I'm Sending Feed to be Analyzed

[Krugerrand]

Glyphosate, which is in many weed killers, is suspected to cause cancer. Especially in those that use it frequently, such as ground keepers, farmers that use herbicide to spray pasture fences, etc. If it’s in our chicken feed, and that’s their main source of sustenance, especially during the winter months, would it not be plausible that a chicken’s body would have adverse effects? Such as no laying, eggs that are misshapen, (other than the normal misshapen every once in awhile), molts that seem to take longer than usual. You posted that there was a problem with sperm motility. Would that not possibly lower hatch rates, or even chicks born sterile? All of which would disrupt food chain even more.

Consider ... good or bad, glyphosate has been in the feed for a long time. So, unless a concentration level change made sudden impacts, it seems unlikely that potential general egg laying problems from glyphosate would not have been made evident sooner.

 

[NatJ]

Glyphosate...If it’s in our chicken feed, and that’s their main source of sustenance, especially during the winter months, would it not be plausible that a chicken’s body would have adverse effects? Such as no laying, eggs that are misshapen, (other than the normal misshapen every once in awhile), molts that seem to take longer than usual.

Yes, it would SEEM plausible. But apparently it does not happen that way.

In addition to the studies already listed by @U_Stormcrow I found another one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141322002207
They tested several levels of glyphosate in the feed of laying hens, while tracking how well the hens laid, and they found very little effect.

A quote from that study:
"In conclusion, there were no clear adverse effects of glyphosate-amended diets on performance, welfare indicators and mineral status of Lohmann LSL-Lite layers even at a level approximately 10x higher than the MRL for soybeans and other common feed crops (20 mg glyphosate per kg feed). However, post hoc contrasts suggested that diet glyphosate concentrations above 20 mg/kg may reduce rate of lay by 0.9%-point."

My translation into less less technical language:
--MRL stands for "maximum residue level" (the most glyphosate a feed should contain, according to the European Union)
--that level does not reduce laying
--the study tested levels up to 10 times that high
--higher levels did reduce laying a little bit, but the difference was less than one percent

So no, glyphosate does NOT make hens completely quit laying eggs, at any level up to 10x as much as chicken feed should contain.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Yes, it would SEEM plausible. But apparently it does not happen that way.

In addition to the studies already listed by @U_Stormcrow I found another one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141322002207
They tested several levels of glyphosate in the feed of laying hens, while tracking how well the hens laid, and they found very little effect.

A quote from that study:
"In conclusion, there were no clear adverse effects of glyphosate-amended diets on performance, welfare indicators and mineral status of Lohmann LSL-Lite layers even at a level approximately 10x higher than the MRL for soybeans and other common feed crops (20 mg glyphosate per kg feed). However, post hoc contrasts suggested that diet glyphosate concentrations above 20 mg/kg may reduce rate of lay by 0.9%-point."

My translation into less less technical language:
--MRL stands for "maximum residue level" (the most glyphosate a feed should contain, according to the European Union)
--that level does not reduce laying
--the study tested levels up to 10 times that high
--higher levels did reduce laying a little bit, but the difference was less than one percent

So no, glyphosate does NOT make hens completely quit laying eggs, at any level up to 10x as much as chicken feed should contain.

Thank you.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Glyphosate, which is in many weed killers, is suspected to cause cancer. Especially in those that use it frequently, such as ground keepers, farmers that use herbicide to spray pasture fences, etc. If it’s in our chicken feed, and that’s their main source of sustenance, especially during the winter months, would it not be plausible that a chicken’s body would have adverse effects? Such as no laying, eggs that are misshapen, (other than the normal misshapen every once in awhile), molts that seem to take longer than usual. You posted that there was a problem with sperm motility. Would that not possibly lower hatch rates, or even chicks born sterile? All of which would disrupt food chain even more.

I recommend reading the studies first, and the one NatJ linked. Then we can discuss the limitations of those studies if desired.

The short answer is that Glyphosate gets a really bad rap (which has been quite lucrative for the Plaintiff's bar), but its not remotely as dangerous as the public generally assumes. In excess, ANYTHING is bad for you. Salt, Oxygen, Water, Calcium, Iron, Phosphorus, I can go on and on and on. Look at CA's Prop 65 list of things "known to the state of CA" to cause cancer or reproductive harm - many of the things on that list are things our bodies can not do without.

The Dosage, it is said, is the poison. (Paracelsus)

 

[Sally PB]

This is from another thread. Interesting read. It's from 2010.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/

 

[DavidReaves]

This is from another thread. Interesting read. It's from 2010.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Aunt Angus]

Feed samples have been mailed. I should have the results within 2 weeks.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Feed samples have been mailed. I should have the results within 2 weeks.

Thank you again for doing this. Even though it is unlikely to change more than a few minds. Also, my strong agreement on not testing for various insecticides - there are already numerous anecdotes demonstrating how any results (and we expect some would be found) would be immediately misinterpreted, then maginfied with speculation.

 

[Aunt Angus]

Thank you again for doing this. Even though it is unlikely to change more than a few minds. Also, my strong agreement on not testing for various insecticides - there are already numerous anecdotes demonstrating how any results (and we expect some would be found) would be immediately misinterpreted, then maginfied with speculation.

I just did guaranteed analysis and mycotoxins. I just couldn't justify $500 for the additional glyphosate test.

 

[Sally PB]

I just did guaranteed analysis and mycotoxins. I just couldn't justify $500 for the additional glyphosate test.

Still way above and beyond.