Obviously I haven't made my point if people are still asking pertinent questions. Is this thread required reading or something?Dead horse...
And now I get why people are tired of the whole thing.
Obviously I haven't made my point if people are still asking pertinent questions. Is this thread required reading or something?Dead horse...
And now I get why people are tired of the whole thing.
My lung doctor said the pulmonary fibrosis was because of exposure to toxins in the air because I never smoked or used pesticides. I am very allergic to both cigarette smoke and pesticides, not that you care about that. Really sorry to be boring you to death again!Dead horse...
And now I get why people are tired of the whole thing.
Granted, I have not read the whole post from the beginning, so I don't know who said what and so forth. Something struck me though in this post of yours here.A study by Bart O'Gara of 100 white-tailed deer in our county in 1992 found no birth defects of any kind on adults or fetuses and that was one of the primary things that the researcher was looking for. Just three years later in spring of 1995, grazing animals, including white-tailed deer began being born with an underbite and the prevalence went up each year for several years. Underbite began declining in prevalence in wild grazing animals in 2014 but I am not sure why.
Since a large number of species of mammal, including equines, ruminants, camelids, canines, felines and children and many species of bird began being born with underdeveloped facial bones (either upper facial bones or the lower jaw forward of the premolars in mammals) in spring of 1995, the hypothesis of my colleagues and myself is that there was a very serious environmental factor that began causing the epigenetic change in facial bone development. At one point in the last 27 years, the prevalence of underbite on the examined wild ruminants was over 50%, but in 2014, something about the environmental factors changed so the underbite prevalence in most mammals and birds went down. The primary incorrect point of your hypothesis is that the disrupted facial bone development (underbite or overbite) has been shown by studies to be epigenetic, not genetic. The genes of the affected animals were not changed, the triggers that turn on or off certain genes are disrupted. There is no possible way for so many species to suddenly have the same genetic effect at the same time. Studies done prior to 1995 showed that there was almost no overbite and no underbite at all in wild ruminant populations prior to 1995.Granted, I have not read the whole post from the beginning, so I don't know who said what and so forth. Something struck me though in this post of yours here.
You contribute this underbite theory in general to the use of Pesticides, did I understand that right?
If that is the case, you should know what event started the 'problem' between '92 and '95 and why it declined again in 2014.
Without knowing what exactly the environmental change was that contributed to the problem......... it remains just a hypothesis.
My hypothesis........ a number of animals was born with a genetic defect of an underbite (~1993), reproduced, spread the genetic defect. Animals born with this genetic defect didn't thrive as good in nature, 'only the strong survive'. Most of these weaker animals died off without reproducing (2014 on), lessening the occurrence of the defect.
P.S.: I have not read any of the studies, never looked at the problem, haven't paid attention to it either. But that is what I would think happened.
I was interrupted before I said that our hypothesis for an environmental factor was tested on white-tailed deer by researchers in South Dakota. They gave imidacloprid to pregnant female deer in their drinking water and the fawns with high amounts imidacloprid in their spleens were born with the birth defects reported by Montana wildlife biologists who observed them on white-tailed deer in spring of 1996. The fawns and does with the most imidacloprid in their spleen usually died. Each of our findings regarding the birth defects are a hypothesis. The only known "theory" I have encountered, unfortunately quite often, is the theory of gravity, since I am kind of clumsy - LOL.Since a large number of species of mammal, including equines, ruminants, camelids, canines, felines and children and many species of bird began being born with underdeveloped facial bones (either upper facial bones or the lower jaw forward of the premolars in mammals) in spring of 1995, the hypothesis of my colleagues and myself is that there was a very serious environmental factor that began causing the epigenetic change in facial bone development. At one point in the last 27 years, the prevalence of underbite on the examined wild ruminants was over 50%, but in 2014, something about the environmental factors changed so the underbite prevalence in most mammals and birds went down. The primary incorrect point of your hypothesis is that the disrupted facial bone development (underbite or overbite) has been shown by studies to be epigenetic, not genetic. The genes of the affected animals were not changed, the triggers that turn on or off certain genes are disrupted. There is no possible way for so many species to suddenly have the same genetic effect at the same time. Studies done prior to 1995 showed that there was almost no overbite and no underbite at all in wild ruminant populations prior to 1995.
Dear Hippy Rancher,I have your words as evidence. most of what you posted in this thread are your personal anecdotes. anecdotes are not data, as they say. photos are a good method of documenting individual events in individual points in time. they are parts of a whole. your personal anecdotes need more information and corroboration. observations are important, but conclusions need more evidence. experiments need duplication. heck even observations benefit from duplication. who else is noticing this? any veterinarians reporting this stuff? packers?
