16% vs 17% layer feed

[Pork Pie]

I’m not over thinking. I’m wondering why a company offers layer feed in both 16% and 17% protein.

That was not your original question. Asking questions in a succinct manner is likely to yield the desired feedback.

 

[Dishens]

That was not your original question. Asking questions in a succinct manner is likely to yield the desired feedback.

My original question was the difference of one over the other. Not how should I think. Thank you for response anyway.

 

[NatJ]

I’m not over thinking. I’m wondering why a company offers layer feed in both 16% and 17% protein.

I would expect one to be "organic" or "with special added ingredients" or "with pictures of chickens on the bag" or "no corn" or "no soy" or some other difference to make customers think it's better (along with a difference in price.)

Or maybe they changed the formula, and the old and new versions are both available until they finish selling the old version.

There might be reasons if they're selling to commercial egg producers. I've read that it's common to change the protein content just a little bit as the hens age, to have a small effect on the size of the eggs. But the folks that would care about that would be buying it by the ton, not by the bag, so I wouldn't expect to see both forms easily available to people buying small quantities. (50 lbs at a time is a "small quantity" for this purpose.)

I cannot see why a company would offer both forms if the 1% protein is really the only difference. (They probably have a reason, I just cannot think of what reason it might be.)

Edit to add: or they may have one formulation at one mill, and a different formulation at a different mill, based on which ingredients are cheaper in which area. But they would probably list both versions on their website.

 

[Dishens]

I would expect one to be "organic" or "with special added ingredients" or "with pictures of chickens on the bag" or "no corn" or "no soy" or some other difference to make customers think it's better (along with a difference in price.)

Or maybe they changed the formula, and the old and new versions are both available until they finish selling the old version.

There might be reasons if they're selling to commercial egg producers. I've read that it's common to change the protein content just a little bit as the hens age, to have a small effect on the size of the eggs. But the folks that would care about that would be buying it by the ton, not by the bag, so I wouldn't expect to see both forms easily available to people buying small quantities. (50 lbs at a time is a "small quantity" for this purpose.)

I cannot see why a company would offer both forms if the 1% protein is really the only difference. (They probably have a reason, I just cannot think of what reason it might be.)

Edit to add: or they may have one formulation at one mill, and a different formulation at a different mill, based on which ingredients are cheaper in which area. But they would probably list both versions on their website.

It has me perplexed. It’s Kalmbach feed, available in non- GMO. Both 16 and 17%. I’m using 17%. Ingredients seem to be the same.

 

[NatJ]

It has me perplexed. It’s Kalmbach feed, available in non- GMO. Both 16 and 17%. I’m using 17%. Ingredients seem to be the same.

Would that be these?

https://www.kalmbachfeeds.com/product/16-all-natural-layer-crumble/
https://www.kalmbachfeeds.com/product/17-all-natural-layer-crumble/

I would expect one to be "organic" or "with special added ingredients" or "with pictures of chickens on the bag" or "no corn" or "no soy" or some other difference to make customers think it's better (along with a difference in price.)

Yup, that's what it is. The 17% is a special feed that probably costs more.

When I read the description, I see:
"Our #1 best-selling all natural layer feed!"
"Contains YolkProud™ – all-natural ingredients added to promote vibrant egg yolks"
"Contains LifeGuard®, a proprietary blend of prebiotics, probiotics, essential oils, and enzymes that support digestive, immune and health function."

Also, the ingredients list of the 17% feed is more specific in a few areas (like "corn" instead of "plant products," or "soybean meal" instead of "plant protein products.") So the feed may be more consistent from one batch to the next, rather than having the formula change according to which grain is cheaper this month.

So they've got the 16% ("Formulated for the maximum production of nutritious, strong-shelled eggs") for the no-nonsense people who want the cheapest feed in the lineup.

And they've got the 17% for the people who want to buy a special, better food for their chickens.

If I were buying, I'd buy the 17% if the price was the same or pretty close, but I'd buy the 16% if it was much cheaper.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

It has me perplexed. It’s Kalmbach feed, available in non- GMO. Both 16 and 17%. I’m using 17%. Ingredients seem to be the same.

Kalmbach Feeds Poultry Product Line

Kalmbach produces:

• a 16% (generic) "Layer" Feed [crumble or pellet]
• a 16% (generic) "Flock Maintainer" Feed [pellet]
• a 16% Non-GMO "Flock Maintainer" Feed [pellet]

* and *

• a 17% (generic) "Layer" Feed [crumble]
• a 17% Soy-free "Layer" Feed [crumble]
• a 17% Non-GMO "Layer" Feed [crumble or pellet]
• a 17% Organic "Layer" feed [crumble or pellet]

All Natural, Soy Free, Non-GMO, and Organic all have different meanings of course. In 16% Non-GMO, the only Kalmbach option advertised on their website (unless I missed it) is their "Flock Maintainer". Its a low protein, low calcium feed I'd never offer my birds. While it doesn't contain potentially damaging levels of calcium for my hatchlings, cockerels, and drakes, it doesn't have enough protein to support weight gain on a meaty or dual purpose bird. Their 17% Non-GMO Layer is typical layer feed in terms of its nutritional breakdown. The big difference between the two is the inclusion of vegetable oil in the 16% feed, and the higher calcium of the 17% layer. No evidence the "Flock Maintainer" has the higher trace minerals needed for ducks, geese, and other waterfowl.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

and within the "All Natural" (an industry defined term that doesn't mean what you likely think it means), their 16% Layer is only available as a 50# bag, while the 17% Layer can be bought in 25# and 50# options.

Of the two, the main ingredients of the 16% are rather "ambiguous", while the 17% are nothing special. Corn, various meals, and cast offs from other agricultural operations.

 

[Brooks_]

"All Natural" (an industry defined term that doesn't mean what you likely think it means)

Agreed. Arsenic is all natural.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Agreed. Arsenic is all natural.

Presently, AAFCO’s definition of natural (American Association of Feed Officials) is:

"a feed or feed ingredient derived solely from plant, animal or mined sources, either in its unprocessed state or having been subject to physical processing, heat processing, rendering, purification, extraction, hydrolysis, enzymolysis or fermentation, but not having been produced by or subject to a chemically synthetic process and not containing any additives or processing aids that are chemically synthetic except in amounts as might occur in good manufacturing practices."

So, "Organic Barley" is "All Natural". I don't think anyone would dispute that. Rain Water is "All Natural". Again, a comment unlikely to cause dispute.

Now, if I soak that barley in rain water, let is sprout, dry it, roast it, mill it, combine it with yet more rain water, boil it for a few minutes, simmer for a while longer, strain into a 5 gallon glass carboy together with some other organic plant I added at the last minute to the boiling water, allow all natural yeast in the air to eat on it for days at temperatures around 56F, then pour the rich brown liquid gold into a feed dish for my birds, that "minimally processed" ale is "All Natural" chicken feed.