is corn as main ingredient good for chickens?

[Barry Natchitoches]

Lazy J Farms Feed & Hay :

Quote:
Barry, as a statistician you know better than most the importance of sampling from a normal population especially when cunducting statistical analysis on surveys. Unfortunately, your reliance on these two films for you understanding of the science of corn would not pass the test for a normal population.

I don't know if you simply glanced over what I read so fast that you missed the main points I was making, or if you are purposefully pulling out only a single part of a longer and more complex posting in order to twist it around and thereby make "your point."


What I SAID was that the issue is SO COMPLICATED and SO INVOLVED that even a person as well read on the issue as myself doesn't have a clue where to start in explaining the many detailed facits of this overwhelmingly complex problem.


I could easily hijack this thread with hundreds, or even thousands of news articles that each discuss a different aspect of the GMO food problem -- articles from MAINSTREAM MEDIA, by the way, not stuff from tree hugging, leftist propaganda sources that you would never accept. After all, they are out there almost every day now.


I read many of these articles.


And if I posted them all on here -- even all the ones I have read in the last month -- I'd overrun this forum's bandwidth, and believe me, the folks who run this forum would have every reason in the world to tell me to quit posting all of these GMO news articles or kick me off, because this is a chicken owners hang out, not a hangout for people against GMO manipulation of the world's food supply.


But I tell you what.


To answer your challenge, I will post JUST ONE of those articles -- the one that I found, published by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation -- the equivalent of CBS, NBC or ABC in our country) in the next post. Now, that source is mainstream enough, isn't it?


The reason I choose this article is NOT the topic itself. I can find some articles even more frightening than this to post, but I can also find some not as bad as this. I chose this particular article to post for a much more simple reason -- it is an article that was published only yesterday -- the same day you made your comment to me -- and I read it for the first time within an hour or two of when you posted. In other words, it is a RANDOM sampling from the larger population of GMO news stories hitting the newswires on a regular basis nowadays.


Beleive me, if I chose to, I could flood this thread with more GMO stories just like this -- about what they are doing to salmon, to corn, to wheat -- to all of our food staples.


But I'll just post ONE -- whose significance is only that I read the newsarticle for the first time, within hours of when you posted.


If YOU want to understand more about this issue, either spend as much time as I spend each day scouring the net in order to try and keep up on this issue, or else seek out a well done, lay person's explanation such as you will find in one of the DVD's I suggested.


And yet, as much time as I have spent studying this issue out, there is so much too it that I -- like most people who are somewhat knowledgeable about the problem -- are simply too overwhelmed by the many different aspects of the problem to begin to explain it to someone who is just beginning to learn.


I'm sorry if I'm not perfect enough to meet your expectations.


So now, the newsarticle is forthcoming.​

 

[Barry Natchitoches]

GM pigs: Green ham with your eggs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make way for the genetically modified pig. More story and a video at the link....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12113859



Quote:
The project here is called Enviropig. The animals inside the clean, warm barns look like normal pigs and behave like normal pigs, but they are living, breathing wonders of modern science.

Each one contains genes from mice and E.coli bacteria, which have been inserted into their DNA with absolute precision.
Those genes make a small but important difference to the way these pigs process their food.

Ordinarily, pigs cannot easily digest chemicals called phosphates. That means that the stuff that comes out of the back end can be toxic and damaging to the environment. The phosphates are easily washed into waterways, where they can produce a hugely fertile environment for plants. But the plants grow so rapidly that they choke the stream or river and cause huge damage to the ecosystem.

__________________



Now, consider this question, Lazy J (and Spartacus too):


If the pig was designed by Mother Nature to excrete the phosphates which are bad for the environment- but now because of genetic manipulation in the laboratory, it digests them instead -- then I have to assume the poisonous chemicals then get into the pigs system, right? Where else would these poisonous chemicals go?


Now, if I turn around and eat this Genetically Modified pig -- do I ingest the phosphates then also???


How does ingestion of phosphates into my body, or the body of my seven year old daughter, affect OUR health?


Do you really think that these scientists have any clue at all the answer to this question?????


Do YOU want YOUR CHILDREN (or grandchildren) to be the guinea pigs who eat these GM pigs?


Especially when even the most learned scientists don't have a clue what the ingestion of phosphates into your children's systems - via GM pigs on the dinner plate - will do to their health????

 

[spartacus_63]

Barry,
If you spent as much time investigating as you say, you would find that hog confinements(in this country) fall under very strict waste confinement regulation at ALL levels. I just must ask, have you ever been to a hog confinement?

I just read the article and to me it looks like the GM project is gaining acceptance in the broader scientific fields. e-coli has been used for generations as a way to manipulate DNA and genetics. It is also present in almost every living organism, even people. I for one am no more worried about eating a pig with mouse DNA inserted into it, than I am about swallowing my gum.

Since there are numerous Phosphates, they could have been a little more informative there, and when did they become toxic? I believe people use phosphates and are definitely found in nature.

What may I ask is the major concern about helping pigs absorb more nutrients from food? Or what is the concern in regard to GM projects?

 

[Barry Natchitoches]

Quote:
OK -- THIS explains ALOT !

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
As I understand it, Calories are a measure of heat. They are irrespective of fat or protein. The body will turn all unused energy source into fat. Fat is the body's primary energy reserve. The body converts food into what it needs by content and stores or excretes the rest. Calories and fats are apples and oranges.


