Beefman said:
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.
