new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[TexasBlues]

Here’s a picture of the corn I used to grow until I got chickens.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...-what’s-the-difference.1609980/#post-27453658

 

[saysfaa]

Corn and amaranth will grow well here.
Sorghum, millet, barley, and winter oats are commonly grown here.

Teff likes the heat; I don't know how well the rest of your climate or your soil would suit it.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

and sorghum outperforms its raw nutritional numbers. Likely due to some enzyme increasing bioavailability. Still not great, but better than it looks as a feed ingredient at first glance. Depending on where you are in TX, you may want to consider a sorghum/sudangrass hybrid. It is a little more heat and drought tolerant than straight sorghum.


Agree w/ @saysfaa Teff should do well for you to, unless you are right on the coast.

 

[TexasBlues]

That’s good to know. Teff is new to me. Tiny super grain high in lysine from Ethiopia. Sounds great for Texas chicks. I guess with the right permits I could grow hemp seed as well.

 

[Perris]

Here's something to test those who still believe in commercial feed:

Sapkota et.al. 2007 What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9760

Selected highlights to give some idea of what's in this paper: The 1st para below is from the Abstract, the other excerpts are from the main body of the paper.

"Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated... Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
...
Table 1 provides an overview of feed ingredients that are legally permitted and used in U.S. animal feed... we focus on feed ingredients listed in Table 1 that raise specific concerns for public health, including rendered animal products, animal waste, plant- and animal-based fats, antibiotics, and metals.
...
Because of current animal feeding practices, biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents have been detected in animal feeds (Table 2) (Hinton 2000; Orriss 1997). These agents include bacterial pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, metals, mycotoxins, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and PCBs... Poultry meal and bone and meat meal (nonpoultry) samples represented the greatest number of feed ingredient samples containing bacteria resistant to five or more antibiotics (Hofacre et al. 2001).
...
in spite of the wide range of potential human health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed. In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on complete U.S. animal feeds... "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17520050/ (full text open access)

 

[ChaosMom]

Here's something to test those who still believe in commercial feed:

Sapkota et.al. 2007 What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9760

Selected highlights to give some idea of what's in this paper: The 1st para below is from the Abstract, the other excerpts are from the main body of the paper.

"Animal feeding practices in the United States have changed considerably over the past century. As large-scale, concentrated production methods have become the predominant model for animal husbandry, animal feeds have been modified to include ingredients ranging from rendered animals and animal waste to antibiotics and organoarsenicals. In this article we review current U.S. animal feeding practices and etiologic agents that have been detected in animal feed. Evidence that current feeding practices may lead to adverse human health impacts is also evaluated... Findings emphasize that current animal feeding practices can result in the presence of bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, arsenicals, and dioxins in feed and animal-based food products. Despite a range of potential human health impacts that could ensue, there are significant data gaps that prevent comprehensive assessments of human health risks associated with animal feed. Limited data are collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients used in animal feed, and there are insufficient surveillance systems to monitor etiologic agents "from farm to fork."
...
Table 1 provides an overview of feed ingredients that are legally permitted and used in U.S. animal feed... we focus on feed ingredients listed in Table 1 that raise specific concerns for public health, including rendered animal products, animal waste, plant- and animal-based fats, antibiotics, and metals.
...
Because of current animal feeding practices, biological, chemical, and other etiologic agents have been detected in animal feeds (Table 2) (Hinton 2000; Orriss 1997). These agents include bacterial pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, metals, mycotoxins, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and PCBs... Poultry meal and bone and meat meal (nonpoultry) samples represented the greatest number of feed ingredient samples containing bacteria resistant to five or more antibiotics (Hofacre et al. 2001).
...
in spite of the wide range of potential human health impacts that could result from animal feeding practices, there are little data collected at the federal or state level concerning the amounts of specific ingredients that are intentionally included in U.S. animal feed. In addition, almost no biological or chemical testing is conducted on complete U.S. animal feeds... "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17520050/ (full text open access)

A bit of encouragement to cough up extra for organic after all!

Note: the study is 18 years old. I wonder if there has been any change since, and in which direction?

 

[U_Stormcrow]

A bit of encouragement to cough up extra for organic after all!

Note: the study is 18 years old. I wonder if there has been any change since, and in which direction?

Yes.

There has been a movement away from wide spread antibiotic usage. Its expensive. Use of things like glyphosate is a more mixed bag. In some areas, in some years, use is down (it is also expensive, and requires more expensive seed), in other years, and other areas, its up.

and buying "organic" does nothing to address bacterial pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, prions, metals, or mycotoxins.

Prion diseases, btw, are most prominently "mad cow". There are no known prion diseases in poultry, and laws have been changed re: "repurposing" of bovine brain and spinal materials for feed usage.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Re: PCDDs and PCDFs, suggested reading.

Recommend you not raise poultry or grow grain crops on the site of old paper mills and smelters. (also high trace metals on old smelting locations, and increased background radiation levels.

But if you did, you *could be* organic certified, in spite of the ground's prior use and likely soil contaminants. Becoming certified doesn't require you provide pure, toxin free grounds, just that you not use most any chemical products for a number of years (3) prior to certification, and remain free of those products in the future.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

 

[Perris]

A bit of encouragement to cough up extra for organic after all!

Note: the study is 18 years old. I wonder if there has been any change since, and in which direction?

A couple of senators are currently trying to get the inclusion of manure in feed banned, which suggests not much change. I linked to an article on it somewhere a few months ago.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

A couple of senators are currently trying to get the inclusion of manure in feed banned, which suggests not much change. I linked to an article on it somewhere a few months ago.

^^^ there is still plenty of room for improvement, I don't dispute.