Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:21:16.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Economic Effects of a Ban Against Antimicrobial Drugs Used in U.S. Beef Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kenneth H. Mathews Jr.*
Affiliation:
Animal Products Branch, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C

Abstract

Economic effects for three scenarios of antimicrobial drug use in livestock production—a no-ban scenario and two levels of bans—are examined through cost minimization and a partial equilibrium analysis. Results indicate that regulating antimicrobial drug use in livestock production would increase per-unit costs of producers previously using drugs and reduce beef supplies in the short run, reducing consumer surplus. Producers not previously using drugs would benefit from short-run price increases.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aadland, D., Von Bailey, D., and Feng, S.. “A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of the Supply Response in the U.S. Beef-Cattle Industry.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Tampa, FL, July 30-August 2, 2000.Google Scholar
Algozin, K.A., Miller, G.Y., and McNamara, P.E.. “An Econometric Analysis of the Economic Contribution of Subtherapeutic Antibiotic Use in Pork Production.” Selected paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Chicago, IL, August 5-8, 2001.Google Scholar
Allen, G., and Burbee, C.. “Economic Consequences of the Restricted Use of Antibiotics at Sub-Therapeutic Levels in Broiler and Turkey Production.” (Mimeo) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service, Commodity Economics Division, Washington, DC, 1972.Google Scholar
Arzac, E.R., and Wilkinson, M.. “A Quarterly Econometric Model of United States Livestock and Feed Grain Markets and Some of Its Policy Implications.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(1979):297308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernick, J.Resisting Resistance.” Dairy Today. Philadelphia, PA: Farm Journal, Inc., March 1999.Google Scholar
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., and Meeraus, A.. GAMS: A User's Guide. San Fransisco: The Scientific Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Brorsen, B.W., Lehenbauer, T., Ji, D., and Connor, J.. “Economic Impacts of Banning Subtherapeutic Use of Antibiotics in Swine Production.” Selected paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Agricultural Economics Association, Logan, UT, July 2001.Google Scholar
Buttery, P.Growth Promotion In Animals—An Overview.” Livestock Productivity Enhancers: An Economic Assessment. Bent, M., ed. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International, 1993.Google Scholar
Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals Panel on Animal Health, Food Safety, and Public Health. The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks. National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, and Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Internet site: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/ (Accessed July 28, 1998).Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). Antibiotics in Animal Feeds. Report 88, Ames, IA, 1981.Google Scholar
Dworkin, E.H. “Some Economic Consequences of Restricting the Subtherapeutic Use of Tetracyclines in Feedlot Cattle and Swine.” (Mimeo) Office of Planning and Evaluation, Food and Drug Administration, OPE Study 33, 1976.Google Scholar
Emborg, H.D., Ersboll, A.K., Heuer, O.E., and Wegener, H.C.. “The Effect of Discontinuing the Use of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters on the Productivity in the Danish Broiler Production.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 50(2001):5370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ensminger, M.E.Beef Cattle Science, 6th ed. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1987.Google Scholar
Epplin, F., and Heady, E.O.. “Beef Gain Response to Alternative Protein Levels.” Livestock Response Functions. Heady, E.O. and Bhide, S., eds. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Feedstuffs. Carol Stream, IL: Miller Publishing Co., various issues.Google Scholar
Gilliam, H.C., Martin, J.R., Bursch, W.C., and Smith, R.B.. Economic Consequences of Banning the Use of Antibiotics at Subtherapeutic levels in Livestock Production. Departmental Technical Report No. 73-2. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, September 1973.Google Scholar
Hahn, W.F.An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Elasticity and Flexibility Estimates for Meat and Livestock. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service, Commercial Agriculture Division, Staff Paper AGES-9611, 1996.Google Scholar
Hasslen, D.A., and McCall, J.. Washington Agricultural Statistics, Washington Agricultural Statistics Service, State of Washington, Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1989-90 and 1990-91 Annuals, 1990 and 1991.Google Scholar
Hayes, D.J., Jensen, H.H., Backstrom, L., and Fabiosa, J.. “Economic Impact of a Ban on the Use of Over-the-Counter Antibiotics.” Staff Report 99 SR 90, Center for Agriculture and Rural Development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1999.Google Scholar
Headley, J.C.Economic Aspects of Drug and Chemical Feed Additives. Unpublished background paper. Washington, DC, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, 1978.Google Scholar
