If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Are we over dosing animals?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭Dinzee Conlee

    I thought there was some link between ivermectin based doses not being good for dung beetles/soil based critters?

    Edit - I see patsy beat me to it…

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,981 Mod ✭✭✭✭greysides

    Had an issue re. wormer resistance here some years ago but thankfully over that now

    Well, it would be nice if that was the case. It would also be unexpected. Wormer resistance isn't known to go away. After years of avoiding using a particular wormer that resistance has developed to, it is possible to get a very brief improvement, but it disappears very quickly.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert

    The ultimate purpose of debate is not to produce consensus. It's to promote critical thinking.

    Adam Grant

  • Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭JohnChadwick

    Always dose weanlings with albex 2 weeks before housing.

    That's it otherwise, as we're in organics in any case.

    Often reflect that it doesn't make sense that organic farmers have to pay for certification that proves they operate in a more restricted way in terms of dosing. Should be other way around.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭paddysdream

    Not gone away in the sense of its back working as it should ,rather that I still use ivermectin class drenches on some occasions but with no residual effect evident .

    Thankfully both yellow and white still working as they should according to FEC results .

    Buy in very few breeding sheep and usually zolvix them before mixing with my own .

    Use doses sparingly nowadays and would always FEC before and after dosing.

    Problem is that it costs as much as the chemical at times .Reality ,and I know it probably looks stupid to say it is that sheep dosing is cheap as chips which means dosing is not a big cost .Farmers see a dirty lamb and in with the dosing gun instead of actually finding out if they actually have a worm burden or something else .

  • Registered Users Posts: 565 ✭✭✭n1st

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭Dinzee Conlee

    That is a link about a lad doing regenerative, which would be organic I suppose in this sense.

    this to me is kinda different to over dosing animals, or determining when and how to dose in a conventional sense…

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭minerleague

    Can't understand the rules around dosing and organics, might have to jump through a few more hoops but you can dose / inject without losing organic status ( an animal injected with antibiotics twice can be sold conventional without affecting herd organic status ) Doubt consumers who buy organic are fully aware of these rules?

  • Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭JohnChadwick

    As above, dose an animal more than twice and the particular animal only loses organic status (think), bit more documenting/inspection and treble the withdrawal period.

    Awareness depends who the consumers are.

    Illogical that organic farmers must pay for that, by way of being certified. Surely its 'conventional' farming that must be certified.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Long boring contrary post that some might do their blood pressure good by not reading 😁

    It's not the hill I'm going to die on today (that one's called Mt. Booster 😂), because I haven't and don't have the intention either of Googling for links, but I don't think I would agree that using "-icides" or other synthetic chemicals has no effect on soil fertility. I'd probably be of the opposite opinion.

    Often studies only study target organisms vs synthetic chemical = they died, yay that works.

    I'd think there are also studies out there outlining non target organisms vs synthetic chemical = oops, they died too.

    The big deal about that is, soil fertility, parasite/pest/disease reduction.

    If you take it that aerobic beneficial organisms out compete, inhibit and consume - for want of a better word - bad guys, ie pests, parasites, disease causing organisms.

    Your plant produces with the help of photosynthesis and through it's roots excretes exudates. It does this to attract specific fungi & bacteria around it's roots, for a number of benefits to the plant, nutrient supply, protection.

    The specific bacteria & fungi species attracted to the root zone then use their enzymes to extract non available nutrients from sand, silt, clay, rocks etc. These nutrients mostly still exist, if we forget about rhizophagy for the minute (plants directly ingesting bacteria), in plant unavailable form.

    Predators of bacteria & fungi - I'm tempted to say if present in that soil as often with green revolution practices many important actors are missing , are those knives I hear being sharpened?- come along and eat some bacteria or fungi depending on who the predator is.

    There are excessive nutrients for the predators, so they do what we all need to do at some point and excrete the excess. Seeing as the bacteria and fungi attracted by our plant are mostly around the roots, these now plant available excreted nutrients are right beside the plant roots to be taken up.

    OR if the plant doesn't for some reason get some of these nutrients, an organism will come along and consume them and so it begins again.

    So, does using synthetic chemicals affect soil fertility negatively? Yes, imo, between being salts and interfering with the water film in the soil or being straight out "icides" killing the organisms who's job it is to cycle nutrients for the plants, to be harvested or consumed in one way or another by livestock/people.

    Regards from the bunker 😃

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,667 ✭✭✭Birdnuts

    Very little doubt that intensive farming methods have dramatically reduced the nutrient contents of everything from carrots to chickens since WW2.

    "The modern combination of intensive tilling, lack of cover crops, synthetic fertilizers and pesticide use has left farmland stripped of the nutrients, minerals and microbes that support healthy plant life."

  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    I think it's Dan Kitterage that's developing a scanner to assess the nutrient level in some "produce" as they'd call it. No idea how that project is going.

    One of the lectures on the course I'm doing had a study in NZ, 2003 I think, where farming biologically cured dairy cow facial eczema that in their opinion the lack of nutrients had either caused or allowed in as a secondary invader. Interesting stuff to me anyway.