The Rural Voice, 2001-03, Page 41Growth -promoting
drugs aren't big
saving
As consumers become more and
more concerned with use of drugs in
raising animals, farmers don't want
to lose some therapeutic drugs, but
growth promotants mightn't be a big
loss.
That was the message from Dr.
Tim Blackwell to pork producers at
the 52nd annual meeting of the
Huron County Pork Producers in
Varna, January 24.
Blackwell, a veterinarian
specializing in pork production, from
OMAFRA's Fergus office, prefaced
his remarks by saying there is no
problem with drugs used in animal
production but there's a perception of
a problem among consumers and
therefore that is the problem.
"In the history of meat production
nobody has even gotten a rash or had
any other problem" from drugs in
meat, he said. Still telling consumers
that is not going to reassure them.
Still, he said, while 99 per cent of
hogs going' to market are free of any
drug residues, 15-20 pigs with
residues are being caught each week
by checks at processors. And, he
said, random testing system doesn't
even do a good job ferreting out all
pigs with residues.
Because these residues don't really
hurt anyone, this isn't a problem, he
said. "The real problem is if the
Japanese find it and we didn't."
Canada's competitors such as the
Danes will trumpet the unreliability
of Canadian health checks, he said.
For producers, there are severe
penalties for shipping a pig with drug
residues. If that pig is found, every
pig in the load will have to be
checked at a cost of $ l00 each and
that will be billed to the producer.
For the most part, the concern
about drug resistance by bacteria is
also overblown because most of the
bacteria that will become resistant to
animal drugs only affect animals. An
exception is salmonella where even
pigs that aren't sick can carry
salmonella. That salmonella can be
exposed to drugs and develop
News
immunity and could under some
circumstances be passed on to
humans. Still there's only ever been
one case where this happened,
Blackwell said and that involved
poultry in Minnesota.
Farmers don't have to worry about
losing the right to use drugs on
animals that are - already sick,
Blackwell predicted, because animal
rights advocates would protest any
suffering that would result.
What's more likely to be lost is the
right to use small amounts of drugs
in feeds to promote faster growth,
and this may not be a costly loss,
Blackwell said.
"It will end when the Americans
stop using it," he said of growth
promotant use. And as long as
nobody else is using the drugs,
everyone will be equal and no one
will be disadvantaged. That's why
European farmers are upset because
they can't use the drugs and must
compete against North American
producers who can.
What's more, Blackwell
demonstrated that the cost advantage
for the use of drug is only a dollar a
pig at best. Use of antibiotics in feed
increases feed efficiency from 0-8
per cent, he said with older, healthier
pigs getting the least benefit and
younger, less healthy pigs doing
better. But when you take out the
cost of the drugs being used, feed
savings probably amount to $ 1.05 per
pig, even under the best scenario. If
the drug costs go up or the feed costs
come down, the gain is even less.
This is one of the areas of drug use
producers can wean themselves on,
Blackwell said. He said producers
should perhaps look at their whole
drug use scheme. "I know a lot of
places I say 'Why are you doing
that?" he said of visits to farms.
"and they say We always have'."
Do a cost/risk assessment, he
advised. If the consequences of
making a mistake by withdrawing
drug use are large, then keep using
the drug. If the risk is small and
reversible, then maybe you can
experiment.
Review your drug use yearly with
your veterinarian, he advised. Hai e a
Announcing....
The NEW and IMPROVED
FARM SAFETY ASSOCIATION
WORLD WIDE WEB SITE
Visit us at our new home:
www.farmsafety.ca
Farm Safety Association Inc.
22-340 Woodlawn Road West,
Guelph, Ontario N1 H 7K6
1-800-361-8855
Fax 519-823-8880
MARCH 2001 37