FERMENTED FEEDS...anyone using them?

[Jensownzoo]

Very true metabolism is a factor in weather or not a chicken or any animal is obese or not just the same as a imbalanced diet.
Say if a chicken has a low or slow metabolism rate that chicken will be a bit more over weight than one that has a higher metabolism.
Just the same a chicken that's kept in a small/ under sized coop or is just plain lazy will also be over weigh compared to a more active one.   

But if they eat to their caloric needs, activity level or amount and form of calories provided (table scraps) shouldn't matter...they still shouldn't become overweight.

My point is that this is a much more complex issue than one blanket statement can cover. And what works for one bird, may not work for another, a lot in part thanks to artificial selection/genetic manipulation (human-directed breeding). Even in wild-type birds there are variations between individuals--the aforementioned "metabolism" for example. To translate to another species, why does one dog need expensive raw human-grade food to just survive while another thrives on Old Roy? Why isn't there just one universally accepted diet that is "best"?

So, with so many variables and so many choices, how does one go about picking a diet for your flock? Some use scientific methods, some use trends (what seems to work for most), some use fads, some use "how it's always been done". You pick and then you see what it does for your flock. Are you satisfied with their performance, however you measure it? If you are, then great, you're done, issue solved. If you're not, then you have the choice to change diets completely or tweak the one you have.

So, fermenting the feed. It doesn't take any more money to do, minimal time/effort, and seems to affect performance in a positive manner. It's not the only way to feed, but a lot of people who do it are satisfied with it for their flocks. Probably not everybody...they can try a different feeding strategy or tweak this one...up to them. But, no matter what your feeding method, I do love figuring out/knowing the hows and whys behind it. It's how I'm built and why science as a field of study attracted me in the first place. If something doesn't make sense, you betcha I'm going to zero in on it and study up on it until either it does make sense, it is debunked, or a run up against the wall of not enough data/too many unanswered questions. I suppose I could just keep quiet about my findings, maybe tick a few less people off that way...but I get excited when I find out something fascinating or I figure something out and I have to share the knowledge. Again, it's how I'm built. It's also a way of gaining additional knowledge--through discussion and debate. I am perfectly willing to be wrong, but you have to prove it to me

 

[Chris09]

You're right, you did state that about ten pages back or so. But what do you think fermentation does to the fibrous hulls that simply soaking them in water (plus your liquid additives) won't do? The microbes involved in fermentation go for the more easily digested soluble fiber over the insoluable fiber. The softening primarily comes from the influx of water into the cells...kinda similar to the wrinkly skin we get in the bath. This disruption in the cell membranes would easily allow your fermenting microbes access to the inner goodness of the seed, where it would offer the same benefits as fermenting feed, though to a lesser degree since you feed this as a 10% portion of total diet. Still, not a bad supplement.

I wonder if the boost in digestibility you are seeking from the ferment would be even greater if the seed were ground? You'd have to feed it fairly immediately though, so no fermenting, otherwise you would also see a drop in certain nutrients from oxidative processes. Hmmm...I bet the nutritional benefits from fermenting a whole grain ration might be even greater than that from the ground/pelleted ration if compared side-by-side and standardized in regards to components for that reason. My bank account is not going to let me experiment with that right now, but maybe at some future date I could set up my own trial...

Quote: You're right, you did state that about ten pages back or so. But what do you think fermentation does to the fibrous hulls that simply soaking them in water (plus your liquid additives) won't do? The microbes involved in fermentation go for the more easily digested soluble fiber over the insoluable fiber. The softening primarily comes from the influx of water into the cells...kinda similar to the wrinkly skin we get in the bath. This disruption in the cell membranes would easily allow your fermenting microbes access to the inner goodness of the seed, where it would offer the same benefits as fermenting feed, though to a lesser degree since you feed this as a 10% portion of total diet. Still, not a bad supplement.
For the most part I can achieve the increased digestibility that I want by simply soaking the grains overnight.
By soaking them for 7 days I achieve a primary and a secondary affect. The primary affect being that at the end of 7 day these grains absorbed as much liquid as they can, there size has increased some do to the absorption of the liquid and there full of the liquid mix. In turn the birds get more of the added liquid (apple juice and poultry cell). The lesser secondary affect that I achieve is that the grains ferment. Yes there are some benefits to the oats and boss being fermented BUT in my case it is still a secondary affect.


Quote: I wonder if the boost in digestibility you are seeking from the ferment would be even greater if the seed were ground? You'd have to feed it fairly immediately though, so no fermenting, otherwise you would also see a drop in certain nutrients from oxidative processes. Hmmm...I bet the nutritional benefits from fermenting a whole grain ration might be even greater than that from the ground/pelleted ration if compared side-by-side and standardized in regards to components for that reason. My bank account is not going to let me experiment with that right now, but maybe at some future date I could set up my own trial...

By grinding the whole oats and whole boss I could increase the digestibility some but I would still have hulls to deal with which are somewhat more digestible because they are ground but not near what they could be. Now I could use Oat Groats (hulled oat) and sunflower hearts (hulled sunflowers) and increase the digestibility also.

Now another thing we have to keep in mind is texture of "type" of feed has a affect on feathers.
Chicken can be classed as Hard Feathered Fowl (game type fowl; Malays, American Game, Old English, etc.) or Soft Feather Fowl (Silkies, Cochins, Orpingtons, etc.) and the texture of the feed, weather it is a ground feed like a mash or a un-ground feed like a "whole grain" affect the feathers. A soft feather breed has better more correct feathers on a ground feed than a hard feather breed, where as a hard feather breed has better more correct feathers on a more "whole grain" feed. The key is balancing the types of feed and still keeping a balanced feed. So if I would grid the oats and boss I may have to deal with the difference and compensate for that. (remember I also show chickens and the incorrect feather type (to soft to hard) can mean the difference between first and second place).

 

[Chris09]

But if they eat to their caloric needs, activity level or amount and form of calories provided (table scraps) shouldn't matter...they still shouldn't become overweight.

Let say that you tend to offer a high protein low calorie treat to your birds.
The birds will eat to fill there caloric need but in doing so they over eat there dietary need of proteins.
That extra proteins is then stored on the body as fat creating a over weight bird.

 

[Jensownzoo]

Now another thing we have to keep in mind is texture of "type" of feed has a affect on feathers.
Chicken can be classed as Hard Feathered Fowl (game type fowl; Malays, American Game, Old English, etc.) or Soft Feather Fowl (Silkies, Cochins, Orpingtons, etc.) and the texture of the feed, weather it is a ground feed like a mash or a un-ground feed like a "whole grain" affect the feathers. A soft feather breed has better more correct feathers on a ground feed than a hard feather breed, where as a hard feather breed has better more correct feathers on a more "whole grain" feed. The key is balancing the types of feed and still keeping a balanced feed. So if I would grid the oats and boss I may have to deal with the difference and compensate for that. (remember I also show chickens and the incorrect feather type (to soft to hard) can mean the difference between first and second place). 

Interesting. Do you think this has to do with the nutrient in the feed or the slowing of the digestive process to to higher amount of insoluble fiber in the gut?

ETA: Or perhaps a nutrient that is quckly lost and not replaced in grain that is ground?

 

[Jensownzoo]

Let say that you tend to offer a high protein low calorie treat to your birds.
The birds will eat to fill there caloric need but in doing so they over eat there dietary need of proteins.
That extra proteins is then stored on the body as fat creating a over weight bird. 

No, it doesn't work that way. Protein is calories, fat is calories, carbohydrates are calories. All contribute to the overall calorie content of food and all will be burned as fuel and stored as fat if the overall calorie content is in excess. Each macronutrient also contributes building blocks that the animal uses whole (amino acids, fatty acids, saccharides) so depending on the nutritional needs, the metabolic processes of the animal may utilize one over the other type for fuel preferentially over the other but that depends on the need at the moment.

 

[csaylorchickens]

I think what I got from comments is that chickens eat to fill their nutrients needs not caloric therefore a poor nutrients diet may incline a chicken to over eat certain foods to achieve the nutrients need and get excess of calories in the process but if the nutrients needs are met with a good balanced diet the Chicken won't over eat?

Either way, regardless of research, I see the benefit of fermenting the feed from time tof time because it's the only thing that keeps my one problem chicken from getting coccidosis

 

[Chris09]

Quote: Here is a example --

Yellow Feed Corn is around 1540 Kcal/lb. where as Fish Meal is 1080 Kcal/lb.
It will take more fish meal than corn to fill a birds caloric needs.
Now there is around 460 Kcal/lb. less in fish meal than corn but there is nearly 48% more protein in fish meal than corn.

Some protein can and will be used as a "fuel" and help meet the birds caloric need BUT the extra is stored as fats..

 

[Jensownzoo]

Here is a example --

Yellow Feed Corn is around 1540 Kcal/lb. where as Fish Meal is 1080 Kcal/lb.
It will take more fish meal than corn to fill a birds caloric needs.
Now there is around 460 Kcal/lb. less in fish meal than corn but there is nearly 48% more protein in fish meal than corn.

Some protein can and will be used as a "fuel" and help meet the birds caloric need BUT the extra is stored as fats..

I am not sure how this is supporting your assertion?

