new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Perris]

I learned something from it.

 

[Perris]

Any suggestions on breaking this cycle, anyone?

I can only see it working at a household level or perhaps in some neighborhoods, in today's society. Too many chances of lawsuits. Too much labor/overhead.

Maybe in a Communist society. Or in a SHTF scenario.

It does work in my small neighborhood. Kitchen waste is composted, or given to chickens. (Mine, or my neighbor's.)

if you read the article posted in #148 you'd see that it is already working and has been going on in the animal feed industry for at least 5 years. "the fact that this is legal that shocked him (the farmer whose discovery of this practice led to the article). “I think the only people that are not shocked by this are the people involved in the animal feed manufacture. I was disturbed by their casual acceptance.”"

 

[EddieSalita]

I had a recent experience with a feed manufacturer in Australia. Left me with little faith in that industry.
The company is Laucke. One of the larger feed mills here. I emailed asking if they had a product to feed a mixed flock. One with laying hens, young pullets, a rooster. The reply came from the national sales manager. He said... and I quote:

"Probably best to just feed a higher spec layer feed to all the birds, pullets & rooster will just excrete the excess calcium their body cannot absorb."

Not confidence inspiring. I replied with my concerns that excess calcium is in fact known to be a problem for young pullets especially. The reply came from their head nutritionist which said:

"there is no feed which is suitable for all three ages. Separating the birds by age is the only suitable way of achieving this."

A better answer. But not helpful for people raising chicks within a flock, or without the means to keep chicks separate until point of lay. It's an alarming insight into the actual knowledge, or lack thereof, of a particular very large Australian feed manufacturer.

I'd love to feed 100% all natural eventually. But it's not super simple if one wants to satisfy the scientifically known needs of our chooks. I can research and verify the science. Reading and learning here is a huge resource. But at least I now know I can't trust any old home made recipe, nor can I trust feed manufacturers are doing the right thing.

So I'm grateful for the articles people write imparting their knowledge and experience on home made recipes. I'm also grateful for members who have nutritional tools, knowledge and experience of supplements to satisfy my desire to have some level of scientific understanding of what I'm doing. I was always taught that if you don't know something, ask someone who does. Well..... clearly the bloody feed manufacturers don't. So this place is where I come. Opinions are great..... knowledge is better.

 

[Perris]

But it's not super simple if one wants to satisfy the scientifically known needs of our chooks.

watch the podcast. "Stop obsessing over protein" says the professor from Stanford. And eat a diverse range of foods, then you (and your chooks) will be fine.

 

[Perris]

Thank you for saving me the time and data

you can just get Jonathan's summary at 42.52 if you prefer.

The whole thing has an itemised breakdown for those who want to skip bits
00:00 - Introduction01:20 - Quickfire questions03:13 - What is protein?07:29 - Can our bodies make the proteins we need?08:00 - The mechanism for our bodies creating amino acids.09:00 - What is an essential amino acid?10:35 - Crazy study Stanford scientists did to find the Estimated Average Requirement of protein.15:28 - How much protein should we consume?18:29 - How much protein do we already consume?23:39 - Can our bodies store protein?24:41 - What happens to excess protein in our bodies?25:39 - Protein Scam Alert!26:16 - Stanford Study: Does the type of protein we consume affect physical performance?29:21 - Protein requirements for kids and pregnant women.32:21 - What is Amino Acid Distribution?34:27 - Are plants missing certain amino acids?35:12 - How is AAD like the game of Scrabble?39:35 - What is the healthiest source of protein?39:46 - Dr. Gardner’s case for changing the way we define “protein quality” in the US42:52 - Jonathan’s summary45:25 - Goodbye’s 46:13 - Outro

 

[EddieSalita]

watch the podcast. "Stop obsessing over protein" says the professor from Stanford. And eat a diverse range of foods, then you (and your chooks) will be fine.

