Michael von Massow

There is a direct relationship between elevated somatic cell count (SCC) in an individual cow milk production and milk loss. This relationship has been used at the herd level to estimate an overall herd milk loss due to subclinical mastitis and to use recovery of this lost milk as a financial benefit to cover the cost of intervention strategies to improve milk quality. The objective of this study was to estimate the recoverable milk revenue on a per cow basis for herds moving from one herd average SCC level to a newer, lower level. Test-day records from 1,005,697 dairy cows in 3,741 herds between 2009 to 2019 were used. Milk yield loss for each cow in each herd on test day was estimated using a mixed effects regression equation, and then summed to estimated total herd milk loss. These herd average daily milk loss estimates were then related to the bulk tank SCC, and the distribution of underlying individual cow SCC were examined. The distributions in daily herd milk loss for various bulk tank SCC values were generated, and estimates of recoverable milk loss were generated to simulate a herd moving from their current bulk tank SCC to a new lower level. The results indicate that estimates of total herd milk yield loss vary with the distribution of cow-level SCC and parity within the herd, so it is imperative that milk loss be calculated on a per cow basis. Further, the recoverable milk loss estimates based on moving to a lower bulk tank SCC where milk loss is still occurring was relatively small compared with the traditional assumption that all milk loss would be recovered, and less than most herd owners and advisors would expect.

The dairy and poultry sectors responded quickly to the initial adjustments in the quantity and nature of food products forced by the shuttering of the hospitality sector and the subsequent switch to buying food from grocery stores. In addition, these sectors were less affected by the labor availability and health issues from COVID‐19 (coronavirus disease‐2019) that plagued others, such as red meat processors. While the overall impacts were less than most other parts of the agri‐food system, some elements of supply managed products, particularly poultry processors, have experienced a reduction in returns and are still adjusting to the new demand and supply situation. The extent of the impact is correlated with the degree to which the supply chain further upstream was connected to the downstream hospitality sector.

The dumping of milk, the offering of hospitality size goods in grocery stores, and the closure of processing facilities are examples of the disruptions caused by the pandemic to the dairy, poultry, and egg sectors. These supply management sectors, however, are more resilient to the impacts of COVID‐19 than other sectors as producers are generally more financially stable, losses are pooled, and production/marketing efforts are coordinated.

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of a participatory extension model, called Ontario Focus Farms (FF), which was designed to facilitate the adoption of on-farm management practices to control Johne's disease (JD) on Ontario (ON) dairy farms. Partial budget models were developed to estimate the annual herd cost of JD on an average 78-cow Ontario dairy herd and the annual herd cost of neonatal calf diarrhea (NCD). With these estimates, a CBA was developed to assess the simulated net benefits of implementing various on-farm management scenarios (i.e., implementing 1, 2, or 3 of the following: calf feeding, maternity pen management, maternity area structure changes), where the benefits represent a reduction in the annual cost of JD and NCD. These models informed the final CBA assessing the net benefits of FF implementation over a 10-yr period. All monetary values are reported in Canadian dollars (Can$; where 1 Can$ = 0.823 US$ at the time of the study). The annual herd cost of JD was estimated to be $3,242 ($41.56/cow), and that of NCD was estimated to be $1,390 ($36/heifer calf). When farms were expected to have both JD and NCD, all scenarios, when implemented over a 10-yr period, yielded positive net benefits ranging from $439 to $2,543 per farm when changes to maternity area structure were combined with calf feeding changes. These effects were sensitive to changes in level of disease (JD and NCD) on the farm, and the costs and effects of making changes. The NPV of making any on-farm change when JD was not present on the farm was negative. Overall, FF implementation yielded positive net benefits of $426,351 or $749,808, depending on whether a veterinarian or non-veterinarian served as the facilitator. The NPV was most sensitive to changes in burden of disease, the cost of implementing changes, and the proportion of FF participants that had JD and NCD on the farm. Benefits of FF implementation are also likely to accrue to veterinarians, as a result of professional facilitator training, and the Ontario dairy industry, as a by-product of improved milk quality and safety; therefore, the true net benefits of FF implementation are likely underestimated. Overall, the FF process should be considered an economically viable program and worthy of investment as part of a JD control strategy, as it demonstrates potential to yield positive net benefits for the Ontario dairy industry.

Increasing awareness of antibiotic resistance has correspondingly increased efforts to identify and reduce the causal behaviors that led to this severe public health threat. The consequences of these efforts are regulatory and market pressures limiting antibiotic use by livestock farmers which may lead to significant financial and welfare challenges on the farm, even if antibiotics can be substituted by vaccines. The purpose of this study is to measure the relative cost-effectiveness of antibiotics vs. vaccines for controlling L. intracellularis on a Canadian farrow-to-finish pig farm. This is done by modeling the production and economic impact of different antibiotics and vaccines available for managing this disease, listed in the Canadian Compendium of Veterinary Products. The economic impacts (in Canadian dollars) of the disease are estimated and the net benefits of alternative prevention and treatment options are compared to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of each strategy. Of the 12 options analyzed, four were preventative (antibiotic and vaccine) and eight were antibiotic treatments. Prophylactic chlortetracycline (an antibiotic) is the most cost-effective option for managing L. intracellularis, while Porcilis Ileitis (a vaccine) is the least cost-effective strategy. This result remains robust considering sensitivity analysis of the production parameters, which indicates that preventative antibiotics are more cost-effective than vaccines. This implies that banning preventative antibiotic treatments harms the bottom line of farmers under current market conditions.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has estimated that Canadian households waste 85 kg of food per person annually. Food waste has become an increasingly common focus for policy, regulation, interventions, and awareness-raising efforts in Canada. However, there is still a relative dearth of data to inform such decision-making processes or to provide narratives to contextualize behavior change efforts. In this paper, we describe the results of an uncommonly detailed observational study of household food waste. A total of 94 families with young children living in Guelph, Ontario chose to participate in this study. Over the course of multiple weeks, we collected data on their food purchases, food consumption, and waste generation. All three streams of waste (garbage, recycling, and organic waste) were audited and the food type, degree of avoidability, and weight of each individual component of the organic waste stream was recorded. Using this highly granular data set, we found that the average household in our study generated approximately 2.98 kg of avoidable food waste per week. This estimate was then contextualized in terms of economic losses (dollar value), nutritional losses (calories, vitamins and minerals) and environmental impacts (global warming potential, land, and water usage). In short, weekly avoidable food waste per household was calculated to be equivalent to $18.01, 3,366 calories and 23.3 kg of CO2. These multiple valuation frameworks, which are based in detailed observations of family food behaviors rather than estimations derived from system-wide data, will enable more informed and urgent conversations about policy, programming, and interventions in order to reduce the volume of wasted food at the consumer level.