Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40867770›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Are Dairy Cow Replacement Decisions Economically Justified? Evidence from Swiss Farms.

Simon Schlebusch, Rennie Eppenstein, Daniel Hoop, Peter von Rohr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Simon SchlebuschAgroscope, Tänikon 1, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0004-5061-8375
Rennie EppensteinFiBL, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland.
Daniel HoopAgroscope, Tänikon 1, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.
Peter von RohrQualitas AG, Chamerstrasse 56, 6300 Zug, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0078-707X

Funding

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Schweizerischer Rinderzüchter, ASR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Farmers frequently face the decision to retain or replace dairy cows, with 20% to 40% of cows replaced annually. In Switzerland, this translates to over 100,000 cows replaced each year, representing a significant financial investment for farms and the dairy industry. The average productive lifespan of a dairy cow is currently three to four parities worldwide as in Switzerland, shorter than the optimal five to six parities, leading to financial losses from premature culling. Factors influencing suboptimal replacement decisions include inaccurate valuation of production parameters, replacement costs, and health issues. This study bridges the gap between theoretical models and real-world practices by analyzing replacement decisions from 29 Swiss dairy farmers over five years, comparing them to theoretical models and evaluating economic impacts. On average, suboptimal decisions resulted in an economic loss of 161 ± 164 CHF per farm per month (1.55 ± 1.58 CHF per cow per month), with losses from retaining unprofitable cows being approximately three times greater than those from premature culling. The results indicate that farmers typically make economically sound decisions regarding cow replacement; this contrasts with findings from previous studies on the topic. Nonetheless, replacing cows prematurely, particularly during their first parity, is not ideal from ecological, animal welfare, and sustainability standpoints. Consequently, enhancing animal health and fertility becomes essential for reducing culling rates and improving the longevity of dairy cows.

Indexed as

cow replacementculling decisionsdairy cattleeconomic modelinglongevity

Identifiers

PMID40867770
PMCPMC12382678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.