Serious question

[orca2011]

---

Members don't see this ad.

something that people might want to consider. It is an integral part of vet med to understand the food industry. Most schools tour your through an abattoir - it was a major part of our grade for the rotation it was on. You will have to learn large animal/food animal medicine in order to pass the NAVLE. If that makes you uncomfortable, you might want to think about it.

I'm kind of surprised, but this isn't a requirement (at least not for me to graduate...maybe it is you're a food animal major) and I wish it was. There was a trip through the Food Animal Club I believe, but I had a different commitment that day and have never been able to go.

 

[hazelmoo]

I remember driving on my way home for Christmas break, and I passed a cattle feed lot. There were cattle crowded together eating on one side of the holding area, and on the other side there were 3 decaying corpses laying in the snow. I have no idea what meat company those cattle were going to, and since there is no way for me to know for sure, that's just not something I want to support. That was before I became I vegetarian, but I haven't eaten beef since then.

I also had a coworker whose husband worked for Tyson. He said that they throw the chickens in giant vats of boiling water while they're still alive... Apparently easier to defeather that way. I don't know if it's true or not, but there's really no way for me to know.

I'm interested to learn more about the meat industry because it is such a big part of the profession, and no matter how many people become a vegetarian, there will always be a demand for meat in the US. I can only hope that it's a lot better than I think it will be :/

 

[dyachei]

I remember driving on my way home for Christmas break, and I passed a cattle feed lot. There were cattle crowded together eating on one side of the holding area, and on the other side there were 3 decaying corpses laying in the snow. I have no idea what meat company those cattle were going to, and since there is no way for me to know for sure, that's just not something I want to support. That was before I became I vegetarian, but I haven't eaten beef since then.

I also had a coworker whose husband worked for Tyson. He said that they throw the chickens in giant vats of boiling water while they're still alive... Apparently easier to defeather that way. I don't know if it's true or not, but there's really no way for me to know.

I'm interested to learn more about the meat industry because it is such a big part of the profession, and no matter how many people become a vegetarian, there will always be a demand for meat in the US. I can only hope that it's a lot better than I think it will be :/

it is.

 

[bluenose]

Can't answer for her, but I went on an organic dairy tour during vet school and it really turned me off.

The overall husbandry of the animals was fine (similar to conventional dairies). But there were a few very sick calves in their pens. Like really really sick. And we were told that they were holding out on giving them optimal treatment until they were sure they're not going to get better, because it means they'd have to tag them as no longer organic and sell them. They looked like if they waited any longer they might die before they even got treatment.

Not sure how it works at all organic dairies, but I hadn't even thought of the animal Health impact of organic farming until then.

I am interested in what some of you have been saying about organic meat and I am wondering if you guys think that people's concerns with eating animals treated with antibiotics or other drugs is unfounded or if your main issue is just with the treatment of some of the animals in some organic practices.

 

[dyachei]

I am interested in what some of you have been saying about organic meat and I am wondering if you guys think that people's concerns with eating animals treated with antibiotics or other drugs is unfounded or if your main issue is just with the treatment of some of the animals in some organic practices.

antibiotics specifically have withdrawal times and a strict list of medications that cannot be used. FARAD is a good place to look. Basically, after the medication is given, the animal cannot be consumed if they are slaughtered before the withdrawal time is ended. At this point, the meat is considered safe. So banning antibiotics is not useful or helpful if you want to decrease suffering

 

[DVMDream]

I am interested in what some of you have been saying about organic meat and I am wondering if you guys think that people's concerns with eating animals treated with antibiotics or other drugs is unfounded or if your main issue is just with the treatment of some of the animals in some organic practices.

I think it is both...

Organic farms can't treat ill animals and often these animals suffer on these farms for either a "wait and see" if they will improve and if they don't, it is too late by that point to really treat them... so they end up just being euthanized... because of laws/regulations about ill animals being able to go to slaughter...

Also, the antibiotics and other drugs in the food is unfounded because there are required medication withdrawal periods that farmers must follow prior to an animal being slaughtered for consumption. If antibiotic residues are found in either meat or milk there are severe penalties for the farmers that they just can not afford and the meat is also condemned so they won't make money off of that animal. So they are very careful about these withdrawal periods to avoid that.

 

[hazelmoo]

I am interested in what some of you have been saying about organic meat and I am wondering if you guys think that people's concerns with eating animals treated with antibiotics or other drugs is unfounded or if your main issue is just with the treatment of some of the animals in some organic practices.

I'm not okay with organic meat because the animals aren't given any sort of medications if they're sick and need them. That's inhumane to me.

 

[bluenose]

What you all say seems logical so do you believe that there is any way that these organic practices can be changed or adjusted? The way the regular industry has been forced to adjust in some ways over the years? For example if some of these inhumane practices were more exposed (or even if not since many people in the field understand this)

 

[dyachei]

What you all say seems logical so do you believe that there is any way that these organic practices can be changed or adjusted? The way the regular industry has been forced to adjust in some ways over the years? For example if some of these inhumane practices were more exposed (or even if not since many people in the field understand this)

If you do away with that it isn't "organic"

 

[bluenose]

I think it is both...

Organic farms can't treat ill animals and often these animals suffer on these farms for either a "wait and see" if they will improve and if they don't, it is too late by that point to really treat them... so they end up just being euthanized... because of laws/regulations about ill animals being able to go to slaughter...

Also, the antibiotics and other drugs in the food is unfounded because there are required medication withdrawal periods that farmers must follow prior to an animal being slaughtered for consumption. If antibiotic residues are found in either meat or milk there are severe penalties for the farmers that they just can not afford and the meat is also condemned so they won't make money off of that animal. So they are very careful about these withdrawal periods to avoid that.

Forgive me if I'm using only undergrad biology knowledge in asking these questions but is it at all possible that people's concerns are not just with eating doses of antibiotics but of how the animal is affected by being treated with antibiotics (or even if treated multiple times?) I know the main concern with antibiotics use is how it is affecting the natural bacteria or even creating resistant strains so is there any possibility that these types of issues could be "transferred" or something to the person eating that meat? Like transfer of resistant bacteria or somehow disruption of the humans gut bacteria in any other way? Again sorry I am sort of using the limited knowledge I have to ask these things

 

[dyachei]

Forgive me if I'm using only undergrad biology knowledge in asking these questions but is it at all possible that people's concerns are not just with eating doses of antibiotics but of how the animal is affected by being treated with antibiotics (or even if treated multiple times?) I know the main concern with antibiotics use is how it is affecting the natural bacteria or even creating resistant strains so is there any possibility that these types of issues could be "transferred" or something to the person eating that meat? Like transfer of resistant bacteria or somehow disruption of the humans gut bacteria in any other way? Again sorry I am sort of using the limited knowledge I have to ask these things

Of course animals having resistant infections can cause issues for humans, especially those that work with those animals - cooking usually kills bacteria.

Some of the concerns with antibiotics are:
certain drugs may cause irreversible reactions in people that can be fatal - like chloramphenicol (This is on the "go to jail" list). therefore even small residues may be an issue. Better safe than sorry
Some drugs may destroy meat quality (and therefore may need to be given in certain areas)
Some drugs may cause unacceptable side effects in the animals
Some drugs may cause an increased rate of growth (and may be used as such) but may be less than beneficial overall

 

[dyachei]

btw, these questions aren't stupid. They are good questions that help you understand the industry better. Keep 'em coming (or let me know if I misinterpreted)

 

[DVMDream]

Of course animals having resistant infections can cause issues for humans, especially those that work with those animals - cooking usually kills bacteria.

This. Cooking kills bacteria... I find being worried about getting a resistant bacteria from the cooked meat you are eating to be of much less concern than say having a hospital stay where most multi-drug resistant infections are actually picked up from.

 

[bluenose]

Of course animals having resistant infections can cause issues for humans, especially those that work with those animals - cooking usually kills bacteria.

Some of the concerns with antibiotics are:
certain drugs may cause irreversible reactions in people that can be fatal - like chloramphenicol (This is on the "go to jail" list). therefore even small residues may be an issue. Better safe than sorry
Some drugs may destroy meat quality (and therefore may need to be given in certain areas)
Some drugs may cause unacceptable side effects in the animals
Some drugs may cause an increased rate of growth (and may be used as such) but may be less than beneficial overall

Thanks for all of the responses everyone. Ok so are you saying those concerns about the antibiotics are still present after the antibiotic withdrawal period has passed? So even if there's no detectable amount left those are still issues that non organic meat consumers may reasonably have?

 

[dyachei]

Thanks for all of the responses everyone. Ok so are you saying those concerns about the antibiotics are still present after the antibiotic withdrawal period has passed? So even if there's no detectable amount left those are still issues that non organic meat consumers may reasonably have?

there aren't.

But the public perception is what allows for organic to be relevant.

 

[bigreddog]

I was under the impression that people wanted organic meat for the grass fed aspect of it. I don't know much about it and am just bringing up some points I've heard from people arguing for grass fed beef. I think many people feel traditional, non-organic beef is from animals with a diet consisting of corn based feed with a low level of antibiotics already in it to aid in digesting. Could anybody clear this up?

