Jay P Graham1, John J Boland, Ellen Silbergeld. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Division of Environmental Health Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. jgraham@jhsph.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Considerable controversy persists regarding the use of human antibiotics to promote growth in animals raised for food. The authors examined the economic effect of removing antibiotics used for growth promotion in commercial broiler chickens. METHODS: The authors utilized data published by the Perdue company, the fourth largest poultry producer in the United States, in which a non-randomized controlled trial of growth-promoting antibiotic (GPA) use was conducted with seven million broiler chickens to evaluate the impact of removing GPAs on production. RESULTS: Positive production changes were associated with GPA use, but were insufficient to offset the cost of the antibiotics. The net effect of using GPAs was a lost value of 0.0093 dollars per chicken (about 0.45% of total cost). Based upon these data, the authors found no basis for the claim that the use of GPAs lowers the cost of production. Note that this study does not include veterinary cost changes or changes in performance variability associated with the removal of GPAs. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis is the first study to the authors' knowledge utilizing large-scale empirical data collected by U.S. industry, in which it is demonstrated that the use of GPAs in poultry production is associated with economic losses to the producers. These data are of considerable importance in the ongoing national debate concerning the continued use of antibiotics for growth promotion of food animals. Based on the industry study and the resulting economic impact, the use of GPAs in U.S. poultry production should be reconsidered.
OBJECTIVE: Considerable controversy persists regarding the use of human antibiotics to promote growth in animals raised for food. The authors examined the economic effect of removing antibiotics used for growth promotion in commercial broiler chickens. METHODS: The authors utilized data published by the Perdue company, the fourth largest poultry producer in the United States, in which a non-randomized controlled trial of growth-promoting antibiotic (GPA) use was conducted with seven million broiler chickens to evaluate the impact of removing GPAs on production. RESULTS: Positive production changes were associated with GPA use, but were insufficient to offset the cost of the antibiotics. The net effect of using GPAs was a lost value of 0.0093 dollars per chicken (about 0.45% of total cost). Based upon these data, the authors found no basis for the claim that the use of GPAs lowers the cost of production. Note that this study does not include veterinary cost changes or changes in performance variability associated with the removal of GPAs. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis is the first study to the authors' knowledge utilizing large-scale empirical data collected by U.S. industry, in which it is demonstrated that the use of GPAs in poultry production is associated with economic losses to the producers. These data are of considerable importance in the ongoing national debate concerning the continued use of antibiotics for growth promotion of food animals. Based on the industry study and the resulting economic impact, the use of GPAs in U.S. poultry production should be reconsidered.
Authors: A L Izat; M Colberg; M A Reiber; M H Adams; J T Skinner; M C Cabel; H L Stilborn; P W Waldroup Journal: Poult Sci Date: 1990-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Mark Casewell; Christian Friis; Enric Marco; Paul McMullin; Ian Phillips Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Richard J Johnson; Chris Rivard; Miguel A Lanaspa; Silvia Otabachian-Smith; Takuji Ishimoto; Christina Cicerchi; Peter R Cheeke; Bridgett Macintosh; Tanja Hess Journal: J Equine Vet Sci Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 1.583
Authors: Thomas P Van Boeckel; Charles Brower; Marius Gilbert; Bryan T Grenfell; Simon A Levin; Timothy P Robinson; Aude Teillant; Ramanan Laxminarayan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Daniela Ceccarelli; Arlene Chen; Nur A Hasan; Shah M Rashed; Anwar Huq; Rita R Colwell Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 4.792