Wednesday 24th of April 2024

a needle or a pill for cows....

Mainline industrial confinement livestock producers routinely feeding subtherapeutic antibiotics to their animals have been desperate for an alternative for many years. As superbugs like cDiff and MRSA developed, consumer backlash against ubiquitous antibiotic use increased.


A Fauci for Every Farm Animal



When consumer advocacy groups pummeled factory farmers with headlines like “Who’s Drugging Your Dinner?” the industry first denied it was a problem, then actively started looking for alternatives. I remember well when Bill Clinton was elected president and hired a French chef who lauded free range chicken.

In an effort to make fun of the new president, conservative talk show host Pat Buchanan sought an alternative chicken producer to ridicule. He found me, offering the Polyface pastured chicken. As a conservative, I assumed Buchanan would be an enjoyable interview; I had no idea I was being ambushed with a hostile agenda.

His first question was “What makes your chicken different?” I quipped “Ours don’t do drugs.” He followed up with “Why does the industry use drugs?” I answered, “Because it makes them grow faster,” and was getting ready to add more information like, “It keeps them alive in fecal particulate air” but he cut me off.

“What could be wrong with making something grow faster?” he chortled and then cut me off. He had his enjoyment at my expense and thought he’d won the day. But if he’d kept me on, I could have explained that growing fast is not necessarily a good goal. Do we want cancer to grow fast? Inflammation is a result of fast growth. 

Do we want prisons to grow fast? Fentanyl use to grow fast? I can think of a lot of things I’d like to see grow slower. Girls going through puberty at 8 years old due to injecting hormones in livestock is not benevolent growth.

It was such a shocking simplistic ridiculous exchange that I’ve never forgotten it. Suffice it to say that not everyone thinks “drugging your dinner” is the best way to grow meat. These industrial protocols fueled the anti-animal, vegan movement. As the turmoil increased, as well as the studies showing horrific unintended consequences to routine drug use on farms, the search for alternatives kicked into high gear.

The big question in the industry was whether vaccinations could replace antibiotics. The problem was specificity to disease and long development horizons. Then came the breakthrough: mRNA. About 12 years ago the poultry industry began using mRNA. About 5 years ago the pork industry joined and about 2 years ago cattle followed.

Have you noticed the “antibiotic free” messaging from the industry lately? They don’t say “substitute mRNA for antibiotics.” They just say “antibiotic free.” This is one of the most clever-speaks ever invented.

Of course, just like rBGH in dairy cows—remember that?—used for nearly a decade before going on the label—mRNA has been used for some time without widespread knowledge. Dr. Joe Mercola discovered this in the spring of 2023 and alerted Americans that it was already in our meat. I was unaware of it, like almost everyone else.

Since then, the industry has circled the wagons. When testimony in Missouri’s legislature revealed its use in cattle, the industry quickly put out a press release stating mRNA was “not licensed” for use in cattle. This is a common sleight of words. The industry did not say “We aren’t using it;” notice the words: “not licensed.” The obvious inference to the average consumer is that it’s not being used.

But all sorts of exemptions and loopholes exist around drugs. Both experimental and emergency use make an end run around licensing. This was the case with rBGH in dairy cows. The dairy industry didn’t have to disclose its use, on labels or otherwise, due to its “experimental” designation. If you’re thinking what I’m thinking (Pinky and the Brain) this sounds extremely similar to the clever-speak surrounding mRNA use on humans during Covid—experimental and emergency.

The pork industry is likewise fighting back. And to their credit, they should disparage overreach in the opposition, like charges that “Producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines.” That is not true, and the industry is justified to point it out.

However, it’s a slippery issue. Just like during Covid, you could argue that the federal government did not require anyone to get the mRNA jab (I refuse to call it a vaccine, because it’s not), many people were forced to get it due to paranoia and tyrannical protocols in the workplace, military, etc. So while farmers aren’t required by the government to use mRNA, I guarantee that if you’re a grower for a vertically integrated industrial outfit, if they require mRNA, you’ll use it to keep your contract.

As reported by Paige Carlson in Farm Journal’s PORK, April 9, 2023, “National Pork Board’s Director of Consumer Public Relations, Jason Menke” noted “that the decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.” This is equivalent to Dr. Anthony Fauci standing at the podium saying he represents science.

If an industry veterinarian says to use it, then we dare not question.

The same article quotes Dr. Kevin Folta, a molecular biologist and professor at the University of Florida, that mRNA technologies “have been in development for decades.” Oh, I thought they suddenly came into being, like some sort of spontaneous divine intervention, in the fall of 2020. He added that “the technology is being maligned in social media, and is now shaping decisions at the level of state legislature.”

Yes, numerous states are considering legislation to require label disclosure of mRNA use. And of course it’s being questioned on social media, dear professor. Have you heard about adverse reactions? And it enters every cell in the body? And we don’t know what will happen 30 years down the road?

The most egregious cavalier dismissal of unintended consequences I’ve experienced revolved around the grand Poobah announcement within credentialed academic scientific circles in the late 1970s that feeding dead cows to cows was a great idea. 

