Inoculating is perhaps not the right term. It is more selecting for the resistant organisms, but culling the ones that are not.

Again, the issue from the antibiotics given to livestock is not serious a consideration as the ones given to people, from the standpoint of resistant organisms in the human population.

Tadd, can you compare the data on meat raised the old fashioned way, and its price today if raised the same way today?

If there wasn't a cost benefit why would it be in place as a large scale practice?

This is my rationalization, not research based.

Tervuren:
I think there was an observed, but not stastically correlated response. When combined with what Tobra pointed out about improved mortality in tight packed conditions, the process became de rigor.

As to your question, consumer reports seems to say that antibiotic free meat doesn't need to cost more.

Link: http://consumersunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CR_Meat_On_Drugs_Report_06-12.pdf

Quote:
"Whole Foods, offers nothing but meat and
poultry raised without antibiotics in its meat
department. Most other major chains offer
some such products. And the prices are not
prohibitive—a number of supermarkets are
offering chicken without antibiotics at $1.29 a
pound, for example, a price that is competitive
with all chicken prices nationally. Other studies
suggest that pork raised without antibiotics
should cost less than 5 cents a pound extra."

You meant Polio perhaps?? . It was a terrifying disease until the Salk vaccine developed in the 1950's.

think it over, gather your thoughts, and when you work out the details and have a good grasp, give it a shot!

if you don't want to hear something you don't like then just say so. I was more than ready to bow out and let you have your theoretical circle fun.

But don't climb up on your pedestal and patronize me.

That is not the way I understand it. There are genetically determined levels of resistance within a strain. A strain that may have a 20% survival rate to an antibiotic can eventually have much higher survival rate, as the susceptible individuals are killed off and those genetically predisposed to survive reproduce. In the absence of the antibiotic the population would continue with a 20% rate. So no, we are not just putting of a problem, we are creating it.

Think of it like a card game.

If you never play the card, you never get the benefit.

If you don't use anti-biotics, it is the same result as everything being 100% resistant.

If you play the card, you've gotten the benefit of the card, but can't play it again.

From the perspective of a drag race, it is perhaps better to play the card, and give us the benefit now(more velocity and momentum).

However, if we aren't seeing much benefit from playing the card, it would be better not to be playing it yet.

From the standpoint of the producer it's a matter of profit, not price. Farm practices have changed. 50 years ago a farmer raised a little dairy, a few hogs, a few steers, some poultry, and grain. If a bacterial infection wiped out his hogs it was a problem, not a disaster. Now a farmer's whole operation may be a feedlot with 1000 feeder pigs at a time. A bacterial infection can put him out of business. Drugs and chemicals are insurance against disaster.

I am not patronizing you Sam, I am insulting you.

Again, antibiotics given to livestock are not as big an issue as the ones given to humans.