Productivity and Economic Effects of Antibiotics Used for Growth Promotion in U.S. Pork Production

Abstract

Public health experts are concerned about the diminishing efficacy of antibiotics. Some have called for a ban on growth-promoting antibiotics in animal agriculture. This study identifies the contribution of growth-promoting antibiotics in the grower/finisher phase of U.S. pork production. With National Animal Health Monitoring System swine data, relationships are estimated between growth-promoting antibiotic use and productivity. Results indicate improvements in average daily gain (0.5%), feed conversion ratio (1.1%), and mortality rate (reduced 0.22 percentage points); these productivity improvements translate into a profitability gain of $0.59 per pig marketed, or an improvement of 9% in net profits associated with growth promotion antibiotics.

Economics of Antibiotic Growth Promoters in Livestock

“…The vertical dotted line separates pre-1985 studies from more recent (post-1985) studies. Data compiled from Hays (1977), Zimmerman (1986), Dritz et al (2002), Miller et al (2003Miller et al ( , 2005, and Van Lunen (tylosin) in 4,890 healthy pigs and corroborated the trend observed by Braude et al (1953) 20 years earlier ( Figure 5). These high levels of baseline performance are mentioned in recent studies that found limited growth response to AGPs (Dritz et al 2002, Van Lunen 2003.…”

“…In another observational study, Miller et al (2003) estimated that AGP use increased average daily weight by 0.5% and feed efficiency by 1.1%-much less than the two-digit improvements reported in the 1980s (Cromwell 2002). Recent studies have mostly found a small significant growth response to AGPs for nursery pigs (Dritz et al 2002, McBride et al 2008) and small responses that were not statistically different from zero for finishing pigs (McBride et al 2008, Key & McBride 2014.…”

“…The horizontal lines represent the periods during which the experiments were conducted. Data compiled from Hays (1977), Zimmerman (1986), Dritz et al (2002), Miller et al (2003Miller et al ( , 2005, and Van Lunen (2003). assumptions about production performance without AGPs: a reduction of 8% in the rate of gain, a reduction of 3.8% in feed efficiency, and a one-third reduction in piglets per litter per sow (because of higher mortality).…”

Antimicrobial potential of bacteriocins in poultry and swine production

“…However, the growth response to AGP appears to be much less important when animal nutrition, hygiene practices, as well as genetic potential and health status of animals are optimal. Indeed, recent studies (post-2000) have shown that productivity gains from AGP are lower than what was reported in earlier studies [7, 9, 10]. More specifically, Miller et al [9] reported that the use of AGP in pork production increased the average daily weight by 0.5% and feed efficiency by 1.1%; that is much less that previously reported in the 1980s [10].…”

Descriptive study of production factors affecting performance traits in growing-finishing pigs in Spain

“…However, according to Wierup (2001), banning the use of antibiotic growth-promoters in animal feeds is often associated to an increase in both preventive and curative use of antibiotics. Probably, the better productive performance found in batches receiving only in-feed medication was due to a preventive use of antibiotics whereas water and injection medications were used more for curative purposes (Miller et al, 2003). In any case, these results show that batches treated more times with antibiotics are related to poorer health status.…”