By Dr. Juri B Kalita
The story of antimicrobial resistance isn’t confined to hospitals and clinics. A significant chapter unfolds in an unexpected place: farms and livestock facilities.
Globally, approximately 73% of all antimicrobials sold are used in animals raised for food. This statistic surprises many people. The majority of these drugs aren’t given to treat sick animals but are administered to healthy livestock—either to promote faster growth or to prevent disease in crowded conditions.
The practice developed from an economic logic: antibiotics allow animals to convert feed to body mass more efficiently and help them survive in intensive farming conditions where disease spreads easily. From a purely production standpoint, it appeared to make sense. The unintended consequences, however, have proven severe.
When animals receive regular doses of antimicrobials, bacteria in and around them evolve resistance. These resistant bacteria don’t remain confined to the farm. They spread through multiple pathways: incompletely cooked meat, vegetables fertilised with animal waste, water supplies contaminated with agricultural runoff, and direct contact between farm workers and animals.
For India, where agriculture remains central to the economy and way of life, this presents complex challenges. The farming practices in Meghalaya and the Northeast differ substantially from industrial operations elsewhere. Many families keep livestock on a smaller scale, often using traditional methods. Yet as commercial pressures increase and intensive farming practices spread, the temptation to use antimicrobials as growth promoters grows.
The consequences extend beyond individual farms. When resistant bacteria from agricultural settings enter the human population, they can make common infections harder to treat. A urinary tract infection might not respond to first-line antibiotics. A wound infection could become life-threatening. Surgical procedures become riskier when post-operative infections can’t be easily controlled.
Some countries have demonstrated that change is possible. Denmark banned antibiotic growth promoters in animal feed decades ago. Rather than the predicted collapse in production, Danish farms maintained healthy, productive livestock while dramatically reducing antibiotic use. The Netherlands achieved a 70% reduction in agricultural antimicrobial use through a combination of regulation, education, and farmer cooperation.
These examples prove that responsible farming and economic viability aren’t mutually exclusive. They do, however, require commitment—from farmers, veterinarians, regulators, and consumers.
What can individuals do? Consumer choices carry weight. When purchasing meat and dairy products, look for suppliers who avoid routine antibiotic use. Support local farmers who employ traditional, less intensive methods. In Meghalaya’s markets, where relationships between producers and consumers often remain direct, these conversations are possible.
Reducing overall meat consumption also helps, some studies reveal, bringing the benefits of improved reduced environmental impact. This doesn’t require becoming vegetarian—even modest reductions in meat consumption, spread across a population, can significantly decrease the demand for intensive farming practices.
Policy matters too. Regulations governing agricultural antibiotic use need strengthening and enforcement. Veterinary oversight should be mandatory for antimicrobial use in animals. Investment in alternatives—better animal husbandry, improved farm hygiene, vaccines for livestock—deserves support.
The connection between agricultural practices and human health may not be immediately obvious, but it’s undeniably real. The bacteria don’t recognise the boundary between farm and pharmacy. Neither should our approach to antimicrobial stewardship.
(The writers is a Consultant Microbiologist & Infection Control Officer, Bethany Hospital, Shillong)
