Estimating the value of infectious or noninfectious foot disorder prevention strategies within dairy farms, as influenced by foot disorder incidence rates and prevention effectiveness

被引:4
作者
Dolecheck, K. A. [1 ]
Overton, M. W. [2 ]
Mark, T. B. [3 ]
Bewley, J. M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kentucky, Dept Anim & Food Sci, Lexington, KY 40546 USA
[2] Elanco Anim Hlth, 2500 Innovat Way, Greenfield, IN 46140 USA
[3] Univ Kentucky, Dept Agr Econ, Lexington, KY 40546 USA
[4] Alltech Inc, 3031 Catnip Hill Rd, Nicholasville, KY 40356 USA
关键词
lameness; hoof health; decision support; animal health economics; DECISION-MAKING; LAMENESS; HEALTH; COWS; MANAGEMENT; RECORDS; DISEASE; DESIGN; SEX;
D O I
10.3168/jds.2018-14996
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
A farm-level stochastic simulation model was adapted to estimate the value of implementing foot disorder prevention on a dairy farm by calculating the return on investment associated with implementation of foot disorder prevention. Two potential strategies for foot disorder prevention were tested: strategy 1 was prevention focused on reducing infectious foot disorders (i.e., digital dermatitis) in the model, and strategy 2 was prevention focused on reducing noninfectious foot disorders (i.e., sole ulcer and white line disease) in the model. For each strategy, we evaluated the effect of foot disorder incidence on the value of prevention by setting the incidence of foot disorders at 3 levels. For strategy 1, the level of digital dermatitis incidence without prevention in all parities was 20, 40, or 60%, and the incidence level of the noninfectious foot disorders in the model were held constant. For strategy 2, levels of sole ulcer and white line disease incidence without prevention in parity >= 3 cows were 5, 15, or 25%, and the incidence level of the infectious foot disorders included in the model were held constant; the incidence levels of noninfectious foot disorders in younger cows were adjusted to be lower. Overall, 6 scenarios were run, 1 for each prevention strategy x foot disorder incidence rate combination. To evaluate how the effectiveness of each prevention strategy would influence the investment value, the effectiveness of prevention could vary from a prevention risk ratio (RR) of 0.0 (100% reduction in disorder incidence) to 1.0 (0% reduction in disorder incidence). When implementing strategy 1, the return on prevention investment per cow-year (mean + standard deviation) when prevention effectiveness was low (prevention RR = 0.91 to 1.0) and the digital dermatitis incidence rate was originally 20, 40, or 60% was $0.6 +/- 0.4, $1.2 +/- 0.9, and $1.81 +/- 1.3, respectively. In comparison, the return on prevention investment per cow-year when prevention effectiveness was high (prevention RR = 0.00 to 0.09) and the digital dermatitis incidence rate was originally 20, 40, or 60% was $12.2 +/- 3.0, $24.4 +/- 6.0, and $36.5 +/- 9.0, respectively. When implementing strategy 2, the return on prevention investment per cow-year when prevention effectiveness was low and noninfectious foot disorder incidence rates were originally 5, 15, or 25% in parity +/- 3 cows was $0.6 +/- 0.4, $1.9 +/- 1.1, and $3.2 +/- 1.9, respectively. In comparison, the return on prevention investment per cow-year when prevention effectiveness was high and noninfectious foot disorder incidence rates were originally 5, 15, or 25% in parity >= 3 cows was $12.4 +/- 1.5, $37.3 +/- 4.6, and $62.2 +/- 7.6, respectively. The return on investment for foot disorder prevention would depend on the cost of the prevention strategy and the other benefits associated with the selected prevention strategy. This model could be used as a decision support tool to help identify the amount that could be paid to implement a selected prevention strategy.
引用
收藏
页码:731 / 741
页数:11
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Associations between housing and management practices and the prevalence of lameness, hock lesions, and thin cows on US dairy operations
    Adams, A. E.
    Lombard, J. E.
    Fossler, C. P.
    Roman-Muniz, I. N.
    Kopral, C. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2017, 100 (03) : 2119 - 2136
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2001, NATL ACAD SCI
  • [3] Stochastic simulation using @Risk for dairy business investment decisions
    Bewley, J. M.
    Boehlje, M. D.
    Gray, A. W.
    Hogeveen, H.
    Kenyon, S. J.
    Eicher, S. D.
    Schutz, M. M.
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL FINANCE REVIEW, 2010, 70 (01) : 97 - +
  • [4] Effect of lameness on culling in dairy cows
    Booth, CJ
    Warnick, LD
    Gröhn, YT
    Maizon, DO
    Guard, CL
    Janssen, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2004, 87 (12) : 4115 - 4122
  • [5] Observations on the design and use of footbaths for the control of infectious hoof disease in dairy cattle
    Cook, Nigel B.
    Rieman, J.
    Gomez, A.
    Burgi, K.
    [J]. VETERINARY JOURNAL, 2012, 193 (03) : 669 - 673
  • [6] Analysis of foot health records from 17 confinement dairies
    DeFrain, J. M.
    Socha, M. T.
    Tomlinson, D. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2013, 96 (11) : 7329 - 7339
  • [7] An observational analysis of twin births, calf sex ratio, and calf mortality in Holstein dairy cattle
    del Rio, N. Silva
    Stewart, S.
    Rapnicki, P.
    Chang, Y. M.
    Fricke, P. M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2007, 90 (03) : 1255 - 1264
  • [8] Dairy records and models for economic and financial planning
    DeLorenzo, MA
    Thomas, CV
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 1996, 79 (02) : 337 - 345
  • [9] Dhuyvetter K.C., 2007, Proc. Proceedings of the Western Dairy Management Conference, Reno, P173
  • [10] Dolecheck K, 2018, ANIMAL, V12, P1462, DOI [10.1017/S1751731118000575, 10.1017/s1751731118000575]