter-lambing/inter-farrowing lengths
Losses due to increased abortions (A1) are given as.
A1 = A11 + A12
where A11 denotes milk loss due to increased abortions
and A12 indicates loss of live weight because of reduced
numbers of newborns due to increased abortions.
Brucellosis causes abortions, particularly in late
pregnancy, and, in addition to the loss of calves/kids/
lambs/piglets, leads to an increased inter-kidding period.
Assuming that abortion occurs at around 8 months in
case of cattle/buffaloes, 4 months in case of sheep/goat
and 3 months in case of pigs from conception, and there
is a delay of 6 months in case of large/small ruminants
and 3 months in case of pigs until the next conception,
the inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing periods are
increased by 14 months, 10 months and 6 months in
case of cattle/buffalo, goat/sheep and pigs, respectively,
in the animals, which abort.
A11: Milk loss due to increased abortions
The milk loss due to increased abortions was estimated
from the following equation:
A11 = [(12/I) – {12/(I+AS+DE)}] ⋅ PPF ⋅ P ⋅ PA ⋅ (1 –
MR) ⋅ LL ⋅ M ⋅ MP
A12: Live weight loss due to reduced numbers of
newborns due to increased abortions
The reduction in the number of calves/kids/lambs/piglets,
due to an increased number of abortions in animals after
infection, cause a loss in live body weight, which was
estimated by the formula:
A12 = [(12/I) – {12/(I+AS+DE)}] ⋅ PPF ⋅ P ⋅ PA ⋅ (1 –
MR) ⋅ VC
A2: Losses due to increased inter-calving/inter-kidding/
22
inter-lambing/inter-farrowing lengths comprise milk loss
(A21) and also loss of live weight because of reduced
numbers of newborns due to increased inter-calving/inter-
kidding/inter-lambing/inter-farrowing lengths (A22)
Thus, A2 = A21 + A22
A21: Milk loss due to increased inter-calving/inter-kidding/
inter-lambing/inter-farrowing periods
Non-conception as a result of Brucellosis increases
the inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period and
thus fewer animals will be in milk at any given time and
milk output is thus reduced. The loss of milk was
calculated by the reduction in lactating animals in any
year multiplied by the average milk yield per in-milk animal
per year and by the price.
A21 = [(12/I) – {12/(I + DE)}] ⋅ PPF ⋅ P ⋅ (1 – PA) ⋅ LL
⋅ M ⋅ MP
A22: Live weight loss, due to reduced numbers of
newborns because of increased inter-calving/inter-
kidding/inter-lambing/inter-farrowing periods
The reduction in the number of calves/kids/lambs/piglets,
due to the increased inter-calving/kidding/lambing/
farrowing interval periods after infection, causes a loss
in live body weight. Such losses were obtained by the
formula:
A22 = [(12/KI) – {12/(KI + W)}] ⋅ PPF ⋅ P ⋅ (1 – PA) ⋅
VC
B. Production Losses
Production losses are considered as the direct losses
due to brucellosis in animals per year. These losses were
expressed in terms of the reduction in milk yield and live
body weight. Using the price of milk and live body weight,
these losses could be directly converted into monetary
terms.
B = B1 + B2
B1: Direct loss in milk production
The loss due to a direct decline in milk production (which
is not regained when the animal recovers) was calculated
Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020
 Economic Losses Due to Brucellosis in India
using the formula:
B = PMF ⋅ P ⋅ PA ⋅ (1 – MR) ⋅ M ⋅ LL ⋅ MP ⋅ PL
B2: Direct loss due to the reduction in body weight
The direct loss due to the reduction in body weight is
estimated by the formula:
B2 = PS ⋅ P ⋅ WC ⋅ CR ⋅ PBW
C: Losses due to mortality in adult animals that aborted
This was worked out as the product of the number of
aborted animals that died due to Brucellosis and the
probable market value.
C = PPF ⋅ P ⋅ PA ⋅ MR ⋅ MV
D: Draught power loss
Provision was made to account for any drop in work
power due to brucellosis in adult male cattle/buffaloes.
These losses were worked out by using the formula:
D = PMD ⋅ P ⋅ HC ⋅ ND
Data on livestock population, including breedable
female population, in-milk female population, males used
for draught purposes and number of animals slaughtered
per annum were obtained from the 20th Livestock Census
(GoI, 2019), published by Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India. Data on milk yield and carcass
weight were obtained from Basic Animal Husbandry
Statistics (DAHDF, MOA and GOI). Data on parameters
like price of milk, value of calf/kid/lamb/piglet, average
market value of adult animal, price of live body weight,
hiring charges for bullocks were obtained from a
household survey carried out in different agro-climatic
zones of India, under an Institute research project
‘Economic effects of livestock disease burden in India
and Cost benefit analysis of targeted interventions’
completed in 2017. For economic parameters associated
with occurrence of brucellosis in animals, the authors
held extensive discussion with experts on brucellosis and
reproduction to arrive at their best possible estimates of
probable values. The above exercise generated the
economic and epidemiological parameters for brucellosis
in different livestock species (Table 2).
Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis.
Cost–Benefit Analysis of Vaccination against
Brucellosis
The study has assessed the impact of vaccination
against Bovine brucellosis (as brucellosis in cattle and
buffalo constitute the overwhelming share of total losses
due to the disease) by carrying out a cost–benefit analysis
of the control programme. The disease-induced losses
(both due to morbidity and mortality) avoided due to
vaccination against brucellosis were considered as a
measure of the benefits of brucellosis control programme.
The benefits from vaccination were arrived at by
adjusting the economic losses calculated in this study
with vaccination coverage (%) and vaccine effectiveness
(%) as per the formulae given by Govindaraj et al. (2017).
n
B = Σ L × VC × VE
t=1
where B = Benefits due to vaccination
L = Economic loss due to brucellosis
VC = Proportion of animals vaccinated
VE = Vaccine effectiveness
n = different breeds/species, viz. indigenous and crossbred
cattle and buffaloes
The vaccine effectiveness of 70% (Kang et al., 2014)
and vaccine coverage of 48% (NIVEDI) were considered
in the study. The cost of vaccine and vaccination were
considered at INR 40 per dose (INR 30 being the vaccine
cost per dose, as per market price and INR 10 being
vaccination cost per dose, which comprises of needles,
cotton, steriliser, disinfectant, transportation cost, cold
chain maintenance cost, expenditures on mass awareness
campaigns, etc.)
The prevalence level, together with few other
epidemiological and economic parameters, is prone to
variability over different regions and points of time. To
take account of such variation and uncertainty, a
sensitivity analysis was also carried out by considering
two different scenarios, that is, pessimistic and optimistic.
In the two scenarios, different values of those parameters
23
 Bardhan et al.

