New study on antibiotic use

[Beefman]

The copy and links below describe a recently released study dealing with resistant strains of bacteria. The study suggests overuse of antibiotics in the human population is a greater cause for creating resisting strains of bacteria.

FYI, Beefman
===========================================

MEDIA INTEREST

On Monday, the Institute of Food Technologists released a study concluding that antibiotic-free foods are not necessarily safer than those produced using antimicrobials (Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System). The panel of internationally renowned experts found that eliminating antibiotics from food animal production may have little positive effect on resistant bacteria that threaten human health. In fact, such actions abroad have resulted in more antibiotic use and additional resistant bacteria in some cases.

To view the full study, go to http://members.ift.org/IFT/Research/IFTExpertReports/antimicrobial_report.htm.

The study garnered positive coverage in the Chicago Tribune on Monday (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0606260140jun26,1,7538640.story?coll=chi-business-hed).

SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS/TOOLS

This study is yet another tool you can use in educating the media and others about the safe use of antibiotics in the cattle industry. The existing materials and fact sheets on these subjects will be updated accordingly and will be available on www.beefmedia.org (under the Safety and Beef Production Story sections) as well as on the Extranet in the Issues and Media Response section. If you receive interview requests regarding this study, please don't hesitate to give us a call.

CONTACT

Michele P. Murray, NCBA Denver, 303-694-0305, [email protected]

Karen Cannon, NCBA Denver, 303-694-0305, [email protected]

 

[Econ101]

Beefman, here is the text of the newspaper article mentioned in your article:

Please register or log in | Subscribers: Get the Advantage
Search:
chicagotribune
chicagotribune
Google



chicagotribune.com >> Business
Organics' edge questioned
Antibiotic-free foods not necessarily safer for people, study says

By John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 26, 2006

Antibiotic-free foods are not necessarily safer, according to an Institute of Food Technologists study to be released Monday.

The study, conducted by a panel of food scientists and microbiologists, aims for the heart of the marketing campaigns in the last decade by organic food advocates who have suggested there is an overuse of antibiotics and that antibiotic-free foods are better for human consumption.

One such group is the Organic Trade Association, based in Greenfield, Mass., which represents many of the nation's organic food producers. The association cites 10 studies from 2000 and 2001 of antibiotic use in farming to support its stand that antibiotics have been abused by American farmers.

"What we are trying to do is bring a balance to the discussion," said Michael Doyle, chairman of the panel assembled by the Chicago-based Institute of Food Technologists and a professor and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. "The study does raise questions about those groups using this as a basis for their promotion of organic and natural products."

Such promotions seem to have helped drive sales. The study comes at a time the sales of organic products are skyrocketing, rising to $14 billion in 2005 from $6 billion in 2000, according to data compiled by the Organic Trade Association.

Doyle and the Institute of Food Technologists say they don't dismiss concerns about overuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials, such as cleaners and disinfectants. However, they do warn against reducing the levels of antibiotic use in food production, saying eliminating those drugs may have little effect on bacteria that might develop resistance to antibiotic treatment but would hurt animal health and food production.

1. "The fact is that if we cut back on antibiotics in animals raised in food production we would see a marked increase in food costs because we're going to have a lot of animals we're not able to treat effectively," he said.

Overuse by humans, not regular use in animals, creates strains of resistant bacteria that hurt humans, the panel found.

2. "Prior human exposure to antibiotics is the greatest factor for acquiring an infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria," said Doyle, not routine treatment of animals with antibiotics.

3. Unlike previous studies that were narrowly focused, Doyle said, the institute's examination explores 20 years' worth of research into antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance.

4. The study was funded by the Institute for Food Technologists Foundation, a non-profit scientific and educational group with 22,000 members working for the food industry, academia and government. The panel was composed of microbiologists and food scientists from leading universities. Besides the University of Georgia, panelists were drawn from Rutgers University, Iowa State University, the University of Tennessee, University of Minnesota and the University of Maryland. Many Food and Drug Administration food laboratories are located at Iowa State.

5. Doyle dismissed possible concerns about the food scientist members of the panel being too closely linked to the food industry, noting that about one-third of the panel was made up of microbiologists.

