[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/34371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Impact Of A Ban On The Use Of Over The Counter Antibiotics In U.S. Swine Rations

Author

Listed:
  • Hayes, Dermot J.
  • Jensen, Helen H.
  • Backstrom, Lennart
  • Fabiosa, Jacinto F.
Abstract
The U.S. pork industry routinely adds antibiotics to rations of weaned pigs both to prevent illness before symptoms emerge and to increase growth rates. The European Union (EU) is in the process of restricting feed use of antibiotics, and the U.S. is currently reviewing the practice. The strategic issue facing U.S. pork producers is whether another food safety dispute with the EU is worthwhile. This paper evaluates the economic impact of such a ban in the U.S. The analysis uses a set of technical assumptions derived from the experience of a similar ban in Sweden and finds such a ban would increase production costs per head between $5.24 and $6.05; net profit would decline $0.79 per head. On the consumer side, the effects of a ban would raise the retail price of pork by 5 cents per pound.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:34371
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.34371
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/34371/files/04010081.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.34371?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Office of Health Economics, 1969. "Antibiotics in Animal Husbandry," Series on Health 000158, Office of Health Economics.
    2. Hayenga, Marvin L. & Buhr, Brian L., 1994. "Ex Ante Evaluation of the Economic Impacts of Growth Promotants in the U.S. Livestock and Meat Sector," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11318, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Brian L. Buhr & Marvin L. Hayenga, 1994. "Ex Ante Evaluation of the Economic Impacts of Growth Promotants in the U.S. Livestock and Meat Sector," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 159-173.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2017. "Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 634-657.
    4. 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.
    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. Laurian J. Unnevehr & Helen H. Jensen, 2001. "Industry Compliance Costs: What Would They Look Like in a Risk-Based Integrated Food System?," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-wp278, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Mojduszka, Eliza M., 2004. "Private And Public Food Safety Control Mechanisms: Interdependence And Effectiveness," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19987, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    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. Liang, Jing, 2010. "Three essays on food safety and foodborne illness," ISU General Staff Papers 201001010800002782, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    2. Unknown, 1983. "Introduction," Centre for Agricultural Strategy - Papers and Reports 337686, University of Reading.
    3. John Wilson & Tsunehiro Otsuki & Baishali Majumdsar, 2003. "Balancing food safety and risk: do drug residue limits affect international trade in beef?," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 377-402.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.
    7. Alexandra Waluszewski & Alessandro Cinti & Andrea Perna, 2021. "Antibiotics in pig meat production: restrictions as the odd case and overuse as normality? Experiences from Sweden and Italy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Abigail Woods, 2019. "Decentring antibiotics: UK responses to the diseases of intensive pig production (ca. 1925-65)," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Troup, J. D. G., 1970. "Human Factors in Agriculture The Application of Occupational Medicine and Ergonomics," Department of Agricultural Economics Archive 272887, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
    10. 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.
    11. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox & Douglas A. Popken & Richard Carnevale, 2007. "Quantifying Human Health Risks from Animal Antimicrobials," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(1), pages 22-38, February.

    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:ifaamr:34371. 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/ifamaea.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.