Abstract
Movements are essential for the economic success of the livestock industry. These movements however bring the risk of long-range spread of infection, potentially bringing infection to previously disease-free areas where subsequent localised transmission can be devastating. Mechanistic predictive models usually consider controls that minimize the number of livestock affected without considering other costs of an ongoing epidemic. However, it is more appropriate to consider the economic burden, as movement restrictions have major consequences for the economic revenue of farms. Using mechanistic models of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), bluetongue virus (BTV) and bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in the UK, we contrast the economically optimal control strategies for these diseases. We show that for FMD, the optimal strategy is to ban movements in a small radius around infected farms; the balance between disease control and maintaining 'business as usual' varies between regions. For BTV and bTB, we find that the cost of any movement ban is more than the epidemiological benefits due to the low within-farm prevalence and slow rate of disease spread. This work suggests that movement controls need to be carefully matched to the epidemiological and economic consequences of the disease, and optimal movement bans are often far shorter than existing policy.