Barbara Haumann, a spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Association, said the group is not trying to make safety claims.

"It is not that foods are safer," she said, adding that the organization has not updated the list of studies since assembling it in 2002.

6. But "the overuse of animal antibiotics does lead to superstrains of antibiotic resistant bacteria," she said. "Organic producers chose not to routinely use antibiotics because the studies have shown a concern."

Doyle said animal antibiotics may actually make food safer to eat in some instances.

7. "If you go to the grocery store, about 50 percent are contaminated with campylobacter. It is even higher with free-range chickens," which are not raised in chicken houses and do not get injections, he said. Campylobacter--the bacteria most likely to give Americans food poisoning--is killed if chicken is prepared properly.

Still, Doyle and the group said they are not trying to change the eating habits of Americans.

"People have their preference. It is not our goal to dissuade people from buying organic or natural foods," he said.

"We want to put the entire picture in perspective so people can better appreciate the big picture and the science behind it," he said.

----------

[email protected]

1. Marked? Maybe production methods would be modified to reduce stress that is part of the reason so many animals are overfed antibiotics.

2. This is just this man's opinion. There has been no direct credible research that this is the case and in fact just the opposite is true with the more current studies. Antibiotics used in and for food production should not be mixed with improper use of antibiotics in humans. They are two seperate and distinct issues and should be considered as such. The merging of these two to get the "desired" selling points is a shame on the "scientists" that were working on this paper. You wouldn't correlate these two no more than you would correlate car accidents in India with the U.S. in order to set insurance policy rates.

3. They want to go back and restate all the previous studies that do not address the issue. More recent studies have been definitive.

4. Working for the food industry? I guess self regulation is the answer, isn't it , Beefman? Maybe we should do away with police officers and courts and just have a council of thieves suggesting how thier business should be regulated.

5. Microbiologists can be under the thumb of the food industry also. The previous point #4 actually admits they are in the food industry instead of independent scientists. We have in this report the best science money can buy.

6. That is the point.

7. Are there any chickens that get injections that are used for food? This statement shows that Doyle doesn't know what he is talking about and that this report is just a propaganda campaign to keep the status quo.



MONEY OVER FOOD SAFETY AGAIN



What is a case of food antiresistent bacteria that causes a death or serious infection worth to you or your family especially when it could have been avoided for want of a little corporate greed?

 

[Beefman]

Beefman, here is the text of the newspaper article mentioned in your article:

Please register or log in | Subscribers: Get the Advantage
Search:
chicagotribune
chicagotribune
Google



chicagotribune.com >> Business
Organics' edge questioned
Antibiotic-free foods not necessarily safer for people, study says

By John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporter
Published June 26, 2006

Antibiotic-free foods are not necessarily safer, according to an Institute of Food Technologists study to be released Monday.

The study, conducted by a panel of food scientists and microbiologists, aims for the heart of the marketing campaigns in the last decade by organic food advocates who have suggested there is an overuse of antibiotics and that antibiotic-free foods are better for human consumption.

One such group is the Organic Trade Association, based in Greenfield, Mass., which represents many of the nation's organic food producers. The association cites 10 studies from 2000 and 2001 of antibiotic use in farming to support its stand that antibiotics have been abused by American farmers.

"What we are trying to do is bring a balance to the discussion," said Michael Doyle, chairman of the panel assembled by the Chicago-based Institute of Food Technologists and a professor and director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. "The study does raise questions about those groups using this as a basis for their promotion of organic and natural products."

Such promotions seem to have helped drive sales. The study comes at a time the sales of organic products are skyrocketing, rising to $14 billion in 2005 from $6 billion in 2000, according to data compiled by the Organic Trade Association.

Doyle and the Institute of Food Technologists say they don't dismiss concerns about overuse of antibiotics or antimicrobials, such as cleaners and disinfectants. However, they do warn against reducing the levels of antibiotic use in food production, saying eliminating those drugs may have little effect on bacteria that might develop resistance to antibiotic treatment but would hurt animal health and food production.

1. "The fact is that if we cut back on antibiotics in animals raised in food production we would see a marked increase in food costs because we're going to have a lot of animals we're not able to treat effectively," he said.

Overuse by humans, not regular use in animals, creates strains of resistant bacteria that hurt humans, the panel found.

2. "Prior human exposure to antibiotics is the greatest factor for acquiring an infection with antibiotic-resistant bacteria," said Doyle, not routine treatment of animals with antibiotics.

3. Unlike previous studies that were narrowly focused, Doyle said, the institute's examination explores 20 years' worth of research into antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance.

4. The study was funded by the Institute for Food Technologists Foundation, a non-profit scientific and educational group with 22,000 members working for the food industry, academia and government. The panel was composed of microbiologists and food scientists from leading universities. Besides the University of Georgia, panelists were drawn from Rutgers University, Iowa State University, the University of Tennessee, University of Minnesota and the University of Maryland. Many Food and Drug Administration food laboratories are located at Iowa State.

5. Doyle dismissed possible concerns about the food scientist members of the panel being too closely linked to the food industry, noting that about one-third of the panel was made up of microbiologists.

Barbara Haumann, a spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Association, said the group is not trying to make safety claims.

"It is not that foods are safer," she said, adding that the organization has not updated the list of studies since assembling it in 2002.

6. But "the overuse of animal antibiotics does lead to superstrains of antibiotic resistant bacteria," she said. "Organic producers chose not to routinely use antibiotics because the studies have shown a concern."

Doyle said animal antibiotics may actually make food safer to eat in some instances.

7. "If you go to the grocery store, about 50 percent are contaminated with campylobacter. It is even higher with free-range chickens," which are not raised in chicken houses and do not get injections, he said. Campylobacter--the bacteria most likely to give Americans food poisoning--is killed if chicken is prepared properly.

Still, Doyle and the group said they are not trying to change the eating habits of Americans.

"People have their preference. It is not our goal to dissuade people from buying organic or natural foods," he said.

"We want to put the entire picture in perspective so people can better appreciate the big picture and the science behind it," he said.

----------

[email protected]

1. Marked? Maybe production methods would be modified to reduce stress that is part of the reason so many animals are overfed antibiotics.

2. This is just this man's opinion. There has been no direct credible research that this is the case and in fact just the opposite is true with the more current studies. Antibiotics used in and for food production should not be mixed with improper use of antibiotics in humans. They are two seperate and distinct issues and should be considered as such. The merging of these two to get the "desired" selling points is a shame on the "scientists" that were working on this paper. You wouldn't correlate these two no more than you would correlate car accidents in India with the U.S. in order to set insurance policy rates.

3. They want to go back and restate all the previous studies that do not address the issue. More recent studies have been definitive.

4. Working for the food industry? I guess self regulation is the answer, isn't it , Beefman? Maybe we should do away with police officers and courts and just have a council of thieves suggesting how thier business should be regulated.

5. Microbiologists can be under the thumb of the food industry also. The previous point #4 actually admits they are in the food industry instead of independent scientists. We have in this report the best science money can buy.

6. That is the point.

7. Are there any chickens that get injections that are used for food? This statement shows that Doyle doesn't know what he is talking about and that this report is just a propaganda campaign to keep the status quo.



MONEY OVER FOOD SAFETY AGAIN



What is a case of food antiresistent bacteria that causes a death or serious infection worth to you or your family especially when it could have been avoided for want of a little corporate greed?

Wow. You are one talented individual. First a (pseudo) attorney, then a (pseudo) economist, now a (pseudo) microbiologist. You really got your money's worth at A&M, didn't you? Since this article did not support your socialized agenda for production agriculture, you attempted, meekly so, to pick apart the quoted microbiologist. With just a minimal amount of research, you would've found that Michael Doyle is one of the most respected, highly acclaimed people in his field. The debate on resistant strains of bacteria started shortly after the discovery of penicillin. Resistance issues obviously continue to this day. It only makes sense that single or multiple treatments with antimicrobials at therapeutic levels in humans is chiefly blamed for resistance. Unfortunately, certain sections of the organic industry make claims such as the ""the overuse of animal antibiotics does lead to superstrains of antibiotic resistant bacteria," as was made above, and which you enthusiastically endorsed.

I'll assume most poultry antibiotics are administered orally. I do not know whether or not they are ever injected. Apparently you do, and also make reference to "reduce stress" and "overfeeding" of antibiotics. Which begs the question……which free range chicken company do you work for?

Your little statement at the end….. "What is a case of food antiresistent bacteria that causes a death or serious infection worth to you or your family especially when it could have been avoided for want of a little corporate greed"? …… further demonstrates how incredibly out in left field your thoughts are.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Beefman, I suggest you'd best do some more research on this topic. While the quack who wrote the article may highly respected, there are dozens of other highly respected microbiologists and researchers who have studies that prove the EXACT opposite. Use of anti-microbials in feed is just plain dangerous, and is leading us down the path to more and more resitant strains of bacteria.

What I find interesting is that its almost universally accepted by human medical science that taking antibiotics when not sick is a good way to create resistant strains of bacteria. So why is it suddenly different in animals, specifically bovines?

This study can be file 13'ed under Useless Crap Paid For By Big Companies Who Only Want To Make A Buck.

Rod

 

[Beefman]

Beefman, I suggest you'd best do some more research on this topic. While the quack who wrote the article may highly respected, there are dozens of other highly respected microbiologists and researchers who have studies that prove the EXACT opposite. Use of anti-microbials in feed is just plain dangerous, and is leading us down the path to more and more resitant strains of bacteria.

What I find interesting is that its almost universally accepted by human medical science that taking antibiotics when not sick is a good way to create resistant strains of bacteria. So why is it suddenly different in animals, specifically bovines?

This study can be file 13'ed under Useless Crap Paid For By Big Companies Who Only Want To Make A Buck.

Rod

Rod, your biases are also shining through. Not sure who the "quack" is your referencing.......a writer for the Chicago Trib wrote the article, and quoted a noted microbiologist, so your response is highly disjointed. I do not have any information to label either as such, and if in your wisdom you do, please pass it along. Lots of questions remain unanswered regarding antimicrobials in production livestock, and thankfully people smarter than you and I are the ones doing the research. Do you have any idea how many years / how much testing is done prior to new compounds entering the market? If you have expertise to support your label of this as a "crap study", by all means, share your comments. I have to question if you've read, or even understand the study.

Your claim that use of antimicrobials in feed "is just plain dangerous" is also an outlandish statement you cannot possibly support. Oral administration of compounds via the feed as per labeled indications has been an effective route of administration, and sometimes the only available option. Your attempt to throw production agriculture under the bus over this issue reveals your selfish, unsupported motives.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, your biases are also shining through.

<snip>

Your claim that use of antimicrobials in feed "is just plain dangerous" is also an outlandish statement you cannot possibly support. Oral administration of compounds via the feed as per labeled indications has been an effective route of administration, and sometimes the only available option.

This has nothing to do with my biases, but rather from reading several studies that counterdict the big money study that you quoted. If feeding antibiotics is such a great practice, why is it being outlawed in several EU nations?

If the whole mass beef production thing is completely safe, why do mass production lots even require antibiotics in feed? Why? The only reason is to able to cram as many animals in as tight a spot as possible, saving them money on land, but putting the entire livestock industry at risk. Why is it that most large feedlots in Saskatchewan, who are sprawled out and have lots of room for each animal, don't have to feed antibiotics, but only rather treat those animals that require treatment (proper use of antibiotics)?

And the quack I'mn referencing is Michael Doyle. He's being bought and paid for by big money, and has now compromised his integrity, all for a buck or two.

People and animals are not as different as we would all like to believe, and if using anti-biotics when not necessary is dangerous, why does it suddenly become all right for bovines?

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Beefman, I don't care how highly noted Doyle is. The fact is that he doesn't know anything about the poultry industry and his own quote proves this.

It just goes to show that you can get anyone to be an idiot for a day, even a so called "respected microbiologist". If we looked into Doyle's funding, maybe we would find out the reason.

The link to the study, when I tried to go to it, did not work. It was an invalid link. Here is what I got:

"The page cannot be found......."

If you and your industry continue to quote "ghost" studies, you deserve the criticism. I don't know Doyle and I hope the obvious mistake of material facts of the industry in his quote can be attributed to the news writer, and not to him. If it is attributable to Doyle, it shows an obvious bias. Either way, this whole thread is based on, as Rod said, "a bunch of crap".

Have you a link to Dr. Ron Ward's ACTUAL study on the Beef Checkoff, I would be interested.

If you can not produce Ward's studies on the net in their entirity, I would imagine there is something to hide, just as not releasing the full transcripts of the Pickett case hide the truth.

This is the reason many of us have called for a revamping of the university funding that comes from the USDA. It is being directed to give false and misleading "expert" studies to fool the foolish so the packers can have "experts" to push their propaganda.

This is exactly what happened in the Tomislav Vukina study from North Carolina on the poultry industry that was approved by JoAnn Waterfield, McBride, and Brett Offut at GIPSA. Tomislav did such a "good job" ignoring the facts and putting out such a piece of garbage that he was awarded the $425,000 hog study funded by the USDA that was flawed in its inception.

Maybe if the USDA had some of its brainpower work for free markets, and the producers instead of cherrypicking data to prove points the packers want they might be competent at their congressional mandates instead of the sellout politicians encouraging them to commit fraud upon producers.

 

[Beefman]

Rod, your biases are also shining through.

<snip>

Your claim that use of antimicrobials in feed "is just plain dangerous" is also an outlandish statement you cannot possibly support. Oral administration of compounds via the feed as per labeled indications has been an effective route of administration, and sometimes the only available option.

This has nothing to do with my biases, but rather from reading several studies that counterdict the big money study that you quoted. If feeding antibiotics is such a great practice, why is it being outlawed in several EU nations?

If the whole mass beef production thing is completely safe, why do mass production lots even require antibiotics in feed? Why? The only reason is to able to cram as many animals in as tight a spot as possible, saving them money on land, but putting the entire livestock industry at risk. Why is it that most large feedlots in Saskatchewan, who are sprawled out and have lots of room for each animal, don't have to feed antibiotics, but only rather treat those animals that require treatment (proper use of antibiotics)?

And the quack I'mn referencing is Michael Doyle. He's being bought and paid for by big money, and has now compromised his integrity, all for a buck or two.

People and animals are not as different as we would all like to believe, and if using anti-biotics when not necessary is dangerous, why does it suddenly become all right for bovines?

Rod

Can you name even one EU study which supports your cause? Just how do they contradict (you might note counterdict is not a word) the study referenced in this thread? I hate to break this to you, but food companies do have people on staff that have incredible expertise in immunology and bacteriology. I would challenge you to at least read the data before you continue hand holding with Econ and his flawed logic.

I have spent several years working in and around high plains area feedlots, and I can assure you cattle "are not crammed in as tight a spot as possible, thus putting the entire livestock industry at risk". Where do you come up with such flawed information? You might also spend time investigating the feedlot industry closer to your home. Regarding the large feedlots that don't feed antibiotics......do they use ionosphores? Do you know how these products are classified? (see what happens when you make careless classifications?)

Rod: People and animals are not as different as we would all like to believe, and if using anti-biotics when not necessary is dangerous, why does it suddenly become all right for bovines?

Thank goodness there are large animal veterinarians that can help us determine correct use of antibiotics.

 

[Econ101]

Beefman, are these people (cited in the article) in any way on the payroll of the food industry or have they been or do they have a promise to be?

The difference between what Doyle got wrong here and the freeway that was called in OCM's paper in relation to gunsmoke was that OCM was using an obvious fictional story to make a point, Doyle's point uses unintended fiction to make his.

 

[Beefman]

Beefman, are these people (cited in the article) in any way on the payroll of the food industry or have they been or do they have a promise to be?

Why you asking me questions you already know the answer to?

The difference between what Doyle got wrong here and the freeway that was called in OCM's paper in relation to gunsmoke was that OCM was using an obvious fictional story to make a point, Doyle's point uses unintended fiction to make his.

freeway in OCM's paper.....Gunsmoke.........Not sure what you're referencing here. You also have not pointed out what you believe Doyle's "unintended fiction" is.

 

[Econ101]

Beefman, are these people (cited in the article) in any way on the payroll of the food industry or have they been or do they have a promise to be?

Why you asking me questions you already know the answer to?

Econ: To m make you think. It might be a lost cause.

