Dumb question about DE

[Chris09]

ICallMyselfCherie',

There is a lot of stuff that we use everyday that contains sodium carbonate,
Some bleaches, soaps and detergents, automatic dishwashing soaps etc. will contain sodium carbonate its even used in the water treatment industry.

Just because pool grade diatomaceous earth contains sodium carbonate does not mean that it is toxic, it would be the amount of sodium carbonate that is in the product.

(Note the sodium carbonate in pool grade diatomaceous earth is used as a fluxing /cleaning agent when the diatomaceous earth is heat treated)

Chris

 

[ICallMyselfCherie']

Yes, Chris, I know. The point was that pool grade DE is chemically treated. But because an argument could be made that "everything" is a chemical, air, water, etc., I pointed out the hazards of the substance -- it is not intrinsically harmless.

The reason pool grade DE is actually hazardous, or toxic, depending on your definition of the word, is because it is carcinogenic due to chemical change from being flux-calcinated.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

The reason pool grade DE is actually hazardous, or toxic, depending on your definition of the word, is because it is carcinogenic due to chemical change from being flux-calcinated.

There is no chemical change in the silica.
There is a change in the SHAPE of the crystals

All of this is immaterial because we weren't talking about "DE itself", we were talking about the dangers of pool grade DE.

It's all STILL DE.
Only the crystalline structure has changed

These sites that I listed were pet health sites. Where were they trying to sell me something?
http://petsmedicalandhealth.wordpress.c … s-control/
http://www.catfleaprotection.com/diatomaceous-earth.html

They merely repeated (word for word) the claims from the other sites.

Diatomite produced for pool filters is treated with high heat (calcining) and a fluxing agent (soda ash), causing the formerly amorphous silicon dioxide to assume its crystalline form

The Sodium Carbonate is used to remove impurities and help the crystals form at a lower temperature.
It rinses out with water, leaving pure Silica

In metallurgy, a flux (derived from Latin fluxus meaning “flow”), is a chemical cleaning agent, flowing agent, or purifying agent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_(metallurgy)

Ah, thank you for saving me the trouble of searching out a reference! Diatomite produced for pool filters is treated with soda ash, or sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), which is a chemical. Ergo, Diatomite produced for pool filters, or pool grade diatomaceous earth, is chemically treated.

Sodium Carbonate is not considered a "toxin" but rather an "irritant"
The MSDS sheet you referred to (Section 11) stated a "toxic" dose for a 200 lb man would be to eat over 2 ounces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate

It's even added to some foods:

Sodium carbonate is a food additive (E500) used as an acidity regulator, anti-caking agent, raising agent, and stabilizer

Sodium carbonate is also used in the production of sherbet powder. The cooling and fizzing sensation results from the endothermic reaction between sodium carbonate and a weak acid, commonly citric acid, releasing carbon dioxide gas, which occurs when the sherbet is moistened by saliva.

It is used widely in China, commonly sold as a edible alkali or food-grade alkali powder (salt) in most Chinese supermarkets. Added to water, it is used to replace lye-water in the crust of traditional Cantonese moon cakes, and in many other Chinese steamed buns and noodles.

Although "carcinogenic" is not synonymous with "toxic", what does "toxic" mean to you?

"Toxic" means "poison"
DE is not "toxic" and neither is Sodium Carbonate
They are both irritants, as stated in Section 3 of the MSDS you posted
DE is only considered a "carcinogen" when inhaled:

http://www.filtrexnj.com/docs/pdf/precoat_media_fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxic

Definition of TOXIC
1: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation

And if you want to prove somebody wrong, you have to address their actual argument.

This has nothing to do with "proving you wrong"
It's about presenting accurate facts, using the proper terms, and understanding what they mean

DE is one of the most over hyped, misunderstood products around, and at least 3 times a week, someone asks about it​

 

[galanie]

Quote:
On that, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly.

 

[SmokinChick]

Uranium and lead are organic with no chemicals added to them.
Can I give them to my chickens?
Thanks, just looking for alternative solutions for their health.

 

[Me & Jack]

This whole DE discussion got me wondering if DE really is worth giving to/using with chickens. I found two decent scientific study abstracts (not retailer websites):

Internal parasite loads and overall health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21673156 (this abstract can also be found on the Poultry Sciences website)

External parasites:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19229641

Still, when I try to research DE data and studies (don't have access to peer-reviewed journals), the overwhelming majority of websites/articles are simply regurgitating facts from these studies or the generic information that's out there. What I still don't know is if the inhalation risk of pool or food grade DE to me or my chickens outweighs the benefits of providing DE in the diet or externally as a dusting agent. Anyone know of any additional scientific, peer-reviewed studies?

