Organic...
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.
haha no offense man but *kitten* that *kitten*
I had kept up with it since the very first posts way back in the day
eventually he's gonna get the formula correct, right?
and I can guarantee that no peanuts have been harmed in the production of my pb0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.0 -
You eat the crunchiest pb possible then.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.
haha no offense man but *kitten* that *kitten*
I had kept up with it since the very first posts way back in the day
eventually he's gonna get the formula correct, right?
and I can guarantee that no peanuts have been harmed in the production of my pb
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.
haha no offense man but *kitten* that *kitten*
I had kept up with it since the very first posts way back in the day
eventually he's gonna get the formula correct, right?
and I can guarantee that no peanuts have been harmed in the production of my pb
I'll try anything once. I hear it now comes with improved taste. 0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
I'm sure that's solely motivated by the concern for the animals' hypothetical suffering and not from monetary value that the use of antibiotics brings. Lol.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.
haha no offense man but *kitten* that *kitten*
I had kept up with it since the very first posts way back in the day
eventually he's gonna get the formula correct, right?
and I can guarantee that no peanuts have been harmed in the production of my pb
I'll try anything once. I hear it now comes with improved taste.
haha hey fair enough man
bonus points if you can drink it like this
0 -
Because only organic farmers have any concern about their animals' life, right? And organic farmers don't charge more for their product because they do it out of concern for ... whatever organic is supposed to do beneficial?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
I'm sure that's solely motivated by the concern for the animals' hypothetical suffering and not from monetary value that the use of antibiotics brings. Lol.
0 -
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I think I'm eating like 90% protein powder, Ritz crackers, and peanut butter at this point
not sure how humane that is but at least it's consistent?
Soylent. Convenient and suffering-free.
haha no offense man but *kitten* that *kitten*
I had kept up with it since the very first posts way back in the day
eventually he's gonna get the formula correct, right?
and I can guarantee that no peanuts have been harmed in the production of my pb
I'll try anything once. I hear it now comes with improved taste.
haha hey fair enough man
bonus points if you can drink it like this
That's the new LGBT friendly, runny version?
I like my Soylent like I like my women - microbially tested, lumpy and green.0 -
Fact: You still have pesticides with organic food.
https://ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
Fact: There is very little investigation by the government for compliance when it comes to the rules for using the USDA Organic label...and enforcement from the government for violations is minimal.
Report Finds Lax USDA Organic Oversight
I refuse to pay a ridiculous amount of money for food that bears the USDA Organic Certified Seal when we have no idea if it really is 100% organic or not.
That said, it is a good thing to buy locally produced produce in season and support your local farmers, organic or not.
You've said literally everything I was going to say.
Although I guess it might be interesting to add that organic food is 4-8 times more likely to be recalled.0 -
Because only organic farmers have any concern about their animals' life, right? And organic farmers don't charge more for their product because they do it out of concern for ... whatever organic is supposed to do beneficial?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
I'm sure that's solely motivated by the concern for the animals' hypothetical suffering and not from monetary value that the use of antibiotics brings. Lol.
I'm not sure what organic farmer do or do not do has any bearing on your argument that non-organic farmers won't do organic over antibiotic rules [presumably to prevent "unneeded suffering"]. It's pretty clear where the interest in the systemic use of antibiotics is. Note: I'm not pro-organic but I'm not going to argue that hypothetical animal suffering is an industry concern for not adopting a lower use of antibiotics in conventional animal husbandry.
Eta: homonym.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Because only organic farmers have any concern about their animals' life, right? And organic farmers don't charge more for their product because they do it out of concern for ... whatever organic is supposed to do beneficial?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
I'm sure that's solely motivated by the concern for the animals' hypothetical suffering and not from monetary value that the use of antibiotics brings. Lol.
I'm not sure what organic farmer do or do not do has any bearing on your argument that non-organic farmers won't do organic over antibiotic rules [presumably to prevent "unneeded suffering"]. It's pretty clear where the interest in the systemic use of antibiotics is. Note: I'm not pro-organic but I'm not going to argue that hypothetical animal suffering is an industry concern for not adopting a lower use of antibiotics in conventional animal husbandry.
