The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Veterinary Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tvjl
Investigating the value dairy farmers place on a reduction of lameness in their herds using a willingness to pay approach R.M. Bennett a,⇑, Z.E. Barker b, D.C.J. Main b, H.R. Whay b, K.A. Leach b a b
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK University of Bristol, School of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 28 September 2013
Keywords: Lameness Dairy cattle Farmers Willingness to pay
a b s t r a c t A survey was conducted to elicit dairy farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce the prevalence of lameness in their herds. A choice experiment questionnaire was administered using face-to-face interviews of 163 farmers in England and Wales. Whole herd lameness assessments by trained researchers recorded a mean lameness prevalence of nearly 24% which was substantially higher than that estimated by farmers. Farmers’ responses to a series of attitudinal questions showed that they strongly agreed that cows can suffer a lot of pain from lameness and believed that they could reduce lameness in their herds. Farmers’ mean WTP to avoid lameness amounted to UK£411 per lame cow but with considerable variation across the sample. Median WTP of UK£249 per lame cow was considered a better measure of central tendency for the sample. In addition, the survey found that farmers had a substantial WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness control (a median value of UK£97 per lame cow) but that they were generally prepared to incur greater inconvenience if it reduced lameness. The study findings suggest that farmers need a better understanding of the scale and costs of lameness in their herds and the benefits of control. To encourage action, farmers need to be convinced that lameness control measures perceived as inconvenient will be cost effective. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Endemic livestock diseases can result in substantial economic costs for farmers and for others in society, as well as have very undesirable implications for animal suffering. For example, Bennett and Ijpelaar (2005) estimated the economic losses associated with 34 different endemic diseases in Great Britain, including costs to human health and implications for animal welfare. In that study, lameness in cattle was estimated to cost up to UK£1071 million per year largely due to effects on milk output and premature culling, together with substantial costs associated with control and treatment (around 40% of total cost). The authors’ stated uncertainty of the estimate of economic losses associated with lameness reflects the difficulty of estimating such costs, largely due to lack of data. In the same study, a survey of veterinarians suggested that, of the cattle diseases considered, lameness had the highest animal welfare impact score. In 2009, the negative economic and animal welfare impacts of lameness in cattle were further highlighted by the Farm Animal
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1183786478. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Bennett). UK£ = approx. US$1.53, €1.17 at 27 June 2013. See FAWC, 2009. Opinion on the welfare of the dairy cow. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London. www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/dcwelfar-091022.pdf (accessed 27 June 2013). 1 2
1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.068
Welfare Council (FAWC, 2009).2 This identified lameness as a cause of considerable pain and distress to the cow, a major reason for premature culling and a cause of impairment of fertility, reduction of milk yield and increases in veterinary costs and staff time. The most recent data on levels of lameness in the UK are prevalence figures obtained by researchers assessing whole herds on farm visits. Barker et al. (2010) found a mean prevalence of lameness (scores 2 and 3) on 205 farms of 36.8% (range 0–79.2%) while Rutherford et al. (2009) found a mean of between 16.2% and 19.3% in a study of 80 farms (range 1.4–48.6%). Published estimates of the costs associated with lameness in dairy cattle are wide-ranging, largely dependent on the cause and how it is treated. Estimates from Willshire and Bell (2009) in the UK are UK£76 for a case of digital dermatitis, UK£154 for a case of interdigital lameness, UK£514 for a case of sole ulcer and UK£300 for a case of white line disease. These calculations include direct costs of treatment and indirect costs arising from detrimental effects on milk production and fertility. Despite the estimation of such costs, farmers and advisors are still asking questions about the costs and benefits of lameness control. Therefore it was considered that an alternative approach involving evaluating what farmers perceive to be the costs associated with lameness and the value to them of reducing lameness would be useful.
73
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
Given the difficulty of assessing the economic importance of particular diseases, and the potential value of programmes for disease prevention and control, researchers have turned recently to the use of non-market valuation methods to shed light on the perceived importance and costs of diseases and the benefits of control. There are a number of economic tools that can be used to estimate people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for things such as reduction in disease incidence; for example, stated preference methods which include contingent valuation (CV) (Mitchell and Carson, 1989) and the choice experiment (CE) method (Louviere et al., 2000). There are currently relatively few WTP studies relating to livestock disease control in the research literature although there are a host of studies in associated areas, such as farm animal welfare (for a review, see Bennett et al., 2012). Papers that do report the use of CV or CE to value people’s preferences in relation to livestock disease control include Swallow and Mulatu (1994) who estimated WTP for tsetse control in Ethiopia and Bennett and Willis (2008) who used CE to explore people’s WTP to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle in England and Wales. The CE approach characterises ‘a good’ in terms of its main attributes and presents respondents with different sets of attribute bundles (with attributes set at varying levels) from which they have to choose their preferred bundle. This enables respondents’ trade-offs between attributes to be estimated and scaled against each other. Because one of the attributes is usually price, the monetary value that people ascribe to a change in any individual attribute of the good can be estimated. The main advantage of CE is that it can estimate these attribute values separately and not just the value of the whole good. It is known that limited availability of labour, unpopular tasks and inconvenience are among the barriers to the control of lameness in dairy herds (Leach et al., 2010a). The ability of the CE method to consider such factors in addition to financial value makes this a useful approach to exploring farmers’ views on the costs and benefits associated with lameness control. The aim of the research presented here was to gauge, using a CE approach, the value that dairy farmers place on reducing lameness by estimating their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds.
