How Much DE/Food Ratio?

[CarolynF]

Hi,
I asked this same question a few weeks ago. Like always it started a heated discussion. You can find the thread here

There was no single, right answer. People seem to be all for it or all against it (like Bear Foot Farm). There's information on goats, cattle, and other animals, but it's hard to sort out the hearsay and opinion from fact -- on BOTH SIDES of the argument. I've found only 2 controlled studies where chickens were fed DE they are:
http://www.dirtdoctor.com/Diatomaceous-Earth-with-Poultry_vq265.htm
and
http://www.poultryscience.org/psa09/abstracts.pdf

In both cases they fed 2% DE by weight, but there was no explanation of why 2% was chosen.

Neither of these studies stated or claimed that DE treats internal worms or parasites, BUT both showed other benefits from feeding DE.
Everything else I've seen has been at sites where they sell DE and the information was presented as testimonials rather than studies. Some of these sites recommend 5% but again they don't offer any studies regarding how they can up with that amount.

One personal opinion... I've read some places that DE doesn't work when it's wet. But I've also read scientific discussions about the physical characteristics of DE saying that they are, basically, very tiny, very sharp pieces of shells. In my mind's eye I compare them to tiny shards of glass. When I think about tiny bits of glass in water, I think they will still cut me. So then I wonder.... if glass can still cut when in water, then wouldn't tiny sharp shards of shell also cut when they're in water?

Good luck in finding the answer that will work for you.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

One personal opinion... I've read some places that DE doesn't work when it's wet. But I've also read scientific discussions about the physical characteristics of DE saying that they are, basically, very tiny, very sharp pieces of shells. In my mind's eye I compare them to tiny shards of glass. When I think about tiny bits of glass in water, I think they will still cut me. So then I wonder.... if glass can still cut when in water, then wouldn't tiny sharp shards of shell also cut when they're in water?

Thats an often used analogy, but it falls apart when you get into the physics of microscopic particles in liquids

Grind glass as fine as DE, and suspend it in liquid, and it won't cut you at all

DE kills by cutting AND dehydrating, and NOT by cutting alone

People seem to be all for it or all against it (like Bear Foot Farm).

I'm not "against DE"

I'm FOR sticking to proven scientific facts instead of repeating sales hype

http://www.dirtdoctor.com/Diatomaceous-Earth-with-Poultry_vq265.htm

This "study" says nothing at all about DE's effectiveness against INTERNAL parasites, which is one of the things many seem to think it's good for, and why they think it should be fed to animals

It's also interesting to note that if you Google the Dr's name, the only references at all come back to this one "study"
Many places like to use that sort of "proof"

If you research studies done by universities who have found DE has NO effect on internal parasites, you'll find their Dr's normally have extensive histories beyond the one study

DE is fine for killing some insects, and helping to keep some things dry.

Other than that, it's no more beneficial than sand​

 

[bleith]

bear foot, do you suggest using it all? I am curious, i use it to help prevent my feed from caking. I have a feeder that holds about 20lbs. I figured it would help prevent caking and if it doesnt hurt for them to eat it and if there is no down side, what the heck.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

bear foot, do you suggest using it all? I am curious, i use it to help prevent my feed from caking.

I don't use it, and I don't have problems with feed "caking", although I use pellets so your case may be different.

It WILL help control insects in feed and it WILL make the feed flow more smoothly, but that's mainly only a concern in augers and not small hopper feeders.

It might be helpful to control mites, but I doubt it works as well as Sevin or Ivomec.

The Ivomec WILL control internal parasites too, so why use two products when one will do both jobs?​

 

[CarolynF]

Quote:
Hi Bear Foot,
Thanks for the info on glass shards, I'll have to look that up.

Nevertheless, I'm confused as to why you want to ignore this study done in 2009: Effect of diatomaceous earth on internal parasites of freerange,
organic laying hens. D. C. Bennett*, Y.-J. Rhee, A. Yee, and K.M. Cheng, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
The abstract is presented on page 81 of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association, July 2009.
link here: http://www.poultryscience.org/psa09/abstracts.pdf

In it they state, "DE had no effect
on the number of hens infected, FEC, or worm burdens. However, body
mass and egg production were greater in hens consuming the DE diets.
These hens also laid larger eggs with thicker shells. The results of this
study suggest that there is no evidence that DE is an effective treatment
to control gastrointestinal parasitic infections of free-range laying hens.
However, DE as a feed ingredient may maintain body mass, increase
egg production and improve egg quality in free range laying hens fed
an organic diet."

I'd say that's more than sand will do.

You may not like the other study that was presented, but claiming it's invalid just because the person isn't scattered around the internet seems a bit presumptuous. I know three people with a PhD who have done respected research and you'll not find their names scattered around either. My father did research with DE and chincillas in the 1960s. You won't find that either. It's not a valid basis for totally discrediting a study. Sorry.

I'm beginning to think you have a vested interest in discrediting DE.

