Economic evaluation of antimicrobial use practices in animal agriculture: a case of poultry farming

Abstract

Background The growing evidence of the contribution of antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal agriculture to the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance has highlighted to policymakers the importance of the need for prudent AMU in animal production. Livestock farming is an economic process, where farmers are using inputs such as antimicrobials to minimize their losses. Objectives Using a large and unique dataset combining time-series data on economic performance and health records in conventional broiler production in France, we identify how improved healthcare management and disease prevention impact economic performance, AMU reduction and health outcomes. Methods We analyse the main characteristics of the economic performance of farms measured by the profit per m2, by performing advanced regression models investigating the relative importance of medication and veterinary procedures. Results In our study, 50% of the treatments (expressed as number of new treatments) are attributable to only 30% of all flocks. There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between AMU and economic performance. This finding implies that the marginal profit of antimicrobials is decreasing, meaning that using antimicrobials is only profitable up to a certain threshold. Results also show that the profit increases as the number of preventive treatments increase. Conclusions Our findings suggest that policies encouraging farmers to work upstream from the occurrence of disease have the potential to perform better than regulations, as they would maintain a profitable activity while diminishing AMU. Encouraging adequate infection control practices by subsidizing or providing other incentives would benefit farmers and society.

Challenges in the profitability of small-scale broiler farming by avoiding injudicious use of drugs and additives

“…Likewise, although the irrational use of drugs and additives very slightly improves the growth of broilers, considering mortality loss and cost incurred for drugs and additives, such a small enhancement does not yield a satisfactory profit over the cost. The use of antimicrobials is only profitable up to a certain threshold because there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between antimicrobial use and financial outcomes [ 39 , 40 ]. Therefore, the injudicious use of drugs, additives, or other chemicals in small-scale farm operations is not only meaningless but also wastes a large amount of money that could otherwise be added to the farmer's profit margin.…”

Evaluation of Surveillance Strategies of Antimicrobial Consumption in Animals

“…Farmers will want to adopt practices only if their benefit exceeds the costs. Thus, if the cost is higher, incentives may be required [ 31 ]. Another concern is disbelief in the underlying scientific evidence, or a lack of knowledge.…”

“…There is currently varied evidence on the impact, which is context-dependent [ 27 ]. Subsidizing or providing other incentives for reporting data may be another strategy when data reporting is not mandatory or does not have a legal basis [ 31 ].…”

An agent-based model for collaborative learning to combat antimicrobial resistance: proof of concept based on broiler production in Senegal

“…Still various factors complicate the case for relevant action on AMR, notably obscure effects, including AMU economic incentives in terms of productivity and competitiveness, and the need for market-based solutions, especially given limits to regulatory supervision in animal health. Although economic studies point in this direction, for example for broiler producers in France [ 16 ], both animal health and LMIC are under-represented in economic evaluation of AMR-related interventions [ 17 ]. Still, new initiatives like the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)’s Reduce the Need for Antimicrobials in agrifood systems initiative (RENOFARM) recognize economic objectives as the key to reducing AMU by aiming to improve countries’ agrifood systems transformation through the provision of comprehensive support in the implementation of good production practices [ 18 ].…”