6 ms·

“Let’s put it simply: would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick during its lifetime or one that was healthy?” This if a false dichotomy. The only

“Let’s put it simply: would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick during its lifetime or one that was healthy?” This if a false dichotomy. The only thing at risk is profit margin.

mirimir 11y ago
There are two primary use cases for antibiotics in livestock management. One, treating animals with serious bacterial infections, is at least somewhat defensible. The other is purely profit-driven: low-level treatment increases feed efficiency. And long-term low-level treatment effectively selects for antibiotic resistance. Anyway, I'd rather eat meat from animals that had been sick, as opposed to meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria. Edit: I wrote "somewhat defensible" because it's my impression that antibiotics serve as low-cost mitigation for overcrowding, poor hygiene, and other deficiencies in livestock management.
Qantourisc 11y ago
Well ... unless you don't cook the meat.
Sammi 11y ago
I don't understand why it's a problem that an animal has been sick at some point during its lifetime. People get sick, then if it's a bacterial infection we get antibiotics, then we're fine again (hopefully). Why is this a problem for lifestock?
- DanBC 11y ago
  We don't eat people so there's not that transmissibility route.
- code_sterling 11y ago
  It would requires veterinarians and proper care of the animals. If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move. This leads to stress, and they will self harm or harm others. So you have massive numbers of open wounds in unsanitary conditions. In order to maintain this factory style farming, we essentially need the antibiotics. Keep in mind turn around time as well. While a human may be on antibiotics after an infection for a few months, this can be the animals entire lifespan, as we dose them with steroids and growth hormones, and eat the artificially ready "babies". To ensure the infection has been adequately destroyed would disrupt production schedules. This isn't a justification for using them, but if we continue to factory farm animals the way we do, it's a necessity.
  - Icombine 11y ago
    And cattle is fed with corn. Which is unnatural for them and they develop ulcers. Antibiotics prevent deadly infections from the ulcers and increase the life span of the cattle.
  - pvaldes 11y ago
    Because, if properly used, they are useful. > If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move. And also wide meadows with three cows. Nobody (in TV, press or internet) is interested in the normal, but the freak are guaranteed to receive big exposure. To make conclusions about a population just seeing its outliers is normally unwise.
    - code_sterling 11y ago
      Of course they're useful, that's not in question. It's whether the damaged caused by creating antibiotic resistant strains, leaving us defenceless against infection is worth the risk. I was raised on a farm, and live in the prairies. And I've watched as factory farming has slowly displaced every farmer that wasn't lucky enough to have oil on their property. I've milked cows, and goats, and even rubber banded my fair share calves for my buddy who hobby farms (He has the three cows in the field). My uncle still has a dairy farm, but if it weren't for the oil, he wouldn't be able to compete. But I can't show people my experiences with factory farming conditions, so I sent them to youtube instead.

“Let’s put it simply: would you rather have meat from an animal that was sick during its lifetime or one that was healthy?” This if a false dichotomy. The only thing at risk is profit margin.

mirimir 11y ago

There are two primary use cases for antibiotics in livestock management. One, treating animals with serious bacterial infections, is at least somewhat defensible. The other is purely profit-driven: low-level treatment increases feed efficiency. And long-term low-level treatment effectively selects for antibiotic resistance. Anyway, I'd rather eat meat from animals that had been sick, as opposed to meat contaminated with antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria. Edit: I wrote "somewhat defensible" because it's my impression that antibiotics serve as low-cost mitigation for overcrowding, poor hygiene, and other deficiencies in livestock management.

Qantourisc 11y ago

Well ... unless you don't cook the meat.

Sammi 11y ago

I don't understand why it's a problem that an animal has been sick at some point during its lifetime. People get sick, then if it's a bacterial infection we get antibiotics, then we're fine again (hopefully). Why is this a problem for lifestock?

DanBC 11y ago
We don't eat people so there's not that transmissibility route.
code_sterling 11y ago
It would requires veterinarians and proper care of the animals. If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move. This leads to stress, and they will self harm or harm others. So you have massive numbers of open wounds in unsanitary conditions. In order to maintain this factory style farming, we essentially need the antibiotics. Keep in mind turn around time as well. While a human may be on antibiotics after an infection for a few months, this can be the animals entire lifespan, as we dose them with steroids and growth hormones, and eat the artificially ready "babies". To ensure the infection has been adequately destroyed would disrupt production schedules. This isn't a justification for using them, but if we continue to factory farm animals the way we do, it's a necessity.
- Icombine 11y ago
  And cattle is fed with corn. Which is unnatural for them and they develop ulcers. Antibiotics prevent deadly infections from the ulcers and increase the life span of the cattle.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  Because, if properly used, they are useful. > If you YouTube the animal farming, you'll see heavily overcrowded environments with animals not able to adequately move. And also wide meadows with three cows. Nobody (in TV, press or internet) is interested in the normal, but the freak are guaranteed to receive big exposure. To make conclusions about a population just seeing its outliers is normally unwise.
  - code_sterling 11y ago
    Of course they're useful, that's not in question. It's whether the damaged caused by creating antibiotic resistant strains, leaving us defenceless against infection is worth the risk. I was raised on a farm, and live in the prairies. And I've watched as factory farming has slowly displaced every farmer that wasn't lucky enough to have oil on their property. I've milked cows, and goats, and even rubber banded my fair share calves for my buddy who hobby farms (He has the three cows in the field). My uncle still has a dairy farm, but if it weren't for the oil, he wouldn't be able to compete. But I can't show people my experiences with factory farming conditions, so I sent them to youtube instead.