Table 2: Probable Estimates of Parameters for Brucellosis Effects

Components Notation Unit Ind. CB Buffaloes Goat Sheep Pigs
Cattle cattle
Populationa
Total population PT 2 000 No.’s 142106 50417 109852 148885 74260 7056
Male population PM 2 000 No.’s 43941 3443 9283 32105 13362 1820
Males used for draught purpose PMD 2 000 No.’s 30692 1117 2921 – – –
Total female population PF 2 000 No.’s 98165 46954 100569 116780 60908 5236
In-milk female population PMF 2 000 No.’s 31979 19999 38161 41829 – –
Breedable female population PBF 2 000 No.’s 52128 26230 53994 76193 41831 6814
b
Annual pregnant population PPF 2 000 No.’s 41702 20984 43195 60954 33464 5451
No. of slaughtered animals per year PS 2 000 No.’s 3410 11337 93917 46216 10903
Average carcass weight WC kg/animal 102.69 126.17 11.1 13.04 36.32
Reduction in carcass weight CR % 20 20 20 20 20 20
Average milk yield/day M Litre 2.93 7.71 5.47 0.47 – –
Prevalence P % 7.00 10.00 4.09 12.17 9.50
Increased abortion rate PA % 20 20 20 20 20
Mortality risk in aborted animals MR % 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stage at which abortion occurs AS Months 8 4 3
Delay in next conception DE Months 6 6 3
Calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing interval I Months 20 20 20 9 9 7.50
Average lactation length LL Days 270 305 305 140 – –
Hiring charges HC Rs./day 200 200 200 – – –
Average market value of animal MV Rs. 15000 25000 25000 5500 5050 3000
Proportion of annual lactation lost PL % 20 20 20 20 – –
Price of milk MP Rs./litre 35 35 40 20 – –
Price of live body weight PBW Rs./kg 150 350 300 110
No. of days lost/year for draught power use ND No.’s 22 – – –
Value of Calf/kid/lamb/piglet VC Rs. 1300 2443 2700 1097 1105 900
a
Based upon data obtained from 20th Livestock Census (2019)
b
Estimated assuming 80% of breedable population

