DDT Residues in the Internal Fat of Beef Cattle Fed Contaminated Apple Pomace

Bovard, K. P.; Priode, B. M.; Whitmore, G. E.; Ackerman, A.

doi:10.2527/jas1961.204824x

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The whole tissue basis is used by the regulatory agencies in expressing residue levels in meat products. The residue levels were lower during this experiment than in the work conducted by Bovard et al (1961) and these differences reflect the lower residue content of the apple pomace (40 ppm in 1959 vs.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 55%

DDT Residues in Beef Cows Fed Apple Pomace

Rumsey

Bovard

Shepherd

et al. 1969

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has replaced all of the roughage normally used for wintering beef cows (Burris and Priode, 1957). However, in the past, apple pomace has contained up to 40 parts per million (ppm) residues of DDT [1, 1, 1-trichloro-2, 2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane] which accumulated (75.7 ppm) in omental fat of beef steers (Bovard et al., 1961). Currently the U. S. Food and Drug Administration tolerance of DDT residues is 7.0 ppm in animal fat and, therefore, apple pomace is not being used as a feed source. Recently, many apple producers have been using little or no DDT in their pest control programs. Pomace, from the same processors who supplied Bovard et al. (1961) in 1959, contained 1.2 ppm in 1965 and 0.6 ppm in 1966 as analyzed for this present study. If this trend continues, increased use of apple pomace as a practical cattle feed could result. This study was conducted to determine if the current level of DDT residues in apple pomace is low enough to alleviate the residue problem in cattle and, if not, at what levels apple pomace may be fed to wintering pregnant beef cows without causing a build-up of tissue residues above the legal tolerance level in either the cows or their calves.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 55%

DDT Residues in Beef Cows Fed Apple Pomace

Rumsey

Bovard

Shepherd

et al. 1969

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, both the slope and the intercept are statistically different from those published by Travis and Arms (1988). The primary reason for the different results in stage 2 is that the range of (Arant, 1948;Thomas et al, 1951;Gannon et al, 1959c;Claborn et al, 1960;Bovard et al, 1961;Laben et al, 1965;Whiting et al, 1973) 57-74-9 chlordane 6.3 10 ¡ 2.1 1.0 0.47 (Claborn et al, 1960;Dorough and Hemken, 1973) 58-89-9 lindane 3.7 6 ¡ 1.8 0.3 0.16 (Claborn et al, 1960) 60-57-1 dieldrin a 5.4 44 ¡ 1.3 0.6 0.44 (Gannon et al, 1959a;1959b;1959c;Claborn et al, 1960;Ivey et al, 1961;Wilson and Cook, 1972;Potter et al, 1974;Rumsey and Bond, 1974) 72-20-8 endrin 5.1 13 ¡ 2.1 0.5 0.23 (Kiigemagi et al, 1958;Claborn et al, 1960;Baldwin et al, 1976) 72-43-5 methoxychlor 5.1 1 ¡ 4.7 (Gannon et al, 1959c) 72-55-9 DDE 6.8 7 ¡ 1.2 0.1 0.11 (Fries and Marrow, 1976;) 93-72-1 fenoprop (silvex) 3.8 8 ¡ 4.8 0.5 0.11 (Clark et al, 1975) 94-75-7 2,4-D 2.7 9 ¡ 5.0 0.3 0.05 (Clark et al, 1975) 118-74-1 hexachlorobenzene 5.9 15 ¡ 1.0 0.1 0.13 (Borzelleca et al, 1971;Fries and Marrow, 1976;Dingle and Palmer, 1977) 309-00-2 aldrin b 6.5 2 ¡ 3.8 0.3 0.08 (Ivey et al, 1961;Rumsey and Bond, 1974) 1024-57-3 heptachlor epoxide c 5.0 27 ¡ 1.6 0.5 0.33 (Gannon et al, 1959c;Claborn et al, 1960;Bruce et al, 1965) 1746-01-6 TCDD, 2,3,7,8-6.8 7 ¡ 1.9 0.1 0.04 (Jensen et al, 1981(Jensen et al, ) 1918 (Fries et al, 19...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Travis and Arms revisited: a second look at a widely used bioconcentration algorithm

