new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[NatJ]

I recently came across something relevant to this:
"Mixing
Trace elements and vitamins should be correctly mixed before being added to the raw materials. Premixes have to be mixed at a minimum level of 3kg per tonne. Improper mixing or handling can be checked by dosing manganese as a tracer.

Toxicity of some minerals
Maximum admissible levels for different minerals can be estimated as follows:
Potassium 2000 ppm
Sodium 5000 ppm
Iron 500 ppm
Zinc 2000 ppm
Selenium 10 ppm
Vanadium 10 ppm (due to contamination from rock phosphates)
Magnesium 5000 ppm
Chlorine 5000 ppm
Manganese 1000 ppm
Copper 300-500 ppm
Iodine 300-500 ppm"

I have not noticed anyone recommending using premixes on BYC include the bit about "Premixes have to be mixed at a minimum level of 3kg per tonne", and I wonder how many backyard chicken keepers are adding premixes/balancers at anything like that minimum recommended rate. Perhaps one of the professional feed formulators on here can enlighten us as to why the 3kg/tonne figure exists?

Where did you find that? I just tried a google search and found something similar:

https://www.hubbardbreeders.com/media/ps-breeder-nutrition-guide-en-20221014-1.pdf
"It is important that trace elements and vitamins should be correctly mixed before being added to the raw materials. It is suggested that mineral and vitamin premixes are mixed at a minimum level of 3 kg per ton to ensure proper mixing. For micro ingredients to be added at less than 3 Kg/T, mix them in a smaller mixer to get more bulk before adding to the main mixer."

Based on the wording of this one, I think it is a way to get the trace minerals mixed evenly. I have seen similar advice for mixing fertilizers, and even for some cooking recipes: mix the very small amounts with each other, then with part of the other material, then with the bulkiest parts. That way the small amounts are much more likely to be distributed evenly through the large amounts.

My own experience with cooking says that it does seem to make a difference. Watching what happens when it is easy to see (cinnamon in sugar, food coloring in cake batter) gives me a pretty good idea of what would happen if I could not see the small ingredients (salt in flour, specific minerals in chicken food.)

I have not noticed anyone recommending using premixes on BYC include the bit about "Premixes have to be mixed at a minimum level of 3kg per tonne", and I wonder how many backyard chicken keepers are adding premixes/balancers at anything like that minimum recommended rate. Perhaps one of the professional feed formulators on here can enlighten us as to why the 3kg/tonne figure exists?

I think it is just a way to get the small amounts distributed evenly in the big ones.

For the commonly-recommended Fertrell nutri-balancer, it would not be a problem.
https://www.fertrell.com/livestock-rations
Those recipes call for 60 pounds of nutri-balancer per 2000 pounds (1 ton) of feed.
That is a lot more than 3 kilograms per tonne (1000 kilograms).

 

[U_Stormcrow]

^ that.

Its to aid even distribution.

and the very popular Fertrells is less concentrated than what is used at truly commercial scales as appareently a buffer against overdoing it.

Which isn't to say that there aren't likely some people out there thinking that if a little is good, a lot must be better... But protetcting humans from themselves, after a point, is a fools errand. No matter how idiot-proof the product, we keep making better idiots.

 

[Perris]

Where did you find that? I just tried a google search and found something similar:

https://www.hubbardbreeders.com/media/ps-breeder-nutrition-guide-en-20221014-1.pdf
"It is important that trace elements and vitamins should be correctly mixed before being added to the raw materials. It is suggested that mineral and vitamin premixes are mixed at a minimum level of 3 kg per ton to ensure proper mixing. For micro ingredients to be added at less than 3 Kg/T, mix them in a smaller mixer to get more bulk before adding to the main mixer."

Based on the wording of this one, I think it is a way to get the trace minerals mixed evenly. I have seen similar advice for mixing fertilizers, and even for some cooking recipes: mix the very small amounts with each other, then with part of the other material, then with the bulkiest parts. That way the small amounts are much more likely to be distributed evenly through the large amounts.

My own experience with cooking says that it does seem to make a difference. Watching what happens when it is easy to see (cinnamon in sugar, food coloring in cake batter) gives me a pretty good idea of what would happen if I could not see the small ingredients (salt in flour, specific minerals in chicken food.)



I think it is just a way to get the small amounts distributed evenly in the big ones.

For the commonly-recommended Fertrell nutri-balancer, it would not be a problem.
https://www.fertrell.com/livestock-rations
Those recipes call for 60 pounds of nutri-balancer per 2000 pounds (1 ton) of feed.
That is a lot more than 3 kilograms per tonne (1000 kilograms).

yes it was from something similar, a European supplier of breeder layers.

These quantities need industrial mixers and storage facilities. How is this supposed to work for backyard keepers with a flock of say 20 (never mind 6)?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

yes it was from something similar, a European supplier of breeder layers.

These quantities need industrial mixers and storage facilities. How is this supposed to work for backyard keepers with a flock of say 20 (never mind 6)?

At 20 birds, its doable, though not cost effective (as always). Its one thing to buy a small bag of Fertrells and add 1.5# of the stuff to a 50# mix, which should last 10 days +/- (breed, temp, gender, feed composition dependent, of course). 1.5# is easy to measure, and 50# can still be (relatively) easily mixed by rolling a big barrel, or a tiny electric concrete mixer (convenient, but doesn't help with cost).

