Organic all natural livestock?

[MutzFarm]

I believe the antibiotics need 30 or 60 days to break down. Im thinking 30. I dont remember at the moment either.

 

[aczlan]

I believe the antibiotics need 30 or 60 days to break down. Im thinking 30. I dont remember at the moment either.

It depends on the drug, but it looks like it's 30 days for meat and 96 to 108 hours for milk. Here is one drug's withholding information: Virbac New Zealand - Intracillin(R) 1 Milking Cow


Here is a paper from the University of Wisconsin with some details: http://milkquality.wisc.edu/wp-cont...ntimicrobial-Residues-and-Resistance-2013.pdf
They say that in 2012 less than 0.04% of the milk on the tank truck had antibiotic residue on them and less than 0.02% in finished pasteurized milk products.​

Aaron Z

 

[MutzFarm]

It depends on the drug, but it looks like it's 30 days for meat and 96 to 108 hours for milk. Here is one drug's withholding information: Virbac New Zealand - Intracillin(R) 1 Milking Cow


Here is a paper from the University of Wisconsin with some details: http://milkquality.wisc.edu/wp-cont...ntimicrobial-Residues-and-Resistance-2013.pdf
They say that in 2012 less than 0.04% of the milk on the tank truck had antibiotic residue on them and less than 0.02% in finished pasteurized milk products.​

Aaron Z

96 to 108 hours for milk VS 30 days meat....... Thats wild. Just makes me think would if you was past the 108 hours and decided to sell the cow. Loaded in a trailer and for some reason she slipped and split herself. First thing I would want to do is butcher her on the spot because your sell rather to an individual or sale barn just went out the window, but if she had antibiotics 20 days ago then what?

 

[BTDT2]

I personally prefer 'all pure and naturally artificial' versus 'all natural organic' :cool2:

 

[N80]

To date there is not a single reliable study that shows any harm to humans with the current legal and accepted use of antibiotics, chemicals and steroids or even GMOs. There is also not a single reliable study that shows any benefit to humans with "organic" foods. Most everything else is hype, paranoia and conspiracy theory. But it is a big business and the marketing needed to sustain the business also sustains the hype and misinformation.

The bottom line is that it is a fetish. It is also a fetish held almost exclusively by the wealthy.Poor people can't afford the trumped up prices for 'organic' food and poor farmers can't afford to produce it because it is too inefficient.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. If you like eating organic and you like producing organic then knock yourself out. But don't expect any health benefits from it. That's all in your head.

I also do not believe it is 'environmentally friendly'. First, because it is not sustainable as a process for feeding a nation or a planet. Strictly organic production simply cannot provide enough food or sustain business large enough to supply the nation. Therefore, its environmental impact is tiny. But, it also consumes more time, more seed, more labor, etc.

Don't get me started on 'grass fed beef' and 'free range chicken'. A real free range chicken is a yard bird. Yard bird is chewy and gamey. Grass feed beef is tough and flavorless. I've eaten it for decades. It simply cannot compare with grain finished beef. So, to the OP who is feeding his livestock good looking fruits and vegetables I think that is wonderful. As mentioned they should taste very good indeed and there certainly isn't a downside to it if the feed is cheap enough.

 

[N80]

According to my daughter, who was an ag major in college, a milk tanker truck that does not pass chemical and antibiotic testing is dumped and sometimes the whole lot rejected. Farmers cannot afford to lose that sort of production so it is in there best interest to comply.

There is now a chicken commercial on TV debunking the antibiotic hype.

I also think it is funny that people will spend loads of money on 'antibiotic' free stuff to avoid utterly trivial antibiotic exposure and then rush to the doctor every time they get a cold and load up on large doses of broad spectrum antibiotics that don't work for colds and are largely unnecessary for sinus infections and totally unnecessary for bronchitis.

 

[aczlan]

According to my daughter, who was an ag major in college, a milk tanker truck that does not pass chemical and antibiotic testing is dumped and sometimes the whole lot rejected. Farmers cannot afford to lose that sort of production so it is in there best interest to comply.

Yep, the farm usually gets one "free" load per year, more than that and the farm gets charged for the entire tank full of milk.

Aaron Z

 

[NorTracNY]

As someone with a science background, I find it interesting what people consider a reliable study. Several years ago I actually read many of the GMO studies. It's interesting how if a study that comes out with facts supported by real data which has conclusions that there may be an issue about GMO safety and more studying is needed, that it's attacked! Visiously attacked. True scientist don't do this. They would look to use further data to either confirm or refute the findings.

N80 is absolutely correct when he says "it is a big business and the marketing needed to sustain the business also sustains the hype and misinformation."

 

[N80]

I find it interesting what people consider a reliable study.

Yep. If someone on the internet calls it "scientific" or "clinical research" then everyone is ready to believe it. And I'll admit, I have not looked at GMO research. But I'll bet you there are no long term randomized, double blinded studies on humans and probably not on animals either that indicate any health risk. I think the issue with GMOs is that it is easy to speculate what unintended consequences there might be to genetic manipulation. And it is a valid concern. But, it is a concern that persists despite a lot of research and common sense that indicates otherwise.

And, as someone above mentioned, there are almost no plants that we eat that are anything like the original plant. They have been selectively bred for decades if not centuries.

Now, there are other concerns with GMOs that have to be worked out. Cross pollination, patents, etc. But that has nothing to do with human or animal health.

 

[MutzFarm]

As someone with a science background, I find it interesting what people consider a reliable study. Several years ago I actually read many of the GMO studies. It's interesting how if a study that comes out with facts supported by real data which has conclusions that there may be an issue about GMO safety and more studying is needed, that it's attacked! Visiously attacked. True scientist don't do this. They would look to use further data to either confirm or refute the findings.

N80 is absolutely correct when he says "it is a big business and the marketing needed to sustain the business also sustains the hype and misinformation."

Agreed. :thumbsup: