Dumb question about DE

[SmokinChick]

My original question was whether or not it produced more harm than good. .

How about if it just isn't worth the effort? If the rewards are so minimal, why bother? For a little more egg yolk and white, minor decrease in parasites? Not worth the expense or effort.
Fun read though.​

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

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 look up those worms, they are either rare in chickens, or not "worms" at all.

•However, BB hens treated with dietary DE had significantly lower Capillaria FEC, slightly lower Eimeria FEC, fewer birds infected with Heterakis, and significantly lower Heterakis worm burden than control BB hens.

Eimeria is a single celled organism that doesn't lay eggs at all, yet they claimed a "slightly lower Fecal Egg Count"
You'd think a "scientist" would have noticed that.

http://www.recentmedicalfindings.com/g0n3/parasite-egg-count-5.html

The fact that they DID eat more would account for the extra production and quality of the eggs, even if they hadn't had the DE

The "better wieght gain was in the birds that ATE MORE.
There is no evidence the DE caused that.

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

That's because there aren't any more that claim any proof of benefits from feeding DE

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".

Not at all.
It's like saying there's no need to keep testing for results that you know you won't find.
DE is INERT, and has no effect when wet.

It doesn't take many studies to realize that more are pointless
It ONLY has a "food grade"rating because it's used to kill insects in grain meant for human consumption

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 chickens were allowed to free range, so they have little idea what they were eating besides what they were given.

It is also misleading to suggest that the test only showed benefits to one breed -- they only used two breeds in the study

It's not misleading at all, since it only affected ONE breed
It's what they stated in the report:

•Supplementing DE in diets of LB hens, the more parasite-resistant breed, did not significantly affect their FEC and adult parasite load.

The fact that it was "published" in a magazine doesn't make it credible

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.

There aren't a lot of studies published since it's been known for a LONG time that an INERT substance that kills by dehydration isn't going to work on internal parasites.

Even the people selling, as you noted, all use this ONE study, and it only showed "slight" improvment in half the birds.

ONE study is not "conclusive" proof of anything​

 

[Me & Jack]

If you look up those worms, they are either rare in chickens, or not "worms" at all

Who said anything about worms? They're parasites -- as I referred to them -- no?

It's like saying there's no need to keep testing for results that you know you won't find.

I wonder what all of those other scientists thought when Pasteur first reported the findings of his study on the theory of spontaneous germination -- some must have thought he was a crackpot to even suggest that "invisible" organisms were the cause of infection, mold, etc. Many, in fact, discounted him and his studies because they did not believe such "micro"-organisms could actually exist. Why test a theory when you've already decided there's nothing to it?

If DE is a useless substance when taken internally, how do you account for these findings from the Institute of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry of the University of Innsbruck in Austria? More bad science? Maybe. Maybe there's something to it?

"Diatomaceous earth, a bioproduct, is capable of reducing blood cholesterol and positively influencing lipid metabolism in humans." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9533930

You may be missing my biggest point of all: I agree with you (mostly). DE seems to be the "soy miracle cure" of today. I don't for one minute think it is as effective (if effective at all) as most chemical agents designed to eliminate intestinal parasites, but I think to make sweeping comments about its uselessness may be premature. Just because science doesn't support it doesn't mean it isn't true: Galileo could tell you that. So could DaVinci, and Rudolph Virchow, who is reported to have told a junior colleague that anything not visible in his rudimentary microscope was not worth seeing. Think of what we can "see" now -- viruses, electrons, DNA, nanoparticles. Bet it would blow any 18th century scientist's mind. Maybe DE will turn out to be a bust, but I'm not willing to argue the point simply because no one has dis-proven it.

You're right: the UBC study published in the Poultry Science Journal -- a peer-reviewed journal -- lacks follow up and consistent reproduction of results: not because they can't be reproduced, perhaps, but because nobody has bothered to try. Ever wonder why not? Is it really as simple as Virchow would make it sound? Are the results not worth viewing under a proverbial microscope?

Anyhow, you can have the last word. Don't feel like going on ad nauseum any more.​

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

If DE is a useless substance when taken internally, how do you account for these findings from the Institute of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry of the University of Innsbruck in Austria? More bad science? Maybe. Maybe there's something to it?

"Diatomaceous earth, a bioproduct, is capable of reducing blood cholesterol and positively influencing lipid metabolism in humans." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9533930

Again ONE STUDY isn't "proof" of anything at all, although I can see how eating 750 MG of DIRT every day could reduce your nutrient intake

It wasn't even a CONTROLLED study, and they noted themselves:

Placebo-controlled studies will be necessary to confirm our findings.

Why test a theory when you've already decided there's nothing to it?

How many tests does it take?
DE has been used for well over 100 years, and it's STILL a totally inert substance that passes through the body unchanged.
All the tests in the world won't change that​