by Christine Georgakakos & Betsy Hicks
A strong ‘us versus them’ paradigm exists between large and small farms and organic and conventional farms in central New York over the topics of antibiotic usage and non-antibiotic treatments. We discussed these practices with farmers across classifications to understand antibiotic residue contamination pathways into the environment. And, in an effort to lower barriers and increase awareness across farm sizes and management practices, we share here some perspectives that align as well as differ across categories so as to widen each side’s understanding of the other perspective.
Perceptions of the ‘other’ type of farm
Farmers talked about gathering information, through means of widespread data collection and individual animal observation, in relation to antibiotic usage decisions and perceptions of how other types of farms make the same decisions. One small conventional farmer highlighted their emphasis on qualitative data collection reflecting, “when you have a smaller farm, you are able to make [treatment] decisions like this a little easier … you put your hand on just about every animal every day … you can catch things a little easier than if you’re running around a 1000 head free-stall.” However, a large farmer highlighted their usage of widespread automated data collection to work around their lack of contact with each cow on a daily basis. One large conventional farmer stated “a lot of farms don’t do this, the way that we do it, but we take blood from the cows [to test]. Sometimes with the fresh cows usually up to 65 days, I look at their milk rates, I go out and look at them. If even one milking is off, I will go test them.” Both of these data collection methods (qualitative observation versus quantitative automation) are valid in helping assess the current health status of a herd. However, preference for one over the other may be more feasible (economically or logistically) on some farms.
Management practice was also extremely polarizing in assessing other types of farms in our study. The perception that organic cows were continuously sick was common amongst conventional farmers. One farmer stated “I wouldn’t want to be an organic cow … I’ll go into an organic herd and 80% will be three- quartered, like they’ve had mastitis and lost a quarter.” While another farmer that managed both organic and conventional dairies stated “sometimes it will make me cringe that … I wasn’t able to treat that cow. But she gets through it. But I think she would have gotten through it better … with some sort of treatment”. However, one organic farmer who had transitioned from conventional farming stated “we just don’t have the issues that we used to … I think that relates back to that we don’t push the cows for production so they’re less stressed.” Meanwhile, organic farmers perceived that conventional farms “have an antibiotic, so why bother doing anything else? That’s the magic silver bullet, so they don’t … necessarily do all the other things that you could do to help supplement, because they’re like, ‘Well, they’re on an antibiotic. What more do they need?’ When I feel like it’s all the other things that we do, that almost you don’t need the antibiotic if you’re doing those other things.” Many organic farmers emphasized the importance of preventative actions, just as many conventional farmers mentioned the importance of cow comfort in maintaining good herd health.
Despite these polarizing views specific to farm size and management practice, there are several perceptions that are consistent across these categories. All farmers emphasized the importance of minimizing antibiotic usage, and many reflected upon the industry-wide shift to using antibiotics more judiciously. The idea of using antibiotics as a last resort to save a cow was present on both conventional and organic farms. An organic farmer stated, “if it’s going to save her life, we’ve exhausted organic methods, by all means, we use antibiotics … then she’s got to leave the herd.” A conventional farmer explained encouraging cows to cure mastitis on their own by applying, “udder mint or something to see if the cow can … fight it herself. But certainly if the cow’s health … is at risk then we’ll definitely utilize antibiotic use.” Reasons for minimizing antibiotic use varied across farm management practice, with one organic farmer stating “well, now there is an argument whether organics is good or bad, right? Whether chemicals are good or bad, whether spray is good or bad, whether antibiotics are or are not in our soil or in our food or not, right? We agree that there’s a problem? Well there isn’t on my farm because I don’t use it … I’m convinced I’m better off without it”, highlighting the ideology of reducing environmental contaminants shared by several organic farmers. A conventional farmer explained “we firmly believe that there are too many [antibiotics] being used. And, so we’ve implemented a lot of changes with that. We use antibiotics as a last resort.”
Alternative to antibiotics
Support of herbal treatments was another area strongly polarized between management practices. Organic farmers tended to more positively embrace herbal treatments, though they emphasized the importance of disease prevention over treatments. One organic farmer noted, “I make my own garlic tincture. That’s probably our biggest antibiotic. And echinacea tincture I make too. I buy … licorice root, barberry, astragalus.” Conversely, most conventional farmers were more likely respond to herbal therapies, “we have [used them] in the past. I had very limited results with it … I’m still undecided. We’ve tried it on and off at times. We do use a lot of the udder creams. Try to help circulation and stuff like that on a mastitis cow. That’s about as far as we can go now. I have tried some other herbal stuff. I didn’t think it worked.” Use of udder creams was the most referenced herbal therapy by conventional farmers, while organic farmers referenced a wider range of treatments. Some conventional farmers also referenced using non-antibiotic treatments, such as topical creams and garlic tinctures, to avoid antibiotic meat withhold times in the case of sick cows that were to be culled from their herd. Two organic farmers also referenced the importance of acknowledging the active ingredients in herbal treatments that provide antibiotic effects.
Discussed as an alternative to treatment and widespread across management style, culling animals for medical reasons was central to reducing antibiotic usage on farms. Hard culling practices were cited as one of the most common actions to reduce antibiotic usage. One large farm explained their culling practices stemming from “always have[ing] a lot of heifers coming in … most of the time we can actually [make a] cull decision based on the cow’s past history.” Similarly, a medium-small farmer noted ““I hate dealing with down and dying animals. I prefer to cull them from the herd before they get to that point.” A divergence from this mentality of harder culling practices was observed on a farm with an emphasis on breeding genetics. One farmer reflected upon a prized cow, “that cow’s gone … at a big farm. But we’re going to give her a shot, because yeah, she’s my screen saver [on my computer], so it’s kind of hard to kill the cow that’s your screen.”
Small decisions with a global impact
Though there are significant differences between large and small, organic and conventional farms, there are also strong themes that unify farms across categories. The industry-wide goal of dropping antibiotic usage below current rates will reduce the risk of spreading antimicrobial resistance. Understanding commonalities, bridging differences, and sharing techniques to reduce disease prevalence on farms will benefit the dairy industry, the environment, and human health.