5 ms·

Fish farms are concentration camps for fish, same goes for the rest of the meat industry. The reason they need all the antibiotics is because the animals are so

by sifoo 9y ago

Fish farms are concentration camps for fish, same goes for the rest of the meat industry. The reason they need all the antibiotics is because the animals are so sick they just wouldn't survive without. Many still don't, it's just more effective to let 20% or so die if it allows stuffing more animals in the same space. Did anyone really think we would get away with treating animals like that and not have to face the consequences? Just say no, really. It's a disgusting, harmful habit; much more so than tobacco and alcohol. And down-voting me for telling you what you already knew isn't going to save you.

linkmotif 9y ago
I don’t think you need to invoke concentration camps here, true as it may be in some cases. They use antibiotics to make them grow faster. That’s half the reason.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  My understanding is that this practice is now banned in both the US and EU.
  - sifoo 9y ago
    Sounds like a bedtime story in my ears. We're eating more and more meat, and demanding that it gets cheaper and cheaper while the stock market index needs to go higher and higher. It won't stop until the majority is willing to look beyond the bullshit we're being fed and start using their brains.
    - Raphael_Amiard 9y ago
      We (french) are not https://www.planetoscope.com/elevage-viande/1587-consommation-de-viande-en-france.html https://www.planetoscope.com/elevage-viande/1587-consommatio..., pretty much the opposite actually
- sifoo 9y ago
  What's the difference then? Piling up living beings in awful conditions to kill them in the most cost-effective way is pretty much the definition of a concentration camp. And making them grow faster than they're supposed to at the expense of everything isn't very nice either.
  - enord 9y ago
    They're not people. Concentration camps are for people. At least we don't eat them alive, like their other natural predators.
    - sifoo 9y ago
      At least they have a chance to fight for their survival, which makes all the difference. If it's horrible when done to humans, it's horrible when done to animals. And as long as we keep doing it to animals, we shouldn't expect to escape the same fate ourselves; Karma 101.
      - enord 9y ago
        Fair enough, if you fear karmic retribution that makes sense. I don't, so for me the shoe remains on the same foot. Other people are more valuable to me than animals, and also more dangerous. The stakes are higher and therefore the moral considerations are more prudent (or karmic, if that's your bag).
        sifoo 9y ago
        Karma has nothing to do with revenge, karma is just another word for consequences. Every action leads to reactions; if they didn't the universe would have descended into chaos in no time at all. And thats how we learn, by acting and studying reactions until we get it. One of those lessons is recognizing the value of all living beings.
  - linkmotif 9y ago
    A big difference is that humans in concentration camps generally don’t get antibiotics, not for disease or for accelerated growth, and their bodies are generally not used as food. Also, animals kept not in high concentrations have often been given antibiotics since the 50s. It’s not all about supporting concentration. I understand that animals suffer in mass farming conditions—which is why I don’t buy mass produced meat or eggs or milk—but concentration camps are for people. You cans say animals are just like people, and I may even agree with you mostly, but to me and most people they’re not entirely like people. I understand if they are to you.
- i_feel_great 9y ago
  They grow faster because they are less sick. Antibiotics are not like growth hormones.
  - delbel 9y ago
    That is probably true (that they don't act like growth hormones) but last I visited the subject, scientist don't know exactly why, but antibiotics actually do increase growth in some livestock.
  - linkmotif 9y ago
    No, antibiotics make animals like chickens and pigs (and humans) actually grow much faster and bigger.
  - shagie 9y ago
    I would encourage you to read Antibiotic Growth-Promoters in Food Animals ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM ) (the fao domain is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) or the introduction of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Used in Animal Feed: Effects of Less Well Known Antibiotics on Gram-Positive Bacteria ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/ ) The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock also covers it: > Certain antibiotics, when given in low, sub-therapeutic doses, are known to improve feed conversion efficiency (more output, such as muscle or milk, for a given amount of feed) and/or may promote greater growth, most likely by affecting gut flora.[15] However, any antibiotics deemed medically important to humans by the CDC are illegal to use as growth promoters in the U.S. Only drugs that have no association with human medicine – and therefore no risk to humans – are allowed to be used for this purpose.[5][16] It is also important to note that some drugs listed below are ionophores, which are not antibiotics and do not pose any potential risk to human health. They are indeed not growth hormones, but they do change the gut bacteria balance and make it easier to extract calories from the feed stock. This has nothing to do with actually being sick or not.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
The reason they need all the antibiotics is because the animals are so sick they just wouldn't survive without I'm not sure this is entirely true.
- sifoo 9y ago
  Have you bothered to look into it? It's not like the information is impossible to find, even if they don't exactly advertise the icky parts of their business. 'Eating Animals' by Jonathan Safran Foer is a good place to start.
  - shagie 9y ago
    I am curious if you have. I would encourage you to read http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM > According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, it is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth. Do you have any material from a peer reviewed source that refutes this?
xsmasher 9y ago
It's worse than that - the meat industry uses antibiotics on perfectly healthy animals as a growth enhancer. This is pure profit motive, nothing to do with veterinary care.
efrafa 9y ago
Imagine the day you was born, somebody already planned your death. Because this is how it is for pig, cow, chicken on this planet.
- megaman22 9y ago
  Everyone and everything dies in the end. It's fairly common among religions to presume that fate is inexorable and already written, with free-will being only an illusion working towards the predestined plan of god(s).
  - cageface 9y ago
    The crucial difference of course is that most of us aren't forced to live day to day in horrifically cruel conditions and then killed about one tenth of the way into our natural lifespan, purely for the pleasure of others.
    - ilammy 9y ago
      Cruel conditions aside (which could be argued as morally bad thing), this: > then killed about one tenth of the way into our natural lifespan, purely for the pleasure of others does not seem to be rational. Humans and animals don't eat only for the pleasure, then need to eat something in order to live. Your stomach and other organs do not really care about your conscientious choices about what to eat, whether you had to kill for that or not. The natural lifespan is also partially influenced by 'demand' for the species by the predators, so the fact that some animal populations in wildlife have ten times the lifespan can be explained by the fact that those animals do not have humans in their natural habitat. Those which do end up in farms and their natural lifespan is lower. Anyway, I believe eating meat is so profound on moral debates only because humans are apex predators and no one preys on us. If there were such things then maybe our moral choices about animals could be more compassionate (in order to possibly influence moral choices of the human-eating predators).
      - cageface 9y ago
golergka 9y ago
Your argument relies on the assumption that one would feel as much empathy towards animals as they do towards humans, or at least a comparable amount.

by sifoo 9y ago

linkmotif 9y ago

I don’t think you need to invoke concentration camps here, true as it may be in some cases. They use antibiotics to make them grow faster. That’s half the reason.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
My understanding is that this practice is now banned in both the US and EU.
- sifoo 9y ago
  Sounds like a bedtime story in my ears. We're eating more and more meat, and demanding that it gets cheaper and cheaper while the stock market index needs to go higher and higher. It won't stop until the majority is willing to look beyond the bullshit we're being fed and start using their brains.
  - Raphael_Amiard 9y ago
    We (french) are not https://www.planetoscope.com/elevage-viande/1587-consommation-de-viande-en-france.html https://www.planetoscope.com/elevage-viande/1587-consommatio..., pretty much the opposite actually
sifoo 9y ago
What's the difference then? Piling up living beings in awful conditions to kill them in the most cost-effective way is pretty much the definition of a concentration camp. And making them grow faster than they're supposed to at the expense of everything isn't very nice either.
- enord 9y ago
  They're not people. Concentration camps are for people. At least we don't eat them alive, like their other natural predators.
  - sifoo 9y ago
    At least they have a chance to fight for their survival, which makes all the difference. If it's horrible when done to humans, it's horrible when done to animals. And as long as we keep doing it to animals, we shouldn't expect to escape the same fate ourselves; Karma 101.
    - enord 9y ago
      Fair enough, if you fear karmic retribution that makes sense. I don't, so for me the shoe remains on the same foot. Other people are more valuable to me than animals, and also more dangerous. The stakes are higher and therefore the moral considerations are more prudent (or karmic, if that's your bag).
      - sifoo 9y ago
        Karma has nothing to do with revenge, karma is just another word for consequences. Every action leads to reactions; if they didn't the universe would have descended into chaos in no time at all. And thats how we learn, by acting and studying reactions until we get it. One of those lessons is recognizing the value of all living beings.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  A big difference is that humans in concentration camps generally don’t get antibiotics, not for disease or for accelerated growth, and their bodies are generally not used as food. Also, animals kept not in high concentrations have often been given antibiotics since the 50s. It’s not all about supporting concentration. I understand that animals suffer in mass farming conditions—which is why I don’t buy mass produced meat or eggs or milk—but concentration camps are for people. You cans say animals are just like people, and I may even agree with you mostly, but to me and most people they’re not entirely like people. I understand if they are to you.
i_feel_great 9y ago
They grow faster because they are less sick. Antibiotics are not like growth hormones.
- delbel 9y ago
  That is probably true (that they don't act like growth hormones) but last I visited the subject, scientist don't know exactly why, but antibiotics actually do increase growth in some livestock.
- linkmotif 9y ago
  No, antibiotics make animals like chickens and pigs (and humans) actually grow much faster and bigger.
- shagie 9y ago
  I would encourage you to read Antibiotic Growth-Promoters in Food Animals ( http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM ) (the fao domain is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) or the introduction of Antimicrobial Growth Promoters Used in Animal Feed: Effects of Less Well Known Antibiotics on Gram-Positive Bacteria ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC153145/ ) The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock also covers it: > Certain antibiotics, when given in low, sub-therapeutic doses, are known to improve feed conversion efficiency (more output, such as muscle or milk, for a given amount of feed) and/or may promote greater growth, most likely by affecting gut flora.[15] However, any antibiotics deemed medically important to humans by the CDC are illegal to use as growth promoters in the U.S. Only drugs that have no association with human medicine – and therefore no risk to humans – are allowed to be used for this purpose.[5][16] It is also important to note that some drugs listed below are ionophores, which are not antibiotics and do not pose any potential risk to human health. They are indeed not growth hormones, but they do change the gut bacteria balance and make it easier to extract calories from the feed stock. This has nothing to do with actually being sick or not.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

The reason they need all the antibiotics is because the animals are so sick they just wouldn't survive without I'm not sure this is entirely true.

sifoo 9y ago
Have you bothered to look into it? It's not like the information is impossible to find, even if they don't exactly advertise the icky parts of their business. 'Eating Animals' by Jonathan Safran Foer is a good place to start.
- shagie 9y ago
  I am curious if you have. I would encourage you to read http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/555_EN.HTM > According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, it is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth. Do you have any material from a peer reviewed source that refutes this?

xsmasher 9y ago

It's worse than that - the meat industry uses antibiotics on perfectly healthy animals as a growth enhancer. This is pure profit motive, nothing to do with veterinary care.

efrafa 9y ago

Imagine the day you was born, somebody already planned your death. Because this is how it is for pig, cow, chicken on this planet.

megaman22 9y ago
Everyone and everything dies in the end. It's fairly common among religions to presume that fate is inexorable and already written, with free-will being only an illusion working towards the predestined plan of god(s).
- cageface 9y ago
  The crucial difference of course is that most of us aren't forced to live day to day in horrifically cruel conditions and then killed about one tenth of the way into our natural lifespan, purely for the pleasure of others.
  - ilammy 9y ago
    Cruel conditions aside (which could be argued as morally bad thing), this: > then killed about one tenth of the way into our natural lifespan, purely for the pleasure of others does not seem to be rational. Humans and animals don't eat only for the pleasure, then need to eat something in order to live. Your stomach and other organs do not really care about your conscientious choices about what to eat, whether you had to kill for that or not. The natural lifespan is also partially influenced by 'demand' for the species by the predators, so the fact that some animal populations in wildlife have ten times the lifespan can be explained by the fact that those animals do not have humans in their natural habitat. Those which do end up in farms and their natural lifespan is lower. Anyway, I believe eating meat is so profound on moral debates only because humans are apex predators and no one preys on us. If there were such things then maybe our moral choices about animals could be more compassionate (in order to possibly influence moral choices of the human-eating predators).
    - cageface 9y ago

golergka 9y ago

Your argument relies on the assumption that one would feel as much empathy towards animals as they do towards humans, or at least a comparable amount.