I've seen claims DE is bad here on this forum, yet nobody seems to provide any specifics or experiences as to why it's so bad other than opinion. On the contrary I can find many posts, chicken guides, even scientific articles supporting the use and benefits of DE around chickens (for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119420300)
This references skin irritation and risks to the respiratory system due to particle inhalation but doesn't focus on that. It may be helpful for how to most effectively use DE and how it compare to some other options. Link to the published study
An outbreak of 75 deaths with no clinical signs of illness in a layer flock was determined to be caused by poor ventilation and chicken-house dust produced by scattering the diatomaceous earth were inducing factors. Link to the published report
"...One drawback: diatomaceous earth is very harmful if inhaled (by bird or human) and may pose a threat to your flock’s respiratory health. Research is still divided as to the efficacy of this product for parasite control...."
Link to source - University of New Hampshire
I haven't yet found what evidence they use as the basis of their claims. Partly, maybe, because I'm not willing to pay for access to full text versions. These three allowed free access.
Edit (several hours later) to add...
This study compared crystalline free silica (cristobalite), amorphous free silica (diatomaceous earth), and amorphous silicate (volcanic glass) in hamster lungs. It found "...Total silica content per lung increased linearly throughout at least 21 months in each experiment...although atmospheric dust concentrations were roughly comparable for the three preparations, the total amount of silica accumulated varied inversely with the degree of tissue damage occurring. Thus, the maximum total content of the crystalline silica reached only 68 mg per lung, while that of the amorphous silica and silicate was 120 mg and 465 mg, respectively..."
Link to the abstract
This says "Human epidemiologic studies have found that silicosis may develop or progress even after occupational exposure has ended, suggesting that there is a threshold lung burden above which silica-induced pulmonary disease progresses without further exposure...." This study in rats supports this suggestion. It also found some indications that the damage done is not limited to the lungs. They used crystalline free silica (DE heated to 1,000F), not amorphous free silica (DE); other studies indicate this will change the amounts needed for the different immune system responses but not the types of effects if the different amounts are given.
Link to abstract
Last edited: