 | Reply To This Topic | 
| Log In |
Topic: More on Chicken Feed
| Replies: 8 Last Post: Jun 22, 2009 8:54 AM By: cowboss@ymail.com |
| Cathie Brown
Staff Member Posts: 27 Registered: Jul 13, 2006 | More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 20, 2009 11:43 AM |
| Thanks to those who have provided some local input on this. Locally, feed dealers are not providing the only product available in Ontario that includes arsenic or the one product that includes hormones. This is because farming practice in Ontario is such that these products are not required. We can put you in touch with local experts if you want to learn more about raising chickens in our area. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 20, 2009 12:07 PM  in response to: Cathie Brown |
| Please do. Looking forward to discussing this with your experts! would you please provide a list. I am assuming that you also investigated the feeding of Arsenic to Pigs .. would like that list as well. Would be really nice if you would post "links to your SOURCES HERE" ... There is nothing to HIDE, right? ivan |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 20, 2009 12:40 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| Cathie You may want to talk to Dianne at McDonald's Canada (416) 446-3932 who confirmed to me last fall that "Roxarsone, 3 Nitro.. Arsenic" is fed to the Chicken that is sold at their Restaurants in Ontario and Canada. Their statement does not line up with yours. ivan |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 20, 2009 5:19 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| Cathie A except from a letter from Ag. Minister Ritz to Mr. Scott posted on "The Agenda Forums" at TVO. This letter was a response to 2 issues I raised, and Scott sought answers 1) Arsenic in feed and 2) The practice of feeding poultry feces to livestock in the US and then exporting the food products into Canada: From http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=401&action=viewthread&forum_Thread_id=5833&forum_id=44 ................"With regard to your concern about the use of arsenic in poultry farming, arsenilic acid is currently the only arsenic-based feed-additive drug compound approved by Health Canada for use in broiler and laying chickens, turkeys and swine feeds. At this time, there are only two registered products containing arsenilic acid that have been reviewed and approved by Health Canada for use in these feeds. The use of both of these products is safe to livestock and people when used as directed. The CFIA’s Animal Feed Section assists the Food Safety Program by doing trace-backs on feed when a food product is sampled and found to be contaminated with arsenilic acid. As part of its National Feed Inspection Program, the CFIA monitors feeds medicated with arsenic-based and other drug products to verify that the drug levels in livestock feeds are compliant with the levels approved by Health Canada. As well, the CFIA monitors for arsenic as a potential chemical contaminant in feeds."................. IF THIS IS NOT AN ADMISSION (at the top level) OF THE USE OF ARSENIC BASED FEED ADDITIVES IN CANADA -- MAYBE YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT IS???? ivan |
| Teresa McLellan
Public Member Posts: 1 Registered: May 25, 2009 | RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 25, 2009 2:31 PM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| Regarding this concern, please be advised that MOE SP technical staff took the question to the folks at our Standards Development Branch, who are the experts in this sort of thing. They advised that they had performed some research in this area, and ultimately determined that there is no metals issue with the chicken manure. Please see following a report is dated Feb 05 titled "A survey of trace elements in Ontario livestock manures - final report" authored by the Soil Research Group. DR31 - A survey of trace elements in Ontario livestock manures Project Leader: Christine Brown Project Duration: November 2003 – February 2005 Project Code: 03G5 Project Contributors: Ministry of the Environment; M. Payne, OMAFRA; Soil Resource Group; Laboratory Services Division, University of Guelph The purpose of the study was to compare the loading of trace elements through land application of manure applied at rates needed to match crop requirements, with that of regulated land applied residuals such as sewage biosolids, compost and pulp and paper biosolids. Manure from 12 different livestock classifications were sampled and analyzed for nutrients, trace elements and physical parameters. Types of manure sampled included dairy where copper footbaths were used, dairy with no copper footbaths, beef-feedlot, beef-cow/calf, swine-finishers, swine-weaners, swine-sow, poultry-layers, poultry-broilers, poultry-turkeys, sheep, and performance horses. Trace elements evaluated included aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc. From