No Antibiotics Ever"" Animal Production: Potential Impacts on Animal Welfare - Dr. Randall Singer, Professor of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, From the 2018 Animal Agriculture Alliance Stakeholders Summit, Protect Your Roots, May 3 - 4, 2018, Arlington, VA, USA. More presentations at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9xWTLbiBMQQi8L_WHIWcjA

1.  Randall Singer Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC
University of Minnesota
 Dan Thomson Thomson Livestock Consulting, LLC
Kansas State University
 Jennifer Wishnie Wishnie Consulting, LLC and
California Polytechnic University
 Mallory Gage Gage Group Consulting, LLC
 Leah Porter Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC
 Amanda Beaudoin Mindwalk Consulting Group, LLC
University of Minnesota
Potential Impacts of No Antibiotics Ever /
Raised Without Antibiotics Production on
Animal Health and Welfare

2. • Ensuring the safety, health, and overall well-being
of animals raised for food is an ethical obligation
• Changes have been made to antibiotic use in animal
agriculture
– Many producers, especially in poultry, have eliminated
much of their antibiotic use
– Shift to raising animals without antibiotics (RWA)
• Demand for RWA products is growing in the U.S.
but there are concerns that RWA claims and
associated practices are negatively affecting animal
health and welfare
Introduction

3. • The objective of this project was to survey
veterinarians and producers in animal agriculture
about their experiences and opinions of raising
animals without antibiotics (RWA)
• The survey was designed in Qualtrics and was
announced and disseminated through professional
organizations and commodity groups
• The survey was open from February 15 through
March 23, 2018
• Data were analyzed in Qualtrics, Stata and Excel
Approach

4. Total Broiler Turkey Swine Beef Dairy
Role 565 69 23 148 244 81
Practicing Veterinarian 43.9% 31.9% 52.2% 37.6% 43.4% 64.2%
Research/Academic/Government
Veterinarian
5.1% 1.5% 4.4% 4.7% 4.1% 12.4%
Research/Academic/Government
Non-veterinarian
1.1% 2.9% - 0.7% 1.2% -
Manager/Producer/Grower/
Rancher/Owner
37.9% 26.1% 26.1% 47.3% 44.3% 14.8%
Technical Services 7.8% 29.0% 13.0% 5.4% 2.9% 7.4%
Other 4.3% 8.7% 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 1.2%
Country of Experience
United States 95.2% 86.8% 95.8% 96.0% 97.5% 92.6%
International 4.8% 13.2% 4.2% 4.1% 2.5% 7.4%
Experience with RWA
Current Experience 42.7% 63.8% 95.7% 33.8% 36.1% 45.7%
Previous Experience 13.5% 2.9% - 20.3% 13.5% 13.6%
No Experience 43.9% 33.3% 4.4% 46.0% 50.4% 40.7%
Characteristics of Participants

5. Broiler Turkey Swine Beef Dairy
RWA Respondents 42 22 75 116 44
To decrease antibiotic resistance 26.2% 9.1% 13.3% 19.8% 2.3%
To improve animal health and welfare 35.7% 13.6% 13.3% 15.5% 9.1%
To increase sale price of animals/product 26.2% 36.4% 54.7% 38.8% 9.1%
To gain market entry into a retail program 31.0% 54.6% 40.0% 27.6% 9.1%
To fulfill a client/customer request 83.3% 81.8% 69.3% 65.5% 77.3%
To eliminate the use of medically important
antibiotics
19.1% 4.6% 8.0% 9.5% 4.6%
Conventional Respondents 17 1 67 121 31
Not profitable 29.4% - 28.4% 20.7% 6.5%
Concerned about negative impacts to animal
health and welfare
94.1% - 76.1% 65.3% 64.5%
No market pressure 17.7% - 31.3% 25.6% 19.4%
Not a sustainable consumer trend 41.2% - 25.4% 12.4% 9.7%
Food safety concerns 17.7% - 28.4% 8.3% 19.4%
Already eliminated the use of medically
important antibiotics
5.9% - 22.4% 5.0% 9.7%
Already raising animals in a responsible use
program
58.8% - 73.1% 56.2% 71.0%
Factors Contributing to Decision to
Raise Animals RWA or Conventionally