The difference between what Doyle got wrong here and the freeway that was called in OCM's paper in relation to gunsmoke was that OCM was using an obvious fictional story to make a point, Doyle's point uses unintended fiction to make his.

freeway in OCM's paper.....Gunsmoke.........Not sure what you're referencing here. You also have not pointed out what you believe Doyle's "unintended fiction" is.

Econ: Beefman, if your cognition skills are not any higher than this after I pointed it out,

Are there any chickens that get injections that are used for food? This statement shows that Doyle doesn't know what he is talking about and that this report is just a propaganda campaign to keep the status quo.

,
maybe you have taken too many "idiot" pills.

Lay off the drugs.

 

[Beefman]

Beefman, are these people (cited in the article) in any way on the payroll of the food industry or have they been or do they have a promise to be?

Why you asking me questions you already know the answer to?

Econ: To m make you think. It might be a lost cause.

The difference between what Doyle got wrong here and the freeway that was called in OCM's paper in relation to gunsmoke was that OCM was using an obvious fictional story to make a point, Doyle's point uses unintended fiction to make his.

freeway in OCM's paper.....Gunsmoke.........Not sure what you're referencing here. You also have not pointed out what you believe Doyle's "unintended fiction" is.

Econ: Beefman, if your cognition skills are not any higher than this after I pointed it out,

Are there any chickens that get injections that are used for food? This statement shows that Doyle doesn't know what he is talking about and that this report is just a propaganda campaign to keep the status quo.

,
maybe you have taken too many "idiot" pills.

Lay off the drugs.

1. Responding to your posts does not require thinking.
2. Still don't know what your talking about regarding OCM and the freeway comment.
3. If in fact, and according to you, chickens never see a needle, I'll plead ignorance. I state this very cautiously, and realize referencing you and fact in the same sentence can be dangerous. Again, you haven't answered which free range chicken company you work for.

 

[Econ101]

Why you asking me questions you already know the answer to?

Econ: To m make you think. It might be a lost cause.



freeway in OCM's paper.....Gunsmoke.........Not sure what you're referencing here. You also have not pointed out what you believe Doyle's "unintended fiction" is.

Econ: Beefman, if your cognition skills are not any higher than this after I pointed it out,
,
maybe you have taken too many "idiot" pills.

Lay off the drugs.

1. Responding to your posts does not require thinking.
2. Still don't know what your talking about regarding OCM and the freeway comment.
3. If in fact, and according to you, chickens never see a needle, I'll plead ignorance. I state this very cautiously, and realize referencing you and fact in the same sentence can be dangerous. Again, you haven't answered which free range chicken company you work for.

1. And you haven't disappointed me on that.

2. We will just let it go.

3. If you are so sure I work for a free range chicken company, would you care to wager a sum on that assumption?

You might learn not to make assumptions like that.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) Can you name even one EU study which supports your cause?

2) I have spent several years working in and around high plains area feedlots, and I can assure you cattle "are not crammed in as tight a spot as possible, thus putting the entire livestock industry at risk". Where do you come up with such flawed information?

3) You might also spend time investigating the feedlot industry closer to your home. Regarding the large feedlots that don't feed antibiotics......do they use ionosphores? Do you know how these products are classified? (see what happens when you make careless classifications?)

1) Look back a couple weeks. There was just a thread went through here that stated EU countries were banning the use of medicated feed for the exact reason you are arguing isn't an issue.

2) So why then do they need medicated feeds to keep the animals healthy? What are they doing wrong? In all the years I've raised livestock, I have a 3% loss rate, including calving. I use 50 mls of NuFlor every 2 years, 30 mls of Liquimycin every 2 years, and 1 100 ml bottle of Penicillin each year. Why do these feedlots need medicated feed to keep their animals alive?

3) I am intimately familiar with 3 large feedlots who are closest to me. 2 don't even use hormone implants, and NONE of the 3 utilize medicated feed of any sort. When animals arrive, they are vaccinated on a Pfizer Gold plan, quarantined, then released into general population after a set time period. If an animal shows signs of sickness, they are pulled, treated and quarantined. So again I ask, what are the feedlots in your area doing wrong that they must feed medicated feeds to keep their animals alive?

By the way, there are dozens of studies that contradict Mr. Doyles study. I just finished reading one from the U of S when I was at the vet clinic getting my livestock mineral. Do a Yahoo.

