Management in veterinary medicine. Workshop
.pdfThe problem statement. In livestock cooperative had 650 calves. One of them fell ill with bronchopneumonia 120 calves, died 6 at the age of 4 months. The average daily weight gain healthy calves amounted to 0.7 kg, patients – 0.127 kg. Average live weight of calves 90 kg. Duration of illness of 10 days. Selling price of 1 kg live weight of cattle 250 tenge. The value of the calf at birth 18050 tenge. Cash proceeds from the sale of pelts of fallen calves 15000 tenge. On the prevention of labour expended, and funds in the amount of 40 000 tenge, and therapeutic measures - 100 000 tenge.
Solution:
1) calculation of economic damages caused by bronchopneumonia:
(a) from the mortality of calves
U = M x (Sp + Vp x T x A) - Sf = 6 x (18050 + 0,7 x 120 x 250)
-15000 = 219,3 thousand tenge;
b)from the reduction of weight gain of calves
U2 = M3 x (B3 - B6) x T x A= 114 x (0,7 - 0,127) x 10 x 250 = 163305 tenge;
b) General damages U= U1 + U2 = 219 300 + 163 305 = 382 605 tenge;
2)calculation of the damage prevented by the prevention of bronchopneumonia of calves, Pu1 = Mo x Ir x Vr x A - = 650 x 0,17
x28 x 250 - 382 605 = 390 895 tenge;
3)calculation of economic benefit resulting from the prevention of bronchopneumonia of calves, Ev = Pu - Ez = 390 895 - 40000 = 350 895 tenge;
4)definition of economic efficiency of preventive measures per
1 tenge cost Ep = EV : Va = 350 895 : 4000 = 8,77 tenge;
Factors and guidelines for calculating the cost-effectiveness of preventive measures at non-communicable diseases of animals
|
coefficient |
The specific |
||
|
|
|
values of |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
losses of the |
|
Disease |
|
mortality |
main products |
|
morbidity (Ir1) |
(in live |
|||
|
||||
|
(Fr1) |
weight) on one |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
sick animal |
|
|
|
|
(Vr), kg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
71
Diseases of cattle
Nutritional osteodystrophy cattle |
0,23 |
- |
13,4 |
|
Atony of the proventriculus of |
|
|
|
|
cattle: |
0,097 |
- |
10,0 |
|
just |
||||
acute |
0,087 |
- |
67 |
|
chronic |
0,01 |
- |
14,7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bronchopneumonia of calves |
0,17 |
0,15 |
28,0 |
|
Dyspepsia calves: |
|
|
|
|
just |
0,46 |
0,32 |
20,9 |
|
simple |
||||
toxic |
0,27 |
0,06 |
15,5 |
|
|
0,19 |
0,66 |
46,7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keratoconjunctivitis of cattle |
0,09 |
- |
3,3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mastitis cows: |
|
|
|
|
just |
|
|
|
|
serous |
0,21 |
- |
- |
|
catarrhal |
- |
- |
8,3 |
|
purulent-catarrhal |
- |
- |
10,0 |
|
|
- |
- |
18,3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tympany of the rumen: |
|
|
|
|
just |
0,39 |
- |
11,7 |
|
acute |
||||
- |
- |
10,0 |
||
chronic |
||||
- |
- |
16,7 |
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Endometritis cows |
0,045 |
- |
18,3 |
|
|
Swine disease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pneumonia of pigs |
0,21 |
0,11 |
9,0 |
|
Gastroenteritis of pigs |
0,18 |
0,018 |
4,7 |
|
Dyspepsia piglets: |
|
|
|
|
just |
0,13 |
0,083 |
4,06 |
|
simple |
||||
0,009 |
0,016 |
29 |
||
toxic |
||||
0,021 |
0,151 |
9,3 |
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Toxic degeneration of piglets |
0,153 |
0,42 |
18,3 |
|
Diseases of sheep |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Atony of gizzards |
0,096 |
0,15 |
13,0 |
|
Bronchopneumonia |
0,31 |
0,33 |
6,4 |
|
Gastroenteritis |
0,064 |
0,26 |
4,5 |
|
The tympany of the rumen |
0,14 |
0,41 |
17,2 |
|
72
Mastitis: all |
|
0,092 |
|
|
- |
|
7,0 |
|
serous |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
0,185 |
|
|
- |
|
5,1 |
||
catarrhal |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
0,064 |
|
|
- |
|
11,0 |
||
hemorrhagic |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
0,027 |
|
|
- |
|
13,9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Diseases of fur animals |
|
|
|
|||||
Hepatotoxicity mink |
|
0,012 |
