 | Reply To This Topic | 
| Log In |
Topic: Google Search "groundwater contamination roxarsone chicken feed"
| Replies: 11 Last Post: Sep 20, 2009 8:20 PM By: cowboss@ymail.com |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | Google Search "groundwater contamination roxarsone chicken feed" Posted: May 17, 2009 7:29 PM |
| An article from: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_113193.htm 2006 Philadelphia Annual Meeting (22–25 October 2006) THE MOBILITY OF ARSENIC ADSORBED TO PARTICULATES WITHIN AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS Arsenic contamination of water in agricultural watersheds is a recent concern, as poultry litter applied to croplands can release arsenic to the environment. Roxarsone, an organoarsenic poultry feed additive, is used to improve weight gain, feed efficiency, and pigmentation of chickens. The roxarsone is not retained in the tissues of the animals, but is instead excreted into the nutrient-rich litter. In agricultural regions, this litter is used as a fertilizer, and the roxarsone quickly biotransforms into inorganic arsenic after its application to agricultural fields. Our preliminary data, collected from a poultry dominated watershed in Rockingham Co., Virginia, suggest that arsenic released from litter application can adsorb to mobile particulates in the subsurface. These particulates can then be transported from the litter-applied fields through soil water and subsequently into groundwater and stream water. We are conducting a small-scale field application of poultry litter, and will combine water sampling from this application site with field filtration and laboratory ultrafiltration to determine if the arsenic seen in these waters is primarily dissolved or adsorbed to particulates. We will also attempt to identify the composition of the mobile particulates using microscopic techniques. In addition, we are performing laboratory experiments to determine if phosphate and organic acids will compete with arsenic for sorption sites on these mobile particulates. Our results should shed insight into the mobility of litter-derived arsenic in agricultural watersheds. An article from: http://www.noharm.org/details.cfm?ID=1648&type=document Feeding Arsenic to Poultry. Is This Good Medicine? Each year U.S. hospitals and long-term care facilities buy poultry, mostly chicken, worth millions of dollars. At the same time, U.S. poultry companies routinely and unnecessarily use arsenic in raising their birds. Voluntary arsenic use in animal feeds imposes an unnecessary risk to the health of Americans and the environment that sustains us. The U.S. purchases more commercial arsenic than any other country.1 Arsenic’s toxicity has been recognized for millennia—its name comes from the Greek, meaning “potent.”2 Arsenic causes cancer, even at the low levels currently found in our environment.3,4 Arsenic exposure also contributes to birth defects, declines in intellectual function, diabetes and heart disease.5,6,7 Arsenic use in agriculture The Food and Drug Administration approves arsenic’s use as an additive to poultry feed. This practice has never been approved as safe in the 25 countries of the European Union. According to estimates,8 at least 70 percent of the broiler chickens raised annually in the U.S. (8.7 billion in 2005) are fed arsenic—typically a compound called roxarsone (3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid).* However, no public authority in the U.S. tracks exactly how much arsenic is added to chicken feed. Based on the best available data, however, annual roxarsone use can be estimated at 1.7-2.2 million pounds.9,10,11 The FDA approves roxarsone use for a variety of purposes: growth promotion, feed efficiency and improved pigmentation. Many feed additives containingroxarsone are combinations that also include an antibiotic and an anti-parasitic drug called an ionophore. While chicken producers sometimes claim arsenic in poultry feed is used to control parasites (coccidiosis), roxarsone itself is not FDA-approved as anti-parasitic. Risks to human and ecosystem health Widespread, voluntary use of arsenic feed additives creates unnecessary risks: risks for people who eat chicken; risks to communities near chicken farms; risks to water and soil quality; and risks to people with infections requiring treatment with antibiotics. Meat from chickens fed arsenic can carry arsenic residues, which add to a person’s total risk from arsenic-caused disease.12,13 Arsenic is also approved as a turkey feed additive, but we are unaware of data confirming its use in turkey production or its detection in turkey meat. Up to three-quarters of arsenic in feed will pass through chickens into the estimated 26 to 55 billion pounds of chicken litter or waste created in the U.S. annually.14 Around 90 percent of chicken waste currently is applied to fields and cropland as “fertilizer.”15,16,17 Poultry litter containing arsenic also is fed as a protein source to beef cattle.18,19 So, the legal practice of feeding arsenic to poultry can add to the arsenic contamination of other foods as well. Incineration of arsenic-containing poultry waste is currently being ............... GO TO LINK TO READ MORE -- a good read and very well reasearched ivan Mcilroy cowboss@ymail.com |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:Google Search Posted: May 17, 2009 7:39 PM  in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
