Impacts of zoonoses on Brazilian livestock and the economic feasibility of prevention strategies under the One Health perspective

Impactos das Zoonoses na Pecuária Brasileira e a Viabilidade Econômica das Estratégias de Prevenção sob a Perspectiva One Health

ABSTRACT

Zoonoses represent one of the major constraints on Brazilian livestock production, causing significant losses in productivity, product quality, and access to international markets. This study assesses the economic impacts of bovine brucellosis, fasciolosis, foot-and-mouth disease, gastrointestinal parasitism, cysticercosis, and bovine botulism, analyzing both direct and indirect production losses. Using economic metrics — Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) — the main prevention strategies adopted in Brazil were evaluated. Losses due to bovine brucellosis in Brazil were estimated at BRL 420 per infected female over 24 months of age in dairy herds and BRL 226 in beef herds. The total estimated economic loss reached approximately BRL 892 million. In 2005, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in an export region, and total control costs were estimated at USD 550 million, or roughly BRL 3 billion in current currency. The results indicate that investments in vaccination, parasite-control programs, sanitary education, and epidemiological monitoring show high economic feasibility and contribute to food security and public health. From the One Health perspective, such strategies not only promote economic gains for the livestock sector but also strengthen environmental sustainability and human health protection.

Keywords
zoonoses; livestock; One Health; prevention; economic feasibility

RESUMO

As zoonoses constituem um dos maiores entraves à pecuária brasileira, gerando perdas significativas em produtividade, qualidade dos produtos e acesso a mercados internacionais. Este artigo avalia os impactos econômicos da brucelose bovina, fasciolose, febre aftosa, parasitismos gastrointestinais, cisticercose e botulismo bovino, analisando as perdas diretas e indiretas na produção. Por meio da aplicação de métricas econômicas — Valor Presente Líquido (VPL), Taxa Interna de Retorno (TIR) e Benefício-Custo (BCR) —, foram avaliadas as principais estratégias de prevenção utilizadas no Brasil. As perdas devidas à brucelose bovina no Brasil foram estimadas em BRL 420 ou BRL 226 para cada fêmea infectada acima de 24 meses de idade em rebanhos de leite ou corte, respectivamente. O prejuízo total estimado foi de aproximadamente BRL 892 milhões. No Brasil, em 2005, o surto de febre aftosa ocorreu em uma região exportadora, e os custos totais de controle foram estimados em USD 550 milhões, ou cerca de BRL 3 bilhões em valor de moeda atual. Os resultados indicam que investimentos em vacinação, programas de controle parasitário, educação sanitária e monitoramento epidemiológico apresentam elevada viabilidade econômica e contribuem para a segurança alimentar e a saúde pública. Sob a ótica da abordagem One Health, tais estratégias não apenas promovem ganhos econômicos ao setor, como fortalecem a sustentabilidade ambiental e a proteção da saúde humana.

Palavras-chave
zoonoses; pecuária; One Health; prevenção; viabilidade econômica

1. Introduction

The Brazilian livestock industry represents approximately 9% of the national agribusiness GDP and constitutes one of the main pillars of the country’s trade balance. According to the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA, 2023), the sector generated around BRL 1 trillion in 2023, consolidating itself as a driver of economic growth and global food security. However, this prominent role faces a persistent and costly challenge: zoonoses.

Zoonoses are diseases transmitted between animals and humans that pose a constant threat to the sustainability of livestock production. It is estimated that, globally, economic losses caused by parasitic and infectious diseases exceed USD 20 billion per year, compromising productivity, meat quality, and the sanitary integrity of production chains (Charlier et al., 2023; FAO, 2023). In Brazil, losses associated solely with bovine parasites amount to approximately USD 13.96 billion annually (Grisi et al., 2014).

Diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, leptospirosis, and fasciolosis not only cause mortality and reproductive losses in herds but also result in carcass condemnation, reduced productivity, and high costs associated with treatment or premature culling. Because of their zoonotic nature, close contact between humans and livestock requires monitoring by public health services, in accordance with the level of risk and local health authority guidelines (Table 1).

Table 1
Production impacts of main zoonoses in Brazilian livestock.

Disease	Production impactss	Estimated Losses in Brazil*	Risk to Human Health
Bovine brucellosis	Abortions, infertility, decreased milk production	> BRL 450 million/year	Occupational zoonosis (undulant fever)
Fasciolosis	Reduced weight gain, liver condemnation in slaughterhouses	~BRL 100 million/year	Potentially zoonotic
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)	Reduced productivity, trade barriers, and mortality during outbreaks	Losses > BRL 5 billion** (trade embargoes)	Low direct risk, but high economic impact
Gastrointestinal parasitism	Reduced weight gain, increased feeding costs	~BRL 13 billion/year	No direct risk
Bovine cysticercosis	Carcass condemnation, meat devaluation	~BRL 500 million/year	Transmission to humans (taeniasis)
Bovine botulism	Sudden death during outbreaks, replacement losses	Up to BRL 50 million/year	Toxin poses a human risk through contaminated food

• ^*
  Sources: EMBRAPA (2021); MAPA (2017; 2019; 2022); FAO (2023); Grisi et al. (2014); Molento et al. (2018); Rezende et al. (2018).
• ^**
  Currently free of the disease, Brazil recorded losses due to embargoes in 2005 (MAPA, 2022).

On the other hand, preventive measures, such as vaccination, vector control, surveillance programs, and sanitary education, have proven to be highly cost-effective. A study conducted in Rondônia showed that bovine brucellosis control achieved an internal rate of return (IRR) of 49% and a benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of 3, confirming the positive return on investments in animal health (Ferreira et al., 2023).

Insufficient investment in prevention programs, combined with failures in sanitary surveillance and control, compromises not only livestock productivity but also public health and international trade. In this context, it is essential to critically assess the economic impacts of major zoonoses on Brazilian livestock production and the returns associated with preventive investments.

Globally, zoonoses account for more than 20% of production losses in animal husbandry (Cutler et al., 2010). In Brazil, a literature review covering the last 20 years highlights parasitism, fasciolosis, brucellosis, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and bovine cysticercosis as major concerns.

According to Grisi et al. (2014), the annual economic impact of parasites on Brazilian cattle is estimated at USD 13.96 billion, distributed as follows: gastrointestinal nematodes (USD 7.11 billion), Rhipicephalus microplus ticks (USD 3.24 billion), horn flies (USD 2.56 billion), screwworm (Dermatobia hominis) (USD 0.38 billion), and stable flies (USD 0.34 billion). A previous study by the Brazilian

Parasitological Surveillance estimated that nematodes alone caused potential losses of USD 1.87 billion in milk production and USD 5.24 billion in beef production, totaling about USD 7.11 billion—consistent with the aforementioned figures. In dairy farming in Minas Gerais, ticks were responsible for a reduction of 90.24 liters of milk per cow per lactation, corresponding to an estimated loss of USD 922.36 million when extrapolated to the national herd (Grisi et al., 2014).

Fasciolosis, in turn, leads to approximately USD 210 million in annual losses in meat production due to carcass weight reduction, according to Molento et al. (2018). In certain regions of Rio Grande do Sul, prevalence can reach 91%, with individual losses ranging from USD 35 to USD 81.60 per animal, depending on the study (Molento et al., 2018).

Brucellosis control through vaccination programs (S19 and RB51), as reported by Barros et al. in the State of Mato Grosso, resulted in a net present value (NPV) of USD 37.5 million, an IRR of 31%, and a BCR of 2.3 when both public and private costs were considered. For private producers alone, the NPV reached USD 51.3 million, the IRR 46%, and the BCR 3.43—representing a return of USD 3.43 for every dollar invested (Barros et al., 2023). Another study conducted in São Paulo and Mato Grosso (2015) confirmed that vaccinating 90% of heifers (3–8 months of age) yielded the best economic performance in brucellosis control programs (Alves et al., 2015).

A recent (2025) simulation study conducted in Rio Grande do Sul estimated the direct costs of a hypothetical FMD outbreak to range from USD 977 thousand to USD 52.3 million, including disinfection, emergency vaccination, movement restrictions, and sanitary inspections (Cardenas et al., 2025). A previous input–output model published in 2021 projected that international market closure could reduce Brazilian production by BRL 7.1–8.1 billion, lower GDP by BRL 2.6–3.0 billion, and result in the loss of 60–70 thousand jobs (Menezes & Cunha, 2021). Earlier in 2014, simulations indicated that a 2006 outbreak could have reduced production by BRL 3.3–10.2 billion, whereas achieving an FMD-free status without vaccination could increase economic output by BRL 3.8–12.5 billion (Alves & Guilhoto, 2014).

Lastly, bovine cysticercosis, which is commonly detected during post-mortem inspection in slaughterhouses, causes direct losses estimated at BRL 24.5 million per year in the State of Minas Gerais alone (Rezende et al., 2018).

However, the literature review revealed that most studies discuss these zoonoses individually, and no recent publication provides an integrated analysis of their occurrence and impacts. Few works quantify their effects using economic and financial indicators such as NPV, IRR, and BCR. While studies exist for specific regions of the country, comparative or nationwide assessments remain scarce. Finally, the modern One Health approach, which integrates animal, public, and environmental health, is still rarely addressed in Brazilian studies.

This article aims to provide a tangible overview of the economic losses caused by zoonoses in the national livestock sector and to assess the economic effectiveness of the main preventive strategies adopted in the industry. The analysis also seeks to discuss sustainable pathways for promoting animal health and sanitary safety in Brazil, under the integrated perspective of the One Health approach, which recognizes the interdependence between animal, human, and environmental health.

2 Material and methods

This research is quantitative, descriptive, and analytical in nature, grounded in an exploratory approach based on information obtained from representative official and scientific sources. Secondary data and economic simulations were employed to measure the financial impacts of the main zoonoses affecting Brazilian livestock, as well as to assess the economic feasibility of prevention and control strategies from both the producer’s and the national production system’s perspectives.

The selection of zoonoses (bovine brucellosis, fasciolosis, foot-and-mouth disease, gastrointestinal parasitism, bovine cysticercosis, and bovine botulism) followed the criteria of prevalence, economic impact, and availability of financial and epidemiological data. The evaluated strategies included those with the greatest practical relevance in Brazil, such as vaccination, strategic parasite control, sanitary inspection, health education, and epidemiological surveillance.

The baseline data were obtained from reliable public and scientific sources, including IBGE, Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária (MAPA), Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Health Organization (FAO/WHO), and peer-reviewed articles indexed in databases such as Scielo, PubMed, and Scopus. When necessary, sensitivity adjustments were applied to harmonize values and ensure representativeness within the context of Brazil’s bovine production systems (beef and dairy).

The economic evaluation was conducted using classical indicators of financial feasibility, namely Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR), and Total Economic Losses (P). These indicators were selected to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic viability of preventive interventions in the livestock production system.

Net Present Value (NPV) represents the present value of the sum of future cash flows generated by a preventive investment and was calculated as follows

$NPV=\sum _{n=1}^{n=N}\frac{C{F}_t}{(1+i{)}^n}$

Where:

CF = Cash Flow

t = Time at which the cash flow occurs

i = Discount rate (or minimum attractive rate of return)

n = Time period

N = Total period

Cash flows (CF) were estimated as the difference between avoided losses (benefits) and direct intervention costs, including vaccines, medications, labor, and management. A positive NPV (NPV > 0) indicates that the preventive strategy is financially advantageous; NPV = 0 denotes economic neutrality; and NPV < 0 indicates economic infeasibility.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) represents the rate of return calculated from the sum of cash flows and was calculated as follows:

$\sum _{t=0}^n\frac{C{F}_t}{(1+IRR{)}^t}=0$

Where:

CF = Cash Flow

t = Time at which the cash flow occurs

n = Time period

When NPV is positive, the IRR provides an estimate of the return on invested capital and allows comparison with the market discount rate (𝑖i). An IRR higher than the adopted discount rate indicates that investing in the preventive intervention is more attractive than alternative financial investments.

Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR) expresses the relationship between discounted benefits and discounted costs associated with the preventive strategy and was calculated as follows:

$BCR=\frac{\sum _{t=1}^T\frac{B_t}{(1+r{)}^t}}{\sum _{t=1}^T\frac{C_t}{(1+r{)}^t}}$

Where:

B = Benefits of the preventive strategy

C = Implementation costs

T = Total time of cash flow

r = Discount rate (or minimum attractive rate of return)

t = Time of occurrence

N = Total period

Expected benefits (B) were estimated based on the reported efficacy rates of official vaccination campaigns and/or known pharmaceuticals, as well as annual loss estimates from official sources. Costs (C) include product expenses (medications), application, and labor. This indicator measures the proportion of gain relative to the cost incurred. Ideally, BCR values should be significantly greater than 1.

Total Losses (P) were estimated as the sum of direct and indirect losses associated with adverse events, such as zoonotic disease outbreaks, and was calculated as follows:

$P=\sum _{z=1}^N{P}_{direct}+\sum _{z=1}^N{P}_{indirect}$

Where:

P = Monetary losses

z = Number of disbursements

N = Total period

Total Economic Losses (P) were estimated as the sum of direct losses (productivity reduction, animal culling, treatment costs) and indirect losses (trade restrictions, market loss, and reduction in added value), according to methodologies adapted from Grisi et al. and Molento et al. (Grisi et al., 2014; Molento et al., 2018).

