3 ms·

Here's the problem though - the use of antibiotics in livestock, especially in growth promotion, is part of the problem. And the part of the problem that is th

by Fomite 8y ago

Here's the problem though - the use of antibiotics in livestock, especially in growth promotion, is part of the problem. And the part of the problem that is the most optional. You can make arguments about prophylactic doses - I don't agree with most of those arguments, and think the answer is more humane farming methods are the answer to that, but they exist. But growth promotion (and growth promotion disguised as prophylaxis to get around regulations) is creating a public harm for a private good. And again, it's not about wiping out humanity. It is things like making that farmer's knee surgery that he needs to keep working way more dangerous.

delbel 8y ago
So yes if antibiotics is indeed the problem, and farmers are required, by contract and livestock insurance to use them, for higher profit -- simply make the insurance company liable for the unintended consequence of over use of antibiotics. If a meat wholesaler knew that they could be sued by hospitals for overuse of antibiotics, they would move to protect their profits and forbid it or agree to guidelines. If it is true and factual, scientifically based, this should be no problem proving this in court. Because people don't want unknown unknown counter party risks. On another note, my dogs, which are breed for livestock guardian, have a very special trait. If one of my livestock (chickens) show any sign of illness, they immediately kill it. Because the risk of a sick animal that dies and attracts predators, which is unacceptable to them. Also it eliminates a vector for the disease to spread. I don't interfere with it. So even nature has a way of dealing with this problem. What ends up happening is that the rest of the flock goes to pass their better genetics and they don't get sick. Another thing is that a few of my older chickens have caught on to this and appear to hide their sneezes. I might be anthroprojecting.

by Fomite 8y ago

delbel 8y ago

So yes if antibiotics is indeed the problem, and farmers are required, by contract and livestock insurance to use them, for higher profit -- simply make the insurance company liable for the unintended consequence of over use of antibiotics. If a meat wholesaler knew that they could be sued by hospitals for overuse of antibiotics, they would move to protect their profits and forbid it or agree to guidelines. If it is true and factual, scientifically based, this should be no problem proving this in court. Because people don't want unknown unknown counter party risks. On another note, my dogs, which are breed for livestock guardian, have a very special trait. If one of my livestock (chickens) show any sign of illness, they immediately kill it. Because the risk of a sick animal that dies and attracts predators, which is unacceptable to them. Also it eliminates a vector for the disease to spread. I don't interfere with it. So even nature has a way of dealing with this problem. What ends up happening is that the rest of the flock goes to pass their better genetics and they don't get sick. Another thing is that a few of my older chickens have caught on to this and appear to hide their sneezes. I might be anthroprojecting.