The use of antibiotics in livestock farming has been a common practice for many years. As one of the leading causes of antibiotic resistance, posing serious threats to animal health, human health and food security, a change in this application practice is needed. However, antibiotics play a crucial role in disease management and control in animal farming, which highlights their relevance to both animal welfare and food safety. The general public in many countries is becoming aware of the problem of antibiotic resistance in pathogens and the contributing role of livestock to its proliferation. Nevertheless, little is known about how the public in different countries reacts to this knowledge and how they evaluate different strategies to combat this threat. The current study analyzes public perception of antibiotic use in livestock farming in three different countries, while considering differentiating advantages and disadvantages of antibiotic treatment of farm animals. A total of 2,670 subjects responded to an online questionnaire in Germany (n=894), Italy (n=887) and the United States (n=889). Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with several statements on bipolar 7-point Likert-scales. Three factors were extracted using principal component analysis (total variance explained: 59.59%, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.915, Bartletts’ test of sphericity<0.001). According to the average attitudes bundled in factor one (“Antibiotic use as a threat to human health”), participants in all three samples perceived significant human health risks with antibiotic use in animal farming, with the German participants as the most skeptical, followed by Italian and then US participants. The “Advantages of antibiotic use in livestock farming” (factor two) were perceived only by the US sample, whereas participants from the other two countries were on average more skeptical about the existence of positive impacts such as improved food safety and animal welfare. A “Justified use of antibiotics” (factor three) was on average doubted by participants in all three countries, with the German participants again being most critical. Regarding the treatment of different animal species (for dairy cattle, fattening pigs and broilers), participants in all three countries believed that antibiotics are used even if the animals are not really sick and that the whole herd, instead of individual animals, are treated even if just a few animals display symptoms of a disease. Moreover, the respondents tied antibiotic use with attempts to increase the growth rate of animals rather than to solely treat certain diseases. These results illustrate the significant criticism to the livestock sector by the surveyed participants.

多年来，在畜牧业中使用抗生素已成为一种普遍做法。作为抗生素抗药性的主要原因之一，它对动物健康，人类健康和食品安全构成了严重威胁，因此需要改变这种应用方法。然而，抗生素在畜牧业的疾病管理和控制中起着至关重要的作用，这突出了它们与动物福利和食品安全的关系。许多国家的公众逐渐意识到病原体对抗生素的抗性问题以及牲畜对其繁殖的贡献。然而，对于不同国家的公众如何对这一知识作出反应以及他们如何评估应对这种威胁的不同策略知之甚少。当前的研究分析了公众对三个不同国家在畜牧业中使用抗生素的看法，同时考虑了对家畜进行抗生素治疗的优缺点。在德国（n = 894），意大利（n = 887）和美国（n = 889），共有2670名受试者回答了在线问卷。要求参与者用双极7点李克特量表的几个陈述来表明他们的同意程度。使用主成分分析提取了三个因素（总方差解释为：59.59％，Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin抽样充分性量度= 0.915，Bartletts球形度检验<0.001）。根据因素一的平均态度（“使用抗生素对人类健康构成威胁”），所有三个样本中的参与者都认为在畜牧业中使用抗生素会严重危害人类健康，其中德国参与者最怀疑，其次是意大利人，然后是美国参与者。只有美国样本才意识到“在畜牧业中使用抗生素的优势”（第二个因素），而其他两个国家的参与者平均对是否存在诸如改善食品安全和动物福利等积极影响持怀疑态度。这三个国家的参与者平均都对“合理使用抗生素”（第三个因素）表示怀疑，德国的参与者同样是最关键的。关于不同种类动物的治疗（奶牛，育肥猪和肉鸡），所有这三个国家的参与者都相信，即使动物不是真的生病，也要使用抗生素，即使只有少数动物出现疾病症状，也要对整个牛群而不是单个动物进行治疗。而且，被调查者将抗生素的使用与试图提高动物的生长速度而不是仅仅治疗某些疾病联系在一起。这些结果说明了受访者对畜牧业的严重批评。