Tags: animal welfare

Buy these great books! Published by me at Norton Creek Press.


Fresh-Air Poultry Houses

by Prince T. Woods
More Information

Success With Baby Chicks

by Robert Plamondon
More Information

One Survivor

by Robert Plamondon
More Information

Ten Acres Enough

by Edmund Morris
More Information

Tom Slade, Boy Scout

by Percy K. Fitzhugh
More Information

Organic vs. Antibiotics

by Robert

My cold turned into a sinus infection, so I went to my favorite doctor to cadge come antibiotics (Dr. Foley at Philomath Family Medicine, a clinic started by hippie doctors in the Seventies, and still a laid-back and mellow place). Given my chronic sinus conditions, I do all the usual stuff, with an air filter in my office and saline nasal rinses, but sometimes the bacteria get the upper hand anyway. When this happens, it's time to see the doctor and get some drugs. Most people do this, even people who love the idea of "natural remedies."

(And why isn't penicillin considered to be a natural remedy? It's harvested directly from the penicillium mold.)

It saddens me that so many people don't use the same approach with their livestock. The use of antibiotics sullies their political correctness and organic status, so people drag their feet and let their animals suffer before breaking out the drugs. I don't think they have their priorities straight.

6 comments

Comment from: Lee [Visitor] · http://www.farmfolly.com
Maybe they don't, but neither do the large beef producers who constantly feed antibiotics to keep corn-induced acidosis in check and for the side effects of increased growth rate. Overuse of drugs is quickly destroying the viability of these medications both for humans and sick animals.

We will not be feeding our livestock a medicated ration, but if something gets seriously sick I see no trouble in administering appropriate medication. For a commercial farm, this means loss of organic status for that animal and a corresponding hit on their profit. An obvious incentive to do nothing.

Nobody ever said government regulation is a substitute for common sense. :)
04/01/09 @ 12:02
Comment from: Robert [Member] · http://www.plamondon.com
As long as consumers insist on buying bargain-basement beef, there will be producers producing it. Feedlots are necessary if you're going to produce low-cost beef for cheapskates, and when you do that level of crowding, the need for constant preventative medication is only to be expected.

I don't see any reason to be more annoyed at producers who make things for cheapskates than at the cheapskates themselves.

As for antibiotic tolerance, I don't believe it. Penicillin has been grotesquely overused in agriculture for sixty years now, and is still the drug of choice for many human diseases. The same goes for the second generation of antibiotics, such as tetracycline, which have been grotesquely overused in agriculture for fifty years.

A while ago I read that all antibiotic-resistant strains of human diseases with known origins had their start in hospitals, not farms. So the whole antibiotic thing is just another superstition: a boogeyman that people use to scare us.

Not that I have any objection to designating particularly useful new antibiotics as "human-only," just in case. But, outside the medical profession, it doesn't belong on anyone's top 100 list of things to worry about.
04/01/09 @ 12:39
Comment from: EJ [Visitor]
Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health

The late Tom Anderson, the family doctor in this little farm town in northwestern Indiana, at first was puzzled, then frightened.

He began seeing strange rashes on his patients, starting more than a year ago. They began as innocuous bumps — “pimples from hell,” he called them — and quickly became lesions as big as saucers, fiery red and agonizing to touch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/opinion/12kristof.html


"A joint report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and the World Health Organization (WHO) found that the use of antibiotics in humans and animals places individuals at increased risk for infection, higher numbers of treatment failures, and increased severity of illness."
http://www.saveantibiotics.org/ourwork.html

04/02/09 @ 09:56
Comment from: Robert [Member] · http://www.plamondon.com
Good catch. I stand corrected. I still think that all the dinosaur-age antibiotics like penicillin and tetracycline have been overused for so long that there's little point to moderating their use now You can't put that genie back into the bottle. We should save a bunch of the promising new antibiotics for human-only use, as I said before, rather than using every single antibiotic for both veterinary and human use.
04/02/09 @ 11:49
Comment from: Lee [Visitor] · http://farmfolly.com
I did a bit of follow-up research on this as well to check if my opinion was being shaped by anti-establishment literature with poor references. Seems that most studies and bans on excessive antibiotic use in animals have been inconclusive, but a number of medical organisations in the U.S. are now calling for elimination of non-treatment usage.

The FDA did ban the use of fluoroquinolone in poultry after links were shown between resistant strains of Campylobacter bacteria infecting humans and the drug's use in agriculture.