|
|
0,42 |
|
15,8 |
|
Bronchopneumonia mink |
|
0,014 |
|
|
0,501 |
|
15,0 |
|
Malnutrition puppies mink |
|
0,008 |
|
|
0,273 |
|
9,5 |
|
Kidney disease in mink |
|
0,013 |
|
|
0,31 |
|
10,7 |
|
Bronchopneumonia foxes |
|
0,004 |
|
|
0,18 |
|
11,7 |
|
Malnutrition puppies foxes |
|
0,006 |
|
|
0,28 |
|
18,2 |
|
Bronchopneumonia sable |
|
0,003 |
|
|
0,19 |
|
20,3 |
|
Malnutrition puppies sable |
|
0,05 |
|
|
0,385 |
|
41,2 |
|
|
Diseases of birds |
|
|
|
||||
Beriberi birds |
|
0,41 |
|
|
0,18 |
|
0,3 |
|
Nutritional osteodystrophy birds |
|
0,18 |
|
|
0,09 |
|
0,3 |
|
Hepatitis chickens |
|
0,07 |
|
|
0,14 |
|
0,3 |
|
Yolk peritonitis birds |
|
0,15 |
|
|
0,21 |
|
0,4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5)calculation of the damage prevented by the treatment of sick
calves
Pu2 = N3 x Fr x (Sp + Vp x T x A) - U = 120 x 0,15 x (18050 + 0,7 x 120 x 250) – 382 605 = 320 295 tenge;
6)calculation of the economic benefit received as a result of treatment of sick calves,
Ev = Pu2 – Va = 320 295 - 100 000 = 220 295 tenge;
7)determine cost-effectiveness of medical interventions per 1 tenge cost Et = EV : Va = 220 950 :100 000 = 2,2 tenge.
Preventive measures for pneumonia of calves was cheaper treatment 2.5 times. As a result of their implementation of the economic efficiency obtained in 4.4 times higher than in the treatment of sick animals.
Questions and tasks for self-examination
1.What are the key economic indicators?
2. Methods of calculation of economic efficiency of conducting veterinary activities at non-communicable diseases of young animals?
73
TOPIC 13. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF CONDUCTING VETERINARY MEASURES FOR INFECTIOUSANIMAL
DISEASES
The aim of the lesson: introduction to the calculations of economic efficiency in the provision of veterinary measures for infectious animal diseases.
Materials: the law “On veterinary medicine” of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, 2002; D. Khusainov., N. Akhmetsadykov, G. Shabdarbaeva, O. Berkinbay, A. Mutaliev, H. Abeuov, G. Batanova, M. Berdykulov, S. Abrahmanov. Management in veterinary medicine and veterinary affairs organization / Tutorial: - Almaty: Nur-Print, 2014. – 572 p.
When calculating the economic efficiency of preventive and curative anti-epizootic measures use ratio morbidity and mortality, the specific values of economic damage.
Approximate norms for these indicators on a specific disease developed and may need only zonal adjusted according to natural and economic conditions affecting the development of epizootic process of a particular disease. For example, when cattle brucellosis incidence rate in at-risk herds (Ir1,) equal to 0.48, in the region (Ir2) 0,0129, the case fatality rate (Kl) is equal to 0, the specific values of economic loss per animal (in tenge): sick (Q1,) 7500, fallen (Q2) 0 heat (Q3), forcibly killed (Q4) 2800, cash (Q5) 1400.
In other diseases, these figures will be different.
The problem statement. The company had 6000 pigs, one of them became infected with the Aujeszky’s disease 800, emergency slaughtered 270, abortional 14 sows, a shortfall of 100 piglets from sows. The average live weight of pigs 100 kg. Average daily gain healthy pigs 0.45 kg, patients - 0.2 kg. Average disease duration of 30 days.
Selling price of 1 kg of live weight of pigs 200 tenge. Cash proceeds from the sale of the products of slaughtered animals was 3250 thousand tenge. For the implementation of health measures material resources expended 600 thousand tenge tenge, on salaries for veterinary professionals and ancillary workers – 650 thousand tenge;
74
unified social tax with 35.8% of the wage Fund (232,7 thousand tenge); depreciation of fixed assets - 70 thousand tenge, repairs of fixed assets - 65 thousand tenge, management costs - 75 thousand tenge and other costs 60 thousand tenge. The cost of a pig at birth 2180 tenge.
It is necessary to determine the economic damage caused byAujeszky’s disease, the economic efficiency of anti-epizootic measures.
