Calling All Chicken Dieticians

[U_Stormcrow]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with @saysfaa on the margins. Layer isn't junk, and feeding your hatchlings layer for a couple days until you can get to the store won't kill them, 'tis true. Feeding all your birds layer all their lives won't obviously kill them, also true.

But the science is pretty consistent - birds raised on layer-type feeds never develop to their full potential (slower growth, smaller final size), are slightly less feed efficient, and have less robust immune systems all their lives. In the long term, calcium toxicity (a progressive pathology) becomes an issue well recognized in the industry, with its visible signs - gout (most often) and renal problems - not appearing until long after the internal damage is done.

That quibble aside, Layer has its place. Adult hens of commercial laying breeds (production RSL, Leghorns, production BSL varieties and closely similar) in their first couple years of life, if cost is yourt primary concern and you don't plan on keeping them as pets when their rate of lay drops precipitously. Outside those conditions, I won't recommend it.

I use Layer myself (mixed with other feed) as part of a complicated feed regimen involving some educated risk taking and cost control - it is NOT a feed practice I recommend to others.

 

[Egg Blues]

You folk are fortunate to have good-quality products available where you live. Most everything I've read about Purina's Start and Grow has been positive. If indeed it contains no growth hormones or animal products, that is quality to be appreciated. Unfortunately, I have no access to such a product here, and all of the commercial mash is riddled with non-organic, growth-enhancing stuff, with a questionable purity (toxins).

That said, the comments that seemed dismissive of a natural, homemade approach to feeding one's backyard flock in lieu of purchasing the commercial feed set me to doing some research and a little math. Here are my results, in which I settled on a 20% corn, 20% rice, and 60% beans ratio to most closely match the Purina product. (Although, I am not settled on the need for matching their exact specifications.)

Note that Purina's listing shows the 3% Fat figure to be at minimum, and no maximum for this is provided. Note also that I have rounded the totals to integers for readability.

---

Partial List of References:

Corn:
Crude Protein Content of Corn
Nutrition of Corn

Rice:
Nutritional Facts for Rice

Beans:
High-Protein Beans
Dried Chick Peas/Garbanzos

Purina:
Start and Grow

 

[U_Stormcrow]

You folk are fortunate to have good-quality products available where you live. Most everything I've read about Purina's Start and Grow has been positive. If indeed it contains no growth hormones or animal products, that is quality to be appreciated. Unfortunately, I have no access to such a product here, and all of the commercial mash is riddled with non-organic, growth-enhancing stuff, with a questionable purity (toxins).

That said, the comments that seemed dismissive of a natural, homemade approach to feeding one's backyard flock in lieu of purchasing the commercial feed set me to doing some research and a little math. Here are my results, in which I settled on a 20% corn, 20% rice, and 60% beans ratio to most closely match the Purina product. (Although, I am not settled on the need for matching their exact specifications.)

View attachment 3139502

Note that Purina's listing shows the 3% Fat figure to be at minimum, and no maximum for this is provided. Note also that I have rounded the totals to integers for readability.

---

Partial List of References:

Corn:
Crude Protein Content of Corn
Nutrition of Corn

Rice:
Nutritional Facts for Rice

Beans:
High-Protein Beans
Dried Chick Peas/Garbanzos

Purina:
Start and Grow

Even as an amatuer, it is EASY to be dismissive of the recipe above.

Are you interested in a take down of its numerous problems, or would you rather protect your current belief system?

 

[saysfaa]

...
But the science is pretty consistent - birds raised on layer-type feeds never develop to their full potential (slower growth, smaller final size), are slightly less feed efficient, and have less robust immune systems all their lives. In the long term, calcium toxicity (a progressive pathology) becomes an issue well recognized in the industry, with its visible signs - gout (most often) and renal problems - not appearing until long after the internal damage is done.
...

No disagreement on this. Layer gives enough for for a laying hen. Not enough for a developing chick.

 

[Egg Blues]

Even as an amatuer, it is EASY to be dismissive of the recipe above.

Are you interested in a take down of its numerous problems, or would you rather protect your current belief system?

The fact is, unless you keep your birds locked inside a cage or indoor coop, they will supplement their diet. Protein is much less of an issue than people think, and the feed is less critical if the chickens are free-ranging (as I like to raise mine). They'll eat insects, snails/shells, etc. for additional protein, calcium, etc.

I don't raise mine on commercial mash. Mine are healthier for it. Most of the locals let their chickens forage around their homes and in the fields and give them little more than rice and rice bran for food, maybe some cracked corn. They are often strong enough to fly up into the trees to roost at night.

I've never heard of Purina Start and Grow formula sold in this country. The chickens don't miss it.

Feel free to hold to whatever belief system you wish. I'm not here to change your mind against your will. You're welcome to present the facts as you see them. But I doubt your beliefs will have a chance of prevailing over my experience-supported understanding, which basically boils down to this: nature's way needs no improvement, and science can learn from nature, not the other way around.

 

[saysfaa]

... I've noticed that the fecal matter of the chickens on commercial mash was much more odiferous than that of my naturally fed chickens. Changing their diet removed the stench--just my personal observation. I don't know the reason for this, only that there was a clear connection between their feed and the odor. ...

One of the reasons for odiferous droppings is excess protein in the diet. It is not necessarily a bad thing to have some extra protein in the diet. It allows some margin for error in the amount of protein in a particular batch of ingredients, some some degradation through storage, some variation in need (molting, healing, individual differences, ect). It is also not really "protein" that they need - it is the individual essential amino acids that are lumped together with all amino acids under the term protein. It is really hard to get just the three most important amino acids to balance (enough of each without having toxic amounts of other things) without also trying to get zero extra amino acids.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

The fact is, unless you keep your birds locked inside a cage or indoor coop, they will supplement their diet. Protein is much less of an issue than people think, and the feed is less critical if the chickens are free-ranging (as I like to raise mine). They'll eat insects, snails/shells, etc. for additional protein, calcium, etc.

SO, "Hope and Pray" they correct dietary deficiencies of the offered feed on their own. Not a strategy I prefer to ascribe to. Moreover, the majority of backyard owners are unable to let their birds free range in a diverse environment to do so - their birds are constrained to what they are fed. That's an important consideration that should be noted when recommending your feed.

I don't raise mine on commercial mash. Mine are healthier for it. Most of the locals let their chickens forage around their homes and in the fields and give them little more than rice and rice bran for food, maybe some cracked corn. They are often strong enough to fly up into the trees to roost at night.

I've never heard of Purina Start and Grow formula sold in this country. The chickens don't miss it.

Knowing no better, you assume much. The men of North Korea think they are doing well too, until you compare one with his South Korean counterpart. Diet, particularly early diet, makes a huge difference in how creatures end up as adults.

Feel free to hold to whatever belief system you wish. I'm not here to change your mind against your will. You're welcome to present the facts as you see them. But I doubt your beliefs will have a chance of prevailing over my experience-supported understanding, which basically boils down to this: nature's way needs no improvement, and science can learn from nature, not the other way around.

So, facts -

We'll start with your numbers. Corn's protein content isn't that high. I know where you seemingly sourced it, some generic web page that offered an average of 10-15%, which you simply split in half. The other web page you reference offered 10.4% (still too high), so it already looks like you are cherry picking data to support preconceptions or a desired outcome. The reality is, Corn's protein content isn't that high. Had you followed the links from your other source (which offers a lower protein content, still), and spent a few moments on the USDA page, you would find these:

White Corn 9.4%
Yellow Corn 9.4%
Navaho Corn, 9.9% (if you can find it)
Similar results are here, on Feedipedia.org (9.4% European, 8.8% North African, 8.0 Sub-Saharan, 9.5% North American, 9.2% Central and South American)

You've used the protein numbers for glutinous white rice. "Sticky rice". All rice is not the same. Short Grain White (6.5%, but lower fat), Long Grain White (7.13%, lower fat), Brown rice (7.5%, higher fat, fiber). Those differences matter, but we'll overlook them as less signficant than the corn - just something to be aware of.

We get into the same problems when "beans" are treated as interchangeable. Here are dried chickpeas (20.5 Protein, 6% fat, 12% fiber), dried kidney beans (22.5, less fat, more fiber), lentils (24.6% protein, less fat, more fiber), dried northern beans (21.9% protein, less fat, more fiber), dried cow peas (23.5, less fat, slightly higher fiber).

As with the corn, above, the generic selections don't have the protein ascribed to them in your assumptions.

Fortunately, in part, protein isn't the be all/end all. Amino Acid content is more critical. The ones we are most concerned with are Methionine, Lysine, Threonine, Tryptophan. Chickens can't produce these on their own, they need to obtain them from their diet.

Here are the (old) NRCS recommends. Newer studies but those levels MUCH higher for adolescent birds and certain breeds.
Targets for Met: 0.30 ADULT Layers (NRCS), .33-.46 (Breed dependent adult layers, various studies, table 3, above)
Lysine: 0.69 (NRCS), 0.68-0.85 (Breed dependent, table 3, ibid)
Threo: 0.47 (NRCS), 0.47-0.6 (BD)
Tryp: 0.16 (NRCS), 0.16-0.19 (BD)

Corn, alone, misses all of those targets. Per USDA, its about 0.2, 0.26, 0.35, 0.07 (Respectively) so each pound of corn in the mix needs to be compensated for by other ingredients above taget to average out.
Sticky white rice? Per USDA, linked above, 0.16, 0.25, 0.24, 0.08 - same problem with the corn. Your beans are going to have to do all the work int his recipe.
We'll use the dried lentils, they had the highest raw protein average. 0.21, 1.72, 0.88, 0.22, respectively.

Congratulations, you have 2/3 of the lowest target for Methionine, are fine on Lysine, are fine on Threonine, and barely made the lowest target for Tryptophan. Using any other bean, the numbers vary but are generally worse to much worse.

You have no source of usable phosphorus, you have no source of B12, I haven't looked at any of the other vitamin needs (like Niacin and Selenium), the use of oystershell/calcium carbonate will provide calcium, yes, but not the phosphorus.

...and I've not begun to deal with the anti-nutritional factors of the ingredients you've chosen. That's next post.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Beans - the majority of your mix (some 60%) contain a host on factors which can negatively affect chickens directly, or via their ability to absorb nutrients in their diet. The majority of the literature suggests that the incorpoation of beans as part of the diet should not exceed 05-20% (depending on the bean involved).

Feedipedia.org notes that common beans (such as the kidney bean) are high in trypsin and alpha-amylase inhibitors, saponins, and lectins - all of which can (in sufficient quantity) inhibit nutrient absorption. Regarding feeding beans to poultry, they had this to say:

Raw, dehulled or fermented beans​

Poultry species are sensitive to antinutritional factors contained in raw common beans, though less so than pigs (van der Poel, 1990; Huisman et al., 1990b; Myer et al., 1989). Chicken fed raw beans had no differences in spleen and thymus weights compared to birds fed the control diet (Huisman et al., 1990b). However, raw common beans increased weight of the intestine and decreased liver weight (Emiola et al., 2006; Huisman et al., 1990b). Livers showed marked coagulative necrosis and degeneration of hepatocytes, while there was a severe congestion of glomeruli and distention of the capillary vessels with thrombi in the kidneys (Emiola et al., 2007a; Emiola et al., 2007b; Emiola et al., 2006). Fermented common beans included at levels ranging from 5 to 20% in poultry diets gave lower feed intakes, lower live-weight gains and reduced feed efficiency. It was suggested to limit their inclusion to 5% of the diet (Siriwan et al., 2005a; Siriwan et al., 2005b).

Regarding Cowpeas, they make similar comment:

Cowpea seeds​

It is recommended to process cowpea seeds to decrease the antinutritional factors before feeding the seeds to poultry. Dried and ground cowpeas included at 16% in starter broiler diets had no negative effects (Trompiz et al., 2002). Cooked and sun-dried cowpea seeds included at up to 20% in the diet did not have deleterious effects on live-weight gain, feed conversion ratio, feed cost/kg live-weight and carcass quality (Chakam et al., 2010). Dehulling, combined dehulling and roasting, or the addition of enzymes increased feed intake, body weight gain and protein intake when processed cowpeas were included at 15% in chicken diets (Belal et al., 2011). Boiled cowpeas could replace meat meal in broilers when included at 11% in starter diets and at 14% in finisher diets. Broilers finished with cowpea had a higher carcass yield than broilers fed other legumes (Defang et al., 2008). Sun-dried cowpeas successfully replaced 75% of soybean meal in broiler diets (Lon-Wo et al., 2000). In both cases, feed cost was significantly reduced. The general conclusion is that inclusion of processed cowpeas is feasible up to 15-20% in broiler diets but deleterious at higher levels. In Sudan, however, the inclusion of 30% cowpeas, partially replacing groundnut meal and sorghum, improved weight gain, feed conversion ratio, dressing percentage and carcass quality (Eljack et al., 2009).

and Lentils? Their low Methionine content relative to total protein gets particular focus.

