• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Goodbye Rumensin?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
EU bans four more antibiotics

A European Union-wide ban on using antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed went into effect Jan. 1. This is the final step in the EU’s strategy to phase out antibiotics used for non-medicinal purposes. It’s part of the European Commission’s overall effort to tackle antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics can now only be added to animal feed for veterinary purposes.

The following four substances will be removed:

Salinomycin sodium used for piglets and finishing pigs.
Avilamycin used for young pigs, finishing pigs, chickens and turkeys.
Flavophospholipol used for rabbits, laying hens, market chickens, turkeys, pigs, calves and cattle.
Monensin sodium used for market cattle.

The flimsy science used to argue for the EU ban can be argued indefinitely. But now that the ban has been implemented in the EU, a movement to do the same in the U.S. is likely in the near future. — G.H.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Bill said:
EU bans four more antibiotics

A European Union-wide ban on using antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed went into effect Jan. 1. This is the final step in the EU’s strategy to phase out antibiotics used for non-medicinal purposes. It’s part of the European Commission’s overall effort to tackle antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics can now only be added to animal feed for veterinary purposes.

The following four substances will be removed:

Salinomycin sodium used for piglets and finishing pigs.
Avilamycin used for young pigs, finishing pigs, chickens and turkeys.
Flavophospholipol used for rabbits, laying hens, market chickens, turkeys, pigs, calves and cattle.
Monensin sodium used for market cattle.

The flimsy science used to argue for the EU ban can be argued indefinitely. But now that the ban has been implemented in the EU, a movement to do the same in the U.S. is likely in the near future. — G.H.

Bill, do you think that the U.S. and Canada drug and supplement manufactorors should set the policy in Europe? If you want to export to that market, you will, and should, follow the rules they set up in that country. They should be the judge of their own "flimsy science", not you. It is totally apparent to me that different perspectives are good. Perspectives that are totalitarian in nature are not.

To have giant agribusiness set up shop in Canada and not have to follow the rules and laws pertaining to market power in their largest trading partner is ludicrous. Bad trade agreements allow this to happen.

If trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is to be "free" then we need to make sure the rules are the same so that everyone has to play by the same rules. Canada just got burned by the BSE deal, the U.S. market got burned by the captive supply of Canada(I am told). Don't you think we should work on these problems instead of allowing the influence of big business make the policy through their minions in the regulatory and political chokepoints? I think producers would be better off.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Econ101 said:
Bill said:
EU bans four more antibiotics

A European Union-wide ban on using antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed went into effect Jan. 1. This is the final step in the EU’s strategy to phase out antibiotics used for non-medicinal purposes. It’s part of the European Commission’s overall effort to tackle antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics can now only be added to animal feed for veterinary purposes.

The following four substances will be removed:

Salinomycin sodium used for piglets and finishing pigs.
Avilamycin used for young pigs, finishing pigs, chickens and turkeys.
Flavophospholipol used for rabbits, laying hens, market chickens, turkeys, pigs, calves and cattle.
Monensin sodium used for market cattle.

The flimsy science used to argue for the EU ban can be argued indefinitely. But now that the ban has been implemented in the EU, a movement to do the same in the U.S. is likely in the near future. — G.H.

Bill, do you think that the U.S. and Canada drug and supplement manufactorors should set the policy in Europe? If you want to export to that market, you will, and should, follow the rules they set up in that country. They should be the judge of their own "flimsy science", not you. It is totally apparent to me that different perspectives are good. Perspectives that are totalitarian in nature are not.

To have giant agribusiness set up shop in Canada and not have to follow the rules and laws pertaining to market power in their largest trading partner is ludicrous. Bad trade agreements allow this to happen.

If trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is to be "free" then we need to make sure the rules are the same so that everyone has to play by the same rules. Canada just got burned by the BSE deal, the U.S. market got burned by the captive supply of Canada(I am told). Don't you think we should work on these problems instead of allowing the influence of big business make the policy through their minions in the regulatory and political chokepoints? I think producers would be better off.
Whoa! Better switch to de-caf Econ or at least cut back on the sugar. I just posted that as an FYI and maybe start a new discussion on whether current practices encourage drug resistance.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
I don't want to derail Bill's topic about drugs but Econ could you tell us who told you that Canada is "Captive supply " for use against the US market?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
I don't want to derail Bill's topic about drugs but Econ could you tell us who told you that Canada is "Captive supply " for use against the US market?

BMR, there are enough people on this board who hold that view. I have to go now, but I would love to talk a little more about this issue and related issues.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,021
Reaction score
234
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
I don't want to derail Bill's topic about drugs but Econ could you tell us who told you that Canada is "Captive supply " for use against the US market?

BMR, there are enough people on this board who hold that view. I have to go now, but I would love to talk a little more about this issue and related issues.

Oh yes there are some on this board that hold that veiw but none that have proven that fact.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
5,962
Reaction score
0
Location
Western South Dakota
Whoa! Better switch to de-caf Econ or at least cut back on the sugar. I just posted that as an FYI and maybe start a new discussion on whether current practices encourage drug resistance.[/quote]

I've noticed as all ranchers have been better about giving all of the shots that the feeders want, that the feeders are still fighting sick calves, when they come into the lot. We never let anything get sick anymore. We give shots to head off any and all types of sickness, we can.

I'm not saying that this is wrong. We are just trying to ensure we have more and healthier cattle to sell. My question is this, are we breeding up sick cattle by using vaccines to save them all?

It used to be that cattle that got sick died or were affected by the sickness enough that at least they were removed from the herd. This doesn't seem to happen as much now.

Do you all understand what I'm getting at?

It's kind'a like preg testing. you'd think after so many years that the amount of opens would go down, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Maybe we all need to cull more, instead of just cussing the purebred guys who don't cut enough bulls?

I'm not picking a fight here, just looking for others views on this subject.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
I tend to agree with you Jinglebob. Some calves maybe should have died earlier in life, a sad reality.