Eta: homonym.
0 -
Fact: You still have pesticides with organic food.
https://ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
Fact: There is very little investigation by the government for compliance when it comes to the rules for using the USDA Organic label...and enforcement from the government for violations is minimal.
Report Finds Lax USDA Organic Oversight
I refuse to pay a ridiculous amount of money for food that bears the USDA Organic Certified Seal when we have no idea if it really is 100% organic or not.
That said, it is a good thing to buy locally produced produce in season and support your local farmers, organic or not.
You've said literally everything I was going to say.
Although I guess it might be interesting to add that organic food is 4-8 times more likely to be recalled.
I see "Organic food stuffs are 4-8 times more likely to be recalled" on a Fritos facebook post - got a better source?
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
The model used by organic currently is what I referred to in saying already addressed: organic is SUPPOSED to take an animal that is dying and give them antibiotics, but then give up the organic status of the animal.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
But you're assuming deception on the part of a person claiming they wouldn't do organic because it wouldn't let them use organics when medically recommended. You're making it into a simple dichotomy. The farmers that say they don't want to be forced to avoid antibiotics when medically expedient might feel that requirement is more cruel to the animal than giving them a high amount of antibiotics before slaughter - such people might also even be against using antibiotics for such purpose, but while it remains legal, that moral decision has to be way against the economics of the price created by people following that practice and the loss they'll face if they don't follow suit.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Because only organic farmers have any concern about their animals' life, right? And organic farmers don't charge more for their product because they do it out of concern for ... whatever organic is supposed to do beneficial?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
Untrue; they are treated but do not go into the antibiotic free meat stream.
http://www.fooddialogues.com/foodsource/do-organic-animals-get-sick-and-if-so-what-does-that-farmer-or-rancher-use-to-treat-the-animal-
If an animal that is being raised for food using organic production practices becomes sick, the farmer/rancher will do what they can to make the animal healthy, first utilizing natural remedies. If these remedies are ineffective, then it may be given medical treatment including antibiotics if appropriate for the illness. Once an animal is treated with antibiotics, it cannot be sold as organic. These animals are simply separated from the non-antibiotic group, treated and then marketed as conventional products following proper withdrawal times. (U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 CFR 205.238 (c)).
Organic is Good for Cows
...Still, both Velez and Tikofsky agree that the organic system, which is governed by a set of strict and enforceable rules, does help to ensure that a basic commitment to animal health is made and upheld. For example, because it prohibits the use of antibiotics (except in circumstances where the animals’ health/survival is in jeopardy), the organic system supports and promotes a preventative approach to health care that benefits animals and farmers alike. Most notably, it compels farmers to establish a close relationship with each animal. This relationship, which is cultivated through frequent interaction and “near constant observation,” enables farmers to quickly identify, assess, and respond to behavioral changes before they develop into health problems. In many cases, this approach spares organic animals of such common illnesses as mastitis and pneumonia. Moreover, it helps organic farmers to avoid reactive, antibiotic-based treatments, which can not only be costly but also threaten their animals’ organic status.
brown cowFrom Tikofsky’s standpoint, the organic system also promotes animal health through its understanding of and support for animals’ natural behaviors. As she explains it, “Cows are designed to spend much of their time outside on the pasture, where they can acquire the nutrients they need to survive. To the extent, then, that the organic system makes access to the outdoors a priority, it gives cows access to the high forage diet they need to maintain digestive health.”
Karreman agrees. “Much of the organic system is about trying to mimic Mother Nature. Her cues point to the importance of fresh air, dry bedding, sunshine, quality pastures, and high-forage feed, so that is what the organic system attempts to provide.”
Tikofsky adds that the organic system’s requirement that livestock have access to the outdoors appears to help reduce the number of health problems from which many cows suffer. Several studies have found that cows raised organically are less prone to lameness and foot disease, due, in large part, to the fact that they move about on pasture, which is softer and therefore easier on their legs than concrete. Other studies have shown that animals consuming high forage diets, such as those organic cows are fed, suffer from fewer instances of mastitis and tend to enjoy greater longevity than animals whose diets are more grain and less forage-based.
Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
I'm sure that's solely motivated by the concern for the animals' hypothetical suffering and not from monetary value that the use of antibiotics brings. Lol.
I'm not sure what organic farmer do or do not do has any bearing on your argument that non-organic farmers won't do organic over antibiotic rules [presumably to prevent "unneeded suffering"]. It's pretty clear where the interest in the systemic use of antibiotics is. Note: I'm not pro-organic but I'm not going to argue that hypothetical animal suffering is an industry concern for not adopting a lower use of antibiotics in conventional animal husbandry.
Eta: homonym.
My person belief is that the laws should change so that antibiotics are used whenever medically advisable, and only when medically advisable.
0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
The model used by organic currently is what I referred to in saying already addressed: organic is SUPPOSED to take an animal that is dying and give them antibiotics, but then give up the organic status of the animal.
So how big a concern is this "dying organic beef" - 30%? 20%? 10%? I really don't know but a quick Google suggests it's really very very very rare.
Reported cattle deaths are... <1% in organic practices from one publication?
http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_ritf/RITF67.pdf
Vs 100% cattle have access to pasture?
0 -
I don't know. How important is access to pasture period? Sure, we'd feel weird being forced to be indoors all days, but is that actually something a cow worries about? How often do conventional cattle NEVER have access to pasture?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
The model used by organic currently is what I referred to in saying already addressed: organic is SUPPOSED to take an animal that is dying and give them antibiotics, but then give up the organic status of the animal.
So how big a concern is this "dying organic beef" - 30%? 20%? 10%? I really don't know but a quick Google suggests it's really very very very rare.
Reported cattle deaths are... <1% in organic practices from one publication?
http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_ritf/RITF67.pdf
Vs 100% cattle have access to pasture?
The original point I brought up was it was a silly rule for organic to have in the first place. Unfortunately, the obsessions with purity in organic means that a cow treated with antibiotics even just once can't be sold that way.0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When the consumer demands "no antibiotics" certification, they put the farmer in a dilemma. It has the potential to cause unneeded suffering, which the consumer never sees. And I was annoyed that you judged the farmer stupid.While the options are raised on antibiotics vs. no antibiotics ever. I'm going for zero antibiotics.
Customers demand no antibiotics because of the choices available.
and those choices lead to animals pointless suffering because they cannot be treated for very curable diseases.
I don't see why farmers that mistreat animals should be reason to dislike organic farming in general. It's not as if non-organic commercial animals are living in the lap of luxury.
because it's needless suffering that other animals don't have to go thru. not sure why that's hard to understand
It's hard to understand why anyone would think that organically raised animals are routinely treated more poorly than other commercially raised animals.
When I buy meat, I don't think organic vs non-organic, I think humanely raised vs conventionally raised/factory farm. People don't want to think about how badly factory-farmed animals are treated because then they'd have to make decisions.
I think about price first and foremost when I buy food-I have to. I don't have the luxury to be self righteous.
I did an experiment for six months and found that I can eat humanely produced meat and dairy products and certain organic produce for under $200 per month. I saved money by looking for sales, cooking from scratch rather than buying processed foods, not buying soda, not eating fast or convenience foods, and rarely eating out. If I placed a higher value on convenience, I wouldn't have been able to do this.
I don't know where you live but where I live I could not buy that stuff as cheap.
I already make food from scratch, don't drink pop and rarely eat out. Because it's cheaper. Even if I could afford to buy all organic humane stuff I still probably wouldn't. It's not of great importance to me.
This entire organic etc racket is so rank with first world wealthy privliege it's impossible to take seriously.
This was in South Florida but prices are pretty much the same here in Massachusetts, except for Cabot products, which are cheaper.
I think I need to clarify - this was not certified organic meat, which is indeed more expensive, but humanely raised meat, which when on sale is comparable to conventional. Also not all the produce was organic, just the ones most highly pesticided. And the dairy was not all organic, but from cows not treated with bovine growth hormone.
Here in MA I save a lot of money on produce by buying at farmers markets and farm stands. It's not certified organic but after picking a cabbage worm off the kale I believe them when they say they use organic practices. I also belong to a local natural foods buying coop where I save money by buying in bulk from UNFI and Frontier with the other member families.
