Effects of Antimicrobial Use in Concetrated Animal Feeding Operations

In the past century there has been a substantial change in the way human beings raise and keep animals meant for food. While in the past there were great numbers of widely spaced small individual farms, now there are relatively few, but extremely large industrialized farms. And as the numbers of animals kept and slaughtered for human consumption increases, these industrialized farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFO's, are having more and more of an impact on the environment and people around them. The concentration of animals causes a major problem with the waste products they produce, as well as the gases, chemicals, and other types of byproducts. And the increased use of antibiotics in the animals is beginning to have a profound effect on the health of not only the environment but the communities that exist around these industrialized farms. CAFO's, and their secondary industries, are also a large consumer of oil, gasoline, and other fuels which can have an indirect, but devastating effect on the environment. Luckily there are some who have come to recognize the problems, and potential future problems, involved in this type of animal farming and have begun to inform the public to the dangers these farms pose. And in response to this information, the public is beginning to force changes in the way these CAFO's operate and the impact they have on the environment and

Then Tom continues education with a little education on the variety of antibiotics and how “crucial for treating serious human infections” (Philpott). Using a hotlink to a well-known credible organization like the “Food and Drug Administration” back up some of his statistics regarding over use of antibiotics in livestock operations. Tom continually notes

coli and Salmonella” (Veldman). This statement allows the reader to see the negative impact of antibiotics used in livestock. Gay Miller elaborates on the subject when speaking with Veldman, saying, “Of course, it raises concerns about resistance issues… but from my perspective the most important thing to reflect on with regard to antibiotic resistance is from a benefit/cost perspective.” Veldman continues to explain that the National Cattleman’s Beef Association Website also says, “…science has not found a link between the use of antibiotics in food animals and development of resistant bacteria that might compromise the efficacy of related antibiotics in human medicine.” These two statements by Veldman and Miller tell the reader that even though there is a chance that certain antibiotics used in livestock could be harmful to consumers, there is no scientific evidence to support

Antibiotic use in animals has recently captured the attention of various professionals as the blatant, adverse effects have become increasingly prevalent. Agricultural manufacturers carelessly inject livestock with antibiotics in order to maximize their weight gain by minimizing the amount of energy consumed in fighting illnesses. This broad use of antibiotics in food-producing animals has contributed to the emergence and distribution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, resulting in either mild or fatal illnesses. To put the severity of this issue in perspective, legislators must realize that 1 in 5 antibiotic-resistant infections are caused by bacteria from food and animals. Although antibiotic use in animals is not the sole culprit of the

The group most affected by antimicrobial resistance directly related to the agriculture industry are children under the age of ten. When pathogens become multidrug resistant the risk of detrimental outcomes including fatality increases significantly (Shey, 2003). Studies were conducted in Denmark after the ban on nontherapeutic antibiotic use in farm animals in 1999. Research concludes that there was a reduction in drug resistant genes and the health of the animals did not significantly decline nor did the profits of the

In 2011, the United States sold 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics for meat and poultry production use. but only 7.7 million pounds for human use. Antibiotics are used in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to kill bacteria that lives among the animals to keep them healthy until slaughter. They come with many side effects which end up harming the consumer, the animal's life becomes shortened because of the antibiotics speeding up the growth and the long term effects on the earth could end up costing us lots of money. Even though antibiotics keep the animal healthy, the usage in livestock should be banned because it causes a health threat to the consumer and creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Farm animals receive 30 times more antibiotics (mostly penicillins and tetracyclines) than people do. The drugs treat and prevent infections. But the main reason farmers like them is that they also make cows, hogs and chickens grow faster from each pound of feed. Resistant strains emerge just as they do in humans taking antibiotics--and remain in the animal's flesh even after it winds up in the meat case. (par. 8)

Central Idea: Because requiring antibiotic free animal products is not a practical response to rising number of antibiotic resistant bacteria, consumers should support responsible antibiotic use in animal agriculture through an alternative labeling like an “Approved Antibiotic Administration” certification.

The Food and Drug Administration has proposed and created several regulations throughout the years. One of them is the regulation to establish a list of qualifying pathogens that may have the potential to propose or cause a great threat. According to the FDA, this proposed rule would implement a provision of the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now of the FDA. This regulation would assist in reassuring the development of new antibacterial and antifungal drugs. Before the development of new drugs, the FDA must take into consideration the effect on public health due to drug- resistant organisms in humans. The purpose of this paper will be to discuss and highlight what this regulation truly means and the issues surrounding it.

Cefoperazone is a new semisynthetic cephalosporin with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity. Cefoperazone shows high activity against gram-positive bacteria and gram-negative bacilli, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Proteus species [1].

The food industry does not use the medications for sick animals, it is used “because producers believe that chickens, cows, and pigs-particularly those that are not healthy to begin with-gain weight faster when these drugs are added to their feed” (UCSUSA). Rather than healthier living conditions for animals to thrive, corporations use non-therapeutic use of antibiotics to expedite the growing process in over-crowded conditions. Within the U.S., $100 billion a year is spent on drugs, but “80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States are used for livestock and poultry, not humans” (NRDC). The issue of feeding animals that are not sick antibiotics has the possibility of creating antibiotic resistant bacteria due to overuse of unnecessary antibiotics. Due to overuse of antibiotics in animals and humans, “at least two million illnesses and 23,000 deaths are caused in the U.S. by drug-resistant bacteria, according to the CDC” (Tracy). Ultimately, overuse of antibiotics wipe out vulnerable bacteria and leave only the resistant strains, making the original antibiotic

Before initiating antimicrobial therapy, even in the case of a correct diagnosis, the practitioner should ascertain that whether such therapy is justified and will confer the benefit to the animal. The therapy should help to contain and limit further extension of the infection, shorten its duration and reduce the risk of systemic complications. Ideally, only diseased animals should be treated, and the treatment should be as individual as possible. However, in the case of poultry this is not practical, and mass-treatment is accepted following a relevant diagnosis. Metaphylaxis should be avoided and prophylaxis should be kept to a minimum. Routine prophylactic use of antimicrobials as a substitute for health management should be discouraged. In routine surgical procedures in animals, administration of antimicrobials may not be always necessary since aseptic techniques and hygienic measures can replace the need for antimicrobials in most of the cases. Off-label use of antimicrobials should be

The abuse of antibiotics in animal husbandry is quickly gaining speed as a potent problem in the world, and because of the overuse, antibiotic resistance is a terrifying prospect that is overwhelming doctors as they try to combat resistant bacteria; the future of the world depends on the way the resistant bacteria is handled, and it needs to be evaluated from the lowest level it can be: the animals. An overwhelming number of the antibiotics are being given to food producing animals, even when they are not necessary. The FDA recognizes that the overuse of antibiotics could lead to resistance, but they continue to pass lax policies; the FDA is being surpassed by other organizations that are fighting to combat the growing problem, but mandatory laws are yet to be passed in the US. Because of this hesitancy to pass compulsory laws, due to competing government initiatives, this overuse of antibiotics is adding to the problem of antibiotics resistance by allowing the bacteria to develop resistance from overexposure. Animals are being abused because antibiotics are being misused, and animals have dose after dose forced on them, despite not needing them, because of the increased efficiency of growth in these meat producing animals. A major shift is needed in the culture of animal husbandry to put an end to this overuse of antibiotics; mandatory laws must be passed outlawing antibiotics that are medically suitable for humans from farms, requiring strict monitoring, and no longer

According to various scientists, the routine use of antibiotics on the farm have promoted drug-resistant superbugs in the factories. An evidence was from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the approval of flouroquinolones, an antibiotic class with ciprofloxacin, which has been in the production of poultry since the year 1995 (FDA, 06). In 1999, ciprofloxacin-resistant Camplobacter,

For many centuries, families raised their own livestock for the primary purpose of their consumption. It was understood then that one can’t get attached to the animals because they are not going to be around forever. It was also understood that these animals were to be taken care of; they were treated well and their health mattered. If the livestock was not healthy, it couldn’t be consumed, that could mean food for the winter or starvation for some families; life or death if you will. Universally speaking, when one hears the use of antibiotics, they think something is wrong; there is an infection to be obliterated. While this is true in some cases, it is not always the way farms and slaughterhouse use antibiotics on their cattle. PBS.org and South Dakota State University explain that nearly half a century ago, it was discovered that by administering small doses of antibiotics through an animals food or water source, said animal can grow and gain weight faster than if not given the medications. This is tantamount to