Agriculture in industrialized nations such as the United States is a highly competitive business. As with all capitalist ventures, production costs must be minimized and profits maximized in order for an enterprise to be viable. The use of antibiotics in animal feed has been a cornerstone in this economic plan for more than thirty years.
In order to reduce the cost of caring for and feeding the animals, they are commonly housed close together in large groups. This increased population density tends to result in poorer health of the animals, but the use of antibiotics as feed additives compensates for the stress factors that result from overcrowding. Other common stress factors whose negative effects are partially mitigated by subtherapeutic administration of antimicrobials include shipping, substandard nutrition, and intensive breeding practices.
In addition, the routine use of small doses of antimicrobials has been shown to have the following benefits above and beyond compensating for less than optimal living conditions and environmental stresses:
A 1978 study, using 1974 dollar values and data, estimates that a direct increase of consumer cost per year of $500 million to $2.2 billion would result in the years following a ban on the agricultural use of antibiotics.
Rapid gains in body weight result in a reduction of the time between birth and market-readiness of the animals - thereby reducing the costs of production. Furthermore, fewer animals are runts; the average meat produced per animal is increased.
It is commonly accepted that antibiotics in animal feed promote higher utilization of nutrients with the direct benefit of lower feed costs. That is, animals that are given antibiotics in their feed require less feed on average.
It has been postulated by at least one study that low-levels of antibiotics administered routinely in animal feed may result in reduced need for therapeutic doses of antibiotics, which are linked, unquestionably to the rapid development of drug-resistant bacteria.