Materials and methods A questionnaire was designed to elicit from farmers their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The first contained questions concerning lameness in the herd and farmers’ perceptions of the problem. As part of the ‘Healthy Feet Project’ farmers were asked to record cases of lameness in the herd during the period from 2007 to 2010. The information was used to calculate the incidence of lameness in the herd for the year prior to the interview. If farmers had failed to keep records, they were asked the number of cows that had been lame in the past year and this estimate was used to calculate the lameness incidence. Data on the prevalence of lameness on the day of the visit were collected by the researchers, who locomotion scored the whole milking herd as described by Barker et al. (2010). The second section of the questionnaire presented farmers with a brief statement about lameness and its treatment followed by an explanation of the CE exercise and then the CE exercise itself (which is explained in more detail below). In an open question, farmers were asked to explain their reasoning for the choices they made. The third section was a series of attitudinal questions concerning lameness and its control. The final section contained questions about the farmers themselves (such as how long they had been dairy farming).
Design of WTP questions Because restrictions of time and labour have been ranked highly by farmers as barriers to lameness control (Leach et al., 2010a), and because cost is not the only driver in choice of control measures, we included an attribute described as ‘inconvenience’ in the CE. This allowed us to estimate farmers’ WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness control and how this relates to their WTP to reduce lameness, thus indicating their willingness to incur additional inconvenience in order to reduce lameness in the herd.
A
B
Reduction in lameness
75%
100%
Change in inconvenience of lameness control measures
25% more
50% more
Additional cost per cow/year (all cows in herd)
£15
£30
C Your current situation
Fig. 1. Example choice set.
The CE presented farmers with eight different choice sets similar to that shown in Fig. 1. Each choice set contained three choices (A, B and C) each of which then contained different levels of three attributes, namely: the percentage reduction in prevalence of lameness in the herd in a year’s time (i.e. if the current level of lameness in the herd is 10% then a 50% reduction would reduce it to 5%); the percentage change in the level of inconvenience caused by implementing lameness control measures (which might be greater or less than the farmer’s current situation), and the additional total cost of the new lameness measures divided by the total number of cows in the herd (i.e. average cost per cow across all cows in the herd). The first of these attributes, reduction in lameness prevalence, was allocated the following possible percentage levels – zero, 25, 50, 75 and 100. The second attribute, change in inconvenience of control measures, was allocated five levels: 50% less, 25% less, no change, 25% more, and 50% more. The third attribute, additional cost per cow (UK£/yr), was allocated values of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60. Farmers had to choose their preferred option (A, B or C) in each choice set separately where C was the individual farmer’s current situation. Thus, in Fig. 1, if a farmer preferred a reduction in the prevalence of lameness in their herd of 75% but with a 25% increase in inconvenience associated with control for a payment of £15 per cow, to a 100% reduction in lameness, with a 50% increase in inconvenience and payment of £30 per cow, and to the current situation, then they would choose option A. Choice sets were designed to ensure a good balance of attribute levels in each set. WTP was estimated statistically by using a Bayesian procedure applied to a random parameter logit model (see Appendix A, Supplementary material). The statistical software package GAUSS 7.0 (Aptech Systems) was used for the estimation procedure. Administration of questionnaires A focus group of eight dairy farmers was undertaken. Various issues concerning lameness in the dairy herd were discussed and a draft of the questionnaire was tested. As a result of this, some changes were made to the questionnaire which was then piloted on 20 farmers. Following this, final changes were made to the questionnaire. Face-to-face interviews were carried out with farmers on 163 farms by trained interviewers. Farmers were among those who had participated in the Healthy Feet Project (Main et al., 2012) and were located in England and Wales. The interviews were carried out with the person responsible for major decisions on spending on the farm. For the analysis of WTP sample size was reduced to 140 observations because some farmers failed to complete the CE exercise whilst three farmers interviewed were excluded from the analysis due to inconsistencies in their responses.