My mother was a cofounder of a natural foods buying club in our town in the 70s and the idea that this had anything to do with first world wealth is cracking me up.
0 -
I don't know. How important is access to pasture period? Sure, we'd feel weird being forced to be indoors all days, but is that actually something a cow worries about? How often do conventional cattle NEVER have access to pasture?
The original point I brought up was it was a silly rule for organic to have in the first place. Unfortunately, the obsessions with purity in organic means that a cow treated with antibiotics even just once can't be sold that way.
Since using antibiotics for growth decreases their effectiveness for medical treatments--which means it's basically a wash ethically speaking--it sounds like at this point, it's more of a truth in labeling issue.
This little piggy went to the pasture, this little piggy stayed home.
This little piggy had antibiotics and hormones, this little piggy had none.
Oh, and you'd be surprised at how many cattle don't have access to pasture. But, that's neither here nor there.0 -
As I've stated, my opinion is that antibiotics should be switched to usable for medical purposes only. When they're legal to use for bulking, you're going to have a race to the bottom price between farmers have conventional cattle.ScreeField wrote: »I don't know. How important is access to pasture period? Sure, we'd feel weird being forced to be indoors all days, but is that actually something a cow worries about? How often do conventional cattle NEVER have access to pasture?
The original point I brought up was it was a silly rule for organic to have in the first place. Unfortunately, the obsessions with purity in organic means that a cow treated with antibiotics even just once can't be sold that way.
Since, using antibiotics for growth decreases their effectiveness for medical treatments--which means its basically a wash ethically speaking--it sounds like at this point, it's more of a truth in labeling issue.
This little piggy went to the pasture, this little piggy stayed home.
This little piggy had antibiotics and hormones, this little piggy had none.
Oh, and you'd be surprised at how many cattle don't have access to pasture. But, that's neither here nor there.
0 -
Welfare Issues for Dairy Cows
Given a natural and healthy life, cows can live for 20 years or more. High-yielding dairy cows will last for only a quarter of that time. They are often culled after three lactations or less because they are chronically lame or infertile.
Lameness, mastitis, and infertility
Milk is heavy and a dairy cow may be carrying several extra pounds of milk in her udders. This can force her hind legs into an unnatural position, making it difficult to walk, and can result in lameness. It can also make standing and lying down difficult and uncomfortable.
Mastitis is a painful udder infection that is prevalent among dairy cows. 16.5 percent of deaths of dairy cows in the US are attributed to mastitis, which is more commonly reported than any other health problem in the dairy industry. Housing cows indoors for long periods can increase the prevalence of mastitis.
Infertility among high-yielding dairy cows is a major problem affecting 13 per cent of US dairy cows, commonly leading to cows being removed from the herd. It has been linked to stress, poor body condition, and the demands of high milk production.
Housing
Cows kept indoors have less opportunity to act naturally and exercise. Poor ventilation and high humidity increase the risk and spread of infection. These factors are likely to have an adverse effect on their health and welfare.
Hard concrete flooring can cause foot damage and is especially painful for lame cows. Zero-grazing systems, in which cows are housed year-round, have been linked to increased lameness among dairy cows.
In many old-fashioned systems, cows are kept in tie-stalls and stanchion barns which are even more confining. Here cows are tied up for all or part of the day when they are housed.
Sadly, the majority of US dairy cows are kept without access to pasture all year. Furthermore, around 20% of US dairy cows are housed in tie-stall systems.
Diet and hormones
The diet of high-yielding cows often has relatively little fibrous content and is inappropriate for their type of digestive system. This leads to acidity in the part of the stomach known as the “rumen,” and can cause acidosis and painful lameness from laminitis (hoof tissue inflammation).
In the US, many dairy cows are given growth hormones to increase their milk yield. This can increase welfare problems including lameness and mastitis. This practice is illegal throughout the EU.
Surplus dairy calves
In commercial dairy farming, nearly all calves are taken away from their mother shortly after birth. This causes severe distress to both the cow and her calf, and has long-term effects on the calf’s physical and social development.
