4 ms·

> The agency is asking the makers of animal drugs to voluntarily alter their labels so that farmers can no longer buy antibiotics to promote animal growth (a fa

by ihsw 13y ago

> The agency is asking the makers of animal drugs to voluntarily alter their labels so that farmers can no longer buy antibiotics to promote animal growth (a fairly common practice). I was under the impression that growth is secondary to supplementing the animal's immune system, especially since factory farms are terribly unsanitary.

reuven 13y ago
I think that it's everything together. Basically, giving animals antibiotics means that you have more animals (and animal weight) which can be sold at market. If it were more expensive to give antibiotics to the animals, farmers might rethink the equation, deciding to instead raise more, smaller animals in more sanitary environments. Michael Pollan's excellent book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," describes at great length the way in which non-factory farms operate, and why he believes they don't need the same sorts of sanitary rules that the government places on factory farms. I have no way of knowing whether he's right, but there's definitely some logic to the claim that antibiotics are addressing the symptom, rather than the root cause.
maxerickson 13y ago
Much of the use is as a feed additive. Some of the antibiotics shift the chemistry of the rumen, which increases the efficiency of the feed and also prevents a condition the animals get when they don't adjust to grain. I think there are also antibiotics that promote growth through some other mechanism, and feedlots also tend to have higher therapeutic use of antibiotics.
Fomite 13y ago
> I was under the impression that growth is secondary to supplementing the animal's immune system, especially since factory farms are terribly unsanitary. Antibiotic use for growth and for prophylactic treatment due to farm conditions are both common uses, and industry is pretty unapologetic about both. Watching a presentation by the National Pork Board at a public health conference was...eye-opening. Or at least it was before I walked out because I couldn't take the disingenuousness anymore.

by ihsw 13y ago

reuven 13y ago

I think that it's everything together. Basically, giving animals antibiotics means that you have more animals (and animal weight) which can be sold at market. If it were more expensive to give antibiotics to the animals, farmers might rethink the equation, deciding to instead raise more, smaller animals in more sanitary environments. Michael Pollan's excellent book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," describes at great length the way in which non-factory farms operate, and why he believes they don't need the same sorts of sanitary rules that the government places on factory farms. I have no way of knowing whether he's right, but there's definitely some logic to the claim that antibiotics are addressing the symptom, rather than the root cause.

maxerickson 13y ago

Much of the use is as a feed additive. Some of the antibiotics shift the chemistry of the rumen, which increases the efficiency of the feed and also prevents a condition the animals get when they don't adjust to grain. I think there are also antibiotics that promote growth through some other mechanism, and feedlots also tend to have higher therapeutic use of antibiotics.

Fomite 13y ago

> I was under the impression that growth is secondary to supplementing the animal's immune system, especially since factory farms are terribly unsanitary. Antibiotic use for growth and for prophylactic treatment due to farm conditions are both common uses, and industry is pretty unapologetic about both. Watching a presentation by the National Pork Board at a public health conference was...eye-opening. Or at least it was before I walked out because I couldn't take the disingenuousness anymore.