- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
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.
cross-posted on downtoearthblog.com