Results Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics of the sample of farmers show that the majority (73%) had been dairy farming for over 20 years with a mean of 30 years (minimum 2, maximum 65) and 91% said that their aim was to continue in dairy farming in the foreseeable future. Most farmers (70%) were in the 40–60 years old age group. Herd size averaged 169 cows but varied from 43 to 790 whilst milk yield per cow averaged 7074 L/year (range 3000–11,000 L). Only 7% of farmers felt they had a ‘major’ lameness problem, 58% thought they had a ‘moderate’ problem, 34% a ‘minor’ one and one farmer reported not having a problem at all. When asked to rank herd health issues on the cost to the business over the past year, 27% of farmers mentioned lameness as the top or one of the top ranking problems, 36% mentioned mastitis and 37% mentioned fertility problems (joint ranking of conditions was permitted). Thirty per cent of farmers ranked lameness second and 20% ranked lameness third. When asked to do the same for the effort put into
74
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
controlling problems, 30% ranked lameness highest, 56% mastitis, and 28% fertility problems. The mean incidence of lame cows in the herd over the previous 12 months, calculated from farm records or from farmer estimates in the absence of records, ranged from 0% to 60% (mean 23%). The frequency distribution was 24% between 1% and 10%, 44% between 11% and 25%, 30% between 26% and 50%, and 2% were >51%. When asked the prevalence of lameness in their herds on the day of the interview, 56% of farmers stated 1–10%, 23% 11–25% and 15% >25%. Mean farmer estimated lameness prevalence across all farms was 14%. In contrast, locomotion scoring identified a mean lameness prevalence of 24%. Farmers’ responses to a series of attitudinal questions showed that they strongly agreed that cows can suffer a lot of pain from lameness (with a score of 9.5 on a scale of 0–10 where 0 = disagree completely and 10 = agree completely) whilst largely disagreeing with the statement ‘I don’t believe I can reduce lameness incidence in my herd’ (with a score of just 1.8). They believed lameness reduces cow performance (mean score 8.9) but felt it was important for lameness control measures to be easy to administer (mean score 8.3). Their evaluation of the current inconvenience associated with lameness control measures is shown in Table 1. The majority considered their current lameness control measures to cause them relatively little inconvenience, but 20% of farmers scored the level of inconvenience above the middle of the scale. Willingness to pay Table 2 shows the mean and median WTP results from the CE exercise calculated from estimated WTPs for each farmer individually. Farmers were prepared to pay a mean of UK£85 per cow for every cow in the herd to ensure a lameness prevalence of zero. This was equivalent to a mean WTP of UK£411 per lame cow, based on the locomotion score results. However, there was a high variation in WTPs between farms (Table 3); although the majority (63%) were clustered in the >UK£100–500 per lame cow range and 30% in the >UK£100–200 range. Median WTP for a lameness prevalence
Table 1 Farmer scoring of inconvenience of current lameness control measures (where 0 = not at all inconvenient and 10 = highly inconvenient). Score
% of farmers
Number of farmers
8.5 3.3 18.9 22.9 12.4 13.7 5.2 9.8 3.9 0.7 0.7
13 5 29 35 19 21 8 15 6 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lameness prevalence Inconvenience n
85 (100) 27 (34) 140
50 16 140
411 (466) 154 (187) 140
WTP (UK£ per lame cow) 0–100 >100–200 200–300 >300–500 >500–800 >800–1200 >1200 n
Number of respondents (%) 17 (12.1) 42 (30.0) 23 (16.4) 23 (16.4) 18 (12.9) 7 (5.0) 10 (7.1) 140
of zero was UK£50 per cow for every cow in the herd and median WTP per lame cow was UK£249. Table 2 shows that farmers were willing to pay a mean of UK£27 per cow for every cow in the herd to avoid inconvenience associated with lameness control measures, corresponding to UK£154 per lame cow. The equivalent median values were UK£16 and UK£97, respectively. The most common factors which farmers mentioned when explaining their choices are shown in Table 4. Explanations included avoiding the negative effects of lameness on cow performance, costs of treatment and time taken up by lame cows. Limitations to WTP included budget restrictions, the perception that lameness was not a large problem, or the opinion that eliminating lameness was impossible. Approximately 10% of farmers referred to knowledge of a published value for the cost of lameness, which they took into consideration.
Discussion The wide variation in farmers’ WTP is not surprising given the variation in farm types and circumstances and the different perceptions of farmers regarding lameness. The estimates of WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness show that farmers do not like the inconvenience associated with lameness control in their herds and have a substantial WTP to avoid it. Thus, the inconvenience associated with lameness control is a disincentive to them to undertake lameness control measures. However, the relative sizes of the estimates for lameness reduction and reduction of inconvenience indicate that farmers are, generally, prepared to incur inconvenience from lameness control as long as it reduces the prevalence of lameness in their herds. On average, farmers would be willing to increase this inconvenience by over 3% for every 1% reduction in the prevalence of lameness in their herds. Compared with the costs (UK£76–514) for a case of lameness calculated by Willshire and Bell (2009), a median WTP estimate of UK£249 per lame cow to reduce lameness prevalence to zero Table 4 Factors mentioned by farmers in explanations of willingness to pay to avoid lameness.
