Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-mpvvr Total loading time: 0.199 Render date: 2021-07-27T13:29:04.702Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

B. Wade Brorsen
Affiliation:
Jean & Patsy Neustadt Chair, Department of Agricultural Economics, Stillwater, OK
Terry Lehenbauer
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Stillwater, OK
Dasheng Ji
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Joe Connor
Affiliation:
Carthage IL
Get access

Abstract

Public health officials and physicians are concerned about possible development of bacterial resistance and potential effects on human health that may be related to the use of antimicrobial agents in livestock feed. The focus of this research is aimed at determining the economic effects that subtherapeutic bans of antimicrobials would have on both swine producers and consumers. The results show that a ban on growth promotants for swine would be costly, totaling $242.5 million annually, with swine producers sharing the larger portion in the short run and consumers sharing the larger portion in the long run.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

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

Anderson, M., Campbell, J., and Walter, D.. “Comparative Performance of Selected Feed Medications During Critical Production Periods in SEW and Conventional Pigs.” Proceedings, 28th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 1997, pp. 161-64.Google Scholar
Angulo, F.J.Antimicrobial-Resistant Salmonella Infections in Humans.” Careful Antibiotic Use to Prevent Resistance. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, January, 1998, pp. 12.Google Scholar
Angulo, F.J., Tauxe, R.V., and Cohen, M.L.. “Significance and Sources of Antimicrobials in Swine Production.” The Bovine Proceedings 31(1998):18.Google Scholar
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “Part II: Reference of 1995 U.S. Grower/Finisher Health & Management Practices.” Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, June 1996.Google Scholar
Animal Health Institute. Animal Health Products and the U.S. Economy. Alexandria, VA: Animal Health Institute, 1985.Google Scholar
Brester, G.W., and Schroeder, T.C.. “The Impacts of Brand and Generic Advertising on Meat Demand.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(November 1995):969-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Swine '95 Part 3: Changes in the U.S. Pork Industry, 1990-1995. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, 1995.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., and Stahly, T.S.. “Efficacy of Tiamulin as a Growth Promotant for Growing Swine.” Journal of Animal Science 60(1985):1419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmland. “America's Best Pork Carcass Merit Program.” July 16, 2001.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved Animal Drug List (Green Book). Blacksburg, VA: Drug Information Lab, College of Veterinary Medicine, 1998.Google Scholar
Gilliam, H.C., Martin, J.R., Bursch, W.C., and Smith, R.B.. “Economic Consequences of Banning the Use of Antibiotics at the Subtherapeutic Levels in Livestock Production.” Department Technical Report 73-2, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, September 1973.Google Scholar
Gourley, G., “Effectiveness of Low Levels of Aureomycin Chlortetracycline Granular Premix Fed Continuously, or High Levels ‘Pulsed’ One Week Out of Every Four Weeks, in Reduction of Sort Loss and Improved Performance in Lean Genotype, High Health Swine.” Proceedings, 29th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, Des Moines, IA, 1998, pp. 8993.Google Scholar
Gourley, G., and Wolff, T.. “An Evaluation of Effect of Aureomycin Chlortetracycline Granular Feed Additive in Swine Grower-Finisher Rations on Sort Loss and Performance.” Proceedings, 28th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 1997, pp. 8589.Google Scholar
Hagsten, I., Grant, R.J., and Meade, R.J.. “Effect of Bambermycins and Tylosin on Performance of Growing-Finishing Swine.” Journal of Animal Science 50(1980):484-89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahn, R.W., Lutter, R.W., and Viscusi, W.K.. Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality? Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2000.Google Scholar
Herrick, J.B.The Controversy Continues.” Large Animal Practice 19(1998):1415.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine. Human Health Risks with the Subtherapeutic Use of Penicillin or Tetracyclines in Animal Feed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Iowa Department of Agricultural Market News. “Iowa & Central US Direct Delivered Feeder Pig Report: Weekly Summary of Prices on a Delivered Farm to Farm Basis.” Internet site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/NWJs255.txt (Accessed July 2001).Google Scholar
Losinger, W.C.Feed-Conversion Ratio of Finisher Pigs in the USA.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 36(1998):287305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lutter, R., Morrall, J.F. III, and Viscusi, W.K.. “The Cost-Per-Life-Saved Cutoff for Safety-Enhancing Regulations.” Economic Inquiry 37(1999):599608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackinnon, J.D.The Role of Growth Promoters in Pig Production.” The Pig Veterinary Society Proceedings, Volume 17. White, E.G., ed., pp. 69100. Foxton, Cambridge, UK: The Pig Veterinary Society, 1987.Google Scholar
Manchanda, S.Economic Comparisons of Alternatives to Sulfamethazine Drug Use in Pork Production.” M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, 1994.Google Scholar
Mathews, K.H. “Antimicrobial Drug Use and Veterinary Costs in U.S. Livestock Production.” USDA Agricultural Information Bulletin 766, May 2001. Internet site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib7661 (Accessed June 2002).Google Scholar
National Research Council. “Costs of Eliminating Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics.” The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. Coffman, J.R., ed., pp. 151-59. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998a.Google Scholar
National Research Council. “Issues Specific to Antibiotics.” The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. Coffman, J.R., ed., pp. 120-50. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998b.Google Scholar
Radostits, O.M., Leslie, K.E., and Fetrow, J.. “Planned Animal Health and Production in Swine Herds.” Herd Health: Food Animal Production Medicine, 2nd ed. pp. 435526. Philadelphia: WB. Saunders Co., 1994.Google Scholar
Schwartz, K.Performance Benefits of Mercado and Stefan in High-Lean Genotype Hogs Fed NRC or High-Density Diets.” Proceedings, 28th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 1997, pp. 131-34.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F.Do All the Resource Problems in the West Begin in the East?Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998):309-18.Google Scholar
Speer, V.C.Antibiotics—The Final Word?Swine Health, 1982 Production Symposium. National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, 1982, pp. 810.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.R.The Nature of Benefits and Costs of Use of Pest Control Methods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(1980):1007-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tengs, T.O., and Graham, J.D.. “The Opportunity Costs of Haphazard Social Investments in Life-Saving.” Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results from Regulation. Hahn, R.W., ed., pp. 167-82, Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Tillman, P.B.Effect of BMD on Ending Weight Variation of Growing-Finishing Swine.” Proceedings, 27th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, 1996, pp. 9395.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Economic Effects of a Prohibition on the Use of Selected Animal Drugs.” Washington, DC: Commercial Agricultural Division, Economic Research Service, 1978.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W.K.Fatal Tradeoffs: Public and Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Wade, M.A., and Barkley, A.P.. “The Economic Impacts of a Ban on Subtherapeutic Antibiotics in Swine Production.” Agribusiness 8(1992):93107.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, D., Hoick, J.T., and Wolff, T.. “The Effect of Two Different Feed Medication Strategies on Finishing Pig Health and Performance.” Proceedings, 30th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Swine Practitioners, St. Louis, MO, 1999, pp. 107-11.Google Scholar
Witte, W.Medical Consequences of Antibiotic Use in Agriculture.” Science 279(1998):996-97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wohlgenant, M.K.Distribution of Gains from Research and Promotion in Multi-Stage Production Systems: The Case of the U.S. Beef and Pork Industries.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993):642-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine 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? *