Commercial Poison (err... "Feed")

[Perris]

He does say (including in one of the bits I quoted) that some commercial mills test the ingredients.

For people who cannot test the ingredients, the obvious workaround is to just work with the worst numbers for each ingredient. Use the lowest number for things like protein, and the highest number for anything that is dangerous in excess. If both ends of the range matter (like for salt), do the math both ways and make sure it is within the safe range. Feed manufacturers could do that too, although it is probably cheaper for them to test the ingredients than to maybe use extra of the more expensive ones, given that they are making large batches of feed.

In the USA, animal feeds have a "guaranteed analysis" tag that lists the minimum of some things (example: protein) and the maximum of some other things (example: fiber.) Some things list both a maximum and a minimum (example: salt). I assume the manufacturer is free to exceed those numbers, but can have trouble if they are caught short--at a bare minimum, it would violate laws about false advertising, to "guarantee" something and then not actually provide it.

I know and understand all this; clearly we are talking at cross purposes.

The point I keep trying (and evidently failing) to make is that current research (from the FAO, as well as people like Spector) is emphasising that we have to start paying attention to the QUALITY of the nutrition in foods, not just the quantity. If, say, 40% of the protein in a given ingredient is not bioavailable (digestible, metabolizable) then in the consumer's gut it is actually a great deal less nutritious than it appears to be in the lab. Simply focusing on the numbers on the bag, as if what comes out of the assay is exactly what is absorbed into a body, is not enough. That's what allows things like melamine and dioxin to pass these assays while poisoning consumers.

And then it turns out (surprise!) that everybody's digestion is different. So what number comes out the assay or is found to be digested in a given case is not necessarily representative of what happens in any other body. The fixation on number crunching ignores this.

 

[Perris]

The feed debate comes up yearly as chickens take winter breaks. This year it was fueled and fanned by YouTube click bait and a heightened sense of public panic.

so why do intelligent people let the fringe derail their thinking? Just because someone lobs a nonsense bomb into a discussion, the rest don't have to let it infect their minds. Just ignore the idiots. Then we could focus on things that matter.

 

[Perris]

Most conspiracy theories are replete with fallacies. My head can only cope with a small number of these per day, and I've been in education long enough to know the truth of the saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, so I'm bowing out of this thread now.

 

[Alagirl]

I don't doubt this at all and I know I have generally been the bad guy in the thread, or a bad guy, but honestly I doubt that there is anything to it.

Similar to what you said, every single company has a cabal, people behind the scenes making decisions that people don't want to make. Even nonprofits have donors whose interest they need to keep in mind - every single decision is influenced by something, and I think where the public has divided is whether or not you trust those decisions are being made in our best interest.

In terms of getting information on the internet, you can find two different opposing theorys for the same problem, both from credible sources. The internet just isn't credible.

Ultimately credibility is personal experience. If you've had a negative experience, and have the need to share - the presentation is everything. Opinions v statement of fact. If that makes sense. Getting on here and saying, "I had a bad lay on TSC pellet" is different than "TSC caused a bad lay". There could be 100's of reasons why it was bad.

Side note - I can believe something like TSC making a bad batch, but believing commerical feed was all simultaneously affected causing a nationwide shortage is so far reaching that even me, a "conspiracy theorist", thinks that is impossible. I thought we were just referring to backyard flocks.

I have heard a few times that TSC had bad feed. I think it was in the horse sector, bags contained moldy grains etc.
Seeing that they don't 'make' their feed, but contract that out.
And feed can get spoiled for a number of reasons between the mill and the store.

As far as testing at the source goes. I would assume that most mills do it.
for them it's cheap, and it likely saves them money by getting it right without guesswork.
To us it is a gamble to grow our own stuff. Mills get truck loads of grains delivered. It is only prudent to know what you are getting.
I remember my uncle had his harvest tested and that was 40 years ago. It was the cost of doing business - but he didn't do it for a quarter acre of wheat. He had a few acres of brewing barley....

 

[BastyPutt]

Most conspiracy theories are replete with fallacies. My head can only cope with a small number of these per day, and I've been in education long enough to know the truth of the saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, so I'm bowing out of this thread now.

Third party feed testing, shared publicly would be the only way to debunk this rumor. I'm not saying I believe it, but, in a scenario like this, there isn't any evidence to say either way. We can make a ton of speculations, but we can't say anything concrete. Here are a few things to consider.

1. Producers pride (made by Purina, with even lower quality ingredients than their standard layer pellet) DID change their recipe slightly, but claimed the nutritional value did not change.

2. In spite of all the talk, TSC never came out a disputed the claim. Land o lakes, the principal. 'Made a one line statement to CBS. saying the claims were false. They have been quiet on the issue aside from that.

3. TSC has had one other feed incident in recent times, in which they recalled feed. This was, however, because cattle were getting sick, not because their milk production dropped.

In conclusion, the conspiracy portion is to believe TSC caused this intentionally, which would require a huge amount of hush hush and planning - not impossible, but not disproven and unlikely.

What is more likely to be true but also not proven - Purina changed their "recipe" to save some $$ and inadvertently causing a negative reaction with hens across America.

Either way, until there is some legitimate, unbiased 3rd party testing, either side only has speculation.

 

[NatJ]

Third party feed testing, shared publicly would be the only way to debunk this rumor.
...
Either way, until there is some legitimate, unbiased 3rd party testing, either side only has speculation.

Some feed has been tested. These threads have some results:
https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/feed-tests-more-results.1565804/
https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...en-feed-craze-posted-testing-results.1564737/

Summary: nothing obviously wrong with any of them (details in the threads, discussion there if you want to read it & join in.)

Of course testing a few bags does not prove that all other bags were fine. It just shows that those particular samples from those particular bags were fine.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

In spite of all the talk, TSC never came out a disputed the claim. Land o lakes, the principal. 'Made a one line statement to CBS. saying the claims were false. They have been quiet on the issue aside from that.

There was at least one tsc that did have statements handed out about their feed months ago.

 

[aart]

As far as testing at the source goes. I would assume that most mills do it.
for them it's cheap, and it likely saves them money by getting it right without guesswork.

Pfffft!!
It's not cheap and mostly is not done at all at the small local grain mills.

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

2. In spite of all the talk, TSC never came out a disputed the claim. Land o lakes, the principal. 'Made a one line statement to CBS. saying the claims were false. They have been quiet on the issue aside from that.
.

TS did release statements denying a change to their feed and discussing various natural causes for hens taking a break. I posted them in another thread.

 

[BastyPutt]

TS did release statements denying a change to their feed and discussing various natural causes for hens taking a break. I posted them in another thread.

Do you have the link to the thread?

TS did release statements denying a change to their feed and discussing various natural causes for hens taking a break. I posted them in another thread.

Do you have a link to the thread?