7 ms·

The overuse of antibiotics in large-scale animal farming is particularly terrible; many are given low doses of antibiotics as part of their food [1]. This gives

The overuse of antibiotics in large-scale animal farming is particularly terrible; many are given low doses of antibiotics as part of their food [1]. This gives bacteria lots of time and selective breeding to become resistant, and it's probably the worst thing we could do for the long-term health of humanity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Un...

candiodari 10y ago
The thing to note, however, is that once the horse is out of the barn, closing the barn door is futile. In fact it may very well be counterproductive if it leads to infected meat spreading further.
- Fomite 10y ago
  Said antibiotics are most often used for growth promotion, rather than to treat disease. That's becoming less common, but it's still a complex problem.
  - curun1r 10y ago
    Yes and no. Said antibiotics are given because we know that the diet we're feeding them will cause them to develop infections. Cows aren't naturally healthy eating corn/soy. For so many reasons, we need to end crop subsidies in this country.
    - jmartinpetersen 10y ago
      It's been known since the 50's that giving penicillin to livestock increases growth rate. Farmers have understood that and used that. The antibiotics counters and interacts in all sorts of ways we don't really understand (similar to how we don't really, really understand how the human gut works), but one of the ways it surely works is to counter problems caused by unsuitable living conditions. Ending crop subsidies is probably a good idea in most of the world, but it certainly won't solve the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
      - Qantourisc 10y ago
        In a way this is surprising to me. Shouldn't this destroy the gut flora, making it harder to digest/use the food ? Then again their entire gut flora might be anti-biotic resistant ....
        IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
        Actually, that's often the case with cattle.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Several of the antibiotics in use as feed additives act selectively, changing the mix of microorganisms rather than destroying them all. I swear I'm not a shill for big ionophore, but this is something they do in ruminants, they shift the mix away from one that tends to lead to "bloat" when the animals are fed a lot of grain.
        Fomite 10y ago
        Cows can have pretty intensive levels of antibiotic resistant gut flora.
        bodski 10y ago
        Gut flora in humans appears to have a significant influence on weight gain/loss. Perhaps ABs fed to livestock tilt towards weight gain.
    - Fomite 10y ago
      There's three reasons for using antibiotics in livestock: 1. Growth promotion 2. Prophylactic treatment (what you're suggesting) 3. The treatment of actual disease Those go from the most to the least problematic - but I was mostly addressing the idea that a decrease in antibiotics would result in more animal products with bacterial contamination. For #1, that's not true, and for #2 it's not linear (infections in animals don't necessarily mean contaminated food products). When we talk about reducing antibiotic use in livestock, it's usually focused on #1 and putting #2 in the hands of vets (prophylactic treatments when there's actual risk of disease). Rarely do we actually suggest banning #3.
    - flavor8 10y ago
      > For so many reasons, we need to end crop subsidies in this country. We also need to reduce consumption of meat, and work towards raising it more healthily. It should be common sense that an unstressed animal fed the diet that it's evolved to thrive on would yield better meat (e.g. grass fed beef is objectively superior to cows fattened on corn.) Of course it is more expensive to do this, but so be it. There are plenty of cheap sources of nutritious proteins; people could be directed to adjust their expectations. Of course, there are many deep pocketed industry resources that would be against such an adjustment, and there's a new deep-pockets friendly administration in charge, so there's little hope of this happening in the near future...
- WildUtah 10y ago
  Antibiotics are a renewable resource. If we could prohibit all use of a class of antibiotics for a time, probably decades, bacteria will stop spending energy on resistance and become vulnerable again. Antibiotic resistance is a problem with a political solution. It just takes coordination and cooperation worldwide to do the right thing instead of chasing short-term profit. So I guess we'd better hope for a technological solution instead.
  - saycheese 10y ago
    >> "...bacteria will stop spending energy on resistance and become vulnerable again." Source?
    - a-saleh 10y ago
      I wish I could have read more than the abstract, but maybe this [1] ... I would especially like to know what do they mean by "Unfortunately, the available data suggest that the rate of reversibility will be slow at the community level" [1] http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nrmicro2319.pdf http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nrmicro2319....
      - smhost 10y ago
