Questions about DE....... - Page 2

chookchick wrote: Again, in landscaping, we are warned extensively at the dangers of inhaling concrete dust when cutting concrete (silicon dioxide again....) and there may even be laws enacted to prevent us from cutting without water and creating dust

Yes, inhalation of crystalline silica is associated with silicosis.  The reason I posted up the link the the actual EPA paper was that it explains why they reached the conclusion that Amorphous DE is not.  It is a good idea not to huff the stuff, but it is not the crystalline culprit.  Depending on the soil type in one's area, a person could get a substantial amount of crystalline silica on a windy day. Anyone with a respiratory condition/compromised immune system/smokers should wear an N-95 rated mask in the coop even if not using DE (dander/poop dust/dust from the wood chips/straw bales, etc. and the potential to contract histoplasmosis).

I use DE daily in my coop during the rainy season here (about 9 months!) because it is the only thing that keeps the humidity at a semi-decent rate.  I have loads of ventilation and dry bedding constantly, but when you get as much rain as we get here and with a higher humidity this year in general, there is nothing to fix the problem, just deal with it, and DE helps a lot.  It also gives my girls a nice dust bath in the rainy months.  I put it a little heavier in some spots in the coop and let them go at it.  I can't say if it really controls mites and other parasites, but it might.  I've never mixed it in their food like others have but it does get in their food when I'm sprinkling it around.  It also keeps the smell down and the flies in the summer, though it does not eliminate them.  I sprinkle it all over my run in the dry months about every week to keep with the odor.  It takes care of that immediately.  I have to say though it is getting harder and harder to come by around here.  It took my feed store a month to get two bags in for me 

Let me preface this by saying I am by no means a believer that DE is a useful worm preventative. (I have no evidence that it *isn't* either, but I would describe myself as "agnostic leaning towards skepticism" )

HOWEVER, that said:

Just because something seems theoretically impossible does not mean it does not happen. There are any number of things that have seemed impossible that turned out to be quite true, just b/c people misunderstood the nature of what was happening when making those 'impossible!' pronouncements. So personally, as a former research scientist, I am more swayed by good data than by theory, although theory is of course nice and can be worth considering when there *is* no good data to go on.

One can imagine at least one mechanism by which feed-through DE could decrease worm load. As far as I can recall from invertebrate biology, many internal parasites (not all) are ingested as inactive, well-protected cysts or eggs, from which the critter "sprouts" once the cyst or egg reaches the intestinal tract. In principle, if DE were to damage the cyst or egg wall such that stomach acids could damage/dissolve the critter inside, that would have the effect of discouraging worm infestation.

Does that happen? Who knows.

I really really wish someone would do a good research-based STUDY of it. I had read somewhere that some poultry science type was wantin' to test some of these old-timey things properly; I don't remember any more than that, but it sure would be excellent to have it HAPPEN.

Pat

Not only do we use DE with our chickens but we consume it daily here, mixing a bit in here and there in our food as well as our dogs food.  My joint problems have gone bye bye after years of pain.

I use DE both in the coop, nesting boxes and run and have absolutely no problems with worms or critters crawling on my girls.  This summer/fall when the flies got really bad due to the enormous amount of rain we had, I put a bunch more than usual on the run floor and poof! the flies were gone!  For a general explanation of DE, check this site out:

http://www.dirtdoctor.com/organic/garden/view_question/id/2263/

And here's the one test specifically for poultry:

http://www.dirtdoctor.com/organic/garden/view_question/id/265/

Howard Garrett is North Texas' organic guru and this is his tonic for human consumption:

http://www.dirtdoctor.com/organic/garden/view_question/id/2435/

If you go to the dirtdoctor.com website and click "Library" then "D", it will pull up more articles on DE. 

I'm very intrigued with the previous post that it helped a fellow BYC'er with chronic joint pain.  I think I'll check that out - my elbows have not been the same since I built my chicken coop and run!

Yeah but it is not a real proper test, it is basically no different than anecdotal "well gee I tried it and it seemed to work for me". Which is not *nuthin* (although neither are counterexamples, where people say "gee I tried it and it didn't seem to do anything", or "I don't use it at all and have never had any problems either")... but anecdote is not particularly believable evidence to draw conclusions from, because there are too many other things that could account for what you observe.

In this case, the biggest problem is that there is no sign (in that terse description) of proper experimental design, with intermixed replicates; also it is not clear that any effort was made to *measure* flies or droppings consistancy, and IMO the death rate data is both meaningless (b/c lack of replication) and quite possibly negligable (because the actual number of deaths was probably low).

