IMPORTANT fina question!

**BigGreen** · 07-21-2003, 10:25 PM

I had posted this question in some fashion about five months ago and had very few responses. I can't seem to locate that thread right now to bump, so I'm posting it again now that there are a number of new bros here who seem to know a whole lot about a great many things.

The FDA has stated (and obviously passed into law) that cattle may NOT be allowed to sire a single offspring after being given even a single administration of finaplix -H. While the government does do some whacked out things, they rarely do things for absolutely no reason whatsowever. So, my question is this: does anyone know why the FDA is so insistent on the fact that cattle having received trenbolone may not, under any circumstances, be allowed to produce offspring? I can only imagine it is because there is some reason to suspect that cattle having received trenbolone implants are at some risk of producing offspring with some sort of potential for some sort of problem, however minor. As I am considering both the use of fina and the future prospects of children, this is extremely disoncerting info, especially provided that the rationale behind this decision seems to be (in my limited ability to search through scientific texts) rather unavailable, to say the least. Anyone have an idea as to why this is the case????

**GrowPhaster** · 07-22-2003, 12:16 AM

Say what? Anyone got any more information on this?

Might just be some type of technicality....like I think it says on the package of finaplix something about using only on cattle 6 months prior to slaughter. Maybe they made the sire statement to insure that once you administer it the cow has to be slaughtered?? Also, I have never read any info that states any type of sides like this when refering to tren . Just grasping at straws here...anyway, more info??

**Vibrantred94gt** · 07-22-2003, 01:54 AM

bump

**sigrabbit** · 07-22-2003, 07:22 AM

It probably has to do with political influences from the "organic society." They seem to believe that if steroids are given to animals that are later consumed by humans the steroids will pass into the human's body.

**Farm boy** · 07-22-2003, 07:51 AM

it's funny you mention that Sig, i remember back in the late 90's they were blaming steroids used in broiler houses (chicken houses) as to cause 12 and 13 year old girls to develope more rapidly. i kinda bought in to that back then because it was strange to see and preteen walking around looking like pamela lee. lol!

**BigGreen** · 07-22-2003, 08:39 AM

Here's the warning that appears on the boxes (bolding mine):

"Not to be used in animals intended for subsequent breeding, or in dairy animals. For animal treatment only. Not for use in humans. Implant pellets in the ear only. Any other location may result in violation of Federal Law. Do not attempt salvage of implanted site for human or animal food."

Could i maybe call up a feed store or even email the FDA claiming to be doing a research paper on the subject and I would like some elaboration on this point? I would suspect sigrabbit is right, but i'd like a little more certainty. I don't want to have to sell my kids to P.T. Barnum because I did fina way back when.

**custom fit** · 07-22-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by sigrabbit

It probably has to do with political influences from the "organic society." They seem to believe that if steroids are given to animals that are later consumed by humans the steroids will pass into the human's body.

Personally I dont think this is the case. We do so many DNA altering, chemical restructuring, and radiation to our foods, nothing of this calibur seems to be political. If it was political, then we wouldn't have dozens of different genetically made up corn.

IMO, this warning is what it mentions, and it possibly may alter or endanger future cattle to stop producing healthy offsprings.

Can this also have the effects on human? I say possibly, remember guys, we are introducing a foreign substance into our body that has very little research on effects it has with humans. Due to the life span of humans and the length of time negative side-effects take, we would not know the real effects this steriod has.

**Juggernaut** · 07-22-2003, 09:42 AM

Big Green, You gave me something to do this morning, thanks. I searched around and ran across this. It’s a case study concerning Fina-H in cattle. It is very long and in depth, way to long to attach to this response. I know nothing concerning copy right laws so I’m hesitant to attach anything from the document. However I didn’t think there was anything wrong with giving the case study number, date it was written and where I found it. I found this document on the FDA.gov website. Freedom of Information Summary NADA 138-612 July 2, 1986.

After reading, this is my interpretation only; the chances of birth defects and damage to reproductive organs are a concern but not overbearing. From what I gathered normal values are attainable after treatment has been stopped. Of course this study was done with lab rats and not cattle but even the safe level determination for cattle is done with rats.

As for the reason for the slaughter of animals rather than continued re-production of treated animal has to do with concentration levels increasing beyond approved levels for human consumption and the outside chance it can be passed through genes. After thirty days the animals reached levels that could be considered out of guidelines but while dealing with injected pellets, dosage dropping over an extended period of time like six months, hence the reason for a six month doping period before slaughter. Not to mention the cattleman wanting to get the most money for pound needs to slaughter the animal before gains are lost. Here’s an interesting fact, by-products (waste) of the slaughtered animal are handled as hazardous waste due to the introduction of Fina.

One very interesting thing I learned in the document was the whole reason behind giving Fina. It’s given to cattle to improve protein synthesis, feed efficiency. Muscle growth and fat loss are accomplished even thought the animal never gets any exercise. Amazing! A cattleman could give it to his cows and spend less monies on feed and still get even more poundage than a none treated animal.

This is, again, only my interpretation so I very well may have it all wrong. But I will keep looking and let you know if I run across something that sheds a little more light on the subject.

**BigGreen** · 07-22-2003, 09:58 AM

That is incredibly interesting that the bodypart treated with the implant is considered hazardous waste!! Again, I'd like to find out more about this...there are MANY risks I'm willing to take with myself, but I refuse to undertake anything that has a substantial chance of causing harm to any children I might have.

**Gmill13** · 07-22-2003, 02:53 PM

bump

**GrowPhaster** · 07-22-2003, 03:31 PM

After doing a bit of research (its a bit difficult to understand all the cattle breeder talk) but I did more searches on the other cattle implants. Namely Synovex H...guess what. Looks like you are not supposed to breed cattle that has been treated with that implant either. Synovex H is just Test Prop & Estradiol!! Never heard of any birth problems from guys hittin test prop.