were considered to which the estimates of economic loss
were most sensitive. Table 3 summarises the different
parameter values considered in the two scenarios. The
BCR was obtained for these two additional scenarios in
addition to the baseline one. This was done to assess
whether the investment in present level of vaccination is
justified under different scenarios, including the one
assuming low-incidence level.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 4 and 5 present the results of meta-analysis
carried out to as a certain the pooled prevalence of
brucellosis in cattle and buffalo based on seroprevalence
data as reported in published literature. Using the results
of random effect model, the prevalence of brucellosis in
cattle and buffaloes was estimated as 8% and 9%,

24 Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020

 Economic Losses Due to Brucellosis in India

Table 3: Probable Estimates of Parameters for Brucellosis Effects under Pessimistic and Optimistic Scenarios
Parameters
Pessimistic scenario Assumptions
Prevalence (P) 50% more than baseline assumptions
Increased abortion rate (PA) 50% more than baseline assumptions
Increased mortality rate (MR) 5%
Proportion of lactation lost (PL) 50% more than baseline assumptions
No. of days/annum used animals not used for draught purpose lost (ND) 30 days
Optimistic scenario Assumptions
Prevalence (P) 50% less than baseline assumptions
Increased abortion rate (PA) 50% less than baseline assumptions
Increased mortality rate (MR) 0.5%
Proportion of lactation lost (PL) 50% less than baseline assumptions
No. of days/annum used animals not used for draught purpose lost (ND) 10 days

Table 4: Results of Meta-Analysis to Ascertain the Prevalence of Brucellosis in Cattle

Table 5: Results of Meta-Analysis to Ascertain the Prevalence of Brucellosis in Buffaloes

Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis. 25

 Bardhan et al.

respectively. As mentioned earlier, due to the dearth of
literature on prevalence of brucellosis in small ruminants
and pigs, meta-analysis could not be carried out for these
species. The estimates of prevalence of brucellosis in
sheep and goat were taken from the report of Institute
research project completed in 2015. As such, the
prevalence of brucellosis in goats and sheep were
considered as 4.09% and 12.17%, respectively. In case
of pigs, the estimate of 9% prevalence of brucellosis as
given by Jindal et al. (2017) was considered in the study.
This is the first study reporting the economic losses
due to brucellosis in India using statistically valid pooled
prevalence rate, obtained from meta-analyses of
seroprevalence reports available in published literature.
Table 6 presents the component-wise economic losses
due to brucellosis in different species of livestock. Total
annual loss due to brucellosis is estimated to be INR 9212
crore. Buffaloes accounted for the highest share (53.55%)
of total loss among all livestock species, followed by
indigenous cattle (23.86%) and crossbred cattle
(15.23%). Goats, sheep and pigs accounted for relatively
lesser shares of the total losses at 5.50%, 1.68% and
0.18%, respectively. Reproductive losses contributed the
maximum share to total economic losses, with losses
due to abortion and infertility losses accounting for 28.61%
and 31.47%, respectively. Reproduction losses were
followed by production losses and draught power losses
in terms of contribution to total losses (27.41% and
12.03%, respectively). Mortality losses in aborted animals
contributed negligible share (0.49%) to total losses. Within
indigenous cattle, draught power losses accounted for
the highest share (43.01%) of total losses. The
preponderance of indigenous adult male cattle in total
draft animal population in the country might contribute
to the high share of draught power loss to total loss due
to brucellosis in indigenous cattle. In case of crossbred
cattle and buffaloes, the contributions of draught power
loss to total loss were considerably lower (2.45% and
2.61%, respectively). For crossbred cattle and buffaloes,
reproductive losses accounted for the maximum shares
(63.15% and 67.82%, respectively) of total losses. In
case of goats, production losses contributed the