the literature review conducted, it was confirmed that the primary sources of manure trace elements came from feed and water supply, contamination from within barns (i.e. chewed wood) and/or fields (i.e. scrap metal). The study found elevated concentrations of some trace elements in certain types of manure in comparison to the concentration limits set for non-agricultural source materials. In particular, concentrations were elevated for copper in poultry (especially turkey) manure, and zinc and copper in swine-weaner manure. Zinc and copper are included in monogastric swine and poultry diets at much higher levels than minimum performance requirements, because when fed at higher levels they promote growth. Copper and zinc are also used in some livestock diets as substitutes for antibiotics and used as a prophylactic to guard against disease. For all the livestock manures studied, it was determined that when manure would be applied at typical rates to meet crop requirements over a rotation, none of the trace elements would exceed the levels regulated for sewage biosolids. The study also determined that manure cannot be used to make Class A compost under the current provincial compost guidelines, where trace element limits are based on those found in soil. Manure composts are not intended to be a soil replacement and thus Class A compost standards may need to be re-evaluated for promotion of manure composting as a waste management opportunity. Impact of Project: The livestock industry is being consulted to determine if there are alternative feeding strategies that will maintain current production gains but reduce nutrient and trace element output, particularly for copper and zinc in swine-weaner and turkey production. Work has been started to determine the impact of phytase on copper and zinc availability and to find alternative sources of zinc that have higher bioavailability, could be fed at lower rates, and result in equal or improved production gains. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 26, 2009 12:28 PM in response to: Teresa McLellan |
| Teresa ..............."They advised that they had performed some research in this area, and ultimately determined that there is no metals issue with the chicken manure.".............. You really are not serious here -- Are You? Exactly where are the NUMBERS? Are you intending on providing the Research to back up these statements or are we to "Just believe You" -- Surely the days of being able to get away with statements like yours are long gone. At least I thought they where! Is your motto "farmers are STUPID" or what? ..............."For all the livestock manures studied, it was determined that when manure would be applied at typical rates to meet crop requirements over a rotation, none of the trace elements would exceed the levels regulated for sewage biosolids."................. Sooooooooo tell me again why only 5% of the Sewage Sludge in Canada is spread on farmers fields? Could it be that 95% of farmers are smart enough to not want this "TOXIC CRAP" on the land that they produce food for "THEIR FAMILY" on? Rationalizing that manure is no worse than Sewage Sludge seems so absolutely naive and ignorant to me! I believe it was an attempt on your part to Pacify your watershed stakeholders, My guess is, that you will accomplish QUITE the opposite with your statements! Was this response suggested to you by a "Politician"? Please START providing "Research" to back up your Posts. BTW -- Still waiting for the links and info that I requested above. My opinion is -- "If you are going to make statements in public -- you better be prepared to back them up in PUBLIC! Waiting ivan |
| Karen Simmons
Public Member Posts: 2 Registered: May 2, 2009 | RE:RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 26, 2009 1:37 PM in response to: Teresa McLellan |
| Teresa: Again, it seems that there is a conflict of interest here. The fox is guarding the hen house. Your information comes from your funders. Where is the objectivity......for instance.....peer reviewed studies? And what about numbers? Is condescension part of your mandate? Are you supposed to be leading the way in stewardship of our watershed lands? If I have understood your post correctly, and the literature you are touting as objective research, then I can expect no better stewardship for my watershed, hence my drinking water supply than as if someone had spread biosolids from sewage sludge on property adjacent to my property. Has the toxicity of sewage sludge become a benchmark for what is acceptable to dump on our land? I, for one, am now very fearful! No one is watching my back but me. |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: May 27, 2009 6:08 PM in response to: Teresa McLellan |
