FERMENTED FEEDS...anyone using them?

[Chris09]

Quote: No I'm talking about all nutrients, a feed is designed so that a bird get X amount of nutrients per feeding.
If a birds eat less of that feed then there getting less of the intended nutrients.

I understand that some bioavailability of the feed is increased but, is it enough to make up for less feed being eaten at one time?

Quote: Chicken eat to fill there caloric need, when that need is met they eat less. If the birds are eating less of the FF then I would sat that the fermentation would be increasing the energy amount of the feed.

 

[Jensownzoo]

No I'm talking about all nutrients, a feed is designed so that a bird get X amount of nutrients per feeding.
If a birds eat less of that feed then there getting less of the intended nutrients.

The only thing that is escaping the feed is carbon dioxide from the microbial digestion of sugars and starches. The longer you let it ferment, the less sugar/starch you have but the microbes actually don't eat TOO much of them, plus the organic acids (such as lactic acid) end product is what they're transformed into which are a very digestible carbohydrate source.

I understand that some bioavailability of the feed is increased but, is it enough to make up for less feed being eaten at one time? 

Yes. This is what the studies that exist focused on.

Chickens eat to fill there caloric need, when that need is met they eat less. If the birds are eating less of the FF then I would sat that the fermentation would be increasing the energy amount of the feed.

Depends on how you measure it. If you measure by bomb calorimetry, then the energy content has actually decreased due to the loss of carbon dioxide. If you instead measure what counts in this case (bioavailability of energy to the birds), which you can do in a metabolic chamber, then the energy content IS increased. Or rather, should be...that hasn't been measured directly yet. Only the by-products have been observed by way of feed conversion.

 

[Bridebeliever]

I know y'all will be so proud of me. I quit fermenting back in the early winter...but never quit the thread.

I've been reading all the postings all along and knew I really wanted to get back to the fermented feed. What made me go back to it is a sudden reduction in the amount of eggs I've been getting! I have 8 chickens and I was getting 6 per day. For a week now I've only been getting 2-3 per day! My girls seem healthy, free range, have access to feed and water always and are 26-28 weeks old. They should be at the prime of their laying time! (Our temps are nice too, 50's and 60's during the day, 40's at night.) So, I had my final straw with feed and went and bought my favorite no soy Scratch and Peck brand 18% Layer Feed and started the ferment bucket going. The girls couldn't wait so I wanted to show everybody my chickens excitement over the currently just wet feed bucket because it needs four days before I can call it fermented feed.

 

[triplepurpose]

I used to think that wetter was better. But after further experimentation and experience (we've been doing regular wet FF for at least a couple years now), it seems like the sweet spot for us is when the FF is the consistency of a solid, rather than a liquid--basically, firm enough that you can stick a stick in it, and come back a day later and have the stick still be upright (you could also describe it as solid enough that if you take a scoop of feed out, the hole left by the scoop will remain more or less indefinitely--I also like to think of miso paste). Much wetter than that, and it tends to separate into two layers with a floating layer that is more solid, and a fair bit of soupy stuf underneath, requiring lots of messy stirring before each feeding, lest you end of with it too wet after a couple of days and have to remix with more dry feed to get it stiffer again, which results in nearly twice as much work. Also, they don't like the wetter feed as much, and tend to fling a lot of it around the coop as they try to shake it off their beaks, which kind of defeats the whole idea of FF resulting in less "wasted feed." If it's mixed up to the solid consistency described, however, it never separates so requires no stirring, and is readily eaten with less feed wasted by the birds, yet it's still wet enough that the fines in the feed stick together and can be consumed rather than left behind, and feed cannot be easily scratched out of the feeder and lost among the litter (both typically cited benefits of FF in general, aside from the nutritional ones).

Anyay, I know that describing consistency is kind of difficult, but I was wondering if this rings true to others too, or if my experience is unique for some reason? I otften hear the ideal texture described as like thick oatmeal, but this suggests to me something wetter than what we've personally found to be ideal...

 

[Jensownzoo]

I like it just a tetch wetter than you do, but not much. The bottom 1/4 of the bucket does get a little juicy, but that's fine as I use that for backslopping. The portion that I serve does keep its shape when I spoon it out...I guess it just depends on how thick you like your oatmeal as to if that description is accurate!

 

[Beekissed]

I used to think that wetter was better. But after further experimentation and experience (we've been doing regular wet FF for at least a couple years now), it seems like the sweet spot for us is when the FF is the consistency of a solid, rather than a liquid--basically, firm enough that you can stick a stick in it, and come back a day later and have the stick still be upright (you could also describe it as solid enough that if you take a scoop of feed out, the hole left by the scoop will remain more or less indefinitely--I also like to think of miso paste). Much wetter than that, and it tends to separate into two layers with a floating layer that is more solid, and a fair bit of soupy stuf underneath, requiring lots of messy stirring before each feeding, lest you end of with it too wet after a couple of days and have to remix with more dry feed to get it stiffer again, which results in nearly twice as much work. Also, they don't like the wetter feed as much, and tend to fling a lot of it around the coop as they try to shake it off their beaks, which kind of defeats the whole idea of FF resulting in less "wasted feed." If it's mixed up to the solid consistency described, however, it never separates so requires no stirring, and is readily eaten with less feed wasted by the birds, yet it's still wet enough that the fines in the feed stick together and can be consumed rather than left behind, and feed cannot be easily scratched out of the feeder and lost among the litter (both typically cited benefits of FF in general, aside from the nutritional ones).

