Originally Posted by Our Roost
Geesh! I started a pointed conversation that just fell short of a riot. If you checked my record keeping, you would see that I am not even close to being a professionalist. I always question my own efforts and never try to be the director of the band so to speak.
Protein levels and feed always seem to be a controversial subject matter that even the best professionals dont always agree on in my opinion. I take what most of them have to say with a grain of salt but in full context. In other words, I listen. As I can see, most of you people have your own game plan also and dont find cold hard facts to hold water! Some of us are a little more up on it than others while some beginners are still experimenting or tinkering. I actually learned a few things from this debated conversation and will heed what has been said on some points. Good to share on this subject!
I don't think I'm discounting any "cold hard facts". I like facts and documentation to support or disprove them. But I also believe that there are many facts that are absolute only in that particular situation which never ever changes. But life is not static and there is constant change, whether we can see the change or not.
No matter how well a scientific study is put together, it is not possible for the scientist to plan for every variable and contingency. Nor would it be feasible to try to conduct a study that DID plan for more than a certain number of variables. A reputable scientist can hypothesize, conduct their study, and analyze the data that he has, but the results are only going to be absolute when the exact same minute variables exist every time, without fail - which is never. One tiny variable can make a huge difference in the data results, making it impossible to apply the data in a regimented manner across every single situation and thinking that the results will always be the same.
So yes, someone may have decided that there is a correlation between a certain level of protein in feed that can cause bleeding. But this will only happen when every condition is met to allow it to happen. The thing about raising poultry is that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4. And try as these feed companies might, they can only base things on what they find works in their little laboratories and hope that the results will work for a majority of people without causing harm. And that only happens if the results of their studies have not been skewed by biases held by the investigators (which is hard to do because everyone tends to have biases even when they think they don't). And if you throw money into the mix - money can make data be skewed, lost, changed, and made up. When a company bases all their information on their own data, without any 3rd, disinterested party corroboration - that company has a vested interest in making people believe that everything they say is gospel. Otherwise they could lose money and really piss off their shareholders.
Edited by bnjrob - 11/10/15 at 4:06pm