Table 6: Economic Losses due to Brucellosis in Different Livestock Species (INR Crores)
Components of losses Ind. CB Buffa- Goat Sheep Pig Total
cattle cattle loes loss
A. Reproductive loss
A.1. Losses due to abortion
A.1.i. Milk loss due to abortion 395.38 591.39 1410.09 43.31 – – 2440.17
A.1.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due 18.56 17.55 57.05 36.10 59.40 6.56 195.23
to abortion
A.2. Losses due to increased inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
A.2.i. Milk loss due to increased inter-calving/kidding/ 506.04 254.64 1804.74 63.63 – – 2629.05
lambing/farrowing period
A.2.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to increased 23.76 22.47 73.02 53.04 87.28 9.94 269.50
inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
B. Production losses
B.1. Direct loss in milk production 245.45 456.28 1008.47 8.92 – – 1719.10
B.2. Direct loss in carcass weight 54.42 19.11 429.12 298.46 4.40 0.09 805.60
C. Losses due to mortality in adult animals that aborted 8.76 7.34 21.60 2.74 4.11 0.31 44.87
D. Draught power loss 945.31 34.40 128.52 – – – 1108.24
Total loss 2197.69 1403.19 4932.61 506.19 155.19 16.90 9211.76

26 Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020

 Economic Losses Due to Brucellosis in India

maximum share to total losses (60.72%), followed by
reproductive losses (38.74%). In case of sheep and pigs,
reproductive losses accounted for overwhelming shares
of total losses (94.52% and 97.63%, respectively).
The above evaluation of annual losses due to
brucellosis is deterministic in nature, since it does not
consider the possibility of variations in the values of
various epidemiological and economic parameters as
assumed in the study. In the pessimistic scenario, losses
go up to 19041.20 crore (Table 7), while in the optimistic
scenario the annual losses are restricted to 3168.89 crore
(Table 8). Studies on the economic production losses
due to Bovine brucellosis are scant. Loss of 6–10% of
the income per animal in Africa was reported by Mangen
et al. (2002). Samartino (2002) estimated annual
economic losses of US$ 60 million in Argentina. In Nigeria,
losses were estimated at US$ 575,605 per year. Losses
resulting from Brucella infection are even lesser
documented in tropical Asia. In a comprehensive study,
Singh et al. (2015) had carried out a stochastic analysis
of annual economic losses caused due to brucellosis in
India in different livestock populations. The authors had
reported annual median loss of about US$ 3.4 billion (INR
22,000 crore). Based upon literature review, the authors
had used prevalence rate of 9.30% and 16.41%,
respectively, in cattle and buffaloes (referring to
seroprevalence data as reported by Kollanur et al., 2007
and Aulakh et al., 2008, respectively). In the baseline
analysis, to estimate economic losses due to brucellosis
in this study, the results of the random effect model from
the meta-analysis exercise of peer-reviewed literature were
used (prevalence of 7% and 10% in cattle and buffaloes,
respectively). Out of important parameters, estimates of
economic losses due to animal diseases are most sensitive
to assumptions regarding prevalence rates. As such, when
a higher prevalence was assumed in the pessimistic
scenario (10.5% and 15%, respectively, in cattle and
buffaloes), the estimate of annual economic losses due
to brucellosis in India as obtained in this study was
comparable to that reported by Singh et al. (2015).