The boogeyman, "buy or die" advertising, is used both by the media and businessmen. Just like the mom watching TV who then goes out to buy toxins to pour down her toilet least Johnny play in the toilet with all those awful germs living there (apparently one has to do this after each use), how many farmers are constantly medicating their livestock because the agricultural journal warns of massive loss rates if they do otherwise?

I get more cynical as I get older, but I question most the motives of those who stand to make the most profit.
04/05/09 @ 00:58
Comment from: Robert [Member] · http://www.plamondon.com
Well, that's just the thing. Everybody lies. The folks who make Lysol overrate the danger of infection. The alternative food movement claims that their food is good but everyone else's is toxic. The government makes equally wild claims, and backs them up with guns. They're all lying and more or less interchangeable weasels, and I'm surprised that anybody pays any attention to any of them.

The thing that bugs me about antibiotics is that no one seems to care about the livestock. They stopped using preventative antibiotics in Europe, which meant the number of livestock infections skyrocketed, and they had to use way more therapeutic antibiotics. Net change: there's still lots of antibiotic use, but the livestock suffer more. I hate that.

If you want to reduce antibiotic usage, you need to reduce crowding. This increases costs. Many people are cheapskates and won't pay a dime for superior anything. This is a democracy, so cheapskates are a powerful force.

This is not an easy problem to solve, and most people who try to address it don't care about the practical stuff. They're not farmers, they're consumers who think that if they clap their hands and say, "I believe in fairies," Tinkerbelle will come back to life, when what she really needs is oxygen, an IV, and her stomach pumped.

But the whole problem changes completely if you ignore the issue of what society ought to do and focus on what you can accomplish yourself. Raising your own livestock is certainly one answer to the livestock question. The other thing that works very well is to ask around -- local reputations are very powerful and are rarely wrong. Find out who the best supplier is, and settle for the best. It's hard to do better than that unless you go into business for yourself, and have a passion for it.

04/05/09 @ 07:53

What's it Take to Eliminate Factory-Farmed Eggs?

by Robert

Let's do the math. There were 76 billion eggs laid by US chickens last year (not counting hatching eggs), laid by 280 million hens (23 dozen eggs per hen). The vast majority of these hens are in factory farms. Suppose we wanted to get rid of factory farms. What would it take?

Well, before factory farms there were ordinary farm flocks. Between about 1900 and 1950, a typical "egg farm" held steady at about 1,500 hens. Some had more, some had less, but a farm family making most of its income from eggs typically had a 1,500-hen operation.

This makes sense when you realize that studies of labor efficiency on old-fashioned egg farms measured productivity at 2.0-2.5 hours per hen per year. A 1,500-hen operation would take between 3,000 and 3,750 hours of labor, which will soak up the time of two wage-earners.

Factory-farm techniques allowed the number of hens per attendant to increase to the current astronomical levels (around 150,000 birds per henhouse, with multiple houses per installation, and only one attendant per henhouse.)

280,000,000/1,500 = is about 187,000 egg farms that would have to be created, providing jobs for 187,000 new farm families. A 1,500-hen flock should lay (at 23 dozen eggs/hen) 34,500 dozen eggs per year.

Now, the median household income last year was about $50,000. Presumably, we can't get rid of factory farms without paying an average wage, so we need to extract $50,000 of wage income per 1,500 bird flock. $50,000/$34,500 = $1.45 per dozen (as opposed to only about $0.0145 per dozen for the factory farm). That pays the farmer. Because the farmer only receives about half the retail price of the eggs, the consumer will have to pay about $2.90 extra for non-factory-farmed eggs.

This cost premium is more than the price of a dozen factory-farmed eggs (around $2.25 the last time I looked). Various other economies of scale that benefit factory farms won't be available to smaller farms, so I figure that, in rough terms, non-factory-farmed eggs will triple the cost -- in round numbers, $7.00 a dozen.

That's for old-time confinement operations, which would have eggs that taste just as bad as factory-farmed eggs. Real free range eggs (not the fake kind that produces the eggs in the stores) cost more to produce. The labor efficiency isn't that much worse, but production plummets in poor weather and there are predator issues. I figure that the costs will work out to around five times as much as factory-farmed eggs -- $10-$12 a dozen.

True free-range farmers are thin enough on the ground that most of them can sell all their eggs locally, which is why you can't get them in the city. Eggs are cheaper in the country, so eggs you buy from me for $5 would cost you $10 in the big city.

No feedback yet