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
Beginners Board
Pelleted, treated feeds may boost digestion in growing cattle
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="inyati13" data-source="post: 1346337" data-attributes="member: 17767"><p>LLC stated:</p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Have you had any formal education above high school?</p><p></p><p>Edited to add:</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Get mad if you wish or sturdy the subject and come back with a more credible case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="inyati13, post: 1346337, member: 17767"] LLC stated: [i]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.[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Pelleted, treated feeds may boost digestion in growing cattle
Top