I probably messed it up but the intent was to talk about "fats" as components of grains, much like protein is a component of grain, and "fat" as that greasy yellow stuff I find when I process a chicken. Fats and protein can both provide calories. A specific amount of fat usually contains more calories than an equivalent amount of protein. Again I am going by memory but I think that ratio is 9 to 4, but I think that ratio may be somehow specific to corn and I'm not sure if that is by volume or weight. I'm just too lazy this morning to go back and re-research it.

According to Webster, one definition of Calorie is "Quantity of food capable of producing such an amount of energy". There is also a definition about the energy value of food.

My opinion on a full crop just before roost is that digestion requires energy. Energy produces heat.

That may be but if they get too hot, they take their heads out from under their wings and stand up so their legs are exposed and get rid of the excess heat. I know others that I respect a lot on this forum disagree with me, and as I said, their may be some benefit, but I don't think it is significant. Another side to that is that it does not matter that much if it is corn or something else they are digesting. It is not the caloric content of what they are digesting, it is the process of digesting.

I know I don't live in the climate some people do. Some winters it never gets below zero degrees Fahrenheit here though that is forecast for next week. I keep drafts off of them, provide good ventilation, and don't obsess about it. Mine make it through the winters fine and about half my hens and all my pullets are laying now without supplemental light (Delaware and BA, but not every day). That may drop next week though.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
OK -- THIS explains ALOT !

And I worked for an oil company for a lot of years. That gives me some inside knowledge about how things actually work in that industry. It is truly amazing how many misconceptions about that industry are "common knowledge" or "accepted".

 

[spartacus_63]

Barry,

OK -- THIS explains ALOT !

So I suppose you think I am on the dole now. Dr. Phil also has as saying regarding assumptions. I can tell you, I am of my own mind. I look at the facts, the situation and the results. I then base my opinions on those. I try to keep my emotions out of rational thinking. If I thought Monsanto or any other entity was doing anything dangerous or immoral, I would state my opinion in regard to that. I also assumed someone would think because my spouse worked for Monsanto, that I would spout the party line. What I did not include is that she has not worked for Monsanto for several years and owes them no loyalty. You can take that for what it is worth.

Ridgerunner, I am in agreement with your explanation, it is just an issue with me regarding calories. To many folks misunderstand calories in nutrition. A high calorie diet coupled with a high calorie life style is not bad in and of itself. Caloric intake is just a number when isolated. To have a balanced diet, all nutrients must be taken into consideration as well as activity level and metabolism.

And how does this relate to the OP, IMO corn is still a good food source but not the sole source. Without more info on a specific application, it would be impossible to be more accurate.​

 

[Amyable]

Quote:
Fluoride is neither healthy nor safe. The fluoride put in drinking water is a by-product of the fertilizer industry and not pharmaceutical grade. It doesn't prevent tooth decay, but does cause fluorosis (discolored enamel.) Fluoride is linked to lowered IQ, weakened bones, thyroid disruption, and bone cancer. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

Some bad science takes a long time to go away.

Vit D was already in the milk before it was pasteurized - cooking destroys it.

In reality, we know just the tiniest tip of the iceberg in regards to nutrition in both humans and animals. We don't yet know if GMO's are safe; sometimes effects take generations to become obvious. I choose to err on the side of traditional foods - ones we've been eating and thriving on for millenia, not corn syrup, Twinkies, and lab-tinkered ingredients.

This is an interesting thread, a bit off the original intent though it is.

 

[spartacus_63]

Fluoride is neither healthy nor safe.

In my opinion this is more junk science. The link suggested is full of "may be linked" and "can cause". If they had a study that honestly showed a cause, they would be more specific. But if you want to believe them, go right ahead. I will look to the source for my information. Here is a snipet of what the ADA really says about fluoridated drinking water.

fluoridation has dramatically improved the oral health of tens of millions of Americans. Community water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has proclaimed community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Approximately 72.4% of the U.S. population served by public water systems receive the benefit of optimally fluoridated water.

Fluoridation of community water supplies is simply the adjustment of the existing, naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water to an optimal fluoride level recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (0.7 - 1.2 parts per million) for the prevention of tooth decay. Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying milk with Vitamin D, table salt with iodine, and bread and cereals with folic acid.

Studies conducted throughout the past 65 years have consistently shown that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults. Simply by drinking water,

Here is the link if you are interested in reading the entire article: http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

Also, non pasturized milk or milk products is NOT a significant source of vitamin D. If there is any vitamin D in non pasteurized milk, the level would be directly influenced by the amount of UVB the animal was exposed to.

How does this link to the OP...fluoride is probably not needed in a chickens diet since they rarely suffer from tooth decay...stick with the corn. And if the chickens get out in the sun for a few hours a day, they probably do not need vitamin D supplements either.

 

[Organics North]

spartacus_63,
Remember you brought up fluoride...

On the 80's farm crash I will give you that.. It is complex and not a discussion for this thread. I am not so sure on the antibiotics.. It is my opinion mother nature is vastly "smarter" than the actions of human nature... In the end she always wins..
On GMO's and less herbicide and pesticide, yes I will give you that too...

However their is more than one way to skin a cat..

I do enjoy the way you present you points... Though I totally disagree with your perspective....

----
amyable....

Love your perspective as always..
---

Thanks to Chris09 I started freaking out on what I grow that may be GMO... So I called my lettuce seed supplier and confirmed no GMO's....
... Nice quality Dutch seed.... No need for Monsanto to muck it up like they have with corn and soy..

ON