Anyay, I know that describing consistency is kind of difficult, but I was wondering if this rings true to others too, or if my experience is unique for some reason? I otften hear the ideal texture described as like thick oatmeal, but this suggests to me something wetter than what we've personally found to be ideal...

I use mash and I use it so dry that you have to jab the scoop down into it to get the feed at times. Sometimes it's a little wetter than that, but I prefer the dry. There's never a time when I couldn't put a stick into it and expect it to stay upright....not only would it stay upright, but you'd have to push it over to get it to move.

 

[lazy gardener]

Macronutrients I'm not too concerned with--a significant amount of the feed conversion savings actually comes from the microbes doing some pre-digestion for the bird (e.g. proteins --> amino acids) at the expense of some simple sugars. They especially make the amino acids lysine and methionine and omega 3 fatty acids more available.

I suspect you were talking about micronutrients though. The mineral content of the feed won't change, and the decreased activity of phytic acid (accomplished via lactic acid fermentation) actually increases the bioavailability of them (esp zinc, calcium, iron, and magnesium, phosphorus, copper). The microbes also produce increased levels of vitamins (notably B-vitamins, but others such as A and C can be elevated depending on the microbe). I looked for, but could not find, any data indicating that the bioavailability of any micronutrients was decreased by fermentation.

So, the next factor to consider is the effect of decreased intake. I don't know if the increased bioavailability offsets the decreased intake of the aforementioned micronutrients sufficiently for certain, but I suspect it does or those feeding it would notice detrimental effects. However, those people engaged in feeding FF rarely feed that exclusively. There are often treats in the form of seeds, insects, veggies/fruits, and animal protein. This plus the fact that the chickens are generally not kept indoors in a confinement operation (and therefore do at least a minimal amount of foraging) offsets any decreased intake. Especially good for the birds are sunflower seeds and leafy greens to provide additional nutrients such as selenium, molybdenum, manganese, choline, vitamin K, vitamin E, etc. and so forth.

I understand the concern that some have expressed re: the chickens eating less, so if it's a balanced feed, they may not be getting the amount of some elements that arerecommended in a full daily ration. But the fact that their guts are better able to process should eliminate that concern. I'm not a chemist, and not even certain what elements, if any are being targeted as a concern, but... any chicken who has access to healthy soil and vegetation would more than make up for any thing missed in the poultry feed. Further, I'd like to point out that prepared feed, at least where I'm from is a hit or miss deal. The last few bags I bought from a certain well known feed store had a Julian date on them that was an embarrassment. Those bags of feed should have gone to the land fill. Hopefully, I've found a more reliable source and brand of feed.

 

[Chris09]

Depends on how you measure it. If you measure by bomb calorimetry, then the energy content has actually decreased due to the loss of carbon dioxide. If you instead measure what counts in this case (bioavailability of energy to the birds), which you can do in a metabolic chamber, then the energy content IS increased. Or rather, should be...that hasn't been measured directly yet. Only the by-products have been observed by way of feed conversion.

I'm talking about Metabolized Energy.

Metabolizable energy (ME). The amount of energy available to be used for maintenance, for production of body tissue (for growth and replacement), activity and egg production, when a food material or feed is eaten. It includes the heat lost during metabolism. The ME of a feed ingredient (individual feed) may be used to indicate the nutritional value of that ingredient. Feed ingredients or feeds are rated as high or low energy. ME depends on the quality of the feed and on the % dry matter. Good maize (corn) at 85% dry matter (15% water) has an ME of 3300 kcal/kg. The ME for barley is 2700 kcal/kg. Fats may have an ME of 9000 kcal/kg. If chickens are fed a low energy feed they will eat more feed, if it is available, to get the required energy. In monogastric animals, like chickens, energy comes mainly from carbohydrates and fats since fibre containing cellulose cannot be digested.

With a adult laying hen the target ME would be
1 - 32 weeks laying 2770-2860 Kcal/Kg of Metabolisable Energy
32 - 44 weeks laying 2725-2860 Kcal/Kg of Metabolisable Energy
44 - 55 weeks laying 2675-2860 Kcal/Kg of Metabolisable Energy
> 55 weeks laying 2550-2825 Kcal/Kg of Metabolisable Energy

Quote:
That's what I have been saying.

Fermenting and soaking grains for livestock is nothing new, it's been done for hundreds of years its the fermenting of there feed that is somewhat new.
Also if someone is using tap water that contains choline in it (city or shocked well) then your most likely only soaking your grain and or feed not fermenting it.
Its good to keep in mind that poultry do ferment there food some in there digestive track, not as well as a bovine, goat or sheep which have 4 chambers to a single stomach but poultry do ferment there food some in there crop and again in there ceca.

 

[Beekissed]

What I'm confused about is the beating of the plainly dead horse. If the chickens are thriving, producing and growing well, then it's apparent that the feed is sufficiently nutritious to produce the desired result, even in long term usage. I've personally seen that my chickens are indeed fitting all these criteria, as are the many who are utilizing the fermentation of their feed. What then seems to be the issue? Why the fears expressed of chickens not getting the correct nutrition when it's clear for all to see and experience that they are, indeed, growing normally, producing well and staying healthy on this method of feeding?

 

[aart]

What I'm confused about is the beating of the plainly dead horse.

Because sometimes folks like to discuss the details.....it can be interesting and educational.