Solution:
1) calculation of economic damages caused by Aujeszky’s disease:
a) from the death of the pigs
U1p = M x Z x A - Sf = 150 x 100 x 200 - 0 = 3 000 thousand tenge;
b) from slaughter pigs
U1v = M x Z x A - Sf = 270 x 100 x 200 – 3 250 000 = 2 150 thousand tenge;
v) from lower productivity
U2 = N3 x (Vz - Vb) x T x A = 380 x (0,45 - 0,2) x 30 x 200 = 570 thousand tenge;
g) the loss of the offspring of sows
U3 = (Cr x Rb - Rf) x Sp = (14 x 30-320) x 2180 = 218 thousand tenge;
d) the total value of economic damage
U = U1p + U1v + U2 + U3 = 3 000 + 2 150 thousand + 570 thousand + 218 thousand = 5 938 thousand tenge;
2) the cost of the anti-epidemic measures
Va = N3 + Ot + ESN - Aoc + Roc + SopU + Spb = 600 thousand + 650 thousand + 232,7 thousand + 70 thousand + 45 thousand + 60 thousand = 1752,7 thousand tenge;
3)the damage prevented as a result of the eradication of Aujeszky’s disease,
Pu1 = Mo x Ir1 x Up x A - U= 6000 x 0,5 x 19,3 x 200 - 5938 = 5642 thousand tenge;
4)the economic effect obtained in a result of the Wellness an- ti-epizootic measures,
Ev = Pu – Va = 5642 thousand – 1752,7 thousand = 3889,3 thousand tenge;
5)the economic effect of 1 tenge cost
Et = Ev: Va = 5642 thousand : 1752,7 thousand = 2,22 tenge.
75
Coefficients for calculation of efficiency recreational activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The specific values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of losses of the |
|
|
|
|
The incidence rate |
1 |
main products in |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fr |
the calculation |
|
Disease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
rate |
per animal Vl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatality |
|
The number |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Inproblem herds Ir |
|
2 |
|
Products |
||
|
|
|
|
In theregion Ir |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diseases of cattle |
|
|
|
||
Rabies |
|
|
0,03 |
|
0,0129 |
|
1,0 |
Meat, kg. |
143,0 |
Brucellosis |
|
|
0,48 |
|
- |
|
- |
Milk, t |
0,675 |
|
|
|
|
Meat, kg |
113,0 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Viral diarrhea |
|
|
0,22 |
|
- |
|
0,07 |
Meat, kg. |
11,3 |
Diplokokk infection |
|
|
0,64 |
|
0,00067 |
|
0,2 |
Meat, kg. |
6,4 |
Infectious |
bovine |
0,31 |
|
- |
|
0,06 |
Meat, kg. |
12,7 |
|
rhinotracheitis |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malignant catarrhal fever |
0,007 |
|
- |
|
0,4 |
Meat, kg. |
30,0 |
||
Colibacillosis |
|
|
0,62 |
|
0,0029 |
|
0,19 |
Meat, kg. |
8,1 |
Leukemia |
|
|
0,14 |
|
0,011 |
|
- |
Meat, kg. |
36,7 |
Leptospirosis |
|
|
0,628 |
|
0,0037 |
|
0,07 |
Meat, kg. |
14,5 |
Necrobacillosis |
|
|
0,17 |
|
- |
|
- |
Meat, kg. |
17,1 |
Paratuberculosis |
|
|
0,09 |
|
- |
|
- |
Meat, kg. |
102,2 |
Parainfluenza |
|
|
0,33 |
|
- |
|
0,04 |
Meat, kg. |
13,0 |
Pasteurellosis |
|
|
0,42 |
|
0,056 |
|
0,17 |
Meat, kg. |
7,8 |
Salmonellosis |
|
|
0,76 |
|
0,0004 |
|
0,19 |
Meat, kg. |
8,9 |
Anthrax |
|
|
0,012 |
|
0,0003 |
|
0,774 |
Meat, kg. |
115,0 |
Tetanus |
|
|
0,04 |
|
0,0004 |
|
0,7 |
Meat, kg. |
112,0 |
Dermatophytosis |
|
|
0,53 |
|
0,0016 |
|
- |
Meat, kg. |
4,2 |
Tuberculosis |
|
|
0,72 |
|
0,0114 |
|
- |
Milk, t |
0,63 |
|
|
|
|
Meat, kg |
105,5 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Gangrene |
|
|
0,013 |
|
0,00074 |
|
0,7 |
Meat, kg. |
65,0 |
FMD |
|
|
0,91 |
|
0,12 |
|
0,015 |
Milk, t |
0,113 |
|
|
|
|
Meat, kg |
18,9 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Swine disease |
|
|
|
|
Aujeszky’s Disease |
|
|
0,5 |
|
0,0239 |
