IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v23y2024i2p54-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Importance of Economic Assessments to Support Changes in Livestock Farming Practices: A Focus on Antimicrobial Use

Author

Listed:
  • João Sucena Afonso
  • Jonathan Rushton

Abstract

The intensification of livestock farming reshaped the epidemiological, economic and environmental landscape of production systems. With the resulting increase in disease pressure, farmers turned to readily available and cost‐efficient tools to help manage animal health and even increase productivity – antimicrobials. Growing concerns around antimicrobial resistance (AMR) have prompted regulatory and private initiatives to curtail antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock. The latter indicates that farmers/livestock industry are taking some ownership of the problem and playing a key role in the solution. In fact, recent research has found that farmers are willing to adjust farming practices if this does not affect financial viability of their businesses. However, our scoping literature review found that information is lacking or insufficient for farmers to make these decisions. It is also vital to understand the extent to which farm‐level decisions are producing negative externalities, and what needs to be changed to ensure societal optimum. While advocating for a sustainable reduction in AMU in livestock production, it is important to provide adequate information on the alternatives to their application in managing animal health and welfare. Evidence on the economic, productive and/or epidemiological benefits of such alternatives, when compared to the current situation, are crucial if farmers are to change their production practices with regards to AMU. L'intensification de l’élevage a remodelé le paysage épidémiologique, économique et environnemental des systèmes de production. Face à l'augmentation de la pression des maladies qui en a résulté, les agriculteurs se sont tournés vers des outils d'accès facile et rentables pour aider à gérer la santé animale et même à augmenter la productivité: les antimicrobiens. Les préoccupations croissantes concernant la résistance aux antimicrobiens (RAM) ont entrainé des initiatives réglementaires et privées visant à réduire l'utilisation des antimicrobiens (AMU) dans l’élevage. Ce dernier point indique que les agriculteurs et l'industrie de la production animale s'approprient dans une certaine mesure le problème et jouent un rôle clé dans la solution. En fait, des recherches récentes ont montré que les agriculteurs sont disposés à ajuster leurs pratiques agricoles si cela n'affecte pas la viabilité financière de leur entreprise. Notre analyse documentaire a cependant révélé que les informations manquent ou sont insuffisantes pour permettre aux agriculteurs de prendre ces décisions. Il est également essentiel de comprendre dans quelle mesure les décisions au niveau des exploitations agricoles produisent des externalités négatives et ce qu'il faut changer pour garantir un optimum sociétal. Tout en plaidant pour une réduction durable de l'UAM dans la production animale, il est important de fournir des informations adéquates sur les alternatives à leur application dans la gestion de la santé et du bien‐être des animaux. Les preuves des avantages économiques, productifs et/ou épidémiologiques de ces alternatives, par rapport à la situation actuelle, sont cruciales si les agriculteurs veulent modifier leurs pratiques de production en ce qui concerne l'UAM. Die Intensivierung der Tierhaltung hat die epidemiologische, wirtschaftliche und ökologische Landschaft der Produktionssysteme verändert. Angesichts der daraus resultierenden Zunahme des Krankheitsdrucks wandten sich die Landwirte zu leicht verfügbaren und kosteneffizienten Mitteln, um die Tiergesundheit zu erhalten und sogar die Produktivität zu steigern ‐ antimikrobielle Mitteln. Die wachsende Sorge um antimikrobielle Resistenzen (AMR) hat zu regulatorischen und privaten Initiativen geführt, um den Einsatz von antimikrobiellen Mitteln (englisch: antimicrobial use (AMU)) in der Tierhaltung zu verringern. Letzteres deutet darauf hin, dass sich die Landwirte/‐innen bzw. die Tierhaltungsindustrie das Problem zu eigen machen und eine Schlüsselrolle bei der Lösung spielen. Tatsächlich haben jüngste Untersuchungen ergeben, dass Landwirte/‐innen bereit sind, ihre landwirtschaftlichen Praktiken anzupassen, wenn dies die finanzielle Tragfähigkeit ihrer Betriebe nicht beeinträchtigt. Unsere Literaturrecherche ergab jedoch, dass den Landwirten Informationen fehlen oder unzureichend sind, um diese Entscheidungen zu treffen. Außerdem ist es wichtig zu verstehen, in welchem Ausmaß Entscheidungen auf Betriebsebene zu negativen externen Effekten führen und was geändert werden muss, um ein gesellschaftliches Optimum zu gewährleisten. Beim Voranbringen einer nachhaltigen Verringerung des AMU in der Tierhaltung ist es wichtig, angemessen über die Alternativen zu ihrer Anwendung im Management von Tiergesundheit und Tierwohl zu informieren. Der Nachweis der wirtschaftlichen, produktiven und/oder epidemiologischen Vorteile solcher Alternativen im Vergleich zur derzeitigen Situation ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, wenn die Landwirte ihre Produktionspraktiken bezüglich des AMU ändern sollen.

