Researchers make astonishing discovery after examining bird droppings found on lettuce crops: 'We wanted to find out the true risk'
Researchers at the University of California, Davis found that small bird droppings aren't much of a food safety risk for crops, pushing back against long-held fears that wildlife near farms could spread harmful pathogens such as E. coli, as reported on Phys.org. This is good news for farmers and anyone who loves leafy greens, showing that not all bird poop means trouble for your food.
Since a major E. coli outbreak shook the leafy greens industry in 2006, growers have been under pressure to eliminate natural habitats near farms to keep wildlife away from crops. But the research, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, suggests that not all bird droppings are created equal — and size matters more than species.
"We wanted to find out the true risk of wild birds to food safety," said the study's lead author, Austin Spence.
"If it's the size of a quarter, don't harvest near that. If it's a tiny white speck, it's very low risk and probably fine," Spence added. The study found that pathogens are much more likely to survive in the larger droppings of big birds such as turkeys, while tiny droppings from smaller birds such as sparrows and bluebirds dry out quickly and don't provide a hospitable environment for bacteria.
This finding is a big deal for farmers, who often lose crops because of overly cautious food safety rules. Knowing that small bird droppings carry minimal risk means growers can cut down on unnecessary waste and feel more confident keeping wildlife-friendly practices on their farms. Researchers even estimate that farmers could harvest up to 10% more of their fields by skipping no-harvest zones around low-risk droppings.
At the same time, farmers are finding easy, eco-friendly ways to protect their crops without relying on harsh chemicals. They can bring in helpful bugs to keep pests in check instead of using pesticides. They can also place orange peels to keep pests out of their gardens. Research from the University of California suggests that integrating more natural pest control methods can improve crop yields while reducing the environmental impact of farming.
What's most encouraging is that farmers can prioritize food safety without giving up conservation efforts.
"There have been no studies to date that suggest habitat removal improves food safety," said Daniel Karp, a professor at UC Davis.
Do you worry about the quality of the air inside your home?
Yes — often
Yes — but only sometimes
Only when it's bad outside
No — I never do
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture notes that conservation efforts on private lands not only support healthy ecosystems but also lead to more productive, sustainable farms.
The findings show that protecting crops and supporting wildlife can work together. Even bird droppings can shift how we think about balancing food safety with sustainable farming. Sometimes, doing less is all it takes to get better results for our food and the environment.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
These two cancer drugs may help lower your risk of Alzheimer's disease, study shows
Scientists have identified two cancer drugs that may also lower the risk of Alzheimer's disease as they search for some way to lower its impact on an aging population. In a study published on Monday in the medical journal Cell, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, combed through more than 1,300 candidate drugs — from antipsychotics to antibiotics — for anything that could help alleviate the incurable condition. Only 90 of those drugs targeted the brain cell genes thought to influence Alzheimer's, and of those only five showed evidence of actually reducing the risk of Alzheimer's in human patients. The scientists then chose letrozole, designed to fight breast cancer, and irinotecan, intended for treating colon and lung cancer, to test on mice. 'We didn't expect cancer drugs to come up," study co-author Marina Sirota told NBC News. In fact, the two drugs used in combination did appear to improve memory and brain function in aging mice who had begun to show signs of dementia. The effects still need to be proven in human studies (PA Wire) That result still needs to be tested in humans, and the drugs may prove less effective in humans. Still, the finding is significant because pharmaceutical companies have so far struggled to develop purpose-built drugs for the disease. "Developing a new drug can take hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars, on average take more than ten years," said study co-author Dr. Yadong Huang. "For this repurposed drug, usually it just takes two or three years, and then you can go to the clinical trial and the cost is much, much lower. "We still haven't generated or produced any very effective drugs that can really slow dramatically the cognitive decline," he added. Over seven million Americans live with Alzheimer's disease, according to the Alzheimer's Association, including 1 in 9 people aged over 65. The number is only likely to grow as the average age of the U.S. population continues to climb, with care costs for people with dementia projected to grow from $384 billion in 2025 to nearly $1 trillion by 2050.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Could cancer drugs be the future of Alzheimer's treatment?
With few treatments available to stop or reverse Alzheimer's disease, scientists have turned to cancer drugs as a potential means of walking back cognitive decline. Alzheimer's cases are rising in the United States and worldwide due to an aging population, but there is no cure for the disease. Attempts to develop new treatments that slow the disease's progress, rather than lessen symptoms, have frequently failed. Only two drugs — the antibody therapies Leqembi and Kisunla — are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration to slow the progression of early Alzheimer's, and scientists say their benefits are limited. Some pharmaceutical companies have halted or abandoned their Alzheimer's drug development programs because of unsuccessful trials. Others are trying to use existing medications, including popular weight loss drugs, to combat Alzheimer's. With that in mind, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco conducted a broad search for drugs that could be repurposed to treat the condition — in theory, reducing the time in which the drugs could be made available to patients. They scoured a database of more than 1,300 drugs of various classes, including antipsychotics, antibiotics, antifungals and chemotherapy drugs. Then, they looked at how those drugs affected gene expression. Their new study, published Monday in the journal Cell, identified two cancer drugs as the best candidates to lower Alzheimer's risk in patients. When combined, the drugs seemed to slow or reverse Alzheimer's symptoms in mice. One of the drugs is normally used to treat breast cancer, while the other is effective against colon and lung cancer. Alzheimer's disease is associated with significant changes in the way genes are expressed in the brain, leading to the increased production of certain proteins and the decreased production of others. These imbalances may disrupt brain function and contribute to symptoms like memory loss. Fewer than 90 drugs in the researchers' database reversed the expression of signature Alzheimer's-related genes in human brain cells. And five drugs in particular seemed to lower the risk of Alzheimer's in actual patients, based on electronic medical records. The authors ultimately selected two of those drugs, both approved by the FDA to treat cancer, to test in mice. 'We didn't expect cancer drugs to come up' as the most promising, said Marina Sirota, a co-author of the study and interim director of the UCSF Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute. The authors said the breast cancer drug letrozole seemed to change gene expression in nerve cells. And the colon and lung cancer drug irinotecan seemed to change gene expression in glial cells, which support the nervous system. Alzheimer's can destroy nerve cells and cause glial cells to proliferate, creating inflammation in the brain. In a 2020 study, breast cancer patients who received letrozole were less likely to develop Alzheimer's than patients who did not receive the drug. Colorectal cancer survivors treated with irinotecan also had a decreased Alzheimer's risk, according to a 2021 study. After testing the drugs in mice, the study authors found that the two-drug combo reversed brain degeneration and improved memory in mice that had developed hallmarks of Alzheimer's as they aged. Because results in mice often don't translate to humans, the researchers hope to test the drugs in a clinical trial with Alzheimer's patients. 'Developing a new drug can take hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars, on average take more than 10 years. For this repurposed drug, usually it just takes two or three years, and then you can go to the clinical trial and the cost is much, much lower,' said Dr. Yadong Huang, a co-author of the study and professor of neurology at UCSF. 'We still haven't generated or produced any very effective drugs that can really slow dramatically the cognitive decline,' he added. Part of the difficulty in developing drugs for Alzheimer's is the complexity of the disease. Its exact cause is largely unknown. For now, the authors said, it's unclear exactly why the cancer drugs seem to work against Alzheimer's. One theory is that the breast cancer drug blocks the production of estrogen, a hormone that controls the expression of a large number of genes. The colon and lung cancer drug may also block inflammation in the brain by preventing the proliferation of glial cells — though Huang said there are other possibilities. Dr. Melanie McReynolds, an assistant professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study, offered another theory. Her research has suggested that a different type of cancer drug could help treat Alzheimer's by regulating glucose metabolism, the process by which cells make energy. McReynolds said the process is necessary for various brain cells to communicate with each other. 'With aging, with stress, with diseases, that line of communication is disrupted,' she said. McReynolds said the drug combo tested in the new study might reverse metabolic decline — what she called 'the secret for contributing to better outcomes with Alzheimer's.' But assessing how Alzheimer's patients tolerate the combination of cancer drugs will be important. Letrozole can cause hot flashes and irinotecan can cause severe diarrhea. Both drugs can lead to nausea and vomiting. 'These drugs have huge side effects, so you need to always balance and figure out whether those types of side effects would be amenable to somebody with Alzheimer's,' Sirota said. 'It's not that it's a slam dunk.' This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
