Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
Bottle calf! Some say I'm crazy...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J Hoy" data-source="post: 1768183" data-attributes="member: 16398"><p>There were only two reports in the scientific literature about deer fawns with an underbite prior to 1995. One study in Michigan in 1969 looked at 36,000 hunter killed deer for underbite and didn't find one deer with underbite. I grew up on a ranch and we never had any grazing animal or other animal born with an underbite. The insecticide imidacloprid began being used in western states in 1994 and the next spring multiple newborns of various species, wild and domestic, including birds began being born with an underbite. Obviously, since all newborns do not have an underbite, there are individuals who are less susceptible to the effects of the toxins. I did not say either of those things you said I did. Lots of cattle have from 100 ppb to 300 ppb of imidacloprid in their spleens, but the prevalence of underbite in cattle is likely lower than the prevalence of cattle with those high levels of imidacloprid. The white-tailed deer tested have around 10 ppb of imidacloprid in their spleens, but deer fawns appear to have a higher prevalence of underbite than cattle. That suggests that deer are more susceptible to imidacloprid effects than cattle. Some ranchers here in our area had a fairly high prevalence of underbite in the early 2000s at around 30 to 33 percent. I don't know cattle prevalence now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J Hoy, post: 1768183, member: 16398"] There were only two reports in the scientific literature about deer fawns with an underbite prior to 1995. One study in Michigan in 1969 looked at 36,000 hunter killed deer for underbite and didn't find one deer with underbite. I grew up on a ranch and we never had any grazing animal or other animal born with an underbite. The insecticide imidacloprid began being used in western states in 1994 and the next spring multiple newborns of various species, wild and domestic, including birds began being born with an underbite. Obviously, since all newborns do not have an underbite, there are individuals who are less susceptible to the effects of the toxins. I did not say either of those things you said I did. Lots of cattle have from 100 ppb to 300 ppb of imidacloprid in their spleens, but the prevalence of underbite in cattle is likely lower than the prevalence of cattle with those high levels of imidacloprid. The white-tailed deer tested have around 10 ppb of imidacloprid in their spleens, but deer fawns appear to have a higher prevalence of underbite than cattle. That suggests that deer are more susceptible to imidacloprid effects than cattle. Some ranchers here in our area had a fairly high prevalence of underbite in the early 2000s at around 30 to 33 percent. I don't know cattle prevalence now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Health & Nutrition
Bottle calf! Some say I'm crazy...
Top