IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v96y2014i3p831-850..html

Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and the Efficiency of U.S. Hog Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Nigel Key
  • William D. McBride

Abstract

A substantial share of U.S. hog producers incorporate antimicrobial drugs into their livestock's feed or water at sub-therapeutic levels to promote feed efficiency and weight gain. Recently, in response to concerns that the overuse of antibiotics in livestock could promote the development of antimicrobial drug-resistant bacteria, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopted a strategy to phase out the use of antibiotics for production purposes. This study uses a stochastic frontier model and data from the 2009 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey of feeder-to-finish hog producers to estimate the potential effects on hog output and output variability resulting from a ban on antibiotics used for growth promotion. We use propensity score nearest neighbor matching to create a balanced sample of sub-therapeutic antibiotic (STA) users and nonusers. We estimate the frontier model for the pooled sample and separately for users and non-users-which allows for a flexible interaction between STA use and the production technology. Point estimates for the matched sample indicate that STA use has a small positive effect on productivity and production risk, increasing output by 1.0-1.3% and reducing the standard deviation of unexplained output by 1.4%. The results indicate that improvements in productivity resulted exclusively from technological improvement rather than from an increase in technical efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Nigel Key & William D. McBride, 2014. "Sub-therapeutic Antibiotics and the Efficiency of U.S. Hog Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 831-850.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:96:y:2014:i:3:p:831-850.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aat091
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Hennessy, David A. & Zhang, Jing & Bai, Na, 2019. "Animal health inputs, endogenous risk, general infrastructure, technology adoption and industrialized animal agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 355-362.
    3. McFadden, Jonathan R., "undated". "Yield Maps, Soil Maps, and Technical Efficiency: Evidence from U.S. Corn Fields," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258120, 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. Adelina Gschwandtner & Stefan Hirsch, 2018. "What Drives Firm Profitability? A Comparison of the US and EU Food Processing Industry," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 86(3), pages 390-416, June.
    6. Hennessy, David A., "undated". "Managing Derived Demand For Antibiotics In Animal Agriculture," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274359, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Kang, Shijia & Frick, Fabian & Ait Sidhoum, Amer & Sauer, Johannes & Zheng, Shaofeng, 2023. "Does food quality certification improve eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from Chinese vegetable production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    8. repec:ags:aaea16:236057 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Bauman, Allison & Jablonski, Becca B.R. & Thilmany McFadden, Dawn, 2016. "Evaluating Scale and Technical Efficiency among Farms and Ranches with a Local Market Orientation," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 242364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. 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.
    11. Wei, Xinjie & Lin, Wanlong & Hennessy, David A., 2015. "Biosecurity and disease management in China’s animal agriculture sector," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 52-64.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:96:y:2014:i:3:p:831-850.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (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.