 

[dyachei]

I was under the impression that people wanted organic meat for the grass fed aspect of it. I don't know much about it and am just bringing up some points I've heard from people arguing for grass fed beef. I think many people feel traditional, non-organic beef is from animals with a diet consisting of corn based feed with a low level of antibiotics already in it to aid in digesting. Could anybody clear this up?

you can have non-organic grass fed beef.

 

[bigreddog]

you can have non-organic grass fed beef.

Is the non-organic grass fed beef superior to just regular beef?

 

[katashark]

I have a question. I know a lot of claimed vegetarians who are actually pescatarians (which means they eat fish), and do not consider fish to be meat. (Now, these people are not prevets or vets) What do you guys think about consuming fish? Do you have any reasons for eating farmed, wild caught, "sustainable", etc reasoning? Do you make a distinction between eating fish and other aquatic animals - oysters, shrimp, etc?

 

[dyachei]

Is the non-organic grass fed beef superior to just regular beef?

grass-fed vs non-grass fed is dependent on a few things. Is it superior in what way?

Many people prefer the taste of grass fed. There tend to be less overcrowding issues with grass fed. But, that isn't always the case.

eating farmed

I prefer to eat farmed fish - they are usually in hatcheries and are less likely to impact wild populations unless I fish for them myself.

A few of the hatcheries were working on helping to preserve wild populations before endangered status

 

[bigreddog]

grass-fed vs non-grass fed is dependent on a few things. Is it superior in what way?

Many people prefer the taste of grass fed. There tend to be less overcrowding issues with grass fed. But, that isn't always the case.

Superior for human health.

 

[DVMDream]

Is the non-organic grass fed beef superior to just regular beef?

No.

 

[DVMDream]

I actually don't care for the taste of grass-fed beef as much.

 

[dyachei]

Superior for human health.

not from what I recall.

 

[bigreddog]

Do non-grass fed animals actually have a diet of corn based feed with aids for digestion?

 

[dyachei]

Do non-grass fed animals actually have a diet of corn based feed with aids for digestion?

If I remember correctly, they may be used at the finishing stage. I think they tend to use coccidiostats. But it has been a while since I was taught that.

grain fed doesn't mean that they never eat grass or are pasture fed. And they still have a fair amount of hay in their diet.

 

[wheelin2vetmed]

Superior for human health.

There is some evidence pointing to this, although it's not conclusive. Fatty acid profile is definitely different between grain-fed and pastured (or grass-finished) beef, including levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), other omega-3 fatty acids, and antioxidant compounds like vitamin A precursors (carotenoids). Myristic and palmitic acid levels are higher in grain-fed cattle which do elevate cholesterol levels. Some research is pointing to a skewed omega-6/omega-3 ratio in the western diet as a contributor to chronic inflammation, obesity, and other metabolic issues.

For example, colon cancer risk can be decreased dramatically by consumption of CLA and omega-3 fatty acids, so outside of supplementation, tweaking diet can help.

 

[dyachei]

There is some evidence pointing to this, although it's not conclusive. Fatty acid profile is definitely different between grain-feed and pastured (or grass-finished) beef, including levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), other omega-3 fatty acids, and antioxidant compounds like vitamin A precursors (carotenoids). Myristic and palmitic acid levels are higher in grain-fed cattle which do elevate cholesterol levels. Some research is pointing to a skewed omega-6/omega-3 ratio in the western diet as a contributor to chronic inflammation, obesity, and other metabolic issues.

For example, colon cancer risk can be decreased dramatically by consumption of CLA and omega-3 fatty acids, so outside of supplementation, tweaking diet can help.

This isn't a well understood area. Heck, our understanding of "good" fat vs "bad" fat changes every 20 years or so.

 

[wheelin2vetmed]

This isn't a well understood area. Heck, our understanding of "good" fat vs "bad" fat changes every 20 years or so.

Nutrition and epigenetics is the future of medicine. Nonetheless, nutrition is too complex to nail down to a one-size-fits-all recommendation, but I disagree with your first sentence. There is absolutely quite a bit that we understand now.

 

[bigreddog]

Thanks for taking the time to answer guys.

 

[dyachei]

Nutrition and epigenetics is the future of medicine. Nonetheless, nutrition is too complex to nail down to a one-size-fits-all recommendation, but I disagree with your first sentence. There is absolutely quite a bit that we understand now.

there's a lot we understand. But there's a lot we really don't get either. I meant in the idea that it is "healthier" that it isn't well understood - our knowledge of nutrition changes greatly every year and things we think are healthy or unhealthy also change rather rapidly. There's still a long way to go.

 

[bluenose]

there's a lot we understand. But there's a lot we really don't get either. I meant in the idea that it is "healthier" that it isn't well understood - our knowledge of nutrition changes greatly every year and things we think are healthy or unhealthy also change rather rapidly. There's still a long way to go.

I think that this is part of the reason people push for organic and things like that. The science and findings are really constantly changing so I think to many, it seems "safer" to just avoid the "unknown variables" like antibiotics/other drugs and go with what seems more "natural" like grass fed and so on. Not that they are definitely right but I also don't blame them for being weary of the scientific consensus of the moment (even though it can be frustrated that they really understand almost none of it) especially when a lot of things totally change from "good for you" to "pretty bad for you" and back and forth

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I eat meat, fish, and pretty much everything expect mayonnaise. I have been to a slaughter house and to many dairies. I've always seen animals treated with respect. I respect those that are vegetarian and vegan, but I don't think that because I'm going to be a veterinarian that means I have to be one.

I try to be very conscientious about seafood and only eat fish that is sustainable.

 

[dyachei]

I think that this is part of the reason people push for organic and things like that. The science and findings are really constantly changing so I think to many, it seems "safer" to just avoid the "unknown variables" like antibiotics/other drugs and go with what seems more "natural" like grass fed and so on. Not that they are definitely right but I also don't blame them for being weary of the scientific consensus of the moment (even though it can be frustrated that they really understand almost none of it) especially when a lot of things totally change from "good for you" to "pretty bad for you" and back and forth

Natural doesn't mean healthy. This is probably my biggest gripe with clients. Science and medicine have extended lifespans immensely. Why would we want to go back to a "paleo" diet?

 

[bluenose]

Natural doesn't mean healthy. This is probably my biggest gripe with clients. Science and medicine have extended lifespans immensely. Why would we want to go back to a "paleo" diet?

Healthy is also a relative word for people though. For some, the things that lead to the largest extension of their lives may not be the things that make their body feel the best and that may be what type of "healthy" they care most about. Like quality not quantity type of idea

 

[dyachei]

Healthy is also a relative word for people though. For some, the things that lead to the largest extension of their lives may not be the things that make their body feel the best and that may be what type of "healthy" they care most about. Like quality not quantity type of idea

Yes, but we are extending lifespans by not dying early of disease. I would say qualitatively we are healthier than 1000 years ago.

 

[wheelin2vetmed]

Why would we want to go back to a "paleo" diet?

Because glootin is the devil, and must be avoided at all costs. Might be spelled glutain or gluten, I forgot.

 

[hazelmoo]

Her face

 

[DVMDream]

Nutrition and epigenetics is the future of medicine. Nonetheless, nutrition is too complex to nail down to a one-size-fits-all recommendation, but I disagree with your first sentence. There is absolutely quite a bit that we understand now.

I disagree that nutrition is the future of medicine. Sure a healthy diet is good for you, but there is no food that will keep certain diseases or illnesses away. Food won't kill bacterial infections, food won't cure cancer or autoimmune diseases and it won't kill viruses or fungi. So people should eat a healthy diet but I don't see nutrition as the "future of medicine" because you can't cure things through diet.

 

[wheelin2vetmed]

I disagree that nutrition is the future of medicine. Sure a healthy diet is good for you, but there is no food that will keep certain diseases or illnesses away. Food won't kill bacterial infections, food won't cure cancer or autoimmune diseases and it won't kill viruses or fungi. So people should eat a healthy diet but I don't see nutrition as the "future of medicine" because you can't cure things through diet.

I'll qualify what I mean by the future of medicine. I agree that eating a food won't kill bacterial infections, viruses, or fungi, but I absolutely believe diet can and will treat, prevent, lessen the effects of, and cure disease; it already does to some extent. We still don't know a lot, and the missing piece right now is specificity. We know that certain compounds in foods can alter genes through epigenetic change: silencing genes, turning them on, changing how they're expressed, etc. One of the coolest examples is the LTR Hypomethylated mouse. The wild type mouse is yellow, fat as hell, diabetic, gets cancer, and dies at a young age. By feeding the mother a methionine rich diet (or genistein which is found in soy) during gestation, the offspring are agouti, with a completely different phenotype, are super skinny, and don't get the same diseases. Same DNA, different outcome. This change can also be passed to future offspring, without modifying the underlying genetic code. Studies that follow identical twins throughout their lives show the same effects, and it's due to epigenetics and how the environment interacts with the genes we inherit. To think that ingesting foods has no effect is, in my opinion, naive. Another study that I really like surrounds the vitamin D receptor genotype and colon cancer. If you have the FF genotype, consuming less or greater than 388mg calcium/day has no differential effect. If you're Ff or ff, consuming less than 388 mg/day increases risk of colon cancer greatly.