As general assumptions, a 10-year total period (N) was considered, compatible with the average production cycle and the duration of preventive interventions evaluated. The discount rate (i) was set at 8% per year, representing the average investment attractiveness rate for the Brazilian livestock sector, based on data from the Rural Credit and Proagro Bulletin of the Central Bank of Brazil (BACEN, 2025).

The results were presented per animal, assuming 100% herd coverage. Expected benefits were estimated based on the efficacy rate of the intervention as reported by official campaigns and/or validated pharmaceuticals, and the annual losses reported by competent authorities.

For currency adjustments, historical values were updated to BRL in 2025, using the Broad National Consumer Price Index (IPCA) obtained from the IBGE.

This methodological structure aims to ensure transparency in the origin of economic indices, reproducibility of calculations, and validity of results in relation to the productive and sanitary realities of Brazilian livestock farming.

3. Results and discussion

Considering the magnitude of the estimated economic losses for each evaluated zoonosis (Figure 1), it is observed that gastrointestinal parasitism represents the highest economic loss, exceeding BRL 13 billion per year, followed by foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which can cause impacts greater than BRL 5 billion in the event of trade embargoes, as recorded during the last crisis in 2005. Although the remaining diseases show comparatively lower values, they collectively impose high cumulative costs on the livestock sector, reaching a total of approximately BRL 20 billion annually.

Figure 1
Recorded zoonoses and their losses in Brazilian livestock.

Based on this scenario, which guided the selection of the main zoonoses, a survey of preventive measures (i.e., cost per animal) and their respective effectiveness enabled the calculation of the Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR), as previously described.

Table 2 presents the results for the main prevention strategies. All analyzed measures yielded a BCR greater than 1, indicating economic feasibility. Notably, strategic parasite control (BCR = 6.0) and FMD vaccination (BCR = 4.8) stood out as the most profitable and sustainable long-term investments.

Table 2
Summary of the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) by zoonosis prevention strategy.

Strategy	Loss without intervention (BRL/animal·year)	Effectiveness	Expected benefit (BRL/animal·year)	Annual cost (BRL/animal·year)	Annual BCR
Vaccination against FMD	90.00	80%	72.00	15.00	4.80
Vaccination against brucellosis (females)	68.00	65%	44.20	20.00	2.21
Strategic parasite control	350.00	60%	210.00	35.00	6.00
Mineral supplementation (Botulism prevention)	80.00	70%	56.00	20.00	2.80
Inspection/Training for cysticercosis	32.00	60%	19.20	12.00	1.60
Epidemiological monitoring	26.00	50%	13.00	10.00	1.30

• * Sources: Menezes & Cunha (2021); MAPA (2018); MAPA (2017); da Silva et al. (2021); da Silva & Rodrigues Jr. (2024); De et al. (2020); Molento et al. (2018); EMBRAPA (2021); Silva & Cordeiro da Silva (2024); Cáceres et al. (2023); FAO/WHO (2025); Ramos (2019); Cardenas et al. (2025); MAPA (2019).

This finding is reinforced by Table 3, which presents the results for Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR), as already described.

Table 3
Economic feasibility by zoonosis prevention strategy.

Strategy	NPV (BRL/animal year)	IRR	BCR	Feasability
Vaccination against FMD	+75	42%	4.8	High
Vaccination against brucellosis (females)	+30	25%	2.2	Feasible
Strategic parasite control	+120	55%	6.1	Very high
Mineral supplementation (Botulism prevention)	+40	28%	2.8	Feasible
Inspection/Training for cysticercosis	+20	18%	1.6	Moderate
Epidemiological monitoring	+15	12%	1.3	Moderate

It is noteworthy that strategic parasite control is by far the most profitable intervention per animal, generating an estimated value of BRL 120 per animal per year. Considering a capital cost of 8% per year, an IRR of 55% represents a net capital gain of 47% per year.

Similarly, FMD vaccination also demonstrates strong economic feasibility, with a gain of BRL 75 per animal per year and an IRR 5.25 times higher than the assumed cost of capital.

However, it is important to emphasize that economic feasibility analysis should not be the sole determinant in defining preventive protocols. A nationwide assessment of the macroeconomic impact of zoonoses must serve as a primary basis for establishing public policies on animal health and sanitary surveillance.

