Economic effects of policy options restricting antimicrobial use for high risk cattle placed in U.S. feedlots.

The rising public health threat of antimicrobial resistance, the influence of food service companies, as well as the overall lack of positive image of using medical products in intensive farming are major drivers curbing antimicrobial use. In the future, government policies may affect practices of antimicrobial use in beef production in feedlots, a prominent current user of antimicrobials in animal agriculture, but also the agricultural industry generating the highest cash receipt in the U.S. Our objective was to estimate the cost effect from the following policies in feedlots: 1) using antimicrobials for disease prevention, control, and treatment; 2) using antimicrobials only for treatment of disease; and 3) not using antimicrobials for any reason. We modelled a typical U.S. feedlot, where high risk cattle may be afflicted by diseases requiring antimicrobial therapy, namely respiratory diseases, liver abscesses and lameness. We calculated the net revenue loss under each policy of antimicrobial use restriction. With moderate disease incidence, the median net revenue loss was $66 and $96 per animal entering the feedlot, for not using antimicrobials for disease prevention and control, or not using any antimicrobials, respectively, compared to using antimicrobials for disease prevention, control, and treatment. Losses arose mainly from an increase of fatality and morbidity rates, almost doubling for respiratory diseases in the case of antimicrobial use restrictions. In the case of antimicrobial use prohibition, decreasing the feeder cattle price by 9%, or alternatively, increasing the slaughter cattle price by 6.3%, would offset the net revenue losses for the feedlot operator. If no alternatives to antimicrobial therapy for prevention, control and treatment of current infectious diseases are implemented, policies that economically incentivize adoption of non-antimicrobial prevention and control strategies for infectious diseases would be necessary to maintain animal welfare and the profitability of beef production while simultaneously curbing antimicrobial use.

Antimicrobial Policies in United States Beef Production: Choosing the Right Instruments to Reduce Antimicrobial Use and Resistance Under Structural and Market Constraints.

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal agriculture contributes to the selection of resistant bacteria, potentially constituting a public health threat. To address antimicrobial resistance, public policies set by governments, as well as intra-sectoral approaches, can be implemented. In this paper, we explore how common policy instruments such as regulations, economic incentives, and voluntary agreements could help reduce AMU in beef production. We first describe the structure of the beef supply chain which directly influences the choice of policy instruments. We describe how externalities and imperfect information affect this system. We then discuss how five policy instruments would each perform to achieve a reduction in AMU. Bovine respiratory disease complex (BRD) represents the major driver of AMU in beef production; consequently, reducing its incidence would decrease significantly the amounts of antimicrobials administered. We consider control options for BRD at different stages of the beef supply chain.

An assessment of the economic costs to the U.S. dairy market of antimicrobial use restrictions.

Antimicrobial resistance is a public threat for humans, generated by the use of antimicrobials in human medicine as well as animal agriculture. Consequently, governments set public policies aim at curbing antimicrobial use (AMU). In dairy production, the occurrence of diseases triggers AMU to limit the costs associated with these afflictions. Therefore, any policies targeting AMU are likely to generate additional costs for farmer, and impact the dairy market. The objective of our research was to assess at the market level the costs associated with potential regulations (a prohibition scenario and tax scenarios) surrounding antimicrobial use in the U.S. dairy sector, comparing to a business as usual scenario. We conducted a two-step analysis, first at the farm and then the market level, to estimate the costs to both farmers and consumers. We found that potential policies restricting AMU would have a minor effect at the market level. In the case of prohibition of AMU, the average milk price would rise from $0.423 to $0.425 per liter. In the short run, the total annual losses would be $152 million. Implementing taxes on AMU would also slightly increase milk price, up to $0.426 in the case of a tax multiplying by five the initial antimicrobial price. Under the prohibition scenario, the quantity of milk produced would decrease by 356 million kilograms, representing 0.4% of the average U.S. milk production over the period 2012-2016. Implementing such policies would lead to a slight increase in costs of production, borne by both consumers and farmers through higher milk prices and lower milk production. As AMU in animal agriculture also fulfills animal welfare and public health objectives, the impacts of restricting AMU should be weighed with these other objectives in policy decisions. Further research is necessary to assess the distributional benefits and costs of AMU policies across farmers, retailers, animal and human health workers, and the public, incorporating multiple dimensions, such as animal welfare and food safety.

The farm cost of decreasing antimicrobial use in dairy production.

Antimicrobials are used in animal agriculture to cure bacterial infectious diseases. However, antimicrobial use (AMU) inevitably leads to the selection of resistant bacteria, potentially infecting humans. As a global public threat, antimicrobial resistance has led policy makers to implement regulations supervising AMU. The objective of our research was to investigate the farm impact of several potential policies aimed at decreasing AMU. We modeled a dairy herd of 1000 cows with an average level of disease prevalence for the nine most frequent bacterial dairy diseases found in western countries. We calculated the farm net costs of AMU prohibition, as well as cost increases in antimicrobial treatments prices, and an increase in the milk withdrawal period after AMU. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of output and input prices, and disease prevalence. At a mean disease prevalence, the average net costs of not using antimicrobials were $61 per cow per year greater compared to a scenario modeling current farm AMU. The model predicted that the minimum and maximum increased costs associated with AMU prohibition were $46 and $73 per cow per year compared to current AMU. In each scenario, the cost difference increased with disease prevalence. Sensitivity analysis showed that the three stochastic variables which most significantly influenced the cost difference were respectively, cow replacement prices, cow slaughter price, and the milk price. Antimicrobial price increases of a factor of five, or extending the milk withdrawal period by 15 days, resulted in increasing the costs of diseases to a level where the farmer was better off not using antimicrobials. Our results suggest that the farm level costs of AMU prohibition in many cases might be minor, although the consequences of any policy instrument should be carefully evaluated to reach the ultimate goal of decreasing AMU without threatening the sustainability of milk production.