Poultry Farms That Stop Antibiotics See Resistance Fall

When poultry farms avoided antibiotic use, their resistant bacteria drop was fast and vast. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Conventional poultry farms use antibiotics extensively, which contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. But farms that turn to organic practices, including a ban on antibiotics, can greatly reduce antibiotic-resistant bacteria within only the first year of the change. That’s according to a new study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. [Amy Sapkota et al., "Lower Prevalance of Antibiotic-resistant Enterococci on U.S. Conventional Poultry Farms that Transitioned to Organic Practices"]

The scientists studied 10 conventional poultry farms and 10 large-scale newly organic poultry farms. They tested for the presence of enterecocci, microorganisms commonly found in both conventional and organic poultry farms. And they compared the bacteria’s resistance to 17 antimicrobials. The researchers say they were surprised at how quick and precipitous was the fall in resistance.

Take Enterococcus faecalis: on the conventional farms, 67 percent were resistant to the antibiotic erythromycin, while only 18 percent were on the newly organic farms. And 42 percent of the same pathogen had a multidrug resistance on conventional farms, but that number dropped to 10 percent on the organic ones. The researchers expect drug-resistant bacteria levels to drop even further the longer a farm remains organic. Because if you’re going to count chickens, it’s a good idea to count bacteria too.


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.


—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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