Some farmers, like me, believed in order and not chaos. We couldn’t find a pattern in nature where herbivores eat carrion. We refused to participate in this latest greatest scientific progress and were accused of being Luddites, barbarians, anti-science, anti-progress and a host of other maladies. Lo and behold, 30 years later, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (Mad Cow) reared its ugly head and encompassed the globe in a spasm of unintended consequences. 

Did any of these scientists demand to be fired for such an egregious breach of nature’s trust? No. They didn’t even apologize. Sounds like the National Institutes of Health science-throb Dr. Francis Collins and his Centers for Disease Control accomplice Fauci. 

What a pair. And what a duplicitous, unthinking world that people still follow these nefarious leaders.

Let’s listen to the imminent land grant professor Folta again: “It’s not in your food. It’s a vaccine for the animal that, just like any vaccine, protects the animal from disease.” The obvious required response is a sweet smile and sigh “Aaahh, isn’t that nice? I’m so glad someone is looking out for the animals.” 

Arguably the word vaccine seems more benign than the word antibiotic. Culturally, we tend to think of antibiotic as reactive and vaccine as preventive.

But mRNA is not a vaccine. On our farm, we use no vaccines. In our 60-years-plus commercial farming experience, all livestock diseases are the result of human mismanagement. Yes, we’ve had a few disease outbreaks over many years and countless thousands of animals, but every one has been my fault: lack of sanitation and hygiene, improper diet, uncomfortable habitat. No animal needs mRNA unless it’s subjected to conditions that compromise its immune system. 

Folta the expert says the industry is adequately monitoring animals for negative side effects. He’s giddy over applications across a broad spectrum of diseases. These diseases, of course, become problems when production models assault every habitat and physiological desire of the animal. Like chickens being confined for life to a space half the size of a sheet of notebook paper. Like pigs confined in holding cells on slats, so stressful that their tails must be cut off to make the nubs tender enough to move when a cellmate bites it and would otherwise cannibalize. You get the picture.

As prejudiced and beholden to drug agendas as scientists are, if unintended consequences do in fact rear their ugly head in 20 years, will anyone blame mRNA? No, they’ll say we have some sort of unique fairy-dusted pathogen for which surely a new diabolical concoction from the lab can protect. 

Where are the scientists admonishing “Let’s honor the pigness of the pig and the chickeness of the chicken, take all their stress off, encourage their immune system and emotional joy, give them some fresh air, sunshine, and exercise, along with some pasture salad, and see how that does to prevent disease?”  

No, this is deemed misinformation and hopelessly scientifically backward.

Following the science leads to this, quoting from the PORK article again: “mRNA vaccines are simply another modality that can protect animal health, which results in healthy animals producing the best and safest food products, Folta says, and provides producers with more options to help combat disease.” What could possibly go wrong?

Scientist Folta is incredibly confident: “To have affordable food, we need to have continual innovation in the animal, medical, veterinary space and mRNA vaccines are safe and an effective way to treat the animal that does not change the final product.” 

His ilk brought us hydrogenated vegetable oil, DDT, glyphosate, and the 1979 Food Pyramid with Cheerios and Lucky Charms on the foundation.

When you see the industry messaging, it hews pretty close to the mindset and terminology of the entire establishment Covid problem and cure. Is that what we want on our dinner tables? Asked another way, do we really want Fauci in charge of our food?

Reprinted with permission from Brownstone Institute.


it's time for being earnest.....





animal pharm .....

chicken soup....

ntibiotic drugs are crucial in the fight against deadly diseases, responsible for saving millions of lives around the world. Unfortunately, they’re also key to the existence of factory farms. Because without a steady flow of drugs, many animals would not survive the harrowing conditions inside these facilities.


While farm corporations claim antibiotics are necessary for the production of cheap meat, what’s really being cheapened is the value we place on life—both human and nonhuman. Drug use on factory farms is a leading cause of antibiotic resistance, a serious health threat facing humanity today.

Why do factory farms use chicken antibiotics?

In the wild, chickens live in small flocks often with only a handful of members, traversing a range of habitats as they forage for insects, seeds, and other food. Disease can lurk around every corner and beneath every leaf. Despite innumerable hidden threats, wild chickens can enjoy a lifespan of a decade or more, all without any intervention from human beings.

Life in the wild does not require the constant application of drugs: a fact that renders the woeful living conditions on factory farms all the more stark. Virtually all of the chicken meat consumed in the United States comes from factory farms, where birds are kept in extremely crowded and filthy indoor conditions, prevented from ever spending time outdoors or even seeing the sun through a window. Factory farms are the antithesis of natural living conditions for chickens.

Without antibiotics, raising chickens on factory farms would be extremely expensive—because the conditions on these farms are otherwise unlivable. Drugs are regularly administered via daily water and food rations and are generally used throughout the chicken’s lifetime, starting when chicks are only a few days old.

What do antibiotics do to chickens?

On factory farms, antibiotics are used for two reasons: to promote growth and to prevent or treat infection. They're administered regularly in the chickens' feed, and they're so effective at encouraging rapid growth that today's chickens are twice as large as chickens were 60 years ago. This is a problem because broiler chickens' bodies can't support this much weight. This unnatural growth leads to skeletal and joint issues, and it often causes so much stress on the chickens' legs that they become painfully lame.

The Better Chicken Commitment encourages companies to commit to purchasing chickens from suppliers that don't make use of rapid-growth breeds, among other welfare requirements. More than 200 companies have signed the commitment, including Burger King, Chipotle, Denny's, and Subway.

Which antibiotics are used on chickens?

There's a long list of antibiotics given to chickens, often in their daily food and water rations. The Poultry Extension provides a summary of some of the more popular antibiotics used in chicken production:

  • Aminoglycosides (treat intestinal infections)
  • Bambermycins (prevent the synthesis of the cell walls of bacteria)
  • Beta-lactams (two types: penicillins and cephalosporins)
  • Ionophores (prevent intestinal infections)
  • Lincosamides (combat joint and bone infections)
  • Macrolides (treat a fatal condition called necrotic enteritis, which is caused by overeating)
  • Quinolones (broad-spectrum drugs that affect a wide range of bacteria)
  • Streptogramins (prevent cell wall formation and protein synthesis, used to treat and prevent necrotic enteritis)
  • Sulfonamides (prevent and combat Salmonella, E. coli, and other pathogens)
What are the dangers of antibiotics in chicken?

Unless you’re buying your chicken directly from a small farmer, it's extremely likely that the chicken on your plate is laced with antibiotics. While antibiotics are beneficial to the producer’s bottom line, they give rise to one of the greatest health threats the world has ever faced: antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance occurs when antibiotic drugs are given to an individual animal—including humans—and the drugs kill most, but not all, of the targeted bacteria responsible for the infection. The surviving bacteria then learn how to survive the drug, becoming resistant to its effects over time. Antibiotic resistance is particularly threatening to people and animals with compromised immune systems, whether from HIV/AIDS, cancer, or chronic inflammatory conditions.

The routine use of antibiotics causes antibiotic resistance in both farmed animals and the people who eat them. A report by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the summer of 2020 identified a growing list of infections that are becoming more difficult to treat, including tuberculosis, pneumonia, and gonorrhea. According to WHO, at least 700,000 people die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections—a number that could soar to 10 million by 2050.

Antibiotic resistance is a major contribution to the long list of harms that factory farms inflict on people, animals, and the environment. It provides further justification to close these facilities and repair our broken food system.

What does "antibiotic-free chicken" mean?

Antibiotic-free chicken labels indicate that antibiotics were not used during the bird’s life. However, different labels can mean different things. For example, a “raised without antibiotics” label means that no antibiotics were used even during the first few days of life, which is a common time for these drugs to be administered. Other common labels include “no medically important antibiotics,” which means no antibiotics that are commonly used to treat human beings, and “no growth-promoting antibiotics,” which indicates that antibiotics were not used to unnaturally encourage the chicken's growth.

How does the FDA regulate the use of poultry antibiotics?

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating the use of antibiotics in farmed animals, including poultry. Along with the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, the agency monitors meat and eggs for trace amounts of unapproved drugs.

Currently, the FDA is developing a framework for food producers to voluntarily stop using medically-important antibiotics for growth promotion. However, without strict mandatory regulations, these voluntary frameworks may not be effective in preventing widespread antibiotic resistance—since the financial incentives for farms to grow bigger chickens will likely outweigh any concern for human health.

What does the CDC say about antibiotic resistance?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support the judicious use of antibiotics in livestock. They have a section on their website dedicated to poultry producers and ways that the industry can combat antibiotic resistance. Their recommendations include keeping animals healthy, working closely with veterinarians, and using antibiotics exactly as they are prescribed.

What can I do for chickens?

Antibiotics enable the unnatural growth of billions of chickens every year. As they languish on factory farms, antibiotic resistance looms as a growing threat to human health worldwide. An effective way to take action against these threats is to withdraw support from the chicken industry by reducing or eliminating your consumption of these products. With the proliferation of plant-based alternatives to all types of chicken products, it's easier than ever to make the switch.

To advocate for better living conditions for chickens, take action with us.




it's time for being earnest.....

flying cows....

Viruses are tricky things. They are incredible at mutating to find new hosts in animal and human bodies.

They can adapt to unlock, enter and infect a cell, and can change over and over again.

The bird flu that is sweeping the world has now infected hundreds of species of animals.

Scientists say we are living through a panzootic — that's an animal pandemic.  

What is bird flu?

Avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu, is a highly contagious virus that affects bird species and can spread to other species, including humans.

Just like human influenza, there are many types of bird flu and they can all have different effects on wild birds, poultry and other animals.

Avian influenza viruses can be classed as high or low pathogenicity, a reference to their potential to kill chickens, not how infectious they are.