Animal Health Effects
Next, supplying antibiotics to animals has negative effects on them, but many producers continue this method. The producers administer the antibiotics to increase weight gain, which in fact, increases profit. In the article "Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture Is Dangerous and Unnecessary" statistics about antibiotics and growth correlation show the harm these medicines can have on animals: “Even relatively insignificant challenges to the immune system can significantly affect growth. Simple vaccinations can result in a greater than 20 percent decline in daily weight gain for farm animals, while increasing protein demands as much as 30 percent, demonstrating the inverse relationship between growth and immunity” (par. 7). In other words, consumers may wonder why producers continue to administer antibiotics to livestock if these problems keep arising. The answer is simple: money. Author Michael Khoo explains that the large companies of the meat and fast-food industry require the product faster and larger than ever before (par. 1). These giant companies control the producers by having them in large contracts for large sums of money. The producer can earn more money by quickly growing the livestock to the designated slaughter weight. This shows that the difference in growth from antibiotics is larger than many consumers think. The large companies control the much smaller farmer and make them meet specific standards. The producers are continuously supplying the livestock these antibiotics despite the known effects to turn a profit.
Likewise, antibiotics are thought to have little to no effect on animal growth and health. This is untrue because many companies require their producers to provide the animal’s antibiotics in their feed causing negative animal health effects such as growth problems. Author Michael Khoo explained that the opposition claims that animals are only given antibiotics in their feed to help promote growth (Khoo par. 1). At first this seems beneficial, but this additional growth can be a major health problem for many animals. The additional growth can damage the livestock permanently. The permanent damage can be a result from the stress put on the animal’s body by the intense growth. In the article "Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture Is Dangerous and Unnecessary" the health problem is portrayed in poultry by stating, “Unnaturally rapid growth can result in pathological conditions that can further stress the animals. Due to growth-promoting drugs and selective breeding for fast growth, for example, many birds are crippled by painful leg and joint deformities” (par. 8). The increase in growth is caused by one main factor: the antibiotics that are given to the animal take over for the animal’s immune system. This allows the proteins used for producing antibodies to be used elsewhere. Noah Berlatsky, editor of the article, authenticated that this surplus of proteins is what causes the rapid muscle growth that harms the animal’s body and destroys the structure of the animal (“Antibiotic Use” par. 6-8). This treatment of the animal is inhumane as the animal’s body is ruined by the antibiotics. The opposition claimed the antibiotics to have little to no effect on the animals. However, the evidence supports that the animal’s lives are being significantly changed by the antibiotics.
In addition to growth problems, antibiotics affect the overall health of the livestock. Matthew Wilde, writer for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, stated that livestock producers use antibiotics unnecessarily, and there is no direct evidence to back up the claim that the use of antibiotics is a good option for animals and people (par. 4). The antibiotics tearing up the animals’ bodies are worse than the diseases spreading through the animals. The harmful antibiotics could be easily replaced by implementing new methods. The article "Reducing Antibiotics on Farms Has Proved Successful" argues against antibiotics by claiming that, “...minor changes in animal husbandry, such as more frequent cleaning of housing, improved ventilation, later weaning, additional space for animal movement, as well as experimenting with feed quality and additives made up for the lack of routine antibiotics on most farms.” ( par. 10). Improving feed quality is the most effective way to replace antibiotics and improve the overall health of the animals. The higher quality feed would provide more proteins for the immune system and muscles of the livestock. Without the antibiotics, the body could grow naturally and build a strong immune system. These changes in the methods of production would also improve the animal's quality of life. The fresh air, clean facilities, and additional space would be healthier for the animals than the current cramped, poorly ventilated facilities. Similarly, changes in the production process could be made by not using antibiotics. Banning or limiting the use of antibiotics would decimate the livestock industry for the first few years, but the industry would recover quickly due to these changes. This was proved by the World Health Organization (WHO) in recent studies of the European ban of antibiotics. In the article “Reducing Antibiotics on Farms Has Proved Successful" the studies were explained: “The WHO found that diarrhea in young pigs did increase following the ban, creating a short-term need to increase therapeutic antibiotic use. However, levels of diarrhea treatment began to decline after seven months and were back to the pre-ban levels after one year, and weaner mortality has improved considerably in recent years” (par. 9). This evidence proves that the immediate effects of not using antibiotics would be detrimental, but the long term effects would be a large improvement from the current standards. In conclusion, the overall animal health should be taken into consideration when debating the use of antibiotics. The antibiotic effect upon the meat are not exactly known, but the effects on the carcass should be enough to ward off consumers.