Read more: http://www.ciwf.com/farm-animals/cows/dairy-cows/welfare-issues/0 -
I don't know. How important is access to pasture period? Sure, we'd feel weird being forced to be indoors all days, but is that actually something a cow worries about? How often do conventional cattle NEVER have access to pasture?EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
The model used by organic currently is what I referred to in saying already addressed: organic is SUPPOSED to take an animal that is dying and give them antibiotics, but then give up the organic status of the animal.
So how big a concern is this "dying organic beef" - 30%? 20%? 10%? I really don't know but a quick Google suggests it's really very very very rare.
Reported cattle deaths are... <1% in organic practices from one publication?
http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_ritf/RITF67.pdf
Vs 100% cattle have access to pasture?
The original point I brought up was it was a silly rule for organic to have in the first place. Unfortunately, the obsessions with purity in organic means that a cow treated with antibiotics even just once can't be sold that way.
Well, I find that pastured meat tastes better - and since vacation time is often spent on farm lands (where I do almost absolutely nothing near a cow except avoid stepping on... ) what I've found interesting is that I've learned how antibiotic use is very different here than in large commercial concerns in the U.S.
Here, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics is banned. In my eyes, it seems to be sufficient and meets up with your point. I certainly don't shop for a specific organic label for beef due to some concern for antibiotic-free beef. I know my beef likely doesn't have any.
If I wanted beef without antibiotics in the U.S. then the organic label would seem to be the guarantee of that. Frankly, I don't see how it's a silly rule - it's a consumer expectation. It might be a overly sensitive concern that therapeutic use of hormones is somehow dangerous to the consumer (I'm agreeing with you). (Here I think the rules on use preclude the slaughter for 8-12 (?) weeks??) but people believe all sorts of silly stuff.0 -
As I've stated, my opinion is that antibiotics should be switched to usable for medical purposes only. When they're legal to use for bulking, you're going to have a race to the bottom price between farmers have conventional cattle.ScreeField wrote: »I don't know. How important is access to pasture period? Sure, we'd feel weird being forced to be indoors all days, but is that actually something a cow worries about? How often do conventional cattle NEVER have access to pasture?
The original point I brought up was it was a silly rule for organic to have in the first place. Unfortunately, the obsessions with purity in organic means that a cow treated with antibiotics even just once can't be sold that way.
Since, using antibiotics for growth decreases their effectiveness for medical treatments--which means its basically a wash ethically speaking--it sounds like at this point, it's more of a truth in labeling issue.
This little piggy went to the pasture, this little piggy stayed home.
This little piggy had antibiotics and hormones, this little piggy had none.
Oh, and you'd be surprised at how many cattle don't have access to pasture. But, that's neither here nor there.
Makes sense to me.0 -
The FDA has actually (and very recently) issued guidance on antibiotic use in cattle, regardless of organic labeling status. The guidance recommends moving away from use for growth purposes. While voluntary, it's a move in the right direction.0
-
ScreeField wrote: »The FDA has actually (and very recently) issued guidance on antibiotic use in cattle, regardless of organic labeling status. The guidance recommends moving away from use for growth purposes. While voluntary, it's a move in the right direction. Which means Senecarr's opinion to limit use would could the new norm.
It's the old norm here in the EU since almost 10 years - 20 years in a few countries.0 -
ha ha, you caught me before I had a chance to edit that sentence out. I didn't like it much--especially with the missing word.
There are states in the US that, in my opinion, will never move toward this model. So, unfortunately, I don't think "norm" was the best choice of words. I should have said "norm-for-some-select-locations-that-don't-produce-a-lot-of-beef".0 -
ScreeField wrote: »Already been addressed. The model makes antibiotics a means of last resort, instead of being used when medically recommended. I've heard of farmers that intentionally won't do organic over the antibiotics rules.
The primary use of antibiotics in cattle is to promote growth (fatten them up) and are administered in livestock feed regardless of whether or not the cattle are suspected to be sick. There is no medical reason the cattle are given the antibiotics and any health benefits are merely secondary gains.
Are you sure you're not confusing antibiotics with growth hormones? I've never heard of antibiotics fattening anyone up.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions