Livestock Antibiotics

[rebecacy]

Because the point of the article that resistant bugs could develop that would impact everyone.

Sometimes I think we all have our heads in the sand like an ostrich.

I'd rather be proacitive than reactive.

Listen, the Dane's are no feather weights when it comes to pork production. They've made it work fine, so I have no doubt it will work here.

What the Danes have learned is the policy drives the smaller family farms out of business and the therapeutic use of antibiotics skyrockets. I wouldn't eat pork in Denmark, they are having a health issue with their pigs. Here is an ISU paper on the subject. A google search yields many more.

CARD: Antibiotics Restrictions: Taking Stock of Denmark's Experience

 

[asmosis]

Um, I called it All-Natural because that's the name of the product. I didn't make it up, Farmland did.

And your last paragraph is exactly my point, we all have options, so why do we need more costly restrictions?

For clarity, I wasn't calling you out on calling it All-Natural. I understand it is the name of the product... I was asking a general question - and should have said, "how can that product be called "all-natural"?

 

[CYKOFAN]

What asmosis says makes sense. Bottom line- Before I believe either side of an issue I follow the money, then I try to use common sense. Almost always when we alter the natural order of things there are long term costs. Sure there can be big short term gains for some, but it usually ends up costing the public a lot more in the long run. I don't know if asmosis makes money from selling organic food, but his arguments make common sense.

 

[rebecacy]

in technical terms its a pro hormone, and legal to buy, steroids arent, i know a few people in ISU right now that take them.

This is a good example of how a little information leads to incorrect thinking -- most hormones are, in fact, proteins and are simply digested into amino acids when eaten. Don't let the word acid scare you, they won't burn your skin like sulfuric acid :smile:

 

[asmosis]

You sound like you believe all you are saying -- I actually feel sorry for you and worry about the health of your family.

Hey, heck of a comeback. Please feel free to debate your difference in view.

I do believe what I wrote. I have to laugh that you worry about the health of my family – we sure are toeing the line of danger when we make every attempt to eat local, organic and natural food because it is important to us to know where our food comes from and how it is handled. We are healthy and happy.

 

[Tre4ISU]

First off, we do NOT have the cheapest and most safe food supply in the world. We have the cheapest. Our food is so full of toxins, dyes, hydrogenated oils, sugars and junk it cannot be called safe.



It's not that pigs and cows are being given supplements and vitamins, it's that they are being pumped full of antibiotics just to be able to digest food they were not meant to eat, or to combat the ill-effects of being raised in a high-stress/over-crowded/filthy environment. Corn and soy are fed to cattle because it is a cheap high-protein food source. However, cattle have to be given antibiotics because they are not able to digest the corn and become very sick. They have to be given the antibiotics to survive eating corn for the 150 days or so they are alive.

Actually, a large percentage of cattle diets are not grain in many cases. I do agree on the enviroment thing. Corn is also not a high protein source. Soybean meal is but corn is not a large protein source relative to soybean meal. Believe me, if it were up to me, every production facility would be regulated more closely and be open air. That would solve a lot of problems.

Organic + GRASS FED cows are given the natural diet that cows have always consumed. They grow to maturity slower and produce less milk, but the food is considerably more nutrient rich and safer. Where do you think all the antibiotics go that are given to corn-fed beef??? It does not all get crapped out.

True but that is not cost effective, at all.

Also, I'd love to hear your Organic food movement based on ignorance arguments.




That has to be the most hypocritical sentence I've ever read!!! How the **** can you call that "all-natural"???


The reality about our food system (and every industry) is that it is controlled by money. This is not always a bad thing. It is a bad thing, however, when the pursuit of money is the deciding factor for every decision. Healthy, safe and consistent food, or more food that comes to market 3-times faster that has to be pumped full of crap to pass the safe test??

