The Effects Of Antibiotics On Animals And Animals

In this brief, the reader will see the pros and cons in antibiotic livestock. They will see commonly misunderstandings about antibiotics and facts. Throughout the paper the reader will see what long term and short term problems and benefits in livestock. In this research paper it will be covering antibiotics resistance and also how antibiotics it has changed the face of medicine.

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

Industrial farms use antibiotics in animal feed and water to prevent disease in farm animals. Many farms use antibiotics before an infection has even occurred.

Do you want the animals you eat feed antibiotics and the food is not fresh or do you want food that is fresh and the animals are feed right?Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat. Ever since they discovered decades ago and has been found as a health risk to humans but there is a food chain that can help America. The local sustainable food chain is the best food source to feed America.

By weight, eighty percent of antibiotics are used in agriculture to “fatten animals” and “protect them from the conditions in which they are raised” (McKenna). Animals are given micro-doses of antibiotics, that is, a small amount of antibiotics to prevent diseases from occurring. This micro-dosage amount allows for mutation that Fleming described. The routine use of antibiotics in agriculture has led to “[sixty-five] percent of chicken breasts” and “[forty-four] percent of ground beef” to house bacteria “resistant to tetracycline”. Additionally, “[eleven] percent of pork chops carried bacteria resistant to five classes of drugs” (McKenna). These bacteria then spread from animals to the humans who eat them, causing humans to get infections which cannot be treated. The issue isn’t as simple as ceasing to give antibiotics to animals. Most animals raised for consumption live in an environment ripe for infections and diseases to spread. Instead of giving the animals more room to live, the majority of farmers opt to give the animals antibiotics. For cattle, This prevents diseases and death to the immature weaned calves and cattle which saves the rancher both time and money—passing on the savings to the consumers. In a free market society higher prices tend to not go well. However, if antibiotics became useless farmers would have to “[enlarge] barns, [cut] down on crowding, and [delay] weaning”, which ultimately would increase the costs of raising livestock

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

The word “antibiotic” in the livestock industry endures an extremely toasty topic. This word appears on Facebook posts, Twitter feeds, and in television news. Antibiotics receive an unfair assessment, when in reality, the word is just one large miscommunication between agriculturists like myself, and the public consumers. October 20th, 2015 was a

The main threat for the overuse of antibiotics are the creation of antibiotic resistant microbes, or more commonly called superbugs. Antibiotics are used to kill mass amounts of bacteria, but they cannot kill all of them. Some bacteria still survive, so they will reproduce and pass their genes down to their offspring. The offspring will now have their parents genes, which includes being resistant to a certain type of antibiotic. Tom Philpott, an award winning writer about food politics, explained, “And the worst part is that antibiotics use in factory farms is not mostly matter of keeping animals healthy.” Philpott is saying farmers mostly use antibiotics to promote faster growth and not to treat sickness. American Cyanamid, a pharmaceutical company, tested animals with vitamin B12 to see if they grew faster. The animals saw significant weight gain, and more experiments were tested. What American Cyanamid found was the antibiotic in vitamin B12 was actually causing the weight gain. This discovery led to mass amounts of antibiotics being used in animals. In 1950, before the discovery, there were 1.6 million chicken farms raising a total of about 560 million chickens. 28 years later, 3 billion chickens were being hatched in about 31,000 large farms (Philpott). The discovery led to mass expansion of farms, because animals were able to grow faster and bigger, so farms took advantage. Factory farms have been overusing

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

This is due in part by the previous statement to get higher yields out every animal raised. Cattle, chickens and pigs alike are all subject to certain fattening diets, modern breeding techniques and growth hormone treatments. These forced practices have very adverse, life altering and threatening affects that lead farmers to use antibiotics in order to keep diseases at bay. The Committee on Drug Use in Food Animals states, “doses are used when pathogens are known to be present in the environment or when animals encounter a high stress situation and are more susceptible to pathogens “, (1999, p. 28). It is important to point out that the use of growth hormones and antibiotics dramatically increases body mass, drastically shortens the lifespan of animals such as cattle and is being detected in food for human consumption.

Believe it or not, there was a time when the food industry was 100% natural and free of man-made inventions. But, as population grew, so did the efforts to try and produce more food for a cheaper price. Caring for livestock during the 1900’s was not an easy task because, as everyone might know by now, animals are fragile and susceptible to many diseases which led to costly deaths that companies were not fond of. It wasn’t until the 1950’s that a group of scientists from the US, discovered that adding antibiotics in animal feed increased the growth rate of the livestock. By 2001, The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that nearly 90% of the antibiotics used in livestock were being used for non-therapeutic purposes, in other words, it was

The health of consumers will not be endangered if we treat the animals humanely. Antibiotic resistance caused by factory

Antibiotics on meat is now and days the new controversy. Some companies,like Subway, argue that in order to be able to raise large quantities of meat, antibiotics use on animals is absolutely necessary. Others, say that the more antibiotics we consume, the sicker we become because of bacteria that is antibiotics resistant.

If you go to the store today you will more than likely come across a package of meat that reads “antibiotic free”. Now, to the average consumer who knows very little about the agricultural industry, they would more than likely assume that “antibiotics are bad” just by the antibiotic free labeling.