Proposed Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle
Appendix 3 – Estimates of Quantifiable costs – Variations C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and C7
Yüklə 2,86 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- A3.1 Incremental cost of pain relief for all spaying – Variation C1
- A3.1.1 Incremental cost of Variation C1 from the base case
- A3.1.2 Incremental cost of Variation C1 from Option B
Appendix 3 – Estimates of Quantifiable costs – Variations C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and C7The purpose of this Appendix is to estimate the quantifiable costs of Variations C1 to C7 to the proposed standards under Option B. It is not proposed that a variation or combination of variations would become a possible option/alternative to Option B under Option C at this stage. These costs are estimated in the following sections. A3.1 Incremental cost of pain relief for all spaying – Variation C1This option would require pain relief for all spaying, whether by flank approach (as already proposed) or per-vaginal approach. A recent scientific study has demonstrated that the DOT method can also have a significant impact on the welfare of the cow252. According to the MLA cattle husbandry survey,253 7% of businesses are involved in spaying heifers with an average of 210 heifers and with 39% using the flank or flank/webbing approach. With cows, 4% of businesses are involved in spaying cows with an average of 195 cows and with 23% using the flank or flank/webbing approach. The value in this proposal to industry is that it proposes a potentially acceptable way for spaying to continue. Spaying is a key means of pregnancy control in the extensive northern cattle industry and is important for long term cow welfare and enterprise viability. A recent report has compared the welfare outcomes for Bos indicus cattle (100 heifers and 50 cows) spayed by either the dropped ovary technique (DOT) or ovariectomy via flank laparotomy (FL) - with cattle subjected to physical restraint (C), restraint by electro immobilization in conjunction with physical restraint (EIM), and physical restraint and mock AI (MAI).254 Welfare assessment used measures of morbidity; mortality; BW change; and behavior and physiology indicative of pain and stress. One of the major findings of this paper was that flank and DOT spaying should not be conducted without measures to manage the associated pain and stress. The following discussion looks at the economic incremental cost of moving to pain relief for all spaying using non-steroidal analgesic (Ketoprofen). Proposed Standard S6.8 requires pain relief for the flank approach for spaying only. As discussed in Part A2.12 in Appendix 2 - the cost of pain relief (non-steroidal analgesic (Ketoprofen) for a 2-year old heifer or a mature cow in northern Australia would $10.54 and $13.54, respectively (including $0.44 time cost per heifer or cow and $0.50 disposables). The incremental 10-year cost of pain relief using a non-steroidal analgesic for all spaying (flank, passage & DOT) is estimated to be $56.67m or $37.2m in 2012-13 present value dollars, as shown in Table A3.1. Table A3.1 –10-year incremental cost of non-steroidal analgesic as pain relief for all spaying of cattle by state and territory under Variation C1 –2012-13 dollars
A3.1.1 Incremental cost of Variation C1 from the base caseThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C1 as compared to the base case would be approximately $61.64m in 2012-13 dollars, as shown in Table A3.2. Table A3.2 – Summary of quantifiable 10-year incremental cost of proposed standards under Variation C1 by state and territory – 2012-13 dollars
Note: Care should be taken in using the average cost per cow in a jurisdiction to interpret the impact of standards or variations on a particular industry sector or an individual farmer’s herd. Taking the total 10-year incremental cost of the standards in each state or territory in 2012-13 dollars (in Table A3.2) and the number of cattle in each state or territory (in Table A2.5) - the average cost per cow ranges from $0.64 in the SA to $1.61 in QLD, as shown in Table A3.3. Table A3.3 – Range of average 10-year cost per cow as a result of the proposed standards under Variation C1 by state and territory –2012-13 dollars
Note: Care should be taken in using the average cost per cow in a jurisdiction to interpret the impact of standards or variations on a particular industry sector or an individual farmer’s herd. A3.1.2 Incremental cost of Variation C1 from Option BThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C1 as compared to Option B (i.e. replacing the cost of proposed Standard 6.8 with the alternative under Variation C1) would be approximately $25.10m in 2012-13 dollars. Table A3.4 shows the 10-year incremental cost of Variation C1 as compared to Option B by state and territory. These estimates are provided from tables A3.1 and A2.25 in Appendix 2. The main impact of going to Variation C1 as compared with Option B would be on QLD and equal to $22.2m in 2012-13 dollars. Table A3.4 – 10-year incremental cost of Variation C1 as compared to Option B by state and territory –2012-13 dollars
Yüklə 2,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||