IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

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

Listed author(s):
  • Miller, Gay Y.
  • Liu, Xuanli
  • McNamara, Paul E.
  • Bush, Eric J.
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association) in its series 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada with number 21931.

    in new window

    Date of creation: 2003
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:21931
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    555 East Wells Street, Suite 1100, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202

    Phone: (414) 918-3190
    Fax: (414) 276-3349
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    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(03), pages 489-500, December.
    3. 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 (IFAMA), vol. 4(01).
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea03:21931. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.