A cost-benefit analysis of pre- and post-lambing anthelmintic treatments to twin-bearing ewes on commercial farms in the southern North Island of New Zealand

AIM: To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the administration of anthelmintics to adult ewes around lambing. METHODS: Production data from comparisons of different anthelmintic treatments with no treatment were used in a cost-benefit analysis. The data were from 14 trials (part of an experiment carried out on one farm in 1 year) conducted on sheep and beef farms (eight in 2011 and six in 2012) in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand. The cost structure involved the purchase price of products and the labour cost of administration. The four key benefits identified for the calculation of economic returns, relative to untreated ewes, were: increased value of ewes sold (culled) at weaning, additional lambs weaned related to ewe liveweight at mating, increased total weight of lamb weaned per ewe, and reduced number of ewes requiring removal of soiled wool at weaning due to a lower dag score. Commercial values for these variables as at December 2013 were used, with the measured production data, to calculate a net (NZ$) benefit for every treatment-trial combination. RESULTS: The economic return on treating ewes around lambing with anthelmintics was highly variable and across all trials treatment resulted in a financial loss in 18/38 (47%) groups of ewes. The mean net benefit from pre-lambing administration of a controlled release capsule (CRC) containing albendazole and abamectin was 5.36 (95% CI=−2.64 to 13.35) $/ewe, but overall was not different from zero (p=0.171). A breakdown of the overall gross benefit into its various components showed that weight of lamb weaned per ewe had the largest influence (a mean benefit of $5.68/ewe), followed by ewe liveweight pre-mating ($2.45/ewe), ewe liveweight at weaning ($0.66/ewe) and reduced dag score ($0.15/ewe). Other anthelmintic treatments all showed highly variable responses amongst trials, with some negative cost-benefits. There was no significant difference between any of the treatments except a short-acting oral treatment at tail-docking had a lower net benefit than a CRC containing albendazole administered pre-lambing (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A positive financial return resulting from the anthelmintic treatment of adult ewes around lambing is neither consistent nor predictable, and is often not achieved. Given that the additional costs of accelerating the development of anthelmintic resistance were not included in these calculations, farmers need to consider carefully the merits of administering anthelmintics to ewes around lambing.