Livestock Antibiotics
- Thread starter Bobber
- Start date
Unfortunately you have been grossly mis-informed by somebody. I would be more than willing to invite you out to see my cattle being finished on high corn diet without any anti-biotics....you need to learn about the digestive tract of cattle and see that they have no issues at all in digesting corn. And as someone already mentioned; corn is mostly fed as an energy source (starch); not a protein. You are correct that grass fed cattle grow slower and cost of gain is higher; but if today everybody switched from a grain fed diet to a grass fed diet there would be a huge under utilization of the worlds crop acres and a drastic price increase of meat globally causing many of the world's populations to not have any access to the essential 16 amino acid which meat provides.
On the other hand I see comments about Grass Fed beef not being as good as grain fed beef. I would disagree in terms of quality, you can still get a Prime or Choice carcass that is a yield grade 3 or lower from an animal that is fed entirely on grass. Marbling (intra-muscular fat) is impacted greatly by genetics....with that said it is quicker and easier to get a quality carcass on grain as compared to grass but it is possible with both methods...fyi I prefer the flavor of a corn fed steer!
It's bad info, don't use it. People calve in late winter and those calves will finish not the following summer but the one after.
As for this discussion, no one uses growth promoting hormones in cows. That is completely the wrong terminology. They use them in cattle.
Corn fed does produce a more tender cut as it is has a higher fat content. Grass-fed produces leaner meat. However, I'd argue that grass-fed beef has much better flavor than corn-fed. The meat is flavorful and you are not relying on the fat for you taste as much.
First, I see zero evidence of these bugs that will impact everyone. Do resistant bugs exist? Yes. But to say they will impact everyone, or even a significant percentage of people, seem like an unsubstantiated claim.
Second, I understand why comparing Denmark's pork production to Iowa's makes sense on the surface. Similar production numbers and they are a giant in worldwide pork exports. But there are a ton of differences in the structure of the 2 industries.
Also, it should be noted that since the Denmark ban, the number of hog farmers has declined by about 83 percent. It effectively ruined all small hog farmers.
Last edited:
There is soooo much misinformation in this thread. I think farmers need to do a better job educating the public than they currently do. It is shocking to hear what people will recite as fact when it is so far off base (asmosis for example). It all comes down to what somebody else has told them or they have read and it becomes fact to them. Oh, and think of the millions we can save in grain cost now that we know that cattle cannot digest corn. Lol.
I don't agree with your premise around man messing with nature always causing bad long term effects. I don't even believe there is a natural order to things. In fact, best I can tell, "CHANGE" is the biggest constant in nature. Man did not cause any of the ice ages, continental drifts or dinosaur extinctions, etc., etc., etc. I do believe the net benefits of new technologies have far outweighed the negatives. I'd be dead by now if that were not the case.
Somehow people actually believe that "food was safer way back when" -- that is just not true (people died of the grip, or consumption, or the plague) when it was often food poisoning and we were too ignorant to yet know why we were dying.
Over-population is caused by NOT messing with nature. And, in my mind, over population is the biggest threat to our planet.
First off rBFGh is given to milk cow's to increase their milk production....it is not given to beef cattle (where you get a vast majority of your meat)
And a European scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that, despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason
Non-tariff trade barriers are the real reason for the banning -- politics!!!!! People who eat too much and don't exercise are the reason for the obesity/health problem.
Farmers would do a better job of education if they could, but then people would just say "They're being paid off by XXX Corporation" (be it Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson, etc...).
There is a lot of misinformation and a lot of fear mongering by people (on both sides of the debate, IMO, and this is coming from someone who is getting back into farming).
The fact is most of society is So Far Removed from the agricultural process that they have no idea what really goes on. They either have this ideological image of Ma and Pa Kettle plowing and picking by hand, milking the cows and feeding the chickens or completely unrealistic notions of how they think animals/crops should be raised based on their personal opinions. "Make sure the there's no soil erosion and I don't want any pesticides on my crops and make sure the animals are given plenty of space and happy (fluff their pillows!). Oh, and can you keep the cost down while you're at it? I like my cheap food!" Obviously, that's a gross oversimplification, but it's not far from what I've heard from friends in other parts of the country.
Thanks for your post. One thing I continually learn is that not all information a person consumes can be taken as gospel. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but have a done a good deal of research (not just watching food documentaries) beyond the common consumer. I will definitely look further into the feed issue with cattle... but my stance on the use of nontherapeutic use antibiotics, hormones etc just to up production will be a hard one to sway.
I will continue to support my local, grass-fed and certified organic meat producer up here in MN. We've been buying from the family for 4+ years and consistently get quality meat. I'm a big local supporter and a big fan of the grass-fed taste.
Yes, I knew that the rBGH is for dairy cows. My paragraph was that growth hormones had been banned for beef cows by the EU and that hormone residue in had been found in the meat. But then I said that the EU in addition to Japan and Canda had banned rBGH, without identifying it's use in milk production.
With biotechnology's growth the making of designer antibiotics is nearly here -- man will be able to quickly determine the reasons for microbial resistance and build a selective antibiotic to kill it. Just needed the drive for it to happen -- it's here, it's where the money is and will be and we'll fix it. And the anti's will scare the begezzus out of an unscientific public wjile we do this and they will get there cut as well. Look at the poor poster who actually believes "we here in the US are actually pumping our animals up with hormones even tho' they are banned due to health reasons around the rest of the world" -- and sadly he/she is not alone. Science is complex and scary. People find comfort in simple and the anti's make their house payments off this fact.
I'm confused, which generalization do you have me pegged as? Am I the Anti- who drives a nice car and pays my mortgage with the money made from scare tactics... or the poor family who doesn't buy enough food because organic marketing campaigns have me brainwashed?
The food being produced by the American farmer (beef, pork, chicken, etc) is very safe for human consumption. They are heavily regulated by the USDA and FDA. Both branches have done extensive testing and research in terms to what is and isn't safe for meat production. I implore you to reach out to both organizations with any concerns that you might have because there is A LOT of mis-information on the world wide web. Both branches have staff members that would be more than willing to answer any questions or concerns that you may have.
U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page
U.S. Department of Agriculture Home Page . Home Page
Good post -- I also like this site that is run by actual US family farmers ---- AFACT: American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology
rebecacy--I didn't say that the result of man messing with nature is always bad, in fact it often can be good for the short term. I said the long term effects are usually bad, and that could take generations to play out. And occasional and extreme change is very much a law of nature, it's happened throughout the history of the planet. One could also argue that man made changes has very much brought on overpopulation of the planet. The overpopulation of the planet wasn't an issue for thousands of years until the fairly recent changes brought on by man due to industrialization, mass production, the age of oil, vaccines, and other medical advances. There's no argument that these have had great short term benefits, but you could also argue that the long term affects may be fatal to the human race due to pollution and overpopulation.
