What Is Veterinary Feed Directive?

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.

Prior to the VFD rule changes that went into effect January 1, 2017, producers could purchase medicated feeds as needed to prevent disease. Now, producers must pay for a veterinarian to prescribe and monitor medication programs. Because new occurrences arise frequently, especially in closely confined operations such as dairies, feedlots and poultry operations, some producers are unequally impacted by the rules. As with many regulations and industry trends, these changes encourage large corporate producers while simultaneously disproportionately burdening small and family operations with a disproportionate burden. Again, the FDA has attempted to mitigate this problem by permitting program development; however, until enough veterinarian support is available in rural areas, challenges

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

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

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.

There is a continuing concern in the United States is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. The government continues to research and analyze the use of antibiotics in animals and humans. It is not a fact that the use of antibiotics in animals’ cause resistance in humans. Antibiotics are a necessity in the production of food animals therefore if they completely band antibiotics it would put animal welfare and food safety at a large risk. By implementing the VFD the government can assure people that farmers and ranchers are using antibiotics

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)

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

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.