Henson, W.L.Economic Impact of Restriction on Use of Feed Additives in the Poultry Industry.” A.E. and R.S. 147, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Agricultural Experiment Station. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics and Statistics and Cooperative Service, 1980.Google Scholar
Holthausen, D.Personal Communication, March 12, 2002.Google Scholar
Houck, J.P., “Price Elasticity and Linear Supply Curves.” American Economic Review 57(1967):905-8.Google Scholar
Intriligator, M.D.Econometric Models, Techniques, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978.Google Scholar
Jarvis, L.S.Cattle as Capital Goods and Ranchers as Portfolio Managers: An Application to the Argentine Cattle Sector.” Journal of Political Economy 82(1974):489520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T., and Paulsen, A.. “Economic Impact of Restricting Feed Additives in Livestock and Poultry Production.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(1976):4753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J.M.Derived Demand Elasticities: Marketing Margin Methods Versus an Inverse Demand Model for Choice Beef.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 16(1991):382-91.Google Scholar
Marsh, J.M.Estimating Intertemporal Supply Response in the Fed Beef Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):444-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, J.M.Economic Factors Determining Changes in Dressed Weights of Live Cattle and Hogs.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24(1999):313-26.Google Scholar
Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C., Griffin, P.M., and Tauxe, R.V.. “Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 5(Sept.-Oct. 1999):607-25. Internet site: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm (Accessed Nov. 21, 2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 6th ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Preston, R.L., Hutcheson, J.P., Brake, A.C., Bartie, S.J., and Thomson, D.U.. Effects ofVirginiamycin on Performance of Feedlot Steers Fed an All-Concentrate Diet During The Finishing Phase. Departmental Report, 1996. Internet site: www.asft.ttu.edu/info/ASFT_reports/4.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2001).Google Scholar
Richwine, L. “US Groups Urge Ban on 7 Antibiotics from Livestock.” Reuter's, Rtr 21:16, March 9, 1999.Google Scholar
Rogers, J.A., Branine, M.E., Miller, C.R., Wray, M.I., Bartle, S.J., Preston, R.L., Gill, D.R., Pritchard, R.H., Stilborn, R.P., and Bechtol, D.T.. “Effects of Dietary Virginiamycin on Performance and Liver Abscess Incidence in Feedlot Cattle.” Journal of Animal Science 73(1995):920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, R.R., and Wilkinson, M.. Microeconomics: A Synthesis of Modern and Neoclassical Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A.Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Sewell, H.B.Feed Additives For Beef Cattle. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Agricultural publication G02075, 1993. Internet site: muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02075.html (Accessed March 5, 2001).Google Scholar
Stock, R., and Mader, T.. Feed Additives for Beef Cattle. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Publication No. G85-761-A, 1997. Internet site: ianrwww.unl.edu/PUBS/beef/g761.html (Accessed March 5, 2001).Google Scholar
Stock, R.A., Laudert, S.B., Stroup, W.W., Larson, E.M., Parrott, J.C., and Britton, R.A.. “Effect of Monensin and Monensin and Tylosin Combination on Feed Intake Variation of Feedlot Steers.” Journal of Animal Science 73(1995):3944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tryfos, P.Canadian Supply Functions for Livestock and Meat.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(1974):107-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. Part I: Feedlot Management Practices. Ft. Collins, CO, January 1995.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. Part IV: Changes in the U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Industry, 1993-1997. May 1998.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices, 1999. May 2000a.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. Part III: Health Management and Biosecurity in U.S. Feedlots, 1999. December 2000b.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Antimicrobial Resistance Issues in Animal Agriculture. Internet site: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/#antimicrobialresistance (Accessed December 31, 1999).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Commercial Agriculture Division. Economic Effects of a Prohibition on the Use of Selected Animal Drugs. Agricultural Economic Report No. 414, Washington, DC, 1978.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Situation and Outlook. Washington, DC, various issues, 1995-2000.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle. Washington, DC, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cattle on Feed. Washington, DC, various issues.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accounting Office (USGAO), Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. “Food Safety: The Agricultural Use of Antibiotics and Its Implications for Human Health.” GAO/RCED-99-74, Washington, DC, April 1999.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. “Antibiotic (Antimicrobial) Resistance and Animals.” Internet site: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/index/consumer/ar2001.htm (Accessed March 12, 2002).Google Scholar
Wade, M.A., and Barkley, A.P.. “The Economic Impacts of a Ban on Subtherapeutic Antibiotics in Swine Production.” Agribusiness 8(1992):93107.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar