Proposed Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle
A3.5 Incremental cost of banning caustic dehorning – Variation C5
Yüklə 2,86 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- A3.5.1 Incremental cost of Variation C5 from the base case
- A3.5.2 Incremental cost of Variation C5 from Option B
A3.5 Incremental cost of banning caustic dehorning – Variation C5Disbudding by caustic chemicals is a lower impact method of disbudding where there is close cattle control, such as in the dairy industry. This variation would entail banning caustic dehorning and reliance upon excision or heat cautery methods with some increase in costs and welfare impact. The impacts of chemical disbudding are controversial. Dairy cattle are typically dehorned to reduce the risk of injuries to humans and other animals. Horn tissue is destroyed using a variety of methods including chemical cauterization with caustic paste. Chemical disbudding has been considered to be more painful than heat cauterisation on the basis of differences in cortisol responses (Morrise et al 1995). However, the results of this single study should be treated with some caution as the comparison between techniques was undertaken in calves of different ages. It is believed that caustic disbudding does cause pain and Weary (2006) found that pain-related behaviours increased in calves that were dehorned with caustic paste versus those sham dehorned. More recently, subtle differences in behaviour were observed in calves subjected to thermal and caustic disbudding after administration of a sedative and/or local anaesthetic (Vickers et al 2005). It was concluded that caustic paste causes pain, but that it is less than that caused by the hot iron, even when using local anaesthetic (Vickers et al 2005). However, chemical or caustic disbudding has additional risks associated with the caustic chemical getting into eyes and other sensitive tissues when calves suck each other or nuzzle their dams, or when it rains. The hair around the horn bud should be clipped to ensure the paste adheres to the horn bud and is applied accurately. Petroleum jelly may be used around the treated area to minimise chemical spread. Segregation and keeping indoors will also help prevent caustic chemical causing damage to other areas of the calf or other cattle. Notwithstanding a lack of undisputed science there are calls for this method to be banned. The incremental cost of Variation C5 would involve the banning of caustic dehorning in dairy replacement calves and would be based on the difference in the rates for dehorning using caustic chemicals276 (i.e. $22 per 20 calves) and the cost of moving to a contractor rate to dehorn calves using other methods (i.e. $80 per 20 calves). The difference would therefore be approximately $3 per calf. Moreover, 46% farmers do their own dehorning and 7% of these farmers use caustic chemicals277. As shown in Table A3.17, the 10-year incremental cost of banning caustic dehorning under Variation C5 would be approximately $0.48m in 2012-13 present value dollars. Table A3.17 – 10-year incremental cost of banning caustic dehorning by state and territory under Variation C5 –2012-13 dollars
A3.5.1 Incremental cost of Variation C5 from the base caseThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C5, as compared to the base case, would be approximately $37.01m in 2012-13 dollars, as shown in Table A3.18. Table A3.18 – Summary of quantifiable 10-year incremental cost of proposed standards under Variation C5 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 A3.18) 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 $1.65 in VIC, as shown in Table A3.19. Table A3.19 – Range of average 10-year cost per cow as a result of the proposed standards under Variation C5 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. A3.5.2 Incremental cost of Variation C5 from Option BThe total 10-year incremental cost all standards under Variation C5 as compared to Option B (i.e. adding the alternative under Variation C5) would be approximately $0.48m in 2012-13 dollars. This is summarised in Table A3.20. Table A3.20 shows the 10-year incremental cost of Variation C5 as compared to Option B by state and territory. These estimates are provided from Table A3.17. The main impact of going to Variation C5 as compared with Option B would be on Victoria. Table A3.20 – 10-year incremental cost of Variation C5 as compared to Option B by state and territory –2012-13 dollars
Yüklə 2,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||