Economic effects of policy options restricting antimicrobial use for high risk cattle placed in U.S. feedlots.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
16
03
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
entrez:
15
9
2020
pubmed:
16
9
2020
medline:
4
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32931522
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239135
pii: PONE-D-20-07574
pmc: PMC7491722
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0239135Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Public Health Rep. 2007 Jan-Feb;122(1):79-87
pubmed: 17236612
Prev Vet Med. 2020 Mar;176:104934
pubmed: 32109782
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2017 Feb 15;250(4):437-445
pubmed: 28165312
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Jul 19;6:245
pubmed: 31380404
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2015 Mar;31(1):97-111, vi
pubmed: 25578389
J Anim Sci. 2009 May;87(5):1821-7
pubmed: 19181770
J Anim Sci. 1995 May;73(5):1219-26
pubmed: 7665351
J Anim Sci. 2010 Dec;88(12):4037-43
pubmed: 20817855
J Anim Sci. 2009 Jan;87(1):314-27
pubmed: 18765846
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018 Jan 17;7:7
pubmed: 29375825
J Anim Sci. 2006 Feb;84(2):488-98
pubmed: 16424278
Prev Vet Med. 2013 Jun 1;110(2):77-87
pubmed: 23276402
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2001 Mar;17(1):189-207, viii
pubmed: 11320695
Front Microbiol. 2017 Jan 06;7:2114
pubmed: 28111568
Transl Anim Sci. 2017 Dec 01;1(4):467-479
pubmed: 32704670
J Anim Sci. 2010 Feb;88(2):491-6
pubmed: 19897630
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2006 Jan;18(1):29-40
pubmed: 16566255
Anim Health Res Rev. 2009 Dec;10(2):131-9
pubmed: 20003649
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;253(5):617-623
pubmed: 30110213
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Jan 08;4:237
pubmed: 29359135
Front Vet Sci. 2019 Dec 06;6:452
pubmed: 31867349
J Anim Sci. 2009 Oct;87(10):3418-26
pubmed: 19617517
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2007 Jul;23(2):351-69, ix
pubmed: 17606156
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 22;13(3):e0194832
pubmed: 29566103
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Nov 09;4:189
pubmed: 29170739
J Anim Sci. 1999 Dec;77(12):3168-75
pubmed: 10641860
J Anim Sci. 2017 May;95(5):2170-2182
pubmed: 28727007
J Anim Sci. 2014 Nov;92(11):5203-13
pubmed: 25349362
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2010 Jul;26(2):285-301
pubmed: 20619185
J Anim Sci. 2017 Feb;95(2):626-635
pubmed: 28380607
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Nov 15;160:63-67
pubmed: 30388999
J Anim Sci. 2016 Apr;94(4):1620-32
pubmed: 27136021
Lancet Planet Health. 2017 Nov;1(8):e316-e327
pubmed: 29387833
Pathog Dis. 2017 Sep 29;75(7):
pubmed: 28830074
J Anim Sci. 2013 Dec;91(12):5868-77
pubmed: 24126273
J Anim Sci. 2007 Mar;85(3):823-40
pubmed: 17085724
Am J Vet Res. 2013 Feb;74(2):300-9
pubmed: 23363358
Can Vet J. 2008 May;49(5):463-72
pubmed: 18512457
Can Vet J. 2005 Nov;46(11):1002-7
pubmed: 16363327