Daily use of antibotics in the "meat" we eat.

[VanIsle]

This is a really long article that I just chose some paragraphs from. I felt it was enough for a chat on the topic. Why do we allow government (I assume it's gov't) to permit farmers to add antibiotics to the daily food of the very animals we eat at mealtime. This has to be more destructive than any number of visits we make to the doctors for antibiotics we need ourselves. I have not had a prescription for an antibiotic for at least 18 years but I am probably receiving a daily dose just because I eat meat. I guess the organic meat on the market today does not contain these so why does organic meat cost more? Why do free range eggs cost more? Seems to me it must be costing the farmer less so our costs at the very least, should stay the same and we should be healthier.

Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year — more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs — 28 million pounds — went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent.
"This is a living breathing problem, it's the big bad wolf and it's knocking at our door," said Dr. Vance Fowler, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University. "It's here. It's arrived."
A 'serious emerging concern'
The rise in the use of antibiotics is part of a growing problem of soaring drug resistance worldwide, The Associated Press found in a six-month look at the issue. As a result, killer diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and staph are resurging in new and more deadly forms.
In response, the pressure against the use of antibiotics in agriculture is rising. The World Health Organization concluded this year that surging antibiotic resistance is one of the leading threats to human health, and the White House last month said the problem is "urgent."

 

[countryboy]

VI -It all boils down to money. When cows, pigs, and chickens are raised in close quarters (feedlots for beef, "factory type" barns for pigs & chickens), if one animal gets sick, they'll all get sick. So, feeding them antibiotics every day prevents "loss of inventory" from sickness and death.

In the case of cattle, there is another problem - in feedlots, they are fed grains and other assorted things to fatten them up quickly. In that business, the basic formula is: more weight + less time = more profit. The problem with a cow is that they are a ruminant (multi-stage digestive system), which means they are designed to eat grass. When they eat feedlot feed, they get sick and the liver is the first thing to start going. Antibiotics keep them "living" (if you want to call it that) until they reach optimum weight levels and can be killed.

There are lots of other human health issues associated with feedlot/factory meats, but that's a thumbnail sketch on the antibiotic side of it.

In terms of beef, there are a couple of kinds of "organic" meats...one would be just "organic" (grain-fed cattle fed with organically-grown grains) and the other would be "grass-fed organic" (fed with organic grass and hay). Grain-fed organic beef is more expensive due to the higher cost of the feed. Grass-fed organic beef is more expensive because it requires higher-priced feed plus more time to grow to a decent weight.

On the eggs, many of our "regular" eggs aren't really raised on a farm - they come from "factory barns", which are high production efforts where the chickens are treated like pieces of equipment, squeezed into tight spaces, and are there to produce high volumes of eggs. Chickens that produce free-range eggs need space (the "range") and space costs money. Thus, the eggs cost more.

There is quite a bit of easy to read information on these subjects on a website at Eat Wild

 

[karrie]

This article from the Chicken Farmers of Canada talks a bit about the issue.

To delve even further into it though, I sought out Health Canada's word on the matter.

From this article, found at the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada, which explains much of Canada's efforts toward monitoring antimicrobial resistance, you can follow links to numerous other pages on the subject, including a letter which 'encourages' farmers to properly evaluate and stop using antimicrobials if they are not providing significant return in yield on their animals. It comes off as a pretty weak position frankly. A lot of 'suggest', 'encourage', etc.

A pamphlet from the Alberta government however is slightly more strongly worded in its expectation that animals not be introduced into the food supply until after the withdrawal time (time it takes medicine to leave the system entirely) has passed.

Part of the reason none of these take a harder stance on antibiotic use is the simple fact of cost.... using antibiotics helps keep more of your livestock healthy, thus, you can sell more, and make more money. Without antibiotic use when it's needed, we would have less food. Farmers would have to charge more per animal to recover their operating costs (as you see in organic farming), and supplying enough meat for our voracious populace might become a struggle.

I think attempting to 'ban' it is rash. But, perhaps expecting agencies like Health Canada to take a firmer stance is in order.

 

[Tonington]

Attempting to ban it would be rash. Attempting to control it would be wise. Take as an example Denmark. In Denmark, fish farmers are legislated to achieve a specified food conversion ratio. They changed what the best management practices are for fish farmers by imposing conditions. In the end it made Danish trout farming more efficient, and controlled the amount of pollution produced by this industry.

It's no different for terrestrial agriculture. The BMP's have to change.

 

[karrie]

Attempting to ban it would be rash. Attempting to control it would be wise. Take as an example Denmark. In Denmark, fish farmers are legislated to achieve a specified food conversion ratio. They changed what the best management practices are for fish farmers by imposing conditions. In the end it made Danish trout farming more efficient, and controlled the amount of pollution produced by this industry.

It's no different for terrestrial agriculture. The BMP's have to change.

While I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you T, would you mind expanding a bit on it?

 

[Tonington]

Ahh, the jargonese. The food conversion ratio is a measure of how much feed it takes to raise a kilogram of fish. What exactly a good value is depends on a number of factors like fish species, age, body size, and a few others with lesser consequence. I think in Denmark, the value they have for trout production is 1.1, so 1.1 kilograms of feed will produce 1 kilogram of fish. That may seem a bit tight, but it's actually possible to get values less than 1.

 

[countryboy]

Ahh, the jargonese. The food conversion ratio is a measure of how much feed it takes to raise a kilogram of fish. What exactly a good value is depends on a number of factors like fish species, age, body size, and a few others with lesser consequence. I think in Denmark, the value they have for trout production is 1.1, so 1.1 kilograms of feed will produce 1 kilogram of fish. That may seem a bit tight, but it's actually possible to get values less than 1.

That seems to address quantity of food (feed) only. Does Denmark have any rules on the quality of the feed?

 

[karrie]

Ahh, the jargonese. The food conversion ratio is a measure of how much feed it takes to raise a kilogram of fish. What exactly a good value is depends on a number of factors like fish species, age, body size, and a few others with lesser consequence. I think in Denmark, the value they have for trout production is 1.1, so 1.1 kilograms of feed will produce 1 kilogram of fish. That may seem a bit tight, but it's actually possible to get values less than 1.

Okay, that makes sense, but, making it tighter like that would encourage use of antibiotics would it not? Using every possible tool at your disposal to squeeze out every possible kilo of fish to kilo of food?

 

[Tonington]

That seems to address quantity of food (feed) only. Does Denmark have any rules on the quality of the feed?

I only use this as an example. If you want to reduce the amount of antibiotics used, the government can make targets. For another fish example, the use of SLICE (emamectin benzoate) to treat farmed salmon for sea lice has been legislated by our government. The withdrawal time before any fish treated with slice can make it to market ensures that this drug is worked out of the fish flesh. The same can be done for cows, chickens, pigs, you name it.

Farmers will often resist these kind of draconian measures, but sometimes you have to show them with nickles and dimes how it's in their best interest.

Okay, that makes sense, but, making it tighter like that would encourage use of antibiotics would it not? Using every possible tool at your disposal to squeeze out every possible kilo of fish to kilo of food?

Antibiotics in the feed of fish are expensive. It's cheaper to vaccinate them, and I don't say this because I'm about to start a job with a company which produces the vaccines. You can see the trend:

As fish vaccines have become more numerous, and longer lasting, the use of antibiotics has plummeted. It's far more cost effective to use vaccines.

 

[countryboy]

This article from the Chicken Farmers of Canada talks a bit about the issue.

To delve even further into it though, I sought out Health Canada's word on the matter.

From this article, found at the Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada, which explains much of Canada's efforts toward monitoring antimicrobial resistance, you can follow links to numerous other pages on the subject, including a letter which 'encourages' farmers to properly evaluate and stop using antimicrobials if they are not providing significant return in yield on their animals. It comes off as a pretty weak position frankly. A lot of 'suggest', 'encourage', etc.

A pamphlet from the Alberta government however is slightly more strongly worded in its expectation that animals not be introduced into the food supply until after the withdrawal time (time it takes medicine to leave the system entirely) has passed.

Part of the reason none of these take a harder stance on antibiotic use is the simple fact of cost.... using antibiotics helps keep more of your livestock healthy, thus, you can sell more, and make more money. Without antibiotic use when it's needed, we would have less food. Farmers would have to charge more per animal to recover their operating costs (as you see in organic farming), and supplying enough meat for our voracious populace might become a struggle.

I think attempting to 'ban' it is rash. But, perhaps expecting agencies like Health Canada to take a firmer stance is in order.

The various official pieces of information available on this are all pretty weak, but they don't have a lot of choice.

I don't think they could do an outright ban on antibiotics in meat without first considering that it is a system of steps that has been developed to work, sort of. Simply removing antibiotics from the mix would kill a lot of animals (or at least render them sick and "unfit for consumption") and collapse the entire system.

On the other hand, the systems have been developed with what seems to be high production/low cost (some call it "efficiencies") as the main driver. Why? Because we - the consumers - demand lowest possible prices.

The unfortunate part is, nutritional goodness hasn't been high on the list of priorities or outcomes with this approach. I mean, it is food after all...the stuff that is supposed to nourish us. And, if we treated ourselves like we treat these commercial meats, we would all be on a steady diet of antibiotics "just in case we might get sick." But, we seem to be heading in that direction anyway, as we're getting some of those things in our daily diet.

I think the governments are faced with a bit of a dilemma here...they're trying to maintain "food safety" in the middle of all this, and they're primarily focused on bacteria and mad cow disease, bird flu outbreaks, listeria, and so on. That is pretty much short term or immediate food safety. The longer term effects - and they are many beyond simply ingesting antibiotics - aren't subject to the same political pressure.

If the pressure from consumers ever does get to the point where better quality meats become the mainstream demand, no doubt the governments will assume a different or more intense stance on this. So far, I don't see that coming along anytime soon.

