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
  • [21] In Defence of Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Ergas, Henry
    AGENDA-A JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND REFORM, 2009, 16 (03) : 31 - 40
  • [22] Cost-benefit analysis: examples
    Linn, Mott
    BOTTOM LINE, 2011, 24 (01): : 68 - 72
  • [23] EQUITY IN COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    PEARCE, DW
    WISE, J
    JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 1972, 6 (03) : 324 - 325
  • [24] Liraglutide: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Schoeffski, O.
    Mentrup, S.
    Lund, N.
    Pfuetzner, A.
    DIABETES STOFFWECHSEL UND HERZ, 2010, 19 (03): : 177 - 184
  • [25] Cognition and cost-benefit analysis
    Sunstein, CR
    JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2000, 29 (02): : 1059 - 1103
  • [26] Rethinking cost-benefit analysis
    Adler, MD
    Posner, EA
    YALE LAW JOURNAL, 1999, 109 (02): : 165 - +
  • [27] The discipline of cost-benefit analysis
    Sen, A
    JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2000, 29 (02): : 931 - 952
  • [28] Cost-benefit analysis of the RFA
    Dovich, Norman J.
    Soper, Steven A.
    SCIENCE, 2006, 314 (5806) : 1682 - 1682
  • [29] UNEMPLOYMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    BAXTER, ND
    HOWREY, EP
    PENNER, RG
    PUBLIC FINANCE, 1969, 24 (01): : 80 - 88
  • [30] Cost-benefit analysis and the environment
    Sunstein, CR
    ETHICS, 2005, 115 (02) : 351 - 385