Antibiotics in Agriculture

[drhu22]

I know there are some farmers and ranchers out there on this forum. What is your take on the use of antibiotics for livestock production? Overuse in agriculture and medicine has apparently become a serious problem...
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/antibiotic_agri.shtml
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/
"WHO (World Health Organization) is working closely with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to promote best practices to avoid the emergence and spread of antibacterial resistance, including optimal use of antibiotics in both humans and animals."

[drhu22]

This isnt just for farmers and ranchers to weigh in on...
Here's a bit more info...
http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/blog/on-the-hunt-for-new-antibiotics
(HD)

[M3M]

http://www.albertabeef.org/page/worried-about-antibiotic-use-and-resistance-in-cattle

I urge everyone to check out the above link for a producers perspective on antibiotic use

[M3M]

and here is a link to a pdf info sheet
http://www.albertabeef.org/uploads/2015AMRupdatesmpdf-453.pdf

[OpenRange]

What are we supposed to do, not treat the animal and let it die? Lol. People complain if you use antibiotics and they complain when you don't and the animal suffers and dies. No matter what way you slice it someone is unhappy. If the vaccines were more effective then the need for antibiotics would be reduced, it's the same as a flu shot in humans, there's no guarantee it will work. We give all our calves a shot of Draxxin now when we wean, it lasts 14 days in their system which gets them through the stresses of being weaned and the pneumonia that typically comes after being weaned. We lost 1 calf out of 550. Year before we lost none to pneumonia in our first year using Draxxin. It is greatly reducing the amount of antibiotics we need to administer to our cattle, yes it is a antibiotic as well but when used in a preventative manner it requires far less retreats which reduces the chance of viruses becoming immune to the drugs.

I always get a kick out of the A&W commercial with no antibiotics and no hormones. The reason there is no antibiotics is because they get their meat from Austrailia. They aren't purchasing the meat for your health, it's business. They tell consumers they are doing it for your health BUT what they did is produce an excuse to purchase foreign beef for cheap. Australia doesn't use hormones and hardly any antibiotics because their bulls are out year round and they basically gather cattle periodically and sell the ones of age and kick the rest out to pasture that aren't. If the cattle die, they die. Their operations are too large to effectively monitor the herds. So A&W launches their campaign knowing they cannot buy enough antibiotics free beef in Canada and U.S with the intent to purchase all remaining volumes in Austrailia. This amounts to better than two thirds of their beef. They buy it substantially cheaper than here and sell it at Canada and U.S prices, all while passing it off as doing it for people's health. It's just smart business on their part preying on an uninformed consumer base. I boycotted them long ago for this reason.

[Jadham]

Can you clarify for me OR whether ranchers give antibiotics only to a sick animal or as a periodic additive to the feed?

I have been told by a pleasant 4H spokeperson/volunteer that antimicrobial drugs are often used indiscriminately, not on a case to case basis for a sick animal.

[Grizzly Adams]

Biggest problem with antibiotics is unnecessary use by humans, sorry penicillin won't cure a cold, but parents demand and doctors prescribe. Losing game in the end anyway as bacteria evolve to be resistant, we're just fighting a holding battle.

Grizz

[OpenRange]

Can you clarify for me OR whether ranchers give antibiotics only to a sick animal or as a periodic additive to the feed?

I have been told by a pleasant 4H spokeperson/volunteer that antimicrobial drugs are often used indiscriminately, not on a case to case basis for a sick animal.

If we have an outbreak in our herd we will sometimes add sulphamethazine to our water to aid in killing a virus. As well most ranchers give calves grain or screening pellets, they usually have an additive called Rumensin that helps prevent coccidiosis. I can't speak for other antibiotics but thats what we do.

[TBD]

What are we supposed to do, not treat the animal and let it die? Lol. People complain if you use antibiotics and they complain when you don't and the animal suffers and dies. No matter what way you slice it someone is unhappy. If the vaccines were more effective then the need for antibiotics would be reduced, it's the same as a flu shot in humans, there's no guarantee it will work. We give all our calves a shot of Draxxin now when we wean, it lasts 14 days in their system which gets them through the stresses of being weaned and the pneumonia that typically comes after being weaned. We lost 1 calf out of 550. Year before we lost none to pneumonia in our first year using Draxxin. It is greatly reducing the amount of antibiotics we need to administer to our cattle, yes it is a antibiotic as well but when used in a preventative manner it requires far less retreats which reduces the chance of viruses becoming immune to the drugs.

I always get a kick out of the A&W commercial with no antibiotics and no hormones. The reason there is no antibiotics is because they get their meat from Austrailia. They aren't purchasing the meat for your health, it's business. They tell consumers they are doing it for your health BUT what they did is produce an excuse to purchase foreign beef for cheap. Australia doesn't use hormones and hardly any antibiotics because their bulls are out year round and they basically gather cattle periodically and sell the ones of age and kick the rest out to pasture that aren't. If the cattle die, they die. Their operations are too large to effectively monitor the herds. So A&W launches their campaign knowing they cannot buy enough antibiotics free beef in Canada and U.S with the intent to purchase all remaining volumes in Austrailia. This amounts to better than two thirds of their beef. They buy it substantially cheaper than here and sell it at Canada and U.S prices, all while passing it off as doing it for people's health. It's just smart business on their part preying on an uninformed consumer base. I boycotted them long ago for this reason.


I knew their burgers were a little pricier - passed it off to the hormone free factor - very clever of them !

[dodger]

What are we supposed to do, not treat the animal and let it die? Lol. People complain if you use antibiotics and they complain when you don't and the animal suffers and dies. No matter what way you slice it someone is unhappy. If the vaccines were more effective then the need for antibiotics would be reduced, it's the same as a flu shot in humans, there's no guarantee it will work. We give all our calves a shot of Draxxin now when we wean, it lasts 14 days in their system which gets them through the stresses of being weaned and the pneumonia that typically comes after being weaned. We lost 1 calf out of 550. Year before we lost none to pneumonia in our first year using Draxxin. It is greatly reducing the amount of antibiotics we need to administer to our cattle, yes it is a antibiotic as well but when used in a preventative manner it requires far less retreats which reduces the chance of viruses becoming immune to the drugs.

I always get a kick out of the A&W commercial with no antibiotics and no hormones. The reason there is no antibiotics is because they get their meat from Austrailia. They aren't purchasing the meat for your health, it's business. They tell consumers they are doing it for your health BUT what they did is produce an excuse to purchase foreign beef for cheap. Australia doesn't use hormones and hardly any antibiotics because their bulls are out year round and they basically gather cattle periodically and sell the ones of age and kick the rest out to pasture that aren't. If the cattle die, they die. Their operations are too large to effectively monitor the herds. So A&W launches their campaign knowing they cannot buy enough antibiotics free beef in Canada and U.S with the intent to purchase all remaining volumes in Austrailia. This amounts to better than two thirds of their beef. They buy it substantially cheaper than here and sell it at Canada and U.S prices, all while passing it off as doing it for people's health. It's just smart business on their part preying on an uninformed consumer base. I boycotted them long ago for this reason.

I appreciate your input in this thread. Nothing like learning something new.
Thanks, Dodger.

[RustyRick]

Myth buster: Beef is not your culprit. I'm an X cow/calf/feedlot producer.

3 categories of treatment.
Vaccines: If producers could not vaccinate the productivity/quantity of beef anywhere would massively diminish. There would be massive die-off of the beef herd. Vaccines don't reduce human immunity to antibiotics. They treat cattle specific diseases.

Hormones: Producers would love to STOP feeding hormones. However consumers are not prepared to pay for lost production costs. Their beef would be tastier and more tender. But pay for it.

Antibiotics Now listen up close. Antibiotics are only given to sick cattle. And many producers set a rule to shoot the critter once $X is spent on a calf because of disease. Reason, the average profitability used to be around $35 to $45 per head. So to spend any more on the animal treatments is a sink hole.
2nd Only maybe 3 to 5% of a given group of cattle get sick. So NOT the whole herd of BEEF gets treated with antibiotics. Just those that got sick. So the amount of antibiotics in you beef is VERY LITTLE.

Now here's the root of your problem. Chicken barns would not live with out antibiotics full time. And I think the hog barn is about the same.

[reddeerguy2015]

Does anyone know if traces of the antibotics are passed down to the consumer after eaten ??

I read an article not long ago that with the current use of antibotics worldwide, especially in places like india and africa - there is a growing concern about resistance. This could be extremely concerning given the lack of NEW antibotic drugs coming down the pipeline.

Basically it will reach a point where cuts, scrapes and folks that go under the knife will start dying from infection with no way to treat them - with numbers as high as 1 in 7 people.

Scary stuff.

[RustyRick]

I always get a kick out of the A&W commercial with no antibiotics and no hormones. ing the meat for your health, it's business. They The reason there is no antibiotics is because they get their meat from Austrailia.

