It was just another quiet day in cyberspace. Then some (presumably) urban adolescent posted a message in an agriculture forum. The message title was “stupid farmers.”
Needless to say, that message quickly drew a lot of mouse clicks. As it turned out, the writer was outraged at the thought of animals getting antibiotics:
“As we live in a world where bacterial strains are becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics, it is frightening to think that the days of world-wide epidemics may once again be upon us. The really stupid part of this is that the main cause is stupid farmers feeding massive doses of uncontrolled antibiotics to their animals for the sole reason of increased production.”
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
It was one more example of the fear, misinformation and suspicion felt by some consumers about their food supply. This time, the topic was antibiotics. Another day it might be genetic engineering or herbicides or any of dozens of other categories.
It was notable, however, that the provocative and insulting message did not prompt the volley of vituperative replies one might have expected.
First to respond was a Quebec dairy farmer: “I respect the fact that anyone is entitled to voice his concerns about the food they eat. I just wish yours were based on more facts.”
The dairy farmer patiently described how he uses antibiotics in moderate amounts, not to increase production but – with the approval of a veterinarian – to treat diseases like mastitis and sometimes foot infections.
“Canadian dairy processors, at least those here in Quebec, have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for any milk delivered with even the slightest trace of antibiotics. Perhaps you and many others don’t know that each shipment of milk is tested before it is unloaded at a dairy or cheese processing plant. And, if antibiotics are detected, the source is traced back to the farm from which it came. The huge tanker trucks that come to pick up milk at individual farms must collect a sample for later testing if the load is condemned. And not only is the farmer’s milk refused, but he must also pay for the entire load that must be dumped down the drain.
“With up to 25 farms visited on a pickup run, the bill could amount to $20,000 for an error in allowing treated milk into the bulk tank. Hardly an incentive to be ‘greedy,’ wouldn’t you say?”
Other farmers reinforced those points, with equal patience and politeness. Non-farmers reading the exchange gained real grassroots-level insight into agriculture. In many ways, it was a model of what the entire industry should be doing.
