Antibiotic growth promoters in animal nutrition

From 01. 07./09. 1999 on six further antibiotic growth promoters have been banned - with only four substances remaining in this group of feed additive s. Therefore, the discussion on a possible induction of bacterial resistanc e by antibiotic growth promoters, especially in potentially pathogenic bact eria, will sooner or later come to an end which is not least in the interes t of the reputation of animal husbandry and food of animal origin. Unfortun ately, no short-term solution for health problems by legislation - especial ly in the gastrointestinal tract - during rearing and the beginning of the fattening period is possible as experiences in Sweden have distinctively sh own. Anyway, growth promoting feed additives were not a cure-all of rearing problems, in spite of their use considerable amounts of antibiotics were p rescribed during this period. But growth promoters (especially chinoxalines ) were most suitable for the prophylaxis of a microbial imbalance in the ga strointestinal tract. Therefore, after the ban of these effective represent atives of feed additives the amount of prescribed antimicrobial drugs for m etaphylaxis and therapy should be critically observed. The questions of pra cticable alternatives will be primarily addressed to the fields of animal n utrition, veterinary medicine and feed industry. To answer these questions and to evolve new solutions (as well as to check their suitability in pract ice) is considerably more intricate than simply to ban these substances whi ch is more attractive for the media, however. It is no progressive solution to give up antimicrobial growth promoters as feed additives and to use the same substances (for example olaquindox) as therapeutics now (prescribed b y veterinarians) or to switch to zincoxide or copper (in a dosage high abov e all nutrient requirements) in order to prevent postweaning problems due t o E. coli. But one has to take into consideration the reasons for the use o f antibiotics (growth promoters and therapeutics) or other "aids" (e.g. ZnO , Cu) in food producing animals (especially in beef-cattle, pigs and poultr y) in "modern" production systems. The matter for conflict is the contrast between a minimised use of antimicrobial substances, as science as well as general public demand, and the requirements of ''modern" livestock industry (rationalisation, increase in performance, specialisation, concentration) and general economy (save of resources, lowering of production costs). Thes e well-known and expected problems arise in an almost exemplary manner in t he case of antibiotic growth promoting feed additives. Therefore it is most difficult to impart suggestions to the persons involved as well as to the public.