I read the paper you posted after this comment and tried to follow some of the notations. it is late and I am a little out of practice with reading these kinds of things (and especially statistics). one thing I may have missed or perhaps indeed it isn't there, was sample sizes for your various personal observations. (for example how many "normal" deer heads vs brachygnathic specimens?) I also noticed a fair amount of what seemed to be misleading language in terms of the focus on glyphosate and then the footnotes actually referring to other substances or phenomenon. unless it was a self-cite of your own work.
in general without a real deep dive I am somewhat skeptical of some of the correlation/causation conclusions you are pushing but the overall work seems OK on a late night first read.
that doesn't change anything I said about homeopathic treatments. that is just flat out whacky stuff that has no basis in science or reality. the only place for it is in treating humans as a placebo. no doubt it works well for many in that situation. heck I have even experienced it. LOL
and of course your claims for healing times are also just personal anecdotes. without something like dated before and after xrays, it is just the subjective observation/claim of one person about a naturally highly variable phenomenon.
It seems kind of strange that you have this under your posts,When are you going to learn? J Hoy lurks in the background waiting for a dead calf!!! She is obsessed.
J Hoy - give it up. We don't want you here. We have much more important things to discuss or take care of. DEAD HORSE.
Give us an example of who said "who looks for underbite". We certainly don't see all the pain and suffering that you are claiming that is occurring in our herds.Just wondering, Jeanne, you say you turn in the information and specimens for birth defects on livestock to the breed association where you live. Here in Montana, I can't find any reporting by ranchers anywhere for birth defects. Also, if livestock owners report underbite or overbite, why did some posters say "Who looks for underbite?"
Well, I did watch and actually bid on a lil bull bottle calf with a pretty severe underbite. Lil buck toothed fart was kind of cute. He brought wayyyy more than he was worth even if he had been a perfectly normal calf. I did have an "ah ha!" moment.J Hoy - The American Simmental Assn. has a reporting system for ALL defects. Any calf with Angus - Shorthorn - MaineAnjou - Chi - etc parentage, has to be DNA tested before they can be registered. If they are a carrier, there papers are marked as such. IO believe all breed associations offer Genetic Defect testing and reporting.
Yes - I stand by my quote:
"We make a living by what we get,
we make a life by what we give."
I try to give back to my fellow breeders all the time.
You have been trying to jam you "research" down our throats long enough. There has not been one incidence on here that someone has jumped on your "information" and had an "ah ha" moment.
If you want to enlighten someone - tell people in the cities. We, in agriculture, are already enlightened. Thank you for your previous life of research.
I remember saying...Give us an example of who said "who looks for underbite". We certainly don't see all the pain and suffering that you are claiming that is occurring in our herds.
Ken
You don't count Murray, you take them all no matter what for the challenge.Well, I did watch and actually bid on a lil bull bottle calf with a pretty severe underbite. Lil buck toothed fart was kind of cute. He brought wayyyy more than he was worth even if he had been a perfectly normal calf. I did have an "ah ha!" moment.
The family that bought him also bought Toodles, as well as several other small project calves from me. Ill have to see if I can find out if his buck toothed head ever got better....
I remember saying...
Who checks for an underbite anyway!
Thank you, Murray. It would definitely be interesting to know if the calf's underbite got better without treatment.Well, I did watch and actually bid on a lil bull bottle calf with a pretty severe underbite. Lil buck toothed fart was kind of cute. He brought wayyyy more than he was worth even if he had been a perfectly normal calf. I did have an "ah ha!" moment.
The family that bought him also bought Toodles, as well as several other small project calves from me. Ill have to see if I can find out if his buck toothed head ever got better....
I remember saying...
Who checks for an underbite anyway!
I was told by one rancher here in our county that approximately 1/3 of their beef calves in 1999 had an underbite, but that is anecdotal. Regarding actual data, in summer of 2009, I examined 16 heads of butchered yearling steers from our county. Twelve had an underbite and 4 had a normal bite, so 75% had an underbite. One was the reserve champion steer at the county fair in 4-H that year, so his underbite did not affect his growth or confirmation, since 4-H steers are usually fed grain. When I was in 4-H around 65 years ago, animals with birth defects like underbite were not allowed to be shown. Times have changed, I guess.When the issues of NH, AM, CA, DD, came about in Angus, MSUD, and several other conditions in Herefords, they were reported and it was dealt with by the associations. I'm sure that if underbites were even remotely common that it would be noticed and questioned by producers. I would think that an underbite would result in a poor doing calf or a short lived calf depending on severity of the deformity. Wouldn't take too many of those calves to get a producers attention.
I've only seen one ruminant in my lifetime with a noticeable underbite and that was in an old goat. It evidently didn't affect her much, she was otherwise healthy and in good condition.
I'm not saying that birth defects and medical conditions at any point in life are not possible from a variety of sources from genetics to toxins, and pharmaceutical drugs.
Livestock farmers/ranchers have to be and are very aware of any situation that affects their stock in a negative way, and certainly if a pattern of multiple similar scenarios occur.
seems a little harsh. plenty of posts here that are not exactly high science or of great importance. I give credit for efforts to gather data, even if the science is off and the conclusions not particularly credible.When are you going to learn? J Hoy lurks in the background waiting for a dead calf!!! She is obsessed.
J Hoy - give it up. We don't want you here. We have much more important things to discuss or take care of. DEAD HORSE.