In article
,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

"gunner" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"Billy" wrote in message

For half a century, meat producers have fed antibiotics to farm animals
to increase their growth and stave off infections.

The Minnesota researchers planted corn, green onion and cabbage in
manure-treated soil in 2005 to evaluate the environmental impacts of
feeding antibiotics to livestock. Six weeks later, the crops were
analyzed and found to absorb chlortetracycline, ......

Jeeze Louise! More bloody sloppy reporting. Why don't they differntiate
between Feedlot animals and grass fed animals!

Or perhaps all beef in the US comes from feedlot animals. Our cattle are
only ever given anitbiotics if they have a problem like an infection and
then it's usually only one jab that has a 3 day life.

Fran, ya gotta get out more Dear.

No, I don't need to get out more but you should pay attention to what I
write, not what you think I write.

The article that Billy posted reported only on intensively farmed animals.
There are indeed other forms of farming animals that does not involve the
use of antibiotics. We do the latter.

24 Feb 2009
http://www.rsca.org.au/media-centre/...tics-on-intens
ive-farms.html :

"Antibiotic resistance is becoming a big threat to the health of
Australians and is increasingly being linked to the food we eat.

This cite too is only about intensive farming. We too have intensive
farming however, I was not complaining about the existence of intensive
farming but the fact that the artcile made no attempt to mention that there
was any form of farming OTHER than that which involved the use of
antibiotics. Sloppy reporting because it made no attempt to differentiate.

Follow-up

This point was made in the Letters to the Editor in the June, '09
Scientific American. The author, Nathan Fiala, responded that in
2000, then president of the U.S. National Farmers Union, Leland Swenson,
in testimony given to the House Judiciary Committee, claimed that
4 companies produce 81% of the beef grown in this country. Fiala claims
that companies of this size must of necessity be using CAFO. Americans,
on average, eat about 100 lbs of beef/year/person.

Secondly, he states, "that to meet the increased consumption worldwide,
CAFO are the fastest-growing production method in developing countries,
and they most likely are the future of beef production for everyone
around the globe."

The problem seems to be that the entire world aspires to the American
life style, that was based on being the only major industrial country
not in ruins after WWII. For a short time, we had the stay at home mom,
whose family could live well on the husbands wages. That time is long
gone, and real income for most Americans has remained flat for the last
30 years, while the upper 20% of earners have seen their incomes soar.
With another 3 BILLION people due to join the world's population in the
next 40 years, the likelihood is that instead of emerging countries
eating like the industrialized countries, the industrialized countries
will need to learn to eat like third world countries. Then, of course,
there is the problem that a 1/3 of the worlds population, through no
fault of their own, lives on $2/day, or less.

It gives small satisfaction, that in the future, as now, the best food
you can get, is what you grow yourself. Faced with factory food,
clean, fresh produce will only become more valuable, and if Monsanto
has their way, more expensive to grow.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn