Chicken Feed and Nutrition Help

One thing I have been thinking about but do not yet know the answer:

If one feeds a modern chicken a poor diet (one not designed for their genetics) and this results in fewer eggs, does this mean:

A) the chicken simply is not getting enough nutrition to produce more eggs

Or

B) the chicken's health is being compromised because their genetics are expecting/demanding superior nutrition, in addition to not being able to produce more eggs

Are not those two answers one in the same? As in the nutritional values are not meeting the body requirements so the body start shutting down to degree of lacking nutrition. Egg production is the first to go and if neglected body mass and vigor next.
 
One thing I have been thinking about but do not yet know the answer:


If one feeds a modern chicken a poor diet (one not designed for their genetics) and this results in fewer eggs, does this mean:


A) the chicken simply is not getting enough nutrition to produce more eggs


Or


B) the chicken's health is being compromised because their genetics are expecting/demanding superior nutrition, in addition to not being able to produce more eggs



Are not those two answers one in the same? As in the nutritional values are not meeting the body requirements so the body start shutting down to degree of lacking nutrition. Egg production is the first to go and if neglected body mass and vigor next.


Common sense tells me you are probably correct. Very often common sense is wise and knows answers generations before scientists "discover" the same answer. What I am curious about is if there have been studies done that measure a number factors showing how a certain species of animal does on different nutritional programs. Studies that show whether an animal is basically just surviving or actually thriving.

Another way of saying this: is "A" an example of a malnourished chicken or just a 'slowed down' chicken? I mean, is feeding in such a way that causes them to lay fewer eggs actually harmful to them? Again common sense tells me so, but if I am wrong, we would have something to learn here! After all, common sense has been grossly wrong before. 600 years ago the common sense of the shape of the world was it was as flat as a pancake. It's laughable now.

However, one of the best common-sensical things are real-world folks with real-world experience. They have first hand observation. When these folks report their direct experience, this speaks volumes and in my book, is often preferable over super-controlled scientific experiments. The thing to watch out for (which the scientific method takes great efforts to avoid) with common sense is to avoid prematurely drawing to conclusions and/or mixing one's observations with opinion.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom