Living the Animal Life
Published July 14, 2009 @ 10:17AM PT
There's a bill that's been introduced in Congress that would put sharp limits on Confined Animal Feeding Operations, and Obama supports it. I'm fairly amazed and impressed, which I was getting worried that I'd gotten to cynical to even be.
It won't pass. Even that's okay I suppose, considering how the discussion is off to such a good start.
The bill is Rep. Louise Slaughter's (D-NY) offering to ban non-medicinal, preemptive use of antibiotics in livestock.
In large part, as the article notes, these are used to promote growth. However, it's the barely mentioned "prevent illnesses" part that's of most concern. Eddie Gehman Kohn talks here about the way this practice is turning antibiotics into worthless candy by spurring the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, but that's still a side effect - though a powerful and frightening one. The main point of these drugs is to prevent animals that are raised in utterly vile conditions from simply keeling over dead before they can be slaughtered.
If you couldn't prevent the conditions of feedlot life itself from killing cattle, they'd have to be raised in lower concentrations, under cleaner conditions, and given a much healthier diet out of sheer necessity.
As it is now, most cattle are raised in lots packed deep with nothing but each other's waste. The health hazards of this are, one would think, obvious.
They're fed a grain diet, now that it's no longer allowed to feed these obligate herbivores ground up bones and scrap from other cattle, which is like feeding a human an all-Twinkie diet. They get permanent acidosis, roughly equivalent to a terrible case of chronic ulcers, and the bacteria from their guts are able to escape to infect the rest of their bodies. This commonly leaves their livers abcessed and scarred, not entirely unlike what would happen in a human with advanced cirrhosis of the liver.
Imagine humans kept wading in sh*t all day, force-fed to the point of severe obesity, suffering all the while from ulcers and cirrhosis. Those people's immune systems would be extremely compromised. They would need constant doses of antibiotics just to stay alive.
I don't make this comparison to say that animals should be treated like humans, but that they should be treated like animals.
They should be let out on real grass, on well-managed pasture where their numbers are just right to stimulate and fertilize the growth of a healthy prairie. They should be able to move around in the open air, where their immune systems will be supported by a proper diet and exercise, be part of an ecosystem that's very close to a naturally evolved grassland, have a quick death-by-predator (if we insist on being their only predators, we should do it right and be merciful) and the remains returned to the ground for the plants to eat.
This is what they're for. If we are to be sensible managers of the Earth's resources, getting this right is crucial to preserving what's going to be left over when the planet's freshwater and topsoil reserves can no longer handle the levels of grain production asked of them now. Getting this right is crucial to having livestock be a source of health instead of disease.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (26)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Natasha is an amateur eater with severe snarkolepsy and a c. 2002 blogging habit. She had a fabulous time studying ecological agriculture and policy at The Evergreen State College, and even did her homework while writing at various times for pacificviews.org, boomantribune.com, and mydd.com.
Featured Sustainable Food Actions
-
-
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
3032 People
-
Campbell’s Soup: Stop Poisoning Our Food!
As the NYT article you link to mentions, Pew Charitable Trusts is running a huge public relations/education campaign here in DC discussing the dangers of antibiotic use in industrial agriculture.
They have ads in most of the metro stations and on buses driving people to their website (http://www.saveantibiotics.org/) and asking to support Slaughter's bill.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 07/14/2009 @ 10:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've seen that, it's very cool and I'm glad they're doing it.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 07/14/2009 @ 10:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Although we disagree on how we both agree the world needs sustainable agriculture.
I wish you all the best and happiness in your upcoming wedding and marriage.
Cheers
Rob
Posted by Robert Wager on 07/14/2009 @ 12:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"This is what they're for."
Says who? God? I don't understand how this is simply a given. On what basis do you say that this is what animals are for? Anyone could simply say that animals are for whatever use they want. Rodeo riders could say animals are here for us to use for entertainment. Factory farmers could say that pigs are here for us to pack into big sheds.
What would the animals say? Would they have a different idea about what they are "for"?
If someone wants to use me for something, what can stop them from saying "that's what he's for" and simply using me as they want?
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 07/14/2009 @ 01:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Animals are for living normal-for-them lives as well integrated parts of an ecosystem that maximizes the amount of biomass and species diversity that can be produced on the energy and nutrient allotment of a given piece of land.
This always and of necessity involves eating and being eaten in turn. I don't know that I'm plugged into any deities' opinions on the subject, but a few billion years of evolution has said its peace and this is how a healthy world is made.
Unpreyed upon herbivores eat the local plants bare to desert. Plant and soil communities not replenished by the feces, blood and bones of animals will eventually wither to dead mineral dust. Herbivores consume high cellulose plant tissue and then eat the bacteria that live in their guts that were able to digest the cellulose.
If agriculture is ever going to be less destructive, it has to mimic the thriving ecosystems it replaced, the ones that built the soil we're burning and starving all other species out of. All those ecosystems formerly used animals, just as all farms once had to; there are no vegetarian ecosystems.
Come to it, there aren't any vegetarian plants.
People can also say that pigs are for packing in sheds all they want. But it makes them unhealthy and they don't like it and no pigs even try to live that way in the wild, so it's a pretty thin case.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 07/14/2009 @ 10:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And so-called Animal Rights activists say that animals are for spaying and neutering when they are not even physically mature. So what is your point?
Posted by Jean Richardson on 07/17/2009 @ 04:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I suspect people on this forum will like this story about sustainable aquaponics.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/food-and-wine/my-backyard-fish-farm/article1218280/
BTW Ann is a great teacher and very dedicated to this project.
Posted by Robert Wager on 07/15/2009 @ 09:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks so much for the link to my blog! I so appreciate it. You are so right that the capability exists for us to use our livestock for positive additive effects. We need to become good stewards of the land. Thanks for this piece!
Posted by Zachary Cohen on 07/17/2009 @ 01:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very well said Natasha! It's refreshing to hear someone advocating for free range animals over CAFOs rather then espousing veganism as the only way to go because the livestock are the cause of global warming!
Your article is factual and reality based and doesn't need to use scare tactics to get people to fall into line behind their extremist agendas.
The first step in doing away with CAFOs is to buy from local organic producers, both meat and vegetables. Because if people don't think that there is a lot of bad stuff in the factory farm veggies they are buying in the grocery store, they are in for a big shock. It's time to go back to basics. Buy home grown! Check out the farmer's markets in your areas.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 12:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I forgot to add that if NAIS, the National Animal Identification System, is forced on us like the USDA wants, there won't be any small organic livestock growers left and ALL our food will come from CAFOs and big Agribusiness! Check it out if you aren't already familiar with it.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 12:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The article anding with "...crucial to having livestock be a source of health" makes me so sad, as if eating blood (with the flesh that goes along with it) can be a source of health!!!!
YOU ARE NOT CAVE PEOPLE, ANYMORE. STOP BEING PREDATORS. WAKE THE HECK UP & EVLOVE, DAMMIT!!!
Posted by RAMIN BOUSTANI on 07/17/2009 @ 04:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree that using antibiotics as growth aids in animals is a big mistake and an environmental danger. But the comment "imagine humans kept wading in sh*t" made me think. Imagine humans being forced into hysterectomies and castration --and this being done when they are prepubescent no less. Yet HSUS and PETA, among others, are trying to do this to dogs and cats. If animals have rights, should they have rights to their own bodies? This is not logical.
Posted by Jean Richardson on 07/17/2009 @ 04:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, Jean, may I respectfully submit for thought, the fact that over five MILLION innocent feline and canine lives are snuffed out in our nation's "shelters" annually and the best way to cut down on that number is SPAY & NEUTER, at an age before it is possible to reproduce and add to the tragedy. As for human beings, with over 6 BILLION of us clogging the planet, laying waste to our only home and driving those who share it with us to extinction in unprecedented numbers, I advocate for zero population growth, and made this decision early on, taking the step of getting myself medically sterilized after the birth control options' side-effects became too many to tolerate. It's a personal choice, and one I've never regretted. I only wish more would do it, for themselves, their companion animals, and the planet.
Posted by Jamaka Petzak on 07/17/2009 @ 06:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Jamaka! Well said! I also think that if we nip the human population, we could solve all of our problems that over-population of our species brings. Homelessness, starvation, unemployment, and the loss of so many other species due to our destruction of their habitats. When will people get it?
I chose to NOT have children because that last thing we need is more people. We choose to "manage" the other species, yet we cannot manage ourselves!
Cheers! You got it right! Well done!
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/04/2009 @ 10:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem with your logic Jean, is that spaying and neutering is a humane thing to do for animals who don't have the coginitive ability to use birth control. Our country already has an over population of dogs and cats that die every year in shelters, pounds or on the street.
HSUS and PETA do not really spay and neuter, they kill. 95% of the animals that they have taken, in telling people that they will find good homes for them have been euthanized. If they had their way, no one would have companion animals and all animals would be wild, free spirits.
Given a choice, I'd rather see spay and neuter programs and less breeding of domestic animals, including purebreds, to help lessen the plight of all the homeless animals. I'm a big advocate of getting your pets from shelters, not from breeders.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 05:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kathy, where are you getting your facts? HSUS has probably done more than anybody to promote spaying and neutering and pet adoption. See, for instance:http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2008/11/adcouncil-adopt.html, http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/
My guess is that you've encountered misinformation from the likes of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries, who's primary aim is to smear advocacy organizations like HSUS that are working to reform big agribusiness. If you do have any supporting evidence, then please share. If not, then we will have to take your claim to be as it appears – patently false.
Posted by Ben D on 07/18/2009 @ 09:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"The problem with your logic Jean, is that spaying and neutering is a humane thing to do for animals who don't have the coginitive ability to use birth control. Our country already has an over population of dogs and cats that die every year in shelters, pounds or on the street. "
Kathy, I agree with you about the spaying and neutering, along with stopping more breeding of animals, but one problem with what you said in this quote:
Humans are supposed to have the cognitive ability to use birth control, but are still having unwanted and "oops" babies at an alarming rate. I would love to see the population of humans stop until we get control on our own population explosion.
Knowing better doesn't necessarily mean people do better. We are creating the problems for the animals by our own over-population.
Totally agree with you otherwise!
Posted by Michele McCowan on 09/04/2009 @ 10:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It is wrong to say that any of the myriad creatures inhabiting this planet are here 'for' some kind of purpose. We're all simply here and doing the best we can with what we've got.
The idea that we need to have animals in captivity to get the fertilizers to grow our vegetables. Consider these three parts. One part, overuse of fertilizers, which is poisoning soil and water. Another part, which is huge tracts of grains being grown in order to feed animals.
Ok, so you can eliminate these two, with some dramatic changes in the American diet. Do you think advocating for grass fed cows is creating dramatic change? A few people are going to pay more money for grass fed cows to the same ranchers who are raising grain fed cows. It may soothe some individual conscience, but it is not creating the kind of dramatic change that will be necessary. Necessary how? Let's crunch the numbers and see how much all the nearly overgrazed grasslands in this country are going to provide. I'd wager a guess somewhere around a pound of meat per person per month. Meanwhile they're still burning down rainforests in south america to provide the great american meat diet to us and them.
The third part is our underutilized human waste streams. From compost to humanure, we can provide the fertilization for the fields we grow our food in locally. While animals, free from human intervention, will sustain themselves and the lands in between as they always have.
These grass fed animals are still going to be creating health problems with the cholesterol and carcinogens. While they have been a part of our past, any sense of reverence has been lost. When options abound but you still demand flesh, how can it be anything else? We are close to the scientific advances that could propel humans capacity to the stars, but we are ruining our landscape and limiting our lifespans over childish demands for happy meals.
Posted by Bryan Blackford on 07/17/2009 @ 07:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's really cool. Nice!!
