new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Shadrach]

No, it's not exactly ideal, but I'm not going to bad mouth it either. IMO it's a absolute godsend for folks everywhere to have access to an affordable, species specific, shelf stable food they can easily dole out each day. It's a HUGE bonus for the animals too considering a lot people don't have a clue what an appropiate diet is for their animals or even themselves for that matter.

Can't argue with this.

 

[Sussex19]

Without numbers that's a meaningless claim.

Thats what I was thinking after I read it more carefully!
He is was very well respected, so not trying to miss lead on purposes, but we just don't know what was plenty of eggs for him.

 

[3KillerBs]

Thats what I was thinking after I read it more carefully!
He is was very well respected, so not trying to miss lead on purposes, but we just don't know what was plenty of eggs for him.

100 years ago 100 was a good bird. Today it's a terrible bird.

I know that there was a thread by someone who had a 100% free range flock somewhere in the US gulf coast area who admitted that this semi-feral gamefowl flock wasn't productive by modern standards but since the inputs were essentially zero -- just a little maintenance on nestboxes -- it was profitable.

Which is entirely reasonable for someone with acreage of diverse woodland/scrubland available in a mild climate where winter would never shut down forage availability.

But not reasonable for the average backyarder in a temperate climate.

 

[Shadrach]

100 years ago 100 was a good bird. Today it's a terrible bird.

No. That's not a terrible bird. It's bird that hasn't been heavily messed about with by people trying to squeeze more eggs out of the bird over as shorter period of time and possible to the detriment of the birds health. Those types of birds are favoured by the large commercial enterprises.

This is the part of the problem with the feed debate. Some people just want the eggs from the hens with minimum hassle and minimum expense.
It's not my type of chicken keeping and it's not for a lot of people I know.

 

[3KillerBs]

No. That's not a terrible bird. It's bird that hasn't been heavily messed about with by people trying to squeeze more eggs out of the bird over as shorter period of time and possible to the detriment of the birds health. Those types of birds are favoured by the large commercial enterprises.

This is the part of the problem with the feed debate. Some people just want the eggs from the hens with minimum hassle and minimum expense.
It's not my type of chicken keeping and it's not for a lot of people I know.

Depends on what your chickens are for.

Since I don't have the environment and acreage to free range without feeding, I wouldn't keep chickens if the money spent on feed wasn't returning value in eggs.

 

[Perris]

100 years ago 100 was a good bird. Today it's a terrible bird.

I know that there was a thread by someone who had a 100% free range flock somewhere in the US gulf coast area who admitted that this semi-feral gamefowl flock wasn't productive by modern standards but since the inputs were essentially zero -- just a little maintenance on nestboxes -- it was profitable.

Which is entirely reasonable for someone with acreage of diverse woodland/scrubland available in a mild climate where winter would never shut down forage availability.

But not reasonable for the average backyarder in a temperate climate.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to do 100% free range. What one supplements the forage with is the main issue.

 

[3KillerBs]

I don't think anyone in this discussion is trying to do 100% free range. What one supplements the forage with is the main issue.

And what's needed will depend on the quality of the forage and the type of bird -- no one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[Geena]

I have found a recent paper on free choice feeding for meat birds, to complement those on free choice for chicks and free choice for laying hens in post #9 above
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...ewer/f6d0fa455d8cf3c3e942664c46edae5984181a4b

The conclusions are "1. In conclusion, free-choice feeding of free-range chickens resulted in similar weight gain and lower breast yield compared with formulated feeding. 2. Free-choice feeding cost less than the fully formulated diet in this study. 3. Free-choice feeding may be more suited to small- or medium-scale production rather than large-scale production." There is no evidence the birds choose a deficient diet (or excessive fat) from their ability to choose what to eat.

It also observes that "Although grinding, formulating, mixing, and pelleting may have advantages for feed intake or FE, many small producers are interested in whole grain feeding to reduce the energy used in feed processing and also for gastrointestinal health. Whole grain feeding enhances the development of the gastrointestinal tract so it is better able to absorb dietary nutrients, optimizing gut performance [29]. "

I just got done reading this, interesting. I do wish they had done free choice from the beginning instead of waiting until day 49. Did you catch that the meat birds used were actually Naked Necks and not broilers?

 

[Geena]

Can't argue with this.

You mean after four years seven months and twelve days I finally said something we don't have to argue about???

 

[Shadrach]

You mean after four years seven months and twelve days I finally said something we don't have to argue about???

I'll try and make up for it I promise.