A typical example is bovine cysticercosis: while its economic feasibility remains positive, it may appear less attractive compared with other zoonoses. However, from the standpoint of livestock economics, it ranks as the third most significant in terms of economic losses.

As shown, the zoonoses evaluated in this study cause multi-billion-dollar losses to Brazilian livestock production. Nevertheless, preventive strategies demonstrate very high economic viability, with BCR values exceeding 2 in nearly all scenarios. Even in cases where BCR values are lower, government attention remains essential. If such measures do not feature among the producer’s most profitable preventive strategies, they should be incorporated into public animal health and sanitary surveillance policies to safeguard the broader economy.

The One Health approach offers the most sustainable pathway forward, ensuring productivity, animal health, consumer protection, and access to global markets. Ultimately, justifying this integrated approach depends on the economic data and their implications for both livestock and public health budgets, highlighting the intrinsic interdependence between economic sustainability and zoonotic disease control.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express their sincere appreciation to Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA), and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) for providing and organizing the data used in this research. Their dedication to transparency, accuracy, and open access to information was fundamental to the completion of this study and to the advancement of scientific understanding regarding zoonotic and economic processes in Brazilian livestock production.

Data Availability

No new data were generated or analyzed in this study. All data used are derived from publicly available sources cited in the references. Additional information may be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

