Questions about DE.......

[chookchick]

...As a result, the nanosilica became hydrophobic as well as lipophilic in nature. These nanosilica possess nanopores and due to their lipophilic nature they could absorb lipids non-specifically via physio-sorption. These particles have been used in the present set of experiments as drugs to mop up the excess amount of the host serum cholesterol lipids which is used by the malarial parasite mainly for their intra-erythrocytic growth.

AHA--a new weight loss method! Ivan, you could become rich! Just mix in a little seasoning salt and sprinkle over your french fries, and voila--most of the calories are gone!

Seriously, I've got to digest this a bit (haha), but I'm not yet seeing any mechanism whereby DE could kill parasites or eggs in the gut. Only marketing hype.​

 

[ivan3]

chookchick wrote: AHA--a new weight loss method! Ivan, you could become rich! Just mix in a little seasoning salt and sprinkle over your french fries, and voila--most of the calories are gone!

Seriously, I've got to digest this a bit (haha), but I'm not yet seeing any mechanism whereby DE could kill parasites or eggs in the gut. Only marketing hype.

Well, if it works as suggested, the protists wouldn't be enjoying my blood pudding as much

Sorry for the formatting in the previous post (in a hurry). What makes me suspicious (other than nothing of note in ruminants and the reported untoward effects of DE fed to broilers) is definitely the marketing.

A 50lb. bag of Celite Fossil shell flour (Shur guard) was $24.95. Celite also was apparently marketing an insecticide, Durafil 610. They had to clear the label with the EPA. Below is a portion of the EPA letter with the required changes to Celite's original label.

From: http://ppis.ceris.purdue.edu/htbin/rnamset.com (search by Firm Name: Celite)

So, call it `commercial/industrial' and maybe tack on a few more bucks for the product? The EPA called `em on it (use in homes/dog bedding/stored grain, etc.) because it is ADE and nothing more. As I mentioned in a previous post the EPA does require different labeling (`nix the word `Natural', fellas').

This is not a hypothesis. The Natural Guard insecticide being sold in the feed store (2lb. for $8.95), when label was examined, was also ADE. So, what does that work out to for 50lb.? $223.75. Guess I shouldn't bother with patent searches and just rebag my 50lb. of `insecticide', go forth and seek my fortune as a pesticide pusher... Caveat emptor.​

 

[rancher hicks]

Quote:
Yeah but it is not a real proper test, it is basically no different than anecdotal "well gee I tried it and it seemed to work for me". Which is not *nuthin* (although neither are counterexamples, where people say "gee I tried it and it didn't seem to do anything", or "I don't use it at all and have never had any problems either")... but anecdote is not particularly believable evidence to draw conclusions from, because there are too many other things that could account for what you observe.

In this case, the biggest problem is that there is no sign (in that terse description) of proper experimental design, with intermixed replicates; also it is not clear that any effort was made to *measure* flies or droppings consistancy, and IMO the death rate data is both meaningless (b/c lack of replication) and quite possibly negligable (because the actual number of deaths was probably low).

A properly-designed research study would answer the question much more convincingly and clearly. I wish someone would DO one. I am just not set up for it here. For one thing, to study whether DE prevents worms, you pretty much need a parasitologist or veterinary pathologist to be able to look at your carcasses after sacrificing them, to see what the wormload IS (fecals are not reliable enough).

Pat

These statements are completely untrue. Perhaps you missed the comment about a "control group"? This tells me there were TWO groups and a comparison made between the two and this IS a very scientific measure of DE's effect. One does not have to count individual flies to measure the difference between the two groups if all other conditions are the same.
If both groups were kept in the same conditions and fed the same amounts and the only thing being done is that one group is given DE then the results would be valid. I believe this is the case.

Since all YOU have to dispute it is your OP then you have very little evidence that the results are invalid. IMHO