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

Abstract

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.

Prevalence of Multidrug-Resistant CTX-M Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Escherichia coli From Different Bovine Faeces in China

“…In beef cattle farming, respiratory disease is often the top cause of morbidity, with hoof disease being a close second. This is similar to other parts of the world ( 29 , 30 ). We know from the beef farm veterinarians that large amounts of ceftiofur and florfenicol are being used to control respiratory outbreaks following calf transfers and weather changes ( 31 , 32 ).…”

Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle

“…Another important aspect of a general farm management is the use of antimicrobials (AMU), since they are useful tools in controlling infectious diseases, especially in intensive farming systems where the spread of pathogens is more likely to occur 13 – 15 . Despite such an essential role, massive AMU and the associated antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are major concerns worldwide 16 , 17 .…”

“…However, some studies confuted this belief reporting how even with a high AMU as part of the common farm management, yet pigs were showing poor welfare conditions and health issues 40 , 41 . Despite the well-known association between biosecurity, welfare standards and animal health and performance 5 , 10 , only few studies explored their influence on AMU in beef cattle 15 , 24 , 42 . For instance, Becker et al 42 reported a drastic reduction of AMU in veal calves following an improvement of those management practices considered as responsible of high AMU (e.g.…”

A participatory approach for building ex ante impact pathways towards a prudent use of antimicrobials in pig and poultry sectors in France

“…There is a major need to try different forms of large-and small-scale interventions and to document their negative and positive effects. Many studies assess the long-term effects after intervention implementation to estimate its success [17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. AMU decision-making is based on an interdependent set of economic, behavioral, ethical, and cultural factors that need to be assessed to advise policy-makers on the potential impact of regulations [24].…”