I wonder how all the vaccines affect the carcass quality in the end.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Jinglebob said:
Whoa! Better switch to de-caf Econ or at least cut back on the sugar. I just posted that as an FYI and maybe start a new discussion on whether current practices encourage drug resistance.

I've noticed as all ranchers have been better about giving all of the shots that the feeders want, that the feeders are still fighting sick calves, when they come into the lot. We never let anything get sick anymore. We give shots to head off any and all types of sickness, we can.

I'm not saying that this is wrong. We are just trying to ensure we have more and healthier cattle to sell. My question is this, are we breeding up sick cattle by using vaccines to save them all?

It used to be that cattle that got sick died or were affected by the sickness enough that at least they were removed from the herd. This doesn't seem to happen as much now.

Do you all understand what I'm getting at?

It's kind'a like preg testing. you'd think after so many years that the amount of opens would go down, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Maybe we all need to cull more, instead of just cussing the purebred guys who don't cut enough bulls?

I'm not picking a fight here, just looking for others views on this subject.[/quote]

Jinglebob, don't worry. I am not out here to fight just for the fun of it, but I do have it in me if need be.

I am not a medical professional, flounder comes a lot closer to that than I on this board, but I do have a few views on this subject based on what I do know (or think I know).

You talked about two different things here in this post and I think they should be separated.

It is my understanding that vaccines do not breed resistance. They actually help the animal build imunological responses to recognize enemies of the body and fight them before they cause death. In essence, vaccines are like warning signs for the body to get its own imune response ready for the battle in the individual animal.

Antibiotics are a little different beast, however. Most antibodies, starting with Pastuer's penicillen(which incidentally has close connections to dairy) are poisons or toxins to bacteria we want to control that are often derived from other bacteria that fight each other on the micro level. Drug companies have learned to either grow these bacteria or similate the toxins they produce.

The problem with antibiotics is that we have a certain amount of of these drugs that we are able to employ in animals, including ourselves, to fight disease caused by bacteria that have invaded the body. The supply is limited. When we use antibiotics as a preventative to disease instead of using better management practices to control disease, the "bad" bacteria have more chances to mutate and make up defenses to the antibodies we are using. This produces antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The class of drugs used in poultry, the flouroquinalones like baitril, are same drugs we use in humans--namely cipro and their relatives in this drug class. Cipro was the drug used when we had the postal scare here in the U.S. with anthrax(?). In other words, by giving these drugs as a preventative measure, we are growing these "super bugs". Johns Hopkins has done some tests that show in the intensive poultry management that Tyson and the other poultry companies employ, these superbugs (just drug resistant bacteria) have developed a resistance to the cipro drug class. This resistance in the poultry barns by the disease causing bacteria lasts long after the drug use has stopped.

There was even a little girl in North Carolina who was running around in a field where chicken litter was spread and got cut on her leg. She got one of these superbacteria. Since there was not a whole lot of drugs to treat her, they had to cut the infection out of her leg. She lost much of her leg.

The post that I made about the lady who was fighting Sanderson Farms in court and both her and her husband got sick after opening court documents got one of these superbugs. Her husband was in Texas and she was in Tn visiting her daughter. Both of them got sick after reviewing the mailed court documents. Her husband had just had a biopsy and got so sick that he spent over a week in the hospital. He was lucky that a specialist was called in and recognized the illness as a drug resistant bacteria and started intensive treatment. Even after his hospital stay was over, he had to have antibiotics intraveously. He almost died from it.

By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria. Farmers and people in contact with the manure and animals like the people at the processing plants are the first in line of any drug resistant bacteria. The Johns Hopkins study, which is being fought by Bayer and the poultry companies, shows that these drug resistant bacteria are being found on poultry when it gets into the consumers hands. Sure, you can cook poultry and get rid of the bacteria, but if you have a cut on your hand while working with the raw meat, or if you do not cook the poultry well enough (such is the case a lot of times when cooking on the grill) then consumers will be exposed. Not everyone will get sick from this exposure, but it does increase the risk of serious illness.

I recently took a tour of a poultry facility. It was a Tyson plant. After the scalding and feather picking, the birds are chilled in water. The birds are not chilled individually, they all get chilled in the same water. That means that any bacteria from any of the birds can get on all of the birds being processed. It was interesting to me that just a few years ago Tyson had this line operation where you could see what was going on. Now they have the chilling process hidden behind stainless steel where you don't see it when you are touring the plant. I just happened to know what was happening on that part of the line and asked the plant supervisor about it. They are trying to hide that processing process.

When these cattle packers and processors have so much political clout that they can influence what the USDA or other government agencies do for safety, we are all at a little more risk. This is the same with the BSE protocals and protections.

Too much agribusiness money is influencing the process that puts us all at risk. They are influencing the decisions that make our food safe all for money. They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

Vaccines, I believe, are not a problem. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem. Just because it costs a little to sort out sick animals and treat them individually doesn't mean that it is better for us all. When one company gets away with this kind of treatment, they all have to do it to stay "competitive".

In the Hudson food recall, there were allegations that Tyson's influence in the USDA were making the recall larger and higher costing. The allegation was that it made Hudson dirt cheap and Tyson bought another competitor on the cheap. The same thing happened with your BSE deal in Canada. Tyson and Cargill were still selling the product at a high price while picking the pockets of the producers. They got a taxpayer subsidy to boot. How is rkaiser or robert mack or any of the other "little" guys going to compete with that type of playing field? Look at Creekstone. They were on track to produce a tested product and sell it to Japan. The packer backers on this board tout the "victory" that they were not able to do this. Our government policies or just enforcement of them are helping to consolidate the meat industry. That is a fact.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Seems you like stirring the pot Econ101 :wink:

We shouldn't let the farmers/ranchers be the ones who get burned all the time.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
Vaccines, I believe, are not a problem. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem. Just because it costs a little to sort out sick animals and treat them individually doesn't mean that it is better for us all.

I think Econ pretty much nailed it here. Vaccines simply trigger the animals natural defenses, getting it ready to fight should it be necessary. End result is an animal who should be "healthier" or at the very least, resistant to the particular strain of bug that was in the vaccine.