6 days ago
- USA Today
'Heed our warnings': Nobel laureates plea for diplomacy to prevent nuclear war
Top nuclear experts gathered in Chicago to offer world leaders a playbook for reducing the risk of nuclear war. CHICAGO − In the fall of 2022, U.S. spies said the chances of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine were 50% − a coin flip. Nearly three years later, the risk of nuclear war has only increased, top experts say. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' famed "Doomsday Clock" is the closest it has ever been to midnight. Humanity is 'heading in the wrong direction' on the one threat that 'could end civilization in an afternoon,' warned an assembly of Nobel laureates, nuclear experts, and diplomats gathered at the University of Chicago to mark the 80th anniversary of the planet's first nuclear explosion in 1945 when the U.S. conducted the Trinity test in New Mexico. Although Russia didn't nuke its neighbor, the brutal war of attrition continues in Ukraine. Two nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, attacked each other in May. The U.S. and Israel, which both have nuclear weapons, bombed Iran in June to destroy its nuclear program. Popular support for building nuclear weapons grows in countries like Japan and South Korea. Against this backdrop, more than a dozen Nobel Prize winners and numerous nuclear experts signed a 'Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear War' on July 16 with recommendations for world leaders to reduce the increasing risk of nuclear conflict. More: 80 years later, victims of 'first atom bomb' will soon be eligible for reparations 'Despite having avoided nuclear catastrophes in the past, time and the law of probability are not on our side,' the declaration says. 'Without clear and sustained efforts from world leaders to prevent nuclear war, there can be no doubt that our luck will finally run out.' The declaration emerged from days of discussion and debate, said assembly leader David Gross, a University of California, Santa Barbara, physicist and 2004 Nobel Prize winner. 'We are calling on our leaders in the world to consider our suggestions and heed our warnings,' Gross said. Longtime Vatican diplomat and nuclear advisor Cardinal Silvano Maria Tomasi argued that faith leaders should embrace a role in providing world leaders with independent moral and ethical assessments of nuclear policy and technology. International agreements key to reducing risk The declaration and speakers at its unveiling spoke extensively of the crucial role diplomacy and treaties played in building trust between countries with nuclear weapons and shrinking their arsenals after the Cold War. Clock ticks on nuke treaties But a key treaty remains unenforced, and the last remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia expires in February 2026. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, is a 1996 international agreement that aims to ban explosive nuclear tests. Although the CTBT Organization, headquartered in Vienna, Austria, successfully detects even underground nuclear tests (and identifies when suspicious seismic events aren't test explosions), the treaty is not in force. Nine more countries, including the U.S. and Russia (which de-ratified the CTBT in 2023), must formally approve the treaty before it becomes binding international law. At the assembly, CTBTO leader and former Australian diplomat Robert Floyd joined the Nobel winners in calling the international community to formally approve the testing ban. Floyd argued that if countries with nuclear weapons resumed testing to build more destructive nukes, it could lead 'other states to develop nuclear weapons and … a renewed global nuclear arms race.' The declaration also highlighted the need for the U.S., Russia, and China to enter arms control discussions. The 2010 New START treaty, which limits American and Russian nuclear weapons deployments and enables the rivals to verify the other's cooperation, expires in February 2026. AI and the atom bomb Artificial intelligence and its role in nuclear weapons matters also weighed heavily. The declaration emphasized the 'unprecedented and serious risks posed by artificial intelligence' and implored 'all nuclear armed states to ensure meaningful and enhanced human control and oversight over nuclear command and control.' Tomasi, the Vatican's representative, said scientists, disarmament experts and faith leaders need to study 'the ethical implications of emerging technologies,' such as AI, on 'nuclear stability.' World leaders, including former President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, generally agree that humans − and not AI algorithms − should control nuclear launch buttons. But debate rages over the ideal, and safe, extent of integrating AI into other nuclear functions such as early warning, targeting, and communications. A February 2025 report from the Center for a New American Security think tank on AI nuclear risk warned that 'overreliance on untested, unreliable, or biased AI systems for decision support during a crisis' could potentially lead decision-makers down an escalatory path during a nuclear crisis. Ultimately, argued Nobel winner Gross, progress in reducing the risks of nuclear weapons hinges on popular pressure on world leaders. 'The main motivation for the advances in reducing the risk of Armageddon was the fear of many … people throughout the world who demanded (action) from their leaders,' Gross said. Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
