How Much DE (Diatomaceous Earth) Should I Feed My Chickens

Hi ConPollos,

Yes, I am well-aware of the oil/sulphur mixture. I keep a 25 litres drum of oil (acquired from a well-known Shire breeder who has a side-line in selling "Shire Oil" for feathered legs) to which I add sulphur as needed. There's also a product called "Pig Oil," which can be bought at most farm shops, to which the sulphur is added. However, I have a couple of Shires that are very sensitive to the sulphur, so I have to use it with care. I know the condition is called "scratches" in the States. It is referred to as "grease" over the  pond. There's another condition called Chronic Progressive Lymphedema (CPL) in feather-legged horses, which should never be confused with scratches or grease. 

Clydesdales, Shires, Belgians, Gypsy Cobs...all of those hairy-legged breeds are susceptible to scratches/grease and CPL.


Thanks so much for all the interesting info. Over here we have a product called Original MTG (mane & tail groom) which is just a mix of oil and sulphur, but is much more expensive than mixing your own. I've never seen the other oils you mentioned for sale.

I have seen people who didn't know about these oils spend a lot of money on veterinarians and prescribed medications, when they probably only needed the oil and sulphur mixture.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you have to feed it to them if you put it in the area that they dust themselves, in their bedding and in their pecking area. they will pick up enough to stay healthy unless they are in poor health, then I would suggest to put it in their feed for a couple of months.
 
Why would you want to give them DE internally?....if to add some minerals that's ok....but if you want to kill internal parasites, it has
been proven useless for this purpose. It will not kill internal parasites by dehydration. If it would, it would also dehydrate the internal organs of the chicken, those doing great damage to the chicken.
 
Why would you want to give them DE internally?....if to add some minerals that's ok....but if you want to kill internal parasites, it has
been proven useless for this purpose. It will not kill internal parasites by dehydration. If it would, it would also dehydrate the internal organs of the chicken, those doing great damage to the chicken.


DE has been proven extremely effective as an internal wormer. It doesn't kill internal parasites by dehydrating them, the microscopic sharp edges kill them somehow. It's very effective as a dog wormer even when I mix lots of water into it and their food. In dogs, it mechanically kills every kind of tapeworm and other dog worms. I'm a witness to that many times over. It doesn't kill internal cocci, or prevent coccidiosis, though. It firms up poop, kills fleas, ticks, and other insects very well. You just have to use the right amounts, in the right way, for the right period of time. Amounts and results of studies are posted on Wolf Creek Ranch website.
 
Last edited:
I've read Wolf Creek Ranch info as well as several major university ag dept detailed studies. I find their statement amusing that DE wont kill earthworms but will kill worms in an animal. I know some swear by it for internal parasite control. I use it too for external insect control, adding useful minerals & keeping down oder. PS: The universities are not trying to promote sells as some studies may be.
 
I've read Wolf Creek Ranch info as well as several major university ag dept detailed studies. I find their statement amusing that DE wont kill earthworms but will kill worms in an animal. I know some swear by it for internal parasite control. I use it too for external insect control, adding useful minerals & keeping down oder. PS: The universities are not trying to promote sells as some studies may be.


I've watched it kill tapeworm a few times. It takes a week or two, but it kills every kind.

I'm not against using chemical wormers, but with daily DE in my dog food I really don't have to.
 
DE has been proven extremely effective as an internal wormer.
This is a study of DE used as a wormer on sheep: http://www.midamericaagresearch.net/documents/Evaluation of diatomaceous earth.pdf

It shows no positive results - there were no statistically significant differences between the control group and the experiemental groups.

Here's another study : http://www.mtsylviadiatomite.com.au...iles/Research/de_natural_dewormer_study_0.pdf

Again, no statistically significant differences between the DE group and the control group.
 
I'm not so sure about either of those test (pdf's posted). First one considers 50% worm load less at the end of the test then the control group...not significant..??
Second test is using 0 to 10 week old lambs with little worm load tests...weight/blood counts only ...lambs with the ewes still...nursing still at that age and not eating much other foods. It's hard to rate DE effective if you don't eat it. Feeding it to the ewes and checking the nursing lambs is misleading by 50 miles..
Seems a bit second rate (leaning sharply towards being commercially backed testing) testing procedures and rating outcomes. Most drug companies do hand springs if they get a 50% result to accomplish something.
 
I'm not so sure about either of those test (pdf's posted). First one considers 50% worm load less at the end of the test then the control group...not significant..??
Second test is using 0 to 10 week old lambs with little worm load tests...weight/blood counts only ...lambs with the ewes still...nursing still at that age and not eating much other foods. It's hard to rate DE effective if you don't eat it. Feeding it to the ewes and checking the nursing lambs is misleading by 50 miles..
Seems a bit second rate (leaning sharply towards being commercially backed testing) testing procedures and rating outcomes. Most drug companies do hand springs if they get a 50% result to accomplish something.
No, most drug companies don't when the error bars are larger than the reading. Read the study, and read the conclusions. Here:

Quote:
That means that the numbers were so 'all over the place' that it was most likely that any difference was random. The fact that there was no difference in weight gain and no difference in blood cell counts further shows that the differences were random.

This is the problem with these sorts of forums - most people don't have enough scientific training to understand what they're reading - but that doesn't stop them from pushing forward and endorsing it.
 
Last edited:

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom