Main Differences between heritage breeds and hybrids in average feed density needs

[Thomas Lamprogiorgos]

does that conclusion mean:

Heritage birds need less food per egg

or

Heritage birds reach their peak on less food than hybrids - meaning that per pound of feed you get more eggs from hybrid.

IT ONLY MEANS THAT HERITAGE BREEDS ARE ABLE TO CONVERT LOW-DENSITY FARM RATIOS, SCRATCH A PRODUCER CAN PRODUCE BY HIS OWN FIELDS, CAN ADAPT TO SOY-FREE, FISH-FREE, MEAT-FREE FEEDING ETC.

HYBRID CHICKENS NEED HIGH OCTANE FEED AND WHEN GIVEN SCRATCH AND LOW-DENSITY RATIOS IN GENERAL, THEIR PRODUCTION WILL BE EXTREMELY LOW.


OF COURSE IN HIGH OCTANE RATIOS HYBRIDS EAT LESS AND PRODUCE MORE.

THE KEY IS THAT HYBRIDS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR ALTERNATIVE ECOLOGICAL FEEDING AND FOR THE SMALL FARMER'S SUSTAINABILITY.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I don't mean to seem to belittle, I really am interested in the research. Not enough is done involving "non-production" birds, whether those be the production red hybrids on the laying side, or the Cx and siblings on the table side. Plenty of us (self included) raise non-specialists because we can breed our own without need to maintain parent lines and multiple flocks. Good data on their dietary needs would be useful, to see if the studies bear out the theories, the reasonable inferences and the extensions by analogy.

However, just saying that a bird which performs "less" needs "less" isn't really helpful in determining whether the savings one achieves from feeding "less" (whether in quantity, nutritional density, or both) makes up for the loss in production. By the top line metric, we should all have a bunch of red jungle fowl - they need even less to sustain peak production...

The time frame of the study is also of interest, as a number of studies have come out suggesting that chickens can - for some nutritional components - continue to perform in spite of dietary deficiency for some period of time in spite of a known lack in the diet. How long, and how inpacted of course depends on both the vitamin and the deficiency.

This post started with some very specific figures, many of which can't be assayed at home, and some of which don't appear on the typical EU feed bag. VERY interested in how they are arrived it. For instance, is the relatively low crude protein number offset in part by use of synthetic amino acids (as the EU tends to do, particularly DL-Met and L-Lys), or by feed formulation inclusive of ingredients with relatively high levels of those critical aminos? What's the target MKE of the feed, expected rates of consumption?

What metrics are being measured for purposes of comparison? Do you have a nul hypothesis, or a test group on a 'Standard" feed (and how is that defined?) etc.

Is this a diet for cage kept, housed (both of which feed can be strictly controlled), pastured, or free ranged birds (both of which can potentially supplement the feed with the contents of the areas in which they graze? Were differences seen in the relative performance of transylvanians, plymouth rocks, orpingtons, australorps, leghorns, andalusians, etc, or were the numbers simply averaged??? and by transalvanians, do you mean naked necked? If so, there's a big difference between an NN producing maybe 100 medium eggs a year and an australorp producing about 250 large eggs a year.

Details matter. We'd love some data.

 

[rockethoe]

IT ONLY MEANS THAT HERITAGE BREEDS ARE ABLE TO CONVERT LOW-DENSITY FARM RATIOS, SCRATCH A PRODUCER CAN PRODUCE BY HIS OWN FIELDS, CAN ADAPT TO SOY-FREE, FISH-FREE, MEAT-FREE FEEDING ETC.

HYBRID CHICKENS NEED HIGH OCTANE FEED AND WHEN GIVEN SCRATCH AND LOW-DENSITY RATIOS IN GENERAL, THEIR PRODUCTION WILL BE EXTREMELY LOW.


OF COURSE IN HIGH OCTANE RATIOS HYBRIDS EAT LESS AND PRODUCE MORE.

THE KEY IS THAT HYBRIDS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR ALTERNATIVE ECOLOGICAL FEEDING AND FOR THE SMALL FARMER'S SUSTAINABILITY.

Gotcha. Not sure why your shouting, but thank you for clarifying.