Not true. I don't know how the numbers split. But a very large feedlot operation SE of Edmonton sells most if not all their production to A&W. They pioneered a "Pasture to Plate" hormone free market right here in Alberta.

[Jadham]

Not true. I don't know how the numbers split. But a very large feedlot operation SE of Edmonton sells most if not all their production to A&W. They pioneered a "Pasture to Plate" hormone free market right here in Alberta.

Can someone clarify if hormones are used in the Canadian beef industry? I was under the impression that was a US thing.

[M3M]

http://www.albertabeef.org/uploads/2014hormoneupdatesmpdf-452.pdf

Hormones occur naturally in plants and animals, the link to the pdf has great facts about hormone levels in beef and plants and the impact to humans

[Jadham]

http://www.albertabeef.org/uploads/2014hormoneupdatesmpdf-452.pdf

Hormones occur naturally in plants and animals, the link to the pdf has great facts about hormone levels in beef and plants and the impact to humans

So I guess that is an indirect answer that estrogens are added to Canadian cattle. Is this for dairy/beef/both? What about other hormones, and the difference between Canada and the US? For example, growth hormone, anabolics, etc.?

I can also restate the original question...what hormones are added to cattle in the beef industry in Canada vs. the US (I am not talking about endogenous hormones).

[Segundo]

I've done my share of feedlot processing and watching my cows eat yummy grass..........

Personally speaking , why don't we all go organic. If it lives , fine . And if there is disease out break, fine .

Too much cheap food around as it is . Just listen to the news .....

If chicken feed can be all jacked up and nothing is said much , why worry about the odd calf getting some meds so it doesn't die ?

Organic it should be. Lol

But are You willing to pay for it ? Cause production costs aren't cheap .

And If you are , I'll supply you .

Think how good you'll feel eating an organic triple A grass finished steak raised just for you.

Just saying ......

[drhu22]

Segundo, you were off topic about ten times in that post, 10 different ways... impressive!

[PartTimeHunter]

Can someone clarify if hormones are used in the Canadian beef industry? I was under the impression that was a US thing.

Yes they are used and it is quite common, or some kind of growth promoting drug. Look up Ralgro (sp?) I believe that would be one. Typical is an implant in the ear.

[4thredneck]

Not true. I don't know how the numbers split. But a very large feedlot operation SE of Edmonton sells most if not all their production to A&W. They pioneered a "Pasture to Plate" hormone free market right here in Alberta.

Highland Feeders north of Vegreville, 36000 head feedlot and it supposed to be all natural.

[FCLightning]

Highland Feeders north of Vegreville, 36000 head feedlot and it supposed to be all natural.

So, do they have a sister operation they farm out all the sick animals to for sale in the regular market?

[215 buck]

So let me thro some mud out here to clear this up.

Hormones

Used to make the calves gain more weight a withdraw period of when the last implant can be put into the animal before harvesting is in place. There is a trace amount of left over artificial hormones left in the beef. Really an insignificant amount of hormone compared to what is naturally in the beef and what hormones are in products like soy cauliflower n broccoli ( soy for sure pretty sure on the cauliflower and broccoli).

Drugs

So used to keep animals healthy. Spot treatment of sick animals or massed used on whole pens or groups of animals. again withdrawal period before harvesting of the animal. When the feedlots get the fresh weaned calves some mass treat them with drugs or the farmer weans and keeps them they can mass treated or if a certain group of cattle are constantly sick mass treatment happens. Various drugs are used to treat certain viruses that are feed all the time like rummesion. Helps the cattle gain because they are not sick.

Vaccines

Used to prevent diseases. Just like in humans doesn't always work but better than not using them. Cant remember if there is a withdraw time on them but usually good for 6 months in feedlots if I remember right.

Anti parasite
Like you imagine gets rid of parasites. Withdraw Period before harvesting. Helps gain weight as the animals are not fighting the parasites

Organic meat

Cant use drugs dunno know about anti parasite imagine they have a anti parasite they can use. When the animal gets sick they use drugs to treat the animal the animal is then recorded as having been treated and is not sold as organic. Can use vaccines pretty sure on that. Can not use rummensin or drugs like that. Cant use hormones either. Cant spray for weeds with chemical. Cant use treated wood for fence posts I think. And other rules about feed. Still goes to the feedlot.

Grass feed beef

Can use all the above drugs etc ect. Diet is the only thing that changes.

No hormone beef
Pretty much just no hormones added.

At the end of the day the no hormone organic grass raised beef is trying add value to the beef that makes up for the lost amount of gain and death loss due to not using the drugs n such. I don't see the added value of what they are trying to sell you but that's for you to decide.

[4thredneck]

So, do they have a sister operation they farm out all the sick animals to for sale in the regular market?

I would think there is a special pen in the feedlot where they put any animal that has been treated. I worked at Highland about 18 years ago when they were just a regular feedlot and they were very diligent about treatment and withdrawal protocols, I would imagine they are still as diligent as it's still the same people running the place.

[kotode]

Pig Farms exposed by drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGJ1YSfDXs&feature=youtu.be

[Grizzly Adams]

Can someone clarify if hormones are used in the Canadian beef industry? I was under the impression that was a US thing.


http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/2014/12/09/straight-talk-on-hormones-in-beef/

Grizz

[Jadham]

http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/2014/12/09/straight-talk-on-hormones-in-beef/

Grizz

Thanks for the link, summarizes the antibiotics, hormones, additives etc

The only "beef" I have with some of the the cattle association data is that the comparison to the plant "estrogens" is misleading as it is not true estrogen (meaning estriodiol) but phytoestrogens which are certainly not equivalent to animal estrogen (estriodiol). It is completely misleading in their "comparison values" of estrogen sources.

But it is interesting to see that even with supplementation, estriodiol is down to near normal levels by the time of slaughter

[Redfrog]

Pig Farms exposed by drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayGJ1YSfDXs&feature=youtu.be

I like bacon.:)

[Desert_Faux]

Myth buster: Beef is not your culprit. I'm an X cow/calf/feedlot producer.

3 categories of treatment.
Vaccines: If producers could not vaccinate the productivity/quantity of beef anywhere would massively diminish. There would be massive die-off of the beef herd. Vaccines don't reduce human immunity to antibiotics. They treat cattle specific diseases.

Hormones: Producers would love to STOP feeding hormones. However consumers are not prepared to pay for lost production costs. Their beef would be tastier and more tender. But pay for it.

Antibiotics Now listen up close. Antibiotics are only given to sick cattle. And many producers set a rule to shoot the critter once $X is spent on a calf because of disease. Reason, the average profitability used to be around $35 to $45 per head. So to spend any more on the animal treatments is a sink hole.
2nd Only maybe 3 to 5% of a given group of cattle get sick. So NOT the whole herd of BEEF gets treated with antibiotics. Just those that got sick. So the amount of antibiotics in you beef is VERY LITTLE.

Now here's the root of your problem. Chicken barns would not live with out antibiotics full time. And I think the hog barn is about the same.

Completely incorrect about chicken flocks.

Farmed laying hens my entire life, we vaccinate for viruses when they are in the rearing house. We never use antibiotics whatsoever.

If antibiotics are used, we would have to follow the prescribed quarantine where the eggs cannot be shipped for sale until the drug residuals are out of the birds system.

Also, hormones have not been used in poultry since the 1950s/60s, and even then, it was a failure.

Broiler chickens (meat birds) might get antibiotics in their feed if it is needed to prevent massive mortality in the flock.

There is a large push in the broiler side of the industry to phase out all antibiotic use everywhere, but I think there is still more research to be done as I don't think the broilers farmers will just destroy their flocks and livelihoods just to appease a couple PETA reps and uninformed busybodies...

Support ALL Canadian farmers! Beef, Dairy, Poultry, Pork, and Vegetables/Grains.

I hunt wild game too and will continue to support sustainable hunting as well.

And remember, compared to 80% of the rest of the world we have Very inexpensive food. We are blessed in Canada.

[lmtada]

Liquimyacin = Incredible Stuff. Hoof Rot = No more.

[drhu22]

Re: "just to appease a couple PETA reps and uninformed busybodies..."

If you read my original post, you would see that it had nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals, or hormones for that matter.
Heres some more on the subject...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071638/
Read the article AND the references cited... are those the uninformed busybodies you're referring to?

[roper1]

Fair to say that viruses & bacteria are becoming more virulent. Mutating to adapt to survive & replenish their species, been going on forever.

Also fair to say on the Ag side, farmers & cattlemen are aware of the challenges posed by 'superbugs' and the vast majority adhere to withdrawal time on drugs & crop pesticides.

While considered "best practices" it is usually pragmatic financially as well, which the drug companies design their products for. We all have skin in this game; primary producers, value added processors, & the consumer.

[Heavy K]

So, just to clarify a couple things.

