IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea03/21931.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Producer Incentives For Antibiotic Use In U.S. Pork Production

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, Gay Y.
  • Liu, Xuanli
  • McNamara, Paul E.
  • Bush, Eric J.

Abstract

Antibiotics have been used in animal production for several decades. Antibiotics are used routinely now in pork production (NAHMS 2002). There is increasing concern about the use of antibiotics in animal production. There is no hard evidence supporting the link of antibiotic use in animals to observations of antibiotic resistance infections in people. Nonetheless a careful examination of the value of continued antibiotic use in agricultural, and in pork production in particular is warranted. Therefore, the objective of our study is to validate the productivity and economic impacts of antibiotic use for pig producers at the farm level. We use data from the NAHMS 2000 swine survey. We estimate the combined affects from antibiotics used for growth promotion (AGP) and antibiotics used for disease prevention (ADP) on 4 productivity measures. We also estimate the economic impact of AGP and ADP for individual pig producers. We estimate these 4 productivity measures using seemingly unrelated regression analysis. We evaluate 4 scenarios which ban antibiotic use, and use a simple synthetic firm partial budget to estimate the economic consequences of these scenarios. We find that pig productivity is improved with AGP, but decreased with ADP. A total ban on AGP would cost pig producers $1,271 in lost profits per 1,020 head pig barn. A total ban on ADP however, would result in pig producers improving profits slightly. This occurs because productivity is negatively influenced by ADP. A ban of both AGP and ADP results in a small loss of producer profits ($376/1,020 head barn) because of the offsetting effects of ADP compared to AGP. Producers have higher profits when AGP and ADP are applied at levels where pig productivity is maximized. In this case, producers gain $4,146 for each 1,020 head barn compared to no antibiotic use.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Gay Y. & Liu, Xuanli & McNamara, Paul E. & Bush, Eric J., 2003. "Producer Incentives For Antibiotic Use In U.S. Pork Production," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21931, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:21931
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21931/files/sp03mi07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21931?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. Hayes, Dermot J. & Jensen, Helen H. & Fabiosa, Jacinto F., 2002. "Technology Choice and the Economic Effects of a Ban on the Use of Antimicrobial Feed Additives in Swine Rations," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5177, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Brorsen, B. Wade & Lehenbauer, Terry & Ji, Dasheng & Connor, Joe, 2002. "Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 489-500, December.
    3. V. James Rhodes, 1995. "The Industrialization of Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 107-118.
    4. Hayes, Dermot J. & Jensen, Helen H. & Backstrom, Lennart & Fabiosa, Jacinto F., 2001. "Economic Impact Of A Ban On The Use Of Over The Counter Antibiotics In U.S. Swine Rations," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17.
    5. Mathews, Kenneth H., Jr., 2001. "Antimicrobial Drug Use And Veterinary Costs In U.S. Livestock Production," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33695, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Thomas Mann & Arnold Paulsen, 1976. "Economic Impact of Restricting Feed Additives in Livestock and Poultry Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 58(1), pages 47-53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Xuanli & Miller, Gay Y. & McNamara, Paul E., 2005. "Do Antibiotics Reduce Production Risk for U.S. Pork Producers?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    2. William D. McBride & Nigel Key & Kenneth H. Mathews, 2008. "Subtherapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 270-288.
    3. Miller, Gay Y. & Liu, Xuanli & McNamara, Paul E. & Barber, David A., 2004. "The Influence Of Salmonella In Pigs Pre-Harvest On Salmonella Human Health Costs And Risk From Pork," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20258, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    2. William D. McBride & Nigel Key & Kenneth H. Mathews, 2008. "Subtherapeutic Antibiotics and Productivity in U.S. Hog Production," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 270-288.
    3. Algozin, Kenneth A. & Miller, Gay Y. & McNamara, Paul E., 2001. "An Econometric Analysis Of The Economic Contribution Of Subtherapeutic Antibiotic Use In Pork Production," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20633, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Sneeringer, Stacy & MacDonald, James & Key, Nigel & McBride, William & Mathews, Ken, 2015. "Economics of Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Production," Economic Research Report 229202, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Michael G. Hogberg & Kellie Curry Raper & James F. Oehmke, 2009. "Banning subtherapeutic antibiotics in U.S. swine production: a simulation of impacts on industry structure," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 314-330.
    6. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    7. Schulz, Lee L. & Hadrich, Joleen C., 2014. "Feeding Practices and Input Cost Performance in U.S. Hog Operations: The Case of Split-Sex and Phase Feeding," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169983, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Hollis, Aidan & Ahmed, Ziana, 2014. "The path of least resistance: Paying for antibiotics in non-human uses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 264-270.
    9. Dagim G. Belay & Jørgen D. Jensen, 2022. "Quantitative input restriction and farmers’ economic performance: Evidence from Denmark's yellow card initiative on antibiotics," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 155-171, February.
    10. Longen, Kathryn A. & Claffey, Barbara A., 1981. "The Food Stamp Program as a Categorical Grant: Impact on Participation and Costs," 1981 Annual Meeting, July 26-29, Clemson, South Carolina 279330, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Davis, Christopher & Dimitri, Carolyn & Nehring, Richard & Collins, LaPorchia & Haley, Mildred & Ha, Kim & Gillespie, Jeffrey, 2022. "U.S. Hog Production: Rising Output and Changing Trends in Productivity Growth," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 2022(Economic ), August.
    12. Terence centner, 2004. "Developing institutions to encourage the use of animal wastes as production inputs," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(4), pages 367-375, January.
    13. Unterschultz, James R., 2000. "New Instruments For Co-Ordination And Risk Sharing Within The Canadian Beef Industry," Project Report Series 24046, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. John D. Lawrence & Erda Wang, 1998. "Motivations for exiting hog production in the 1990s and incentives for re-entry," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 453-465.
    15. Liu, Xuanli & Miller, Gay Y. & McNamara, Paul E., 2005. "Do Antibiotics Reduce Production Risk for U.S. Pork Producers?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Martinez, Stephen W., 1999. "Vertical Coordination in the Pork and Broiler Industries: Implications for Pork and Chicken Products," Agricultural Economic Reports 34031, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Jones, Harold B., Jr., 1985. "Government Regulation And Policies Affecting The U.S. Turkey Industry: Agencies And Cost Impacts," Staff Reports 277678, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Herath, Deepananda P.B. & Weersink, Alfons & Carpentier, Chantal Line, 2005. "Spatial Dynamics of the Livestock Sector in the United States: Do Environmental Regulations Matter?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(1), pages 1-24, April.
    19. Baiyee-Mbi, Agbor-Baiyee & Mazzocco, Michael A., 2005. "Comparative Evaluation of the Performance of Spans of Control Designs in Grain Supply Chains," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19313, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Chin, Ming-Chin & Weaver, Robert D., 2002. "Contracting, Captive Supplies, And Price Behavior," 2002 Conference, April 22-23, 2002, St. Louis, Missouri 19052, NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    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:ags:aaea03:21931. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.