Conventional vs Holistic

I am perplexed when I contemplate how to reconcile conventional allopathic veterinary medicine and livestock management with alternative or holistic veterinary medicine and livestock management.  There are many aspects to this problem and I would like to comment on a couple of basic concepts that might foster a more agreeable discourse not offensive to either side.

First of all, I believe that, if properly done, holistic or alternative management manages the health of animals in a "proactive" way to avoid common problems by attention to basic nutrition and immune support as the primary goal.   On the other hand, allopathic medicine kicks in when the animals show symptoms of illness or production decline. This is not necessarily a bad thing but ‘it is what it is’ - a “reactive" procedure to remedy a situation brought about by a breakdown in management. I am sure there is middle ground somewhere between the two sides. 

Another factor to be considered is the ultimate purpose of the animals being treated.  For example, some allopathic drugs might be totally acceptable to administer to a gelding and totally unacceptable for use in a breeding age mare destined to hopefully produce a health foal.   The same precept comes into play when we consider what is appropriate treatment for food producing animals as opposed to companion animals.  

The same concept applies to crop farming and poses the question - is the harvested grain destined for conversion to gasohol or synthetic plastics or is to slated to be eaten by us and our children or fed to food producing animals. It is my personal opinion that too many farmers strive for quantity instead of quality and overlook or ignore the fact that they are producing food for people to eat.

What do you think!