The biggest issue with antibiotic use in agriculture is the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. It is probably not the potential consumption of residual antibiotics in food products. The appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria will happen whenever and wherever antibiotics are used, in people, in animals, in feed, in water etc etc. The antibiotics are a selective pressure that will kill almost all the bacteria, but out of billions of bacteria, a small number may have a special trait that allows them to survive the presence of said antibiotic. If just one of these bacteria survives, it can give rise to a whole population of bacteria that themselves are all resistant to antibiotics.

The reason that this is a problem is because this resistance can be passed on to other types of bacteria. These traits are encoded by special pieces of bacterial DNA that can be passed to other bacteria through a process called horizontal gene transfer. The resistant bacteria don't even have to divide to make more bacteria that are themselves resistant! This is nothing new, and it has been around for as long as bacteria have existed.

The reason this is important is because these "resistance" pieces of DNA can be passed horizontally to different species of bacteria, some of which have the potential to make us very sick. Infections with such bacteria are difficult, and in a growing number of cases, impossible to treat. This is happening today, not tomorrow, and our hospitals are seeing more and more infections that cannot be treated.

The widespread use of antibiotics is problematic in agriculture because of the scale of usage. Think. Many people, need many animals to eat, and with that demand comes increased use of antibiotics for reasons outlined in posts above. The potential for the resistance genes in the bacteria in the animals (our food) to be passed on to the bacteria that live in our gut and on us is very real, and has happened. This resistance is now emerging in bacteria that can hurt us, because, guess what, these bacteria live on, around, and in us too.

To be fair, use of antibiotics in agriculture is one small piece of the puzzle, problematic because we are closely associated (physically) with what we eat. But there are lots of other reasons, probably most importantly the over- and inappropriate prescription of antibiotics by western medicine, and by people failing to complete their regimens of prescribed antibiotics ("hey - I fell better now, so I'm a gonna stop taking these pills that give the poops!").

Now - we are unlikely to wiped out by a plague of resistant bacteria next Tuesday. We still have some antibiotics that work. But, they are becoming increasingly rare. What we will see, and are seeing, is our sick, our elderly, our infirm, getting infections with bacteria that we could've treated 10-15 years ago without much thought. These people are now dying, or at the very least spending a lot longer in hospital, at incredible cost to society.

So, bottom line, do producers need to stop all use of antibiotics in the animals we eat? Probably not. But they do need to be discriminate and meticulous in their use (as is outlined by several of the posts by the cattle guys above). Do we need to stop insisting that our physicians give us antibiotics for every damn sniffle and earache? Absolutely. And for crying out loud, if you are prescribed antibiotics, finish the friggin' prescription, even if you feel "fine".

Stay healthy folks!

HK

[Desert_Faux]

Re: "just to appease a couple PETA reps and uninformed busybodies..."

If you read my original post, you would see that it had nothing to do with the ethical treatment of animals, or hormones for that matter.
Heres some more on the subject...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071638/
Read the article AND the references cited... are those the uninformed busybodies you're referring to?

My response wasn't as well communicated as I would have liked, and I should have separated the use of antibiotics from my Animal welfare/uninformed busybody sentence... Was typing on my phone while taking a break from shoveling manure. :)

Also, I did not read the articles you posted... :scared:

I 100% agree it would be best to be rid of antibacterial and antibiotic use completely in farming. We use none on our farm, but I understand when other industries need to use them.

I tend to get hot under the collar when farmers are attacked and told what a disservice we are doing to the public by creating LOTS of safe, cheap food. I know that is not what you or the article are doing, but it tends to come through my discourse when in these discussions, as I talk to many uninformed/malicious people in my travels.... my apologies.

Believe me when I say that 99% of farmers want nothing more than to produce safe, ethical and sustainable food for their fellow citizens. It would be nice if the majority of consumers would understand that to have their cake and eat it too (in regards to extra costs and measures to eliminate practices which help farmers create this healthy and cheap food) that this WILL raise food prices to the end user.

Our costs and work load have gone up 20% over the past 2 years, yet what we are paid, has stayed stagnant for years now as many consumers are unwilling to pay more and are ignorant of what it costs/takes to make the food they eat. How often do I hear that this or that is cheaper in the US and Canadian farmers are ripping of Canadian consumers? While people don't realize that most if not all, farming industry in the US is kept afloat by government subsidies (TAXES) which we do not get in Canada, which allows them to pass the lower prices off to the consumer (also a MUCH larger production capacity which helps amortize cost).

Anyway, my $0.02 for what it is worth, probably too much emotion on my end of the discussion. As long as we all stick to the real facts and dispel long held myths, these discussions are always fun. :)