Associations between farmer participation in veterinary herd health programs and farm performance

Association between farmer participation in veterinary herd health

programs and farm performance

Henk Hogeveen and Marjolein Derks

• You can type your text here•

Present day dairy industry

Implications

• For the farmer– More focus on quality of production– Importance of animal health goes beyond

profit• For the veterinarian

– Less curative drug sales– On-farm counseling as part of veterinary herd

health management– VHHM is more and more stimulated

“a combination of animal health, production and prevention, in a framework of economics, animal welfare, food safety,

public health and environment. Regular farm visits and checks of specific farm

data are very important.“

Definition of on-farm counseling (literature)

• Very broad• Interpretation is difficult• Our definition: A regularly visit of the veterinarian

on the farm aimed at the prevention of disease. May be combined with routine activities

Limitations of this definition

Protocol (after Brand et al., 1996)

More specifically

• Operational– Treatments – Inseminatinos– Pregnancy checks– Claw treatments– Dehorning– ……

• Tactical– Disease monitoring– Preventive measures– Treatment protocols– …….

• Strategic– New barns– Disease eradication– ……

Objectives

Execution

Monitoring

Old stuff

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

Begeleid Controle

1974/75

1976/77

Difference HFl 176/cow/year

Bron: Sol et al., 1984

Long term effects

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Begeleid Controle

1974/75

1976/77

1980/81

1985/86

Bron: Hogeveen et al., 1991

A few questions

• What is the view of the farmers towards VHHM

• What is the view of the veterinarians towards VHHM

• How well is the VHHM performed?• What is the effect of VHHM• What are the economics of VHHM

Why VHHM (farmers view)

• Research 2007• Questionaires for 800 farmers• Why and why not VHHM• 250 returned, 170 VHHM, 80 no VHHM

• Derks et al., 2012 (PVM)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

fertility milk production udder health young stock nutrition claw health housing

always

regular

problems

never

Contents of VHHM

Reasons to (not) participateParticipation in VHHM gem Likert score

Production increase 4,32

Prevent “blindness” 3,83

Structure in work 3,08

Existing problems 3,06

Advise of veterinarian 3,01

Routine checks farm 2,94

Reasons to quit VHHM gem Likert score

High costs 3,85

Low efficiency 3,68

Unpractical advise 2,95

Not enough structure 2,89

Not adjusted to farm 2,79

Costs too much time 2,79

Reasons not to participate in VHHM gem Likert score

Expected high costs 3,75

Expected low efficiency 3,21

Costs too much time 3,11

Not interested 2,93

I do not have a computer 2,73

Charging

• Per hour: 69%• Per hour (advice) and per act: 28%• Fixed tariff per cow per year: 2%• Specific packages 1%

Conclusions

• Fertility large part of activities• Farmers like the “support”• Reasons not to participate:

– Money– Time

A few questions

• What is the view of the farmers towards VHHM

• What is the view of the veterinarians towards VHHM

• How well is the VHHM performed?• What is the effect of VHHM• What are the economics of VHHM

The interviews

• Semi structured interview: definition and pressure points

• 10 randomly selected practices throughout the Netherlands

• Recorded with a voice recorder and transcribed in full

• After coding connections were made

• Not published

Practice nr fte % dairy

Counseled farms Dairy farms/fte % counseling

1 4 25 20 20 80

2 1 100 43 43 95

3 4 20 15 19 30

4 4 70 40 14 25

5 3 35 27 27 60

6 5 60 58 19 35

7 4 25 20 20 55

8 13 15 70 36 50

9 10 45 130 29 70

10 5 20 23 23 60

The interviews

Contents of advice work

practice fertility data analysis udder health feed other blood

1 v v v sometimes v

2 v sometimes sometimes sometimes

3 v sometimes

4 v v v sometimes sometimes

5 v v v v v

6 v v v v v

7 v

8 v v v v v v

9 v v v v v

10 v v v sometimes    

Farmer is the key figure

• Depends on what the farmer wants (10x)• There is no protocol, it is adjusted to the

farm• I take other things into account, depending

on the farmer• You look at what is important on that farm

at that time• The farmer asks, and you deliver, that’s the

whole story

Variation between farmers

• Some farmers are active participants in study groups, others aren’t, it varies

• Some don’t want that, they just want fertility checks

• I have farms that really want to look into problems, and others that absolutely don’t want that

