Animal Farms Are Pumping Up Superbugs 551
oxide7 writes "The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once famously said, 'That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.' That may or may not be true for human beings, but it is certainly true for bacteria. The superbugs are among us and they are not leaving. Indeed, they are growing stronger. 'The problem is that the animal agriculture industry makes massive use of low-dose antibiotics for growth promotion and in place of effective infection prevention methods,' Young said, adding that the farm animal population is much larger than the human population. The low-dose antibiotics do not kill the disease. They make the disease stronger, more resistant to those and other antibiotics. The animals — the cattle, pigs and chickens — thus treated become superbug factories. The diseases stay in them and they wash off them to infect the surrounding environment."
Re:Is this a news? (Score:5, Informative)
The article is about proposed regulation stuck in committee to stop it. So apparently it's news for you at least.
Re:I have an idea to stop the need for anti-biotic (Score:4, Informative)
Livestock stressed by illness don't grow as fast.
I work cattle part-time. It's a real threat. (Score:3, Informative)
The usual anti-biotics we used was from a Pfizer product labeled LA-200 and it is expensive at around $140 every 5-ounces: about 1/4 ounce is used for a 350lb cow when we find one with a puncture wound or laceration. I've talked with smaller family farms on what they use on their animals to prevent infections and fight infections and it's always been a simple herbal formula consisting of crushed garlic mixed with crushed black walnut and applied as a paste that is more effective than Pfizer LA-200. Ive tried this same organic mix on fungal infections on my forearms and llower legs and it works better than the expensive tube pastes from convenience stores.
What I find unsettling about LA-200 is that many of the cowboys equally take a smaller dosage by the same needle (before using on the cows though) because it's practically the same as what they would've been given from an HMO but much less expense.
buy organic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Growth? What? (Score:2, Informative)
Well... no (Score:3, Informative)
Re:buy organic (Score:2, Informative)
Most places in the country have Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs, and it well behooves one to look into these.
I get about 15-25lbs of fresh produce, locally grown by a group of Amish farmers, every week - and it costs me about $15/wk and a half hour on Saturday running up to the local farmer's market to pick it up. Some places have the same kind of thing for grass-fed beef and (genuinely) free range chicken, and occasionally pork too.
Re:1) buy out local traditional family farms (Score:3, Informative)
That bit also happens unhygienically - very often the animal feces and bacteria get splattered everywhere contaminating the meat.
Then the consumers are told to cook everything properly, and if stuff happens, it's the consumer's fault, not agribusiness fault...
I've heard of a case where they dunk all the chicken in the same water after removing the feathers, and naturally that mixes and spreads all the bacteria and gunk from all chickens...
Re:Corporate Farming and Capitalist Failure (Score:3, Informative)
Food Inc [foodincmovie.com] I watched it last year and made the switch to eating about 95% organic ever since. I tell people we are in the FOOD MATRIX right now, everyone is, when I go to a normal grocery store now all I see are the green 1 and 0s of the matrix code on the isle shelves, except instead of 1s and 0s they are processed corn, soy, and wheat lol. If people only knew, or cared to know. Watch this movie and you will know some of it, its sad, but you can help change it. Sadly it takes a long time as the mass market of buying is the uneducated, and getting this message to them is very hard.
Re:I have an idea to stop the need for anti-biotic (Score:2, Informative)
The USDA prohibits feeding mammal tissues to ruminants.
That still leaves them room to feed chicken to cattle though.
Re:Growth? What? (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, they use them as a broad-spectrum prophylactic against things that might otherwise affect them and make them less productive/healthy animals.
Essentially to compensate for industrial farming practices which are more or less awful conditions (cows enclosed in a stall standing in their own shit for hours at a stretch) they inoculate them against everything. They're also feeding them stuff [usatoday.com] that [wordpress.com] would [allaboutfeed.net] make you cringe ... mad cow came from feeding sheep-parts (brains) to the cows (herbivores) for instance to put more protein in their diet. The prions in the sheep brain crossed into the cow in a way that would never have happened without people intervening -- when was the last time you saw a bunch of cows standing around the carcass of a sheep?
Small scale farming (the way it was done for thousands of years) didn't have these problems because the conditions were different. Yes, cows could still get sick, and probably did. But, people weren't putting them in unsanitary conditions and feeding them part of other animals.
The antibiotics help to mitigate (in a non-specific way) some of the effects.
Organic food isn't just for hippies anymore... (Score:2, Informative)
Long story short, I've been reading up about this topic lately and can suggest a few easily accessible resources for anyone who wants to learn a bit more:
Food Inc. - A decent documentary to get you started.
The Omnivores Dilemma - An easy read that can point in the right direction for further research.
Re:Buy organic (Score:2, Informative)
Actually "organic" has a clear definition, particularly in the realm of the food industry.
The United States passed legislation defining what "Organic" actually means back in 2002.
