4.7 Article

Observations on the history of the development of antimicrobials and their use in poultry feeds

期刊

POULTRY SCIENCE
卷 82, 期 4, 页码 613-617

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/ps/82.4.613

关键词

antibiotic development; feed antibiotic use; history of feed antibiotic use

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antimicrobials are powerful tools, but controversy and conflict often follow power. The development of antimicrobials was marked by personal attacks, political intrigue, internal conflicts, and lawsuits. Such controversy and conflict has continued. The early history of supplementing animal feeds with antimicrobials parallels the isolation and identification of vitamin B-12. Vitamin B12 was isolated and characterized in 1948, but further research showed that several feed ingredients, including dried mycelia of certain fungi, were more potent as growth promoters in the diet of chicks than was vitamin B12 alone. The growth-promoting component in fungal mycelia was shown to have antimicrobial activity. A total of 32 antimicrobial compounds are approved for use in broiler feeds in the U.S. without a veterinary prescription. Fifteen compounds are listed for treatment of coccidiosis, 11 are listed as growth promotants, and six are listed for other purposes. Seven compounds are also used in human medicine. These compounds include bacitracin, chlotetra-cycline, erythromycin, lincomycin, novobiocin, oxytetracycline, and penicillin. No published estimates of antimicrobial use in animals exist at present, and estimates of that use differ markedly. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates usage at 30.6 million pounds, nearly 50% (49.85%) higher than the Animal Health Institute (AHI) estimate of 20.42 million pounds. AHI surveyed their members (the manufacturers of antimicrobials) to obtain their estimates, whereas USC calculated their estimates using published data and the following general formula: antimicrobial use = number of animals treated x average days treated x average dose.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据