Sure, these are just three studies. But in the future, I believe we'll map the entire epigenome and proteome, and by coupling that with each person's genes, be able to understand risk, prevent, and reverse/cure some diseases through diet.

 

[zinhle]

I disagree that nutrition is the future of medicine. Sure a healthy diet is good for you, but there is no food that will keep certain diseases or illnesses away. Food won't kill bacterial infections, food won't cure cancer or autoimmune diseases and it won't kill viruses or fungi. So people should eat a healthy diet but I don't see nutrition as the "future of medicine" because you can't cure things through diet.

I completely disagree with you. You can certainly cure all kinds of conditions and diseases though diet alone.

 

[Starry-chan]

Slightly off topic, but what do you guys think about the WHO re-classifying bacon so they consider its consumption as dangerous as smoking and abestos:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

 

[katashark]

Slightly off topic, but what do you guys think about the WHO re-classifying bacon so they consider its consumption as dangerous as smoking and abestos:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

The whole decision is actually quite misleading. They did not say it is as dangerous as smoking or asbestos. They said they are as certain it causes cancer as they are smoking and asbestos cause cancer. Group 1 carcinogens just have a high degree of certainty of being linked to cancer. It's a terrible ranking system. Based on certainty, not how dangerous.

 

[katashark]

Slightly off topic, but what do you guys think about the WHO re-classifying bacon so they consider its consumption as dangerous as smoking and abestos:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

Here's a nice article that explains it quite well as hazard identification, not risk assessment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ssed-meat-what-you-need-to-know-a6709266.html

 

[that redhead]

What do you guys think about consuming fish? Do you have any reasons for eating farmed, wild caught, "sustainable", etc reasoning? Do you make a distinction between eating fish and other aquatic animals - oysters, shrimp, etc?

Fish can process pain, so I think it's important that their slaughter is as humane as that for "regular" food animals. Sustainability is obviously a huge thing, but quite separate from the sentience argument many vegetarians use. I personally don't eat lobster because as territorial creatures that live in the relative darkness of underwater, I imagine being stacked on top of one another in a small, bright tank is awful for them and is a form of suffering, if you will. (And yeah, I'm probably anthropomorphizing but I don't really care.)

 

[katashark]

Thanks for responding! I am just trying to see where the vet/pre-vet world stands on the subject of fish. 🙂

 

[hazelmoo]

Fish can process pain, so I think it's important that their slaughter is as humane as that for "regular" food animals. Sustainability is obviously a huge thing, but quite separate from the sentience argument many vegetarians use. I personally don't eat lobster because as territorial creatures that live in the relative darkness of underwater, I imagine being stacked on top of one another in a small, bright tank is awful for them and is a form of suffering, if you will. (And yeah, I'm probably anthropomorphizing but I don't really care.)

I don't eat fish because of sustainability. I have my "seafood watch" guide with me everywhere I go just in case people want suggestions on what kind of fish is sustainable from where!

I've actually been thinking about becoming a pescatarian instead of a vegetarian because I really want to eat fish while I'm in FL... It's so easy to get sustainably caught fish here. And vegetarian sushi just isn't the same 😛 But it's hard to find more sustainable options in land-locked places. I won't eat lobster, crab, or cephalopods no matter what my diet is, because I agree with you... It's so sad to see the lobsters stuck all together like that, and I hate that they are boiled alive.

 

[Cephal0pod]

I won't eat lobster, crab, or cephalopods no matter what my diet is, .

I like fish, but I don't eat it very often. When I eat meat it is generally chicken or turkey.

One reason a good friend of mine is pescatarian is that large scale beef operations can be quite bad for the environment - rainforests deforested to create room for cattle ranching, runoff of nitrogenous wastes, etc.

 

[Kpowell14]

Slightly off topic, but what do you guys think about the WHO re-classifying bacon so they consider its consumption as dangerous as smoking and abestos:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...con-processed-red-meats-cause-cancer-says-who

Read this after putting a double bacon pizza in the oven..... well it will still taste delicious!

 

[scb44f]

"I also had a coworker whose husband worked for Tyson. He said that they throw the chickens in giant vats of boiling water while they're still alive... Apparently easier to defeather that way. I don't know if it's true or not, but there's really no way for me to know."

Well, I really messed up that quote, but to whoever said this, chicken slaughter facilities should not place conscious chickens into boiling water. Death in boiling water is not considered in line with the standards for humane euthanasia.

Edit: They make the birds unconscious, and then place into boiling water to facilitate removal of feathers, followed by exsanguination. Hope that helps.