Should Organic Livestock Have Access to Antibiotics?

By Samuel Fromartz

Hue Karreman, a prominent veterinarian who works with organic dairy farmers in Pennsylvania, has published a highly provocative essay on NewFarm.org arguing that organic livestock farmers should consider the use of antibiotics in rare instances – a practice currently banned by organic regulations.

"In essence, when it comes to an individual animal needing truly prompt, effective treatment for a serious infection on an organic farm, the US organic rule may compromise animal welfare," he writes.

His argument opens up a Pandora's box in organics, since the label for so long has been associated with "antibiotic and hormone-free" production methods. Surveys show those labels are a major reason organic milk is so popular with consumers. It is growing at about 20 percent a year.

While I don't expect the prohibition on antibiotics to change soon, Karreman makes an interesting argument – and one not particularly new. (He made the same point when I was working on my book and I include it in chapter 6.)

The main issue with antibiotics is their overuse, which allows bugs to build up resistance. This renders the drugs impotent in humans as well. But Karreman finds the one-time or rare use of the medicine distinctly different from the regular "sub-therapeutic" use of the drugs in livestock production, which is the main cause of rampant overuse.

One reason these therapies are so popular in conventional farming is that the animals suffer from diseases associated with confinement, or a poor diet. The low-forage diet in feedlot beef production, for example, increases the fat content in the muscle, but it also raises the chance of acidosis - or stomach acidity - which in turn is associated with disease. One way to reduce those diseases is to administer low levels of antibiotics, a common practice.

Ideally, organic animals avoid those pitfalls by grazing an adequate amount of time on fresh grass and avoiding the stress of a high-production regime. (Organic dairy cows, for example, produce less milk than conventional animals).

But what happens when an organic animal gets an infection? Currently, under organic production rules, the farmer is required to treat the animal with approved methods (that include herbal remedies, homeopathy, even acupuncture, all of which can be quite successful). But if the animal does not respond to approved therapies, the animal must be given antibiotics and then removed from the organic farm. They can never return.

Karreman believes this end-result puts farmers in a bind. The animal may suffer if the farmer waits to see whether it can heel without antibiotics, yet, if they administer the drug right away they must sell the animal. "Who is to say what medication will be used and when will it be started in the disease process?" He asks.

The issue this raises, of course, is whether organic milk will be able to maintain its distinct identity in the marketplace if antibiotics are allowed.

And like other parts of the organic regulations, would opening the door to rare use of antibiotics invite more extreme practices, such as the sub-therapeutic use that is so objectionable? If you consider the ways the rules have been bent on issues like grazing, that is not unlikely.

Karreman has been one of the few, if not the only one within the organic industry, to stick his head on this issue and make this proposal. At the very least, he faces an uphill battle.

Comments

[Tim]

As a non organic farmer, the dilemma does not sound too distressing -- if a vet deems an antibiotic necessary to save the cow, the animal is marketable, when it recovers, to a non organic farm -- at a value that exceeds (notably) the cull price. (I'm assuming that the gene pool of organic cattle is derived from the general population.) Given the vet's professional opinion that the animal does not otherwise recover, surely there is not much of a slope here, as the animal leaves the farm. The animal is unlikely to mind that it can't return.

[granny miller]

I have to agree with Dr. Karreman.

It is cruel to animals to deprive them of medicine that can save their life or reduce their suffering.
Not to mention the economic loss that a small farmer sustains when he/she loses an expensive animal.

A healthy Holstein dairy cow at current auction price is $800- $1300.
That’s a piece of change.

I would add that my experience with “Organic” Animal Health has not been a good one.

I own a 74 acre farm and have raised sheep for almost 20 years . At one time I did consider becoming a “Certified Organic” producer.

But not for long.

I found the Certified Organic program rife with double talk, corruption and
cronyism.

Sheep more than any other ruminant suffer from worms and intestinal parasites due to the manner of their grazing.

Pasture rotation with all animals is of great benefit and certainly necessary for sheep.

However, sheep can still carry a heavy worm load and their health will be comprised without regular worming.
At the time I was looking into becoming an “organic” sheep producer, there were less than 3 producers in the US.
The closest “organic” producer was ......6 states away!

I called her and asked how she was managing internal parasites in her flock.
She told me she had no problems....but that she only had 12 sheep.
12 Sheep!!

I had well over 75 breeding ewes and 160+ lambs.
I found the “organic” standards and criteria regarding the treatment of internal parasites in sheep to be unrealistic and out right cruel.

Not only that, sheep often need assistance to deliver their lambs.
Anytime that a hand is inserted in the uterus or vagina of a ewe during a difficult lambing she must be covered with an antibiotic to prevent infection or a slow and painful death.

To give correct assistance to the animals in our care, such as regular worming and antibiotics after an assisted birth, is not a part of Factory Farming.

It is merciful and common sense.

I would also add that once the USDA got a hold of “Organic” it has ceased to have any meaning.
Loop holes in the regulations abound .
Example:

Milk cows that are being raised “organic” do not necessarily have to go out doors while they are fresh (milking).

They can be considered “organic” if they go out doors when it is time to dry them off (stop milking).

If a cow does not go to grass while she is giving milk - then why bother?

[Samuel Fromartz]

It's an oversimplification to say organic has ceased to have any meaning under the USDA regulations. I know a lot of people fighting to keep integrity in the regulations - people involved in organics for 30 years - and they have not given up.

The grazing issue has been a lightening rod, but the activism on this issue may finally be yielding results. See my previous post on the USDA unveiling a new pasture regulation likely this summer.

[granny miller]

Of course you are quite correct.

It is indeed "an oversimplification to say organic has ceased to have any meaning under the USDA regulations".

But never the less, "Certified Organic" is not all that it's cracked up to be, and sadly, most consumers aren't aware of what "organic" really means.

A yes, the grazing issue has become a big problem for the "organic" dairy folks.

But it is no bigger a problem than the "organic" poultry people have.

I think the fact that "organic" "free range" chickens don't have to be out doors or ever see sunshine might not sit too well with some Consumers.

In my opinion the USDA is little more than the Front Man for large Corporate Agriculture and Special Interest Groups.

The USDA doesn't give a whit care about Consumers.

Just ask Creekstone Farms.