The bottom line is that every person has to be comfortable with the food they consume. Personally, I am not comfortable feeding my family processed foods, antibiotic-injected meats, fruits and veggies grown/sprayed with chemicals, milk that contains rBGH, etc.. Sure, our family pays a premium for our food choices and in reality it means I don't have a fancy cell-phone, or premium options on my car, or we don't go out to eat as often. But the trade off is our health and our peace of mind.

I have no problem with you choices. To each their own. It seems you have done some sort of research on the subject. As far as the chemicals, those are metabolized. That is how a plant is resistant to them in most cases. With the development of these product peoples life expectancy has been on an upward trend. Sure, it seems to be coming back down but that is based on peoples decisions to eat things like fast food and prepared foods, not on the fact that 85% lean hamburger out of the Fareway meat counter is harming them.

 

[rebecacy]

What asmosis says makes sense. Bottom line- Before I believe either side of an issue I follow the money, then I try to use common sense. Almost always when we alter the natural order of things there are long term costs. Sure there can be big short term gains for some, but it usually ends up costing the public a lot more in the long run. I don't know if asmosis makes money from selling organic food, but his arguments make common sense.

Here is an asmosis quote "However, cattle have to be given antibiotics because they are not able to digest the corn and become very sick. They have to be given the antibiotics to survive eating corn for the 150 days or so they are alive" --- this is not common sense -- in fact, it is false, certainly naive, if not completely ignorant. Here is another "Corn and soy are fed to cattle because it is a cheap high-protein food source." Corn is fed to cattle for it's starch/energy, a very important need not it's protein. Corn is actually deficient in a couple of the key amino acids in high quality proteins. This is a complex subject but what I have found is the anti's take advantage of that by making it simple and scary. People grab on to simple cuz it's easy and comforting. The anti's are smart, like to drive nice cars and they have to pay their mortgages too.....just like the rest of us working stiffs. Fear is a great motivator and very effectively creates a new market for people to spend their money in -- usually very misguidedly........even sadly, when poor families buy less food because they think it is more safe since it is well marketed and costs more.

 

[Bobber]

What the Danes have learned is the policy drives the smaller family farms out of business and the therapeutic use of antibiotics skyrockets. I wouldn't eat pork in Denmark, they are having a health issue with their pigs. Here is an ISU paper on the subject. A google search yields many more.

CARD: Antibiotics Restrictions: Taking Stock of Denmark's Experience

That's solely an economic paper. Doesn't address the issue about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

And if you don't think the industry hasn't changed here as it has in Denmark from a size standpoint, you should brush up.

I should mention I grew up on a hog farm, and worked in the hog industy for a number of year, so I know a little bit about the various issues involved.

There's nothing wrong with Danish pork quality. They produce roughly 25% more of it then the entire state of Iowa, so they seem to be finding plenty of people who will eat it.

 

[Marc936]

This is a good example of how a little information leads to incorrect thinking -- most hormones are, in fact, proteins and are simply digested into amino acids when eaten. Don't let the word acid scare you, they won't burn your skin like sulfuric acid :smile:

your getting off topic of what iw as trying to explain, this is what happens when too many tangents go on, he called a pro hormone for humans a steroid, its not, thats why i stated that.


regardless, your using it to beef up a cow a lot faster than physically possible, i would want to eat that why? why would i want to eat a corn fed cow over a grass fed one? the only thing stopping it is simply the cost which most people already explained

 

[Tre4ISU]

Here is an asmosis quote "However, cattle have to be given antibiotics because they are not able to digest the corn and become very sick. They have to be given the antibiotics to survive eating corn for the 150 days or so they are alive" --- this is not common sense -- in fact, it is false, certainly naive, if not completely ignorant.

I don't care what diet they are on, cattle won't finish in 150 days. I missed that.

 

[Tre4ISU]

your getting off topic of what iw as trying to explain, this is what happens when too many tangents go on, he called a pro hormone for humans a steroid, its not, thats why i stated that.


regardless, your using it to beef up a cow a lot faster than physically possible, i would want to eat that why? why would i want to eat a corn fed cow over a grass fed one? the only thing stopping it is simply the cost which most people already explained

Grain fed cattle often produce a better meat. A complete grass diet will often produce a tougher meat.

