Feeding

[Samt1961]

How much feed does 20 laying hens eat a week. Trying to figure out cost. Thanks

 

[Folly's place]

You can also read that fermenting feed made no difference at all. And it's just another chore...
Mary

 

[ChickyCh00k]

I've read that fermenting feed can reduce feed costs because the chickens' bodies use it more efficiently and the added water causes the food to expand. It's also good for the chickens' overall health.

https://www.raising-happy-chickens.com/fermentation.html

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Fermented feed makes certain vitamins more bioavailable. If your feed already contains an adequate amount of those vitamins, fermenting makes no difference. Fermented feed is also heavily dependent on WHAT you are fermenting, and WHICH bacteria is doing the work.

Studies that show no effect generally don't get published.

I get the "savings" generally attributed to fermented feed simply by feeding wet mash. Its the same savings you get from feeding pellet instead of crumble - a greater ability for the birds to find and consume spilled feed before it "disappears" into the soil. Its something less than 10%, but greater than 2-3%.

 

[NatJ]

I've read that fermenting feed can reduce feed costs because the chickens' bodies use it more efficiently and the added water causes the food to expand. It's also good for the chickens' overall health.

https://www.raising-happy-chickens.com/fermentation.html

Water does cause the food to expand, but that does not change how many pounds of food you need to buy for each chicken for each day. Water does not add calories, or protein, or any of the other things chickens need. So the chicken needs the same amount of actual food, whether it is served wet or whether the chicken drinks water separately.

(I am only addressing the part about water making the food expand, not any other point about feeding fermented food to chickens.)

 

[U_Stormcrow]

There's going to be variation based on breed, on feed, and on weather conditions - but the "thumb rule" is that an adult hen eats about 1/4# per chicken per day. So you are looking at about 35# per week, as much as 40# with waste factored in.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Water does cause the food to expand, but that does not change how many pounds of food you need to buy for each chicken for each day. Water does not add calories, or protein, or any of the other things chickens need. So the chicken needs the same amount of actual food, whether it is served wet or whether the chicken drinks water separately.

(I am only addressing the part about water making the food expand, not any other point about feeding fermented food to chickens.)

Piggybacking, offering wet mash with cool water when its hot out has some benefits in helping to mitigate heat and preventing gorging - since the increased volume slows their consumption some.

I've also had no pasty butt issues with hatchlings since transitioning to wet mash - but that was about the time I started hatching my own, so the lack of pasty butt could also relate to a lack of shipping stress.

 

[NatJ]

Piggybacking, offering wet mash with cool water when its hot out has some benefits in helping to mitigate heat

And you can use warm water in cold weather, too.

If their water source freezes, they get thirsty and quit eating, so nice wet mash lets them fill up on both food and water quickly, before it all freezes again.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

From the article:

Does fermenting save money?​

"It certainly can. Adding liquid to feed increases its volume, so chickens will need less of it to fill their stomachs.

But more importantly, because fermented food is more easily and efficiently absorbed, chickens need less of it - some articles(1) claim as much as 20% less - to have the same, or a more, beneficial effect.

And, of course, because it's more solid than grain, it's not as easily kicked out of feeders. "

@U_Stormcrow I was only offering a suggestion to the OP based on what I've read and watched from others far more experienced than I. It was an attempt to be helpful using a reputable source to back it up. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers (pun intended), I've seen SO much on how fermented feed helps to cut costs, so when I read the OP, it was the first thing I thought of (because I've done literally hundreds of hours of research in a very short period of time - probably TOO much research). I'm new to this group, but it seems that literally EVERY topic on raising chickens is more hotly debated than U.S. politics. I'm not here for that. I was only trying to be helpful.

All good.

I was merely suggesting that there is an alternative explanation for the savings attributed to fermented feed, apart from *claims of* superior nutrition. Since chickens **tend** to eat until their caloric needs are met (and thus, more of a low energy feed, less of a greater energy feed), changing the volume via addition of water has essentially no effect on the way they regulate intake. See also.

and FWIW, its going to take a LOT more than that to ruffle my feathers.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

This, btw, is your source's source. Note that no explanation is given for why dry matter consumption appears to have dropped, certainly not the expanded feed volume your source suggested. The linked study also points out delayed onset of lay on FF, increases in behavioral complaints (aggression), dislike for the feed by the chickens, and increased average egg weights for just 4 weeks out of 20.

Additionally, the study is a bit "cavalier" with their claims of significant and insignificant. I'll illustrate.

Study claims no significant drop in egg production on FF, but offers a production rate over the period of 75% on FF, and 82% on dry. That's a 10% difference in frequency. It also claims no significant difference in egg weight production, the hens on FF averaging 42g/day and the hens on dry averaging 45g/day - that's a 3g/day difference in production (roughly 7%, likely accounted for by the increased rate of lay the study's author deemed "not significant"), yet when the authors are discussing the 4 weeks (of 20) with increased egg weights on FF? The difference is 61.4 g vs 60.0 g average. Just 2.5%...

I take those as **suggestive** that the study authors were seeking any claimed benefit in support of FF, rather than neutrally interpreting the results of their study.

I invite you to read it yourself, and draw your own conclusions. You don't need a slick web page to do it for you.