This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 2:19pm and is filed under Organic foods, Media and information, Food Safety, Local, Meat, Agriculture, Health, Environment, Farming, Food Production. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
A recent research study of conventional and outdoor antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics) production systems showed pigs raised outdoors without the use of routine antibiotics carried more bacteria and parasites, according to Feedstuffs newspaper. The research sampled pigs from three states (WI, NC, OH) and compared “niche-market, outdoor and antimicrobial-free (no antibiotics)” to “intensive indoor (conventional)” rearing systems.
Blood tests showed the outdoor pigs had significantly more exposure to Salmonella and Toxoplasma. Two pigs from different outdoor farms had antibodies to Trichinella. Trichinella is the parasite that infests muscles, and is the primary reason we have all been conditioned to cook pork thoroughly. The parasite has been virtually eliminated from conventional rearing systems.
I admit to being a little surprised by the research. In keeping with my science-geek image, I tracked down the authors, who very kindly sent me a copy of the original research paper. The research seems solid, and the stats are supported by other research in this country and in Europe.
So why the higher infection rate in outdoor pigs? The reasons given by the authors include exposure to wild and domestic animals (i.e. cats can carry trichinella), and access to soil and moisture which are viable environments for pathogens.
The skeptic in me can’t help wondering exactly what the outdoor systems studied were? Were they just raised in outdoor pens, or were they “pasture-raised” where they were foraging for a significant part of their diet? It is common in the chicken industry, where “free-range, vegetarian-fed” chicken and eggs abound, for such chickens to have access to the outdoors, but be no more pasture-raised than if they were confined indoors.
It is important to remember that many production practices that come under fire, such as indoor rearing and antibiotics, were put into place to increase food safety and/or animal welfare in response to increasingly intensive animal production. Merely removing these practices without addressing the reasons they were implemented in the first place does not necessarily bring about the benefits to humans or animals envisioned by consumers who purchase based on a “free-range” label.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:22pm
[…] more from the original source: Pigs raised outdoors and “natural” carry more bacteria […]
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:25am
Sara — the same is true of chickens. A study released some time ago showed that chickens raised “naturally” and without antibiotics have up to 25 percent more bacteria — including salmonella. Hey, folks, there’s a reason we use antibiotics and other inputs in our food supply — to keep us all safe. We don’t all have the opportunity or the time to grow our own food in our backyard (and risk starvation in lean years — thank god), so safeguards need to be established.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:09am
While the #s are presented to be attention-getting, it’s terribly hard for me to take them too seriously when so many things, meat and other foods, are “contaminated” with so many things due to natural processes. With proper kitchen/personal hygiene and cooking foods to the appropriate internal temperatures, I think one would be hard pressed to determine any difference between the bacteria content of these differently produced meats. In the end, *I* have control over the cleanliness/cooking times where I don’t have control over what’s injected/fed to the meat I purchase unless choosing organic/natural.
Also, the “preventative safeguard” use of antibiotics over the years in our meat supply has led to many resistant strains of these common bacteria - including variants of salmonella bacteria resistant to at least 5 of the 26 most common antibiotics used. (including up to a 92% resistance rate of tetracycline and streptomycin which forms of are used to treat salmonellosis.) In the end, I’m not sure how much safer that usage will be if that trend continues.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:54am
This comment was sent to me via e-mail from a colleague who has a long history in the swine industry:
July 5th, 2008 at 8:56am
Dawn:
Do you have some good references for the antibiotic resistance? This is one of those things that is oft-mentioned, but the only research I’ve seen (and I admit I have not spent hours looking) discounts the antibiotic resistance claims.
Please send me anything you have, as I take the issue seriously. Thanks!
July 5th, 2008 at 9:23am
[…] pigs were found to have more exposure to salmonella, toxoplasma and trichinella. According to the Down to Earth food production blog, trichinella is the parasite that infects muscles and is the reason we’ve all been told to […]
July 6th, 2008 at 6:00pm
I received this from the author of the original research paper regarding how the “outdoor” pigs were housed:
“Sara:
typically, these pigs were reared outdoors with a huge enclosure (do not consider it as a pen) and an open hoop structure. they are freely roaming and do forage. I can not say how much of their nutrition comes from foraging though. But definitely they were not and outdoor indoor type…Hope this helps. WG”
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:31pm
As far as the claim that use of antibiotics in food animals causes resistant bacteria strains the American Veterinary Medical Association does not agree:
http://www.feedstuffsfoodlink.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=124ECF05FDF84451B3E79A337664CA3C&nm=Blog&type=Blog&mod=View+Topic&mid=67D6564029914AD3B204AD35D8F5F780&tier=7&id=F52F94A54C4C4D108355EB683F04B51C
I know I saw a study somewhere that also did not find more resistant strains of bacteria on conventional farms vs organic ones. I’d have to dig around and find it again.
What troubles me about the proponents of the claim that antibiotic use in animal agriculure is driving bactrial resistance say nothing about the over-prescription of antibiotics in humans or the improper taking of antibiotics in humans (ie, not finishing the full prescription) To me this seems to be the far more logical resivoir as to where resistant strains of bacteria are coming from.
However the simple claim that antibiotics in animal ag causes bacterial resistance seems to have becomes one of many of the commonly beleived urban myths that everyone has heard and now beleives to be true simply because everyone has heard it with no verifiable proof. This in essence is one of the most fundamental problems with agriculture. Most of what the urban public “knows” about agriculture is learned this way.
I really really really wish that our school systems had a mandatory agricultural component to them. So that people are at least educated to the basics instead of learning what they know from urban myth.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:49pm
Jennifer:
Thank you for your researched and well-thought out reply. This is one of those “big-ticket” issues that I have not blogged on, because I don’t feel I’ve done the thorough research on each side to present an unbiased view.
One of the key things pointed out in your reference is a risk-based analysis: Many experts report that bans on routine antibiotic use can result in increased health risks.
One of our other regular readers here sent me a reference about the alarming amount of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella in Irish retail meat
I don’t think that proves the resistance came from feeding. Regardless, this is a caution for RESPONSIBLE use of antimicrobials no matter whether in humans or animals.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:30pm
BigMIke…
I am So Lucky That I found your blog and great articles. I will come to your blog often for finding new great articles from your blog.I am adding your rss feed in my reader Thank you…