|
0,409 |
Meat, kg. |
19,3 |
Brucellosis |
|
|
0,39 |
|
0,0081 |
|
0,409 |
Meat, kg. |
13,2 |
76
Dysentery |
0,27 |
|
0,0023 |
|
0,071 |
|
Meat, kg. |
7,8 |
||
Infectious atrophic rhinitis |
0,71 |
|
0,0148 |
|
0,17 |
|
Meat, kg. |
14,1 |
||
Leptospirosis |
0,27 |
|
0,00041 |
|
0,19 |
|
Meat, kg. |
9,7 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salmonellosis |
0,26 |
|
0,017 |
|
0,18 |
|
Meat, kg. |
6,4 |
||
Pasteurellosis |
0,42 |
|
0,0016 |
|
0,24 |
|
Meat, kg. |
11,1 |
||
Viral pneumonia |
0,27 |
|
- |
|
0,18 |
|
Meat, kg. |
8,3 |
||
Viral |
0,311 |
|
- |
|
0,094 |
|
Meat, kg. |
8,7 |
||
gastroenteric |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mug |
0,71 |
|
0,026 |
|
0,14 |
|
Meat, kg. |
8,8 |
||
Plague |
0,8 |
|
0,066 |
|
0,378 |
|
Meat, kg. |
21,3 |
||
FMD |
0,6 |
|
0,006 |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
4,3 |
||
Anthrax |
0,009 |
|
- |
|
0,80 |
|
Meat, kg. |
40,0 |
||
Tuberculosis |
0,02 |
|
- |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
15,6 |
||
Listeriosis |
0,21 |
|
- |
|
0,41 |
|
Meat, kg. |
10,0 |
||
Flu |
0,46 |
|
- |
|
0,12 |
|
Meat, kg. |
8,2 |
||
|
Diseases of sheep |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Brucellosis |
0,34 |
|
0,019 |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
23,0 |
||
Dysentery |
0,62 |
|
0,0004 |
|
0,091 |
|
Meat, kg. |
1,7 |
||
Infectious enterotoxemia |
0,41 |
|
- |
|
0,91 |
|
Meat, kg. |
8,1 |
||
Contagious |
0,259 |
|
- |
|
0,118 |
|
Meat, kg. |
2,7 |
||
ecthyma |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leptospirosis |
0,06 |
|
0,00076 |
0,066 |
|
Meat, kg. |
6,2 |
|||
Listeriosis |
0,51 |
|
0,00084 |
0,24 |
|
Meat, kg. |
17,1 |
|||
Salmonellosis |
0,38 |
|
0,0031 |
|
0,34 |
|
Meat, kg. |
4,3 |
||
FMD |
0,7 |
|
0,00028 |
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
2,5 |
|||
Anthrax |
0,017 |
|
- |
|
0,80 |
|
Meat, kg. |
25,0 |
||
Rabies |
0,021 |
|
- |
|
0,64 |
|
Meat, kg. |
25,0 |
||
Necrobacillosis |
0,19 |
|
- |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
3,9 |
||
Hoof rot |
0,31 |
|
- |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
4,4 |
||
|
|
Diseases of birds |
|
|
|
|||||
The disease |
0,82 |
|
- |
|
0,41 |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
1,4 |
|
Newcastle |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infectious |
0,53 |
|
- |
|
0,087 |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
0,9 |
|
laryngotracheitis |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colibacillosis |
0,27 |
|
- |
|
0,17 |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
0,4 |
|
Leukemia |
0,26 |
|
0,006 |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
1,6 |
|
Pasteurellosis |
0,75 |
|
0,0011 |
|
0,34 |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
1,6 |
|
The pulloroza |
0,86 |
|
0,13 |
|
0,285 |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
0,2 |
|
Tuberculosis |
0,73 |
|
0,071 |
|
- |
|
Meat, kg. |
|
2,9 |
|
Example. Definition of economic efficiency of health measures under the
Aujeszky’s disease swine.
77
Example. Definition of economic efficiency of preventive measures at Aujeszky’s disease swine.
Theproblemstatement.Inthefieldtherewere1millionpigsthat were subjected to prophylactic treatments against Aujeszky’s disease. For the year fell ill with this disease 5000 pigs. The incidence rate of pigs in the region is 0,0239, specific loss value of the main products is 19.3 kg, the price of 1kg of live weight - 200 tenge. The costs of prevention Aujeszky’s disease swine is 10 million tenge.
