I was researching the shelf life of an animal use drug and ran across this analogy using varing burn rates in powder lots. It seemed quite out-of-place but appropriately used. Makes me wonder about the background of the author of the article too.

There have been several comments regarding the varying strength of nonhuman specific, or veterinary medicines. That is a valid comment, and is one reason for the insanely inflated price of the same medicines from the same manufacturer for human-intended medicines as opposed to those sold for veterinary purposes. In large manufacturing endeavors, it is quite common for different batches or "lots" of almost anything of complex structure to have varying strength from an established "standard." Ammunition reloaders are quite familiar with this concept as it relates to smokeless powder. For example, on a standard burning rate chart where Bullseye is "1" and H-4831 is "100," then IRM 4985 is rated as a "50." When any particular batch or lot tests at "48" or "52," it is sold in bulk to factory ammunition manufacturers, who simply adjust the grain weight of the powder charge for that particular lot of ammunition. Those lots which come in very close to "50" are packaged and sold to individuals for reloading (at significant price increases), and thus the distinction between "canister" and "non-canister" smokeless powders.

waksupi,

The jist of the article was about using veterinary grade pharmaceuticals for human use, especially in extended emergency conditions. The point, well made, was, the USP labeling of veterinary medications makes them on par with those manufactured for human use. Vet meds do not always have the same guaranteed dosage per unit and have to be administered accordingly. Thus the powder analogy. The standardization of dosage per unit for human use greatly influences the cost of a med. Other factors were discussed but this is the main point.

Interesting.  But I think that the efficacy of medicines is not measure as precisely as powder.  In many bulk situations, industry (using the example given) merely mix the low batch of #48 with the high batch of #52 and get a lot (averaging) measuring #50. 

Most pharmacy companies do not manufacture or segregate the animal products from the human products until packaging--usually.  However with all the litigation today.  Management would certainly move "questionable" product to the agri or vet product line to limit their liability.  A dead cat/dog might settle for $500 while a cow would get $1000 from an insurance liability carrier; a jury for a human death would be a run-away against the pharma company.

Getting back to your original question.  Pharmaceuticals last way longer than their use date it properly stored.  I've used them 2-3 years after use date expiration (with success).  In agricultural environments my experience is nothing is properly stored.  I had a case of a farmer suing a drug company after he stored chemicals that he mixed with tap water in a jug that was left on a window sill (in heat and bright sunlight for 6-8 months.  His dairy herd died and he say nothing wrong even though the bottle directions said "All medicine needed to be used within 12 hours of mixing with water" .

BEAR