Economic evaluation of neonatal health protection programs for cattle

R. L. Larson From the Department of Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine (Larson, Randle) and the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture (Pierce), University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211.

Search for other papers by R. L. Larson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
,
V L. Pierce From the Department of Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine (Larson, Randle) and the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture (Pierce), University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211.

Search for other papers by V L. Pierce in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PhD
, and
R. F Randle From the Department of Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine (Larson, Randle) and the Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture (Pierce), University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211.

Search for other papers by R. F Randle in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS

Objective—

To develop an economic tool that can be used to help cattle producers evaluate benefits of neonatal health programs.

Design—

Computer simulation of a multiple-year spreadsheet model, using economic and production variables.

Sample Population—

Records for a university research farm beef herd.

Procedure—

Data from the university research farm beef herd for each year from 1990 to 1995 were evaluated to determine economic benefits for the cowcalf enterprise that would result from a decrease in morbidity and mortality. A baseline economic evaluation of returns to variable costs was performed, using actual production and marketing information. Actual economic performance was contrasted with a projected simulation in which morbidity and mortality were decreased. Sensitivity analysis for the simulation model assessment of a neonatal health program was also performed.

Results—

Mean-per-cow increase in net income for the herd during the 6-year period for morbidity and mortality reductions of 20, 40, and 60% was $7.44, $14.93, and $22.42, respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that net income per cow was not sensitive to errors in projections of morbidity and mortality.

Clinical Implications—

Identifying potential economic benefits for implementing a neonatal health plan and quantifying the costs to implement each component of the plan can be used by veterinarians and their clients when formulating a proactive strategy to provide the greatest potential for economic reward. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:810-816)

Objective—

To develop an economic tool that can be used to help cattle producers evaluate benefits of neonatal health programs.

Design—

Computer simulation of a multiple-year spreadsheet model, using economic and production variables.

Sample Population—

Records for a university research farm beef herd.

Procedure—

Data from the university research farm beef herd for each year from 1990 to 1995 were evaluated to determine economic benefits for the cowcalf enterprise that would result from a decrease in morbidity and mortality. A baseline economic evaluation of returns to variable costs was performed, using actual production and marketing information. Actual economic performance was contrasted with a projected simulation in which morbidity and mortality were decreased. Sensitivity analysis for the simulation model assessment of a neonatal health program was also performed.

Results—

Mean-per-cow increase in net income for the herd during the 6-year period for morbidity and mortality reductions of 20, 40, and 60% was $7.44, $14.93, and $22.42, respectively. Sensitivity analysis revealed that net income per cow was not sensitive to errors in projections of morbidity and mortality.

Clinical Implications—

Identifying potential economic benefits for implementing a neonatal health plan and quantifying the costs to implement each component of the plan can be used by veterinarians and their clients when formulating a proactive strategy to provide the greatest potential for economic reward. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;213:810-816)

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 600 585 29
PDF Downloads 47 41 6
Advertisement