Basic HTML Version
Occobcr-November
1970
feedlots and the trend is toward even
more of these huge operations.
The Feeding Program
Whether large or small, today's feed–
lots are geared to forcing every ounce of
production from the animals in the
shortest possible time and at. the least
possible cost. These intensive feeding
programs force on the calves an
unbelievable di et of medicated, oftc:n
cheap, high-grain feeds and roughage.
Sorne feed formulas are highly adver–
tised to "include everything your ani–
mals need."
Medication is automatically put in all
commercial feed mixtures except by spe–
cial contract. Tons of antibiotics and
chemicals are being given to livestock
without professional guidance and often
with the attitude that "if a Iittle is
good, more must be better" - even
though most antibiotics and drugs used
in feeds today are not selective in the
organisms they kili.
Producers have latched onto these
additives because they improve the rate
of feed conversion into meat and stimu–
late the growth rate; they control certain
low-grade infections and other ill–
defined subclinical diseases; and they
permit producers to substitute less
expensive feeds in place of more
expensive feeds.
AH
this might help the
producer make a prolit, but what is it
doing to the quality of the meat - and
public health?
Dr. Francis T . Candlin of Denver
said: "Misuse of drugs for livestock is
flirting with a tragedy that could make
the thalidomide scare seem insignilicant
by comparison"
(Kamas City Times,
Nov.
15,
1968).
An investigating committee appointed
by the Food and Drug Administration
felt that these additives were actually
oc
potentially hazardous to public
health in four ways: "1) when anti–
biotic residues are ingested by bumans,
they may destroy the intestinal bacteria
that assist digestion (90 percent of
which have not as yet been scientilically
dcscribed
!),
2)
the residues may pro–
duce allergic reactions m humans
[sorne of which have been fatal),
3) they may counteract the effectiveness
of other antibiotics being administered
The
PLAIN TRUTH
as treatment for sorne human disease,
and 4) most serious of all, they could
promote the development of resistant
strains of diseasc organisms in humans
and animals alike"
(Scientific American,
Oct. L966,
p.
44).
The " Queen of the Hormones"
Perhaps the most powerful substance
given to meat animals
is
the artificial
sex hormone known as
stilbestrol.
Research going back
15
years has shown
repeatedly that gains go up about
15
percent and feed efficiency is improved
12
percent when this "queen of the hor–
mones" is given lo catt le.
Today more than 80 percent of the
fed cattle which are marketed have been
treated with sti lbestrol. But like many
other additives, stilbestrol benefits thc
producer rathcr than the consumer.
Its
use is said to produce an additional
675 million pounds of beef annually
in the U. S. But is mere bulk our on ly
concern? Once aga in we ask, what about
the
q11ality
of this meat?
Former USDA meat inspector, Dr.
John N. S. White, says of stilbestrol–
treated cattle: "Very often the animals
will appear to be in excellent condition
on the hoof, and even the sides of beef
f rom those cattle will show a beautiful
finish. But when they are quartered, the
absence of quality is appa rent." The
main effect is "the lowering of grades
of carcasses derived from cattle fed with
the drug. Furthermore, it gives a
watery, mushy appearance to the meat
in many cases."
Cattle producers are strongly advised
to use stilbestrol either as an implant or
orally with feed - but not both. The
prescribed legal daily limit in feed is 10
mg. per head, and
ü
should be with–
drawn from the feed at least 48 hours
before slaughter. But are these Jimits
adhered to?
Growth hormones are also widely
used in poultry with the same dangers
and effects.
Could widespread exposure to such
hormones in our meat be one of the
reasons we see so many weak, effeminate
men in our society today?
Here is another danger from stil–
bestrol:
"Judge Luther M. Swygert of the 7th
U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
29
l966 that: 'The record shows that DES
(stilbestrol) is definitely a cause of can–
cer in animals ... and possibly a cause
of cancer in man'" (AP, June 24,
1970) . Yet we continue to use this hor–
mone and to detcct residues of it in our
meat suppJy.
Now a new man-made hormone is
becoming popular. Effective only on
heifers, it is called MGA (Melen
Gestrol Acetate) and acts as an cstrus
suppressor which kceps feedlot heifers
from coming into heat. Then it acts as a
growth promoter by taking the cnergy
of the heifer's normal reproductive cycle
and putting it lo work building extra
pounds of bcef.
Tts
use is supposed to
bring four times
as
large a return per
dollar as sti lbcstrol.
New Feed Sources
The cow is a ruminant and chews its
cud. This means it has a four-chambcred
digestive system which can break
clown ccllulosc and a number of fibrous
wastes into usable form of energy. Due
to this ability, the poor cow is subjcct
to being fed all kinds of wastes in an
effort to cut clown on feed costs.
Fattening rations for cattle used to
contain more than 30 percent good
quality roughage. "But today most fin–
ishing rations in Jarge feedlots have less
than 10 percent roughage, and it often
is poor quality and low in mineral con–
tent," says Dr.
L.
S. Pope of Texas A
&
M.
Ground newsprint mixed with
molasses and sawdust have already
"successfully" been used as roughage.
However, the quality record is not
encouraging. Fecd costs were reduced
40-507(, in feeding trials at the Univer–
sity of Missouri's dairy research. A
reduction of tl0-50% in milk and but–
terfat was also recorded. On the list
to be tried are "paper industry by–
products, waste paper, pulp by-products
from the fruit and vegetable industries,
cereal by-products, textile wastes, recov–
ered straw and other bedding materials
from stockyards, corn cobs, and many
more" reports
Drot'l!tJJ
Jot~mal
(March
5,
1970).
Sorne cattle are being fed three
pounds of polyethylene plastic pellets as
roughage at the start of the feeding
period. Once taken into the rumen