• Some prefer to keep their production numbers to themselves

• And some are really obedient, they follow the advice, and others just… don’t

But most important conclusion …

The attitude of the veterinarian towards on-farm counseling influences on-farm counseling and the way the advice is

picked up by farmers

Illustration: two practices

• Interview nr. 7 and nr. 8, two practices that were situated 20 km apart

• No difference in geographical or sociological structures expected

• Large difference in attitude towards on-farm counseling

Contents of advice work

practice fertility data analysis udder health feed other blood

1 v v v sometimes v

2 v sometimes sometimes sometimes

3 v sometimes

4 v v v sometimes sometimes

5 v v v v v

6 v v v v v

7 v

8 v v v v v v

9 v v v v v

10 v v v sometimes    

Conclusion

• Big differences between practises

• Because of farmers?

• ….. or because of attitude of the vet???

A few questions

• What is the view of the farmers towards VHHM

• What is the view of the veterinarians towards VHHM

• How well is the VHHM performed?• What is the effect of VHHM• What are the economics of VHHM

Study on advising skills

• Study in 2011• 29 vets in 15 practises• Accompanied during 1 VHHM visit (1 vet 2

visits)• Questionnaire for vet and farmer (same

questions)• Evaluation of advisory talk

• Derks et al., 2013 (Vet J.)

Setting goals

• 7 vets set goals together with farmer• not setting goals because

– Not aware of wishes of farmer– No need to commit this to writing– Documentation is ‘too formal’– No good reason to set goals

Awareness of goals

• 22 combinations of ‘farmer’ and ‘veterinarian’ goals

• 16 vets could not clearly identify a farmer’s main goal

• most goals were not clearly defined• none of the farmers/veterinarians used

target values in establishing goals.

How to do an advisory talk (Wessels, 2008)

Results

Conclusion

Vets should learn a lot about proper consulting

The value of VHHM can be greatly improved

A few questions

• What is the view of the farmers towards VHHM

• What is the view of the veterinarians towards VHHM

• How well is the VHHM performed?• What is the effect of VHHM• What are the economics of VHHM

Large study

• 5,000 farms (207 vet practises) from CRV (MPR organisation)

• Questionnaire about VHHM• 695 replies (69 % VHHM)• MPR and fertility data available• Analyses on MPR data in relation to VHHM

• Derks et al., 2013, 2014 (J. Dairy Sci)

Contents of VHHM

pregnancy checks

advice on fertility

analysis productio...

milk production

udder health

nutrition

young stock rearing

claw health

housing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

never

when problems arise

not always, but regularly

always

Overzicht resultaten [2]

 n

pregnancy checks

advice on fertility

advice on production numbers

udder health

milk production nutrition

young stock rearing

claw health housing

60 x x x x x x x x x

40 x x x x x x      

33 x                

29 x x              

18 x x x x x x x x  

18 x x x x x x x   x

15 x x x x x        

15 x x x x x x x    

14 x x x x x x   x  

12 x x x            

11 x x x x          

10 x x x x x   x    

Effects VHHM

• Participation– More milk (+336 kg/cow/year)– Lower SCC (-8,340 cells/mL)– Lower first calving age ALVA (-12 d) – Lower % non return 56-d (−3.34%)– More inseminations per cow (+0.09). – More culled cows (+1.05%)– Lower age at culling (−70 d).

Yeah but ….

