I wouldn't go quite that far. I am on record here on HN as agreeing with a doctor who said in an interview,
"Q: Do you think we have enough data to know what’s happening with the antibiotics used on the farm?
"A: I think we know enough to say that we need to be doing a better job of improving appropriate use of antibiotics in all sectors, humans and animals.
"Q: But the agriculture sector is different, because antibiotics have been used there for a long time with an eye toward improving the growth of the animals, really for food purposes, to make them bigger and fatter with less food. Does that concern you as a use?
"A: Certainly the CDC believes quite firmly, and I think there are a number of veterinary experts here and in other places who agree with the stance that we should never be using antibiotics in agriculture or in people for any other purpose than to treat infections.
"Using antibiotics to promote growth in animals is not a good use of antibiotics. It’s not careful use of this really delicate and invaluable resource."[1]
I am also on record as saying, responding to a passage in another thread-opening article,
>> "What Europe did: In the EU, all antibiotics used in human medicines are banned on farms—and no antibiotics can be used on farms for 'non-medical purposes,' i.e., growth promotion." <<
I'd like to see the United States follow that lead immediately, and I write this as a man who has several uncles and cousins who are farmers, including some who raise cattle. It makes sense to me to have lines of defense against transmission of animal-infecting, and especially antibiotic-resistant-animal-infecting, microbes to human beings, by controlling what animals raised as lifestock eat and how they are treated with veterinary medicines.[2]
Animals get sick, both on and off the farm. Careful veterinary practice can enhance human health, by reducing sources of zoonotic infections. The epidemiologists who work to prevent human disease also keep track of news of animal infections on the farm and in the wild.[3] With this in mind, I can't agree with the policy idea
One should ban antibiotics for animals world wide.
expressed in the parent post. We should be careful about the use of antibiotics, many of which were originally "natural" substances emitted by microorganisms as a defense against other microorganisms, and we should use antibiotics mostly to treat cases of actual human or animal disease, and also use other infection control measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases either to humans or to nonhuman animals, wherever they live.
AFTER EDIT:
Meanwhile, in human medicine, the development through natural selection of multiple-drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis is very alarming. I wish India were doing better in controlling tuberculosis. Both a newspaper in the United States, which did much to break the story,[4] and a newspaper from India[5] are in agreement with official sources from both countries[6][7] that much more needs to be done to stop the spread of drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis in India, which could threaten the health of the whole world. (A century and a half ago, tuberculosis was perhaps the world's leading cause of death.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6599795
(expressing agreement with the quoted expert in the thread-opening article)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674781
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/
[4] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230344420...
[5] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-06-23/news...
[6] http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2012/Facing-the-Reality-of-Drug-R...
[7] http://www.tbcindia.nic.in/pdfs/RNTCP%20Response%20DR%20TB%2...