| As a public stakeholder and joint landowner on the Maitland watershed, I am asking that you not yank my post. It is relevant even if you do not like it and since this is a "public forum" the public has the right to read my post. Censorship of views that do not agree with your "AGENDA" is very UNDEMOCRATIC. ivan |
| Cathie Brown
Staff Member Posts: 27 Registered: Jul 13, 2006 | Water Qualtiy & Quantity Posted: May 19, 2009 9:02 AM in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
| This information is all American, is there any peer reviewed research on chicken feed and water quality in Ontario or Canada?? |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:Water Qualtiy Posted: May 19, 2009 11:39 AM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| "This information is all American" ...... YES BUT I believe you and I could agree that Arsenic is Arsenic -- American or Canadian! and Roxarsone is Roxarsone even when you call it 3-Ntro.. Arsenic from Poultry and Pig manure is contaminating our Groundwater -- What are you doing to STUDY this and further, Protect "OUR Canadian WATER"? MORE INFO ----- CFIA - Compendium of Medicating Ingredients. (Pharmaceuticals that can be fed on a daily basis as part of the feed). Items 4 and 21 relate to arsenic. The rest, we are sure you will find interesting. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/feebet/mib/mibtoce.shtml ivan |
| Karen Simmons
Public Member Posts: 2 Registered: May 2, 2009 | RE:Water Qualtiy Posted: May 19, 2009 1:07 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| ...........From your Source Water Protection - Project Description...... "Drinking Water Source Protection (SP) Planning in the Ausable Bayfield and Maitland Valley Source Protection Region is a combination of science-based assessment (of watershed features, existing and potential threats and program needs) and active stakeholder participation in the development of effective local plans. The project will tap into local knowledge provided through means which include a Source Protection Committee (SPC), local, multi-stakeholder Working Groups (WGs), a Municipal Subcommittee (MSC) and other avenues such as information exchange and consultation sessions with stakeholders, public events and a public internet discussion forum......." I have some questions as a watershed resident. Arsenic has been in used in food animal feed since the 1950s. It seems according to the project description that you should not be asking residents to find peer reviewed studies.....you should be trying to dig them up yourselves. The questions?... Isn't it just good science and an obligation to Canadians to do some peer reviewed studies BEFORE adding toxins to the food supply and to the watershed? If these peer reviewed studies exist in Canada, US, the European Union, or anywhere else for that matter, why would they not be applicable to Canadian watersheds also? If there are multiple lawsuits in the US arising from groundwater arsenic contamination from arsenic-based feed additives, why or how is the Canadian system immune? Why has Tyson Foods in the US voluntarily discontinued arsenic feed additives in their poultry feed? Why has McDonald's US voluntarily discontinued selling chicken which was fed arsenic? Why has the EU banned arsenicals in food animal feeds? Why have our provincial and federal governments not undertaken to assess the pounds of arsenic spread on farmland and river watersheds? Why should I not be concerned about this issue and why should the watershed residents not be concerned? Why does this issue not concern you?...........Why? |
| Cathie Brown
Staff Member Posts: 27 Registered: Jul 13, 2006 | Public Forum Posted: May 19, 2009 9:13 AM in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
| This forum is dedicated to the understanding of source protection under the Clean Water Act. Not all posts about pollution pertain to the web site. Sorry, but we reserve the right to limit posts to information that assists in undertaking source protection planning. Having said that, the release of arsenic has been identified as a risk, from sewage, stormwater, mine tailings, the disposal of hazardous waste, industrial waste and municipal waste in prescribed circumstances. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:Public Forum Posted: May 19, 2009 11:46 AM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| "Having said that, the release of arsenic has been identified as a risk, from sewage, stormwater, mine tailings, the disposal of hazardous waste, industrial waste and municipal waste in prescribed circumstances" Are you saying that Arsenic has not been identified as a risk from Poultry and Pig manure in Canada? If NOT. WHY NOT? --- The WHOLE REST of the world seems to know it is a RISK! ivan |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:Public Forum Posted: May 19, 2009 5:26 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| Quote from Cathie Brown's reply ....... "the disposal of hazardous waste" Really??? ivan Chickens, manure, and arsenic at http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Science-and-technology/Chickens-manure-and-arsenic-States-tackle-ballast-water.html Article Abstract: Chicken farms located on the Delaware-Maryland-Virginia peninsula are releasing 20-50 metric tons of arsenic into the environment on a yearly basis. There is fear that this arsenic carries the potential to become mobilized and infect surface and groundwater. Researchers with the United States Geological Survey are studying arsenic concentrations where poultry waste has been applied to determine how the arsenic is distributed, how it got there, the method of transportation and what follows after it's application. author: Christen, Kris Publisher: American Chemical Society Publication Name: Environmental Science & Technology Subject: Science and technology ISSN: 0013-936X Year: 2001 |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | Judge Rules Poultry Litter Is Solid Waste Posted: Aug 22, 2009 8:23 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| From --- http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=10930206 Tulsa Federal Judge Rules Poultry Litter Is Solid Waste Posted: Aug 14, 2009 9:21 AM EDT Updated: Aug 15, 2009 9:55 AM EDT A trial will be September 21.Associated Press TULSA, Okla. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Friday that poultry litter could be classified as a solid waste under federal environmental laws when applied in excessive amounts on farmland. The decision was a partial victory for the state of Oklahoma in its environmental lawsuit against 12 Arkansas poultry companies. Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson claims excessive application of chicken waste has resulted in runoff polluting the Illinois River watershed. The case has drawn national attention because it could lead to similar lawsuits across the country challenging how the industry does business. A trial is set for Sept. 21. On Thursday, attorneys for the poultry companies argued the litter should not be labeled solid waste because it has a beneficial use as a fertilizer and a market value. The state argued that litter was "patently" solid waste. "I reject both approaches," U.S. District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell said Friday, before coming up with the compromise ruling. "It's very gray." Frizzell said excessive application of the litter made it a solid waste. 7/23/2009 Related story: Judge: Oklahoma Can't Seek Damages In Poultry Suit Attorneys for both sides spent Friday arguing more pretrial motions, including which evidence could be admitted. In Thursday's hearing, Frizzell ruled an economist who claims the poultry industry knew for years about the environmental harm chicken waste was causing would be allowed to testify. The 1 million-acre watershed spans parts of Oklahoma and Arkansas and has 1,800 poultry houses, which produce an estimated 345,000 tons of chicken waste each year. The companies in the lawsuit are Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Poultry Inc., and Tyson Chicken Inc., Cobb-Vantress Inc., Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Cal-Maine Farms Inc., Cargill Inc., Cargill Turkey Production LLC, George's Inc. George's Farms Inc., Peterson Farms Inc. and Simmons Foods Inc. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:Google Search Posted: May 27, 2009 8:57 PM in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
| From http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=414252 Research Project: Fate and Transport of Arsenic in Land-Applied Poultry Litter: Effects on Soils, Ditches, Streams, and Wetlands Location: University Park, Pennsylvania Project Number: 1902-13000-011-19 Project Type: Specific Cooperative Agreement Start Date: Sep 15, 2008 End Date: Sep 30, 2010 Objective: The objectives of the project are to 1) Assess the occurrence of arsenic in UMES soils as a result of agricultural practices and determine the major pathways of arsenic transport from fields to drainage ditches and wetlands, 2) Determine the fate of arsenic in wetland systems, and 3) examine the effects of different farming practices on arsenic transport. Approach: 1. Occurrence and transport of arsenic from farm to wetlands. The occurrence of arsenic in soils, runoff from fields, and transport in ditches of the research farm at UMES will be assessed to determine the potential transfer from barn to the environment. To determine the occurrence and subsurface transport of arsenic, cores will be extracted at various locations in the fields and in ditch bottoms. Soil horizons will be determined, and the cores will be subsampled, tested for arsenic and phosphorus, and sorbtion/desorbtion experiments for both arsenic and phosphorus will be conducted to determine relative sorbtion capacities for each. Discrete-depth peizometers will be installed in wells left from core extraction and will be sampled periodically to determine movement of arsenic and phosphorus in the shallow subsurface. 2. Fate of arsenic in entrained wetlands. The fate of arsenic in wetlands entrained in ditches will be determined by sampling arsenic concentrations at inflow and outflow of wetlands and core sampling and sorbtion/desorbtion experiments will be performed on sediments from wetlands (as above). Sampling, digestion, and analysis of plant material will be conducted to determine whether arsenic is being taken up and concentrated biologically. 3. Effects of farming practices on arsenic transport. Arsenic transport as a result of various farming practices (till, no-till, litter injection, etc.) will be assessed by quantifying arsenic in runoff and leachate of intact columns extracted following the application of chicken litter by the different methods. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | Swine Flu: Influenza A (H1N1) and Arsenic in Animal Feeds "The Smoking Gun" Posted: Jun 10, 2009 10:31 PM in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
