IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/waealo/36166.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts Of Banning Subtherapeutic Use Of Antibiotics In Swine Production

Author

Listed:
  • Brorsen, B. Wade
  • Lehenbauer, Terry
  • Ji, Dasheng
  • Connor, Joseph

Abstract

Public health officials and physicians are concerned about possible development of bacterial resistance and potential effects on human health that may be related to the use of antimicrobial agents in livestock feed. The focus of this research is aimed at determining the economic effects that subtherapeutic bans of antimicrobials would have on both swine producers and consumers. The results show that a ban on growth promotants for swine would be costly, totaling $242.5 million annually with swine producers sharing the larger portion in the short run and consumers sharing about 75% in the long run. If a ban affected poultry as well as pork production, the total costs would expand to $586 million per year with swine producers sharing about the same as in bans for swine only and consumers sharing significantly more than the swine only case.

Suggested Citation

  • Brorsen, B. Wade & Lehenbauer, Terry & Ji, Dasheng & Connor, Joseph, 2001. "Economic Impacts Of Banning Subtherapeutic Use Of Antibiotics In Swine Production," 2001 Annual Meeting, July 8-11, 2001, Logan, Utah 36166, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:waealo:36166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/36166
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lutter, Randall & Morrall, John F, III & Viscusi, W Kip, 1999. "The Cost-per-Life-Saved Cutoff for Safety-Enhancing Regulations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(4), pages 599-608, October.
    3. Manchanda, Sumit, 1994. "Economic comparison of alternatives to sulfamethazine drug use in pork production," ISU General Staff Papers 1994010108000017639, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Do All The Resource Problems In The West Begin In The East?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
    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. 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. 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.
    4. Mathews, Kenneth H., 2002. "Economic Effects of a Ban Against Antimicrobial Drugs Used in U.S. Beef Production," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(03), pages 513-530, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    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:waealo:36166. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/waeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.