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID=NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalOrganicProgramHome&acct=AMSPW
I'm not sure exactly how it applies to meat, however products that say they are "Organic" need to be made with 95% organic ingredients. I tried to look up exactly what organic meat was through through the USDA website however didn't make much progress.
I do know however that the certification process to be classified as organic is a pretty serious thing to go through. I've heard it is cost prohibitive to smaller farms.
Phages, possible solution? (Score:4, Informative)
However, I was reading that there is a new class of antibiotics in development, which are based on immune system antigens and, for some reason (anyone know more?) are thought to, because of their mechanism of action, not be susceptible to the same problem of evolving the bacteria to survive them.
I liked what the Russians were working on for a while - Phages. More completely, Bacteriophages. Viruses for bacterias.
No chance of the virus crossing over to affect humans, and a bacterial colony already under assault by the human immune system isn't generally going to last long when it's also 'sick' with a virus. As a bonus, immunity doesn't really happen because the virus adapts right along with the bacteria.
The problem with phages is that they're the opposite of broad-spectrum antibiotics. They're very, very, specific. They'll clear a throat infection right up, but first you need a culture to determine which species of bacteria you have(there's millions/billions of them), then find an effective phage against it.
That can take a week, then you gotta get the phage to the clinic, as most don't have the room for the number of phage samples you'd need.
Since when... (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, as someone with a doctorate in animal science and a researcher in the field, I have to say that the case against animal agriculture is overstated. No one will argue that they don't contribute, but the relative importance of antibiotic use in animals (that less than 1% of the population ever come into contact with while they are alive) relative to that of rampant, large-dose, antibiotic abuses in hospitals (You know where all of those sick people hang out, transferring infections back and forth) has never been ascertained empirically.
First, the vast majority of the bacterial species that live in livestock are not capable of living in people. Therefore, the rate of resistance transfer from animal bacteria to human bacteria is relatively low. Evidence exists that these species can, and do transfer resistance gene between eachother. However, the majority of the evidence is "Resistance gene A is present in pig bacteria and human bacteria, and genes are essentially identical, therefore the gene came from animals!" This of course, completely ignores the possiblity that the gene arose to prominence in the human population and then was transferred to a pig via a farm worker that was a carrier. Talk about placing the cart in front of horse.
Second, low levels of antibiotic use in the swine industry is usually only during the first month after weaning. Pigs are weaned at between 18 and 24 days on most farms in order to prevent the sow (aka "Mom") from transmitting certain diseases to the piglets that have little effect on adult animals, but can kill piglets very easily. At this age the maternal antibodies from the colostrum are starting to wear off, but the piglets own acquired immune system is not completely up to the task. Therefore the antibiotics buy the piglets time by reducing the overall microbial load in the intestine, and coincidentally increasing the efficiency of feed utilization (which is good for the environment). Many farms then discontinue the use of prophylactic, or growth promoting antibiotics because antibiotics cost money and feed costs can account for 60-70% of total production overhead. Expensive feed can drive you out of business in a hurry.
Third, to all those bragging about being from the EU, where there is a total ban on prophylactic antibiotics a word of caution. The total amount of antibiotics used in EU agriculture is not actually lower than it was before the ban. The difference is that instead of giving antibiotics to prevent infection, and improve production they are now given to tread disease outbreaks that wouldn't of otherwise happened and to try and minimize reductions in production. Also, the antibiotics of most relevance to human medicine are not routinely used for growth promotion, but they are used to treat disease outbreaks. So, the total tonnage of antibiotics being administered has not really gone down (it did until they banned them in the nursery which was the last phase of the ban), and the antibiotics being used are MORE likely to also be used in human medicine. Bravo, talk about unintended consequences!
Finally, I fail to see how this made the front page here. It is not the usual fare of geek (no computers anywhere), it is not actually news (this controversy has been around for at least a decade), this article contributed nothing new to the discussion (restates already rampant FUD), and the IBTimes are not exactly the NYTimes or LATimes. The only thing I can see in its favor is that it lets the ignorant "Organic" group say I told you so without any real technical points for those few of us in the field to respond to. The original article is link-bait, plain and simple and
Pathetic
Re:Some info (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I have an idea to stop the need for anti-biotic (Score:3, Informative)
Pork fat, pastry is made with lard. Not tallow. That would be horrible.
Oh and stop using Crisco, that stuff sucks. Mix butter and lard 50/50 if you must.
Re:I have an idea to stop the need for anti-biotic (Score:5, Informative)
We are both partially right. From http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm [fao.org]
According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, t is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth.