Table 7: Economic Losses due to Brucellosis under Pessimistic Scenario (INR Crores)
Components of losses Ind. CB Buffa- Goat Sheep Pig Total
cattle cattle loes loss
A. Reproductive losses
A.1. Losses due to abortion
A.1.i. Milk loss due to abortion 853.67 1276.87 3044.51 93.43 – – 5268.47
A.1.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to abortion 40.08 37.90 123.18 77.88 128.22 14.17 421.43
A.2. Losses due to increased inter-alving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
A.2.i. Milk loss due to increased inter-calving/kidding/ 664.18 334.21 2368.72 83.44 3450.56
lambing/farrowing period
A.2.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to increased 31.18 29.49 95.83 695.57 114.52 13.05 353.63
inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
B. Production losses
B.1. Direct loss in milk production 794.91 1477.70 3266.06 28.85 5567.52
B.2. Direct loss in carcass weight 81.63 28.68 643.67 447.33 6.60 0.12 1208.03
C. Losses due to mortality in adult animals that aborted 98.52 82.62 242.97 30.83 46.26 3.50 504.70
D. Draught power loss 1933.60 70.37 262.89 2266.86
Total Loss 4497.78 3337.84 10047.83 831.31 295.60 30.84 19041.20

Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis. 27

 Bardhan et al.

Table 8: Economic losses due to brucellosis under optimistic scenario (INR Crores)
Components of losses Ind. CB Buffa- Goat Sheep Pig Total
cattle cattle loes loss
A. Reproductive losses
A.1. Losses due to abortion
A.1.i. Milk loss due to abortion 99.35 148.59 354.30 10.91 613.15
A.1.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to abortion 4.66 4.41 14.33 9.09 14.91 1.48 48.89
A.2. Losses due to increased inter-alving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
A.2.i. Milk loss due to increased inter-calving/kidding/ 284.65 143.23 1015.17 35.88 1478.93
lambing/farrowing period
A.2.ii. Value of calves/kids/lambs/piglets lost due to increased 13.36 12.64 41.07 29.91 49.05 5.00 151.04
inter-calving/kidding/lambing/farrowing period
B. Production losses
B.1. Direct loss in milk production 30.84 57.32 126.70 1.12 0.27 216.24
B.2. Direct loss in carcass weight 27.21 9.56 214.56 149.60 2.20 0.03 403.16
C. Losses due to mortality in adult animals that aborted 1.09 0.92 2.70 0.34 0.51 0.03 5.60
D. Draught power loss 214.84 7.82 29.21 251.87
Total Loss 676.01 411.70 1798.04 236.85 66.94 6.55 3168.89

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Vaccination against Table 9: Cost–Benefit Analyses of Vaccination against

Brucellosis Bovine Brucellosis
Benefit Cost BCR
As per the formulae mentioned in the earlier section,
(INR crores) (INR crores)
the benefits of vaccination were computed and the BCR
Baseline 3247.15 315.20 10.30
was calculated by finding the ratio between the benefits
and the costs of vaccination. The cost–benefit analysis Pessimistic 6712.03 315.20 21.29
indicated that the benefits outweigh the cost incurred for Optimistic 1117.03 315.20 3.54
vaccination under all scenarios. Even under low incidence
scenario, the benefits realised will be 3 times over the recently published literature. Singh et al. (2013) had
cost. Under high-incidence scenario, the BCR calculated reported annual losses due to FMD within the range of
was much higher (21:1) for all the breeds/species of INR 12,000–14,000 crore; Singh et al. (2014) had
bovine animals (Table 9), thus indicating that the benefits reported annual losses of INR 5255 crore due to
of vaccination far outweigh the associated costs. This haemorrhagic septicaemia; Bardhan et al. (2017) had
reported most likely range of annual losses due to Peste
points towards the economic feasibility of brucellosis
des petits ruminants within INR 4245–4350 crore. This
control programme through vaccination and justifies
implies that Brucellosis, from policy perspective, is one
investment to be made in mass vaccination of cattle and
of the most important diseases when it comes to
buffalo population in the country.
mitigating losses due to diseases in animals. The benefits
To conclude, this study has revealed significant of vaccination outweighed the cost even under low-
economic losses due to Brucellosis in India. The losses incidence scenario. Thus, it is suggested to bring more
due to brucellosis, as estimated in this study, are higher cattle and buffalo population under vaccination coverage
than losses due to other priority diseases as reported in against brucellosis.