I have watched it. It's like I said in an earlier post. We don't know everything, or maybe even not much about how organisms truly work.
It was good info. But at times they fall into the logical fallacy of attempting to discredit one view in order to make their own. Just like a feed maker telling me to feed high calcium food, it's red flag. So absent data, I have to verify opinions for myself until I think they are the right way to go for me. Personal red flags don't mean ignore or disagree..... just verify for myself.
Valuable points are made. But it's a simplistic overview of obviously detailed studies for the purpose of a podcast discussion. Understandably so. But I need more details. I don't believe hardly anyone anymore. So I will find where the info came from and enjoy reading more about it.

 

[Perris]

you're right to be sceptical. This in our news this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/jul/07/one-in-three-uk-vegan-products-found-contain-milk-egg
"Inspectors from Hampshire and Kent Scientific Services found 24 (39%) out of 61 products marked as vegan contained egg or dairy, including 13 dairy alternatives and 48 meat alternatives. In total, 90% were found to be unsatisfactory – meaning they failed for traces of dairy or inaccuracies in their labelling and nutritional information."

 

[EddieSalita]

you're right to be sceptical. This in our news this morning:
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/jul/07/one-in-three-uk-vegan-products-found-contain-milk-egg
"Inspectors from Hampshire and Kent Scientific Services found 24 (39%) out of 61 products marked as vegan contained egg or dairy, including 13 dairy alternatives and 48 meat alternatives. In total, 90% were found to be unsatisfactory – meaning they failed for traces of dairy or inaccuracies in their labelling and nutritional information."

What's sad is that it doesn't surprise me, or probably anyone else.

So given this is just one of many such examples, and my experience with the feed manufacturer. How do I trust them? I can't.

In my mind I'm ahead by throwing a few bare grains together with certain average characteristics myself and adding a synthetic supplement if I think it's needed, which is at least somewhat visually identifiable, than I am giving my money and trust to those who clearly don't know or care and are not accountable.

I'm even better off again by trying to find natural sources for those synthetic supplements if I can do it affordably.

But I could be wrong. So I have to try to understand what I'm able. Watch my chickens closely. Do my best with my dogma

Speaking of dogs..... my dog and cat certainly love my way of doing it. Raw meaty bones, offal and table scraps. Hopefully the chickens do as well. They won't be getting as much meat though. They eat more than the dog!

 

[MaryJanet]

I learned something from it.

I would. I have a lot to learn in this field with no time to apply myself.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

You may know it all, but you frequently lambast other people's failings on the topic, so I hope your dismissive attitude will not deter more from watching it for themselves.

I don't know it all - I've spent only a few weekends on dedicated research, plus a few more hours here and there.

Mostly, I was disappointed.

The premise here was, in essence, "most humans (at least in developed worlds) get roughly twice the protein they actually need" and therefore need not worry (mostly) about its source. The closest parallel to feeding chickens one can derive from this is to compare the more recent US feed formulation trends with EU trend, something I've commented on before as I found it interesting.

As a (gross) generalization, in the US we have ensured the amino acids our birds need to function best are present through an abundance of lower quality protein and you routinely see high crude protein % being bandied about as result - I do it myself. 16% (minimum) for layers. 20% (recommended) dual purpose+/-. 22-26% for Cx (depending on life stage). Compare to the EU, who seems to do all right feeding their birds with a relatively lower total crude protein % (often 14 - 15%) via substanitial supplimentation of certain critical amino acids. (To the point that they are doing serious research into supplimentation of other than "the big two", having already dialed those needs in pretty closely)

I had hoped they would spend a little more time on the practical impact of waste protein being either converted or excreted - that (unlike fat and carbs) the body doesn't have a practical way of storing key limiting AAs. They could have spoken about the importance of getting a small amount of quality protein every day because it doesn't "average out" the way carb or fat consumption does from our often significant reserves. But when your premise is "we (humans) eat way more protein than we need", that footnote isn't really supportive of one's general narrative.