Wspólnotowy Serwis Informacyjny Badan i Rozwoju - CORDIS

Ban effects on the pig production and antimicrobials growth promoters (AGP) alternatives

The economic effects are derived from a survey of experiments. Both on-farm and research station experiments testing different feed-additives are used. Without any in-feed substitutes, AGP ban would increase the fixed costs (buildings, permanent labour force) by about 5%, twice more than the increase in variable feed-costs (2.4%). In-feed alternative growth promoters, acidifiers for piglets and enzymes for fattening pigs in particular, are relatively profitable, especially for fixed production factors. The use of in-feed alternatives reduces the cost impact of the ban to about 2% for both fixed costs and feed costs. Based on experimental data these results do not take into account extra-costs due to additional manure (+3% with AGP substitutes) and additional therapeutic use of antibiotics.

Recent data, of the years following the EU partial AGP ban of 1999, show that the therapeutic use of antibiotics is the main short-term substitute of AGPs in real farms. In the long run, animal farm advisors insist on farm workers' training and good farming practices like all-in all-out system, hygiene and vaccines. Although later weaning was also used as a response to the Swedish unilateral AGP ban of 1986, its effectiveness and its economic efficiency remains debated among experts. Better practices take time to be implemented and proved efficient. As an example, the sanitary conditions and the therapeutic use of antibiotics in Swedish pig farms have come back to 1986 levels since 1996 only.

Reported by

National Institute of Agronomic Research, Dept. of Economics
INRA-ESR, 4 allée A. Bobierre, CS61103
35011 Rennes Cedex
France
Śledź nas na: RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube Zarządzany przez Urząd Publikacji UE W górę