Likewise, antibiotics are thought to have little to no effect on animal growth and health. This is untrue because many companies require their producers to provide the animal’s antibiotics in their feed causing negative animal health effects such as growth problems. Author Michael Khoo explained that the opposition claims that animals are only given antibiotics in their feed to help promote growth (Khoo par. 1). At first this seems beneficial, but this additional growth can be a major health problem for many animals. The additional growth can damage the livestock permanently. The permanent damage can be a result from the stress put on the animal’s body by the intense growth. In the article "Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture Is Dangerous and Unnecessary" the health problem is portrayed in poultry by stating, “Unnaturally rapid growth can result in pathological conditions that can further stress the animals. Due to growth-promoting drugs and selective breeding for fast growth, for example, many birds are crippled by painful leg and joint deformities” (par. 8). The increase in growth is caused by one main factor: the antibiotics that are given to the animal take over for the animal’s immune system. This allows the proteins used for producing antibodies to be used elsewhere. Noah Berlatsky, editor of the article, authenticated that this surplus of proteins is what causes the rapid muscle growth that harms the animal’s body and destroys the structure of the animal (“Antibiotic Use” par. 6-8). This treatment of the animal is inhumane as the animal’s body is ruined by the antibiotics. The opposition claimed the antibiotics to have little to no effect on the animals. However, the evidence supports that the animal’s lives are being significantly changed by the antibiotics.
In addition to growth problems, antibiotics affect the overall health of the livestock. Matthew Wilde, writer for the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, stated that livestock producers use antibiotics unnecessarily, and there is no direct evidence to back up the claim that the use of antibiotics is a good option for animals and people (par. 4). The antibiotics tearing up the animals’ bodies are worse than the diseases spreading through the animals. The harmful antibiotics could be easily replaced by implementing new methods. The article "Reducing Antibiotics on Farms Has Proved Successful" argues against antibiotics by claiming that, “...minor changes in animal husbandry, such as more frequent cleaning of housing, improved ventilation, later weaning, additional space for animal movement, as well as experimenting with feed quality and additives made up for the lack of routine antibiotics on most farms.” ( par. 10). Improving feed quality is the most effective way to replace antibiotics and improve the overall health of the animals. The higher quality feed would provide more proteins for the immune system and muscles of the livestock. Without the antibiotics, the body could grow naturally and build a strong immune system. These changes in the methods of production would also improve the animal's quality of life. The fresh air, clean facilities, and additional space would be healthier for the animals than the current cramped, poorly ventilated facilities. Similarly, changes in the production process could be made by not using antibiotics. Banning or limiting the use of antibiotics would decimate the livestock industry for the first few years, but the industry would recover quickly due to these changes. This was proved by the World Health Organization (WHO) in recent studies of the European ban of antibiotics. In the article “Reducing Antibiotics on Farms Has Proved Successful" the studies were explained: “The WHO found that diarrhea in young pigs did increase following the ban, creating a short-term need to increase therapeutic antibiotic use. However, levels of diarrhea treatment began to decline after seven months and were back to the pre-ban levels after one year, and weaner mortality has improved considerably in recent years” (par. 9). This evidence proves that the immediate effects of not using antibiotics would be detrimental, but the long term effects would be a large improvement from the current standards. In conclusion, the overall animal health should be taken into consideration when debating the use of antibiotics. The antibiotic effect upon the meat are not exactly known, but the effects on the carcass should be enough to ward off consumers.