Table 2 Farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a reduction in lameness and inconvenience of lameness control measures (standard deviations shown in parentheses). Mean WTP per Median WTP per Mean WTP per lame cow for zero cow for zero prevalence (UK£) prevalence (UK£) cow (UK£)
Table 3 Distribution of choice experiment willingness to pay (WTP) estimates.
Median WTP per lame cow (UK£) 249 97 140
Factor
Number of farmers
Factors increasing WTP Milk loss Cost of culling Vet/treatment costs Time lameness takes Fertility costs Cost per case of lameness Cow welfare Pride Large current problem
32 31 28 21 18 18 11 4 2
Factors limiting WTP Lameness currently low Budget is limited Cost of solutions Zero lameness impossible
32 20 16 10
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
from this study looks reasonable. Farmers’ WTP will reflect not only the costs associated with lameness in terms of reductions in milk yield, infertility, premature culling, labour, veterinary and farm costs of dealing with lame cows but also farmers’ concerns about the welfare of their cows. It should be noted that although for the purposes of estimating total WTP to reduce lameness an assumption that zero can be reached was required, some farmers expressed disbelief that lameness could ever be eliminated in their herds. Indeed, it is likely that a number of lameness incidents are inevitable in a herd. Despite a previous finding that 70% of 222 farmers were unable to provide an estimate of how much lameness had cost their business financially (Leach et al., 2010b), farmers can provide information regarding their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds. However, although farmers claim to be willing to pay substantial sums to reduce the number of lame cows, in reality, they do not always take the courses of action to reduce lameness that are available to them. This may be partly due to their lack of certainty that the action will result in a reduction in lameness, together with the inconvenience associated with a number of lameness control measures. Nevertheless, many farmers in the study had spent considerable amounts of money in an effort to reduce lameness (Barker et al., 2011). Conclusions Estimates derived from this study of the value dairy farmers place on a reduction in lameness show a wide range of values across individual farmers. The estimated mean value was UK£411 for one less lame cow, but the median value of UK£249 may represent the population better. There are a number of implications from this study for the control of lameness on dairy farms. The WTP figures could be used in conjunction with existing figures on the estimated financial costs as a starting point for discussing the costs and benefits of reducing lameness. It is clear that farmers dislike inconvenience, and some may currently be choosing lameness control activities that minimise this, but which are not necessarily the most effective, while 20% feel that their current control measures cause them considerable inconvenience. However, the estimates also show that farmers value lameness reduction more highly than reduction of inconvenience and so are, generally, prepared to incur inconvenience from lameness control as long as it can be shown to reduce the prevalence of lameness in their herds. Conflict of interest statement None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.
75
Acknowledgements The study was funded by the Tubney Charitable Trust. The cooperation of all the participating farmers is gratefully acknowledged as are the contributions of Clare Maggs and Anouska Sedgwick to questionnaire development and data collection. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.068. References Barker, Z.E., Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Bell, N.J., Main, D.C.J., 2010. Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 932–941. Barker, Z.E., Whay, H.R., Leach, K.A., Main, D.C.J., 2011. Financial costs of changes made on dairy farms which could impact on lameness. In: Laven, R.A. (Ed.), Proc. 16th Symposium and 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Rotorua, New Zealand, p. 74. Bennett, R., Ijpelaar, J., 2005. Updated estimates of the costs associated with 34 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain: A note. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 135–144. Bennett, R.M., Willis, K.G., 2008. Public values for badgers, bovine TB reduction and management strategies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51, 511–523. Bennett, R., Kehlbacher, A., Balcombe, K., 2012. A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score. Animal Welfare 21, 125–130. Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J., 2010a. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 311–317. Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J., 2010b. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 318–323. Louviere, J.L., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Main, D.C.J., Leach, K.A., Barker, Z.E., Sedgwick, A.K., Maggs, C.M., Bell, N.J., Whay, H.R., 2012. Evaluating an intervention to reduce lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2946–2954. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Research for the Future, Washington DC. Rutherford, K.M.D., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B., Haskell, M.J., 2009. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Journal 180, 95–105. Swallow, B.M., Mulatu, W., 1994. Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 11, 153–161. Willshire, J.A., Bell, N.J., 2009. An economic review of cattle lameness. Cattle Practice 17, 136–141.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Veterinary Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tvjl
Investigating the value dairy farmers place on a reduction of lameness in their herds using a willingness to pay approach R.M. Bennett a,⇑, Z.E. Barker b, D.C.J. Main b, H.R. Whay b, K.A. Leach b a b
School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK University of Bristol, School of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Langford House, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Accepted 28 September 2013
Keywords: Lameness Dairy cattle Farmers Willingness to pay
