Dive Brief:
-
By testing roosters for two chemicals, researchers at the U.S. Agriculture Department were able to identify birds with immune systems better equipped to fight off infection, according to Quartz. Breeding those with higher levels of two proteins — cytokines and chemokines — could result in flocks of "super chickens" that might not need antibiotics.
-
The study, published in the journal Poultry Science, found that when the two chemicals are released, they alert white blood cells about where invading pathogens may be, alerting the immune system and helping to avoid infections by pathogens such as Salmonella.
-
Ending the routine use of antibiotics in chicken could benefit public health and save the industry billions of dollars, Quartz reported. "The poultry industry is moving towards reduced therapeutics and, as such, our breeding strategy would be a viable method to incorporate into traditional poultry breeding programs," the researchers concluded.
Dive Insight:
This study could point the way to reducing, or even eliminating, the routine use of antibiotics in poultry. The issue of antibiotics in broiler hens has divided the industry and been a concern for some consumers who prefer their poultry without the added drugs.
Public health advocates say the routine use of medically important antibiotics — particularly as growth enhancers in poultry and other farmed animals — has led to more drug-resistant infections in humans. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such infections sicken more than 2 million people each year and cause at least 23,000 deaths.
And while Tyson Foods, Perdue Foods and other major poultry producers — along with major restaurant chains — are phasing out the routine use of antibiotics, not all chicken processors believe it's necessary, or even advisable. Mississippi-based Sanderson Farms, the third-largest chicken producer in the U.S., is the only major poultry company refusing to limit the use of such drugs.
Sanderson disagrees with claims that routine antibiotic use is harmful. In August 2016, Sanderson bucked the industry's "no antibiotics" trend by advertising why the company uses them and accusing competitors of making antibiotic-free claims as marketing gimmicks. Sanderson also argues the public health threat from routine antibiotic use in the bird is overblown and that the U.S. has an oversupply of antibiotic-free chicken, which has been driving down prices.
This USDA study could be a way around the antibiotics-in-poultry controversy, but it's unclear how long it would take to breed flocks of so-called "super chickens" and how much it would cost. However, as Quartz pointed out, chicken breeders are "masters of selective breeding" and are likely to implement useful research findings as soon as they can.
If the birds cost significantly more, consumers may be reluctant to pay for them regardless of the benefits — in the case of cage-free eggs, for example, the high price has been a deterrent for some shoppers. It's also tough to predict how consumers might feel about the idea of genetically enhancing the immune systems of poultry, even though breeding for stronger, better traits is a routine practice in animal agriculture. Chances are these concerns would be overridden by reaching a goal of antibiotic-free chickens, particularly ones with less incidence of Salmonella infection.