Say you feed 500 calories of corn and 500 calories of fish meal--any extra calories will be stored as fat, regardless of the macronutrient source of those calories. Yes, you would have to feed more of the fish meal to achieve the same amount of calories--which by the way is counterintuitive since presumably fish meal is higher in fat and fat has 9 calories per gram as opposed to the 4 found in carbs and protein--but you wouldn't automatically get fat deposition just because of the protein content, you would have to exceed the caloric demands first.

There is something that I have temporarily ignored, and that's the fact that it takes more energy from the bird to digest fats and proteins then it does carbohydrates. They're simply more complex molecules. So you take a gram of carbs and a gram of protein. Even though they contain the same amount of calories, the net energy obtained from them by the bird will be more from the carbs than it is from the protein. It's one of the reasons why if you want to lose weight, you decrease simple sugars and increase protein in your diet (the other main reason has to do with satiety and hunger mechanisms).

 

[Chris09]

I am not sure how this is supporting your assertion?

Say you feed 500 calories of corn and 500 calories of fish meal--any extra calories will be stored as fat, regardless of the macronutrient source of those calories. Yes, you would have to feed more of the fish meal to achieve the same amount of calories--which by the way is counterintuitive since presumably fish meal is higher in fat and fat has 9 calories per gram as opposed to the 4 found in carbs and protein--but you wouldn't automatically get fat deposition just because of the protein content, you would have to exceed the caloric demands first.

There is something that I have temporarily ignored, and that's the fact that it takes more energy from the bird to digest fats and proteins then it does carbohydrates. They're simply more complex molecules. So you take a gram of carbs and a gram of protein. Even though they contain the same amount of calories, the net energy obtained from them by the bird will be more from the carbs than it is from the protein. It's one of the reasons why if you want to lose weight, you decrease simple sugars and increase protein in your diet (the other main reason has to do with satiety and hunger mechanisms).

I was just using that as a hypothetic example but just like fish meal can have different crude protein percentages it can also have different fat percentages. The fish meal that I can get around here has around the same fat as corn.


Now, I think your trying to use information that you know about human nutrition and use it for animal nutrition.
The term Calorie, as used in human nutrition, when spelled with a capital C, refers to a kilocalorie, or 1000 "small" calories. This designation is not used in animal nutrition. In livestock nutrition terms like Net Energy, Total Digestible Nutrition, Gross Energy, Digestible Energy and Metabolizable Energy are used. Not all net energy is used with the same efficiency for every purpose, however, so feedstuffs are assigned values of net energy according to how the animal uses it.
Remember when I'm referring to the caloric needs of a chicken it is the Metabolizable Energy that I'm talking about.
Also the Metabolizable Energy amount of a feedstuff is going to be different for chickens, swine, bovine, goats, sheep, etc. because of the way each animal processes that set feedstuff. To a point the same can be said about Crude Proteins and Digestible Proteins or Crude Fiber and Digestible Fiber.

 

[Jensownzoo]

I was just using that as a hypothetic example but just like fish meal can have different crude protein percentages it can also have different fat percentages. The fish meal that I can get around here has around the same fat as corn.


Now, I think your trying to use information that you know about human nutrition and use it for animal nutrition.

Not really. Human nutrition has never interested me as much as animal.

The term Calorie, as used in human nutrition, when spelled with a capital C, refers to a kilocalorie, or 1000 "small" calories. This designation is not used in animal nutrition. In livestock nutrition terms like Net Energy, Total Digestible Nutrition, Gross Energy, Digestible Energy and Metabolizable Energy are used.

Then say what you mean. If you mean ME, then say it. As you state, ME and calories (the amount of energy it takes to raise the temp of 1 gram of water by 1 degree) are not equivalent terms. I know what a kcal is...when I said 500 calories of this or that, it really doesn't matter if it is calories or Calories (kcal)...I could have gone truly generic and said "units of energy" and the real point would have been the same...which you ignored. If the animal consumes the same amount of metabolically energetically equivalent diets, any excess energy is converted into fat...the composition of the diet doesn't matter--carbs, protein, fat percentages can be absolutely anything and have the same effect given the other constants.

Not all net energy is used with the same efficiency for every purpose, however, so feedstuffs are assigned values of net energy according to how the animal uses it.

I think you'll have to explain this assertion a bit more.

Remember when I'm referring to the caloric needs of a chicken it is the Metabolizable Energy that I'm talking about.

Also the Metabolizable Energy amount of a feedstuff is going to be different for chickens, swine, bovine, goats, sheep, etc. because of the way each animal processes that set feedstuff. To a point the same can be said about Crude Proteins and Digestible Proteins or Crude Fiber and Digestible Fiber.  

As it is different for dogs, cats, iguanas, rabbits, Canadian geese, and Great-Horned owls. Not an unfamiliar concept.