a b s t r a c t A survey was conducted to elicit dairy farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce the prevalence of lameness in their herds. A choice experiment questionnaire was administered using face-to-face interviews of 163 farmers in England and Wales. Whole herd lameness assessments by trained researchers recorded a mean lameness prevalence of nearly 24% which was substantially higher than that estimated by farmers. Farmers’ responses to a series of attitudinal questions showed that they strongly agreed that cows can suffer a lot of pain from lameness and believed that they could reduce lameness in their herds. Farmers’ mean WTP to avoid lameness amounted to UK£411 per lame cow but with considerable variation across the sample. Median WTP of UK£249 per lame cow was considered a better measure of central tendency for the sample. In addition, the survey found that farmers had a substantial WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness control (a median value of UK£97 per lame cow) but that they were generally prepared to incur greater inconvenience if it reduced lameness. The study findings suggest that farmers need a better understanding of the scale and costs of lameness in their herds and the benefits of control. To encourage action, farmers need to be convinced that lameness control measures perceived as inconvenient will be cost effective. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Endemic livestock diseases can result in substantial economic costs for farmers and for others in society, as well as have very undesirable implications for animal suffering. For example, Bennett and Ijpelaar (2005) estimated the economic losses associated with 34 different endemic diseases in Great Britain, including costs to human health and implications for animal welfare. In that study, lameness in cattle was estimated to cost up to UK£1071 million per year largely due to effects on milk output and premature culling, together with substantial costs associated with control and treatment (around 40% of total cost). The authors’ stated uncertainty of the estimate of economic losses associated with lameness reflects the difficulty of estimating such costs, largely due to lack of data. In the same study, a survey of veterinarians suggested that, of the cattle diseases considered, lameness had the highest animal welfare impact score. In 2009, the negative economic and animal welfare impacts of lameness in cattle were further highlighted by the Farm Animal
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1183786478. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Bennett). UK£ = approx. US$1.53, €1.17 at 27 June 2013. See FAWC, 2009. Opinion on the welfare of the dairy cow. Farm Animal Welfare Council, London. www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/dcwelfar-091022.pdf (accessed 27 June 2013). 1 2
1090-0233/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.068
Welfare Council (FAWC, 2009).2 This identified lameness as a cause of considerable pain and distress to the cow, a major reason for premature culling and a cause of impairment of fertility, reduction of milk yield and increases in veterinary costs and staff time. The most recent data on levels of lameness in the UK are prevalence figures obtained by researchers assessing whole herds on farm visits. Barker et al. (2010) found a mean prevalence of lameness (scores 2 and 3) on 205 farms of 36.8% (range 0–79.2%) while Rutherford et al. (2009) found a mean of between 16.2% and 19.3% in a study of 80 farms (range 1.4–48.6%). Published estimates of the costs associated with lameness in dairy cattle are wide-ranging, largely dependent on the cause and how it is treated. Estimates from Willshire and Bell (2009) in the UK are UK£76 for a case of digital dermatitis, UK£154 for a case of interdigital lameness, UK£514 for a case of sole ulcer and UK£300 for a case of white line disease. These calculations include direct costs of treatment and indirect costs arising from detrimental effects on milk production and fertility. Despite the estimation of such costs, farmers and advisors are still asking questions about the costs and benefits of lameness control. Therefore it was considered that an alternative approach involving evaluating what farmers perceive to be the costs associated with lameness and the value to them of reducing lameness would be useful.
73
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
Given the difficulty of assessing the economic importance of particular diseases, and the potential value of programmes for disease prevention and control, researchers have turned recently to the use of non-market valuation methods to shed light on the perceived importance and costs of diseases and the benefits of control. There are a number of economic tools that can be used to estimate people’s willingness to pay (WTP) for things such as reduction in disease incidence; for example, stated preference methods which include contingent valuation (CV) (Mitchell and Carson, 1989) and the choice experiment (CE) method (Louviere et al., 2000). There are currently relatively few WTP studies relating to livestock disease control in the research literature although there are a host of studies in associated areas, such as farm animal welfare (for a review, see Bennett et al., 2012). Papers that do report the use of CV or CE to value people’s preferences in relation to livestock disease control include Swallow and Mulatu (1994) who estimated WTP for tsetse control in Ethiopia and Bennett and Willis (2008) who used CE to explore people’s WTP to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle in England and Wales. The CE approach characterises ‘a good’ in terms of its main attributes and presents respondents with different sets of attribute bundles (with attributes set at varying levels) from which they have to choose their preferred bundle. This enables respondents’ trade-offs between attributes to be estimated and scaled against each other. Because one of the attributes is usually price, the monetary value that people ascribe to a change in any individual attribute of the good can be estimated. The main advantage of CE is that it can estimate these attribute values separately and not just the value of the whole good. It is known that limited availability of labour, unpopular tasks and inconvenience are among the barriers to the control of lameness in dairy herds (Leach et al., 2010a). The ability of the CE method to consider such factors in addition to financial value makes this a useful approach to exploring farmers’ views on the costs and benefits associated with lameness control. The aim of the research presented here was to gauge, using a CE approach, the value that dairy farmers place on reducing lameness by estimating their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds.