6. Broiler Turkey Swine Beef Dairy
RWA Respondents 42 22 75 116 44
Industry sponsored program 11.9% 4.6% 5.3% 15.5% 20.5%
Private/Retail/Restaurant/Food Service program 64.3% 36.4% 45.3% 34.5% 18.2%
Packer/Processor program 19.1% 27.3% 52.0% 31.9% 22.7%
State/Federal government program 16.7% 22.7% 1.3% 4.3% 13.6%
No program 4.8% 36.4% 18.7% 37.1% 22.7%
RWA Program Types Used or
Considered

7. Broiler Turkey Beef Dairy
RWA Respondents 42 22 116 44
Industry sponsored quality assurance program 50.0% 22.7% 25.9% 47.7%
Private/Retail/Restaurant/Food Service animal welfare
program
69.1% 45.5% 17.2% 18.2%
Packer/Processor animal welfare program 26.2% 36.4% 16.4% 15.9%
State/Federal government animal welfare program 11.9% 9.1% 5.2% 4.6%
No program 4.8% 18.2% 56.0% 22.7%
Conventional Respondents 17 1 121 31
Industry sponsored quality assurance program 64.7% - 30.6% 75.2%
Private/Retail/Restaurant/Food Service animal welfare
program
52.9% - 9.1% 12.9%
Packer/Processor animal welfare program 58.8% - 8.3% 25.8%
State/Federal government animal welfare program 41.2% - 3.3% 6.5%
No program - - 62.0% 19.4%
Welfare Programs by RWA Experience

8. RWA Conventional
Programs 74 67
PQA Plus/Common Swine Industry Audit 79.7% 92.5%
NOS – National Organic Standard 4.1%
GAP 17.6% 1.5%
Certified Humane (Humane Farm Animal Care) 5.4% 1.5%
American Humane Certified 2.7% 3.0%
Animal Welfare Approved 8.1% 4.5%
Privately owned/facilitated animal welfare program 23.0% 25.4%
No program 12.2% 6.0%
Swine Welfare Programs by RWA
Experience

9. Disease Challenges - Broiler
4
1
36
0
1
4
11
1
3
2
3
9
22
2
3
1
4
6
2
3
2
6
11
11
5
3
1
2
2
3
5
4
2
3
8
8
7
8
7
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
7
10
9
12
3
2
4
3
5
2
1
15
3
12
5
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
12
15
4
3
4
2
7
3
3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Viral Enteric Disease
Gangrenous Dermatitis
Cellulitis / IP
Kinky Back
Airsacculitis
Bacterial Osteomyelitis
Necrotic Enteritis
Kinky Back
Bacterial Osteomyelitis
Viral Enteric Disease
Cellulitis / IP
Gangrenous Dermatitis
Airsacculitis
Necrotic Enteritis
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
1
3 3
7
15
12
36
2
33
11
7
12
5
3
3
2
8
10
3
15
2
6 8
9
12
4
1
22
5
7
4
2
4
9
11
8
3 2
4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Airsacculitis
Bacterial Osteomyelitis
Cellulitis / IP
Gangrenous Dermatitis
Kinky Back
Necrotic Enteritis
Viral Enteric Disease
3
2 2
3 3 3
11
2
2 1
1
4
2
2
7
4
5
2
2
3
1 3
4
5
3
1 2
3
4
3 34
6
4
1 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Airsacculitis
Bacterial Osteomyelitis
Cellulitis / IP
Gangrenous Dermatitis
Kinky Back
Necrotic Enteritis
Viral Enteric Disease