28 Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020

 Economic Losses Due to Brucellosis in India
COMPETING INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Ahuja, V., Rajasekhar, M., Raju, R. (2008). Animal Health for
Poverty Alleviation: A Review of Key Issues for India.
(www.vinodahuja.in/Animal%20health%20for%20poverty
%20alleviation).
Aulakh, H.K., Patil, P.K., Sharma, S., Kumar, H., Mahajan, V.,
Sandhu, K.S. (2008). A study on the epidemiology of bovine
Brucellosis in Punjab (India) using milk-ELISA. Acta Vet.
Brno., 77: 393–9.
Bardhan, D., Kumar, S., Anandsekaran, G., Chaudhury, J.K., Meraj,
M., Singh, R.K., Verma, M.R., Kumar, D., Kumar, P.T.N.,
Ahmed Lone, S., Mishra, V., Mohanty, B.S., Korade, N.,
De, U.K. (2017). ‘The economic impact of peste des petits
ruminants in India’. In ‘The economics of animal health’ (J.
Rushton, ed.). Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 36: 245–63.
doi:10.20506/rst.36.1.2626.
Barman, N.N., Patil, S.S., Kurli, R., Deka, P., Bora, D.P., Deka, G.,
Ranjitha, K.N., Shivaranjini, C., Roy, P., Suresh, K.P. (2020).
Meta-analysis of the prevalence of livestock diseases in
North Eastern Region of India. Vet. World, 13: 80–91.
Corbel, M.J. (1997). Brucellosis: an overview. Emerg. Infect. Dis.,
3: 213–21.
Government of India (GoI). (2012). 19th Livestock Census.
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, New Delhi.
Government of India (GoI). (2019). 20th Livestock Census.
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry
of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, New Delhi.
Govindaraj, G., Krishnamoorthy P., Nethrayini K.R., Shalini R.,
Rahman H. (2017). Epidemiological features and financial
loss due to clinically diagnosed Haemorrhagic Septicemia in
bovines in Karnataka, India. Prev. Vet. Med., 144: 123–133.
Isloor, S., Renukaradhya, G.J., Rajasekhar, M. (1998). A serological
survey of bovine brucellosis in India. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz., 17: 781–5.
Jindal, P., Singh, B.B., Kaur, P., Gill, J.P.S. (2017). Sero-prevalence
and molecular detection of Brucella species in Slaughter Pigs
(Sus scrofa) of Punjab, India. J. Anim. Res., 7: 495–9.
Kang, G.J., Gunaseelan, L., Abbas, K.M. (2014). Epidemiological
modeling of bovine Brucellosis in India. In: Proceedings IEEE
International Conference on Big Data, 2014 October 2014:
6–10. doi:10.1109/BigData.2014.7004420. Available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537291/
(accessed on 15 May 2020).
Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis.
Kollanur, J.D., Rathore, R., Chauhan, R.S. (2007). Epidemiology
and economics of Brucellosis in animals and its zoonotic
significance. In: Proceedings of 13th International Congress
in Animal Hygiene 17-21 June 2007 Tartu, Estonia Estonian
University of Life Sciences. Available at https://www.isahsoc.
org/userfiles/downloads/proceedings/Proc_ISAH_2007_
Volume_I/83_Kollannur.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).
Kumar, R., Jain, S., Kumar, S., Sethi, K., Kumar, S., Tripathi, B.N.
(2017). Impact estimation of animal trypanosomosis (surra)
on livestock productivity in India using simulation model:
current and future perspective. Vet Parasitol. doi:10.1016/
j.vprsr.2017.06.008.
Mangen, M.J., Otte J., Pfeiffer, D., Chilonda, P. (2002). Bovine
brucellosis in sub-Saharan Africa: estimation of
seroprevalence and impact on meat and milk offtake potential.
Livestock Policy Discussion Paper No. 8. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Available at ftp. fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ag274e/ag274e00.pdf