Rod

 

[Beefman]

1) Can you name even one EU study which supports your cause?

2) I have spent several years working in and around high plains area feedlots, and I can assure you cattle "are not crammed in as tight a spot as possible, thus putting the entire livestock industry at risk". Where do you come up with such flawed information?

3) You might also spend time investigating the feedlot industry closer to your home. Regarding the large feedlots that don't feed antibiotics......do they use ionosphores? Do you know how these products are classified? (see what happens when you make careless classifications?)

1) Look back a couple weeks. There was just a thread went through here that stated EU countries were banning the use of medicated feed for the exact reason you are arguing isn't an issue.

2) So why then do they need medicated feeds to keep the animals healthy? What are they doing wrong? In all the years I've raised livestock, I have a 3% loss rate, including calving. I use 50 mls of NuFlor every 2 years, 30 mls of Liquimycin every 2 years, and 1 100 ml bottle of Penicillin each year. Why do these feedlots need medicated feed to keep their animals alive?

3) I am intimately familiar with 3 large feedlots who are closest to me. 2 don't even use hormone implants, and NONE of the 3 utilize medicated feed of any sort. When animals arrive, they are vaccinated on a Pfizer Gold plan, quarantined, then released into general population after a set time period. If an animal shows signs of sickness, they are pulled, treated and quarantined. So again I ask, what are the feedlots in your area doing wrong that they must feed medicated feeds to keep their animals alive?

By the way, there are dozens of studies that contradict Mr. Doyles study. I just finished reading one from the U of S when I was at the vet clinic getting my livestock mineral. Do a Yahoo.

Rod

The feedlots you are describing sound like they're producing for the natural market. Several in the US do also. If they can manage / target for those specific markets, power to them. Natural products are growing throughout every sector of the grocery store, including the beef case. If consumers targeted in this sector wish to pay the markup, fine. Sell it to them.

Perhaps you should define what you mean when you use the term "medicated feed". Feedlots that finish cattle do not feed what I'd call "medicated" feed, ie, containing antibiotics at therapeutic levels on an ongoing basis. Newly arrived, or highly stressed calves, of course you treat the sick ones, and oral administration via the feed is very effective.

I do not know what type of cattle you raise, or what sector of the biz you're in. Compared to your figures, you should be asking what feedlots in the US are doing right, not what's wrong. Feedlots that have a death loss as high as 3% on a consistant business would not be able to survive. That's an extremely high mortality level for finished cattle. Most would be in the .5 to .75 range. Pull to dead (morbidity / mortality) ratio of approx 20 to 1. Your numbers suggest more die than you treat. Better make sure your cowboys know how to pull sick cattle.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

1) The feedlots you are describing sound like they're producing for the natural market.

2) Perhaps you should define what you mean when you use the term "medicated feed". Feedlots that finish cattle do not feed what I'd call "medicated" feed, ie, containing antibiotics at therapeutic levels on an ongoing basis. Newly arrived, or highly stressed calves, of course you treat the sick ones, and oral administration via the feed is very effective.

3) I do not know what type of cattle you raise, or what sector of the biz you're in.

1) Nope. Straight to Tyson. They've decided there is no benefit to be had from utilizing medicated feeds, and the one smaller feedlot can be pickier about his animals, so implants don't buy him any benefit either.

2) Antibiotic laced feed. From what I can tell from the Tribune article, Mr. Doyle was speaking mostly of these feeds.

3) Cow/calf and backgrounding. Occasionally finish a few. Of my 3% loss rate, 1% is at calving time, 2% after weaning, during the backgrounding portion, and I've never lost a feeder animal.

Rod

 

[Econ101]

Much of the antibiotic use is in the Tyson poultry operations, it is not just in beef.

There are many operations that produce a no antibiotic chicken.

If Tyson had to turn around and not use antibiotics in their poultry operations where the definitive studies on antibiotic resistant bacteria have been conducted, what do you think that would do to the price of chicken?

If the price of chicken goes up, what do you think will happen to the price of beef, all things held constant?

Beefman, keep arguing for Tyson poultry operations if you will but if you continue, please change your name to Chickenman instead of Beefman.