4 ms·
There's another thing the article hand waves over: there is no actual evidence that antibiotics in feed have an effect on the animals' growth. [1] It is yet an
by wobbleblob 13y ago
There's another thing the article hand waves over: there is no actual evidence that antibiotics in feed have an effect on the animals' growth. [1]
It is yet another piece of farmer folklore, like hail cannons and routine castration. They are believed to work, without any scientific basis.
The thing is, farmers believe so strongly in this myth, that even in places where antibiotics are banned as a feed additive, they bribe vets to prescribe their livestock antibiotics for a variety of fictitious ailments, so they can keep giving it.
[1] http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/newsletter_33_3555326098.pdf http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/newsletter_33_3555326098....
- wazoox 13y agoThis is even more serious: these morons are making the most revolutionary tool of modern medicine useless for no gain at all? It's crazy.
- 1stop 13y agoI thought the original reason for Antibiotics in feed, was so the farmer could save money on conditions (i.e the farm can be a little bit unhealthy for animals, as they are all on antibiotics... the growth effects were/are secondary...)
- wobbleblob 13y agoNot at all. Antibiotics are added to feed in sub clinical doses.