Antibiotics on the other hand are WAY overused. I have no idea how many times I've heard someone say, "oh give em a couple cc's just in case, it can't hurt." Those guys I'd like to beat on for awhile.

Lets take an animal with a low level of infection, a few bugs kicking around, a high percentage of weak ones, a few strong ones. Lets leave the animal alone for awhile, and let its own antibodies work on killing the bugs. If the animal manages to throw the infection, the antibodies are left behind, and you have a stronger animal left standing. If it don't kill ya, it makes ya stronger. Sure, eventually the antibodies die off, but the body rarely ever allows them to return to their former lower levels.

That same animal with a low level of infection now gets a 'couple cc's' for good measure. They haven't injected enough antibiotic to kill all the bugs, probably just the weak ones. And antibiotics are generally not overly selective and will often kill some antibodies as well. Now all we have left are the stronger bugs, along with fewer antibodies. They no longer have any competition from their weaker siblings and can now run rampant within the animal. When the animal comes into contact with another animal and passes the bugs along, all thats getting passed is the stronger strain.

Now, that animal with a low level of infection gets the proper dosage levels. All the weak bugs are killed, likely all the strong ones too. But the body hasn't had to combat anything or at least not much. So its not all that strong either. And what if there were one or two mutations kicking around? The bodies natural defenses can often deal with mutations, however antibiotics often can't. So you leave a couple mutated bugs behind, no antibodies to combat them, and all of a sudden you got a new bug that no antibody can deal with and its spread through your herd. Maybe there isn't quite enough of it in each animal to cause an infection, but its there and eventually through feedlots and slaughter plants, it'll make its way to other herds.

So how about an animal thats got a high level of infection? I don't think you should let em die. I say load em up with antibiotics. I generally use an even higher dose than labelled, but never treat for longer than labelled. Its like antibiotics for people now. Often your first dose is heavier than subsequent doses, simply to get a headstart on eliminating the bugs. We've got so many new viruses/bacteria out there now that not treating would be a loaded gun to the economy. Maybe after a whack of cattle are lost, we'd be left with the much hardier breeds of our ancestors, but it would leave many people financially ruined. I believe if people start using antibiotics properly, we can gradually move back to high natural resistance to infection.

Almost as important is what antibiotics to use? I think you should use targetted, specific antibiotics. I don't like broad spectrum ones like Lyquimycin. While the Lyquimycin is going to work on the main infection, there may be another infection in the background that the dosage level wasn't high enough to get the strong or mutated bugs. So now you're back to the under-dosage scenario.

And as I've been told in other threads, the 'modern reality' is that bigger is better. So many smaller ranches have had to expand their cowherds, but haven't had the ready cash to properly expand their facilities. Intensive livestock operations, when overcrowded, are breeding grounds of infection and mutations. Its mother natures natural defense for overcrowding. Elk breeders complain about CWD ruining their herds. Don't run so many in close to one another, and Mamma Nature isn't going to try and thin the herd down.

Of course, the above ramblings are just my 2 cents and may be based on scientific facts as I've dreamt them up after 3 or 4 Coronas.

Rod
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
I see trade with Mexico has brought some benefits.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
I see trade with Mexico has brought some benefits.

Corona, or the warped scientific facts that come as a result of 3 or 4 of them? If you thought that diatribe was far fetched, you should see what I come up with after 7 or 8 of em.

:lol:

Rod
PS Is it just me, or do the smileys change position from message composition to message composition?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Econ101 said:
I see trade with Mexico has brought some benefits.

Corona, or the warped scientific facts that come as a result of 3 or 4 of them? If you thought that diatribe was far fetched, you should see what I come up with after 7 or 8 of em.

:lol:

Rod
PS Is it just me, or do the smileys change position from message composition to message composition?

Don't know, but coronas might make them more interesting.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Jinglebob said:
Whoa! Better switch to de-caf Econ or at least cut back on the sugar. I just posted that as an FYI and maybe start a new discussion on whether current practices encourage drug resistance.

I've noticed as all ranchers have been better about giving all of the shots that the feeders want, that the feeders are still fighting sick calves, when they come into the lot. We never let anything get sick anymore. We give shots to head off any and all types of sickness, we can.

I'm not saying that this is wrong. We are just trying to ensure we have more and healthier cattle to sell. My question is this, are we breeding up sick cattle by using vaccines to save them all?

It used to be that cattle that got sick died or were affected by the sickness enough that at least they were removed from the herd. This doesn't seem to happen as much now.

Do you all understand what I'm getting at?

It's kind'a like preg testing. you'd think after so many years that the amount of opens would go down, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Maybe we all need to cull more, instead of just cussing the purebred guys who don't cut enough bulls?

I'm not picking a fight here, just looking for others views on this subject.

Jinglebob, don't worry. I am not out here to fight just for the fun of it, but I do have it in me if need be.

I am not a medical professional, flounder comes a lot closer to that than I on this board, but I do have a few views on this subject based on what I do know (or think I know).

You talked about two different things here in this post and I think they should be separated.

It is my understanding that vaccines do not breed resistance. They actually help the animal build imunological responses to recognize enemies of the body and fight them before they cause death. In essence, vaccines are like warning signs for the body to get its own imune response ready for the battle in the individual animal.

Antibiotics are a little different beast, however. Most antibodies, starting with Pastuer's penicillen(which incidentally has close connections to dairy) are poisons or toxins to bacteria we want to control that are often derived from other bacteria that fight each other on the micro level. Drug companies have learned to either grow these bacteria or similate the toxins they produce.

The problem with antibiotics is that we have a certain amount of of these drugs that we are able to employ in animals, including ourselves, to fight disease caused by bacteria that have invaded the body. The supply is limited. When we use antibiotics as a preventative to disease instead of using better management practices to control disease, the "bad" bacteria have more chances to mutate and make up defenses to the antibodies we are using. This produces antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The class of drugs used in poultry, the flouroquinalones like baitril, are same drugs we use in humans--namely cipro and their relatives in this drug class. Cipro was the drug used when we had the postal scare here in the U.S. with anthrax(?). In other words, by giving these drugs as a preventative measure, we are growing these "super bugs". Johns Hopkins has done some tests that show in the intensive poultry management that Tyson and the other poultry companies employ, these superbugs (just drug resistant bacteria) have developed a resistance to the cipro drug class. This resistance in the poultry barns by the disease causing bacteria lasts long after the drug use has stopped.

