Feeding with mealworms as the only protein source

[Canina]

x100!!! @3KillerBs and @Shadrach
And yes, there are trained, expert nutritionists who have developed livestock feeds, and pet foods! Reinventing the wheel with little actual knowledge of what's needed for each species in different circumstances is not helpful.
And here in the USA, where almost nobody actually produces the food we all eat, people buy into food fads, advertising, and act like it all grows in packages at the grocery store.
I totally agree about animals developed who have genetics that make for miserable lives, like Cornishx chickens. And don't leave out pets who are selected for deformities some people think are 'cute'.
Mary

I could go on forever about the state of many pedigree dogs but that's one for another thread. I've said enough lol

 

[3KillerBs]

I think all factory farming should be abolished.

Without factory farms we cannot feed the worlds population.

I oppose artificial famine.

 

[saysfaa]

Indeed; I have recently been reading Katie Thear's Free range poulty from 1990. She draws a distinction between commercial flocks that are usually culled at 74 weeks or sometimes molted and kept for a second laying season and those kept on a domestic scale till the end of their lives (pp.101-2 in 3rd ed), with some testimony on p.160 from people whose hens were still laying at 9 (and there are BYC members who have experienced the same), and others that lived to 15. And I have read books from the first half of the last century or earlier that weighed up the reduced production of older birds against the money not spent on new birds, though I don't remember the details off the top of my head.

It occurred to me while I was feeding my chickens this morning that climate and location might matter in this as it does in so many things.

I took a minute to look up where Katie Thear lived. Essex, England. It is a maritime climate and, according to Encyclopedia Brittanica, "...The county is highly farmed, producing rich crops of cereals and supporting prosperous livestock enterprises...."

The last discussion I had similar to this was with someone about how their grandparents fed and managed their flock. It didn't seem possible to most of the conversation participants. Then we saw where the flock was - in the Ukraine. Another extremely fertile place, possibly along the sea, with a strong ag tradition.

This doesn't diminish the experiences of that person or Mrs. Thear but might explain they would keep hens through many years where as my grandparents might not have had the margin to keep older hens through roughly half a year of deep snow. Even the old time heritage breeds who produced moderate sized eggs at a moderate rate lay fewer as they age.

 

[Perris]

It occurred to me while I was feeding my chickens this morning that climate and location might matter in this as it does in so many things.

Absolutely.

might not have had the margin to keep older hens through nearly half a year of deep snow.

Indeed. Here in UK traditional livestock markets were held just before Christmas, to sell animals before winter set in and they could no longer graze for their feed. Selling off and eating young animals is and has been widespread practice here as well as in harsher climes. But I think most chickens had an easier time of it when flocks lived in the yard, because they didn't cost much to keep - hence the origin of the phrase 'chicken feed' for something negligible.

 

[Perris]

Even the old time heritage breeds who produced moderate sized eggs at a moderate rate lay fewer as they age.

Indeed. But they add up. One of my 4 year old Swedish Flowers laid 126 eggs this year, and there are a variety of other people's experiences here https://www.quora.com/How-many-eggs-will-a-free-range-chicken-produce-in-each-year-of-its-life

 

[saysfaa]

Lol, I'm back from taking the thawed water bucket back to the chickens...

The other part of location is what soil deficiencies one has or the soil the feed is grown on has, if it is bought. I remember people who had softball size goiters who had lived in my community their entire lives. There were still some around when I was a child. People, and their animals, could survive with the iodine deficiency the soil in the area had, and the selenium deficiency but not as well (long?) as they do now that both are supplemented appropriately.

Iodine recommended is 150 micrograms per day; 1 mg is considered safe; 1.1 mg is considered toxic (over time, it is not the acutely toxic dose if I understand correctly.) That is almost a thousand fold difference.

Selenium causes deficiency at 40 micrograms and toxicity at 400 micrograms. That is a hundred fold difference [edit to correct math - ten fold difference]. Notice that is deficient, not recommended for the lower amount.

I'm not too worried about Iodine because of the wide target but I don't know how to solve the selenium problem. Smaller amounts and narrower windows make it much harder to get a safe amount.

 

[NatJ]

Selenium causes deficiency at 40 micrograms and toxicity at 400 micrograms. That is a hundred fold difference.

I think that's only a 10x difference, from 40 to 400.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

But they lived a lot longer.

Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, its counter to the evidence we do have. Even in commercial battery conditions, horrid as they are, chicken mortality has decreased (at least, until they become chicken by-product meal, feather meal, and pet food).

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Indeed; I have recently been reading Katie Thear's Free range poulty from 1990. She draws a distinction between commercial flocks that are usually culled at 74 weeks or sometimes molted and kept for a second laying season and those kept on a domestic scale till the end of their lives (pp.101-2 in 3rd ed), with some testimony on p.160 from people whose hens were still laying at 9 (and there are BYC members who have experienced the same), and others that lived to 15. And I have read books from the first half of the last century or earlier that weighed up the reduced production of older birds against the money not spent on new birds, though I don't remember the details off the top of my head.

You mistake anecdote for data. and worse, cherry pick data sets besides.

Comparing CornishX intended for table with generic mutt chicken at large of 100 or 150 years ago is like claiming that apples have become more tart over the years, but then selecting the modern Granny Smith as your data set for comparison with the memory of a generic "apple" of days past.

As a general rule, then as now, productive chickens are "repurposed" after either their first or second adult molt. Each additional year of production further reduces the number of eggs expected, does nothing to reduce feed costs, and makes the meat increasingly less palatable, regardless of cooking method. Modern luxuries and relative abundance have ensured that many backyard chickens recieve a typical level of care and diet unimagined 50 or 60 years ago, while the number of "vanity flock" keepers have increased - people who can afford to keep chickens for reasons unrelated to food production whatsoever. A luxury once reserved to royaly and the extremely wealthy.

I'll grant that the average chicken lives a shorter life today than in the 1920s - which is the statistic you seem to want to offer - but that's because we eat a LOT More chicken - so a much greater portion of the chicken polpulation is currently being raised in conditions of definite, and short life span - though not by natural causes.

On this subject we will, with respect, disagree.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I think all factory farming should be abolished. I do think there are some extreme examples of livestock animals that should just not exist, but don't have a problem with most modern breeds and pellets aren't satan spawn.

While I appreciate the moral arguments you are making, and that you have suffered first hand the consequences of a lifestyle closer to what you advocate, I submit to you that a lack of factory farming would result in a collapse of the world human population on a scale unimaginable.

Your prescription (and you are not alone in it, by any stretch), would make you the worst mass murderer in history, on a scale orders of magnitude above any number of citizens deliberately starved by Stalin, Pol Pot, or a host of others. That's before the secondary effects of all that death (disease, primarily, but then the technological collapse and associated loss of readily accessible knowledge) begin to make their way thru what remains of civilization.

Moral arguments don't move me. I'm not wired that way. Purely on a lives lost comparison, I judge the "cure" worse than the disease.