new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Geena]

You ask "How would this happen if dogs don't overeat?"

Spector's principal argument is that obesity is associated with the consumption of ultra processed foods, rather than overeating per se. Animal feed concentrates (aka pellets, kibble, whatever it is that lets an animal - dog, cat, horse, cow, pig, chicken - get its day's requirements in much less time and with much less energy expended than it would if they were finding their food themselves) are upfs.

On obesity in chickens specifically: “Fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome (flhs) in poultry is associated with high carb, low-fat, selenium-deficient diets given ad lib.” Macwhirter Malnutrition chapter in https://avianmedicine.net/publication_cat/avian-medicine/ p.851. Pellets are typically high carb, low fat. They shouldn't be selenium deficient.

I think you would find Spector's book a very interesting read Geena.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

As far as the animal feed goes, I have known that for decades as do most people that are seriously involved with the raising and keeping of animals. Such feeds are carb high as it's needed to produce cohesive, stable and affordable pellets or kibbles. Other than livestock destined to be butchered, that sort of feed should only comprise a portion of an animal's daily diet, if one is actually concerned about health and longevity.

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.

 

[Perris]

As far as the animal feed goes, I have known that for decades as do most people that are seriously involved with the raising and keeping of animals. Such feeds are carb high as it's needed to produce cohesive, stable and affordable pellets or kibbles. Other than livestock destined to be butchered, that sort of feed should only comprise a portion of an animal's daily diet, if one is actually concerned about health and longevity.

I wish this were better known. Thank you for such clear and concise advice.

 

[3KillerBs]

Those who want to assume their pasture is adequate are engaged in far more risky behaviors than I am comfortable with myself.

Personally, I *know for sure* that my pasture is deficient. The Sandhills area is noted as an "impoverished" ecology -- low in species diversity due to the nature of the geology underfoot. It's acid, severely deficient in potassium, and prone to drought. The conditions burn out organic material almost as fast as it's added -- only pine straw and wood chip mulch have a prayer of lasting.

It's not conducive to growing lush and nutritious plants. You can see the difference in the field and woodland diversity when you cross the geologic boundary into the Piedmont (3-5 miles north of my house).

Really? We had sheep and goats and didn't have such problems.
The West Country hillsides will be full of sheep soon grazing on spring grass with a sheep dog or two being their only company. They'll stay there throughout the summer.

I wonder what the soil is like there and how lush and/or diverse the plant growth.

IIRC, a lot of land historically devoted to sheep and/or goats was done so because it was either too steep for cattle or insufficiently lush to support cattle.

For that to work, my chickens must be able to go where they want to find eats.

Which can be a significant limitation. I don't free range because I need to keep my birds out of my neighbors' yards (with their dogs), and because I have to keep them out of my own and my SIL's garden.

That's where people tend to make the most mistakes. "My birds look fine" compared to one another may be true, but it has little to do with how much better they might be doing.

A similar mistake people make is in assuming that their birds "like" or "dislike" a food based on how much they eat of it.

My experience is that consumption goes up noticeably when I occasionally have to buy a bag of cheap, low-protein layer instead of my normal 18-22% feed.

I would trust your chickens to find what they need from the buffet on offer, just as their jungle ancestors did and do,

Assuming that the food is available in that environment at the necessary time.

Which is where I derive my belief that 100% free range is only viable IF

• the area is capable of supporting a year-round feral flock
• OR the chickens have full access to a diversified small farm where they are eating spilled/undigested feed from other animals, crops out of the fields, etc.

We have to be aware of our local environment and ecology. We may be able to improve that -- as @U_Stormcrow is doing -- but we start from different baselines. I would have to put considerable, and continuous, effort into adding lime, potassium, and organic material to get a healthy, diverse pasture going and keep it producing over time.

Where I grew up in western Pennsylvania I could have limed it every couple-three years and been fine -- but it would have been under snow for at least 3 months a year.

He claimed they were all healthy, long lived and laid well.

How did he define "laid well"?

I can't forget discovering that an ag book 100 years ago aimed at getting farmers to take chicken production seriously by getting a profitable 100 eggs per year per hen from LEGHORNS. At the time I read that I had a Brahma, the worst layer in my flock, doing that well.

 

[Shadrach]

I wonder what the soil is like there and how lush and/or diverse the plant growth.

IIRC, a lot of land historically devoted to sheep and/or goats was done so because it was either too steep for cattle or insufficiently lush to support cattle.

This lush.

Well, there you have part of the problem. Part of the skill in farming is knowing what creatures one can keep on the land you've got.

 

[3KillerBs]

This lush.

Well, there you have part of the problem. Part of the skill in farming is knowing what creatures one can keep on the land you've got.

So, shallow soils except in the floodplains and lots of rock. Probably hardier species rather than the most tender and delicate?

But if that pale rock is limestone it's better soil than I've got.

 

[Geena]

Assuming that the food is available in that environment at the necessary time.

An excellent and very important point that is often overlooked.

 

[3KillerBs]

An excellent and very important point that is often overlooked.

My environment makes me conscious of the possible deficiencies.

 

[Sussex19]

How did he define "laid well"?

I can't forget discovering that an ag book 100 years ago aimed at getting farmers to take chicken production seriously by getting a profitable 100 eggs per year per hen from LEGHORNS. At the time I read that I had a Brahma, the worst layer in my flock, doing that well.

He just says 'lays plenty of eggs'.
Also, this is his recipe for laying hens if kept confined.

'50.1kg wheat meal
50.1kg maize meal
50.1kg other grain meal (preferably yellow maize)
50.1kg fish meal
13.6kg dried milk
9.0 ground sea shells
2.3kg salt.
Give them free access to this, and a handful each of whole grains to scratch out of their straw or litter.'

Does that seem like a lot of salt?

 

[saysfaa]

No, that is in the ballpark of the right amount of salt.

 

[3KillerBs]

He just says 'lays plenty of eggs'.

Without numbers that's a meaningless claim.