There was even a little girl in North Carolina who was running around in a field where chicken litter was spread and got cut on her leg. She got one of these superbacteria. Since there was not a whole lot of drugs to treat her, they had to cut the infection out of her leg. She lost much of her leg.

The post that I made about the lady who was fighting Sanderson Farms in court and both her and her husband got sick after opening court documents got one of these superbugs. Her husband was in Texas and she was in Tn visiting her daughter. Both of them got sick after reviewing the mailed court documents. Her husband had just had a biopsy and got so sick that he spent over a week in the hospital. He was lucky that a specialist was called in and recognized the illness as a drug resistant bacteria and started intensive treatment. Even after his hospital stay was over, he had to have antibiotics intraveously. He almost died from it.

By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria. Farmers and people in contact with the manure and animals like the people at the processing plants are the first in line of any drug resistant bacteria. The Johns Hopkins study, which is being fought by Bayer and the poultry companies, shows that these drug resistant bacteria are being found on poultry when it gets into the consumers hands. Sure, you can cook poultry and get rid of the bacteria, but if you have a cut on your hand while working with the raw meat, or if you do not cook the poultry well enough (such is the case a lot of times when cooking on the grill) then consumers will be exposed. Not everyone will get sick from this exposure, but it does increase the risk of serious illness.

I recently took a tour of a poultry facility. It was a Tyson plant. After the scalding and feather picking, the birds are chilled in water. The birds are not chilled individually, they all get chilled in the same water. That means that any bacteria from any of the birds can get on all of the birds being processed. It was interesting to me that just a few years ago Tyson had this line operation where you could see what was going on. Now they have the chilling process hidden behind stainless steel where you don't see it when you are touring the plant. I just happened to know what was happening on that part of the line and asked the plant supervisor about it. They are trying to hide that processing process.

When these cattle packers and processors have so much political clout that they can influence what the USDA or other government agencies do for safety, we are all at a little more risk. This is the same with the BSE protocals and protections.

Too much agribusiness money is influencing the process that puts us all at risk. They are influencing the decisions that make our food safe all for money. They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

Vaccines, I believe, are not a problem. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem. Just because it costs a little to sort out sick animals and treat them individually doesn't mean that it is better for us all. When one company gets away with this kind of treatment, they all have to do it to stay "competitive".

In the Hudson food recall, there were allegations that Tyson's influence in the USDA were making the recall larger and higher costing. The allegation was that it made Hudson dirt cheap and Tyson bought another competitor on the cheap. The same thing happened with your BSE deal in Canada. Tyson and Cargill were still selling the product at a high price while picking the pockets of the producers. They got a taxpayer subsidy to boot. How is rkaiser or robert mack or any of the other "little" guys going to compete with that type of playing field? Look at Creekstone. They were on track to produce a tested product and sell it to Japan. The packer backers on this board tout the "victory" that they were not able to do this. Our government policies or just enforcement of them are helping to consolidate the meat industry. That is a fact.

Finally. You make a statement I can agree with. I find your detail on vaccines and immunology accurate and easily understandable.

I must however, take great issue with your detail and level of understanding on antibiotic use, and association with creation of resistant strains of bacteria. The points you present on this issue borders on the most extreme level of sensationalism I have ever read on this site.

Bayer did pull Baytril (poultry label) off the market in Sept '05. The veterinary and scientific community have debated this issue (as it relates to fluoroquinolones) for 20 years. There is every bit as much peer reviewed scientific data, if not more, that would shoot your theories out of the sky.

Furthermore, your sentence near the end of your post.......

(Econ speaking) They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

.......is pure BS. You site the story of the girl with the cut on the leg, and also the couple that got sick after opening court documents. Of course, I am sensitive to the little girl that got hurt, and the couple you site that got sick. However, any association to antibiotics / resistance is a real stretch. A search of major newspapers in North Carolina and stories regarding Sanderson Farms yield absolutely no proof sources to either event. If you have a proof source / statement here, bring it.

Econ further states......."By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria."

.......this statement doesn't even make sense. Is this really your sentence? Since you state giving high levels "to our animals", means you're tossing in all species. Can you cite an example of giving high levels of antibiotics to any species for anything other than therapeutic reasons?

You also site a recent tour of a Tyson poultry plant. I've heard that for insurance and security reasons, following 9/11, the number of "tours" processors will offer has ground to a screeching halt. Every major processor, regardless of the species represented, have spent mega millions on pathogen reduction. Your assumption that Tyson is chilling birds in the same "contaminated" water is another check you cannot cash.

You conclude by saying cattle packers and processors (I'll assume you also meant to throw the pharmaceutical companies in) are using influence what USDA and others are doing for safety and "we are all a little more at risk"..... And then the Hudson statement......my, my, my.......

Wow Econ, your imagination must be running wild this week. Lighten up, those black choppers you think are out there are really TX fans celebrating the national championship.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Jinglebob said:
Whoa! Better switch to de-caf Econ or at least cut back on the sugar. I just posted that as an FYI and maybe start a new discussion on whether current practices encourage drug resistance.

I've noticed as all ranchers have been better about giving all of the shots that the feeders want, that the feeders are still fighting sick calves, when they come into the lot. We never let anything get sick anymore. We give shots to head off any and all types of sickness, we can.

I'm not saying that this is wrong. We are just trying to ensure we have more and healthier cattle to sell. My question is this, are we breeding up sick cattle by using vaccines to save them all?

It used to be that cattle that got sick died or were affected by the sickness enough that at least they were removed from the herd. This doesn't seem to happen as much now.

Do you all understand what I'm getting at?

It's kind'a like preg testing. you'd think after so many years that the amount of opens would go down, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

Maybe we all need to cull more, instead of just cussing the purebred guys who don't cut enough bulls?