Thomke & Elwinger (1998) hypothesize that cytokines released during the immune response may also stimulate the release of catabolic hormones, which would reduce muscle mass. Therefore a reduction in gastrointestinal infections would result in the subsequent increase in muscle weight. Whatever the mechanism of action, the result of the use of growth promoters is an improvement in daily growth rates between 1 and 10 per cent resulting in meat of a better quality, with less fat and increased protein content. There can be no doubt that growth promoters are effective; Prescott & Baggot (1993), however, sho ed that the effects of growth promoters were much more noticeable in sick animals and those housed in cramped, unhygienic conditions.
Currently, there is controversy surrounding the use of growth promoters for animals destined for meat production, as overuse of any antibiotic over a period of time may lead to the local bacterial populations becoming resistant to the antibiotic. This is it not an invariable rule: Streptococcus pyogenes remains sensitive to penicillins after over sixty years of clinical use but such examples are, however, very rare. Undoubtedly, the medical exploitation of antimicrobial chemotherapy, particularly to treat human infections, has imposed an enormous selection pressure on formerly sensitive bacteria to acquire genetic elements that code for resistance to antibiotics.
Re:The "superbugs" aren't stronger (Score:5, Informative)
This is a very important and complex issue, and FUD articles like the IBTimes one are not helpful. They stir up the general populace to act without considering the evidence that already exists. The EU ban has not been effective at its stated goal of reducing resistance prevalence in the human population. I think that a ban that excludes the nursery phase would be more appropriate if not a complete repeal of the ban. But that's just based on my own interpretation of the scientific literature (as opposed to the financial literature, or populist literature). You can agree with me or not, it won't affect my research.
Re:Is this a news? (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Spanish Influenza pandemic (1918) killed more people than the Bubonic Plague did in four, from 1347 to 1351.
It's all relative. The 1918 flu killed 3% of the population while the 1348 Black Death killed 45% of Europe and 20% of the world. If WE were hit by some disease with the same mortality as the 1348 bubonic, then 1400 million people would be dead. - Or if it had the same localized impact as it had in 1348, killing 45% of a continent, then 200 million North Americans would need to be buried
Re:The "superbugs" aren't stronger (Score:3, Informative)
The summary gets one thing wrong. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are not stronger than those that are nor antibiotic resistant. As a matter of fact they are weaker. Generally, the way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics is by shutting down the cellular mechanism that the antibiotic uses to get into the cell. However, that cellular mechanism serves a useful function in the cell (usually to bring nutrients into the bacterial cell). When antibiotic resistant bacteria are in an environment without antibiotics they generally die off over a relatively short time-span.
Eh, "-1 Oversimplified".
Loss-of-function or alterations of form are indeed one of of the possible mechanisms, and tends to be the more easily-evolved type, so you will often see those appear (and disappear) the fastest. However, occasionally you see mutations that are "free" to the bug, and represent a genuine evolutionary advance that will stick around, possibly forever.
Outside of this, resistance mechanisms are mostly plasmid-encoded factors for things such as antibiotic-degrading enzymes, efflux pumps, and other such defenses. The evolutionary cost for these can range from very high to trivially low, depending (does your enzyme soak up lots of resources to make, or is it highly efficient? Is it permanently switched on, or does it come with an induction mechanism that only triggers when appropriate?). In addition, many bacteria can swap plasmids around, allowing for more genetic versatility.
So the short answer is, that there is no short answer. How fast resistance disappears when antibiotics are no longer used, will depend on each particular situation. However, over time quick-and-dirty solutions will tend to be replaced by more evolutionarily elegant adaptations.
Re:Is this a news? (Score:5, Informative)
Influenza is a viral infection, not a bacteriological one. Antibiotics will do absolutely nothng against a viral disease.
Re:It is all your fault (fyi this is a joke) (Score:3, Informative)
That's not how survival of the fittest works though. ;)
Re:Is this a news? (Score:3, Informative)
Your conclusion is missing a vital piece of data. Vancomycin is the last line of defense for antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. That is why doctors avoid using it -- because it is vitally important that the bugs never acquire a resistance to it.
I remember a few years ago, when the industrial-farming folks pushed through approval to use vanco in cattle feed. The physicians in attendance made the obvious objection, and naturally were ignored in favor of the farms' colossal political power. Yee-haw, full speed ahead!
Re:no shocker (Score:3, Informative)
They believe in small scale evolution (the electricity), but they don't believe in large scale evolution where a single-cell organism has evolved into all the species that you see today. At least, not based on purely random mutation. It's kind of hard to repeat that in the lab.
Re:Buy organic (Score:4, Informative)
Re:no shocker (Score:1, Informative)
OT, but evolution deniers usually only deny evolution of "complex" features; what constitutes "complex" is not entirely clear, but most of them have no problem with evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Re:Since when... (Score:3, Informative)
Beef can be raised out on the range, in free stall barns, or in feedlots. I have little direct experience there, so I can't tell you much more detail. However, I can be certain that their conditions are not as abhorent as most people believe because the stress of poor environment inhibits animal growth, production, and quality. Bad farmers put themselves out of business the next time prices drop.