Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-ph4cd Total loading time: 0.293 Render date: 2022-07-02T15:31:38.522Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Productivity and Economic Effects of Antibiotics Used for Growth Promotion in U.S. Pork Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Gay Y. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, and Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Kenneth A. Algozin
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, and is now Shiawassee River program manager for The Nature Conservancy-Michigan Chapter, Owosso, MI
Paul E. McNamara
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Eric J. Bush
Affiliation:
USDA/APHIS/VS, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Collins, CO
Get access

Abstract

Public health experts are concerned about the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics. Some have called for a ban on growth-promoting antibiotics in animal agriculture. This study identifies the contribution of growth-promoting antibiotics in the grower/finisher phase of U.S. pork production. With National Animal Health Monitoring System swine data, relationships are estimated between growth-promoting antibiotic use and productivity. Results indicate improvements in average daily gain (0.5%), feed conversion ratio (1.1%), and mortality rate (reduced 0.22 percentage points); these productivity improvements translate into a profitability gain of $0.59 per pig marketed, or an improvement of 9% in net profits associated with growth promotion antibiotics.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beran, G.W.Use of Drags in Animals: An Epidemiologic Perspective.Proceedings of the Symposium on Animal Drug Use—Dollars and Sense. Stefan, G.E., ed., pp. 327. Rockville, MD: Center for Veterinary Medicine, 1988.Google Scholar
Buzby, J.C., Roberts, T., Lin, C.-T.J., and MacDonald, J.M.. Bacterial Foodborne Disease Medical Costs and Productivity Losses. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economic Research Service Pub. No. AER 741, August 1996.Google Scholar
Cromwell, G.L.Antimicrobial Agents.Swine Nutrition. Miller, E.R., Ullrey, D.E., and Lewis, A.J., eds., pp. 297314. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromwell, G.L.. “Why and How Antibiotics are Used in Swine Production.Animal Biotechnology 13(2002):727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lange, C.F.M., and Baidoo, S.K.. “Feeding for Profit in the Finisher Barn.Staying Competitive: Tomorrow's Technology for Today, de Lange, C.F.M., ed. Volume 11. Manitoba Swine Seminar, 1997. Manitoba: Manitoba Agriculture and Food. Internet site: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/swine/bab10s14.html (Accessed August 2003).Google Scholar
Dewey, C.E., Cox, B.D., Straw, B.E., Bush, E.J., and Hurd, S.. “Use of Antimicrobials in Swine Feeds in the United States.Journal of Swine Health and Production 7(1999):1925.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.L., and Anderson, J.R.. The Analysis of Response in Crop and Livestock Production. New York: Pergamon Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Farrington, L.A., Harvey, R.B., Buckley, S.A., Stanker, L.H., and Inskip, P.D.. “A Preliminary Survey of Antibiotic Resistance of Salmonella in Market-Age Swine.Mechanisms in the Pathogenesis of Enteric Diseases 2. Paul, P.S..and Francis, D.H., eds., Chapter 31:291297. New York: Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliam, H.C., and Martin, J.R.. “Economic Importance of Antibiotics in Feeds to Producers and Consumers of Pork, Beef and Veal.Journal of Animal Science 40, 6(1975):12411255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Jensen, H.H., Backstrom, L., and Fabiosa, J.. “Economic Impact of a Ban on the Use of Over-the-Counter Antibiotics in U.S. Swine Rations.” Staff Report 99 SR 90, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, December 1999.Google Scholar
Heady, E.O., and Dillon, J.L.. Agricultural Production Functions. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
Illinois Farm Business Farm Management Association. 2000 Livestock Report. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 2001.Google Scholar
Levy, S.B.Antibiotic Use for Growth Promotion in Animals: Ecologic and Public Health Consequences.Journal of Food Protection 50(1987):616620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losinger, W.C.Feed-conversion Ratio of Finisher Pigs in the USA.Preventive Veterinary Medicine 36(1998):287305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Losinger, W.C., Bush, E.J., Smith, M.A., and Corso, B.A.. “An Analysis of Mortality in the Grower/Finisher Phase of Swine Production in the United States.Preventive Veterinary Medicine 33(1998a):121145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losinger, W.C., Bush, E.J., Hill, G.W., Smith, M.A.. Garber, L.P., Rodriguez, J.M., and Kane, G.. “Design and Implementation of the United States National Animal Health Monitoring System 1995 National Swine Survey.Preventive Veterinary Medicine 34(1998b):147159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchanda, S., Kliebenstein, J.B., and McKean, J.D.. “Economic Comparison of Alternatives to Sulfamethazine Use in Pork Production.” Staff Papers Series #266. Ames, IA: Department of Economics, Iowa State University, July 1995.Google Scholar
Mann, T., and Paulsen, A.. “Economic Impact of Restricting Feed Additives in Livestock and Poultry Production.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(February 1976):4753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazel, D., and Davies, J.. “Antibiotic Resistance in Microbes.Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 56(1999):742754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEwen, S.A., and Fedorka-Cray, P.J.. “Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Animals.Clinical Infectious Diseases 34(Suppl. 3, 2002):S93S106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mellon, M., Benbrook, C., and Benbrook, K.L.. Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, January 2001.Google Scholar
Miller, G.Y., Song, Y., and Bahnson, P.B.. “An Economic Model for Estimating Batch Finishing System Profitability with an Application in Preventing Porcine Respiratory Disease Complex.Journal of Swine Health and Production 9, 4(2001):169177.Google Scholar
National Research Council. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Regents of the University of Minnesota.Benchmarking in Swine Herds.St. Paul, MN: PigCHAMP® 1999, p. 23.Google Scholar
Rhodes, V.J.The Industrialization of Hog Production.Review of Agricultural Economics 17(1995):107118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 6.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 1999.Google Scholar
Teuber, M.Spread of Antibiotic Resistance with Food-borne Pathogens.Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 56(1999):755763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tubbs, R.C., Hurd, H.S., Dargatz, D.A., and Hill, G.W.. “Preweaning Morbidity and Mortality in the United States Swine Herd.Journal of Swine Health and Production 1, 1(1993):2128.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS (USDA/APHIS). National Swine Survey: Morbidity/Mortality and Health Management of Swine in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA/APHIS/VS Publication N101.0192, 1992.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS (USDA/APHIS). Swine '95 Part I: Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices. Fort Collins, CO: USDA/APHIS/VS Publication N186.995, 1995.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS (USDA/APHIS). Swine '95 Part II: Reference of 1995 U.S.Grower/Finisher Health and Management Practices. Fort Collins, CO: USDA/APHIS/VS Publication N201.696, 1996.Google Scholar
Wade, M.A., and Barkley, A.P.. “The Economic Impacts of a Ban on Subtherapeutic Antibiotics in Swine Production.Agribusiness 8, 2(1992):93107.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization Director-General. Over-coming Antimicrobial Resistance. World Health Report on Infectious Diseases 2000. Internet site: http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-report/2000/other_versions/index-rpt2000_text.html (Ac-cessed 2002).Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D.R.Role of Subtherapeutic Levels of Antimicrobials in Pig Production.Journal of Animal Science 62(Suppl. 3, 1986):617.Google Scholar
18
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Productivity and Economic Effects of Antibiotics Used for Growth Promotion in U.S. Pork Production
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Productivity and Economic Effects of Antibiotics Used for Growth Promotion in U.S. Pork Production
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Productivity and Economic Effects of Antibiotics Used for Growth Promotion in U.S. Pork Production
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *