# Stamping out (epidemiology)
Stamping out is an animal disease eradication strategy in which all susceptible animals on infected and dangerous-contact premises are slaughtered, their carcasses safely disposed of, premises disinfected and left depopulated, and animal movements restricted, with compensation paid to owners. The [Food and Agriculture Organization](https://www.edgepedia.org/food-and-agriculture-organization) (FAO) describes it as a recognized and proven strategy for rapid elimination of an introduced exotic or emergency livestock disease.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) The term bundles several interventions into one campaign: designation of infected zones, intensive surveillance, quarantine and movement restrictions, immediate slaughter of all susceptible animals on infected and dangerous-contact premises, safe carcass disposal, cleaning and disinfection, and keeping premises empty for a suitable period.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm)
| Key fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Core interventions | Immediate slaughter of all susceptible animals on infected and dangerous-contact premises, carcass disposal, disinfection, movement restrictions, depopulated rest period[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) |
| Infected zone radii (OIE guidance) | 10 km around disease centers where livestock management is intensive; 50 km under extensive husbandry[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) |
| Standstill rule | All susceptible livestock held for a minimum of 21 days after slaughter of the last clinical case[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) |
| Free-status timeline | Six months after the last case under the OIE International Animal Health Code (1999) when stamping out is applied without vaccination, with serological surveillance[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) |
| 2001 UK foot-and-mouth outbreak | Lasted 221 days; over 4 million animals culled[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5585142/) |
| 2007 UK foot-and-mouth outbreak | Lasted 58 days; 2,160 animals culled[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5585142/) |
| Modelled optimal ring-culling radius (2001 UK FMD) | 0.8 km given 2001 culling delays; 0.75 km given 24/48-hour culling[4](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/276/1671/3239/72850/The-role-of-pre-emptive-culling-in-the-control-of) |
| Welfare standard | Killing must result in immediate death or immediate loss of consciousness lasting until death (WOAH Terrestrial Code Chapters 7.1 and 7.6)[5](https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2279) |
## How it works: the epidemiological logic
Modelling of the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak quantified the role of pre-emptive culling, in which animals on holdings around an infected premises are slaughtered pre-emptively. The optimal radius for ring culling was 0.8 km given the culling delays actually experienced in 2001, and 0.75 km if culling had been achieved within 24 to 48 hours.[4](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/276/1671/3239/72850/The-role-of-pre-emptive-culling-in-the-control-of) Pre-emptive culling programs in livestock epidemics can be very extensive, and their role has been examined in a series of modeling studies.[4](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/276/1671/3239/72850/The-role-of-pre-emptive-culling-in-the-control-of)
Zoning supports the campaign by containing spread. OIE guidelines recommend an infected zone of 10-km radius around disease centers where intensive livestock management is practiced, and a 50-km radius where extensive husbandry is practiced.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm)
## Operations: depopulation, disposal, restrictions
The FAO manual organizes the field work into three operational parts: destruction of animals, disposal procedures, and decontamination.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) All susceptible livestock species on an infected premises are slaughtered whether clinically ill or not, and carcasses are disposed of by burying or burning.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) In the United States, depopulation of clinically affected, and in-contact susceptible animals is carried out with slaughter under USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service authority and State and Tribal authority rules.[6](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fad_rrg_response_strategies.pdf)
Welfare standards govern the killing. WOAH standards (Terrestrial Code Chapters 7.1 and 7.6) require that methods used result in immediate death or immediate loss of consciousness lasting until death; where loss of consciousness is not immediate, its induction should be non-aversive or the least aversive possible.[5](https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2279) The standards also require that killing be carried out as quickly as possible after the decision, with normal husbandry maintained until then. Sequencing matters: young animals should be killed before older animals for welfare, and infected animals killed first, followed by in-contact animals, for biosecurity.[5](https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2279)
Movement controls hold the epidemic in place while culling proceeds. A standstill order should apply to all susceptible livestock species in the infected zone for a minimum of 21 days after slaughter of the last clinical case, with livestock markets closed and livestock events canceled.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) Premises are restocked at least 30 days after cleaning and disinfection.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) Where vaccination is used alongside culling, USDA classifies emergency vaccination zones as Containment Vaccination Zones (typically inside a Control Area) or Protection Vaccination Zones (typically outside).[6](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fad_rrg_response_strategies.pdf)
## Compensation and incentives
The FAO identifies adequate provision for fair and quick compensation of owners for livestock destroyed as a crucial element of a stamping-out campaign.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) FAO guidance for rinderpest recommends that fair compensation be paid as soon as possible, preferably at the time of slaughter.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm) FAO lists fair, quick compensation, alongside community acceptance, and availability of manpower and equipment, among the preconditions for selecting stamping out.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm)
## By the numbers
In the United Kingdom, the 2001 FMD outbreak lasted 221 days and over 4 million animals were culled; the 2007 outbreak lasted 58 days and only 2,160 animals were culled.[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5585142/)
Cost estimates from a California FMD simulation across 2,238 herds show where the money goes. Mean herd indemnity payments were estimated at $2.6 million for dairy herds and $110,359 for nondairy herds, and cleaning and disinfecting premises cost $18,062 to $60,205.[7](https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.805) Total eradication cost ranged from $61 million to $551 million depending on strategy.[7](https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.805)
## How it compares with vaccination and other strategies
The FAO position is that stamping out is often the most cost-effective strategy: the eradication campaign is shorter and achieved for a lower overall cost, and there is a shorter waiting period before a country can be recognized as free of the disease and resume exports, though the approach is resource-intensive in the short term.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) Under the OIE International Animal Health Code (1999), a rinderpest-free country applying stamping out without vaccination, with serological surveillance, regains free status six months after the last case.[2](https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm)
For some diseases the choice is forced. Vaccination may be unavailable or unsuitable in a given jurisdiction or response plan for [African swine fever](https://www.edgepedia.org/african-swine-fever), in which case stamping out may be the only viable option; conversely, for insect-borne diseases such as [Rift Valley fever](https://www.edgepedia.org/rift-valley-fever) and bluetongue, stamping out is unlikely to have much effect.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) • [11](https://van.nongnghiepmoitruong.vn/announcing-the-commercial-circulation-of-asf-vaccine-dacovac-asf2-d746151.html)
National agencies blend the strategies. USDA APHIS rates stamping-out modified with emergency vaccination (vaccination-to-kill, slaughter, and live, combined with depopulation) as highly likely depending on the type of FMD outbreak, while vaccination-to-live without stamping out is rated less likely and unlikely to be implemented at the start of an outbreak.[8](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/media/document/2071/file) In FMD model-comparison studies, the baseline stamping-out strategy comprises stamping out of all susceptible livestock on infected premises together with surveillance and tracing, with ring vaccination around infected premises added in some scenarios.[9](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/evaluating-vaccination-strategies-to-control-footandmouth-disease-a-model-comparison-study/2DF8722A8FFA0DDC030AEA227AB6D9AC)
The economic evidence is not settled. In the California simulation, all supplemental vaccination strategies were economically efficient, with benefit-cost ratios of 5.0 to 10.1 and net benefits from $18.3 million (5-km ring vaccination) to $31.8 million (50-km ring vaccination), whereas pre-emptive slaughter strategies were not economically efficient, with benefit-cost ratios of 0.05 to 0.8 and negative net benefits from -$4.8 million to -$458.5 million.[7](https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.805) This sits in direct tension with the FAO's general finding that stamping out is often the most cost-effective option.[1](https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm) The two claims can be reconciled partly by context: the FAO statement concerns eradication campaigns generally, while the simulation examined supplemental pre-emptive slaughter during a large FMD epidemic in a high-density dairy region. But the disagreement is unresolved, and the choice of strategy remains outbreak-specific.
## References
1. FAO Manual on Procedures for Disease Eradication by Stamping Out. https://www.fao.org/4/y0660e/y0660e.htm
2. FAO: Strategies for rinderpest control and eradication (Chapter 3). https://www.fao.org/4/x2720e/X2720E03.htm
3. Market Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies: A UK Case Study. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5585142/
4. The role of pre-emptive culling in the control of infectious diseases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/276/1671/3239/72850/The-role-of-pre-emptive-culling-in-the-control-of
5. Humane killing of animals for disease control purposes. Rev. Sci. Tech. (OIE/WOAH). https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.33.1.2279
6. USDA APHIS FAD Response Strategies: Stamping-Out. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fad_rrg_response_strategies.pdf
7. Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination and preemptive slaughter as a means of eradicating foot-and-mouth disease. JAVMA. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2003.64.805
8. USDA APHIS FMD response options table. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/media/document/2071/file
9. Evaluating vaccination strategies to control foot-and-mouth disease: a model comparison study. Epidemiology & Infection. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/evaluating-vaccination-strategies-to-control-footandmouth-disease-a-model-comparison-study/2DF8722A8FFA0DDC030AEA227AB6D9AC
10. Controlling viral outbreaks: Quantitative strategies. PLOS One. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0171199
11. Announcing the commercial circulation of asf vaccine dacovac asf2 d746151 (van.nongnghiepmoitruong.vn). https://van.nongnghiepmoitruong.vn/announcing-the-commercial-circulation-of-asf-vaccine-dacovac-asf2-d746151.html
---
*Topic: Encyclopedia › Life and health › Applied biology and nonhuman health › Veterinary medicine and animal health › Animal disease and health › Epizootics and foreign animal disease › Outbreak response and emergency management*
*Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Sep 30, 2026 · Edited: Sep 30, 2026; Oct 11, 2026; Oct 15, 2026 · Last review: Sep 30, 2026*
*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*
License: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license