• There is an association no “real” causaal effect

• My belief: At least part of the effect is “real”

Two studies

• Normative• Economic data• Question:

If you compare the costs of VHHM with the economic value of improvements, what is the efficiency?

• Ifende et al., 2014 (Vet Rec); Derks et al., 2014

Normative study

• All farms from previous study• Look at VHHM and estimate costs

(normative)– Farm seize– Reproductive performance– Intensity of VHHM

• Calculate net returns milk production• Calculate costs of replacement

Used normative factors

Variable Abbreviation Value

Call-out costs of veterinary visit (€/visit) Cv 30

Costs of time of veterinarian (€/hour) Ct 120

Time necessary for a pregnancy check (min.) Pt 2

Time necessary to discuss the first topic (min.) Tt1 10

Time necessary for each additional topic (min.) Tt2 5

Costs of replacement heifer (€) Ch 888

Table 2. Assumptions to calculate the costs of VHHM based on farm data.

Two evaluations

Results

  VHHM* NVHHM

  Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

NRmilk 1452 3160 2403 1173 3066 2293

Cvhhm

Startup cost vet visit 1.06 26.00 4.71 - - -

Cost of pregnancy check 0 10.00 8.09 - - -

Cost of time for discussion 0.56 40.48 6.79 - - -

Total 1.62 67 19.62 - - -

NRvhhm 1429 3138 2388 1173 3066 2293

Costs of replacement heifer 51 415 224 76 464 212

NRtot 1198 2887 2164 1018 2851 2081

Data study

• Bookkeeping firm (Alfa Accountants)• Questionnaire send to 572 farms• 187 replied (85 participants, 102 non part)• All farm economic data available• Stochastic frontier analysis

– Looking at efficiency of farms– 4 models: financial data per cow/kg milk and

including/excluding farm structure variables

Variable Participant Mean (sd) se P-value

Total revenue/100 kg cmilk yes 35.52 (3.28) 0.36 0.16

no 34.71 (4.32) 0.43

Feed costs/100 kg cmilk yes 7.44 (1.40) 0.15 0.80

no 7.38 (1.75) 0.17Health and med costs/100 kg cmilk yes 1.31 (0.59) 0.07 <0.01

no 1.01 (0.43) 0.04Cattle costs/100 kg cmilk yes 2.84 (0.71) 0.08 <0.01

no 2.35 (0.63) 0.06Land costs/100 kg cmilk yes 1.58 (0.41) 0.04 0.26

no 1.50 (0.53) 0.05Non-operational costs/100 kg cmilk yes 39.58 (7.67) 0.87 0.99

no 39.57 (7.05) 0.72

Total revenue/cow yes 3185.39 (528.69) 57.34 <0.01

no 2949.44 (501.22) 49.63

Feed costs/cow yes 671.96 (174.43) 18.92 0.11

no 631.18 (173.88) 17.22

Health and med costs/cow yes 111.05 (48.09) 5.38 <0.01

no 11.98 (36.23) 3.72

Cattle costs/cow yes 256.56 (80.43) 8.72 <0.01

no 200.36 (62.51) 6.19

Land costs/cow yes 142.17 (42.84) 4.65 0.02

no 126.90 (46.48) 4.60

Non-operational costs /cow yes 3517.20 (830.11) 94.60 0.07

no 3314.43 (556.35) 57.08

No differences between groups

Conclusions

• Normative study:– Clear economic benefit of VHHM

benefit/cost ratio: 4.2• Farm economic data study

– Technical differences were equal– No economic differences– Farms with VHHM also spend more money on

other area’s?

SOME FINAL WORDS

• VHHM is related to better results• Despite “not too good” advisory activities• Room for improvement

• Vets should organize VHHM better– Structure– Consultancy skills

Develop farm specific VHHM

There is a future for VHHM

• Vets should learn to develop VHHM products

• Should improve their consultancy skills• Look critically at yourself• Market your products and belief in them• Create a portfolio of successes

Thank you very much for your attention and the opportunity to be

here