Quote:
The numbers you quoted from wikipedia only account for 82%-96%. If my arithmetic is correct, that leaves as much as 18% unaccounted for!
On page 2 of this study you'll find a list of all the components of DE. It's far more than the 3 you mentioned.

You have a right to express your opinion, but so do others. With a topic that has so little HARD evidence, you might want to lighten up a little bit.

ETA

A more recent study presented at this year's Pourlty Science Association conference

Effect of diatomaceous earth on parasite load, egg production, and egg quality of free-range organic laying hens
D. C. Bennett, A. Yee, Y.-J. Rhee and K. M. Cheng
Avian Research Centre, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia

The effectiveness of diatomaceous earth (DE) as a treatment against parasites and to increase feed efficiency and egg production of organically raised free-range layer hens was evaluated in 2 breeds of commercial egg layers [Bovan Brown (BB) and Lowmann Brown (LB)] that differ in their resistance to internal parasitic infections. Half the hens of each breed were fed diets supplemented with DE (2%). Their internal parasite loads were assessed by biweekly fecal egg counts (FEC) and by postmortem examination of the gastrointestinal tract. Supplementing DE in diets of LB hens, the more parasite-resistant breed, did not significantly affect their FEC and adult parasite load. 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. Both BB and LB hens fed the diet containing DE were significantly heavier, laid more eggs, and consumed more feed than hens fed the control diet, but feed efficiency did not differ between the 2 dietary treatments. Additionally, BB hens consuming the DE diet laid larger eggs containing more albumen and yolk than hens consuming the control diet. In a subsequent experiment, the effectiveness of DE to treat a Northern fowl mite (Ornithonyssus sylviarum) infestation was tested. Relative to controls, both breeds of hens that were dusted with DE had reduced number of mites. 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.

We now have proof that DE can significantly lower Heterakis worm burden!

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Nevertheless, I'm confused as to why you want to ignore this study done in 2009: Effect of diatomaceous earth on internal parasites of freerange,
organic laying hens. D. C. Bennett*, Y.-J. Rhee, A. Yee, and K.M. Cheng, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

I'm not ignoring it.
It's just that it's not really conclusive proof of anything since it's contradicted by the OTHER study they did, and you posted on another thread, which had totally different results:

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=544490&p=4

Here's an earlier one from 2009

Effect of diatomaceous earth on internal parasites of freerange, organic laying hens.
D. C. Bennett*, Y.-J. Rhee, A. Yee, and K.M. Cheng, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
The abstract is presented on page 81 of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association, July 2009.
link here: http://www.poultryscience.org/psa09/abstracts.pdf

In it they state, "DE had no effect
on the number of hens infected, FEC, or worm burdens.
However, body mass and egg production were greater in hens consuming the DE diets.
These hens also laid larger eggs with thicker shells.
The results of this study suggest that there is no evidence that DE is an effective treatment
to control gastrointestinal parasitic infections of free-range laying hens.
However, DE as a feed ingredient may maintain body mass, increase
egg production and improve egg quality in free range laying hens fed
an organic diet."

You may not like the other study that was presented, but claiming it's invalid just because the person isn't scattered around the internet seems a bit presumptuous.

If the authors don't have any other credits, I tend to doubt their authenticity, and thus their credibility.

I'm beginning to think you have a vested interest in discrediting DE.

Not at all.
I just like to stick to proven facts, and not hype passed along by those trying to promote DE, such as the site you linked to listing all the "other components" of DE, which in reality are a fancy name (trace elements) for contaminants they couldn't remove, and can be found in most any soil sample.

It's nothing more than concentrated minerals from the water in which the diatoms lived:

Their exact composition will vary, depending on what mineral concentrations are in the waters where they are formed. In general, most samples will contain the following elements: sodium, boron, strontium, vanadium, gallium, titanium, aluminum, manganese, magnesium, iron, calcium, copper and zirconium. All these minerals, as well as the diatom's living protoplasm, serve as the fuel for many higher forms of life, from protozoan to humans."

Did you not notice they are in the business of selling DE?
Do you really think they make an unbiased source"

We now have proof that DE can significantly lower Heterakis worm burden

That's meaningful if you have turkeys, and if you ignore their other study which said it had no effect
Those nematodes have little effect on chickens anyway

http://www.worldpoultry.net/diseases/heterakis-gallinarium-d69.html

Effects of Heterakis gallinarium
Heterakis infection results in few clinical signs. On postmortem examination, most of the adult worms are found in the tips or blind ends of the caeca. The caeca of experimentally infected birds show marked inflammation and thickening of the walls. The major economic importance of Heterakis infection is as a carrier of the blackhead organism Histomonas.

For most nematodes, control measures consist of sanitation and breaking the life cycle rather than chemotherapy

Overall, the majority of the evidence still indicates the use of DE as a treatment for internal parasites is a wasted effort

No matter how many threads there are, the end results are all the same.​