Associations of reproduction and health with the performance and profit of dairy cows

https://doi.org/10.17221/176/2015-AGRICECONCitation:Krpalkova L., Cabrera V.E., Kvapilik J., Burdych J. (2016): Associations of reproduction and health with the performance and profit of dairy cows. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 62: 385-394.
download PDF

The objective of the study was to evaluate the associations of the variable intensity in culling of dairy cows and culling due to the movement disorders, mammary gland diseases, long calving interval, low fertility and postpartum complications with production, reproduction and economic parameters on 60 commercial dairy herds. The data encompassed 34 632 cow records from the Czech Republic 12 regions and were collected during a 1-yr period (2012). The milk yield during the production period was analysed relative to the reproduction and economic parameters. The main reasons for culling cows were fertility problems and movement disorders, followed by the low milk yield, mammary gland diseases, and postpartum complications. The analysis of fertility showed that the herds with the longest calving intervals (≥ 410 d) and the highest culling due to fertility (≥ 25% of the total) achieved the lowest milk yields. The average difference between the highest and lowest calving interval (≤ 389 d) groups was 721 kg/cow per yr. The lowest reported profitability of costs was for the longest calving interval and the highest postpartum complications groups. Although the reproductive performance directly affects the dairy farm profitability, the dairy cows’ production potential should be considered when making culling decisions in order to achieve the most profitable management strategy.

References:
Brummett R.G., Nayga R.M., Wu X. (2007): On the use of cheap talk in new product valuation. Economics Bulletin, 2: 1–9.
 
Cameron Trudy Ann, Poe Gregory L., Ethier Robert G., Schulze William D. (2002): Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 391-425  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1210
 
Carlsson Fredrik, Martinsson Peter (2001): Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41, 179-192  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2000.1138
 
Carlsson F., Kataria M., Krupnick A., Lampi E., Löfgren A., Qin P., Sterner T., Chung S. (2010): The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: a multiple country test of an oath script. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 89: 105–121; doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.02.003
 
Chang Jae Bong, Lusk Jayson L., Norwood F. Bailey (2009): How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 518-534  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01242.x
 
Cummings Ronald G, Taylor Laura O (1999): Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review, 89, 649-665  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
 
de-Magistris Tiziana, Pascucci Stefano (2014): The effect of the solemn oath script in hypothetical choice experiment survey: A pilot study. Economics Letters, 123, 252-255  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2014.02.016
 
de-Magistris Tiziana, Gracia Azucena, Nayga Rodolfo M. (2013): On the Use of Honesty Priming Tasks to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95, 1136-1154  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aat052
 
European Commission (2001): Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Green Paper and COM 366. Brussels.
 
Jacquemet Nicolas, James Alexander G., Luchini Stéphane, Shogren Jason F. (2011): Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 413-433  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9448-4
 
Jacquemet Nicolas, Joule Robert-Vincent, Luchini Stéphane, Shogren Jason F. (2013): Preference elicitation under oath. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 110-132  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.05.004
 
Johansson-Stenman Olof, Svedsäter Henrik (2008): Measuring Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: The Importance of Cognitive Consistency. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 8, -  https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1898
 
Lindgreen Adam, Swaen Valérie (2010): Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 1-7  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00277.x
 
List John A (2001): Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards. American Economic Review, 91, 1498-1507  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1498
 
List J.A., Gallet G.A. (2001): What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical state value? Environmental and Resource Economics, 20: 241–254; doi: 10.1023/a:1012791822804 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804
 
Lockett Andy, Moon Jeremy, Visser Wayne (2006): Corporate Social Responsibility in Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence*. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 115-136  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00585.x
 
Loomis John, Bell Paul, Cooney Helen, Asmus Cheryl (2009): A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41, 697-712  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800003163
 
Murphy James J., Allen P. Geoffrey, Stevens Thomas H., Weatherhead Darryl (2005): A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 30, 313-325  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
 
Silva A., Nayga R., Campbell B.L., Park L.J. (2011): Revisiting cheap talk with new evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36: 280–291.
 
Tonsor G. T., Shupp R. S. (2011): Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean". American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 1015-1031  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aar036
 
download PDF

© 2020 Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences | Prohlášení o přístupnosti