        From that same paper: > In hospitals, both modelling and analysis of the correlations between antibiotic resistance and variation in antibiotic use show that alterations in antibiotic use can cause rapid changes (in the order of days to months) in the frequency of resistance. By contrast, when the fitness cost of resistance is the main driving force behind its reversal, the rate of change is expected to be much slower (months to years). I think what that means is that hospitals are able to create more selective pressure by rotating through different kinds of antibiotics.
    - kwhitefoot 10y ago
      Standard theory of evolution: organisms that spend energy on features that do not contribute to their fitness will be at a disadvantage in the long run compared to others of otherwise similar type that do not. The others will have more energy to devote to reproduction.
- gumby 10y ago
  > [banning use of antibiotics in animal feed] may very well be counterproductive if it leads to infected meat spreading further. This isn't why they put antibiotics in the food; it's because animals that eat bulk antibiotics gain more weight over the short term than animals that don't. Probably by killing off all the gut bacteria (except the antibiotic resistant ones) that might compete for nutrients. The animals are grown quickly then killed. If an animal is actually sick it's treated differently, or simply destroyed. Even farmers who don't use antibiotics to stimulate growth will treat their sick animals! BTW the resistant gut bacteria we're talking about are the ones that get people sick like e coli.
eeZah7Ux 10y ago
Interesting to notice how europe banned antibiotics while China and US are doing nothing about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > while China and US are doing nothing about it China doesn't really care about the environment. Their top priority is growth in order to avoid social unrest, and for feeding all the people they need all the food they can get - and if antibiotics makes farming more productive, they'll do it. The US, on the other hand, has the problem that Big Ag is a powerful lobby. And Trump, given his total lack of understanding on climate and environmental issues, won't do anything to change that.
  - frozenport 10y ago
    I don't think it is Big Ag, because Big Ag would be more than happy to sell a premium product at a higher cost. It's more of a consumer demand thing.
    - Retric 10y ago
      No, you sell more product when the price decreases making the industry more profitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox is the same basic idea.
      - frozenport 10y ago
        I think the amount of food they can sell is limited by appetite. The only question is at what price point.
        Retric 10y ago
        US corn production may have started by feeding people, then animals, then substituting for other food (corn syrup>sugar), then being burned in cars. Which just shows people tend to find ever wider demand for products as they get cheaper. Meat demand as price drops may end up in pet food or 'corn' flakes, but the usage does not really matter. In competitive markets producers tend to make a fixed percentage of sales as profits. Thus, increasing total sales tends to also increase industry profits.
mtw 10y ago
For those who are concerned about the issue, one good step is change your diet to whole plants diet + wild caught fish (e.g. salmon). Livestock meat, esp. red meat and processed meat have adverse health effects, esp. north america
- dcosson 10y ago
  Source needed. But seriously, antibiotic resistance is a population-wide problem and you personally not eating meat won't protect you against antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not to mention the idea that red meat specifically causes adverse health effects in most people is an old idea that modern nutrition studies have mostly not shown to be true.
  - sulam 10y ago
    You've misunderstood the parent post. By embracing non-polluting alternatives, you promote and induce market growth along environmentally healthy lines and deny resources to unhealthy options. This may not protect you immediately, but over time it can absolutely work provided a sufficiently large group is able to act collectively. There is plenty of evidence that this approach has worked in other domains to create behavioral changes in large, impersonal organizations.
    - JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
      Do you really think there is enough wild caught salmon to feed us all? We have to have solutions that scale and really work.
      - benjaminjackman 10y ago
        Ok so what he said less salmon i.e. Plants only then.
    - dcosson 10y ago
      Maybe I did misunderstand. In that case I would think that buying locally raised, organic, grass-fed beef would be a more comparable alternative than wild salmon (Though neither is sustainable enough to replace the current levels of beef consumption for everyone).
maxerickson 10y ago
The use of Ionophores in feed doesn't seem to be a huge problem (they are a substantial portion of the total by weight, but I think not a majority).

candiodari 10y ago

The thing to note, however, is that once the horse is out of the barn, closing the barn door is futile. In fact it may very well be counterproductive if it leads to infected meat spreading further.

