Step 5. Choose an Action

Step 5: Choose an Action

Economic analysis is a decision-support tool, not a decision-maker. While financial performance is an important consideration, animal health decisions are rarely driven by economics alone. Farmers balance economic outcomes alongside practical constraints, risk tolerance, animal welfare priorities, lifestyle considerations, and long-term business objectives. As a result, the option that maximises economic returns may not always be the option that is ultimately selected.

The purpose of this step is to interpret the results of the economic analysis and use them to support a considered choice between alternative interventions. This involves comparing options using appropriate economic metrics, understanding trade-offs, and recognising that different farmers may reasonably choose different courses of action even when presented with the same information.

Economic Metrics

Several economic measures can be used to help compare alternative interventions. Each metric highlights a different aspect of value or risk, and none should be used in isolation.

Net Present Value

Net present value represents the total benefits of an intervention minus the total costs, with all values expressed in today’s monetary terms. A positive NPV indicates that, under the assumptions used, the intervention generates more value than it costs and is therefore economically feasible.

NPV is useful because:

It incorporates both the magnitude and timing of costs and benefits
It allows direct comparison between options with different cash-flow profiles
It provides a clear feasibility threshold

However, NPV does not convey the scale of the investment or how risky it may feel to the farmer.

Benefit-Cost Ratio

The benefit–cost ratio divides total benefits by total costs, with all values expressed in present value terms. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that benefits exceed costs.

This metric is useful because:

It is simple to interpret
It allows rapid comparison across multiple options

Its main limitation is that it provides no information about the absolute size of the investment. A small, low-risk intervention and a large, high-risk intervention can have the same benefit–cost ratio.

For example, a $100 investment that yields $200 profit will have the same benefit-cost ratio as a $100,000 investment that yields $200,000 profit. Obviously, there is much greater risk for the farmer if you asking him or her to invest 6 figure sums!

Return on investment (ROI)

Return on investment measures the net return relative to the cost of the intervention and is calculated as:

ROI = (Total benefits − Total costs) ÷ Total costs

ROI expresses results as a percentage, which many farmers find intuitive. When benefits occur over multiple years, ROI should be converted to an annualised value to allow fair comparison between options with different time horizons.

For example, our $100 investment that yields $200 profit would have an ROI of 100%. In situations where the benefits are accrued may occur over different timespans, you should adjust by dividing the ROI by the number of years to get an annual ROI. An investment that gives a ROI of 20% in one year (annual ROI 20%) is better than an investment that give a ROI of 40% over 3 years (annual ROI 13.3%).

Time until payback

Time to payback measures how long it takes for cumulative benefits to recover the initial investment. It is often used as a proxy for risk and cash-flow pressure.

This measure is useful because:

It highlights liquidity considerations
It aligns with risk tolerance and short-term financial planning

However, it ignores benefits that occur after the payback period and should not be used as the sole basis for decision-making.

For example, if the farmer invests $40,000 in new technology and expects to make $8,000 per year back from the investment, it will take 5 years to recover the costs (not accounting for inflation).

Considering Opportunity Costs

Every decision involves trade-offs. Resources invested in one intervention are no longer available for other uses. This concept, known as opportunity cost, is particularly important on farms where multiple animal health and management issues compete for limited capital, labour, and attention.

For example:

Funds allocated to vaccination may reduce capacity to address mastitis or lameness
Capital invested in infrastructure may limit flexibility for future investments
Time devoted to one intervention may crowd out other management improvements

Economic analysis helps make these trade-offs explicit by allowing alternative uses of resources to be compared side by side. Importantly, the most visible or urgent problem on farm is not always the one that delivers the greatest return on investment.

Integrating Outcomes with Broader Decision-Making

The final choice of action should reflect a balance between economic performance and the farmer’s broader objectives, constraints, and risk preferences. A technically optimal option may be rejected if it increases workload, introduces unacceptable risk, or conflicts with long-term business strategy. Conversely, a less profitable option may be selected if it better aligns with animal welfare priorities, operational simplicity, or the farmer’s personal values.

Regardless of which option is chosen, it is important to clearly document why that decision was made. This serves several purposes. It provides transparency for future review, supports consistency in decision-making across time, and creates a clear record that can be revisited if outcomes differ from expectations.

Practical strategies for documenting decision-making include:

Record the decision context
Briefly describe the problem being addressed, the current baseline situation, and any constraints that influenced the decision, such as budget limits, labour availability, seasonal timing, or regulatory requirements.
List the alternatives considered
Document the intervention options that were evaluated, including the option of maintaining current practice. This helps demonstrate that the decision was made after considering multiple feasible approaches rather than defaulting to a single familiar solution.
Summarise key assumptions
Clearly note any assumptions used in the analysis, such as disease prevalence, treatment effectiveness, prices, or labour costs. These assumptions are often the primary source of uncertainty and should be explicit.
Highlight the decision criteria used
Specify which economic metrics were prioritised in the decision, such as NPV, ROI, time to payback, or risk exposure. Where relevant, note non-economic criteria that influenced the choice, such as animal welfare, simplicity, or long-term resilience.
Acknowledge uncertainty and risk
Record any areas where data were limited or outcomes were uncertain, and how this uncertainty was weighed in the decision. This is particularly important for preventative interventions or long-term investments.
State the rationale for the final choice
Provide a concise explanation of why the selected option was preferred over the alternatives, even if it was not the option with the highest economic return. This creates a defensible narrative that integrates both economic evidence and practical judgement.
Define expectations and review points
Note what outcomes are expected, over what timeframe, and when the decision will be revisited. This links the decision directly to the monitoring and review process in the next step.

Documenting decisions in this way supports learning over time, improves accountability, and reduces the risk of repeating ineffective interventions. It also makes it easier to refine future analyses as more information becomes available.

Step 4: Select an Analysis Framework

Step 6: Monitor the Response

Table of Contents