| Arsenic and Old Lies From http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/arsenic/1.asp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arsenic provides yet another example of how the chemical industry cannot be trusted for consistent and sound scientific information on chemical toxicity. When it suits their purposes politically or in the media, the chemical industry has acknowledged that arsenic is extremely toxic and even offered it up as a red herring to put regulators and independent scientists off the trail of other toxic substances. On the other hand, when arsenic-based chemistry is found toxic and in need of regulation, the industry responds with strained attempts to criticize individual studies as a way of deflecting regulation of arsenic compounds. When the nightmare that vinyl chloride plant workers were contracting the rare liver cancer, angiosarcoma, became clear to the manufacturers, at least one of these companies (Dow) attempted to point the finger at arsenic as the source of the rare liver cancer. Arsenic is one of the few compounds besides vinyl chloride that causes angiosarcoma, a good indicator of arsenic's potent cancer causing properties. (view entire document) For the chemical industry, this grim fact created an opportunity to befuddle public officials investigating the dangers of vinyl chloride. In a letter to a British chemical company which outlined Dow's efforts to thwart legal action related to cancers among chemical industry workers, Dow's company doctor suggested that arsenic be put forth as the "suspect material" which could be causing angiosarcoma, no doubt hoping to downplay attention to vinyl chloride use as a suspected cause. (view entire document) Yet when the industry was faced with regulations to curb arsenic exposure in the workplace and the environment, the industry attempted to belittle the dangers of arsenic, criticizing scientific studies that the industry itself had commissioned which linked arsenic to cancer. The Chemical Manufacturers Association created its Arsenic Program Panel in January of 1981 in response to growing attention being paid to arsenic by various agencies within the Reagan Administration. This committee was a part of CMA's Biomedical and Environmental Special Programs Division, which is designed "to provide manufacturers, processors, and/or users of a chemical or chemicals with the opportunity to support collectively research and/or advocacy on specific chemicals." (view entire document) The Arsenic Program Panel set out to investigate the health effects of arsenic and to lobby governmental agencies working on arsenic regulations. The panel's first action was to jointly sponsor a symposium with the National Bureau of Standards in November 1981 in order to "provide a means for industry and government agencies to come to an understanding of cost-effective regulation of arsenic as a hazardous material." (view entire document) The Panel also hired scientists to conduct literature reviews on arsenic in order to identify the need for further research, as well as to gather materials to potentially use in the Panel's "advocacy regarding present and proposed arsenic standards." (view entire document) The Panel commissioned two occupational exposure studies to examine a link between respiratory cancer and arsenic. Both of them found arsenic to be a potent cause of human cancer. Rather than accept the results, which only confirmed years of study of this highly toxic metal, in both cases the industry took steps to undermine the conclusions of the work that it had paid for. The first CMA-sponsored arsenic study, prepared by a scientist at the University of Pittsburgh and presented to CMA in February 1985, concluded exactly what industry didn't want to hear: "The report concludes that arsenic exposure was related to an increased risk of respiratory cancer in Tacoma Smelter workers in every category of exposure." (emphasis added) (view entire document) The industry did not accept these results, and raised a number of "concerns" with the report's findings, which it expressed in a cover letter attached to the report when it was sent to various government agencies. (view entire document) The second study, conducted by University of Michigan scientists, confirmed a previously established relationship between arsenic exposure and lung cancer in Anaconda Smelter workers. Industry attempted to downplay the severity of the problem, noting that workers hired earliest had the greatest risks, overlooking the fact that all workers had an increased risk. (view entire document) |
| Ivan Mcilroy
Public Member Posts: 15 Registered: May 1, 2009 | RE:More on Chicken Feed Posted: Jun 22, 2009 8:54 AM in response to: Cathie Brown |
| From the Chicken Farmers of Canada website http://www.chickenfeeds.ca/2009/05/the-truth-on-antibiotics/comment-page-1/#comment-82 -- Another admission of Arsenic in feed -- When are you going to post "YOUR SOURCES" "In Canada, trace amounts of arsenic, an approved animal feed supplement, may occasionally, but are not always, be included in some chicken feed to control intestinal parasites" |
