Mixed flock feeding (chicken/duck for eggs only)

[Chris09]

Note how the calcium drops for feeds intended for roosters and non-laying hens.

Layer Diet -
Calcium, Minimum 3.00%
Maximum 4.00%

breeder feed -
Calcium, Min. 3.25%
Calcium, Max. 3.75%

grower/ maintenance feed (this feed is also recommended for roosters and also hens not in production)
Calcium, Min. 0.75%
Calcium, Max. 1.25%

Game bird feed

breeder feed -
Calcium not less than 2.3%
Calcium not more than 3.3%

maintenance Diet -
Calcium not less than .60%
Calcium not more than 1.2%

Water Fowl Diet -

breeder feed -
Calcium not less than 2.55%
Calcium not more than 3.05%

maintenance Diet - (this feed is also recommended for roosters and also hens not in production)
Calcium not less than .85%
Calcium not more than 1.35%

 

[Chris09]

Quote: You might want to look into feeding feeding male animals like cattle, goats and even sheep high amounts of calcium.
I raise Dairy Goats and one of the thing I have to watch is the calcium levels and calcium/phosphorus ratio of the bucks feed ideally we keep the ratio at a 2:1 ratio, calcium to phosphorus or around 1.20% calcium, max.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

The tip of the research iceberg.
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/2337/urolithiasis-in-male-broiler-breeders

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20434855

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780656

http://www.reproduction-online.org/content/early/2011/06/13/REP-11-0131.full.pdf

http://www.agbiosecurity.ca/healthy...m and Vitamin D3 problems in laying birds.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12530920

http://www.poultryshowcentral.com/chicken_gout.html

http://www.2ndchance.info/goutpollocAvianrenaldis.pdf

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...he_formation_of_epididymal_stones_in_roosters

There's much more.
Think about it. If 4% of the total intake is a single mineral for birds not using 2 grams of calcium a day to make egg shells, how can that be a good thing.

 

[CrazyTalk]

Note how the calcium drops for feeds intended for roosters and non-laying hens.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't.

Calcium isn't free - and feeds are typically formulated with large scale growers in mind where decisions are mostly made on a cost basis - so the question is, are the maintenance diets lower calcium because the excess calcium is unneeded, or because it's detrimental?. The fact that there's less of it doesn't indicate one way or the other. And it being detrimental to chicks doesn't mean its detrimental to adults.

Layer feed is formulated with lower protein because it's unneeded, not because 20% layer would be detrimental. Its entirely possible that the lower calcium feeds are the same way.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

Quote:

I'm not arguing that it doesn't.

Calcium isn't free - and feeds are typically formulated with large scale growers in mind where decisions are mostly made on a cost basis - so the question is, are the maintenance diets lower calcium because the excess calcium is unneeded, or because it's detrimental?. The fact that there's less of it doesn't indicate one way or the other. And it being detrimental to chicks doesn't mean its detrimental to adults.

Layer feed is formulated with lower protein because it's unneeded, not because 20% layer would be detrimental. Its entirely possible that the lower calcium feeds are the same way.

It is both unnecessary AND detrimental. Non laying birds can get by on less than 1% calcium.
Actually 20% layer feed, if not cut with low protein grains is detrimental as well causing articular gout and other problems due to the load on both liver and kidneys.

 

[CrazyTalk]

ChickenCanoe, I've been through most of those, but i'll read the rest.


The first one was a study of 130ish broilers on layer feed for 44 weeks. There are a series of problems with this paper -
1. There was no control group - they analyses the kidneys of these birds, but there was no comparison to birds on normal feed. That's a huge problem.
2. They're 44 week old Cornish Cross - a bird known for having all sorts of health issues related to diet - that in addition to the lack of control pretty much invalidates the whole study.

The second one actually found that the birds on the higher calcium were more virile, and were healthier.

The third one has absolutely nothing to do with layer feed. It has to do with stones reducing fertility, but does not address why birds get stones.

The fourth one discusses stone formation as resulting from hormonal issues. The presence of calcium based stones does not indicate that an excess of calcium causes said stones. The study does not address diet.


Most of these have nothing to do with diet.

 

[CrazyTalk]

The 5th link is a factsheet, that includes no references or links to studies.

The 6th link directly contradicts you:

"No correlation was found between the occurrence of stones and a positive test for ELISA IBV (infectious bronchitis virus), or between the number of stones and calcium concentration in water and food, indicating that IBV infection and calcium in the diet were not related to stones formation. "

The 2nd and 6th ones are the only ones that directly address calcium in the diet, and health, and both show no correlation between illness and calcium levels in feed for roosters.

 

[ChickenCanoe]

So you're telling me that 1 link that doesn't specify a correlation and another that doesn't cite actual evidence negates all the other research?

 

[ChickenCanoe]

...

The 2nd and 6th ones are the only ones that directly address calcium in the diet, and health, and both show no correlation between illness and calcium levels in feed for roosters.

That's not how I read the studies.
I suggest you continue to feed your roosters 4% calcium since you never lose roosters and I'll continue to feed 1% calcium since there's no earthly reason for a bird not producing egg shells to consume that much calcium.

There are many more studies where pullets switched to layer too soon suffered illness and death.

In the past, egg companies had high losses of pullets and hens for that very reason.

http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/7/1353.full

http://poultryinfo.co.za/articles/Old/avian-urolithiasis-eng.pdf

http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/12/1694.full.pdf+html

http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin1947.pdf

 

[CrazyTalk]

That's not how I read the studies.
I suggest you continue to feed your roosters 4% calcium since you never lose roosters and I'll continue to feed 1% calcium since there's no earthly reason for a bird not producing egg shells to consume that much calcium.

Why is it that you seem incapable of having a discussion without putting up strawmen? You simple can not seem to resist putting words in other people's mouths.

There are many more studies where pullets switched to layer too soon suffered illness and death.

In the past, egg companies had high losses of pullets and hens for that very reason.

Again, this discussion has nothing to do with young pullets. Nothing. Young pullets have issues with too much calcium because they do not have mature kidneys. That has literally nothing to do with this discussion.