Using an economic simulation model to identify key drivers of profitability and estimate the environmental sustainability impact of immunization against gonadotropin-releasing factor (GnRF) in male and female pigs intended for market
Research in Veterinary Science, ISSN: 0034-5288, Vol: 168, Page: 105154
2024
- 1Citations
- 6Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
An existing model was used to identify key drivers of profitability and estimate the impact on environmental sustainability when immunizing finishing pigs against GnRF with Improvac®. The model estimated performance and economic differences between immunized (IM) and non-IM pigs from the perspective of producers and packers, based on two recent meta-analyses in male and female pigs. It was populated with data from 9 countries in four continents (Europe, Asia, North and Latin-America). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were used to define key drivers of profitability. When changing the country specific input data over a range of ±20%, most OWSA did not reverse the mathematical sign of incremental net return between IM and non-IM pigs as calculated in base case analyses. Only the difference in feed conversion rate between IM and untreated female pigs was a key driver of profitability. The parameters with the highest impact on outcomes were similar across countries and expectable (feed costs), or explainable (parameters with statistical differences between IM and non-IM pigs in meta-analyses). In both single-gender herds, Improvac® reduced the environmental impact of pig production by improving feed efficiency (FE), the key driver of environmental burden. In a 50/50 mixed gender herd, IM pigs consumed less feed and gained more weight in 7 out of 9 countries; in the other two countries the FE calculated for the additional weight gain in IM pigs was >1.00, i.e., each additional kilogram of weight gain was associated with less than one additional kilogram of feed consumed.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034528824000201; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2024.105154; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85183505223&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38290405; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0034528824000201; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2024.105154
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know