But that still means you have 40 "servings" of Fetrells in the smallest bag I know them to sell - about 14 months worth.

You could even formulate a recipe to add .5# per 16# or 17# of feed and accept it as "close enough", but now your Fertrells is sitting on the shelf for 2.5 years (I assume it has a shelf life, based on some of the contents), and your feed recipe has become that much more expensive, because you aren't buying raw ingredients in bulk, either.

When I did the math back when I was near 100 birds, it still wasn't cost effective, though it was getting close to break even (apart from upfront costs like the concrete mixer) if I had to buy at the local Urban farm store (Rural King, TSC, etc).

 

[Molpet]

When I did the math

Same here, not cost effective. Of course raising my own poultry isn't cost effective compared to grocery store poultry.... especially when it's a loss leader.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Apparently, Fertrells has a 10# bag now (maybe they did then, too, I didn't see it). That fixes some of the issues with storage/potentially aging out, but the website I saw it on is selling at $37 - or 3.70 per pound. Since the inclusion rate is about 1# per 16.66, use of the Fertrells in that size adds $0.22/lb to the cost of your feed - I buy commercial mixed for not much more than that. (for comparison, the 60# bags are between about $1.1 and $1.6 per pound, depending on source).

 

[Perris]

Apparently, Fertrells has a 10# bag now (maybe they did then, too, I didn't see it). That fixes some of the issues with storage/potentially aging out, but the website I saw it on is selling at $37 - or 3.70 per pound. Since the inclusion rate is about 1# per 16.66, use of the Fertrells in that size adds $0.22/lb to the cost of your feed - I buy commercial mixed for not much more than that. (for comparison, the 60# bags are between about $1.1 and $1.6 per pound, depending on source).

so is it the premix that's really pushing the costs up with that sort of home made feed?

 

[Red Mangrove]

I thought all those things were already common knowledge at this point.

I'm sure almost everyone here would agree that fresh whole foods are better overall than processed feeds, but there are two major issues with feeding whole grains to BYC

1) A lot of people just make up their own feed recipe, which is often lacking in crucial nutrients. And since most chickens are confined to a relatively small area they have no way to make up for those deficiencies.

and 2) because a most chicken keepers tend to use large hopper type feeders it enables the chickens to pick and choose endlessly from what is offered, which also results in a deficient diet.

The root of the issue comes back to people having chickens that ultimately should not. These people keep chickens in small and unnatural environments where they entirely rely on humans for all aspects of life

This is mere transmutation, not farming. A genuine farmer produces raw calories from nature. A transmuter uses meat-robots to turn tractor supply chicken feed into eggs

 

[U_Stormcrow]

so is it the premix that's really pushing the costs up with that sort of home made feed?

No, most people who make home made feed don't bother with the pre-mix, and as result, have no idea whatsoever if their dinosaurs are getting the vitamins and minerals they need. Many home recipes can't get their advertised protein level correct, and don't pretend to consider either the AA profile, the fat level, or the calculated energy content - and EVEN THEN they are more expensive than a complete commercial feed.

Setting aside my rather unique example of a family feed store selling local mill at a bare markup, if I go to my local TSC, I can buy repurable feed for aroun $0.38 - $0.56/lb . That is, $18-$28 for a 50# bag.

There is some asinine feed recipe going around the internte right now suggesting feeding birds on beans and pasta. That's it. Beans and pasta. We'll ignore how obviously stupid that is for a moment from a nutritional aspect, and look just at cost. Buying in bulk (20# restaurant supply bags) I couldn't source either ingredient under $0.73/lb.

Lots of "at home" recipes call for BOSS - Black oil sunflower (and ignore the shells to pretend the protein/lb is much higher than it is). In the shell, BOSS is $0.75/lb. in a 40# bag. Corn I can get for about $0.27/lb in bulk, but corn's value is almost entirely carbs - to get the other things you need, the recipes call for BOSS, flax seed ($3-4/lb) and similar high cost, nutritent dense ingredients. The math doesn't work before you add in the Fertrells to cover all the things you didn't check for, because they aren't disclosed on any of your ingredient labels and vary too much in agricultural products to rely comfortably on averages.

Even the good "At home" recipes, like Salatin's, call for Fish Meal ($2/lb) AND use Fertrell's or a product like it. Those two ingredients alone - less than 7% of the total feed recipe, account for a finished cost of $0.34/lb [someone check this - its higher than I remember, but I'm very tired right now - think I did bad math] - even if the remaining recipe was just corn (and its not) you would and another $0.23/lb or so to the feed bill.

So yeah, the math simply doesn't work.

 

[saysfaa]

...
These quantities need industrial mixers and storage facilities. How is this supposed to work for backyard keepers with a flock of say 20 (never mind 6)?

Theoretically, they would do the math. It is a proportion so 3 kg per tonne doesn't mean you can't make more than a tonne at a time or less than a tonne at a time. You just need to adjust each by the same percentage. When you get really small scale, the margin of error gets too big - for example, it is hard to measure accurately enough.

In real life, it is not that simple. You need mixer sized for the size of batch you are making otherwise the contents won't move in a way that lets the particles distribute evenly. For small quantities, you could mix it with a shovel in a bin or with a trowel in a bucket. With a little care and practice you can mix it pretty evenly by hand. Like other have said, it isn't terribly different than mixing cinnamon into sugar.