A properly-designed research study would answer the question much more convincingly and clearly. I wish someone would DO one. I am just not set up for it here. For one thing, to study whether DE prevents worms, you pretty much need a parasitologist or veterinary pathologist to be able to look at your carcasses after sacrificing them, to see what the wormload IS (fecals are not reliable enough).

Pat

Interesting thread, wish we had more data.  I can say that like others it has definitely taken care of my fly problem. I think it has helped with a lice problem I had once when a sick chicken had a mild infestation.  But can't say for sure if it was her health improving to the point where she took better care of herself or if the DE helped.

I now use stall dry more than DE in my covered run and nesting boxes to help with odor, moisture and flies.  My understanding is that it has DE plus volcanic material, hopefully others will correct me if I'm wrong.  It looks like kitty litter.  I have come to favor using the stall dry over straight DE because it does not generate much of any dust when I put it down, I figure this is better for both me and the chickens.  I supplement this treatment every now and then with some straight DE in hopes that it might boost the control of lice and flies.

I try to use as little DE as possible since much of my chicken poo ends up in my compost bin.  There have been discussions on BYC on whether or not the DE kills the good bugs in compost, especially my good friends the worms.  The jury is out, but most including me have found that a little DE does not seem to adversely affect the worms, but many suspect that direct contact or a lot of DE probably would kill them.

I did that for awhile too.  Works great!

That is exactly why I use Stall Dry. It is mixed with an absorbent clay, like kitty litter.

I also wish someone would do (or dig up) a REAL scientific study on poultry worms and ingested DE. I have read some rather dubious stuff from several sites that just happen to sell DE or DE containing product. Including one that insisted most of us were infested with worms. At least it seems that no harm can come from ingesting the stuff.

patandchickens wrote:  I really really wish someone would do a good research-based STUDY of it. I had read somewhere that some poultry science type was wantin' to test some of these old-timey things properly; I don't remember any more than that, but it sure would be excellent to have it HAPPEN

Both manufacturers and retailers of ADE (particularly those that push its use as an insecticide) focus on the easy to grasp concept of needle like spicules and sharp edges of DE cutting up insects and this results in some confusion.  In the U.S. Pool Grade DE contains 20% crystalline Silicon Dioxide (basically tiny shards of `glass').  This stuff abrades the surfaces of both insects and human lungs.  While those same `jagged' particles keep pool filters from clogging up.

The primary mechanism of ADE is adsorption of lipids from the thin waxy layer that otherwise prevents insect's internal fluids from `leaking' out.  It does not deliver the coup de grace by thrusting slivers of quartz into the body.

Ebeling (who the Univ. of CA at Riverside lauds as the father of urban entomology), whose paper I linked to, was one of the first entomologists to promote sorptive dusts for pest control (easy to run down the Pop. Mech. article, seemed a pretty accessible explanation of ADE mechanism), but the actual `leg work' had been going on for some time before.  I did not link to the paper below as the sorptive dusts investigated did not include ADE (examined a variety of others).

what was found (honeybees were the subjects) was that sorptive dusts exerted their primary effect (adsorption) on both living and dead bees (abrasion requires friction, i.e., if not moving - alive - no abrasion occurs).  Same mechanism that excited Ebeling (use of exclamation marks in a journal article - what a guy).

From: THE  CUTICULAR  WATERPROOFING  MECHANISM OF  THE  WORKER  HONEY-BEE
An excellent and extensive description of action (apiarists might also be interested in the physiology alone):  http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/32/1/95.pdf

1.  Experiments are described which show that the rate of water-loss from living and dead worker bees is increased when a variety of dusts are brought into intimate contact with the surface of the cuticle. The common property of the more  effective dusts  is their  capacity  to act as adsorbents.   Considerable  evidence  has been accumulated  to suggest that the dusts need not abrade the surface  of the cuticle in order  to  effect  an  increased  water-loss  and  that  the  dusts  act by  adsorbing the epicuticular  lipoid.

As ADE (for food/feed - and it is the same - just bought some food/feed grade yesterday, more on that in a moment), contains   <1% crystalline silica and, once in the digestive tract it loses its desiccant property (absorbs ~4 times its wt. in water), it is difficult to know how worming would proceed (am ready to get up to speed - please post links to research - I am old and need novelty!).

Not directly related to `worms' this study on dietary DE on broiler performance doesn't reveal any exemplary `additive' value. Indeed, the research (searching for probiotics/mineral compounds to replace antibiotic growth promoters) indicated that ADE appears to decrease digestibility of `food' :  http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/ijps/2008/862-871.pdf

Does this mean ADE is worthless againt internal `bugs'?  No, but what is available relates to its use a mechanical adjunct in litter (most of us who use are familiar with this), or is being `ground' into nano-particles (lipophilic mechanism again on a much smaller scale and by a different mechanism ). 