Posted by Lucy Henderson on 07/17/2009 @ 08:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Let's crunch the numbers and see how much all the nearly overgrazed grasslands in this country are going to provide. I'd wager a guess somewhere around a pound of meat per person per month. Meanwhile they're still burning down rainforests in south america to provide the great american meat diet to us and them."
First off Bryan, I live in a rural county where there are probably more cows then people, and the grass is far from overgrazed.
Second, it's the fast food chains like McDonalds that are responsible for the destruction of the rain forests.... not the people who buy locally and advocate for the things that this article is talking about.
And my personal sense of reverence for what the animals give up to me and my family so that we can survive is far from lost.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 08:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, your locally sourced, sustainably managed, unnecessary killing of cows might work in a rural zone, but for the great majority living in cities, imagine all of them trying to adopt your wonderful sustainable lifestyle. There isn't enough pasture land on Earth to maintain the current levels of meat consumption.
You can talk about how "oh it's not MY fault, I am eating meat in a way that doesn't hurt rainforests" but you're just advocating eating meat when the reality is that this so-called sustainable system is economic nonsense.
Sure, it might work if people we're eating meat once a month or so, but how do you think we're going to accomplish that? Continuing to advocate for eating meat? We need to be pushing people to eat less of the junk. For our health, for the planet, for the animals.
Posted by Bryan Blackford on 07/20/2009 @ 09:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have a feeling that, like most major issues, this one will sort itself out eventually. If the repulsive living conditions and routine antibiotic treatments given to livestock results in enough damage to our human immune system function - or if the human consumption of processed meat is found to be primarily responsible for any of the now foreseeable health and/or environmental problems that we've been warned about - then changes will necessarily be made at that time, and a lot of people will be saying they told you so. ...Not that it'll matter.
Posted by Hale Hilsabeck on 07/17/2009 @ 10:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
P.S. As Kathy said, neutering and spaying to avoid animal overpopulation are the only ways to reduce the number of animals that are euthanized every day. But it's also the only way to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats that are abused, abandoned, and/or left to die by overwhelmed or uncaring owners. And if that procedure isn't done prior to someone purchasing or adopting the pet, then there's far less of a chance that it will ever be done. That means it has to take place when they're young. Very young.
Posted by Hale Hilsabeck on 07/17/2009 @ 10:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"They're fed a grain diet, now that it's no longer allowed to feed these obligate herbivores ground up bones and scrap from other cattle, which is like feeding a human an all-Twinkie diet."
I just re-read that and got the point that I missed the first time.
Anyway, I think I'd rather live on an all-Twinkie diet, than to eat ground up bones and scraps from other humans. But what an awful choice between two bads. Well, as I think about my garden, I guess it's good that we are lucky enough have a choice not to settle for Twinkies OR human slaughterhouse byproducts.
Posted by Sue G. on 07/18/2009 @ 01:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
All you have to do is google "Peta kills" and you will get hundreds of sites that verify this information. Here is one: www.newsweek.com/id/134549 The president of PETA has admitted that their agenda is to do away with ANY animal ownership so that ALL animals are free including companion pets.
You can also google "HSUS fraud" and you will get hundreds of sites that verify their egregious misuse of funds. Like the millions they solicited from donations to help rehome lost Katrina animals that they spent on something else.
There is plenty of information about their hypocrisy and their duplicity on the internet. One only has to look for it.
You can go to www.care2.com and read blogs on animal welfare and even most of the vegans there will tell you about PETA and HSUS including Unpopular Vegan Essays.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/18/2009 @ 10:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
wooord! care2 is the shit, and i would advise yall to forget about rights. rights are just a fancy way of saying let it be, but really we just want things to work out a certain way, let's just work on what we want, and try to agree.
if we want antibiotics, we have to regulate how they are used, because these evolutions we encourage render the antibiotic into waste, expensive waste.
if we want pets, we have to regulate how they are used to prevent overpopuation and waste. are healthy strays turned into dog food? fertilizer?
BTW fertilizer is horribly unregulated, there are lots of toxins being fed to our veg.
Posted by colin forwood on 07/18/2009 @ 09:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.