Anyone concerned about consumer perception of antibotic free meat?

[farmgal71]

Just read that subway is now saying they are planning to serve meat raised without antibotics.

Seems to me this is going to force their competitors to follow.

Where does this end for livestock producers? Are we going to get discounted prices if we need to use medication?

[Happytrails]

There are 2 issues here. The consumer has every right to expect antibiotic free meat. As far as I know that is what they will always get if withdrawl periods before slaughter are respected.

Then second issue involves the natural beef programs that prohibit any antibiotic use during the animals lifetime. If those programs were of significance then cattle never treated with antibiotics should trade at a premium to cattle that have received antibiotic treatment.

My experience is that the market is neutral on whether cattle have had antibiotics or not. I have offered groups of feeders for sale with an option on the 10 to 20% that had received an antibiotic in the past. No buyer has ever asked for them to be taken out.

[grassfarmer]

Market has been neutral to date HT selling through commodity channels, that could change going forward. As with most of these deals it won't be a premium on un-treated rather a discount on treated animals. I don't have a problem with that if it encourages producers to manage so they need less antibiotic use. Certainly don't want producers not treating things that need it. It's in the hands of producers how they want to handle this.

[ag-boy]

not only antibiotic free but more inporten hormone use , throw it out consumer not wanting it !
Europe it is completely forbidden to use , so what are we trying to prove ?

[kato]

This brings in an element of animal welfare. Ive seen this argument play out on line and thete needs to be more of it. What is a producer supposed to do? Let an animal die?

What should be promoted more by all of us is the fact that basically all beef is free of antibiotics when it hits the shelf. We already have withdrawal times we adhere to as well as inspections. There's no room in our business for anyone who doesn't follow those requirements IMHO.

[kato]

This brings in an element of animal welfare. Ive seen this argument play out on line and thete needs to be more of it. What is a producer supposed to do? Let an animal die?

What should be promoted more by all of us is the fact that basically all beef is free of antibiotics when it hits the shelf. We already have withdrawal times we adhere to as well as inspections. There's no room in our business for anyone who doesn't follow those requirements IMHO.

[grassfarmer]

This brings in an element of animal welfare. Ive seen this argument play out on line and thete needs to be more of it. What is a producer supposed to do? Let an animal die?

What should be promoted more by all of us is the fact that basically all beef is free of antibiotics when it hits the shelf. We already have withdrawal times we adhere to as well as inspections. There's no room in our business for anyone who doesn't follow those requirements IMHO.

No question on the animal welfare issue - nobody is advocating allowing animals to die or even to go untreated to preserve antibiotic free status.

It's about a bigger issue than treating a sick animal and then not following a withdrawal period correctly. Its about growing antibiotic resistance in humans and the potential link to livestock usage of the same drugs. A big part of the problem is the sub-the****utic use of antimicrobials in the animals, particularly hogs and poultry but including rumensin in cattle. I assume also that for antibiotic resistance to transfer from treated cattle to humans it can come from any animal that has been treated, not only those that were slaughtered before a withdrawal period was up. So in that respect a group of fresh weaned calves that were blanket treated with powerful drugs on entry to the feedlot to guard against shipping fever might present a greater risk to human health than calves that have never been treated, despite the withdrawal period having been followed correctly and likely exceeded by several months.

[smcgrath76]

I think a lot of the antibiotic issues in beef are due to sloppiness on the part of primary producers, and poor record keeping. Whether you like paperwork or not, it is going to be a key component of raising livestock. On the feedlot side, I think the induction protocols that include things like Draxxin will be a thing of the past.
Hormones are a different debate, but will likely disappear long term.
I don't necessarily agree on the rumensin, bovatech ionophore type of additives, although they may go the way of the dinosaur based on public opinion as well. They do not have the same mode of action as antibiotics (they are not antibiotics), are not used in human health and they help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons I am not sure which way the pendulum will swing on these items. It may not matter if we see a wholesale change in the way beef is raised and in particular how it is finished.