6 ms·

Some FUD, but farmers definitely abuse antibiotics. But of course they do, since they buy them in bulk at the store. I have a lot of veterinarian friends, and

Some FUD, but farmers definitely abuse antibiotics. But of course they do, since they buy them in bulk at the store. I have a lot of veterinarian friends, and the fact of the matter is farmers purchase antibiotics like any other supplies. Farmers get to skirt the process most other animal owners go through, and in most states and jurisdictions don't need to go through a licensed veterinarian to obtain antibiotics. Most veterinarians I know think it's ridiculous, and causes more harm than good. But farmers have lobbied for these freedoms. Many veterinarian friends complain that many farmers are entitled, and feel that they should be able to do whatever they want with their herd. If you ask me, Farming is one profession that needs to have stronger regulations that are actually enforced e.g. antibiotics, humane treatment, etc. It's a grey area for sure -- do I let my sick animals suffer so I can sell them? Or do I give them medicine that makes them ineligible for certain consumption categories.

hutzlibu 8y ago
"do I let my sick animals suffer so I can sell them?" Erm, isn't the point that they use antibiotics en masse to prevent illness? I don't think anybody ever complained about treating (serious) diseases with antibiotics, but the preventive use big scale. This is just madness, among other things in the meat industry. .
- kuschku 8y ago
  But that’s not what they’re used for. Because antibiotics affect the gut flora of the animals, they tend to get fatter faster. Which is good for a farmer trying to make as much money in as little time as possible. This is what they’re mostly used for, sadly.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sampo 8y ago
  Constant feeding of low, sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics boosts animal growth. Apparently, without antibiotics, some part of the energy in the food is consumed by the gut microbes, not the animal. Antibiotics tame down the gut microbes, so more of the energy in the feed goes to the animal. The farmer needs less feed, and the animals grow faster. I would guess that with antibiotics, meat production can be like 20% more efficient, maybe somewhat more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Drugs_and_growth_stimulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Dr...
  - infogulch 8y ago
    Wait, isn't that the exact scenario that has the most danger of breeding antibiotic resistance? Constant, low doses that just suppress bacteria population but don't wipe it out. Antibiotic resistance is becoming a huge problem recently. It sounds like farmers are slowly trading in the most effective life saving medicine we have ever discovered for a boost in margins.
    - monetus 8y ago
      Yes, its sad this train of thought is often disregarded as most of the people who I hear repeat it are anti-gmo.
  - pyre 8y ago
    > I would guess that with antibiotics, meat production can be like 20% more efficient, maybe somewhat more. But at great cost. The farmer makes more short-term profit, while offloading the externality of dealing with the consequences (breeding antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria) to the future[1] or just someone else entirely[2]. Are these costs really worth it for you to get cheap cuts of meat at the grocery store, or to ensure that the farmer makes more money (or remains profitable at all[3])? [1] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria make cattle farming impossible. [2] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria enter the general human population generating a significant health crisis. [3] If the livestock industry can't stay afloat without these low-dose antibiotics, then maybe they should either charge more (meat becomes a luxury item), or they should just end livestock farming altogether. The production of meat isn't as essential to the functioning of society as people think. It's definitely not worth the risk of creating a health crisis just because "the meat must flow."
    - sampo 8y ago
      > Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria enter the general human population generating a significant health crisis. From the wikipedia link above: "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." (I am no expert, so I don't know whats the bottom of this.)
- mycorrhizal 8y ago
  "Erm, isn't the point that they use antibiotics en masse to prevent illness?" Another great way to prevent illness would be to actually provide suitable conditions for the animals to live. Their current conditions are abhorrent. I agree with the other commenters about the use of antibiotics to raise larger animals as opposed to healthier ones.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    Farmers are under strong economic pressures to reduce sickness in their animals. And as mentioned be others, baseline antibiotics use is not about reducing sickness. Animal welfare is a valid and important concern, but the best place to focus is on places where the farmer's incentives are not well aligned.
maxerickson 8y ago
I thought this thread about how farms operate was pretty interesting: https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/973765381017034753 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/973765381017034753 Of course I don't really have the context to evaluate it.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  Wow, that was a super interesting perspective. Thanks for the share.
madhadron 8y ago
> do I let my sick animals suffer so I can sell them? This isn't what the antibiotics are for. They increase growth. We don't know why. It is also a giant source of antibiotic resistance, which is why it should be illegal, much less the disruption of your gut microbiota from consuming antibiotics.
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  > This isn't what the antibiotics are for. They increase growth. We don't know why. Do you have a source for this? Sounds very interesting if true
  - pyre 8y ago
    This has been known for quite a while. I'm sure you could come up with quite a few sources if you really wanted to, though I'm not sure how well the phenomena has been studied (seeing as we still don't know what causes it).
  - skookum 8y ago
    An answer to your question was already in an immediate sibling subthread half an hour before you posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162574
  - louprado 8y ago
    The article links to another article in the fourth paragraph. The use of the word seem implies we don't exactly know why. "That’s because decades of agricultural research has shown that antibiotics seem to flip a switch in young animals’ bodies, helping them pack on pounds. Manufacturers brag about the miraculous effects of feeding antibiotics to chicks and nursing calves." The above raises the question, do antibotics increase the BMI of human children long-term ? According to this article[1] the answer is yes. [1] https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/children-who-take-antibiotics-gain-weight-faster-than-kids-who-dont.t.html https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/children-who-t...
  - aviv 8y ago
rpedela 8y ago
Why is the article FUD?
ksec 8y ago
Are these submarine articles? There are lots of "Natural" beef / poultry / pork which are Anti-Biotics free ( Or claiming they are when they are not ) that are selling at a premium. Being pushed especially by the big companies, Cargill / Tyson ( IBP ) and National Beef. I do agree it is a tough call though. Beef Industry has a huge lead time compare to Pork and Poultry. Making it not as easy / clear cut.
delbel 8y ago
I found that instead of using antibionics, using probiotics on a sick animal works even better. I had a sick animal that I didn't think would make it and loaded their food with pro-biotics and she eventually powered through it. Maybe the solution is just the right bacteria vs the wrong ones. This might be a middle ground farmers might like because they can brew their own bacteria pretty easily (I use rotten milk and a bucket) and actually save money

hutzlibu 8y ago

"do I let my sick animals suffer so I can sell them?" Erm, isn't the point that they use antibiotics en masse to prevent illness? I don't think anybody ever complained about treating (serious) diseases with antibiotics, but the preventive use big scale. This is just madness, among other things in the meat industry. .

kuschku 8y ago
But that’s not what they’re used for. Because antibiotics affect the gut flora of the animals, they tend to get fatter faster. Which is good for a farmer trying to make as much money in as little time as possible. This is what they’re mostly used for, sadly.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sampo 8y ago
Constant feeding of low, sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics boosts animal growth. Apparently, without antibiotics, some part of the energy in the food is consumed by the gut microbes, not the animal. Antibiotics tame down the gut microbes, so more of the energy in the feed goes to the animal. The farmer needs less feed, and the animals grow faster. I would guess that with antibiotics, meat production can be like 20% more efficient, maybe somewhat more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Drugs_and_growth_stimulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Dr...
- infogulch 8y ago
  Wait, isn't that the exact scenario that has the most danger of breeding antibiotic resistance? Constant, low doses that just suppress bacteria population but don't wipe it out. Antibiotic resistance is becoming a huge problem recently. It sounds like farmers are slowly trading in the most effective life saving medicine we have ever discovered for a boost in margins.
  - monetus 8y ago
    Yes, its sad this train of thought is often disregarded as most of the people who I hear repeat it are anti-gmo.
- pyre 8y ago
  > I would guess that with antibiotics, meat production can be like 20% more efficient, maybe somewhat more. But at great cost. The farmer makes more short-term profit, while offloading the externality of dealing with the consequences (breeding antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria) to the future[1] or just someone else entirely[2]. Are these costs really worth it for you to get cheap cuts of meat at the grocery store, or to ensure that the farmer makes more money (or remains profitable at all[3])? [1] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria make cattle farming impossible. [2] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria enter the general human population generating a significant health crisis. [3] If the livestock industry can't stay afloat without these low-dose antibiotics, then maybe they should either charge more (meat becomes a luxury item), or they should just end livestock farming altogether. The production of meat isn't as essential to the functioning of society as people think. It's definitely not worth the risk of creating a health crisis just because "the meat must flow."
  - sampo 8y ago
    > Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria enter the general human population generating a significant health crisis. From the wikipedia link above: "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." (I am no expert, so I don't know whats the bottom of this.)
mycorrhizal 8y ago
"Erm, isn't the point that they use antibiotics en masse to prevent illness?" Another great way to prevent illness would be to actually provide suitable conditions for the animals to live. Their current conditions are abhorrent. I agree with the other commenters about the use of antibiotics to raise larger animals as opposed to healthier ones.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  Farmers are under strong economic pressures to reduce sickness in their animals. And as mentioned be others, baseline antibiotics use is not about reducing sickness. Animal welfare is a valid and important concern, but the best place to focus is on places where the farmer's incentives are not well aligned.

maxerickson 8y ago

I thought this thread about how farms operate was pretty interesting: https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/973765381017034753 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/973765381017034753 Of course I don't really have the context to evaluate it.

wutbrodo 8y ago
Wow, that was a super interesting perspective. Thanks for the share.

madhadron 8y ago

> do I let my sick animals suffer so I can sell them? This isn't what the antibiotics are for. They increase growth. We don't know why. It is also a giant source of antibiotic resistance, which is why it should be illegal, much less the disruption of your gut microbiota from consuming antibiotics.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
> This isn't what the antibiotics are for. They increase growth. We don't know why. Do you have a source for this? Sounds very interesting if true
- pyre 8y ago
  This has been known for quite a while. I'm sure you could come up with quite a few sources if you really wanted to, though I'm not sure how well the phenomena has been studied (seeing as we still don't know what causes it).
- skookum 8y ago
  An answer to your question was already in an immediate sibling subthread half an hour before you posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162574
- louprado 8y ago
  The article links to another article in the fourth paragraph. The use of the word seem implies we don't exactly know why. "That’s because decades of agricultural research has shown that antibiotics seem to flip a switch in young animals’ bodies, helping them pack on pounds. Manufacturers brag about the miraculous effects of feeding antibiotics to chicks and nursing calves." The above raises the question, do antibotics increase the BMI of human children long-term ? According to this article[1] the answer is yes. [1] https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/children-who-take-antibiotics-gain-weight-faster-than-kids-who-dont.t.html https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2015/children-who-t...
- aviv 8y ago

rpedela 8y ago

Why is the article FUD?

ksec 8y ago

Are these submarine articles? There are lots of "Natural" beef / poultry / pork which are Anti-Biotics free ( Or claiming they are when they are not ) that are selling at a premium. Being pushed especially by the big companies, Cargill / Tyson ( IBP ) and National Beef. I do agree it is a tough call though. Beef Industry has a huge lead time compare to Pork and Poultry. Making it not as easy / clear cut.

delbel 8y ago

I found that instead of using antibionics, using probiotics on a sick animal works even better. I had a sick animal that I didn't think would make it and loaded their food with pro-biotics and she eventually powered through it. Maybe the solution is just the right bacteria vs the wrong ones. This might be a middle ground farmers might like because they can brew their own bacteria pretty easily (I use rotten milk and a bucket) and actually save money