Raising animals to provide more nutrional and healthy meats is quite possible, and it's being done more and more every day in various parts of Canada. It's being done to suppy the growing demand for higher quality food. It just hasn't "caught on" yet with the mainstream consumers.

 

[Walter]

More and better food is bad because this means we can feed more people with more nutritious food and they will live longer, healthier lives. Leave food production to the experts and keep your left-wing propaganda to yourselves. Besides, I like my third arm.

 

[Tonington]

More and better food is bad because this means we can feed more people with more nutritious food. Leave food production to the experts and keep your left-wing propaganda to yourselves. Besides, I like my third arm.

You should trade your third arm in for a second brain. Better food is safer food. Animals fed antibiotics to maintain acceptable growth rates is not safe food production, and it's no more nutritious than if the antibiotics weren't used.

Maybe you think methylicillin resistant bacteria is a good thing. Those who know what that is do not.

 

[countryboy]

More and better food is bad because this means we can feed more people with more nutritious food and they will live longer, healthier lives. Leave food production to the experts and keep your left-wing propaganda to yourselves. Besides, I like my third arm.

I think that's a "tongue in cheek" remark there, Walter... :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

VI -It all boils down to money. When cows, pigs, and chickens are raised in close quarters (feedlots for beef, "factory type" barns for pigs & chickens), if one animal gets sick, they'll all get sick. So, feeding them antibiotics every day prevents "loss of inventory" from sickness and death.

In the case of cattle, there is another problem - in feedlots, they are fed grains and other assorted things to fatten them up quickly. In that business, the basic formula is: more weight + less time = more profit. The problem with a cow is that they are a ruminant (multi-stage digestive system), which means they are designed to eat grass. When they eat feedlot feed, they get sick and the liver is the first thing to start going. Antibiotics keep them "living" (if you want to call it that) until they reach optimum weight levels and can be killed.

There are lots of other human health issues associated with feedlot/factory meats, but that's a thumbnail sketch on the antibiotic side of it.

In terms of beef, there are a couple of kinds of "organic" meats...one would be just "organic" (grain-fed cattle fed with organically-grown grains) and the other would be "grass-fed organic" (fed with organic grass and hay). Grain-fed organic beef is more expensive due to the higher cost of the feed. Grass-fed organic beef is more expensive because it requires higher-priced feed plus more time to grow to a decent weight.

On the eggs, many of our "regular" eggs aren't really raised on a farm - they come from "factory barns", which are high production efforts where the chickens are treated like pieces of equipment, squeezed into tight spaces, and are there to produce high volumes of eggs. Chickens that produce free-range eggs need space (the "range") and space costs money. Thus, the eggs cost more.

There is quite a bit of easy to read information on these subjects on a website at Eat Wild

Bump.

Good post, CB. And it's even concise. lol You learn fast. Kudos.

 

[AnnaG]

Attempting to ban it would be rash. Attempting to control it would be wise. Take as an example Denmark. In Denmark, fish farmers are legislated to achieve a specified food conversion ratio. They changed what the best management practices are for fish farmers by imposing conditions. In the end it made Danish trout farming more efficient, and controlled the amount of pollution produced by this industry.

It's no different for terrestrial agriculture. The BMP's have to change.

Right. Unfortunately, Canuckian politicians aren't particularly keen on seeing what works elsewhere and most think they can come up with the panacea that is uniquely Canuckian. Karrie's right, too. Money seems to be the prime motivator, not people.

 

[AnnaG]

Quoting Walter More and better food is bad because this means we can feed more people with more nutritious food. Leave food production to the experts and keep your left-wing propaganda to yourselves. Besides, I like my third arm.

You should trade your third arm in for a second brain. Better food is safer food. Animals fed antibiotics to maintain acceptable growth rates is not safe food production, and it's no more nutritious than if the antibiotics weren't used.

Maybe you think methylicillin resistant bacteria is a good thing. Those who know what that is do not.

Not only that but factory food is not necessarily more nutritious either. I would pit my tomato veggie soup against Campbull's or Lipton's any day for both taste and nutrition.

 

[Tonington]

[/size]
Not only that but factory food is not necessarily more nutritious either. I would pit my tomato veggie soup against Campbull's or Lipton's any day for both taste and nutrition.

I suspect there may be some nutritional advantage, but without knowing for sure I didn't want to say so. :smile:

 

[VanIsle]

More and better food is bad because this means we can feed more people with more nutritious food and they will live longer, healthier lives. Leave food production to the experts and keep your left-wing propaganda to yourselves. Besides, I like my third arm.

Hi Walter,
It seems you are being taken seriously here. I am assuming you're displaying a little dry humour. The word I want to use is a word I always have trouble spelling. Fa see shush!
lol

 

[countryboy]

Hi Walter,
It seems you are being taken seriously here. I am assuming you're displaying a little dry humour. The word I want to use is a word I always have trouble spelling. Fa see shush!
lol

VI - You mean fa-see-tee-yus? facetious :lol: