Cost-benefit analysis of management practices for ewes lame with footrot

被引:24
|
作者
Winter, Joanne R. [1 ]
Green, Laura E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Warwick, Sch Life Sci, Gibbet Hill Rd, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England
来源
VETERINARY JOURNAL | 2017年 / 220卷
关键词
Sheep; Footrot; Lameness; Financial costs; Management practices; INTERDIGITAL DERMATITIS; RISK-FACTORS; CLINICAL-TRIAL; WOOL GROWTH; SHEEP; PREVALENCE; OXYTETRACYCLINE; DISEASE; WEIGHT; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.tvjl.2016.11.010
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-benefit of different strategies to treat and control ovine footrot. In November 2006, 162 sheep farmers in England responded to a survey on prevalence and management of lameness. The costs of lameness per ewe per year (PEPY) were calculated for 116 flocks. Linear regression was used to model the overall cost of lameness PEPY by management method. Associations between farmer satisfaction and time and money spent managing lameness were investigated. The median prevalence of lameness was 5% (inter-quartile range, IQR, 4-10%). The overall cost of lameness PEPY in flocks with >= 10% lameness was UK (sic)6.35 versus (sic)3.90 for flocks with <5% lameness. Parenteral antibiotic treatment was associated with a significantly lower overall cost of lameness by (sic)0.79 PEPY. Routine foot trimming and foot bathing were associated with significantly higher overall costs of lameness PEPY of (sic)2.96 and (sic)0.90, respectively. Farmers satisfied with time managing lameness spent significantly less time (1.46 h PEPY) than unsatisfied farmers (1.90 h PEPY). Farmers satisfied with money spent managing lameness had significantly lower treatment ((sic)2.94 PEPY) and overall ((sic)5.00 PEPY) costs than dissatisfied farmers ((sic)5.50 and (sic)7.60 PEPY, respectively). If the farmers in this study adopted best practice of par enteral antibiotic treatment with no routine foot trimming, and minimised foot bathing to treatment/prevention of interdigital dermatitis, the financial benefits would be approximately (sic)4.65 PEPY. If these costs are similar on other farms the management changes would lead to significant economic benefits for the sheep industry. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 6
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A financial cost-benefit analysis of eradicating virulent footrot
    Asheim, Leif Jarle
    Hopp, Petter
    Groneng, Gry M.
    Nafstad, Ola
    Hegrenes, Agnar
    Vatn, Synnove
    PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2017, 146 : 86 - 93
  • [2] THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF IT PROJECTS
    Melnic, Andreia-Simona
    METALURGIA INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 15 : 66 - 69
  • [3] Cost-benefit analysis of software development techniques and practices
    Erdogmus, Hakan
    29th International Conference on Software Engineering: ICSE 2007 Companion Volume, Proceedings, 2007, : 178 - 179
  • [4] Cost-benefit analysis of environmental management systems
    Kern, S
    PAPIER, 1999, 53 (03): : 152 - 153
  • [5] THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT PROJECTS
    Andreica, Romulus
    Jaradat, Mohammad Hadi
    Andreica, Cristina
    METALURGIA INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 15 : 173 - 175
  • [6] APPLICATION OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO MANAGEMENT EDUCATION
    PAUL, S
    JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1972, 80 (02) : 328 - 346
  • [7] Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Resources Management
    Cheesman, Jeremy
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2007, 51 (03) : 353 - 355
  • [8] COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
    ONEILL, PG
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, 1970, 45 : 725 - &
  • [9] Cost-benefit analysis and water resources management
    Johnston, Robert J.
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 63 (04) : 831 - 832
  • [10] Cost-benefit analysis
    Miura, Grant
    NATURE CHEMICAL BIOLOGY, 2018, 14 (10) : 903 - 903