Proposed Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle
A3.2 Incremental cost of banning flank spaying/flank webbing – Variation C2
Yüklə 2,86 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- A3.2.1 Incremental cost of Variation C2 from the base case
- A3.2.2 Incremental cost of Variation C2 from Option B
A3.2 Incremental cost of banning flank spaying/flank webbing – Variation C2This option would ban flank spaying and flank webbing because of the visual impact and the short term impact on the welfare of the cow. The value in this proposal to industry is that it proposes a way for methods of spaying regarded to be acceptable 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. One of the major findings of the paper by Petherick et al (October, 2012) was that DOT spaying is preferable to flank spaying in that flank spaying had longer-lasting adverse impacts on welfare. In a paper by Jubb et al (2003),258 a trial introduction of the Willis dropped ovary technique (DOT) for spaying was reviewed for cattle in northern Australia. Flank spaying or flank webbing was found to be 100% successful in preventing pregnancy whereas, DOT was 92 to 97% effective, depending on operator experience. The time taken to spay using DOT was similar to or less than that required for the traditional methods. For the purpose of estimation it is assumed that DOT is on average 5.5% less effective than flank spaying or flank webbing and that it would be the major alternative spaying method. According to the MLA cattle husbandry survey259, 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. Based on a study by Neithe and Holmes (2008), it was found that the incremental economic benefit of effectively spaying a female ranged from $219.27 to $306.93.260 For the purpose of estimation is assumed that the average incremental economic benefit of spaying is $263.10. The higher gross margin per adult equivalent occurs because the increased value of the spayed females more than compensates for the fewer stock sold, despite the increased number of weaners produced and the increased stock sales under no spaying. Therefore, for the purpose of estimating Variation C2, the following assumptions are made:
As shown in Table A3.5, the 10-year incremental cost of banning flank spaying or flank webbing under Variation C2 would be approximately $227.11m or $149.08m in 2012-13 present value dollars. Table A3.5 – 10-year incremental cost of banning flank spaying/flank webbing by state and territory under Variation C2 –2012-13 dollars
A3.2.1 Incremental cost of Variation C2 from the base caseThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C2 as compared to the base case would be approximately $173.51m in 2012-13 dollars, as shown in Table A3.6. Table A3.6 – Summary of quantifiable 10-year incremental cost of proposed standards under Variation C2 by state and territory – 2012-13 dollars
Taking the total 10-year incremental cost of the standards in each state or territory in 2012-13 dollars (in Table A3.6) 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 $11.27 in QLD, as shown in Table A3.7. Table A3.7 – Range of average 10-year cost per cow as a result of the proposed standards under Variation C2 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. A3.2.2 Incremental cost of Variation C2 from Option BThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C2 as compared to Option B (i.e. replacing the cost of proposed Standard 6.8 (pain relief) with the alternative under Variation C2) would be approximately $136.98m in 2012-13 dollars. Table A3.8 shows the 10-year incremental cost of Variation C2 as compared to Option B by state and territory. These estimates are provided from tables A3.5 and A2.25 in Appendix 2. The main impact of going to Variation C2 as compared with Option B would be on QLD. Table A3.8 – 10-year incremental cost of Variation C2 as compared to Option B by state and territory –2012-13 dollars
Yüklə 2,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||