March 10, 2015
By Kiera Butler
...But a new meta-analysis(click here) by two Princeton researchers shows that antibiotics aren't as effective at promoting growth as they used to be. Studies from 1950-1985 suggested that antibiotics increased weight of young pigs by an average of about 17 older pigs by 4 percent. But similar studies since 2000 found much less dramatic results: 1 percent increase for young pigs and no measurable increase for older pigs.
No one knows why the drugs have become less effective—and in fact, there's no consensus on how exactly antibiotics increased growth in animals to begin with. One theory is that the drugs fight low-level infections, which allows the animal to use its energy for growing instead of warding off germs. The authors of the new analysis theorize that as hygiene at livestock operations improve, the rate of infections might be decreasing, thus negating the need for antibiotics....
The Non-GMO demands of a growing number of Americans brings studies like this to their newsletters.
Antibiotics in animal feed has always been something many people have opposed in their diet. It can cause unexpected allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. There is also a huge problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is known the misuse of antibiotics has caused the growth and variety of resistant bacteria.
I had no idea 80% of all antibiotics in the USA are for animal operations. That is not good. With this study and recognizing the growing number of Americans demanding good quality, including Non-GMO food, will result in a reduction of the use of these antibiotics. The companies engaged in providing these drugs to factory farmed livestock will be effected and evidently in a big way.
It has always been the claim of farmers with factory farms, regardless of the livestock, that they needed to add antibiotics to animal feed because the danger of disease being a part of their operation was high.
Let's think about that for a minute.
Feed lots and factory farms actually believe they are in danger of the loss of profit because of disease.
Why are we using such processes in our food supply?
There is a problem here. We never hear about resistant bacteria in feedlots or on factory farms. We only hear about resistant bacteria in human populations. So. Like. What gives?
Do veterinarians receive calls to these farming operations to respond to a resistant disease killing animals?
I believe this practice is very questionable. It is important to understand the extent our bodies are volunteers to food we basically do not approve of. I doubt many Americans would consent to such ingredients in their food supply. We didn't volunteer for such problems. Those standards are imposed on the people of this country. It is wrong. It is also unfair. People should have complete disclosure of such issues. People should also have alternatives that are reasonable in cost.
My food cooperative has a lot of information in their newsletters on how to make the foods purchased affordable. They offer all kinds tours and classes. The classes include information to those that want to eat GMO free or are faced with food allergies or are parents that are children sensitive to gluten. The food cooperative also runs tasting tours of their products. All that information is free. Cooking classes using the ingredients from our cooperative are a small fee of $30 to $35.
Antibiotics are no joke. There is more and more understanding about livestock and their success in health and productive weight for market from free ranging them.
Thank you, Mother Jones.
By Kiera Butler
...But a new meta-analysis(click here) by two Princeton researchers shows that antibiotics aren't as effective at promoting growth as they used to be. Studies from 1950-1985 suggested that antibiotics increased weight of young pigs by an average of about 17 older pigs by 4 percent. But similar studies since 2000 found much less dramatic results: 1 percent increase for young pigs and no measurable increase for older pigs.
No one knows why the drugs have become less effective—and in fact, there's no consensus on how exactly antibiotics increased growth in animals to begin with. One theory is that the drugs fight low-level infections, which allows the animal to use its energy for growing instead of warding off germs. The authors of the new analysis theorize that as hygiene at livestock operations improve, the rate of infections might be decreasing, thus negating the need for antibiotics....
The Non-GMO demands of a growing number of Americans brings studies like this to their newsletters.
Antibiotics in animal feed has always been something many people have opposed in their diet. It can cause unexpected allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. There is also a huge problem with antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is known the misuse of antibiotics has caused the growth and variety of resistant bacteria.
I had no idea 80% of all antibiotics in the USA are for animal operations. That is not good. With this study and recognizing the growing number of Americans demanding good quality, including Non-GMO food, will result in a reduction of the use of these antibiotics. The companies engaged in providing these drugs to factory farmed livestock will be effected and evidently in a big way.
It has always been the claim of farmers with factory farms, regardless of the livestock, that they needed to add antibiotics to animal feed because the danger of disease being a part of their operation was high.
Let's think about that for a minute.
Feed lots and factory farms actually believe they are in danger of the loss of profit because of disease.
Why are we using such processes in our food supply?
There is a problem here. We never hear about resistant bacteria in feedlots or on factory farms. We only hear about resistant bacteria in human populations. So. Like. What gives?
Do veterinarians receive calls to these farming operations to respond to a resistant disease killing animals?
I believe this practice is very questionable. It is important to understand the extent our bodies are volunteers to food we basically do not approve of. I doubt many Americans would consent to such ingredients in their food supply. We didn't volunteer for such problems. Those standards are imposed on the people of this country. It is wrong. It is also unfair. People should have complete disclosure of such issues. People should also have alternatives that are reasonable in cost.
My food cooperative has a lot of information in their newsletters on how to make the foods purchased affordable. They offer all kinds tours and classes. The classes include information to those that want to eat GMO free or are faced with food allergies or are parents that are children sensitive to gluten. The food cooperative also runs tasting tours of their products. All that information is free. Cooking classes using the ingredients from our cooperative are a small fee of $30 to $35.
Antibiotics are no joke. There is more and more understanding about livestock and their success in health and productive weight for market from free ranging them.
Thank you, Mother Jones.