 

[Bobber]

Grain fed cattle often produce a better meat. A complete grass diet will often produce a tougher meat.

Tend to agree, but one of the best steaks I ever ate was down in Sydney, Australia where I believe it's mostly grass fed.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Tend to agree, but one of the best steaks I ever ate was down in Sydney, Australia where I believe it's mostly grass fed.

Likely was. I'm not saying it can't work, but it mass production it isn't feasible. It also depends on the breed of cattle.

 

[rebecacy]

Grain fed cattle often produce a better meat. A complete grass diet will often produce a tougher meat.

Grain fed cattle produce prime rib....................grass fed cattle become bad hamburger. :notworthy: IT'S AN OVER SIMPLIFICATION BUT THE ANTI'S LOVE DOING IT. Ever wonder why Europeans want to go directly to our good steakhouses when they vacation in the USA --- Corn-fed beef tastes much better!!!

 

[rebecacy]

That's solely an economic paper. Doesn't address the issue about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

And if you don't think the industry hasn't changed here as it has in Denmark from a size standpoint, you should brush up.

I should mention I grew up on a hog farm, and worked in the hog industy for a number of year, so I know a little bit about the various issues involved.

There's nothing wrong with Danish pork quality. They produce roughly 25% more of it then the entire state of Iowa, so they seem to be finding plenty of people who will eat it.

I know a little bit about the subject as well -- my point is it is always a trade-off ------ when the time is right the anti's will attack a technology cuz it drives small "family" farmers out of business too -- when that argument resonates with the right audience so the money flows in.

 

[rebecacy]

Tend to agree, but one of the best steaks I ever ate was down in Sydney, Australia where I believe it's mostly grass fed.

The Aussies tend to feed high grain for just the three to four weeks before slaughter when they make their prime cuts like you had. Up til then, yep grass fed........ the grain at the end adds the marbling which greatly improves the taste, tenderness, and juiciness.

 

[CYKOFAN]

rebecacy- You may be right about corn fed cattle, corn is a plant that's been around for thousands of years and not an anti-biotic. But the point is that when man alters nature or messes too much with the natural order of things, the long term effects are usually bad, even if the shorter term effects look good. That's not to say there hasn't been great scientific advances for the good, often when we have learned more about and used what's available to us from nature and the natural laws of the universe.

 

[asmosis]

I have no problem with you choices. To each their own. It seems you have done some sort of research on the subject. As far as the chemicals, those are metabolized. That is how a plant is resistant to them in most cases. With the development of these product peoples life expectancy has been on an upward trend. Sure, it seems to be coming back down but that is based on peoples decisions to eat things like fast food and prepared foods, not on the fact that 85% lean hamburger out of the Fareway meat counter is harming them.

The European Union has banned the use of hormones in beef cattle, and has conducted a study that showed that hormone residues remain in the meat. Because of health concerns for both people and animals, Japan, Canada, Australia and the European Union have all banned the use of rBGH, but the hormone is still given to cows in the US. The EU has also banned the import of meat from animals treated with hormones, so the EU imports no beef from the US.

Also, I never said it's just the chemically-grown meat that is harmful to us, it's all foods that are over-processed and filled with the excess sugars/hydrogenated fats/salts in combination. A lot of fast food and processed food is made with this poorly grown meat plus all the cheap and unhealthy ingredients.

 

[asmosis]

I don't care what diet they are on, cattle won't finish in 150 days. I missed that.

From the information I've read, cattle finish approximately between 150-167 days. I admit I could have bad info, but that's the time frame I've come to understand.

 

[Bobber]

I know a little bit about the subject as well -- my point is it is always a trade-off ------ when the time is right the anti's will attack a technology cuz it drives small "family" farmers out of business too -- when that argument resonates with the right audience so the money flows in.

I can agree with that.

Throwing the family farm argument does nothing for this issue in my opinion.