I'm not picking a fight here, just looking for others views on this subject.

Jinglebob, don't worry. I am not out here to fight just for the fun of it, but I do have it in me if need be.

I am not a medical professional, flounder comes a lot closer to that than I on this board, but I do have a few views on this subject based on what I do know (or think I know).

You talked about two different things here in this post and I think they should be separated.

It is my understanding that vaccines do not breed resistance. They actually help the animal build imunological responses to recognize enemies of the body and fight them before they cause death. In essence, vaccines are like warning signs for the body to get its own imune response ready for the battle in the individual animal.

Antibiotics are a little different beast, however. Most antibodies, starting with Pastuer's penicillen(which incidentally has close connections to dairy) are poisons or toxins to bacteria we want to control that are often derived from other bacteria that fight each other on the micro level. Drug companies have learned to either grow these bacteria or similate the toxins they produce.

The problem with antibiotics is that we have a certain amount of of these drugs that we are able to employ in animals, including ourselves, to fight disease caused by bacteria that have invaded the body. The supply is limited. When we use antibiotics as a preventative to disease instead of using better management practices to control disease, the "bad" bacteria have more chances to mutate and make up defenses to the antibodies we are using. This produces antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The class of drugs used in poultry, the flouroquinalones like baitril, are same drugs we use in humans--namely cipro and their relatives in this drug class. Cipro was the drug used when we had the postal scare here in the U.S. with anthrax(?). In other words, by giving these drugs as a preventative measure, we are growing these "super bugs". Johns Hopkins has done some tests that show in the intensive poultry management that Tyson and the other poultry companies employ, these superbugs (just drug resistant bacteria) have developed a resistance to the cipro drug class. This resistance in the poultry barns by the disease causing bacteria lasts long after the drug use has stopped.

There was even a little girl in North Carolina who was running around in a field where chicken litter was spread and got cut on her leg. She got one of these superbacteria. Since there was not a whole lot of drugs to treat her, they had to cut the infection out of her leg. She lost much of her leg.

The post that I made about the lady who was fighting Sanderson Farms in court and both her and her husband got sick after opening court documents got one of these superbugs. Her husband was in Texas and she was in Tn visiting her daughter. Both of them got sick after reviewing the mailed court documents. Her husband had just had a biopsy and got so sick that he spent over a week in the hospital. He was lucky that a specialist was called in and recognized the illness as a drug resistant bacteria and started intensive treatment. Even after his hospital stay was over, he had to have antibiotics intraveously. He almost died from it.

By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria. Farmers and people in contact with the manure and animals like the people at the processing plants are the first in line of any drug resistant bacteria. The Johns Hopkins study, which is being fought by Bayer and the poultry companies, shows that these drug resistant bacteria are being found on poultry when it gets into the consumers hands. Sure, you can cook poultry and get rid of the bacteria, but if you have a cut on your hand while working with the raw meat, or if you do not cook the poultry well enough (such is the case a lot of times when cooking on the grill) then consumers will be exposed. Not everyone will get sick from this exposure, but it does increase the risk of serious illness.

I recently took a tour of a poultry facility. It was a Tyson plant. After the scalding and feather picking, the birds are chilled in water. The birds are not chilled individually, they all get chilled in the same water. That means that any bacteria from any of the birds can get on all of the birds being processed. It was interesting to me that just a few years ago Tyson had this line operation where you could see what was going on. Now they have the chilling process hidden behind stainless steel where you don't see it when you are touring the plant. I just happened to know what was happening on that part of the line and asked the plant supervisor about it. They are trying to hide that processing process.

When these cattle packers and processors have so much political clout that they can influence what the USDA or other government agencies do for safety, we are all at a little more risk. This is the same with the BSE protocals and protections.

Too much agribusiness money is influencing the process that puts us all at risk. They are influencing the decisions that make our food safe all for money. They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

Vaccines, I believe, are not a problem. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem. Just because it costs a little to sort out sick animals and treat them individually doesn't mean that it is better for us all. When one company gets away with this kind of treatment, they all have to do it to stay "competitive".

In the Hudson food recall, there were allegations that Tyson's influence in the USDA were making the recall larger and higher costing. The allegation was that it made Hudson dirt cheap and Tyson bought another competitor on the cheap. The same thing happened with your BSE deal in Canada. Tyson and Cargill were still selling the product at a high price while picking the pockets of the producers. They got a taxpayer subsidy to boot. How is rkaiser or robert mack or any of the other "little" guys going to compete with that type of playing field? Look at Creekstone. They were on track to produce a tested product and sell it to Japan. The packer backers on this board tout the "victory" that they were not able to do this. Our government policies or just enforcement of them are helping to consolidate the meat industry. That is a fact.

Finally. You make a statement I can agree with. I find your detail on vaccines and immunology accurate and easily understandable.

I must however, take great issue with your detail and level of understanding on antibiotic use, and association with creation of resistant strains of bacteria. The points you present on this issue borders on the most extreme level of sensationalism I have ever read on this site.

Bayer did pull Baytril (poultry label) off the market in Sept '05. The veterinary and scientific community have debated this issue (as it relates to fluoroquinolones) for 20 years. There is every bit as much peer reviewed scientific data, if not more, that would shoot your theories out of the sky.

Furthermore, your sentence near the end of your post.......

(Econ speaking) They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

.......is pure BS. You site the story of the girl with the cut on the leg, and also the couple that got sick after opening court documents. Of course, I am sensitive to the little girl that got hurt, and the couple you site that got sick. However, any association to antibiotics / resistance is a real stretch. A search of major newspapers in North Carolina and stories regarding Sanderson Farms yield absolutely no proof sources to either event. If you have a proof source / statement here, bring it.

Econ further states......."By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria."

.......this statement doesn't even make sense. Is this really your sentence? Since you state giving high levels "to our animals", means you're tossing in all species. Can you cite an example of giving high levels of antibiotics to any species for anything other than therapeutic reasons?

