Comment by crikli | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crikli | Hacker News Reader

There is such a preponderance of FUD about how livestock are cared for that it boggles the mind. People that have never once talked to a farmer or rancher have these huge opinions about how food "should" be produced based on some bullshit they saw in an article or some agitprop documentary.

In this instance the inference is that livestock are just fed mountains of antibiotics indiscriminately. Are you kidding me? Why would anyone do that? While not as expensive as meds for humans, veterinary medications are not cheap and no operator is going to waste money treating a whole herd unless it is absolutely necessary.

Furthermore, take some time to read up on the FDA website about how livestock production is regulated. It is far from the free for all that is so frequently represented.

If you are interested in a very educated and thorough perspective on how livestock are cared for at a feedyard, check out this blog by a Dartmouth educated operator in Nebraska: http://feedyardfoodie.wordpress.com/

On a semi-related note, can you name the product that was responsible for the last three E. coli outbreaks here in the States?

Actually, a lot of those "people" are, at least in my social circle, actual veterinary doctors and agriculture technicians. As for large-scale farmers, this is a debate against their economic interest, boo-hoo. And there's economic reasons for feeding livestock antibiotics, and at least in legislations I know anything about it's only illegal for "organic" farming (though it does require veterinary supervision — but it doesn't have to be for health reasons unless it's "organic").

And if you really want to speak about regulations in US, an appropriate page is one Google away: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforc...

Notice the wording about "voluntary", and it's 2012. It was actually developed due to that "FUD" you're writing about. Note "Increase production by making the animal gain weight faster and by improving the animal’s ability to convert the food it eats (improved feed efficiency)."

You missed the part earlier in the article where it says that is not considered judicious use.

Also, you should understand what types of antibiotics are used in feed versus those that are used in treatment. The feed isn't some concoction of all antibiotics available on the market, and most food animal antibiotics aren't used in humans.

If you're going to start with a comment about FUD, could you enlighten us with the rest of the comment instead of rhetorical questions?

Cattle raised on corn (aka, most cattle raised for human consumption) require continuous use of antibiotics in their feed to prevent rumen diseases. The rumen was "designed" to digest grass and cellulose, not corn. But we feed cows corn because it's cheaper than grazing, and the cows are meaty enough for slaughter after just 18 months.

That link you provided is very feel-good-family, but can you provide some science?

Same goes for you. You're asking that we have some science to back up the claim that it isn't harmful, I haven't seen any evidence provided that it is harmful. No one has been able to show deleterious effects from the use of ionophores or tetracycline in feed, which I'm willing to take as a negative proof that their use is acceptable.

80% of antibiotics produced in the US are used in agriculture.

30 billion pounds just last year. That's half a billion cubic feet, or a pile about 800 feet high. And while the more or less official definition of "mountain" is 1,000 feet, I don't think it provides much solace that it takes 2 years instead of 1 for America's livestock to consume a literal mountain of antibiotics.

80% of the antibiotics used in the US are used in agriculture because they make up 80% of the mass. Dosage is based on weight, and it's purely a question of mass, not a choice between animals or people.

I also think your billion is wrong. According the Union of Concerned Scientists, the 30 billion was the cost of the antibiotics, not the weight. The antibiotics weighed 24 million pounds. Besides, what does the total mass have to do with prudent use? If I said we used 100 billion pounds to save people, would you consider that acceptable?

You also need to put that number in context. In 2010, American meat companies produced: 26.4 billion pounds of beef 22.5 billion pounds of pork 5.8 billion pounds of turkey 313 million pounds of veal, lamb and mutton 37.2 billion pounds of chicken

Finally, there is no clear evidence that the proper use of antibiotics in food animals has ever led to a disease resistant bacteria in humans. Don't you find it much more alarming that your GP will prescribe antibiotics to common visitors just to get them out the door? It's far more likely you're going to die purely because someone next to you won't leave the doctor until they get an antibiotic, regardless of their health status.

I realize I'm responding to an account created today, which has already posted multiple pro-antibiotic comments, so I understand that gwt561324 likely has a strong vested interest in this and is likely not a regular HN member.

But I would like to point out the final paragraph here is pure FUD rhetoric. "Don't you find it much more alarming", "It's far more likely" (with no evidence to support claim).

The problem here isn't how frequently antibiotics used in agriculture cause resistance, it's the scale of the problem once they do. Sub-prime mortgage derivatives were traded millions of times without a problem, but once the system broke things got very bad very fast. That's the best analogy I can think of for antibiotic resistance, there is a massive systemic risk, being ignored for short-term profits.

Important correction, checking fda's actual numbers it's only 30 million pounds, not billion. So that's only an 80 foot high pile per year, which is still quite a lot but not as crazy an amount.

Regardless, somewhere between 3/4 and 4/5 of antibiotics used in agriculture is used "sub-therapeutically", merely to increase the growth rate of animals and not to treat disease.

Interesting blog. In one article [1] she makes a point of only injecting 2-5% of her animals with antibiotics. In a second article [2], she talks about feeding ionophores and how they are not classified by the FDA as antibiotics. Of course they are antibiotics, they just aren't used as human drugs.

[1] http://feedyardfoodie.wordpress.com/category/antibiotics-hor...

[2] http://feedyardfoodie.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/the-misunders...

Edit: Here's an article discussing the enormous use of tetracycline in agriculture:

http://www.livablefutureblog.com/2010/12/new-fda-numbers-rev...

So the agricultural use of human useful antibiotics is at a similar or higher level than the use of ionophore feed additives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com