Fomite 10y ago
Said antibiotics are most often used for growth promotion, rather than to treat disease. That's becoming less common, but it's still a complex problem.
- curun1r 10y ago
  Yes and no. Said antibiotics are given because we know that the diet we're feeding them will cause them to develop infections. Cows aren't naturally healthy eating corn/soy. For so many reasons, we need to end crop subsidies in this country.
  - jmartinpetersen 10y ago
    It's been known since the 50's that giving penicillin to livestock increases growth rate. Farmers have understood that and used that. The antibiotics counters and interacts in all sorts of ways we don't really understand (similar to how we don't really, really understand how the human gut works), but one of the ways it surely works is to counter problems caused by unsuitable living conditions. Ending crop subsidies is probably a good idea in most of the world, but it certainly won't solve the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture.
    - Qantourisc 10y ago
      In a way this is surprising to me. Shouldn't this destroy the gut flora, making it harder to digest/use the food ? Then again their entire gut flora might be anti-biotic resistant ....
      - IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
        Actually, that's often the case with cattle.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Several of the antibiotics in use as feed additives act selectively, changing the mix of microorganisms rather than destroying them all. I swear I'm not a shill for big ionophore, but this is something they do in ruminants, they shift the mix away from one that tends to lead to "bloat" when the animals are fed a lot of grain.
      - Fomite 10y ago
        Cows can have pretty intensive levels of antibiotic resistant gut flora.
      - bodski 10y ago
        Gut flora in humans appears to have a significant influence on weight gain/loss. Perhaps ABs fed to livestock tilt towards weight gain.
  - Fomite 10y ago
    There's three reasons for using antibiotics in livestock: 1. Growth promotion 2. Prophylactic treatment (what you're suggesting) 3. The treatment of actual disease Those go from the most to the least problematic - but I was mostly addressing the idea that a decrease in antibiotics would result in more animal products with bacterial contamination. For #1, that's not true, and for #2 it's not linear (infections in animals don't necessarily mean contaminated food products). When we talk about reducing antibiotic use in livestock, it's usually focused on #1 and putting #2 in the hands of vets (prophylactic treatments when there's actual risk of disease). Rarely do we actually suggest banning #3.
  - flavor8 10y ago
    > For so many reasons, we need to end crop subsidies in this country. We also need to reduce consumption of meat, and work towards raising it more healthily. It should be common sense that an unstressed animal fed the diet that it's evolved to thrive on would yield better meat (e.g. grass fed beef is objectively superior to cows fattened on corn.) Of course it is more expensive to do this, but so be it. There are plenty of cheap sources of nutritious proteins; people could be directed to adjust their expectations. Of course, there are many deep pocketed industry resources that would be against such an adjustment, and there's a new deep-pockets friendly administration in charge, so there's little hope of this happening in the near future...
WildUtah 10y ago
Antibiotics are a renewable resource. If we could prohibit all use of a class of antibiotics for a time, probably decades, bacteria will stop spending energy on resistance and become vulnerable again. Antibiotic resistance is a problem with a political solution. It just takes coordination and cooperation worldwide to do the right thing instead of chasing short-term profit. So I guess we'd better hope for a technological solution instead.
- saycheese 10y ago
  >> "...bacteria will stop spending energy on resistance and become vulnerable again." Source?
  - a-saleh 10y ago
    I wish I could have read more than the abstract, but maybe this [1] ... I would especially like to know what do they mean by "Unfortunately, the available data suggest that the rate of reversibility will be slow at the community level" [1] http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nrmicro2319.pdf http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nrmicro2319....
    - smhost 10y ago
      From that same paper: > In hospitals, both modelling and analysis of the correlations between antibiotic resistance and variation in antibiotic use show that alterations in antibiotic use can cause rapid changes (in the order of days to months) in the frequency of resistance. By contrast, when the fitness cost of resistance is the main driving force behind its reversal, the rate of change is expected to be much slower (months to years). I think what that means is that hospitals are able to create more selective pressure by rotating through different kinds of antibiotics.
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    Standard theory of evolution: organisms that spend energy on features that do not contribute to their fitness will be at a disadvantage in the long run compared to others of otherwise similar type that do not. The others will have more energy to devote to reproduction.
gumby 10y ago
> [banning use of antibiotics in animal feed] may very well be counterproductive if it leads to infected meat spreading further. This isn't why they put antibiotics in the food; it's because animals that eat bulk antibiotics gain more weight over the short term than animals that don't. Probably by killing off all the gut bacteria (except the antibiotic resistant ones) that might compete for nutrients. The animals are grown quickly then killed. If an animal is actually sick it's treated differently, or simply destroyed. Even farmers who don't use antibiotics to stimulate growth will treat their sick animals! BTW the resistant gut bacteria we're talking about are the ones that get people sick like e coli.

eeZah7Ux 10y ago

Interesting to notice how europe banned antibiotics while China and US are doing nothing about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock

mschuster91 10y ago
> while China and US are doing nothing about it China doesn't really care about the environment. Their top priority is growth in order to avoid social unrest, and for feeding all the people they need all the food they can get - and if antibiotics makes farming more productive, they'll do it. The US, on the other hand, has the problem that Big Ag is a powerful lobby. And Trump, given his total lack of understanding on climate and environmental issues, won't do anything to change that.
- frozenport 10y ago
  I don't think it is Big Ag, because Big Ag would be more than happy to sell a premium product at a higher cost. It's more of a consumer demand thing.
  - Retric 10y ago
    No, you sell more product when the price decreases making the industry more profitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons's_paradox is the same basic idea.
    - frozenport 10y ago
      I think the amount of food they can sell is limited by appetite. The only question is at what price point.
      - Retric 10y ago
        US corn production may have started by feeding people, then animals, then substituting for other food (corn syrup>sugar), then being burned in cars. Which just shows people tend to find ever wider demand for products as they get cheaper. Meat demand as price drops may end up in pet food or 'corn' flakes, but the usage does not really matter. In competitive markets producers tend to make a fixed percentage of sales as profits. Thus, increasing total sales tends to also increase industry profits.

mtw 10y ago

For those who are concerned about the issue, one good step is change your diet to whole plants diet + wild caught fish (e.g. salmon). Livestock meat, esp. red meat and processed meat have adverse health effects, esp. north america

dcosson 10y ago
Source needed. But seriously, antibiotic resistance is a population-wide problem and you personally not eating meat won't protect you against antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not to mention the idea that red meat specifically causes adverse health effects in most people is an old idea that modern nutrition studies have mostly not shown to be true.
- sulam 10y ago
  You've misunderstood the parent post. By embracing non-polluting alternatives, you promote and induce market growth along environmentally healthy lines and deny resources to unhealthy options. This may not protect you immediately, but over time it can absolutely work provided a sufficiently large group is able to act collectively. There is plenty of evidence that this approach has worked in other domains to create behavioral changes in large, impersonal organizations.
  - JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
    Do you really think there is enough wild caught salmon to feed us all? We have to have solutions that scale and really work.
    - benjaminjackman 10y ago
      Ok so what he said less salmon i.e. Plants only then.
  - dcosson 10y ago
    Maybe I did misunderstand. In that case I would think that buying locally raised, organic, grass-fed beef would be a more comparable alternative than wild salmon (Though neither is sustainable enough to replace the current levels of beef consumption for everyone).

maxerickson 10y ago

The use of Ionophores in feed doesn't seem to be a huge problem (they are a substantial portion of the total by weight, but I think not a majority).