Pelleted, treated feeds may boost digestion in growing cattle

[LCCattle]

Pelleted, treated feeds may boost digestion in growing cattle
By Aerin CurtisAerin Curtis, 12-Jul-2016

http://www.feednavigator.com/R-D/Pellet ... ing-cattle

The key word is "MAY" boost.
And the key question is " Who paid for this study?"
But it's an interesting read.

 

[inyati13]

LLC, on a scale of 1 to 10, I score 12 as a skeptic but you beat me. If you have any formal training in the pure sciences, everything is hedged. Researchers rarely make firm definitive statements. You are over emphasizing the "MAY".

It should be easy to determine the source of funding. I guess you are going to insinuate it was a feed producer intending to make his product look better. If you want respect then be objective!!! You look like what we called in enforcement a " hired gun". Someone pushing an agenda with an ulterior motive.

 

[LCCattle]

LLC, on a scale of 1 to 10, I score 12 as a skeptic but you beat me. If you have any formal training in the pure sciences, everything is hedged. Researchers rarely make firm definitive statements. You are over emphasizing the "MAY".

It should be easy to determine the source of funding. I guess you are going to insinuate it was a feed producer intending to make his product look better. If you want respect then be objective!!! You look like what we called in enforcement a " hired gun". Someone pushing an agenda with an ulterior motive.

Inyati13
You obviously don't know what has been going on in the feed/cattle industry for some time which has culminated with the possible paralysis or deaths of children and may still be going on.
Federal Agencies Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Leverage Expertise during Foodborne Outbreak Investigations
Do you recognize the members, and what THEY do?
Why do you think the MOU was formed?

WASHINGTON, May 19, 2014 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will provide a more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to address foodborne health hazards associated with meat, poultry and processed egg products.

 

[inyati13]

I thought I gave you a lecture in composition and you send me this:

Inyati13
You obviously don't know what has been going on in the feed/cattle industry for some time which has culminated with the possible paralysis or deaths of children and may still be going on.
Federal Agencies Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Leverage Expertise during Foodborne Outbreak Investigations
Do you recognize the members, and what THEY do?
Why do you think the MOU was formed?

First, telling me what I know or don't know is speculation. It has nothing to do with your message. So edit that out.

Second, you make a dramatic statement about death and destruction which has no supporting information. Is the reader suppose to read your mind and fill that in?

Third, you launch into a discussion of a MOU. You do not develop your point.

My friend, your response is so poor it is difficult for me to help you.

PS: I have worked closely with the CDC on lead issues. Specifically, on the bioavailability of lead in human children who ingest lead in soil. I have a firm understanding of the MOU. I have worked on task forces promulgating regulations pursuant to Acts of Congress so feel free to get as specific as you can.

 

[LCCattle]

there is nothing wrong with pelleting feed, I personally prefer pelleted feed. It's what's in the pellets that concerns me. And their false claim of boosting digestion in growing cattle, when there is many studies out there that says it does not. Therefor my conclusion is: this is the same old propaganda that has been used for years to promote DDG & DDGS. AKA grain by-products.

 

[inyati13]

there is nothing wrong with pelleting feed, I personally prefer pelleted feed. It's what's in the pellets that concerns me. And their false claim of boosting digestion in growing cattle, when there is many studies out there that says it does not. Therefor my conclusion is: this is the same old propaganda that has been used for years to promote DDG & DDGS. AKA grain by-products.

Duh, of course it is what is in the pellet. The geometry of how something is fed is not an issue. How old are you? I am guessing 19!

Produce your data. Don't come here with headlines. Post links to scientific studies and I promise you I will read them and provide an objective assessment.

 

[LCCattle]

there is nothing wrong with pelleting feed, I personally prefer pelleted feed. It's what's in the pellets that concerns me. And their false claim of boosting digestion in growing cattle, when there is many studies out there that says it does not. Therefor my conclusion is: this is the same old propaganda that has been used for years to promote DDG & DDGS. AKA grain by-products.

Duh, of course it is what is in the pellet. The geometry of how something is fed is not an issue. How old are you? I am guessing 19!

Produce your data. Don't come here with headlines. Post links to scientific studies and I promise you I will read them and provide an objective assessment.

OK, try reading this one. And please stay on topic.
click here

 

[inyati13]

there is nothing wrong with pelleting feed, I personally prefer pelleted feed. It's what's in the pellets that concerns me. And their false claim of boosting digestion in growing cattle, when there is many studies out there that says it does not. Therefor my conclusion is: this is the same old propaganda that has been used for years to promote DDG & DDGS. AKA grain by-products.

Duh, of course it is what is in the pellet. The geometry of how something is fed is not an issue. How old are you? I am guessing 19!

Produce your data. Don't come here with headlines. Post links to scientific studies and I promise you I will read them and provide an objective assessment.

OK, try reading this one. And please stay on topic.
click here

I read that. First, it is a second person report on the results of treating DDG with CaO. I am cautious to draw conclusions as freely as you did above unless you studied the original published report. Second, you provide no research to contradict the second party report or the original research. Are you comfortable with that leap of faith? If you are then you are not a strong follower of the scientific method.

 

[LCCattle]

Inyati13,
To bring you up to speed I would have to go all the way back to 1981 and search some other board for the proof. So here is proof of what I just now stated. The fed manufacturer was made to pay restitution. I make no judgment of guilt, I am merely showing you how important and down and dirty this can get.
Now if you demand proof, it may take me awhile to find it searching other boards, so only do so if you feel it is really necessary.



Plaintiff Newman filed suit in Alabama circuit court against defendant Cameron (a feed commodities broker), defendant Staley Manufacturing Company (a manufacturer of cattle feed), and other defendants who were dismissed from the suit before trial. Plaintiff alleged that defendants produced, brokered, and sold cattle feed that, when fed to plaintiff's cattle, caused death to a great number of the cattle, caused illness among the herd, caused interruption of plaintiff's feeding and maintenance program, and otherwise adversely and injuriously affected plaintiff's cattle. Alleging diversity jurisdiction defendants removed the case to federal court. Following jury verdicts for plaintiff Newman and defendant Cameron, defendant Staley Manufacturing Company appeals.
http://openjurist.org/648/f2d/330
Now the short of it is:
In this case the "feed" manufacture was found to be at fault and ordered to pay restitution, although WHAT was in the feed,that killed the cattle, was not determined at trial. at some later date it was determined that the toxin in the feed was sulfur, and the feed manufacture ( Staleys, who also manufatured ethanol ) had full knowledge that the feed was toxic as was/is all other ethanol DDG & DDGS to this day, unless FSIS has recently put an end to it.
TBC

 

[greybeard]

LLC, on a scale of 1 to 10, I score 12 as a skeptic but you beat me. If you have any formal training in the pure sciences, everything is hedged. Researchers rarely make firm definitive statements. You are over emphasizing the "MAY".

It should be easy to determine the source of funding. I guess you are going to insinuate it was a feed producer intending to make his product look better. If you want respect then be objective!!! You look like what we called in enforcement a " hired gun". Someone pushing an agenda with an ulterior motive.

ding ding ding!

although WHAT was in the feed,that killed the cattle, was not determined at trial. at some later date it was determined that the toxin in the feed was sulfur,

 

[inyati13]

Inyati13,
To bring you up to speed I would have to go all the way back to 1981 and search some other board for the proof. So here is proof of what I just now stated. The fed manufacturer was made to pay restitution. I make no judgment of guilt, I am merely showing you how important and down and dirty this can get.
Now if you demand proof, it may take me awhile to find it searching other boards, so only do so if you feel it is really necessary.



Plaintiff Newman filed suit in Alabama circuit court against defendant Cameron (a feed commodities broker), defendant Staley Manufacturing Company (a manufacturer of cattle feed), and other defendants who were dismissed from the suit before trial. Plaintiff alleged that defendants produced, brokered, and sold cattle feed that, when fed to plaintiff's cattle, caused death to a great number of the cattle, caused illness among the herd, caused interruption of plaintiff's feeding and maintenance program, and otherwise adversely and injuriously affected plaintiff's cattle. Alleging diversity jurisdiction defendants removed the case to federal court. Following jury verdicts for plaintiff Newman and defendant Cameron, defendant Staley Manufacturing Company appeals.
http://openjurist.org/648/f2d/330
Now the short of it is:
In this case the "feed" manufacture was found to be at fault and ordered to pay restitution, although WHAT was in the feed,that killed the cattle, was not determined at trial. at some later date it was determined that the toxin in the feed was sulfur, and the feed manufacture ( Staleys, who also manufatured ethanol ) had full knowledge that the feed was toxic as was/is all other ethanol DDG & DDGS to this day, unless FSIS has recently put an end to it.
TBC

Composition Lesson:

Avoid beginning a response with "To bring you up to speed...." It is analogous to asking me if I wear boxers or briefs. It adds nothing of substance to your response.
________________________________

I ask for the original data supporting the topic you brought to the forum.
You responded with information on legal proceedings. That is not quantitative. It is not even qualitative. Rulings by judges and juries are subjective. Most of them don't know the difference between an atom and a molecule.

If you want me to continue to provide free composition lessons, please stay on topic and provide the original research on the effects of adding CaO to DDG. Thank you.

 

[TexasBred]

LLC, on a scale of 1 to 10, I score 12 as a skeptic but you beat me. If you have any formal training in the pure sciences, everything is hedged. Researchers rarely make firm definitive statements. You are over emphasizing the "MAY".

It should be easy to determine the source of funding. I guess you are going to insinuate it was a feed producer intending to make his product look better. If you want respect then be objective!!! You look like what we called in enforcement a " hired gun". Someone pushing an agenda with an ulterior motive.

ding ding ding!

although WHAT was in the feed,that killed the cattle, was not determined at trial. at some later date it was determined that the toxin in the feed was sulfur,

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: It was only a matter of time before this came out :clap: :clap:

 

[LCCattle]

I don't know why you people are so surprised that the subject of DDG & DDGS being toxic has come up due to excess sulfur, as it has been discussed in every dairy and beef magazine I have read, not to mention on every other cattle board I have been on and it has even been discussed in " Ethanol magazine " extensively also.
Plus there was a rather extensive "notify your congressmen" campain, both state and federal, about the dangers of feeding Ethanol by-products to both animals and humans.
It was a requesting to stop allowing the use of sulfur in the ethanol manufacturing process when the by product was intended to be used for animal feeds the same as it is with other distillery by products used for human consumption. .
The dangers of feeding excess sulfur in DDG & DDGS was requested by both dairy and beef cattlemen producers along with some feed manufactures and sales representative.
Which has appeared to have worked as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was formed and signed within 60 days of the "notify your congressmen" campaign .

Is this the first you people are hearing of this?
Have you not discussed any of this previously??

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Red saddles for everyone!!!

 

[inyati13]

I don't know why you people are so surprised that the subject of DDG & DDGS being toxic has come up due to excess sulfur, as it has been discussed in every dairy and beef magazine I have read, not to mention on every other cattle board I have been on and it has even been discussed in " Ethanol magazine " extensively also.
Plus there was a rather extensive "notify your congressmen" campain, both state and federal, about the dangers of feeding Ethanol by-products to both animals and humans.
It was a requesting to stop allowing the use of sulfur in the ethanol manufacturing process when the by product was intended to be used for animal feeds the same as it is with other distillery by products used for human consumption. .
The dangers of feeding excess sulfur in DDG & DDGS was requested by both dairy and beef cattlemen producers along with some feed manufactures and sales representative.
Which has appeared to have worked as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was formed and signed within 60 days of the "notify your congressmen" campaign .

Is this the first you people are hearing of this?
Have you not discussed any of this previously??

The report (not original research) that initiated this thread advocates that treating DDG and DDGS with CaO has benefits notably increasing digestibility. Keeping with that topic, you intimated that you have concerns about the effectness and safety of that practice.

The burden is on you to provide a contrary report or research that refutiates the assertions in the report you provided a link to. Let's do that first before you launch into sulfur.

I have not disparaged your concerns for feed safety. I support in principle most of the subjects that you have advanced. The issue is the manner of your advocacy. You seem to have a vindictive tone, i.e., your statements about the feed industry. I mean that sincerely. I don't have the background that others seem to have with regard to your past activities under other user names. I am taking you at face value but your tone gives me cause to think you are pursuing a personal vendetta. I can only speculate on the motive. Maybe a feed company executive officer raped your grandmother. Maybe a feed company didn't buy any of your son's boy scout cookies. Maybe an owner of a feed company spit on you. All good reasons, but it does taint your agenda.

 

[bball]

CaO is necessary when feeding DDGs to balance the Ca to P ratio (since DDG has concentrated P levels) if not using CaO in ration, then you run the risk of pesky problems like urinary/renal calculi, increase risk for milk fever after calving, etc. Would like to see how this study attributes higher digestibility to CaO specifically. What's the science behind it?

