Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Antibiotics in feed, in the news
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="regolith" data-source="post: 914012" data-attributes="member: 9267"><p>it really is the word 'non-therapeutic' that raises alarm bells for me. Dun's example is a perfect one of a prophylatic use (don't have my dictionary within reach sp?) where although the drug is not being administered to a sick animal it is *virtually guaranteed* that the lack of such intervention will result in sick animals.</p><p>I've got no issue with removing medication from feeds where such medications are unnecessary (which depending on who you talk to it is always more harmful than otherwise but seems to me that whoever first added antibiotics to feed had reason for it), what I see in articles like this is the early steps towards the extremist view that 'disease challenge is evolution at work and should be permitted to kill off the weakest 90%'.</p><p>this followed by laws that complicate farming and don't improve animal health or welfare. The banning of estradiol to placate the markets is a fine example... we are simply advised to rear more heifers to replace those cows of poorer fertility who don't fit into a tight seasonal calving pattern and who we no longer have effective and cheap synch protocols for, plus a total ban on inductions still looming (also market driven). It's one thing to choose to farm without the drugs, quite another to be an average farmer and have one of the crutches that was holding your business up snatched away.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="regolith, post: 914012, member: 9267"] it really is the word 'non-therapeutic' that raises alarm bells for me. Dun's example is a perfect one of a prophylatic use (don't have my dictionary within reach sp?) where although the drug is not being administered to a sick animal it is *virtually guaranteed* that the lack of such intervention will result in sick animals. I've got no issue with removing medication from feeds where such medications are unnecessary (which depending on who you talk to it is always more harmful than otherwise but seems to me that whoever first added antibiotics to feed had reason for it), what I see in articles like this is the early steps towards the extremist view that 'disease challenge is evolution at work and should be permitted to kill off the weakest 90%'. this followed by laws that complicate farming and don't improve animal health or welfare. The banning of estradiol to placate the markets is a fine example... we are simply advised to rear more heifers to replace those cows of poorer fertility who don't fit into a tight seasonal calving pattern and who we no longer have effective and cheap synch protocols for, plus a total ban on inductions still looming (also market driven). It's one thing to choose to farm without the drugs, quite another to be an average farmer and have one of the crutches that was holding your business up snatched away. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Antibiotics in feed, in the news
Top