Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#51

Post by mitchty »

Qworg wrote: post #35
jessaustin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mitchty is like all the former dairy farmers I know, it's because dairy farming is a lot of hard work, and it never ends . There are no weekends, and no holidays. I like raising beef cattle because many days you don't even have to look at them. (Not today though! Ice to break on the pond, for starters...)

I can agree with this 100% - much of my family out in Iowa raises dairy. They never get a vacation. Ever. In regards to the announcement, without teeth, this won't cause any changes. External enforcement is absolutely necessary to make this stick.

Yep, you're both 100% right. Dairy cattle are basically a prison sentence.

We had regular cattle too, those amounted to looking at the pasture they're in and moving them around. Way less upkeep.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#52

Post by mitchty »

chrisgd wrote: post #49
jessaustin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mitchty is like all the former dairy farmers I know, it's because dairy farming is a lot of hard work, and it never ends . There are no weekends, and no holidays. I like raising beef cattle because many days you don't even have to look at them. (Not today though! Ice to break on the pond, for starters...)

Don't break it, skate on it.

Generally a bad idea when the cows need the pond to drink.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#53

Post by larubbio »

jessaustin wrote: post #27
guelo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why fortunately?

If mitchty is like all the former dairy farmers I know, it's because dairy farming is a lot of hard work, and it never ends . There are no weekends, and no holidays. I like raising beef cattle because many days you don't even have to look at them. (Not today though! Ice to break on the pond, for starters...)

What kind of beef cattle do you raise? I'm trying to track down heritage breeds but having some trouble. If you have any leads please contact me through the email address in my profile.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#54

Post by jessaustin »

mitchty wrote: post #52
chrisgd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't break it, skate on it.

Generally a bad idea when the cows need the pond to drink.

Haha yeah we try to use different ponds for those two purposes. Actually when possible I prefer to keep cattle out of ponds entirely for environmental reasons, but faucets freeze too. I have a feeling that by the time this winter starts, I'll be hoping for some global warming.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#55

Post by asciimo »

Crito wrote: post #48
asciimo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, cow milk is only useful as a human beverage.

Or a cow beverage. Could this milk be useful for feeding to calves?

Thanks, Crito. I glad someone else sees the absurdity of drinking another animal's milk.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#56

Post by jessaustin »

larubbio wrote: post #53
jessaustin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mitchty is like all the former dairy farmers I know, it's because dairy farming is a lot of hard work, and it never ends . There are no weekends, and no holidays. I like raising beef cattle because many days you don't even have to look at them. (Not today though! Ice to break on the pond, for starters...)

What kind of beef cattle do you raise? I'm trying to track down heritage breeds but having some trouble. If you have any leads please contact me through the email address in my profile.

Red Angus, with some commercial cattle as ET recips. I don't know anything about "heritage" breeds. I'd recommend Red Angus for all but the very hottest parts of the USA (and other nations at similar latitudes): they tolerate heat better than Black Angus but after all most of the genetics did come from Scotland! They are very docile, and the breed organization emphasizes valuable commercial traits like calving ease, weight gain, and ribeye area. Red Angus bulls are a great cross if your herd needs better carcasses, maternal characteristics, or thriftiness. See http://redangus.org/ for more info.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#57

Post by Silhouette »

pessimizer wrote: post #29
mhurron wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad things were done before, so clearly they should never be remedied.

You can't unkill the dead, even if you have an honest change of heart. Long-term antibiotic effectiveness may be a dead thing.

Long-term antibiotic effectiveness may be a dead thing.

Perhaps it will be, or at least it will for the medications we currently use. However, if we lose current antibiotics before finding or developing alternatives of similar or better effectiveness, human medicine is going to regress by decades and many people are going to suffer horribly. It's not just the obvious direct benefits of antibiotics we're going to lose, it's everything else that will go with them.

Dumping antibiotics all over the place via food production methods is absurdly wasteful of what might be a limited resource. Even if the eventual loss of current capabilities really is inevitable, putting back the date when it happens as much as possible to allow for research into alternatives could literally be a win on a global scale. This change is long overdue.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#58

Post by po »

cglace wrote: post #8
awjr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic farmers have approved antibiotics they can use (as well as natural remedies). If a dairy cow is treated with antibiotics the holding time before she is allowed back into the milking process is usually double or triple the normal holding time for a non-organic cow (10-15 days vs 5 days). Sh is still milked but the milk is poured away.

Isn't there something more useful they could do with that milk than pour it away?

I think 'wasting' it is good. Once you find something useful for it, it perverts the incentives. A sick cow should be considered a complete waste with no benefit.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#59

Post by anigbrowl »

virmundi wrote: post #5
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #2

The use of antibiotics in food stock should be banned completely. Saving a few cents per pound on meat isn't worth the damage to our antibiotic stock. Wanna give antibiotics to an animal, fine, but now it can't be used for food.

It is oddly cruel to see that logic applied in organic meats. An animal might become infected. It might die a very painful and slow death. But to keep organic certification, not antibiotic maybe used on the farm. Even for animal that will become food, I would think that kindness should be applied. If it is sick/infected, but still useful for meat, cure it and eat it. If not, just kill it. Don't let it suffer.

I'm not against antibiotics being used to treat individual sick animals. That's a whole different proposition from employing them as a food supplement and just dosing the entire herd as a prophylactic.

Re: U.S. FDA to phase out some antibiotic use in animal production

#60

Post by anigbrowl »

chaostheory wrote: post #17

This guidelines are just voluntary? What's the point? "'Our fear ... is that there will be no reduction in antibiotic use as companies will either ignore the plan altogether or simply switch from using antibiotics for routine growth promotion to using the same antibiotics for routine disease prevention,' said Steven Roach, senior analyst with advocacy group Keep Antibiotics Working."

One good aspect of this is that producers will able able to advertise their food as being raised without unecessary antibiotics. Many milk producers prefer not to use the growth hormone rBST, but because the FDA has no found any difference in the quality of milk between cows that are administered rBST and those that are not, producers who prefer not to use it have to put a disclaimer on their on their milk stating this FDA finding to prevent legal action from producers who do use that additive. With an FDA guideline saying 'better not to use antibiotics as a food additive' producers can draw consumers' attention to that fact without having to use defensive legal language that undercuts their message.
Post reply on HN