Patel, D., Patel, P.R., Prajapati, M.G., Kanani, A.N., Tyagi, K.K.,
Fulsoundar, A.B. (2014). Prevalence and risk factor’s analysis
of bovine brucellosis in peri-urban areas under intensive
system of production in Gujarat, India. Vet. World, 7: 510–
6.
Peake, W.O., Marshall, M.I. (2009). Does experience determine
performance? A meta-analysis on the experience-performance
relationship. In: Proceedings of Agricultural and Applied
Economics Association and ACCI Joint Annual Meeting,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 26–28 July 2009. Available at https:/
/www.aaea.org/UserFiles/file/programs/2009_Final_
Program.pdf
Priyanka, Shringi, B.N., Kashyap, S.K. (2019). Bovine brucellosis:
a review on background information and perspective. J.
Entomol. Zool. Stud., 7: 607–13.
Radostits, O.M., Gay, C.C., Blood, C.D., Hinchcliff, K.W. (2000).
Textbook of the Disease of Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats and
Horses. 9th Ed. W.B. Saunders Company Ltd, New York.
Rathod, P., Chander, M., Bangar, Y. (2016). Livestock vaccination
in India: an analysis of theory and practice among multiple
stakeholders. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 35: 1–23.
Renukaradhya, G.J., Isloor, S., Rajasekhar, M. (2002).
Epidemiology, zoonotic aspects, vaccination and control/
eradication of brucellosis in India. Vet. Microbiol., 90: 183–
95.
Samartino, L.E. (2002). Brucellosis in Argentina. Vet. Microbiol.,
90: 71–80.
Senturk, B., Yalcin, C. (2008). Production losses due to Foot-and-
Mouth disease in cattle in Turkey. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci.,
32: 433–440.
29
 Bardhan et al.
Shome, R., Padmashree, B.S., Krithiga, N., Triveni, K.M., Sahay,
S., Shome, B.R., Singh, B., Rahman, H. (2014). Bovine
Brucellosis in organized farms of India - an assessment of
diagnostic assays and risk factors. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 2:
557–64.
Singh, B., Prasad, S., Sinha, D.K., Verma, M.R. (2013). Estimation
of economic losses due to foot and mouth disease in India.
Indian J. Anim. Sci., 83: 964–70.
Singh, B., Prasad, S., Verma, M.R., Sinha, D.K. (2014). Estimation
of economic losses due to Haemorrhagic Septicaemia in cattle
and buffaloes in India. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 27: 271–9.
Singh, B.B., Dhand, N.K., Gill, J.P.S. (2015). Economic losses
occurring due to brucellosis in India livestock populations.
Prev. Vet. Med., 119: 211–5.
Torsten, H., Garcia, O., Saha A. (2003). A review of milk production
in India with particular emphasis on small-scale producers.
30
View publication stats
Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI) Working Paper
No. 2, p. 58. Available at www.fao.org/ag/againfo/
programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/wp2.pdf (accessed on 30
January 2019).
Trangadia, B., Rana, S.K., Mukherjee, F., Srinivasan, V.A. (2010).
Prevalence of Brucellosis and infectious bovine
rhinotracheitis in organized dairy farms in India. Trop Anim.
Health Pro., 42: 203–207.
Verma, S., Katoch, R.C., Sharma, M., Nigam, P. (2000). Abortions
and infertility in domestic livestock due to brucellosis in
Himachal Pradesh, India. Vet. Arh., 70: 75–82.
How to cite this article: Bardhan, D., Kumar, S., Verma, M.R.,
Bangar, Y.C. (2020). Economic losses due to brucellosis in India.
Indian J. Comp. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. Dis., 41(1): 19-30.
Vol. 41 No. 1 (Jan-June), 2020