Adding antibiotics to chicken feed for growth not
cost-effective
By Tim Parsons School of Public Health
The widespread practice of adding antibiotics to chicken
feed for growth promotion is not cost-effective, according
to a study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. They found that increases in the size of
antibiotic-fed chickens did not offset the added cost of
the feed. Overall, farmers lost about one penny per
antibiotic-fed chicken. The study, published in the
January-February issue of Public Health Reports, is
the first economic analysis of the use of antibiotics in
poultry.
For the study, Jay Graham and Ellen Silbergeld, both
of the Bloomberg School's
Center for a Livable
Future, and John Boland, professor emeritus in the
Whiting School's
Department of
Geography and Environmental Engineering, analyzed the
marginal profits associated with drug additives in
comparison to the costs of utilizing these drugs. The data
used in the analysis were compiled by the Perdue Corp., a
leading broiler-poultry producer. In 2002, Perdue
discontinued use of antibiotics in its poultry.
The results of the economic analysis indicated that
the net effect of using growth-promoting antibiotics in
feed was a loss of $0.0093 per chicken, or about 0.45
percent of the total cost per chicken. The results do not
include potential changes in veterinary costs from
switching to antibiotic-free feed or medical and public
health costs incurred from treating antibiotic-resistant
illnesses.
"Although Perdue has discontinued the use of
growth-promoting antibiotics, our study remains relevant
both in the United States and internationally," said
Graham, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in
the Bloomberg School's
Department of Environmental Health Sciences. "Roughly
two-thirds of the 8.7 billion broiler chickens raised in
this country are fed antibiotics throughout their life.
Internationally, poultry production is growing rapidly,
mostly in developing countries where there are limited
controls on antibiotic use for animals. Further," he said,
"the results of our study help dispel the myth that
growth-promoting antibiotics are vital to raising poultry."
According to Silbergeld, co-author of the study and a
professor in the Bloomberg School's
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, the public
health community has long had concerns about the potential
misuse of antibiotics in food animal production. "This
practice has been associated with the dangerous increases
in the number of antibiotic-resistant infections in people
worldwide," she said. "Our study considered the economic
costs and benefits of antibiotic feed additives, and the
results suggest that the industry should rethink its
practices from a business perspective."
GO TO MARCH 12, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
GO TO THE GAZETTE
FRONT PAGE.
|