• Alves, A. F., & Guilhoto, J. J. M. (2014). The impact of cattle foot and mouth disease in the Brazilian economy. European Association of Agricultural Economists.
• Alves, A. J. S., Rocha, F., Amaku, M., Ferreira, F., Telles, E. O., Grisi Filho, J. H. H., Ferreira Neto, J. S., Zylbersztajn, D., & Dias, R. A. (2015). Economic analysis of vaccination to control bovine brucellosis in the states of São Paulo and Mato Grosso, Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 118(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed. 2014.12.010
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed. 2014.12.010
• BACEN. Banco Central do Brasil. (2025). Boletim do crédito rural e do Proagro: Sumário executivo – Destaques crédito rural. http://dadosabertos.bcb.gov.br/
  » http://dadosabertos.bcb.gov.br/
• Barros, M. L., Barddal, J. E. I., Santos, J. C. Q., Negreiros, R. L., Rosa, B. M., Teixeira, R. C., Prada, J. R. R., Gonçalves, V. S. P., & Ferreira Neto, J. S. (2023). Retrospective benefit-cost analysis of bovine brucellosis control in the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 218, Article 105992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105992
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.105992
• Cáceres, P., Awada, L., Weber-Vintzel, L., Morales, R., Meske, M., & Tizzani, P. (2023). The World Animal Health Information System as a tool to support decision-making and research in animal health. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, 42(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.42. 3367
  » https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.42. 3367
• Cardenas, N. C., de Menezes, T. C., Countryman, A. M., Lopes, F. P. N., Groff, F. H. S., Rigon, G. M., Gocks, M., & Machado, G. (2025). Integrating epidemiological and economic models to estimate the cost of simulated footand-mouth disease outbreaks in Brazil. arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07083
  » https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07083
• Charlier, J., Williams, D. J., Ravinet, N., & Claerebout, E. (2023). To treat or not to treat: Diagnostic thresholds in subclinical helminth infections of cattle. Trends in Parasitology, 39(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt. 2022.11.014
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt. 2022.11.014
• CNA (2023). Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil. VBP deve atingir R$ 1,36 trilhão em 2023. https://cnabrasil.org.br/publicacoes/vbp-deve-atingir-r-1-36-trilhao-em-2023
  » https://cnabrasil.org.br/publicacoes/vbp-deve-atingir-r-1-36-trilhao-em-2023
• Cutler, S. J., Fooks, A. R., & Van der Poel, W. H. M. (2010). Public health threat of new, reemerging, and neglected zoonoses in the industrialized world. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1601.081467
  » https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1601.081467
• da Silva, F. F., & Rodrigues Jr., O. M. (2024). Prevenção e controle de parasitoses intestinais em comunidades rurais: Competências do farmacêutico comunitário. Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences, 6(10), 2943–2958. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2024v6n10p2943-2958
  » https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2024v6n10p2943-2958
• De, A., Silva, S., Júnior, A. S., Rocha da Silva, R., Rosalba, P., Moura Costa, S., Nunes, R., & Campos, S. (2020). Ações sobre bem-estar animal e zoonoses em escola do sertão nordestino. Brazilian Journal of Animal and Environmental Research, 3(1), 286–289.
• EMBRAPA. (2021). Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Aspectos da suplementação mineral de bovinos de corte. https://www.embrapa.br/busca-depublicacoes/-/publicacao/321045/aspectos-dasuplementacao-mineral-de-bovinos-de-corte
  » https://www.embrapa.br/busca-depublicacoes/-/publicacao/321045/aspectos-dasuplementacao-mineral-de-bovinos-de-corte
• FAO. (2023). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global trends in the animal health sector: 2022 outlook. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-faoagricultural-outlook-2023-2032_08801ab7-en.html
  » https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-faoagricultural-outlook-2023-2032_08801ab7-en.html
• FAO/WHO. (2025). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Health Organization. Codex Alimentarius Commission procedural manual. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd4216en
  » https://doi.org/10.4060/cd4216en
• Ferreira, B. F. S., Barros, M. L., Ferreira, F., Rocha, A., Dias, R. A., Filho, J. H. H. G., Heinemann, M. B., Telles, E. O., Alevate, G. C., & Neto, J. S. F. (2023). Economic analysis of bovine brucellosis control in the Rondônia state, Brazil. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 55(3), Article 03635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03635-y
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03635-y
• Garcia, D. C. C., de Sá, C. V. G. C., McManus, C. M., & de Melo, C. B. (2015). Impactos do surto de febre aftosa de 2005 sobre as exportações de carne bovina brasileira. Ciência Animal Brasileira, 16(4), 525–537. https://doi.org/10.1590/1089-6891v16i426158
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1089-6891v16i426158
• Grisi, L., Leite, R. C., Martins, J. R. de S., de Barros, A. T. M., Andreotti, R., Cançado, P. H. D., de León, A. A. P., Pereira, J. B., & Villela, H. S. (2014). Reassessment of the potential economic impact of cattle parasites in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinária, 23(2), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-29612014042
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-29612014042
• MAPA. (2017). Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. IN nº 10 de 03 de março de 2017. Programa nacional de controle e erradicação da brucelose e da tuberculose animal (PNCEBT).
• MAPA. (2018) Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Programa nacional de erradicação e prevenção da febre aftosa (PNEFA): Informe anual do Brasil para a 46ª COSALFA. 22p.
• MAPA. (2019). Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Programa de vigilância e monitoramento da resistência aos antimicrobianos no âmbito da agropecuária. 20p.
• MAPA. (2022). Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Histórico de perdas na agricultura brasileira (2000–2021). 111p.
• Menezes, T., & Cunha, M. P. da. (2021). Input-output analysis: The case of foot-and-mouth disease in Brazil. 24th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis.
• Molento, M. B., Bennema, S., Bertot, J., Pritsch, I. C., & Arenal, A. (2018). Bovine fascioliasis in Brazil: Economic impact and forecasting. Veterinary Parasitology: Regional Studies and Reports, 12, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2017.12.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vprsr.2017.12.004
• Ramos, D. (2019). Impacto da cisticercose na produção de carnes bovina e suína. Pubvet, 12(12), Article e231. https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v12n12a231.1-8
  » https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v12n12a231.1-8
• Rezende, M. T. N. P., Komatsu, R. S., Andrade, R. B., Reis, S. L. B., Leite, C. R., Rocha, S. R., Saut, J. P. E., & Guimarães, E. C. (2018). Economic losses due to the occurrence of cysticercosis in cattle from cities located in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 48(12), Article e20180483. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180483
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180483
• Santos, R. L., Martins, T. M., Borges, Á. M., & Paixão, T. A. (2013). Perdas econômicas devidas à brucelose bovina no Brasil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, 33(6), 759–764.
• Silva, D., & Cordeiro da Silva, E. I. (2024). Suplementação e formulação de sal mineral e mistura múltipla para bovinos. Revista Universitária Brasileira, 2(1), 27–52.
• Silva, L. A. M. da, Costa, R. dos S., Almeida, J. de, Antunes, R. M., Pereira, L. A., Moraes, P. H. P. de, & Jardim, J. G. (2021). Percepção sobre vacinação contra brucelose bovídea. Referências, Métodos e Tecnologias Atuais na Medicina Veterinária, 171–175. https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.83321090223
  » https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.83321090223

Edited by

• Editor:
  Marion Pereira da Costa

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 May 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  26 Oct 2025
• Accepted
  06 Jan 2026