Suggested Citation

  • João Sucena Afonso & Jonathan Rushton, 2024. "The Importance of Economic Assessments to Support Changes in Livestock Farming Practices: A Focus on Antimicrobial Use," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 54-60, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:54-60
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12447
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12447?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominic Moran & Michael Macleod & Eileen Wall & Vera Eory & Alistair McVittie & Andrew Barnes & Robert Rees & Cairistiona F. E. Topp & Andrew Moxey, 2011. "Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for UK Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 93-118, February.
    2. Romain Espinosa & Damian Tago & Nicolas Treich, 2020. "Infectious Diseases and Meat Production," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1019-1044, August.
    3. Chris McPhee & Margaret Bancerz & Muriel Mambrini-Doudet & François Chrétien & Christian Huyghe & Javier Gracia-Garza, 2021. "The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    4. Claas Kirchhelle, 2018. "Pharming animals: a global history of antibiotics in food production (1935–2017)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Du, Limin & Hanley, Aoife & Wei, Chu, 2015. "Estimating the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of CO2 Emissions in China: Provincial Panel Data Analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 217-229.
    2. Christy Echakachi Manyi-Loh & Anthony Ifeanyin Okoh & Ryk Lues, 2023. "Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria (Enteropathogens) Recovered from a Blend of Pig Manure and Pinewood Saw Dust during Anaerobic Co-Digestion in a Steel Biodigester," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Minihan, Erin S. & Wu, Ziping, 2011. "The Potential Economic and Environmental Costs of GHG Mitigation Measures for Cattle Sectors in Northern Ireland," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108779, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Blandford, David & Gaasland, Ivar & Vardal, Erling, 2016. "Now that the party’s over: achieving GHG emission reduction commitments in Norwegian agriculture," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236330, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Nicolas Fortané, 2021. "Antimicrobial resistance: preventive approaches to the rescue? Professional expertise and business model of French “industrial” veterinarians," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 213-238, June.
    6. Caetano Luiz Beber & Maurizio Aragrande & Massimo Canali, 2024. "Identifying Specific Targets for the Member States to Achieve the European Union's Goal of 50 per cent Reduction in Sales of Veterinary Antimicrobials by 2030," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 5-12, August.
    7. Wettemann, Patrick Johannes Christopher & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2017. "An efficiency-based concept to assess potential cost and greenhouse gas savings on German dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 27-37.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2022. "How much does it take? Willingness to switch to meat substitutes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Hall, Julie & Hawkins, Olivia & Montgomery, Amy & Singh, Saniya & Mullan, Judy & Degeling, Chris, 2022. "Dismantling antibiotic infrastructures in residential aged care: The invisible work of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    10. Jeong, Kwangbok & Hong, Taehoon & Kim, Jimin & Cho, Kyuman, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective optimization model for determining the optimal CO2 emissions reduction strategies for a multi-family housing complex," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 118-131.
    11. Xing Zhao & Xin Zhang, 2022. "Research on the Evaluation and Regional Differences in Carbon Emissions Efficiency of Cultural and Related Manufacturing Industries in China’s Yangtze River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, August.
    12. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1476 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Tang, Kai & He, Chuantian & Ma, Chunbo & Wang, Dong, 2019. "Does carbon farming provide a cost-effective option to mitigate GHG emissions? Evidence from China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(3), July.
    14. Bry-Chevalier, Tom, 2024. "Comparing the potential of meat alternatives for a more sustainable food system," OSF Preprints ze5yt, Center for Open Science.
    15. Kragt, M.E. & Pannell, D.J. & McVittie, A. & Stott, A.W. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Wilson, P., 2016. "Improving interdisciplinary collaboration in bio-economic modelling for agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 217-224.
    16. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    17. Benjamin Dequiedt & Dominic Moran, 2014. "The cost of emissions mitigation by legume crops in French agriculture," Working Papers 1410, Chaire Economie du climat.
    18. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    19. Branca, Giacomo & Lipper, Leslie & Sorrentino, Alessandro, 2012. "Benefit-costs analysis of climate-related agricultural investments in Africa: a case study," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124109, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    20. Andrea Butcher & Jose A. Cañada & Salla Sariola, 2021. "How to make noncoherent problems more productive: Towards an AMR management plan for low resource livestock sectors," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    21. Sihvonen, Matti & Pihlainen, Sampo & Lai, Tin-Yu & Salo, Tapio & Hyytiäinen, Kari, 2021. "Crop production, water pollution, or climate change mitigation—Which drives socially optimal fertilization management most?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:54-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.