10. Health & Welfare Challenges - Broiler
2
6
7
25
0
1
5
4
7
1
2
8
14
7
8
1
4
3
5
4
5
11
8
14
2
2
2
8
2
3
4
6
6
8
5
8
3
1
5
2
2
3
2
2
4
14
7
7
4
2
2
5
2
3
2
2
1
2
13
10
11
3
1
2
3
2
7
2
2
1
19
9
9
1
2
8
6
2
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Corneal Lesions
Soiled Feathers
Runting / Stunting
Footpad Lesions
Negative Impacts on Performance
Lameness
Increased Morbidity / Mortality
Soiled Feathers
Runting / Stunting
Corneal Lesions
Lameness
Footpad Lesions
Increased Morbidity / Mortality
Negative Impacts on Performance
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
4 4
13
19
2
8
11
8 7
3
1
25
8 2
3
2
7
7 14
8
2
2
6
14
8
5
4
1
2
2 5
6
7
11
9
1
6
14
10 9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Soiled Feathers
Runting / Stunting
Negative Impacts on
Performance
Lameness
Increased Morbidity /
Mortality
Footpad Lesions
Corneal Lesions
1
2 2
3
7
2
5 3
2
3
2
2
4
5
3
2
1
2
1
4 8
2
2
7
4
2
2
1
1
2
5
2
2
6
1
5
3
8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Soiled Feathers
Runting / Stunting
Negative Impacts on
Performance
Lameness
Increased Morbidity /
Mortality
Footpad Lesions
Corneal Lesions

11. Impacts on Production and Management
Broiler
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
Decreased No Change Increased Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=41)
Downtime
(n=42)
Stocking Density
(n=42)
Grower Pay
(n=42)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
7-Day Mortality
(n=41)
Total Mortality
(n=42)
Feed Conversion
(n=42)
Condemnation
(n=41)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
7-Day Mortality
(n=17)
Total Mortality
(n=17)
Feed Conversion
(n=17)
Condemnation
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional

12. Disease Challenges - Turkey
2
1
4
4
3
8
1
2
2
2
6
7
2
1
1
1
1
6
4
5
3
1
2
2
1
2
4
4
2
4
1
1
1
2
5
5
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
4
3
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
5
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
6
3
2
2
1
3
7
2
2
3
4
1
3
7
3
5
1
1
2
8
2
6
2
1
1
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mycoplasmosis
Pseudomonas
Aspergillosis (Brooder
Pneumonia)
Gangrenous Dermatitis
Paratyphoid or Salmonellosis
Omphalitis
Bacterial Osteomyelitis /
Lameness
Cellulitis
Airsacculitis / Other Resp. Disease
Bacterial Enteritis
Coccidiosis
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Least
RWA Production

13. Health & Welfare Challenges - Turkey
1
2
4
6
8
2
2
5
6
6
1
2
2
3
7
5
1
5
5
7
4
3
3
5
4
2
2
2
2
7
6
3
2
1
14
4
1
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Corneal Lesions
Soiled Feathers
Footpad Lesions
Lameness
Runting / Stunting
Increased Morbidity / Mortality
Negative Impacts on
Performance
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
RWA Production

14. Impacts on Production and Management
Turkey
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
Decreased No Change Increased Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
7-Day Mortality
(n=22)
Total Mortality
(n=22)
Feed Conversion
(n=22)
Condemnation
(n=22)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=22)
Downtime
(n=22)
Stocking Density
(n=22)
Grower Pay
(n=22)
RelativeFrequency
RWA

15. Disease Challenges - Swine
1
6
7
30
27
0
1
2
14
20
29
1
10
10
11
13
26
2
4
10
19
16
14
2
9
15
21
11
13
3
3
21
15
14
11
3
21
18
13
11
5
2
14
19
14
12
5
14
23
16
12
6
9
35
11
2
3
6
51
7
6
7
49
10
3
2
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Erysipelas
Salmonella
Ileitis
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus
parasuis and Streptococcus suis
Post weaning hemolytic E. coli
Erysipelas
Salmonella
Ileitis
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Post weaning hemolytic E. coli
Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus
parasuis and Streptococcus suis
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
1
10 9
21 23
7
27
26
13
5
7
11
21 13
12
7
6
10
15
18
16
6
1
2 3 14
51
30
13 11 11
6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Rank
Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus
parasuis and Streptococcus suis
Erysipelas
Ileitis
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Post weaning hemolytic E. coli
Salmonella
4 3
14
35
10
20
16
14
12
3
1
14
19
15
14
2
2
2
10
21
19
11
3
1
2
3
2
9
49
29
14
11
5 6
1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Rank
Actinobacillus suis, Haemophilus
parasuis and Streptococcus suis
Erysipelas
Ileitis
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Post weaning hemolytic E. coli
Salmonella