Swine Flu: Influenza A (H1N1) Susceptibility Linked To Common Levels Of Arsenic Exposure What We Do Know Can Hurt Us -- "The ability to mount an immune response to influenza A (H1N1) infection is significantly compromised by a low level of arsenic exposure." This statement was made WRT when a "normal person or mouse is infected with the flu". I would suggest that this is equally true when a pig, chicken or turkey is infected with the flu. You and I know that Millions of pounds of arsenic is fed to poultry and pigs at the CAFOs of the world (and someone asks - Why is the pigs and chickens immune system compromised to the point that these viruses are allowed to overwhelm it and mutate???) This Arsenic ends up in the meat you and I eat, the animal byproducts and poultry manure the livestock is forced to eat, as well as in the manure spread on farmers fields to fertilize crops which are in turn consumed by humans and animals (here, you must be starting to see the circle). You see, ALL the immune systems of humans and animals are "compromised" by this NEEDLESS and RECKLESS addition of Arsenic into the animals diet. When will "those mandated to look out for our safety", our "regulators" have the courage to admit their mistakes of the past and Ban the feeding of Arsenic to poultry and pigs. The quoted sections above were copied from a widely published article in the ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009). I have spent many hour researching this and have found nothing to rebut the findings presented in this article. What I have found, to my absolute horror is a total lack of connection between arsenic in Food and the findings of this report despite the amount of research "out there" indicating that a significant amount of arsenic comes from the food humans consume. Why is this not being researched and discussed in the Scientific community? Could it be Ignorance -- I think NOT, not with the info available today! At the risk of being called a "Conspiratist" my gut feel is that a "Conspiracy" is exactly what it is. Please Sign the Petition at Care2 to Ban Arsenic From Poultry and Pig Feed http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-the-feeding-of-arsenic-to-canadian-chickens The full article From ScienceDaily: ScienceDaily (May 21, 2009) — The ability to mount an immune response to influenza A (H1N1) infection is significantly compromised by a low level of arsenic exposure that commonly occurs through drinking contaminated well water, scientists at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and Dartmouth Medical School have found. Joshua Hamilton, the MBL's Chief Academic and Scientific Officer and a senior scientist in the MBL's Bay Paul Center; graduate student Courtney Kozul of Dartmouth Medical School, where the work was conducted; and their colleagues report their findings in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. "When a normal person or mouse is infected with the flu, they immediately develop an immune response," says Hamilton, in which immune cells rush to the lungs and produce chemicals that help fight the infection. However, in mice that had ingested 100 ppb (parts per billion) arsenic in their drinking water for five weeks, the immune response to H1N1 infection was initially feeble, and when a response finally did kick in days later, it was "too robust and too late," Hamilton says. "There was a massive infiltration of immune cells to the lungs and a massive inflammatory response, which led to bleeding and damage in the lung." Morbidity over the course of the infection was significantly higher for the arsenic-exposed animals than the normal animals. Respiratory infections with influenza A virus are a worldwide health concern and are responsible for 36,000 deaths annually. The recent outbreak of the influenza A H1N1 substrain ("swine flu")⎯which is the same virus that Hamilton and his colleagues used in their arsenic study⎯to date has killed 72 people in Mexico and 6 in the United States. "One thing that did strike us, when we heard about the recent H1N1 outbreak, is Mexico has large areas of very high arsenic in their well water, including the areas where the flu first cropped up. We don't know that the Mexicans who got the flu were drinking high levels of arsenic, but it's an intriguing notion that this may have contributed," Hamilton says. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers 10 ppb arsenic in drinking water "safe," yet concentrations of 100 ppb and higher are commonly found in well water in regions where arsenic is geologically abundant, including upper New England (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine), Florida, and large parts of the Upper Midwest, the Southwest, and the Rocky Mountains, Hamilton says. Arsenic does not accumulate in the body over a lifetime, as do other toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, and mercury. "Arsenic goes right through us like table salt," Hamilton says. "We believe for arsenic to have health consequences, it requires exposure day after day, year after year, such as through drinking water." Arsenic exposure not only disrupts the innate immune system, as the present study shows, it also disrupts the endocrine (hormonal) system in an unusually broad way, which Hamilton's laboratory discovered and first reported in 1998. "Most chemicals that disrupt hormone pathways target just one, such as the estrogen pathway," he says. "But arsenic disrupts the pathways of all five steroid hormone receptors (estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, glucocorticoids, and mineralocorticoids), as well as several other hormone pathways. You can imagine that just this one effect could play a role in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, reproductive and developmental disorders–all the diseases that have a strong hormonal component." At this point, Hamilton thinks arsenic disrupts the innate immune system and the endocrine system through different mechanisms. "Arsenic may ultimately be doing a similar thing inside the cell to make these effects happen, but the targets are likely different," he says. The proteins that mediate hormone response are different than the proteins that mediate the immune response. "We don't yet know how arsenic disrupts either system at the molecular level. But once we know how it affects one system, we will have a pretty good idea of how it affects the other systems as well." Presently, Hamilton's lab is focused on understanding the unusual "biphasic" effect that arsenic has on the endocrine system. At very low doses, arsenic stimulates or enhances hormone responses, while at slightly higher doses (still within the range found in drinking water), it suppresses these same hormone responses. "Why we see that dramatic shift (from hormone enhancement to suppression) over such a narrow dose range is quite fascinating and totally unknown," Hamilton says. "Our principal focus is to figure out this switch. We think that will help us understand why arsenic does what it does in the body." This research was funded by the Dartmouth Toxic Metals Research Program Project by a grant from NIH-NIEHS and its Superfund Basic Research Program (grant P42 ES007373). |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | Paper: Arsenic in Soil and Runoff From Poultry Litter-Amended ... - 4:24pm Posted: Sep 20, 2009 8:20 PM in response to: Ivan Mcilroy |
| From http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Paper54693.html Arsenic in Soil and Runoff From Poultry Litter-Amended Grasslands. Wednesday, November 4, 2009: 3:15 PM Convention Center, Room 336, Third Floor Shadi Ashjaei1, William Miller1, Miguel Cabrera1, Sayed Hassan1, Dory Franklin2 and Dinku Endale2, (1)Crop and Soil Sciences, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA (2)USDA-ARS, Watkinsville, GA The use of organo-arsenical compounds such as roxarsone as feed additives in poultry diets is a potential environmental concern because these compounds appear in poultry litter, as do copper and zinc, which are also used in poultry feeds. Since poultry litter is surface applied to grasslands, significant amount of arsenic (As), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) may potentially contaminate surface runoff. The organic form of arsenic can be degraded to inorganic forms such as arsenite and arsenate which are more toxic than roxarsone. The objectives of this study were 1) to investigate total amounts of As, Cu, and Zn in soil from litter-amended, field-scale plots on tall fescue/bermudagrass; 2) to assess concentration of As in surface runoff from the same field-scale plots; and 3) to investigate concentrations of inorganic and organic species of arsenic in surface runoff from a rainfall simulation study with grassed plots. There was a significant difference in the amount of As in soil between poultry litter-amended plots and control plots. However, the concentrations of As, Cu, and Zn in poultry litter-amended soil were below USEPA loading limits for sewage sludge application. Analysis of surface runoff from poultry litter-amended plots showed that As concentration was greater than the USEPA drinking water standard (10 ug/L) immediately after poultry litter application and decreased over time. Results of the rainfall simulation study showed that concentrations of As in surface runoff were significantly greater from poultry-litter amended plots than from control plots. Inorganic As (arsenate) was the predominant species in runoff compared to organic species. The concentration of As in runoff was significantly greater immediately after litter application than after one, two, or four weeks, but in all cases was greater than the USEPA drinking water standard. |