 

[WoodlandWoman]

I've only used DE to treat northern fowl mites, not the mites in that study. It was effective when I used it. We only had a problem because a broody wasn't dust bathing. Dust bathing is how my chickens normally control the northern fowl mites. I make sure they have at least one covered dust bath that stays dry. They have multiple dust baths that have fine and fluffy components in them, to smother and dry out mites.

I can't really comment on that study, since they didn't give any details. Whatever you use, natural or chemical, toxin or physical treatment, it has to be used at a particular rate or with a particular method to be most effective.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

What I still don't know is if the inhalation risk of pool or food grade DE to me or my chickens outweighs the benefits of providing DE in the diet or externally as a dusting agent

There's never been any CONCLUSIVE evidence that shows any benefit to FEEDING DE to anything.

It's a mechanical insecticide, and it absorbs moisture.

The "study" you linked to is used often to "prove" a benefit, but if you read it carefully you'll see it wasn't all that scientific, and only showed a slight improvement in one breed of birds.

Their conclusion was more like a "maybe"

The results of this study indicate the DE has the potential to be an effective treatment to help control parasites and improve production of organically raised, free-range layer hens.

The main reason you don't see a LOT of studies is most scientists already know an inert substance has little effect on internal parasites It does an OK job on some EXTERNAL parasites and other insect pests​

 

[ICallMyselfCherie']

Quote:
There's never been any CONCLUSIVE evidence that shows any benefit to FEEDING DE to anything.

It's a mechanical insecticide, and it absorbs moisture.

The "study" you linked to is used often to "prove" a benefit, but if you read it carefully you'll see it wasn't all that scientific, and only showed a slight improvement in one breed of birds.

Their conclusion was more like a "maybe"

The results of this study indicate the DE has the potential to be an effective treatment to help control parasites and improve production of organically raised, free-range layer hens.

The main reason you don't see a LOT of studies is most scientists already know an inert substance has little effect on internal parasites It does an OK job on some EXTERNAL parasites and other insect pests​

Yeah, and I actually don't think it really works, even on external parasites. Just from personal experience and those of several other people I know, it doesn't same to be very effective. Perhaps if treated continuously for three weeks, as it says in some sources it could take care of external parasites to an adequate degree, but is not the "cure all" that it's said to be.

 

[Me & Jack]

There's never been any CONCLUSIVE evidence that shows any benefit to FEEDING DE to anything.

Um, according to the source I listed, the "benefits" were reduced parasite loads for Capillaria FEC, Eimeria, and Heterakis, as well as better weight gain, greater numbers of eggs laid, larger eggs, more albumen and yolk in the eggs, and reduced numbers of northern fowl mites. As far as this particular study is concerned, there is, indeed, "conclusive" evidence -- as per their conclusions.

if you read it carefully you'll see it wasn't all that scientific, and only showed a slight improvement in one breed of birds.

Um, again, I'm not sure what constitutes "scientific" for you, but a university-led study conducted by the avian sciences department is scientific enough for me. The study included fecal egg counts and postmortem examination, both of which provided science-based, as opposed to anecdotal, conclusions. Maybe you were just being particular about the kind of "science" you expect, but when the article was published in Poultry Sciences it kind of lent more credibility to the study as a one based on scientific fact. It is also misleading to suggest that the test only showed benefits to one breed -- they only used two breeds in the study. More tests on many more breeds is definitely in order. What I will agree with is the fact that just about every retailer and "natural/alternative" website that I saw used that one and only study as the basis for its claims. Also, I noted in my original post that few if any other studies seem to exist to prove or disprove the results of this particular study. Which brings me to your last statement:

The main reason you don't see a LOT of studies is most scientists already know an inert substance has little effect on internal parasites

Are you kidding me? That's like saying, The reason surgeons didn't wash their hands was because most scientists didn't think there was any such things as "germs". (We can all thank Louis Pasteur for his theories and subsequent discoveries, but just because no one else had proven it didn't mean it wasn't true.) Thus, while other scientists may not have attempted to reproduce the results of this particular study, either on the same breeds of chicken or other breeds, doesn't necessarily disprove the results of the first test. That is one reason I asked if anyone knew of any other studies.

For what it's worth, I think DE is overrated. I've used it in the garden and on my birds without any obvious benefit. I'll take a research-backed pharmaceutical or "chemical" any day over DE. I just don't think it's helpful to claim that it's worthless if there is even some evidence to suggest it may have benefits - whether they're external or internal. My original question was whether or not it produced more harm than good. You can't negate the study that exists just because you personally disagree with the results. Show me a published, peer-reviewed study that shows DE is ineffective as an internal supplement or external remedy in any or all breeds of chicken and I'll be happy to stand behind your words.​