Las granjas de ganado, especialmente los productores de leche, se enfrentan a un futuro de grandes desafíos. La rentabilidad y supervivencia de los diseños de producción depende de la optimización de recursos a niveles que nunca se habían abordado con tal atención. De la nutrición a la genética, la reproducción y la salud de la manada, al bienestar animal, tienen un impacto directo e indirecto en el costo de producir una libra de leche y cada centavo es esencial para asegurar la rentabilidad de la granja.
Is it cost effective to invest in health?
Cattle farms, especially dairy farmers, face a future of great challenges. The profitability and survival of production layouts depends on the optimization of resources at levels that had never been addressed with such attention. From nutrition to genetics, reproduction and health of the herd, to animal welfare, have a direct and indirect impact on the cost of producing one pound of milk and every cent is essential to ensure profitability of the farm. Investments must seek an effective return. There is little room for mistake. One of the concepts with deepest influence on the productive capacity is the sanitary status of the animals. Paradoxically, it is one of the economic items with lower investment within the general budget of the farm. The questions to be addressed are: Is it worth investing in livestock health? Is it cost effective to allocate resources to prevent diseases? In times of economic boom no one questions it, but when budgets are adjusted to the maximum, this question is a constant in mind of livestock company managers.
The concept of Pharmacoeconomics
In order to answer this question, the methodology of economic study of cost-effectiveness of the sanitary treatments applied in human medicine has been recovered and has been extrapolated to the veterinary medicine, in the concept of Pharmacoeconomics. In essence, we need to know the economic impact of a disease, both in direct and indirect costs, to evaluate whether if it is worth investing in prevention or whether if it is better treating the diagnosed individuals. There are numerous scientific articles that provide objective evidence of the negative economic impact of Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) at various stages of production. It is not risky to say that this is the biggest problem that farmers face today. For that reason, the room of improvement that it offers is fundamental to gain profitability in the dairy sites. We come back to the questions: Is BRD worth addressing or is it better to live with its effects? What is more profitable, effective prevention of the entire herd or a timely treatment of diagnosed cases? Do we focus on productive cows or avoid the effects since they are heifers?
Costs of Bovine Respiratory Disease in dairy farming
Let’s go to the data collected in a meta-analysis made (Zoetis Marketing Department – Chronology of the Impact of Bovine Respiratory Disease – Zoetis Spain, S. L. U.). The direct costs generated by an BRD outbreak in milk production are quantified between 49.14%u20AC and 125.37%u20AC per affected animal. These costs include: weight loss, drug costs, veterinary expenses, labour, mortality, materials and other additional costs (Andrews, 2000). In addition, Van Der Fels-Klerx et al. (2002) indicate that the heifer affected by BRD has an average delay of two weeks to the first calving, which implies an additional average cost of 29%u20AC compared to a healthy heifer. Thereafter, a reduction in the productive performance of the first-lactated heifer was observed, quantified at 4%, which implies 87.50%u20AC and up to 8% in second lactation, reaching a cost of 201.23%u20AC. Milk price has been considered at 0.16%u20AC / pound according to milk-minder dairy Promar (www.dairyco.org.uk, 2014). The accumulated cost in production deficit is 288.73%u20AC. The study conducted by Bach (2011) concludes that those who suffered from 4 or more BRD episodes before the first calving are twice more likely to not complete the first lactation. In addition, from the second lactation, the heifers who suffered BRD at an early age have a reduction of up to 109 productive days. Assuming a 305 day yield of 16,104 pounds giving a daily yield of 52.8 pounds, the total derived cost would be 899%u20AC per affected animal. Thus, the sum of all the effects can result in costs of between 1,265.73%u20AC and 1,341.96%u20AC per BRD case on site.
The prevalence of BRD fluctuates greatly depending on the geographical area. It can vary between 2% and 40% in dairy cattle, sometimes reaching up to 80% (Gulliksen et al., 2009; Van Donkersgoed et al., 1991; Ames, 1993). From this, we conclude the magnitude of the economic impact that supposes in those farms with a medium or high prevalence.
Dairy Farm Simulator
Using a previous example to understand the concept of decision making based on the economic analysis of a pathology, there is a tool that extends this same methodology to a next level, the Dairy Farm Simulator, developed by the Nutrition Service and Animal Welfare of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), under the direction of Dr. Sergio Calsamiglia (www.granjadevacas.es/simulador/zoetis). By means of this mathematical model, presumptive calculations of the economic impact of the main factors that influence the profitability of a dairy farm can be made. Such calculations are always based on the data provided by the scientific literature. Likewise, it is possible to calculate the impact of applying a therapeutic protocol or a preventive protocol and to obtain an estimate of the profitability obtained with one or the other.
The development of this work can be consulted in the post published by Dr. Sergio Calsamiglia in the blog ‘ Heifers Specialists’:
blog.especialistasennovillas.es/posts/vacunacion-sindrome-respiratorio-bovino.aspx.
When is a preventive protocol profitable?
Based on the above data and returning to the BRD example, we could define when the preventive program is more profitable compared to the treatment of diagnosed cases. Let us assume that a standard vaccine protocol cost 8%u20AC per animal and that the average protocol efficacy reduced clinical cases by 80% on average. Those farms whith a BRD prevalence (before carrying out any vaccination schedule) could be estimated to be equal to or below 5% would not obtain a return to justify the investment.
On the other hand, any site that has a prevalence of BRD above 5% is likely to equal or improve its profitability if the preventive program is applied. In farms with a prevalence of 18%, the preventive protocol has a return of investment close to 2 points. In case of reaching a prevalence of 40%, the return is more than 5 times the investment made.
In conclusion, decisions about sanitary actions in livestock farms are of great importance, since they have a high impact on their profitability. The detailed study of the costs of a given disease, comparing the costs of the preventive and curative programs, indicates the most economically sound decisions. Pharmacoeconomics applied to the veterinary world can allow more efficient decision making to improve the profitability of farms and ensure their future viability.
Fuente: LinkedIn. Erik Bataller Boquera.