Poultry
Cull lentils are occasionally available for poultry and benefit from moderate levels of antinutritional factors (Blair, 2008). However the nutritional value of lentils in poultry is lower than that of some other grain legumes such as mung bean (Vigna radiata) or chickpea (Wiryawan et al., 1995). The low sulphur amino acids content requires supplementation (Wiryawan, 1997). Lentil seeds have fibre-rich hulls and decorticated lentils have a much higher nutritive value than the whole seeds.

Broilers​

Lentils included at more than 20% in broiler diets decreased growth rate. Processing (heating) did not compensate for this adverse effect (Farhoomand, 2006). Good growth performance was obtained in young broilers fed 40% decorticated lentils supplemented with methionine (Wiryawan, 1997). For broilers, lentils should be used in carefully formulated diets with consideration given to the amino acid balance. A maximum of 10% is suggested, but could be higher with decorticated lentils.

Layers​

The use of lentils in layers diets led to a decrease in egg production even at low inclusion rates (Kiliçalp et al., 1994). Lentils may be used in layer diets because of low-price opportunities, but it is essential to balance the amino acid content of the diet.

How about Rice?

Poultry
Rough rice can be fed to poultry though its use is limited by the presence of hulls and non-starch polysaccharides. Information about the use of rough rice in poultry is scarce. It is considered to be poorly palatable (El Boushy et al., 2000). In some countries, rough rice is part of the natural diet of scavenging chickens, as observed for instance in Sri Lanka, where it accounted for 7% of the diet (Gunaratne et al., 1993).
Comparisons between rough rice and maize grain show a much lower nutritional value for rough rice: - 36% (AMEn 9.2 vs. 14.3 MJ/kg DM, Rajaguru et al., 1985); or -13% (AME 12.9 vs. 14.8 MJ/kg DM, Sittiya et al., 2011). For laying hens, rough rice gives good results when it constitutes 20-30% of the diet (Göhl, 1982). In Laos, in a trial with local chickens fed paper mulberry silage (Broussonetia papyrifera) ad libitum, supplementation with rough rice up to 25% LW increased growth rate, though the effect was the highest at the 5% inclusion rate (Sangkhom Inthapanya et al., 2010). In China, in ducks fed diets containing 20% rough rice (replacing 40% of maize grain), average daily gain and feed efficiency was slightly lower than for ducks fed the control diet (maize-soybean meal), but feed intake was unchanged. Treatment with an enzyme complex (xylanase, beta-glucanase and cellulase), improved performance, and increased the metabolizable energy of the diet as well as the protein and NDF digestibilities (Kang et al., 2013).

I will, however, grant that the use of polished or milled rice intended for human consumption reduces many of those issues, and based on experiences in India, have little negative effect apart from a noted paleness in the yolks. A 20% rate of inclusion, with that caveat, is not particularly concerning from an anti-nutritive standpoint.

Corn, of course, is routinely included at rates over 20%. No issues there, abart from its low value as a feed ingreedient overall. Much like the milled rice, above.


Again, I'm an AMATEUR at this, but I could continue by looking at vitamin content next - though at this point, I'd be beating a proverbial dead (and buried already) horse.

 

[Krugerrand]

I usually recommend that the typical backyard owner, of the typical backyard flock, with typical backyard management practices feed an All Flock/Flock Raiser* type crumble to all their birds, all their lives, with free choice grit, osyter shell, and fresh clean water available at all times in seperate dishes. Without regard to age, gender, onset of of lay, condition of molt, etc.

If there are no chicks in the flock, is there any advantage to going crumble over pellet?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

If there are no chicks in the flock, is there any advantage to going crumble over pellet?

Unless you are making a mash or a ferment, or its cheaper (in a few places I've shoped, crumble was $0.50 - 0.80/bag cheaper than pellet), I would argue that pellet is generally superior. Less waste (that's the point of pelleting) and it tends to feed better in many gravity fed dispensers - less clumping. Also, in theory, it takes just a little longer to go stale (more volume, relative to surface area) but that difference is pretty minimal.

Its been my experience on BYC that many backyard owners add new chicks annually (on average), so that's part of what has driven the addition of "crumble" to my specifications. Its a recent change, and my data set is entirely anecdotal - I could be wrong in that perception.