11 ms·

Farmers do this for a number of reasons: - Constantly feeding livestock antibiotics makes them grow bigger. The mechanism for why this happens is not understoo

by pyre 10y ago

Farmers do this for a number of reasons: - Constantly feeding livestock antibiotics makes them grow bigger. The mechanism for why this happens is not understood (but who cares because bigger livestock means more money). - It is costly to deal with an animal after it gets an infection rather than just being preventative. - Farmers are scared about diseases sweeping through their herds and causing issues where they are forced to kill the whole herd (e.g. mad cow disease -- though antibiotics don't prevent prion diseases).

exDM69 10y ago
This is not the practice everywhere worldwide. The US is particularly bad when it comes to antibiotics in livestock. It's a harmful practice and should be outlawed. Even if it means paying more for your food.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I would much rather pay 1% more for my food than 10% more for may healthcare. For many there will be no amount that can be paid to keep up with antibiotic resistant bacteria, it will kill people. I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren. I think the only way this practice can exist is when people do not understand or are coerced into doing it. Many of the largest farms just have people following rote instructions and not actually understanding what is happening. Let's compare to an easier to understand industry, think about fast food. The people in the kitchen at a McDonald's don't need to know how to cook, they follow the instructions and put uncooked meat in a machine and food comes out of the machine. If that process killed kittens somehow the McDonalds worker would never know. I suspect the near minimum wage workers manning livestock farms and farmers that might not have the benefit of a full education, simply don't or don't accept that antibiotic abuse creates a breeding ground for something will kill some of their children.
  - trhway 10y ago
    >I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren. you're kidding right? sure economical impact today vs. theoretical risk to grand/children tomorrow - Nov 8 will show how many people and of what demographics what choice would make, and I'm somehow sure what choice the farmers would make :)
    - apathy 10y ago
      that should NOT be a smiley at the end
      - trhway 10y ago
        that is dialectical smile - for example, ignoring climate change by voting red the farmers from the mid-states are thus letting the climate change to proceed to the point where open-air farming in those states becomes impossible, and thus they are basically selecting themselves out...
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      I am not kidding. I am in one of those red states at the moment and most people doing the farming literally do not believe or accept anthropogenic global warming. When the discussion is calm enough, they do largely agree that they wouldn't do anything harmful to their children or their farm's legacy. The just don't think global warming is real so their low mpg cars don't contribute to harming their farm. Combine this with the fact that people defending a stance often become emotionally entrenched and likely they will continue to believe global warming is not real until they can no longer plant corn. Then once that emotionally devastates them, or some similarly life shattering cognitive dissonance destroying event occurs, they can take a look with fresh eyes. EDIT - I know this is mostly about glbobal warming and the original discussion related to antibiotic resistance, but largely the resistance is from uneducated super-conservative people with a fundamental religion and a fundamental distrust of science. I really see these two problems as two sides of the same coin.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
partycoder 10y ago
If I had to speculate I would say that they grow bigger since the animal requires to spend less energy in its immune system, resulting in a surplus of energy that is spent in growth.
- pyre 10y ago
  I'm sure there are multiple theories, but so far as I know the they are just that.

by pyre 10y ago

exDM69 10y ago

This is not the practice everywhere worldwide. The US is particularly bad when it comes to antibiotics in livestock. It's a harmful practice and should be outlawed. Even if it means paying more for your food.

sqeaky 10y ago
I would much rather pay 1% more for my food than 10% more for may healthcare. For many there will be no amount that can be paid to keep up with antibiotic resistant bacteria, it will kill people. I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren. I think the only way this practice can exist is when people do not understand or are coerced into doing it. Many of the largest farms just have people following rote instructions and not actually understanding what is happening. Let's compare to an easier to understand industry, think about fast food. The people in the kitchen at a McDonald's don't need to know how to cook, they follow the instructions and put uncooked meat in a machine and food comes out of the machine. If that process killed kittens somehow the McDonalds worker would never know. I suspect the near minimum wage workers manning livestock farms and farmers that might not have the benefit of a full education, simply don't or don't accept that antibiotic abuse creates a breeding ground for something will kill some of their children.
- trhway 10y ago
  >I am sure that farmer's would rather risk their livestock than risk their children or grandchildren. you're kidding right? sure economical impact today vs. theoretical risk to grand/children tomorrow - Nov 8 will show how many people and of what demographics what choice would make, and I'm somehow sure what choice the farmers would make :)
  - apathy 10y ago
    that should NOT be a smiley at the end
    - trhway 10y ago
      that is dialectical smile - for example, ignoring climate change by voting red the farmers from the mid-states are thus letting the climate change to proceed to the point where open-air farming in those states becomes impossible, and thus they are basically selecting themselves out...
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    I am not kidding. I am in one of those red states at the moment and most people doing the farming literally do not believe or accept anthropogenic global warming. When the discussion is calm enough, they do largely agree that they wouldn't do anything harmful to their children or their farm's legacy. The just don't think global warming is real so their low mpg cars don't contribute to harming their farm. Combine this with the fact that people defending a stance often become emotionally entrenched and likely they will continue to believe global warming is not real until they can no longer plant corn. Then once that emotionally devastates them, or some similarly life shattering cognitive dissonance destroying event occurs, they can take a look with fresh eyes. EDIT - I know this is mostly about glbobal warming and the original discussion related to antibiotic resistance, but largely the resistance is from uneducated super-conservative people with a fundamental religion and a fundamental distrust of science. I really see these two problems as two sides of the same coin.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

partycoder 10y ago

If I had to speculate I would say that they grow bigger since the animal requires to spend less energy in its immune system, resulting in a surplus of energy that is spent in growth.

pyre 10y ago
I'm sure there are multiple theories, but so far as I know the they are just that.