16. Health & Welfare Challenges - Swine
3
3
4
13
47
0
4
3
4
3
7
45
5
6
4
8
31
16
3
4
6
10
30
13
4
9
16
23
14
4
16
11
12
14
12
1
14
7
24
17
6
2
9
20
14
10
8
5
23
13
14
13
6
1
11
19
20
11
5
24
32
9
5
23
9
10
18
4
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reproductive system disorders
Damaging behaviors
(tail/ear/flank biting)
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Central nervous system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Damaging behaviors
(tail/ear/flank biting)
Central nervous system disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
45
13
1
5
2
3
10
14
10
11
18
4
6
12 14 20
10
7
30
12 8 5
4
4 3
16
9 11
23
3 4
11
20 19
9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Rank
Central nervous system disorders
Damaging behaviors
(tail/ear/flank biting)
Digestive system disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
47
16
4 2 1
5
4
14
23 24
3
4
16
24
14
9
13
31
14
6
6
3
6
9
7 13
32
4
8
23
17
13
5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 Least
Rank
Central nervous system disorders
Damaging behaviors
(tail/ear/flank biting)
Digestive system disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders

17. Impacts on Production and Management
Swine
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
Decreased No Change Increased Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Feed
Efficiency
(n=73)
Morbidity
(n=73)
Mortality
(n=74)
Age at
Slaughter
(n=73)
Weight at
Slaughter
(n=73)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weaning
Age
(n=71)
Air
Filtering
(n=72)
Personnel
(n=71)
Biosecurity
(n=71)
Space
Allowance
(n=71)
Bedding
(n=70)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weaning
Age
(n=67)
Air
Filtering
(n=67)
Personnel
(n=67)
Biosecurity
(n=67)
Space
Allowance
(n=67)
Bedding
(n=67)
RelativeFreuency
Conventional
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Feed
Efficiency
(n=66)
Morbidity
(n=66)
Mortality
(n=67)
Age at
Slaughter
(n=67)
Weight at
Slaughter
(n=67)
RelativeFreuency
Conventional

18. Disease Challenges - Beef
3
3
6
3
14
17
65
0
7
3
4
15
90
1
2
16
10
15
20
28
19
1
4
1
9
16
29
48
13
5
3
6
15
35
24
18
5
5
8
5
12
19
45
19
7
7
6
3
14
32
23
17
9
3
8
4
13
50
14
21
7
5
20
11
27
13
16
13
6
9
13
17
29
23
16
11
2
13
42
15
17
8
7
6
3
15
11
54
22
9
5
4
23
25
39
10
3
5
4
2
20
57
22
15
3
2
1
54
13
18
12
2
2
8
2
67
19
17
13
4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Central Nervous System…
Digital Dermatitis
Liver Abscessation
Anaplasmosis
Foot Rot Lameness
Pink Eye
Calf Scours
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Central Nervous System…
Liver Abscessation
Digital Dermatitis
Anaplasmosis
Foot Rot Lameness
Pink Eye
Calf Scours
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
7 9 12 13
29
22
15 13
90
13 7 7
2
1
15
48
19 21
11
4
2
1
5 3
9
15
20
67
1
5 4
17
54
22
17
3
16
19
50
23
9
4
8
8
13
11
57
19
4
29
45
14 16
5 3 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Rank
Pink Eye
Liver Abscessation
Foot Rot Lameness
Digital Dermatitis
Central Nervous System
Disorders
Calf Scours
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Anaplasmosis
6 10
15 14
27
17
10 12
65
19 5 9
6
3
2 2
17
28
18
17
13
6
4
8
3
1
5
7
5
13
23
54
2
3
6
20 42
25
13
3
15
35
32
13
8
3
2
3
16 6
3
11
15
39
18
14
20 24 23
16
7 5 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Rank
Pink Eye
Liver Abscessation
Foot Rot Lameness
Digital Dermatitis
Central Nervous System
Disorders
Calf Scours
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Anaplasmosis

19. Health & Welfare Challenges - Beef
1
2
2
11
85
0
1
4
8
3
100
8
13
29
39
12
2
20
38
45
11
18
32
29
20
2
15
21
35
41
4
33
18
34
16
32
52
15
16
1
41
36
7
15
2
66
19
20
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Central nervous system
disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Musculoskeletal system
disorders
Digestive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Central nervous center disorders
Musculoskeletal system
disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Most 2 3 4 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
1 2
15
32
66
3
45
41
16
11
4
20
21
52
19
8
38
35
15 20
100
11
4 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 Least
Rank
Respiratory system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Central nervous system disorders
1
8
18
33
41
11
39 20
16
15
2
29
29
34
7
2
13 32
18
36
85
12
2 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 Least
Rank
Respiratory system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Central nervous system disorders

20. Impacts on Production and Management
Beef
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
Decreased No Change Increased Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Personnel
Requirements
(n=121)
Feed
Efficiency
(n=121)
Cattle
Mortality
(n=121)
Death Loss
(n=121)
Age at
Slaughter
(n=121)
RelativeFreuency
Conventional
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Personnel
Requirements
(n=114)
Feed
Efficiency
(n=115)
Cattle
Mortality
(n=113)
Death Loss
(n=114)
Age at
Slaughter
(n=114)
RelativeFrequency
RWA

21. Disease Challenges - Dairy
3
7
3
4
27
0
3
1
2
7
8
10
1
1
6
8
9
9
10
5
11
6
2
7
3
2
5
16
13
5
1
3
2
4
4
2
8
7
1
2
5
8
6
7
14
1
1
3
8
2
3
5
7
2
3
8
9
11
6
5
2
1
4
2
7
6
6
2
3
3
6
13
8
8
3
2
1
6
10
3
5
3
3
1
15
11
9
5
3
1
1
10
7
7
2
2
1
1
21
16
5
1
1
27
2
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Anaplasmosis
Metabolic Disorder
Digital Dermatitis
Foot Rot Lameness
Calf Scours
Metritis
Mastitis
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Anaplasmosis
Foot Rot Lameness
Digital Dermatitis
Metabolic Disorder
Metritis
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Calf Scours
Mastitis
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
11
4 3
6 5
22
5
4
2
7
3
7
1
10
7
7
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
4
6
10
2
1
2
8
2
10
7
1
8
2 8
7
2
3
17 6
2
5 6
3 2
1 1 1 1
27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Rank
Anaplasmosis
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Calf Scours
Digital Dermititis
Foot Rot Lameness
Mastitis
Metabolic Disorder
Metritis
3
9
16
7
5
3
1
1
2
8
6 11
16
4
9
13
14
2
2
3
6
2
8
11
8 5
1
3
5
9
13
9
5
7
8
5
6
6
8
3
1
27
10
5
1
1
1 1
3 3
15
21
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 7 Least
Rank
Anaplasmosis
Bovine Respiratory Disease
Calf Scours
Digital Dermititis
Foot Rot Lameness
Mastitis
Metabolic Disorder
Metritis

22. Health & Welfare Challenges - Dairy
1
2
8
9
23
0
5
2
4
2
8
10
1
1
2
2
27
10
2
8
12
3
6
1
5
5
19
6
7
2
5
3
4
10
7
4
8
4
15
9
1
2
1
4
6
4
9
4
3
9
12
8
10
3
1
2
2
5
10
4
5
3
10
16
15
1
1
1
18
9
2
1
19
6
9
8
1
27
2
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mammary gland disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Pneumonia
Central nervous system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Mammary gland disorders
Pneumonia
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Reproductive system disorders
Central nervous system disorders
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Conventional Production
RWA Production
1 2 1
27
8
3
10
4
5
1
4
8
3
4
10
2
2
12
4
9
4
2
2
5
6
5
9
2
5
2
4
2
18
10
6 7
3 3 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Central nervous system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Mammary gland disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Pneumonia
Reproductive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders
1 1
5 4
8
15
9
23
10
7
2
1
2
2
5
15 10
1
81
8 12
16
6
1
4
9
10
19
9
27
6
1
8
2
19
9
3
1 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Most 2 3 4 5 6 Least
Rank
Central nervous system disorders
Digestive system disorders
Mammary gland disorders
Musculoskeletal system disorders
Pneumonia
Reproductive system disorders
Respiratory system disorders

23. Impacts on Production and Management
Dairy
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age at Slaughter
(n=17)
Downtime
(n=17)
Stocking Density
(n=17)
Grower Pay
(n=17)
RelativeFrequency
Conventional
Decreased No Change Increased Not sure
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Personnel
Requirements
(n=44)
Feed
Efficiency
(n=44)
Milk Yield
Performance
(n=43)
Culling Rate
(n=44)
Cattle
Morbidity
(n=44)
Somatic Cell
Count
(n=43)
RelativeFrequency
RWA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Personnel
Requirements
(n=31)
Feed
Efficiency
(n=31)
Milk Yield
Performance
(n=31)
Culling Rate
(n=31)
Cattle
Morbidity
(n=30)
Somatic Cell
Count
(n=31)
RelativeFreuency
Conventional

24. 1
3
2
4
14
19
8
13
6
5
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
Food Safety – What Respondent Believes
6 2
3
16
8
16
6
2
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
1696
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Significantly Worsen Slightly Worsen No Impact Slightly Improve Significantly Improve
3
8
1
2
25
30
28
27
10
8
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
6
21
3
14
65
60
31
19
16
2
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
How do you think raised without antibiotics production impacts food safety?

25. Food Safety – Perception of Customer Beliefs
4
6
8
5
17
31
11
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
7
9
3
10
6
212
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Significantly Worsen Slightly Worsen No Impact Slightly Improve Significantly Improve
3 12411
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
11
13
19
22
35
40
2
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
14
9
31
36
74
69
11
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food services think raised without antibiotics production
impacts food safety?

26. 2
3
1
12
8
18
20
20
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
Health & Welfare – What Respondent Believes
3 7 3
3
16
14
13
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
3 11512
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Significantly Worsen Slightly Worsen No Impact Slightly Improve Significantly Improve
1
6 48
22
21
44
36
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
1
12
4
9
5
16
35
48
76
30
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
How do you think raised without antibiotics production impacts animal health and welfare?

27. Health & Welfare – Perception of Customer Beliefs
11
10
3
8
15
23
1
1
1
1
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
2
5
4
25
10
102
1
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Significantly Worsen Slightly Worsen No Impact Slightly Improve Significantly Improve
2 1351
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
16
16
20
23
24
33
7
3
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
27
27
34
25
51
58
5
2
4
2
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
In your opinion, how do retailers/restaurants/food services think raised without antibiotics production
impacts animal health and welfare?

28. RWA Impacts on Cost
1
20
12
21
4
17
5
19
13
5
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost
RWA
Cost
Conventional
Demand
RWA
Demand
Conventional
Significantly Decrease Slightly Decrease No Impact Slightly Increase Significantly Increase
20
21
46
445
1
41
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
5
7
32
41
80
58
2
4
2
6
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
4
21
13
191
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
1
12
18
15
19
4
42
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
5 161
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey

29. RWA Impacts on Demand
1
20
12
21
4
17
5
19
13
5
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cost
RWA
Cost
Conventional
Demand
RWA
Demand
Conventional
Significantly Decrease Slightly Decrease No Impact Slightly Increase Significantly Increase
51
41
57
56
7
17
5
2
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
12
20
5
17 5
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
2
16
22
20
7
321
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
715
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
41
39
20
31
1
3
5
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine

30. There are times that maintaining an RWA label has
priority over flock/herd health and welfare
6
4
5
0
5
1
3
1
9
0
12
3
12
1
12
6
10
11
10
7
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Label Priority
RWA
Label Priority
Conventional
Auditing
RWA
Auditing
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
2
2
14
311
1
2
14
8
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
22
34
35
20
11
13
8
9
45
39
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
12
23
17
27
2
5
6
3
30
17
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
7 1023
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
1
12
11
109
1
5
4
6
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler

31. Respondent Opinion on the Need for More
RWA Auditing/Assessment
5
9
18
27
4
3
3
3
1
2
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
6
4
5
0
5
1
3
1
9
0
12
3
12
1
12
6
10
11
10
7
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Label Priority
RWA
Label Priority
Conventional
Auditing
RWA
Auditing
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree
38
43
53
35
16
18
6
8
5
12
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
20
29
28
24
14
17
5
23
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
6 8 512
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
6
12
7
10
3
12
1
35
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler

32. 5
9
14
17
8
7
3
63
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stongly Agree
Antibiotic use in my animals does not cause
problems in humans
7 121
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
1
11
2
17
13
9
1
31
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
5
11
21
23
35
27
5
6
1
3
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
14
26
34
35
60
27
8
17
5
3
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef

33. 2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stongly Agree
6
13 5
9
7
13
13
3
5
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
Antibiotic use in my animals will make it harder to
treat infections in my animals in the future
3
12
1
7
3
8
3
11
6
3
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
6 2437
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
6
23
2
6
15
11
31
27
11
5
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
29
55
6
9
25
21
34
20
23
8
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef

34. 2
5
5
11
13
17
10
8
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Dairy
2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stongly Agree
Antibiotic use in my animals leads to bacterial
infections in humans that are more difficult to treat
2
1
2
1
5
3
17
11
16
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
2 1315
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
1
3
2
1
9
6
20
26
35
33
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
2
8
4
2
12
35
46
33
50
30
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef

35. 2
6
13
14
16
8
16
3
16
3
3
0
6
0
7
0
2
0
3
0
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Food Safety
RWA
Food Safety
Conventional
Health & Welfare
RWA
Health & Welfare
Conventional
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stongly Agree
I would be willing to treat my animals with
antibiotic alternatives if they were equally effective
9
13
7
252
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Broiler
1 6 15
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
RWA
Turkey
34
28
27
42
3
11
1
2
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Swine
58
61
54
43
6
72
2
1
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
RWA
Beef
16 1211
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conventional
Dairy

36. • Across all surveyed commodities, the main reason
for going RWA was market-driven: “to fulfill a
client/customer request”
– “Market entry” and “Sale price” were also important
• Main concern expressed by Conventional
respondents for not going RWA was: “Concerned
about negative impacts to animal health and
welfare”
– Most already in a Responsible Antibiotic Use program
Conclusions

37. • Huge discrepancy between what the Respondent
believes and the perception of what the Customer /
Retailer believes
– Respondents across all commodities believe that RWA
worsens animal health and welfare, whereas they think
that the Customer believes that health and welfare are
significantly improved
– Difference not as pronounced regarding opinion about
impacts on food safety
Conclusions

38. • Across all surveyed commodities, respondents
agreed with the statement that their antibiotic use
does not cause problems in humans and disagreed
with the statement that their use leads to human
infections that are more difficult to treat
• Across all surveyed commodities, respondents
were mixed in their opinion regarding the
relationship between their own antibiotic use and
the ability to treat animal infections
Conclusions

39. • Many respondents felt that there are times when
the RWA label takes priority over animal health and
welfare
• Across all surveyed commodities, respondents
generally felt that there was a need for increased
auditing of animal health and welfare in RWA
systems
Conclusions

40. Acknowledgments