 

[LCCattle]

Inyati13,

The report (not original research) that initiated this thread advocates that treating DDG and DDGS with CaO has benefits notably increasing digestibility. Keeping with that topic, you intimated that you have concerns about the effectness and safety of that practice.

That is correct,
I do have concerns due to the known and admitted too fact, by Ethanol and some feed manufactures and their sales representatives that it may contain excess sulfur that is known to cause PEM in cattle and most likely is causing Acute Flaccid Myelitis in humans.
I also have concerns that this new procedure, using CaO is being promoted before it has been approved by USDA, FDA, FSIS and the CDC under the new regulations.
If they get that approval, I have no problems with it.

The burden is on you to provide a contrary report or research that refutiates the assertions in the report you provided a link to. Let's do that first before you launch into sulfur.

NO! The burden of proof is on them to prove it is safe. Not on me to prove it is not.
All I am saying is, if they are using DDG & DDGS to make the pellets, which is known to be toxic, then no matter what they do to it, it is still not safe unless the sulfur is removed.

Does that clear that up?

 

[inyati13]

LLC stated:

All I am saying is, if they are using DDG & DDGS to make the pellets, which is known to be toxic, then no matter what they do to it, it is still not safe unless the sulfur is removed.

If one disagrees with a finding, theory, conclusion, or thesis, one must produce a contrary set of data. You are simply making a statement. You must support that statement.

Have you had any formal education above high school?

Edited to add:

LLC, I was the Remedial Project Manager on two of the highest profile superfund projects in the nation. The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Priority Soils and The Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver. I have worked with toxicologist, risk assessment managers, data validators, engineers, fluvial geomorphologist, etc. I provide this as a foundation for the following:

The mere presence of toxic elements or substances does not always equate to a risk. There are many factors. A pathway is essential. The most toxic substance on earth is benign if there is no pathway. As a key component of a risk assessment, one must quantify the toxicity and chemical species of the contaminant. For example, lead in some matrix structures do not pose a risk because they are not bioavailable. A child can eat a pound of dirt a day of lead in a silica matrix and blood lead levels remain normal. I could go on and on. I spent the last 10 years of federal service on issues exactly like the one you are obsessed with. As arrogant as it is, I doubt you have the training to draw the conclusions you post here. Even more arrogantly, it is laughable that you treat it as simple as you do.

I have not studied the occurrence of sulphur in feeds but I know based on the literature you use that you are an amateur. Most of your references are no more than news media reports.

Get mad if you wish or sturdy the subject and come back with a more credible case.

 

[TexasBred]

CaO is necessary when feeding DDGs to balance the Ca to P ratio (since DDG has concentrated P levels) if not using CaO in ration, then you run the risk of pesky problems like urinary/renal calculi, increase risk for milk fever after calving, etc. Would like to see how this study attributes higher digestibility to CaO specifically. What's the science behind it?

It doesn't happen. Pelletizing may increas the rate of digestion since everything has a very small particle size but it doesn't nothing to increase digestion. And the risk of milk fever in beef cattle is very slim even when feeding DDG or CGF. Milk fever is actually caused by an overly high concentration of calcium in the blood prepartum, then the sudden release of all that calcium from the blood into milk production at the time of birth resulting in hypocalcaemia.

 

[LCCattle]

inyati13

The issue is the manner of your advocacy. You seem to have a vindictive tone, i.e., your statements about the feed industry. I mean that sincerely.
Snip
but your tone gives me cause to think you are pursuing a personal vendetta.

Well, sorry about that, but I call them as I see them no matter who's skid marks they are. Yes some of the problem is the fault of dairy and beef cattlemen but most is the fault of feed manufactures and their sales reps, wholesale feed distributors, ethanol distillers and the USDA, special interests groups and the Federal government.
There is no vendetta on my part, although I have lost cattle and have seen many cattle die of PEM caused by excess sulfur. My goal was and still is to put a stop to this needles killing of animals, which also includes pigs and chickens, dogs etc etc.
And if it takes being slapped with a big fine and pay restitution, or a law suit, to make those involved to stop this practice, so be it.
And I hope the USDA/FSIA/CDC comes through and use aggressive action to enforce these new regulations.
Now if the truth hurts, GOOD, now clean up your act.