Economic Viability Analysis of an Oral Anthelmintic Treatment for Cattle in Feedlot

Abstract

The economic viability of a commercial oral anthelmintic suspension containing 10% fenbendazole was evaluated in Angus x Nelore cattle in a feedlot. Two groups of 37 animals (treated and non-treated) were formed. A random-block design was used based on initial weight, egg count per gram of feces (EPG) and carcass grade. EPG counts and the determination of weight were performed on Days 0, 42 and 122. Carcass grade and yield were determined on the day of slaughter. Economic viability was evaluated using cost-effectiveness, sensitivity and financial analyses, considering three economic scenarios: most likely (M), optimistic (O) and pessimistic (P). The anthelmintic achieved 99.89% efficacy regarding EPG reduction. The animals exhibited an increase of 20.7 kg in live weight, 20.2 kg in live weight gain and 0.166 kg in daily weight gain (p < 0.05). No effects were found on yield or carcass grade (p > 0.05). The genus Haemonchus predominated at the onset of the study, whereas only the genus Cooperia was found after treatment. A net return of 14.60 USD per animal was found in the treated group, which remained viable under O, M and P scenarios, with respective differences of 18.92%, 12.86% and 91.15% in gross profit. The treatment was financially superior under all scenarios (real, M, O and P), with reductions of 1.89, 1.04, 0.48 and 16.39 years for the recovery of the initial investment. These results demonstrate the importance of economic analysis methods in the evaluation and selection of anthelmintics.

The Economic Impact of Parasitism from Nematodes, Trematodes and Ticks on Beef Cattle Production

“…Production and financial gain following nematode treatment have been demonstrated for all sectors of beef cattle production, in temperate, subtropical and tropical climates [7,13,17,22,24,43,67,85,86,99,145,[148][149][150][151][152][153][154]. For example, results from a meta-analysis of over 170 research trials utilizing 20,000 MonteCarlo simulations to evaluate the impact of various pharmaceutical technologies on the cost of cattle production revealed that elimination of deworming resulted in increased cattle production cost of US$190 per head over the lifetime of the animal, based on 2005 US production costs and sale prices [24].…”

“…In Brazilian grazed cattle, Conde et al found that each US$1 spent on deworming, including product and labor costs, resulted in a return of US$157 and US$134 using two or three annual doses of anthelmintic, respectively [155]. Nakatani et al found that GIN treatment of Brazilian feedlot cattle with fenbendazole resulted in a net return of US$14.60 per animal [154]. The benefit of GIN treatment remained viable when modeled under optimistic, probable and pessimistic financial scenarios relative to cattle pricing [152][153][154][155].…”

“…Nakatani et al found that GIN treatment of Brazilian feedlot cattle with fenbendazole resulted in a net return of US$14.60 per animal [154]. The benefit of GIN treatment remained viable when modeled under optimistic, probable and pessimistic financial scenarios relative to cattle pricing [152][153][154][155].…”

“…Cattle destined for the feedlot invariably come from pastures where they are exposed to GIN; therefore, cattle are oftentimes treated for these parasites upon feedlot arrival. Since nematode transmission is not a problem in the feed yard, short-acting anthelminitics such as oral fenbendazole have been shown to improve weight gain and carcass grade with significant financial returns [154]. MLs, combined with a benzimidazole or imidazothiazole, are also commonly used [67].…”

“…Since nematode transmission is not a problem in the feed yard, short-acting anthelmintics such as oral fenbendazole have been shown to improve weight gain and carcass grade with significant financial returns [154].…”