Maryn McKenna's Book Big Chicken Looks at Poultry's Effect on Antibiotic Resistance

How chicken farming got juiced

Matt Collins

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Summer of '45. The war is winding down. Now the call to arms is about to be replaced by a call to wings. The time has come for the Chicken of Tomorrow contest.

As Maryn McKenna details in her fun, fascinating and sometimes frightening new book Big Chicken, the aim of this nationwide breeding challenge was to create, you guessed it, a big chicken. A very big chicken. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture started keeping stats in 1925, the average weight of a chicken at slaughter was 2.5 pounds. The Chicken of Tomorrow winner, one Charles Vantress, bred a chicken that, 86 days after hatching (as per contest rules), weighed a full pound more than that. And a pound of meat multiplied by millions of chickens was worth a lot of bucks.

Nobody bothered to run a follow-up Chicken of the Day After Tomorrow contest. Nevertheless, today's massive, mass-produced U.S. birds can weigh in at six pounds—and get there in just 47 days, according to McKenna. This accelerated growth resulted from a combination of continued breeding experiments and widespread use of growth promoters—vitamins and, especially, antibiotics.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Just as the Chicken of Tomorrow contest was wrapping up, Lederle Laboratories biochemist Thomas Jukes discovered that chickens that ate feed spiked with antibiotics really packed on the pounds. Farmers could also pack in the birds cheek by fowl, with decreased concerns about infectious diseases, thanks to this premeditated medication.

The agricultural boom took place despite warnings about the dangers of antibiotic overuse and drug resistance from the discoverer of penicillin himself, Alexander Fleming. But economic euphoria convinced most agricultural businesses to give antibiotic resistance no attention or little. (Chicken. Little. Chicken Little. It's a joke, I say, it's a joke, son.)

The love affair with antibiotics also led to a brief fad in the 1950s captured by the sales pitch “Our Poultry Is Acronized!”—a word created from Greek roots to mean “detached from time” or “timeless.” Dead chickens were dipped like little Achilles into a solution of antibiotics. The resulting surface film could make them invulnerable to microbes for up to a month—an infinity in shelf life conferred by the bird bath.

But chicken-dipping workers started getting skin infections. And foodborne illness outbreaks, though not necessarily related to the dipping, prompted fresh research. “Acronizing treatment changed the mix of bacteria on the surface of meat,” McKenna writes, “encouraging resistant bacteria to develop and multiply.” Eventually a new slogan pitched chickens: “Non-Acronized.” Tempus sure does fugit.

All this tinkering—without genetic modification in the modern GMO sense, by the way—has been part of a chicken explosion. In 1909, McKenna writes, “in the entire United States, 154 million chickens were sold for meat.” Today the figure is almost nine billion. That's a lot of chicken salad (especially with the human population increasing only about fourfold). And the vast majority of antibiotics sold in the U.S.—some 80 percent—go to animals. Because most of those drugs are also used to fight human infections, drug-resistant bugs that arise on the farm continue to threaten our own health.

But an almost breathtaking development (not the result of a respiratory infection) is under way. As McKenna notes, in 2014 Perdue Farms chair Jim Perdue (who holds a fisheries doctorate, go figure) announced that his company had stopped using growth-promoting antibiotics in 2007—and was still able to raise profitable poultry. It helped that Perdue's research showed that growth promoters had lost their oomph, but let's not look a gift chicken in the beak. A few months before Perdue went public, Chick-fil-A joined the same sect, declaring that its chicken would be antibiotic-free by 2019. McDonald's, Subway, Costco, Walmart all followed, as did Tyson Foods—America's most prolific chicken king.

As antibiotic-raised chicken flickers across the land, recall the poetic words of Emily Dickinson: “Hope is the thing with feathers.” Even if it ends up plucked.

Steve Mirsky was the winner of a Twist contest in 1962, for which he received three crayons and three pieces of construction paper. It remains his most prestigious award.

More by Steve Mirsky
Scientific American Magazine Vol 317 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Poultry Problems” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 317 No. 5 (), p. 82
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1117-82

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe