The Environmental and Economic Impact of Withdrawing Antibiotics from US Broiler Production

Q4 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal of Food Distribution Research Pub Date : 2016-03-01 DOI:10.22004/AG.ECON.232315
Matthew J. Salois, R. Cady, E. Heskett
{"title":"The Environmental and Economic Impact of Withdrawing Antibiotics from US Broiler Production","authors":"Matthew J. Salois, R. Cady, E. Heskett","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.232315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rising consumer interest in how food is produced has resulted in the growth of antibiotic-free meat production and consumption. The antibiotic-free classification is most prominent in the poultry market as several producers and retail-chain companies have moved their marketing in that direction. This study examines the environmental and economic impacts of withdrawing antibiotics (including animal-only ionophores) from U.S. broiler production. Two systems—conventional and 100% antibiotic-free (ABF)—are modeled, examining differences between average survivability, space requirements, days to grow-out a defined sized bird, and days between production cycles. Data were obtained from the USDA, industry sources (e.g., Agri Stats, Vantress, Aviagen), and expert knowledge. Total output is calculated to compare the average quantity of edible broiler meat produced within each system. Results reveal a decline in average production in the ABF system for a given broiler house compared to the conventional system. Compared to broilers produced in a conventional system, birds raised in a single broiler house under ABF conditions will have an annual reduction of between 50,000–100,000 lbs of edible meat (breast, legs, thighs, wings) equivalent to between 265,000–530,000 individual 3 oz. single servings. This loss represents enough to feed 600–1,000 people annually, based on average annual consumption of chicken in the United States in 2012. In order to maintain the same supply of meat under ABF conditions, a typical broiler house will require between 15,000–33,000 more marketed broilers per year. Due to the additional broilers needed, eliminating antibiotic use has an environmental impact. Compared to a conventional house, chickens raised in a single broiler house under ABF conditions will require between 185,000–390,000 additional lbs. of feed per a year; between forty-two and ninety additional acres a year to produce that feed; between 33,000 and 78,000 additional gallons of water consumed; and between 157,000 and 333,000 additional tons of manure produced. In addition, the cost to produce edible prime meat in a broiler house under ABF conditions is between $52,000 and $110,000 per year.Findings suggest that eliminating the use of antibiotics in the raising of broilers may have a negative effect on the conservation of natural resources as well as a negative economic effect via increased prices to the consumer. Results suggest the need to communicate to consumers the supportive role that prudent, responsible use of antibiotics for animal disease treatment, control, and prevention plays in the sustainable production of broilers.","PeriodicalId":36788,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","volume":"38 1","pages":"79-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Distribution Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.232315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Rising consumer interest in how food is produced has resulted in the growth of antibiotic-free meat production and consumption. The antibiotic-free classification is most prominent in the poultry market as several producers and retail-chain companies have moved their marketing in that direction. This study examines the environmental and economic impacts of withdrawing antibiotics (including animal-only ionophores) from U.S. broiler production. Two systems—conventional and 100% antibiotic-free (ABF)—are modeled, examining differences between average survivability, space requirements, days to grow-out a defined sized bird, and days between production cycles. Data were obtained from the USDA, industry sources (e.g., Agri Stats, Vantress, Aviagen), and expert knowledge. Total output is calculated to compare the average quantity of edible broiler meat produced within each system. Results reveal a decline in average production in the ABF system for a given broiler house compared to the conventional system. Compared to broilers produced in a conventional system, birds raised in a single broiler house under ABF conditions will have an annual reduction of between 50,000–100,000 lbs of edible meat (breast, legs, thighs, wings) equivalent to between 265,000–530,000 individual 3 oz. single servings. This loss represents enough to feed 600–1,000 people annually, based on average annual consumption of chicken in the United States in 2012. In order to maintain the same supply of meat under ABF conditions, a typical broiler house will require between 15,000–33,000 more marketed broilers per year. Due to the additional broilers needed, eliminating antibiotic use has an environmental impact. Compared to a conventional house, chickens raised in a single broiler house under ABF conditions will require between 185,000–390,000 additional lbs. of feed per a year; between forty-two and ninety additional acres a year to produce that feed; between 33,000 and 78,000 additional gallons of water consumed; and between 157,000 and 333,000 additional tons of manure produced. In addition, the cost to produce edible prime meat in a broiler house under ABF conditions is between $52,000 and $110,000 per year.Findings suggest that eliminating the use of antibiotics in the raising of broilers may have a negative effect on the conservation of natural resources as well as a negative economic effect via increased prices to the consumer. Results suggest the need to communicate to consumers the supportive role that prudent, responsible use of antibiotics for animal disease treatment, control, and prevention plays in the sustainable production of broilers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从美国肉鸡生产中撤出抗生素对环境和经济的影响
消费者对食品生产方式的兴趣日益浓厚,导致了无抗生素肉类生产和消费的增长。不含抗生素的分类在家禽市场上最为突出,因为一些生产商和零售连锁公司已将其营销方向转向这一方向。本研究考察了从美国肉鸡生产中撤出抗生素(包括仅用于动物的离子载体)对环境和经济的影响。两种系统-传统和100%无抗生素(ABF) -进行了建模,检查了平均生存能力,空间要求,生长出确定大小的鸟的天数以及生产周期之间的天数之间的差异。数据来自美国农业部、行业来源(如Agri Stats、Vantress、Aviagen)和专家知识。计算总产量是为了比较每个系统生产的食用肉鸡肉的平均数量。结果显示,与传统系统相比,特定肉鸡舍的ABF系统的平均产量下降。与传统系统中生产的肉鸡相比,在ABF条件下在单个肉鸡房中饲养的鸡每年将减少50,000 - 100,000磅可食用肉(胸脯,腿,大腿,翅膀),相当于265,000 - - 530,000单份3盎司肉。根据2012年美国鸡肉的年平均消费量计算,这一损失足以养活每年600 - 1000人。为了在ABF条件下保持相同的肉类供应,一个典型的肉鸡场每年将需要15,000 - 33,000只以上的市场肉鸡。由于需要额外的肉鸡,消除抗生素的使用对环境有影响。与传统鸡舍相比,在ABF条件下,在单个肉鸡鸡舍中饲养的鸡将额外需要18.5万至 39万欧元的重量。每年的饲料;每年需要增加42到90英亩土地来生产饲料;额外消耗了3.3万至7.8万加仑的水;另外还产生了15.7万吨到33.3万吨粪肥。此外,在ABF条件下,在肉鸡房中生产可食用优质肉的成本在每年52,000美元到110,000美元之间。研究结果表明,在肉鸡饲养中取消抗生素的使用可能对自然资源的保护产生负面影响,并通过提高消费者的价格产生负面经济影响。结果表明,有必要向消费者宣传谨慎、负责任地使用抗生素治疗、控制和预防动物疾病对肉鸡可持续生产的支持作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Food Distribution Research
Journal of Food Distribution Research Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Adoption of Drying Added-Value Technologies in the Specialty Crop Industry The Consumer Choice of Market for Fresh Fruits: A Study of Attitudinal Factors and Market Attributes Consumer Preferences for Direct-to-Consumer Value-Added Agriculture in North Carolina: Preliminary Findings of Consumer Focus Groups Outreach Efforts at Standardizing Farm to Institution Reporting Metrics Factors Influencing Fruit and Vegetable Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Market Outlets with a Food Justice Mission: The Case of Fresh Stop Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1