Solution:
1)calculation of the damage prevented by the prevention of
Aujeszky’s disease in pigs in the field
Pu3 = (Mo x Lr2 - N3) x Kp x A, = (1 000 000 x 0,0239 - 5000) x 19,3 x 200 = 72 954 million tenge;
2)the economic effect resulting from the prevention of Aujeszky’s disease swine
Ev= Pu3 x Va = 72954 thousand - 10000 thousand = 62 954 thousand tenge;
3)the economic efficiency of preventive measures per 1 tenge cost Et = Ev:Va = 62 954 thousand : 10000 thousand = 6,29 tenge.
Questions and tasks for self-examination
1. Methods of calculationof economic efficiencyof carrying out veterinary measures for infectious animal diseases?
TOPIC 14. CALCULATION OF ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF OBSTETRICAND
GYNECOLOGICAL DISEASES
The aim of the lesson: introduction to the calculations of economic efficiency of obstetric-gynecologic diseases.
Materials: the law “On veterinary medicine” of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, 2002; D. Khusainov., N. Akhmetsadykov, G. Shabdarbaeva, O. Berkinbay, A. Mutaliev, H. Abeuov, G. Batanova, M. Berdykulov, S. Abrahmanov. Management in veterinary medicine and veterinary affairs organization / Tutorial: - Almaty: Nur-Print,
2014. – 572 p.; V. Smulevich, A. Makarov / Veterinary. – 2014. - No. 9.
78
Academician V. S. Shipilov proposed to calculate the total economic damage by days of infertility (Di). The days of infertility refers to the period from 30 days after calving until the day fruitful insemination. The damage for one day infertility is (generally) half of daily milk yield milk and 0.005 calf multiplied by their cost. Under optimum conditions of feeding, care and maintenance of each cow to get the calf for 315 days or 115 calves from 100 cows per year.
B. G. Pankov proposed formula for calculation of infertility days for any number of cows in herd: Di = 362.25 – (Bc 3.15),
where 362.25 constant coefficient; Bc - what was actually received (business calves), i.e. calves from 100 cows during the reporting period (from laid pregnancy to take the number of abortions and stillbirths; 3.15 – quotient from the division 362.25 115 calves (from 100 cows per year when tight calving).
If in a small group or herd of cows tested a new drug for the treatment of gynecological diseases and the known average rate of infertility days per animal, the number of business calves can be calculated by the formula:
Bc = (362.25-Di) : 3,15.
The calculation of the total economic damage from infertility in animals can be carried out on the farm or in the whole economy for the year according to the formula: TED = [(Di x 0.5 daily milk yield milk) x price (1 liter of milk)]+[(Di x 0.005 price calf, lost for a specific number of Di)].
In A. I. Marenkov, O. A. Pronina, N. S.Borodulina obtained the following results. Under the new methodology:
Di = 362,25 – (0.80 x 3.15) = 359.73 tenge. Bc = (362,25 - 0.11) : 3,15 = 114.97 tenge. TED = 103.42 tenge.
The economic damage from the loss of calves: UNT = 3685.57 tenge.
The damage from the shortfall of milk: UNM = 73337.66.
79
The total economic damage: UO = 77023.32. Damage per cow: KU = 102.70 tenge.
The economic effect from the use of diagnostic ultrasound of the reproductive organs of cows.
The causes of low efficiency of reproduction of the herd.
The level of productivity of dairy cows in 17-25 % depending on the effectiveness of reproduction of the herd. Low indices of reproductive capacity of livestock lead to a number of economic losses, including: receiving a smaller amount of milk and animal yield per cow for the period of economic use; increase in culling cows due to infertility; the slow improvement of the genetic potential of the herd; reduced feed use efficiency; increased expenses for the purchase of semen, veterinary drugs and supplies.
Advantages of ultrasonic diagnostics.
Method of rectal palpation to date is a basic study in the diagnosis of pregnancy and the causes of infertility of cattle in agricultural enterprises. This method has found a wide circulation both in Belarus and abroad due to its simplicity and availability. However, in countries with developed cattle breeding since the early 2000´s in the practice of veterinary surgeons and gynecologists has been introduced this method of investigation of the reproductive organs of cows, such as ultrasonic diagnostics. Today ultrasound method is applied in some farms of the Republic, but mostly this survey is conducted only for the early diagnosis of pregnancy. The main reason that method is not widespread, is the lack of veterinary specialists farms training for the diagnosis of pathological conditions of the organs of reproduction, which greatly reduces the efficiency of the use of expensive equipment.
In countries with high levels of dairy cattle was developed and implemented schemes of ultrasonic diagnostics of organs of reproduction, to ensure the uniformity of the number of calving during the year or a particular season. For example, in regions with short winter housing period (2-3 months) us-
80