If this is correct then my conclusion is, that the reason you cannot breed these animals (after being implanted) is not birth defects or things of that nature but simply because the FDA does not allow you to breed implanted cattle plain and simple.

Again I could be wrong here. But that is the conclusion that I have come to.

-GP

**sigrabbit** · 07-22-2003, 03:34 PM

Ergo, politics in action! Or some could say unsubstantiated fears, but I think it is pressure from the media and activists regarding supplementing any change in food we consume. There has been no evidence that I have seen to prove genetically modified corn is dangerous for consumption by humans, yet it is a major political issue for some activists that think we should not use science to alter nature.

**GrowPhaster** · 07-22-2003, 03:35 PM

Also, why would they allow people to EAT the cattle that was treated with fina if it was hazardous waste??

Bottom line here is that (I think) they made these rules, and they want breeders to stick to em. Implanted cattle cannot be used for reproduction.

**BossDJ02** · 07-22-2003, 03:37 PM

bump

**BigGreen** · 07-22-2003, 03:54 PM

Good responses...this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

**Farm boy** · 07-22-2003, 04:06 PM

fina is generally used in feed lots where cattle are being prepared for slaughter. i sale my heifers who average 350 lbs at the stock yards. the buyer hauls them up north to a feed lot and fattens them up for slaughter. most cattle in these lots are implanted with fina to help with weight gain. it is my understanding that after the cattle are slaughtered, they go thru an inspection process checking for any thing that may be in their system. thats why you see fda approved stickers on beef that you buy from your grocery store. as far as the ears being considered toxic. that could refer to any leakage of fluids containing tren . i am on hrt, i have used the gel, the first thing i was told was not to pick up my children or let them touch the area that i put the gel on due to transfer of the test to the child. most of this may not make any sense, but this is what i was told by the guy who buys for a particular feed lot up north. jmo

**GrowPhaster** · 07-22-2003, 04:06 PM

Still sifting through info. No mention of birth defects...only thing I've seen is information referring to fertility issues. In other words, maybe more difficult to reproduce cattle that has been implanted. Decreased fertility seems to be the only potential problem here

**Farm boy** · 07-22-2003, 06:18 PM

i will be able to tell you tomorrow for sure. i will go the county extension agents office and ask him first thing in the morning. i will post what he says.

**Gmill13** · 07-22-2003, 09:31 PM

God Bless you farm boy!
Big Green has def brought up an interesting question, this is what i love about this board it truely is a learning experience!

**BigGreen** · 07-22-2003, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Farm boy

i will be able to tell you tomorrow for sure. i will go the county extension agents office and ask him first thing in the morning. i will post what he says.

Well, I know the first thing i'll be doing tomorrow morning.

**Farm boy** · 07-24-2003, 03:59 PM

sorry for the late reply, all this damn rain has messed up thee phone lines and i am on dial up. dsl does not exist in the country. i asked my county ext agent. he did not have a clue. but we did go in his office and call the nice people ata intervet inc. i was told that there in livestock it will not hurt nor affect reproduction in heifers or bulls (steers have no balls) no pun intended. the meat can be ingested at any time during or after administration. the reason they tell you to wait to use it the last 63 days prior to slaughter is because the heifer will not get the full benefit of the steriod . it is a slow release implant. after 63 days you get all the weight gain that is expected from this product. i asked about the ears being toxic. he laughed and said that this is there because peole actually use this stuff on themselves. i told him it would be a cold day in hell before i stuck myself with an implant gun. he then told me that people use dmso to dissolve the pellets and they rub this on themselves to use the steroid . any way this is what he told me. i asked them to fax that to me and all they did was fax the insert that comes with finaplex. come sale time, i am going to educate my buyer! i hope this helps. and again i am sorry for the late reply. and by the way, i really do own cattle. later.

**BigGreen** · 07-24-2003, 04:44 PM

THanks for doing that "leg work". It alleviates a lot of my concerns though I would still like to get to the bottom of why this particular provision was included in the first place. My inclination is to suggest that it was put in place initially as a safeguard because perhaps little was known at the time about the possibility of any birth defects or reproductive problems.

**Farm boy** · 07-24-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by BigGreen

My inclination is to suggest that it was put in place initially as a safeguard because perhaps little was known at the time about the possibility of any birth defects or reproductive problems.

BigGreen, i quized him pretty good about the possibility of me no selling heifers and bringing them back to my farm for breeding purposes. he told me that it would not hamper nor harm there reproduction. i can agree with this due to the fact that when we work cows , some of them are still bulling, ( dry humping each other ) the heifers. sorry i could not ask him more on the human side of use. my extension agent might get kind of suspicuos about my questions and spread nasty rumors.

**BigGreen** · 08-15-2003, 08:27 PM

Bumping this for some of the inquistive minds asking for the results of this conversation

**Breetai** · 08-16-2003, 03:18 AM

intressting post. good work farm boy

**tbulldog** · 08-16-2003, 04:04 AM

Great Post.... the gov't wouldn't allow cattle to be slaughtered for the "feed" of humans if there was a potentially dangerous side effect... That still doesn't acknowledge the fina induced affect on the offspring of a subject/animal/sea creature/mammal/tortoise/reindeer.....hey just tryin' to cover all the bases here, so's we ain't sued for any indescepencies.

**tbulldog** · 08-16-2003, 04:06 AM

BTW, love the post.... i will read it in the morning when i'm a little more sober...

**tbulldog** · 08-16-2003, 04:16 AM

Again, while I'm thinking about it, I'd like to name BigGreen the A.R. Ph.D. Of The Year! Did you get a load of his signature... I probably couldn't have found those threads if I was looking for them.