BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[bmvf]

With the new improved varieties, I expect sorghum to become an even larger player. I like lower input options.

I agree. In the past few years they have developed forage sorghum that is more digestible, has better standibility, is more nutrient dense and is quicker growing. These new varieties are convincing me to try it while I might not try forage sorghum if I only had the older varieties.

I also want to add that the general population (or so it seems) has this hatred for corn products. Sorghum is really no different for the consumer (it's a grass with a seed head) unless you don't like GMO's and can't find a non-GMO corn.

 

[RedRidge]

Well that thread got busy in a hurry, just some general points.

1. Standard bred birds will generally do lay longer and produce more eggs over a lifetime (regardless of the finite number of eggs thing) because they have the larger bodies and normal growth rates that the laying process is not as much of a strain on the anatomy of a bird.  I have never had an issue of prolapse of eggbound or any other laying related health issue since I ditched my last hatchery birds almost 20 years ago.

2. I would not judge standard bred birds based on difficulties experienced by "breeders" here on BYC.  Issues such as laying and fertility are often a line by line and breeder by breeder situation.  It is very rare someone that knows what they're doing breeds themselves into a corner, standard bred or not.

3. All birds and breeds have their purpose, but if meat is truly part of one of your goals, you won't get much off a commercially bred "dual purpose" fowl.  Not when the breeds are half the size they should be which means half the meat they should have.  Of course this is also part of wise breed selection.  A hatchery Jersey Giant for instance might weigh in at 7 lbs, and that's plenty of meat for many so they serve that purpose just as well as the 13 lb birds called for by the standard.  Of course you could also raise a standard bred Catalana, or Andalusian, or similar breed and get equal meat production and egg production if not better compared to the hatchery bird, while also helping maintain the rich poultry history.

4. No matter what type of stock you start with, hatchery or standard bred, if you do not know how to select for production qualities in your birds, and how to manage them properly, you will either never have good results, or you will lose the good results that are there.

5. Really stressing without proper management and nutrition you will not see the productive results you could.  So many are fixated on replicating what the birds did 100+ years ago.  WHY?  Would you want a car that has the capabilities of 100 years ago?  With modern nutrition and breeding practices even our standard bred birds should be able to leave the old timers and their birds in the DUST.  The poultry world is so resistant to change it's almost frightening.  There is zero reason for it.

Now my own tangent that came to mind while writing this post, nutrition.  We need to realize two things, three actually.  First, nutrition knowledge has advanced since the early 1900's.  Second, what is produced commercially feed wise is the bare minimum for highly specialized commercial birds of today, vegetarian diets made of cheap ingredients.  Third, you are not doing any favors following some thrown together recipe or supplement program some amateur has thrown together on the internet. Or basing our feeding program on what some farmer did in 1900.  Balancing a diet is no joke and when not done properly can have a severe negative impact.  Nutrient balance, both micro and macro, amino acid balance are all critically important to really push our birds to what they do.  If you don't have the resources to find a true nutritionist (not a hobby nutritionist, see the degree) to help formulate a diet, try using gamebird feed for standard bred birds, it's far closer to the needs of our real birds than the stuff that is made with the drastically different commercial birds in mind, and don't mess with it by throwing in a bunch of odd stuff.  That's fine for sustaining birds and all, but to really push production?  Not so much.

I'll get off my little soapbox here.  Hopefully the first 5 points are helpful and result in some good further discussion.

Excellent post and very well said!

 

[RedRidge]

Regarding protein percentages in custom made diets versus forages;  Last year I made some balage (wet hay that is wrapped to preserve) from some of my pasture in May.  The pasture which consisted of ryegrass, orchardgrass and some dandelion was 12 inches when I cut it.  The test results showed 24% protein.  This year that stand has some clover in it which can hit 25%-31% protein. So 27% protein isn't too uncommon in a natural, heritage style environment.  Add in a factor such as harvesting an an earlier stag and the protein could be higher.  Sure some protein tests in hay can be below 10%, but that hay is usually older when cut, doesn't have clover and often consists of Timothy grass which isn't the highest for protein.  BTW, last year I cut an old stand of alfalfa which had mostly chickweed.  That tested 24% protein too!  Add in the bugs, worms, etc and I'm sure protein could be very high.

In regards to soil biology.  As a non-organic farmer who uses fertilizers, glyphosate, etc.  Plant diversity goes a long way.  Different plants can work off of each other such as grasses and nitrogen fixing legumes (clover, alfalfa, peas).  Different root building plants such as yellow clover and tillage radish can dig deep while ryegrass can build many small fibrous roots that feed soil life.  Then letting your grass grow taller can help increase soil organic matter, keep the soil from drying out quicker, aid in water absorption and help prolong the life of the grass.  However, protein and digestible energy is lower when grass is harvested when older.  For those reasons and more, I prefer not to graze or harvest older forage with my cows but prefer a younger more digestible forage.

Good points but. .. I will add (as a nutritionist who balances rations for many types of livestock), you need to know and understand RFV... Not just protein. Too many people think protein in hay is all that is important. When we test hay we want to know ALL of is value. Request and understand your RFV - relative food value.

 

[LindaB220]

http://www.bar.gov.ph/digest-home/d...oultry-raisers-best-alternative-to-corn-feeds

Interesting

M

I remember Mama feeding her chickens sorghum instead of corn. In an old book I read that people in the south used it in place of corn because it grew so well down here and corn was usually used in the North. thanks for this, I had totally forgotten about it.

 

[jonsccm]

Subscribing

 

[LindaB220]

http://sorghumcheckoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Poultryguideforweb.pdf


Here's another pdf on sorghum: It seems to be better than we thought. I wonder how well it ferments. This is just seed, right? Not the molasses added type.

 

[gjensen]

I agree. In the past few years they have developed forage sorghum that is more digestible, has better standibility, is more nutrient dense and is quicker growing. These new varieties are convincing me to try it while I might not try forage sorghum if I only had the older varieties.

I also want to add that the general population (or so it seems) has this hatred for corn products. Sorghum is really no different for the consumer (it's a grass with a seed head) unless you don't like GMO's and can't find a non-GMO corn.

I think the "hatred" for corn is irrational. Nothing is better at doing what is does.

My interest in Sorghum is similar to the reasons that you have. I live on a sand ridge, the old coast line.

Tannins seams to have been the big holdback with sorghum, as you know. Their are more options without this problem now. The new varieties are going to change things, I think.

That is what poultry keepers should consider before they purchase sorghum. It is not all the same.

 

[pigsflyacres]

I don't have a hatred of corn. In fact I love the stuff, but can't eat it. Anyway, I think its great fed to the birds on a cold night. But I don't like the origins of much of the corn that is available to me as livestock feed. I don't think the chemical residues are any better for the birds than they are for me. Going with organic corn kind of defeats the purpose of cheap grain. Which is the thing, there isn't cheap grain.

 

[hellbender]

Subscribing

Glad to have you!

 

[bmvf]

Yes I agree. Actually I've heard that RFQ is the new standard. If I remember the lecture correctly it takes into account digestibility and not just the results on paper.