Materials and methods A questionnaire was designed to elicit from farmers their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds. The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. The first contained questions concerning lameness in the herd and farmers’ perceptions of the problem. As part of the ‘Healthy Feet Project’ farmers were asked to record cases of lameness in the herd during the period from 2007 to 2010. The information was used to calculate the incidence of lameness in the herd for the year prior to the interview. If farmers had failed to keep records, they were asked the number of cows that had been lame in the past year and this estimate was used to calculate the lameness incidence. Data on the prevalence of lameness on the day of the visit were collected by the researchers, who locomotion scored the whole milking herd as described by Barker et al. (2010). The second section of the questionnaire presented farmers with a brief statement about lameness and its treatment followed by an explanation of the CE exercise and then the CE exercise itself (which is explained in more detail below). In an open question, farmers were asked to explain their reasoning for the choices they made. The third section was a series of attitudinal questions concerning lameness and its control. The final section contained questions about the farmers themselves (such as how long they had been dairy farming).
Design of WTP questions Because restrictions of time and labour have been ranked highly by farmers as barriers to lameness control (Leach et al., 2010a), and because cost is not the only driver in choice of control measures, we included an attribute described as ‘inconvenience’ in the CE. This allowed us to estimate farmers’ WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness control and how this relates to their WTP to reduce lameness, thus indicating their willingness to incur additional inconvenience in order to reduce lameness in the herd.
A
B
Reduction in lameness
75%
100%
Change in inconvenience of lameness control measures
25% more
50% more
Additional cost per cow/year (all cows in herd)
£15
£30
C Your current situation
Fig. 1. Example choice set.
The CE presented farmers with eight different choice sets similar to that shown in Fig. 1. Each choice set contained three choices (A, B and C) each of which then contained different levels of three attributes, namely: the percentage reduction in prevalence of lameness in the herd in a year’s time (i.e. if the current level of lameness in the herd is 10% then a 50% reduction would reduce it to 5%); the percentage change in the level of inconvenience caused by implementing lameness control measures (which might be greater or less than the farmer’s current situation), and the additional total cost of the new lameness measures divided by the total number of cows in the herd (i.e. average cost per cow across all cows in the herd). The first of these attributes, reduction in lameness prevalence, was allocated the following possible percentage levels – zero, 25, 50, 75 and 100. The second attribute, change in inconvenience of control measures, was allocated five levels: 50% less, 25% less, no change, 25% more, and 50% more. The third attribute, additional cost per cow (UK£/yr), was allocated values of 0, 15, 30, 45, 60. Farmers had to choose their preferred option (A, B or C) in each choice set separately where C was the individual farmer’s current situation. Thus, in Fig. 1, if a farmer preferred a reduction in the prevalence of lameness in their herd of 75% but with a 25% increase in inconvenience associated with control for a payment of £15 per cow, to a 100% reduction in lameness, with a 50% increase in inconvenience and payment of £30 per cow, and to the current situation, then they would choose option A. Choice sets were designed to ensure a good balance of attribute levels in each set. WTP was estimated statistically by using a Bayesian procedure applied to a random parameter logit model (see Appendix A, Supplementary material). The statistical software package GAUSS 7.0 (Aptech Systems) was used for the estimation procedure. Administration of questionnaires A focus group of eight dairy farmers was undertaken. Various issues concerning lameness in the dairy herd were discussed and a draft of the questionnaire was tested. As a result of this, some changes were made to the questionnaire which was then piloted on 20 farmers. Following this, final changes were made to the questionnaire. Face-to-face interviews were carried out with farmers on 163 farms by trained interviewers. Farmers were among those who had participated in the Healthy Feet Project (Main et al., 2012) and were located in England and Wales. The interviews were carried out with the person responsible for major decisions on spending on the farm. For the analysis of WTP sample size was reduced to 140 observations because some farmers failed to complete the CE exercise whilst three farmers interviewed were excluded from the analysis due to inconsistencies in their responses.
