1. Hardy, Brian. “The Issue of Antibiotic Use In The Livestock Industry: What Have We Learned.” Animal Biotechnology, vol. 13, 1 May 2002, pp. 129–147. EBSCOHost, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=965d515f-b395-4ea8-9312-6fdd149959c4%40sessionmgr103.
SUMMARIZE: The scholarly journal discuss the different aspects of antibiotic use. The first idea that is covered is antibiotic use to improve growth in livestock. The author tells that this use of antibiotics has been around for many years and there are several countries that have banned this form of use. The next topic discussed is bacterial resistance that could arise from meats. This piece describe more of a scientific view on how bacteria can develop a resistance. There …show more content…
The peer- reviewed paper appears to be some bias in the quotes provided throughout the article. This article is helpful in finding a middle ground for antibiotics. This article is different than my other sources in the fact that is arguing against antibiotic use in livestock. The goal of this source is to urge the United States to implement similar antibiotic laws as Denmark. (72 words)
RESPONSE:
In this case, I disagree with the author. There are claims made without statical evidence. The author claims that there was no affect on the production of livestock after the ban of specific antibiotics. There is a statistic but the results could be caused by other factors. A women by the name of Gail Hansen claims that using antibiotics for preventative never works. I disagree because there are many illness that can be prevented with the use of antibiotics. This article could be convincing to people that are uninformed on the topic. (92 words)
STATEMENT OF …show more content…
The author of this piece is just a news writer, but he quotes ranchers, provides information about a study conducted by Dr. Scott Hurd. a professor at Iowa State University. This source is most definitely useful to different topics of my paper. It differs from my other sources because it covers both side of the argument. It is not bias because it presents valid points for each side. The goal of this source is to acknowledge valid points for pro antibiotics and against antibiotics. (90 words)
RESPONSE:
I do agree with the author that there are valid points for each argument. For example, people are dying due to resistant bacteria but there is no solid evidence tracing the issue directly back to meats. The parts that I have found helpful were the pros and cons. These ideas really clear up the opposing argument for me. I do find this article convincing because of the fact that it supports what I know about ranchers. Ranchers are not trying to killed people they just want their animals and consumers to be happy. (93 words)
STATEMENT OF
SUMMARIZE: The scholarly journal discuss the different aspects of antibiotic use. The first idea that is covered is antibiotic use to improve growth in livestock. The author tells that this use of antibiotics has been around for many years and there are several countries that have banned this form of use. The next topic discussed is bacterial resistance that could arise from meats. This piece describe more of a scientific view on how bacteria can develop a resistance. There …show more content…
The peer- reviewed paper appears to be some bias in the quotes provided throughout the article. This article is helpful in finding a middle ground for antibiotics. This article is different than my other sources in the fact that is arguing against antibiotic use in livestock. The goal of this source is to urge the United States to implement similar antibiotic laws as Denmark. (72 words)
RESPONSE:
In this case, I disagree with the author. There are claims made without statical evidence. The author claims that there was no affect on the production of livestock after the ban of specific antibiotics. There is a statistic but the results could be caused by other factors. A women by the name of Gail Hansen claims that using antibiotics for preventative never works. I disagree because there are many illness that can be prevented with the use of antibiotics. This article could be convincing to people that are uninformed on the topic. (92 words)
STATEMENT OF …show more content…
The author of this piece is just a news writer, but he quotes ranchers, provides information about a study conducted by Dr. Scott Hurd. a professor at Iowa State University. This source is most definitely useful to different topics of my paper. It differs from my other sources because it covers both side of the argument. It is not bias because it presents valid points for each side. The goal of this source is to acknowledge valid points for pro antibiotics and against antibiotics. (90 words)
RESPONSE:
I do agree with the author that there are valid points for each argument. For example, people are dying due to resistant bacteria but there is no solid evidence tracing the issue directly back to meats. The parts that I have found helpful were the pros and cons. These ideas really clear up the opposing argument for me. I do find this article convincing because of the fact that it supports what I know about ranchers. Ranchers are not trying to killed people they just want their animals and consumers to be happy. (93 words)
STATEMENT OF