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1988, Travis and Arms reviewed the literature and collected data to develop a relationship between the octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) and the uptake of organic compounds into milk and beef (Travis and Arms, 1988). These equations have been utilized for predicting biotransfer factors for organic chemicals when empirical data are lacking. During the external peer review of the draft US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance entitled Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (US EPA, 1998) and the development of Superfund's Ecological Soil Screening Levels (US EPA, 2000b), questions challenging the derivation and use of these equations were raised. The primary questions raised were: 1) Are the equations presented in Travis and Arms (1988) for the estimation of transfer of organic compounds from contaminated feed to beef and milk technically valid and reproducible? If so, (2) are the equations appropriate across the entire log Kow range? For these reasons, this study was undertaken to validate the original Travis and Arms equations, to review more recent literature, and. if appropriate, to add to the original Travis and Arms data set to obtain updated equations. This paper presents an evaluation of the original Travis and Arms equations, limitations to their use, and steps to reduce uncertainties associated with their use by updating with more current literature.

show abstract

“…Chemical residues are an important consideration when incorporating byproducts into animal diets. DDT residues in apple pomace (Bovard et al, 1961;Wilson et al, 1971) have prevented the recommendation of this byproduct as a feed for ruminants. Winter feeding trials conducted from the fall of 1965 to the spring of 1967 indicated that apple pomace containing as little as .6 to 1.2 ppm of DDT residues caused an accumulation of 2.2 to 13.7 ppm of DDT residues in perianal fat of pregnant beef cows and in their calves after parturition (Rumsey et al, 1969).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementation of Apple Pomace with Nonprotein Nitrogen for Gestating Beef Cows. IV. Pesticide Accumulation in Cows

et al. 1977

Journal of Animal Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Samples of fresh apple pomace were collected from 14 loads of apple pomace as delivered from the processing plant in October 1968 and from stored apple pomace that had been obtained in October 1967 and fed during a feeding trial from mid-November 1967 through April 1968. All samples were analyzed for dicofol (kelthane), tetradifon (tedion), DDT, DDD and DDE. For the pesticide residues in fresh apple pomace, the difference between the low and high load means was greater than 10-fold and these differences between loads were significant (P<.01) for DDT, DDD and DDE. The pesticide residue content of stored apple pomace during a feeding trial ranged from .36 to 1.16 ppm for dicofol, .07 to .53 for tetradifon, 1.00 to 3.57 for DDT, .38 to .94 for DDD and .30 to .74 for DDE, which demonstrated potentially wide variation in pesticide intake during an apple pomaee feeding period. Accumulation of pesticide residues in the fat depots of 28 pregnant beef cows was significant when apple pomace was fed for 160 days. Accumulation of residues was not affected by the type of nitrogen supplementation or by the inclusion of oil in the diet. Accumulation of residues appeared greater when pesticides were added to a simulated apple pomace diet than when apple pomace was fed. Tetradifon, DDT and DDD accumulated at a similar rate in fat tissue; 29% as fast as DDE. Dicofol accumulated 8% as fast as tetradifon. Total DDT residues (sum of DDT, DDD and DDE) were highest in heart fat, lowest in brisket and t Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory, Nutrition Institute, ARS.

show abstract

DDT Residues in the Internal Fat of Beef Cattle Fed Contaminated Apple Pomace

Cited by 12 publications

References 1 publication

DDT Residues in Beef Cows Fed Apple Pomace

DDT Residues in Beef Cows Fed Apple Pomace

Travis and Arms revisited: a second look at a widely used bioconcentration algorithm

Supplementation of Apple Pomace with Nonprotein Nitrogen for Gestating Beef Cows. IV. Pesticide Accumulation in Cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About