4.6 Article

Economic consequences of reproductive performance in dairy cattle

期刊

THERIOGENOLOGY
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 835-846

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.04.008

关键词

Daily cow; Reproductive performance; Simulation model; Economics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The net economic value of reproductive efficiency in dairy cattle was estimated using a stochastic dynamic simulation model. The objective was to compare the economic consequences of reproductive performance scenarios (average and poor) of a cow having a good reproductive performance and to explore which reproductive factors have an important impact on economic efficiency. A good reproductive performance scenario was defined with 1 ovulation rate (POVU(i)), 0.7 estrus detection rate (PEst), 0.7 conception rate (PCon), 0.03 incidence rate of postpartum disorders prolonging the ovarian cyclicity (CO), 0.2 incidence rate of postpartum disorders reducing conception (ME), 0.05 embryonic death rate (ED), and voluntary waiting period (VWP) of 9 wks pp (post partum). In the current situation of dairy cows in the Netherlands, an average reproductive scenario (0.95 POVU(i), 0.5 PEst, 0.5 Peon, 0.07 CO, 0.27 ME, 0.07 ED and VWP of 12 wks pp) and a poor reproductive scenario (0.90 POVU(i), 0.3 PEst, 0.3 Peon, 0.11 CO, 0.33 ME, 0.09 ED and VWP of 15 wks pp) were identified. A sensitivity analysis was performed by comparing changes of single effect of factors in a good and poor scenario with the average scenario. The mean net economic loss (NEL(i)) compared with the good scenario was (sic)34 and (sic)231 per cow per year for the average and poor reproductive performance scenario, respectively. Increasing the calving interval resulted in greater economic loss. The important factors on the cost of reproductive efficiency were the involuntary culling cost and the return of milk production. Variation in PCon, PEst, ME, ED, and VWP had large impacts on economic benefits. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据