 

[Thomas Lamprogiorgos]

I don't mean to seem to belittle, I really am interested in the research. Not enough is done involving "non-production" birds, whether those be the production red hybrids on the laying side, or the Cx and siblings on the table side. Plenty of us (self included) raise non-specialists because we can breed our own without need to maintain parent lines and multiple flocks. Good data on their dietary needs would be useful, to see if the studies bear out the theories, the reasonable inferences and the extensions by analogy.

However, just saying that a bird which performs "less" needs "less" isn't really helpful in determining whether the savings one achieves from feeding "less" (whether in quantity, nutritional density, or both) makes up for the loss in production. By the top line metric, we should all have a bunch of red jungle fowl - they need even less to sustain peak production...

The time frame of the study is also of interest, as a number of studies have come out suggesting that chickens can - for some nutritional components - continue to perform in spite of dietary deficiency for some period of time in spite of a known lack in the diet. How long, and how inpacted of course depends on both the vitamin and the deficiency.

This post started with some very specific figures, many of which can't be assayed at home, and some of which don't appear on the typical EU feed bag. VERY interested in how they are arrived it. For instance, is the relatively low crude protein number offset in part by use of synthetic amino acids (as the EU tends to do, particularly DL-Met and L-Lys), or by feed formulation inclusive of ingredients with relatively high levels of those critical aminos? What's the target MKE of the feed, expected rates of consumption?

What metrics are being measured for purposes of comparison? Do you have a nul hypothesis, or a test group on a 'Standard" feed (and how is that defined?) etc.

Is this a diet for cage kept, housed (both of which feed can be strictly controlled), pastured, or free ranged birds (both of which can potentially supplement the feed with the contents of the areas in which they graze? Were differences seen in the relative performance of transylvanians, plymouth rocks, orpingtons, australorps, leghorns, andalusians, etc, or were the numbers simply averaged??? and by transalvanians, do you mean naked necked? If so, there's a big difference between an NN producing maybe 100 medium eggs a year and an australorp producing about 250 large eggs a year.

Details matter. We'd love some data.

Interesting all this, but I do not have more data to offer.

 

[Thomas Lamprogiorgos]

Gotcha. Not sure why your shouting, but thank you for clarifying.

I was not shouting, I was just writing from my mobile phone!!!

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Interesting all this, but I do not have more data to offer.

If a study is ever commisioned and published, I would be very interested in the data.

and if you have the feed mix from which the orignal numbers in the first post were derived, it would be interesting, even without the output numbers,

 

[Thomas Lamprogiorgos]

If a study is ever commisioned and published, I would be very interested in the data.

and if you have the feed mix from which the orignal numbers in the first post were derived, it would be interesting, even without the output numbers,

The feed mix was 50% corn, 25% barley, and 25% wheat. Oyster shell offered in a separate feeder. Grit also in a separate feeder.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

that won't hit even 14.5% crude protein, if your corn barley and wheat crops are anything like those here in the US, even if you were to use hard winter wheat. Vitamin premix? Additional aminos?

Here that mix is just over 11% crude protein as fed - barely better than the typical scratch (if you used hard wheat), and almost 10% crude protein as fed if you save a buck and grab a bag of the much more readily available soft wheat.

 

[Thomas Lamprogiorgos]

that won't hit even 14.5% crude protein, if your corn barley and wheat crops are anything like those here in the US, even if you were to use hard winter wheat. Vitamin premix? Additional aminos?

Here that mix is just over 11% crude protein as fed - barely better than the typical scratch (if you used hard wheat), and almost 10% crude protein as fed if you save a buck and grab a bag of the much more readily available soft wheat.

Exactly! It is poor. No vitamins, no aminos, protein too low. But, heritage breeds can thrieve on this poor feeding and can offer sustainability to the farmer who lives in the acres. Hybrid chickens will show extremely low production in these conditions.

This is the key, this is the point!!! The sustainability of the farmer living in the acres and the ecological character of the poor feeding systems.

 

[Brooks_]

No vitamins, no aminos, protein too low. But, heritage breeds can thrieve on this poor feeding and can offer sustainability to the farmer who lives in the acres

In this scenario, would there be other farm animals?