Results Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics of the sample of farmers show that the majority (73%) had been dairy farming for over 20 years with a mean of 30 years (minimum 2, maximum 65) and 91% said that their aim was to continue in dairy farming in the foreseeable future. Most farmers (70%) were in the 40–60 years old age group. Herd size averaged 169 cows but varied from 43 to 790 whilst milk yield per cow averaged 7074 L/year (range 3000–11,000 L). Only 7% of farmers felt they had a ‘major’ lameness problem, 58% thought they had a ‘moderate’ problem, 34% a ‘minor’ one and one farmer reported not having a problem at all. When asked to rank herd health issues on the cost to the business over the past year, 27% of farmers mentioned lameness as the top or one of the top ranking problems, 36% mentioned mastitis and 37% mentioned fertility problems (joint ranking of conditions was permitted). Thirty per cent of farmers ranked lameness second and 20% ranked lameness third. When asked to do the same for the effort put into
74
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
controlling problems, 30% ranked lameness highest, 56% mastitis, and 28% fertility problems. The mean incidence of lame cows in the herd over the previous 12 months, calculated from farm records or from farmer estimates in the absence of records, ranged from 0% to 60% (mean 23%). The frequency distribution was 24% between 1% and 10%, 44% between 11% and 25%, 30% between 26% and 50%, and 2% were >51%. When asked the prevalence of lameness in their herds on the day of the interview, 56% of farmers stated 1–10%, 23% 11–25% and 15% >25%. Mean farmer estimated lameness prevalence across all farms was 14%. In contrast, locomotion scoring identified a mean lameness prevalence of 24%. Farmers’ responses to a series of attitudinal questions showed that they strongly agreed that cows can suffer a lot of pain from lameness (with a score of 9.5 on a scale of 0–10 where 0 = disagree completely and 10 = agree completely) whilst largely disagreeing with the statement ‘I don’t believe I can reduce lameness incidence in my herd’ (with a score of just 1.8). They believed lameness reduces cow performance (mean score 8.9) but felt it was important for lameness control measures to be easy to administer (mean score 8.3). Their evaluation of the current inconvenience associated with lameness control measures is shown in Table 1. The majority considered their current lameness control measures to cause them relatively little inconvenience, but 20% of farmers scored the level of inconvenience above the middle of the scale. Willingness to pay Table 2 shows the mean and median WTP results from the CE exercise calculated from estimated WTPs for each farmer individually. Farmers were prepared to pay a mean of UK£85 per cow for every cow in the herd to ensure a lameness prevalence of zero. This was equivalent to a mean WTP of UK£411 per lame cow, based on the locomotion score results. However, there was a high variation in WTPs between farms (Table 3); although the majority (63%) were clustered in the >UK£100–500 per lame cow range and 30% in the >UK£100–200 range. Median WTP for a lameness prevalence
Table 1 Farmer scoring of inconvenience of current lameness control measures (where 0 = not at all inconvenient and 10 = highly inconvenient). Score
% of farmers
Number of farmers
8.5 3.3 18.9 22.9 12.4 13.7 5.2 9.8 3.9 0.7 0.7
13 5 29 35 19 21 8 15 6 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lameness prevalence Inconvenience n
85 (100) 27 (34) 140
50 16 140
411 (466) 154 (187) 140
WTP (UK£ per lame cow) 0–100 >100–200 200–300 >300–500 >500–800 >800–1200 >1200 n
Number of respondents (%) 17 (12.1) 42 (30.0) 23 (16.4) 23 (16.4) 18 (12.9) 7 (5.0) 10 (7.1) 140
of zero was UK£50 per cow for every cow in the herd and median WTP per lame cow was UK£249. Table 2 shows that farmers were willing to pay a mean of UK£27 per cow for every cow in the herd to avoid inconvenience associated with lameness control measures, corresponding to UK£154 per lame cow. The equivalent median values were UK£16 and UK£97, respectively. The most common factors which farmers mentioned when explaining their choices are shown in Table 4. Explanations included avoiding the negative effects of lameness on cow performance, costs of treatment and time taken up by lame cows. Limitations to WTP included budget restrictions, the perception that lameness was not a large problem, or the opinion that eliminating lameness was impossible. Approximately 10% of farmers referred to knowledge of a published value for the cost of lameness, which they took into consideration.
Discussion The wide variation in farmers’ WTP is not surprising given the variation in farm types and circumstances and the different perceptions of farmers regarding lameness. The estimates of WTP to avoid the inconvenience associated with lameness show that farmers do not like the inconvenience associated with lameness control in their herds and have a substantial WTP to avoid it. Thus, the inconvenience associated with lameness control is a disincentive to them to undertake lameness control measures. However, the relative sizes of the estimates for lameness reduction and reduction of inconvenience indicate that farmers are, generally, prepared to incur inconvenience from lameness control as long as it reduces the prevalence of lameness in their herds. On average, farmers would be willing to increase this inconvenience by over 3% for every 1% reduction in the prevalence of lameness in their herds. Compared with the costs (UK£76–514) for a case of lameness calculated by Willshire and Bell (2009), a median WTP estimate of UK£249 per lame cow to reduce lameness prevalence to zero Table 4 Factors mentioned by farmers in explanations of willingness to pay to avoid lameness.
