Laying mas vs. No laying mash: Would like some opinions from BYCer's

[PotterWatch]

I didn't read this the whole way through but here is one thing I found:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1589622

 

[PotterWatch]

Here is another one I found: http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...BDE0EE0D32.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=624324

 

[Beekissed]

Quote:
Thanks, PotterWatch! That is more than I could find on the subject. It still doesn't specify clearly under what conditions this can become detrimental, does it? It also seems to state that high calcium is okay for chicks if combined with high phosphorus. I think layer feed has an increase in both. The other article seems to be saying that a mistake was made in combining feed ingredients, resulting in a higher than normal calcium ratio, resulting in health deficits for a group of broilers. Not sure how that would apply to layer feed.

I would still like to find some more concrete info before I just take folks' word on it, though. The chicks I am feeding laying mash are as big as the same breeds twice their age! I would like to hear some studies on longterm affects of this type of diet before I decide to take them off something on which they are thriving. I've searched the posts on this forum and couldn't find anything helpful, either.

Thanks for trying to help me!

 

[monkeemakr]

Quote:
This doesn't exactly answer my question, but thanks!

I don't need info on added calcium, just what, if any, the short-term and long-term effects it may have on chickens, if fed during the chick/pullet stage.

Is this just something people have surmised, or are there actual facts and studies to support this theory? Do these studies cite the actual safe dosage of calcium per chick and the side effects apparent when these maximum dosages are exceeded? Does it list the observed side effects discovered in a controlled experiment? Or is this a theory ventured because some people have had bad results and maladies related to hypercalcemia? If so, how many people have recorded these and are they certain these anomalies were caused directly by the amount of calcium in the laying mash?

This is the type of information I would like to discover, so I can make an informed decision about the diet of my young chicks.

Well, I haven't seen anything like a vet manual or school that has this. However, just ask any doctor about too much calcium in humans. It causes kidney stones. Makes sense to me that the line of thinking it's harmful for chickens is on the money. I was looking into it because it is about $4 cheaper a bag than the starter I was using, and with about 60+ chickens, that adds up to quite a bit of chump change. I decided it just wasn't worth the risk. I do add DE, I can't remember which state, but one of the schools of agriculture had a research paper online that stated it was beneficial (I know the whole DE controversy on that point) as a worming preventative, helped the eggshell hardness, and had other benefits - the specifics of which escape me right now.

(another one of those moments) All I can say about it helping the eggshell is that even without calcium all our first pullet eggs had good hard shells.

 

[Beekissed]

This is a very old thread...but I have an anecdotal update. The young chicks that I fed the laying mash I still have(boarding at a friend's)....many of them are going into their 5th year of life and are laying strong. BUT...I lost almost all of the Black Stars and a few of the other breeds to sudden heart attacks in their first year of life. I feel that the laying mash might have attributed to this and changed my feeding style of young chicks and haven't lost a single bird to organ failure~or to anything else~since doing so.