More than half the chicken produced by the U.S. integrated broiler industry in 2020 was raised without antibiotics.
According to industry data and sources, for the last three years most of the domestic industry – 52% to 56% – raised birds without using antibiotics or ionophore coccidiostats. In 2013, less than 3% of all birds were raised on a no antibiotics ever (NAE) program.
Antibiotic use trends
Dr. Greg Rennier, president of consulting firm Rennier Associates Inc., collects data and information about the poultry industry and works with WATT Global Media to produce the WATT/Rennier Poultry Confidence Index. As part of his research, he collects information on poultry health trends, including antibiotic usage.
In 2020, according to his data, 52% of the industry raised their birds no antibiotics ever (NAE). Additionally, 22% used only anticoccidial ionophores while 26% followed a reduced use program using only non-medically important antibiotics such as avilamycin, bacitracin and bambermycin.
In 2014, 45% of the industry used medically important antibiotics like virginiamycin, 23% followed a reduced use program, 29% used only ionophores and 3% raised birds NAE.
Antimicrobial resistance
This radical change was inspired by regulatory and commercial pressures.
In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enacted the Veterinary Feed Directive. At this time, the use of medically important antibiotics for growth promotion was eliminated due to the voluntary removal of growth promotion label claims on the medically important in-feed drugs by the pharmaceutical companies. The use of these drugs now requires veterinary oversight such as a prescription for in-feed and water-based antibiotics.
However, concerns about antibiotics existed well before 2017.
As the chicken industry grew from barnyards into integrated processing companies, feeding antibiotics to prevent disease became a common practice. Since 2010, regulatory and consumer concern has grown concerning the development antimicrobial resistant bacteria in poultry and other animal proteins.
Proponents of reducing antibiotic usage say cutting back preserves the effectiveness of antibiotics for human medicine and lowers the likelihood of developing resistant bacteria.
Consumer perceptions
Chris DuBois, senior vice president and protein practice leader at IRI, said antibiotic-free (ABF) and NAE poultry sales grew significantly in the past five years and the segment represents a growth engine for the industry. In 2015, NAE accounted for 15% of total chicken sales in the U.S. In 2021, 42% of chicken sold was NAE. Total NAE sales rose to $5.6 billion from $1.8 billion in the same period.
DuBois said few consumers understand the dynamics of the antibiotic policy in the poultry industry. Many still baselessly fear the presence of antibiotics and hormones in meat. Most assign a beneficial halo to ABF chicken, as well as organic, which consumers perceive as better than a conventional product.
Shoppers trust brands selling an ABF product. In the past five years, consumers purchased more ABF and more organic chicken, showing a real tendency to buy on the label claim rather than the price point. Organic chicken sales made up 6% of the chicken market and are projected to grow to 8% in the next five years, DuBois said.
Cost differences
Removing antibiotics from poultry production does affect bird productivity and grower and integrator profitability. How much, exactly, is difficult to quantify.
In 2019, 58% of the industry raised birds NAE. In 2020, Rennier told Poultry Health Today there was a pullback from some who tried NAE programs that found the birds too difficult to market or too costly to feed. Some who moved away from the NAE program switched to an ionophore only program because it was cheaper.
As the industry dialed back antibiotic usage, it increased the use of phytogenic feed additives and coccidiosis vaccinations. In 2020, about 75% of the U.S. broiler feed diet included a phytogenic additive and about 50% of the flock received a coccidiosis vaccine, Rennier said.
An industry source with knowledge of the cost dynamics involved with ABF or NAE said the cost difference between conventional and ABF/NAE programs is often difficult to calculate. For instance, some complexes use more expensive vegetable proteins in place of meat byproduct meals.
There are trade-offs in performance, too. Birds on ABF/NAE programs often grow slower and display worse feed conversion ratios. Mortality is higher in ABF/NAE and is often concentrated during the first week of the broiler’s life. This is likely due to the removal of antibiotics in the hatchery.
Mark Jordan, executive director of LEAP Market Analytics, said he observed a subtle but discernible increase in overall mortality in the past decade as ABF and NAE production grew. However, he didn’t identify any specific cost differences that would raise the cost of production by more than three cents per pound on a live production basis.
Future use trends
After a meteoric rise in the past decade, the segment of the industry growing NAE looks like it will stabilize in the future.
Between 2016 and 2018, the percentage of the industry growing birds NAE rose to 51% from 21%. Now, a trend of about half the industry raising birds NAE and the other raising birds either on a reduced antibiotics use program or an ionophores only program is emerging.
Industry sources with knowledge of the data said this trend will likely continue with fluctuations as demand for NAE chicken rises and falls.
Jordan said the share of birds raised with NAE should continue increasing for now, however, he believes it will plateau.
“Consumer preferences keep trending in a favorable direction for NAE production,” Jordan said. “The adverse effects on livability have not been as negative as initially feared.”
Its highly unlikely, short of a federal regulation, the industry will ever go completely ABF or NAE. Some birds will always need treatment and the market will always demand the lower cost product from less expensive production programs.
As the industry consolidates and the bigger companies gain a larger share of the market, there is a possibility the big companies will face greater pressure to grow ABF or NAE production, an industry source with knowledge of the data said.
DuBois forecasts shoppers will place more importance on sustainably in the future. Consumers, young and old, are interested in spending more on products they perceive as sustainable. Demand will rise for animals with elevated diet and welfare claims. When large companies in the market adopt new policies, others follow.
“I think we have an earthquake coming,” DuBois said.