Table 2 Farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a reduction in lameness and inconvenience of lameness control measures (standard deviations shown in parentheses). Mean WTP per Median WTP per Mean WTP per lame cow for zero cow for zero prevalence (UK£) prevalence (UK£) cow (UK£)
Table 3 Distribution of choice experiment willingness to pay (WTP) estimates.
Median WTP per lame cow (UK£) 249 97 140
Factor
Number of farmers
Factors increasing WTP Milk loss Cost of culling Vet/treatment costs Time lameness takes Fertility costs Cost per case of lameness Cow welfare Pride Large current problem
32 31 28 21 18 18 11 4 2
Factors limiting WTP Lameness currently low Budget is limited Cost of solutions Zero lameness impossible
32 20 16 10
R.M. Bennett et al. / The Veterinary Journal 199 (2014) 72–75
from this study looks reasonable. Farmers’ WTP will reflect not only the costs associated with lameness in terms of reductions in milk yield, infertility, premature culling, labour, veterinary and farm costs of dealing with lame cows but also farmers’ concerns about the welfare of their cows. It should be noted that although for the purposes of estimating total WTP to reduce lameness an assumption that zero can be reached was required, some farmers expressed disbelief that lameness could ever be eliminated in their herds. Indeed, it is likely that a number of lameness incidents are inevitable in a herd. Despite a previous finding that 70% of 222 farmers were unable to provide an estimate of how much lameness had cost their business financially (Leach et al., 2010b), farmers can provide information regarding their WTP to reduce lameness in their herds. However, although farmers claim to be willing to pay substantial sums to reduce the number of lame cows, in reality, they do not always take the courses of action to reduce lameness that are available to them. This may be partly due to their lack of certainty that the action will result in a reduction in lameness, together with the inconvenience associated with a number of lameness control measures. Nevertheless, many farmers in the study had spent considerable amounts of money in an effort to reduce lameness (Barker et al., 2011). Conclusions Estimates derived from this study of the value dairy farmers place on a reduction in lameness show a wide range of values across individual farmers. The estimated mean value was UK£411 for one less lame cow, but the median value of UK£249 may represent the population better. There are a number of implications from this study for the control of lameness on dairy farms. The WTP figures could be used in conjunction with existing figures on the estimated financial costs as a starting point for discussing the costs and benefits of reducing lameness. It is clear that farmers dislike inconvenience, and some may currently be choosing lameness control activities that minimise this, but which are not necessarily the most effective, while 20% feel that their current control measures cause them considerable inconvenience. However, the estimates also show that farmers value lameness reduction more highly than reduction of inconvenience and so are, generally, prepared to incur inconvenience from lameness control as long as it can be shown to reduce the prevalence of lameness in their herds. Conflict of interest statement None of the authors of this paper has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the paper.
75
Acknowledgements The study was funded by the Tubney Charitable Trust. The cooperation of all the participating farmers is gratefully acknowledged as are the contributions of Clare Maggs and Anouska Sedgwick to questionnaire development and data collection. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.068. References Barker, Z.E., Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Bell, N.J., Main, D.C.J., 2010. Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 932–941. Barker, Z.E., Whay, H.R., Leach, K.A., Main, D.C.J., 2011. Financial costs of changes made on dairy farms which could impact on lameness. In: Laven, R.A. (Ed.), Proc. 16th Symposium and 8th Conference on Lameness in Ruminants, Rotorua, New Zealand, p. 74. Bennett, R., Ijpelaar, J., 2005. Updated estimates of the costs associated with 34 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain: A note. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 135–144. Bennett, R.M., Willis, K.G., 2008. Public values for badgers, bovine TB reduction and management strategies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51, 511–523. Bennett, R., Kehlbacher, A., Balcombe, K., 2012. A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score. Animal Welfare 21, 125–130. Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J., 2010a. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 311–317. Leach, K.A., Whay, H.R., Maggs, C.M., Barker, Z.E., Paul, E.S., Bell, A.K., Main, D.C.J., 2010b. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 2. Understanding dairy farmers’ motivations. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 318–323. Louviere, J.L., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Main, D.C.J., Leach, K.A., Barker, Z.E., Sedgwick, A.K., Maggs, C.M., Bell, N.J., Whay, H.R., 2012. Evaluating an intervention to reduce lameness in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2946–2954. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Research for the Future, Washington DC. Rutherford, K.M.D., Langford, F.M., Jack, M.C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A.B., Haskell, M.J., 2009. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Journal 180, 95–105. Swallow, B.M., Mulatu, W., 1994. Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 11, 153–161. Willshire, J.A., Bell, N.J., 2009. An economic review of cattle lameness. Cattle Practice 17, 136–141.