You also site a recent tour of a Tyson poultry plant. I've heard that for insurance and security reasons, following 9/11, the number of "tours" processors will offer has ground to a screeching halt. Every major processor, regardless of the species represented, have spent mega millions on pathogen reduction. Your assumption that Tyson is chilling birds in the same "contaminated" water is another check you cannot cash.

You conclude by saying cattle packers and processors (I'll assume you also meant to throw the pharmaceutical companies in) are using influence what USDA and others are doing for safety and "we are all a little more at risk"..... And then the Hudson statement......my, my, my.......

Wow Econ, your imagination must be running wild this week. Lighten up, those black choppers you think are out there are really TX fans celebrating the national championship.

Spoken by one who points out that I-40 does not run through Kansas but fails to realize that it was a fiction example to make a point. Festus was ficticious too, Beefman. Maybe you are the one who has trouble with fact vs. fiction and its use in getting points across. Maybe you just want to be argumentative. It is good to have something to do on this board. It has been pretty quiet.

Just because the article is not on the net does not mean that it was not an article. Do you beleive everything on the net or that everything has to be on the net to be real? Maybe you ascribe to theory that if AMS or GIPSA did not collect data on fraud, it doesn't exist. Talk about propagana control!!!! Sounds almost like the gates to published articles.

Beefman: "Bayer did pull Baytril (poultry label) off the market in Sept '05. The veterinary and scientific community have debated this issue (as it relates to fluoroquinolones) for 20 years. There is every bit as much peer reviewed scientific data, if not more, that would shoot your theories out of the sky. "

I wonder why it took 20 years. :roll: The fact that it took 20 years is of some concern. Yes, the actual complex the woman worked for in Tx had an outbreak of these bacteria. Yes, Johns Hopkins has researched the antibiotic resistant bacteria strains in poultry barns, and yes it was a much advertised study and subsequent results. Their findings were irrefutable by the industry interests and was probably a large reason for the removal of Baytril off the market. I spoke to the actual fellow who did the "grunt work" on one of the studies. My sources are not some newspaper article, they are direct sources. This can be googled.

By the way, the Sanderson Farms complex she worked in was in Bryan, Texas. That was the same complex where one of her fellow egg growers killed the complex manager and hurt another management employee. Sanderson sold the farmers on a pay system that was based on egg production of a certain type of meat chicken and after their farms were built Sanderson changed the breed to Cobb(I believe that was the new breed) chickens that produced a larger chicken for the growers but they laid less eggs than the previous breed. That little adjustment made money for Sanderson Farms but cheated those egg houses out of income because of the lower egg production in the new breed. That is what led to the shooting of the complex manager, not some off the wall propaganda of his personal problems. Sanderson was the causative agent of his personal problems. As a matter of fact, the man made the Sanderson Farms manager call his house and apologize to his wife before he shot the two and then killed himself.

I will post the article on that shooting on its own post.

Are you saying that Tyson does not chill some of its chickens at some of its plants in the same water? Don't tell me that is a check I can not cash. Put your money where your mouth is and I will donate it to Big C when I win the bet. How about $100.00? Do you want to make another bet that I toured a plant this last year? How about $100.00 that I will donate to R-Calf. You could have dual representation by both of these groups.

Beefman: "Econ further states......."By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria."

.......this statement doesn't even make sense. Is this really your sentence? Since you state giving high levels "to our animals", means you're tossing in all species. Can you cite an example of giving high levels of antibiotics to any species for anything other than therapeutic reasons? "

High is a relative term and I will not argue that point. Are they giving antibiotics to poultry as a part of regular feed? Yes, of course they are. Are they getting a vet to look at each individual flock before prescribing these antibiotics? No, they are not. I think this answers your question. "All" animals was your assumption, not mine. You can toss all species in to make up some argument with yourself if you want. As I have said with Agman and SH, I will let you win any argument you have with yourself. The antibiotic regiment in beef is probably not as "bad" as in poultry, but there are some abuses there.

Even medical doctors have stopped prescribing so many antiobiotics to children when they get ear infections. The fact is that overuse of antibiotics does allow harmful bacteria to develop resistance to the antibiotics used. It does not happen overnight, but it is a biological fact/ For you to deny this is ludicrous. It seems your self interest of continuing to solve problems with drugs instead of management is showing. It is the general population that these costs are being shifted to. That is why Baytril was removed from the market. It didn't happen with the help of the poultry or cattle industry, it happened over their objections. Medical doctors were smart enough to see the problem and the solution but your self interests have put up strong objections to this cost shifting back where it belongs.

Humans are animals, and medical doctors have adjusted their practices as it pertains to ear infections. Chickens are animals and it has been proven scientifically by Johns Hopkins. It is still a concern with any large scale use of antibiotics in any species. What were you talking about here when you were talking about "species", pet turtles?

Beefman: "You conclude by saying cattle packers and processors (I'll assume you also meant to throw the pharmaceutical companies in) are using influence what USDA and others are doing for safety and "we are all a little more at risk"..... And then the Hudson statement......my, my, my.......

Wow Econ, your imagination must be running wild this week. Lighten up, those black choppers you think are out there are really TX fans celebrating the national championship."

Keep up the little propaganda, Beefman. It can not hide all of the facts. You may be technically correct that the FDA has a little more say on the issue but we all know the FDA is being run by objective science---Just look at :roll: viox.

Do you want to make any of those bets? Money talks, BS walks.

By the way, I have had some of those black choppers overhead before. I live close to a military base. There was a lot of action late at night prior to the Iraq invasion. Kind of interesting to see some of that big equipment being moved by choppers. Our armed forces are really something.
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
Econ101 said:
Beefman said:
Econ101 said:
Jinglebob, don't worry. I am not out here to fight just for the fun of it, but I do have it in me if need be.

I am not a medical professional, flounder comes a lot closer to that than I on this board, but I do have a few views on this subject based on what I do know (or think I know).

You talked about two different things here in this post and I think they should be separated.

It is my understanding that vaccines do not breed resistance. They actually help the animal build imunological responses to recognize enemies of the body and fight them before they cause death. In essence, vaccines are like warning signs for the body to get its own imune response ready for the battle in the individual animal.