[69    Efficacy of acidic calcium sulfate + (clay or diatomaceous earth) litter formulations against Salmonella in broilers.  E. L. Larrison* 1 , M. A. Davis 1 , J. A. Byrd 2 , J. B. Carey 1 , and D. J. Caldwell 1 , 1 Texas  A&M  University,  College  Station,  2 USDA/SPARC,  College Station, TX. : http://www.poultryscience.org/psa08/abstracts/021.pdf

Research has shown that Salmonella can be prevalent in poultry litter, which can be a source of contamination for newly arrived chicks at the poultry house. Since this organism is a pathogen of concern to the poultry industry, 2 types of litter amendments were created and tested to determine effects on broiler growth, litter moisture and efficacy against Salmonella colonization. Litter amendments consisted of the combination of Acidic Calcium Sulfate (ACS) with either diatomaceous earth (DE) or hydrated sodium calcium aluminiosilicate (HSCAS). Litter samples were taken weekly from 5 areas in each pen and combined for determination of Salmonella counts. At 3 and 6 weeks postplacement, 6 birds from each pen were euthanized by CO 2  asphyxiation. The crop and ceca from these birds were tested for counts and/or presence/absence of Salmonella. Application of both litter amendments positively affected feed conversion and at 3 weeks postplacement the DE+ACS treatment did not have any birds positive for Salmonella. Efficacy of the litter amendments were varied in other treatments and further research is planned to fully determine efficacy on Salmonella and Campylobacter jejuni colonization.

Control of poultry chicken malaria by surface functionalized amorphous nanosilica : http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.2446.pdf

We therefore looked for a drug source or lead molecule which has already been used by the poultry industry as feed for a long time and is also considered inert in nature. Naturally occurring amorphous silica is used by poultry industries for a long time and is considered to be safe for human consumption by different regulatory agencies worldwide. But  the  major  problem  with  amorphous  silica  is  its  hygroscopic  nature;  this  does  not allow  it  to  absorb  other  substances  once  it  absorbs  water.  In  order  to  circumvent  this problem, we decided to first increase the surface area by breaking them to the nano-meter range  and  then  modify  the  surface  properties  described elsewhere  in  detail 17-19...

...As a result,  the  nanosilica  became  hydrophobic  as  well  as  lipophilic  in  nature.  These nanosilica possess nanopores and due to their lipophilic nature they could absorb lipids non-specifically via physio-sorption. These particles have been used in the present set of experiments as drugs to mop up the excess amount of the host serum cholesterol lipids which  is  used  by  the  malarial  parasite  mainly  for  their  intra-erythrocytic  growth.  The results show clearly that these nanosilicas at the doses mentioned earlier in the text could be used as excellent therapeutic agent against chicken malaria and will be a very valuable tool for the broiler industry worldwide.

FYI:  Another couple ruminant study results: (FEC fecal egg count):  http://www.mtsylviadiatomite.com.au/mod/files/research/DE_Natural_Dewormer_Study.pdf (quoted).
       (Not quoted, but even less encouraging:  http://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/200019.shtml ).
     

The physical performance results from study 1 are summarised in Table 1 below.  In the cattle study (Study 1) there were no significant differences between treatment groups in terms of liveweight gain.  There were significant differences in FEC (see Figure 1) however, with cattle in the control group (untreated) having significantly higher (P<0.05) FEC (404 epg) at week 7 compared to cattle in the drench group (137 epg).  Cattle in the diatomaceous earth group had lower FEC (172 epg) in week 7 than cattle in the control group but this just missed significance.

Food Grade/Feed grade/insecticide grade ADE.  FDA/EPA make no distinction, except in the labeling, (I supposed there was a CFR that I was too stupid to find but in this instance I got lucky) in that all contain <1% crystalline silica.  Yesterday, I bought a 50lb. bag of `feed' grade ADE, manufactured for Canton Mills in MN., by the Celite Corp., for $24.95.
On the shelf was a 2lb. bag of Natural Guard ADE for insects $8.95. I compared the product info.. Someone is making a killing. 
Always read the labels, some ADE is mixed with pyrethrins and that will be listed.

Fly suppression examination at home?  Two wide mouthed Ball jars of the same size.  Stir up a cecal poop from a single hen, apply an equal amount of poop in the bottoms of the bottles (smear with a paint brush).  Blow a bit of DE from the palm of your hand over the open mouth of one of the bottles, place the bottles one foot apart in the area where the most flies are normally observed, at the time of day when the most flies show up. Count how many flies enter each bottle, how many land on each poop, and how long they remain on the poop if they do land.  That is an extremely informal initial step.  Have fun!

Hypotheses non fingo, ya'll

Ed: formatting/sp