Economic assessments from experimental research trials of feedlot cattle health and performance: a scoping review

Animal husbandry decisions for feedlot cattle may be based on economic or financial impacts reported from livestock research trials comparing interventions such as health practices or performance technologies. Despite the importance of economic assessments to production management decisions, there are no consensus guidelines for their methods or reporting. Thus, we hypothesized that methods and reporting of economic assessments in the scientific literature are inconsistent. This scoping review describes the types of economic assessments used to evaluate the costs and benefits of interventions in feedlot trials, how measured health and performance outcomes are utilized in economic evaluations, and the completeness of reporting. A structured search was used to retrieve peer-reviewed articles (published in English) on experimental trials performed in Australia, North America, or South Africa, which reported feedlot cattle health, performance, or carcass characteristics and included an economic outcome. A total of 7,086 articles were screened for eligibility; 91 articles (comprising 113 trials) met the inclusion criteria. Trial characteristics, methods, and reporting data were extracted. A primary outcome was stated in only 36% (41/113) of the trials. Of these 41 trials, an economic outcome was reported as a primary outcome in 18 (44%). Methodology for the economic assessment was reported for 54 trials (48%), the type of economic assessment was explicitly stated for 21 trials (19%), and both the type of economic assessment and methodology used were reported for 29 trials (26%); neither were reported for nine trials (8%). Eight types of economic assessments were explicitly reported: cost-effectiveness, cost–benefit analysis, enterprise analysis, partial budget, break-even analysis, profitability, decision analysis, and economic advantage. From the trials that did not report an assessment type, three were identified: partial budget, enterprise analysis, and gross margin analysis. Overall, only 32 trials (28%) reported economics as an outcome of interest, the methodology used or the type of assessment, and values, sources, and dates for at least some of the price data used in the analysis. Given the variability in methods and inconsistent reporting for feedlot trials identified by this scoping review, a guideline to facilitate consistency on appropriate methods and reporting is warranted.