Antibiotics are a little different beast, however. Most antibodies, starting with Pastuer's penicillen(which incidentally has close connections to dairy) are poisons or toxins to bacteria we want to control that are often derived from other bacteria that fight each other on the micro level. Drug companies have learned to either grow these bacteria or similate the toxins they produce.

The problem with antibiotics is that we have a certain amount of of these drugs that we are able to employ in animals, including ourselves, to fight disease caused by bacteria that have invaded the body. The supply is limited. When we use antibiotics as a preventative to disease instead of using better management practices to control disease, the "bad" bacteria have more chances to mutate and make up defenses to the antibodies we are using. This produces antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The class of drugs used in poultry, the flouroquinalones like baitril, are same drugs we use in humans--namely cipro and their relatives in this drug class. Cipro was the drug used when we had the postal scare here in the U.S. with anthrax(?). In other words, by giving these drugs as a preventative measure, we are growing these "super bugs". Johns Hopkins has done some tests that show in the intensive poultry management that Tyson and the other poultry companies employ, these superbugs (just drug resistant bacteria) have developed a resistance to the cipro drug class. This resistance in the poultry barns by the disease causing bacteria lasts long after the drug use has stopped.

There was even a little girl in North Carolina who was running around in a field where chicken litter was spread and got cut on her leg. She got one of these superbacteria. Since there was not a whole lot of drugs to treat her, they had to cut the infection out of her leg. She lost much of her leg.

The post that I made about the lady who was fighting Sanderson Farms in court and both her and her husband got sick after opening court documents got one of these superbugs. Her husband was in Texas and she was in Tn visiting her daughter. Both of them got sick after reviewing the mailed court documents. Her husband had just had a biopsy and got so sick that he spent over a week in the hospital. He was lucky that a specialist was called in and recognized the illness as a drug resistant bacteria and started intensive treatment. Even after his hospital stay was over, he had to have antibiotics intraveously. He almost died from it.

By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria. Farmers and people in contact with the manure and animals like the people at the processing plants are the first in line of any drug resistant bacteria. The Johns Hopkins study, which is being fought by Bayer and the poultry companies, shows that these drug resistant bacteria are being found on poultry when it gets into the consumers hands. Sure, you can cook poultry and get rid of the bacteria, but if you have a cut on your hand while working with the raw meat, or if you do not cook the poultry well enough (such is the case a lot of times when cooking on the grill) then consumers will be exposed. Not everyone will get sick from this exposure, but it does increase the risk of serious illness.

I recently took a tour of a poultry facility. It was a Tyson plant. After the scalding and feather picking, the birds are chilled in water. The birds are not chilled individually, they all get chilled in the same water. That means that any bacteria from any of the birds can get on all of the birds being processed. It was interesting to me that just a few years ago Tyson had this line operation where you could see what was going on. Now they have the chilling process hidden behind stainless steel where you don't see it when you are touring the plant. I just happened to know what was happening on that part of the line and asked the plant supervisor about it. They are trying to hide that processing process.

When these cattle packers and processors have so much political clout that they can influence what the USDA or other government agencies do for safety, we are all at a little more risk. This is the same with the BSE protocals and protections.

Too much agribusiness money is influencing the process that puts us all at risk. They are influencing the decisions that make our food safe all for money. They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

Vaccines, I believe, are not a problem. The overuse of antibiotics is a problem. Just because it costs a little to sort out sick animals and treat them individually doesn't mean that it is better for us all. When one company gets away with this kind of treatment, they all have to do it to stay "competitive".

In the Hudson food recall, there were allegations that Tyson's influence in the USDA were making the recall larger and higher costing. The allegation was that it made Hudson dirt cheap and Tyson bought another competitor on the cheap. The same thing happened with your BSE deal in Canada. Tyson and Cargill were still selling the product at a high price while picking the pockets of the producers. They got a taxpayer subsidy to boot. How is rkaiser or robert mack or any of the other "little" guys going to compete with that type of playing field? Look at Creekstone. They were on track to produce a tested product and sell it to Japan. The packer backers on this board tout the "victory" that they were not able to do this. Our government policies or just enforcement of them are helping to consolidate the meat industry. That is a fact.

Finally. You make a statement I can agree with. I find your detail on vaccines and immunology accurate and easily understandable.

I must however, take great issue with your detail and level of understanding on antibiotic use, and association with creation of resistant strains of bacteria. The points you present on this issue borders on the most extreme level of sensationalism I have ever read on this site.

Bayer did pull Baytril (poultry label) off the market in Sept '05. The veterinary and scientific community have debated this issue (as it relates to fluoroquinolones) for 20 years. There is every bit as much peer reviewed scientific data, if not more, that would shoot your theories out of the sky.

Furthermore, your sentence near the end of your post.......

(Econ speaking) They can be more "efficient" and low cost if they can put the costs of poultry litter on the farmer, even though they are polluting it with arsenic and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is all to make poultry cheaper. Cheaper poultry means that it gains market share over beef.

.......is pure BS. You site the story of the girl with the cut on the leg, and also the couple that got sick after opening court documents. Of course, I am sensitive to the little girl that got hurt, and the couple you site that got sick. However, any association to antibiotics / resistance is a real stretch. A search of major newspapers in North Carolina and stories regarding Sanderson Farms yield absolutely no proof sources to either event. If you have a proof source / statement here, bring it.

Econ further states......."By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria."

.......this statement doesn't even make sense. Is this really your sentence? Since you state giving high levels "to our animals", means you're tossing in all species. Can you cite an example of giving high levels of antibiotics to any species for anything other than therapeutic reasons?

You also site a recent tour of a Tyson poultry plant. I've heard that for insurance and security reasons, following 9/11, the number of "tours" processors will offer has ground to a screeching halt. Every major processor, regardless of the species represented, have spent mega millions on pathogen reduction. Your assumption that Tyson is chilling birds in the same "contaminated" water is another check you cannot cash.

You conclude by saying cattle packers and processors (I'll assume you also meant to throw the pharmaceutical companies in) are using influence what USDA and others are doing for safety and "we are all a little more at risk"..... And then the Hudson statement......my, my, my.......

