You are correct and brilliant - not puzzled at all!I read an article once that stated non-toxic levels of teratogenic pesticides can alter the sexual preference in male rats.
Is it possible that these same teratogenic pesticides could have a similar affect on Bull Elk, and that could lead to a decline
in the number of elk calves ?
Perhaps it is having a similar effect on the homo sapiens.
All of North America is receiving high levels. Some individuals are less sensitive than others. While glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 human urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB) that is not enough to kill everyone immediately. Also, glyphosate causes several diseases, including cancer, but usually does not cause immediate death in humans. Cancer, for example takes a while and sometimes can be treated.
That is because it is still a problem now. White-tailed deer examined by researchers who were picking up carcasses to put in front of cameras to photograph eagles and other animals eating the dead deer found a 35% prevalence of ectopic testicles in 2019. When the testicles are between the skin and the body wall it causes sperm to be killed so the bucks can't breed does. Unfortunately, I do not have time to be bored.
Very low levels of hormone disrupting pesticides can effect the progesterone level in the female grazing animals, resulting in them not becoming pregnant, even if they are bred by viable males. So hormone disrupting pesticides can seriously affect both males and females.I read an article once that stated non-toxic levels of teratogenic pesticides can alter the sexual preference in male rats.
Is it possible that these same teratogenic pesticides could have a similar affect on Bull Elk, and that could lead to a decline
in the number of elk calves ?
Perhaps it is having a similar effect on the homo sapiens.
Scientists say that toxins are the cause of Weak Calf Syndrome. All of the calves that had been diagnosed with Weak Calf Syndrome that I helped my neighbor with, had an underbite. That was one of the birth defects that researchers found on fawn deer when their mothers were deliberately exposed to the teratogenic insecticide imidacloprid. If you want to know how many calves die of Weak Calf Syndrome in Montana or in any other state, you can look it up on the internet, like I did. I guess someone heard about it, since it was easy to find. It also says that three out of every 100 calves born in Montana die of Weak Calf Syndrome. In 2021, there were 1,310,000 calves born in Montana, so around 39,000 calves died of toxins resulting in them having Weak Calf Syndrome. In Montana in 2021, between 200 and 300 cattle of all ages were killed by wolves and that is counting the questionable ones. So 39,000 is a bit more than the maximum 300 that might be killed by wolves in Montana. The people responsible for all those calves killed by man made toxins never get punished at all, let alone murdered in the most inhumane, unethical methods possible to think up like the wolves here in Montana are. And now you have heard about it!
Only one reason for Weak Calf Syndrome has ever caused an underdeveloped premaxillary bone - that is exposure to imidacloprid. There were likely no calves with underbite even being born prior to 1995. I was a 4-H cattle judge and we checked the bite on all animals as well as hooves, etc. back in the old days. All of those reasons you listed were in cattle herds where I lived then and there were no calves with Weak Calf Syndrome or underbite, overbite, contracted tendons or any of the other defects that began in 1995, the year after imidacloprid began being used. I now live in the same county where Weak Calf Syndrome was first described and the veterinarian who first found and described it in 1964 was a friend. We discussed Weak Calf Syndrome and he said it was caused by the cow ingesting toxic plants or being exposed to other toxins. But what would he know - right? I did not say the cattle are being exposed by the ranchers. I said that most rain water that was tested, tested positive for both imidacloprid and glyphosate in concerning amounts as well as many other pesticides. When the pesticide containing rain or snow falls on the foliage eaten by the cattle, they are exposed whether the owner uses pesticides or not. For some hormone disrupting toxins, very small amounts are far more damaging than high levels. Also, researchers tested pregnant humans and found that the imidacloprid went directly across the placenta and into the fetus. If imidacloprid does that on human mothers to be, it very likely does the same on all other mammals, including cattle. I am trying to save the cattle and save ranchers money. Telling livestock owners what might be adversely affecting their livestock is not insulting anyone. I have noticed that some people manage to insult themselves.
The study done at the South Dakota State University that put imidacloprid in the drinking water of pregnant white-tailed deer found the fawns that had birth defects or that died had the highest levels of imidacloprid in their spleens. They weren't looking for any specific item. They wanted to know if imidacloprid exposure caused any adverse health effects. They knew the detected levels of imidacloprid. They knew what caused the birth defects. I am not certain what you mean?
I admire your knowledge concerning prescription drugs and how to use them to help cattle and also how you share your knowledge with others. Most of the prescription drugs you talk about were not being produced when I had livestock.
