IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0306314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Setting the boundaries–an approach to estimate the Loss Gap in dairy cattle

Author

Listed:
  • João Sucena Afonso
  • William Gilbert
  • Georgios Oikonomou
  • Jonathan Rushton

Abstract

Dairy production in the UK has undergone substantial restructuring over the last few decades. Farming intensification has led to a reduction in the total numbers of farms and animals, while the average herd size per holding has increased. These ever-changing circumstances have important implications for the health and welfare of dairy cows, as well as the overall business performance of farms. For decision-making in dairy farming, it is essential to understand the underlying causes of the inefficiencies and their relative impact. The investigation of yield gaps regarding dairy cattle has been focused on specific causes. However, in addition to the risk of overestimating the impact of a specific ailment, this approach does not allow understanding of the relative contribution to the total, nor does it allow understanding of how well-described that gap is in terms of underlying causes. Using the English and Welsh dairy sectors as an example, this work estimates the Loss Gap–composed of yield losses and health expenditure ‐ using a benchmarking approach and scenario analysis. The Loss Gap was estimated by comparing the current performance of dairy herds as a baseline with that of scenarios where assumptions were made about the milk production of cows, production costs, market prices, mortality, and expenditure related to health events. A deterministic model was developed, consisting of an enterprise budget, in which the cow was the unit, with milking herd and young stock treated separately. When constraining milk production, the model estimated an annual Loss Gap of £148 to £227 million for the whole sector. The reduction in costs of veterinary services and medicines, alongside herd replacement costs, were important contributors to the estimate with some variation between the scenarios. Milk price had a substantial impact in the estimate, with revenue from milk yield representing more than 30% of the Loss Gap, when milk price was benchmarked against that of the top performing farms. This framework provides the boundaries for understanding the relative burden from specific causes in English and Welsh dairy cattle, ensuring that the sum of the estimated losses due to particular problem does not exceed the losses from all-causes, health or non-health related.

Suggested Citation

  • João Sucena Afonso & William Gilbert & Georgios Oikonomou & Jonathan Rushton, 2024. "Setting the boundaries–an approach to estimate the Loss Gap in dairy cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0306314
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306314
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306314&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0306314?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Bennett & Jos IJpelaar, 2005. "Updated Estimates of the Costs Associated with Thirty Four Endemic Livestock Diseases in Great Britain: A Note," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(1), pages 135-144, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gramig, Benjamin M. & Horan, Richard D., 2011. "Jointly determined livestock disease dynamics and decentralised economic behavior," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Black, Andrew M. & Bradley, Sue & Clark, Beth & Colman, Ewan & Gosling, Nicole & Hanley, Nicholas & Holloway, Lewis & Kao, Rowland & Mahon, Niamh & Proctor, Amy, 2024. "Why do endemic livestock diseases persist? An interdisciplinary perspective," SocArXiv tnhyq, Center for Open Science.
    3. repec:osf:socarx:tnhyq_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Richard J. Volpe & Timothy A. Park & Fengxia Dong & Helen H. Jensen, 2016. "Somatic cell counts in dairy marketing: quantile regression for count data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(2), pages 331-358.
    5. Alyson S Barratt & Matthieu H Arnoult & Bouda Vosough Ahmadi & Karl M Rich & George J Gunn & Alistair W Stott, 2018. "A framework for estimating society's economic welfare following the introduction of an animal disease: The case of Johne's disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-26, June.
    6. Benjamin M. Gramig & Christopher A. Wolf & Frank Lupi, 2010. "Understanding Adoption of Livestock Health Management Practices: The Case of Bovine Leukosis Virus," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 58(3), pages 343-360, September.
    7. Hennessy, David A. & Rault, Arnaud, 2023. "On systematically insufficient biosecurity actions and policies to manage infectious animal disease," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0306314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.