Wow Econ, your imagination must be running wild this week. Lighten up, those black choppers you think are out there are really TX fans celebrating the national championship.

Spoken by one who points out that I-40 does not run through Kansas but fails to realize that it was a fiction example to make a point. Festus was ficticious too, Beefman. Maybe you are the one who has trouble with fact vs. fiction and its use in getting points across. Maybe you just want to be argumentative. It is good to have something to do on this board. It has been pretty quiet.

Just because the article is not on the net does not mean that it was not an article. Do you beleive everything on the net or that everything has to be on the net to be real? Maybe you ascribe to theory that if AMS or GIPSA did not collect data on fraud, it doesn't exist. Talk about propagana control!!!! Sounds almost like the gates to published articles.

Beefman: "Bayer did pull Baytril (poultry label) off the market in Sept '05. The veterinary and scientific community have debated this issue (as it relates to fluoroquinolones) for 20 years. There is every bit as much peer reviewed scientific data, if not more, that would shoot your theories out of the sky. "

I wonder why it took 20 years. :roll: The fact that it took 20 years is of some concern. Yes, the actual complex the woman worked for in Tx had an outbreak of these bacteria. Yes, Johns Hopkins has researched the antibiotic resistant bacteria strains in poultry barns, and yes it was a much advertised study and subsequent results. Their findings were irrefutable by the industry interests and was probably a large reason for the removal of Baytril off the market. I spoke to the actual fellow who did the "grunt work" on one of the studies. My sources are not some newspaper article, they are direct sources. This can be googled.

By the way, the Sanderson Farms complex she worked in was in Bryan, Texas. That was the same complex where one of her fellow egg growers killed the complex manager and hurt another management employee. Sanderson sold the farmers on a pay system that was based on egg production of a certain type of meat chicken and after their farms were built Sanderson changed the breed to Cobb(I believe that was the new breed) chickens that produced a larger chicken for the growers but they laid less eggs than the previous breed. That little adjustment made money for Sanderson Farms but cheated those egg houses out of income because of the lower egg production in the new breed. That is what led to the shooting of the complex manager, not some off the wall propaganda of his personal problems. Sanderson was the causative agent of his personal problems. As a matter of fact, the man made the Sanderson Farms manager call his house and apologize to his wife before he shot the two and then killed himself.

I will post the article on that shooting on its own post.

Are you saying that Tyson does not chill some of its chickens at some of its plants in the same water? Don't tell me that is a check I can not cash. Put your money where your mouth is and I will donate it to Big C when I win the bet. How about $100.00? Do you want to make another bet that I toured a plant this last year? How about $100.00 that I will donate to R-Calf. You could have dual representation by both of these groups.

Beefman: "Econ further states......."By giving high level antibiotics to our animals instead of spending the money to deal with this problem from a phisical management perspective, we are growing these superbacteria."

.......this statement doesn't even make sense. Is this really your sentence? Since you state giving high levels "to our animals", means you're tossing in all species. Can you cite an example of giving high levels of antibiotics to any species for anything other than therapeutic reasons? "

High is a relative term and I will not argue that point. Are they giving antibiotics to poultry as a part of regular feed? Yes, of course they are. Are they getting a vet to look at each individual flock before prescribing these antibiotics? No, they are not. I think this answers your question. "All" animals was your assumption, not mine. You can toss all species in to make up some argument with yourself if you want. As I have said with Agman and SH, I will let you win any argument you have with yourself. The antibiotic regiment in beef is probably not as "bad" as in poultry, but there are some abuses there.

Even medical doctors have stopped prescribing so many antiobiotics to children when they get ear infections. The fact is that overuse of antibiotics does allow harmful bacteria to develop resistance to the antibiotics used. It does not happen overnight, but it is a biological fact/ For you to deny this is ludicrous. It seems your self interest of continuing to solve problems with drugs instead of management is showing. It is the general population that these costs are being shifted to. That is why Baytril was removed from the market. It didn't happen with the help of the poultry or cattle industry, it happened over their objections. Medical doctors were smart enough to see the problem and the solution but your self interests have put up strong objections to this cost shifting back where it belongs.

Humans are animals, and medical doctors have adjusted their practices as it pertains to ear infections. Chickens are animals and it has been proven scientifically by Johns Hopkins. It is still a concern with any large scale use of antibiotics in any species. What were you talking about here when you were talking about "species", pet turtles?

Beefman: "You conclude by saying cattle packers and processors (I'll assume you also meant to throw the pharmaceutical companies in) are using influence what USDA and others are doing for safety and "we are all a little more at risk"..... And then the Hudson statement......my, my, my.......

Wow Econ, your imagination must be running wild this week. Lighten up, those black choppers you think are out there are really TX fans celebrating the national championship."

Keep up the little propaganda, Beefman. It can not hide all of the facts. You may be technically correct that the FDA has a little more say on the issue but we all know the FDA is being run by objective science---Just look at :roll: viox.

Do you want to make any of those bets? Money talks, BS walks.

By the way, I have had some of those black choppers overhead before. I live close to a military base. There was a lot of action late at night prior to the Iraq invasion. Kind of interesting to see some of that big equipment being moved by choppers. Our armed forces are really something.

OCM was serious as a heart attack when they mentioned I-40 went thru KS. It was a big error on their part. And yes, since you asked, I enjoy and recognize fiction. Grisham is my favorite. Occasionally, I enjoy reading the massive quantities of fiction you post here.

You were the one that planted the seed suggesting the girl in the field / court document recieving couple were contaminated with resistant bacteria. I asked you to provide a proof source. Obviously, you can't.

You can keep your $$ in your pocket for now. I frankly could care less whether or not you've spent time in a chicken processing plant. Where you work is of no concern to me. Your assumption with multiple birds rinsed in chilled water and providing a source of massive bacterial contamination, while supporting the proliferation of resistant bacteria is a statement that cannot be supported with any creditable data.

I will concur that MD's have decreased rx dispensing for children's ear infections. Hinda hard to tie that type of resistance to what you're suggesting is going on in the poultry barn.
 

Latest posts

Top