new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[NanaK]

A couple of senators are currently trying to get the inclusion of manure in feed banned, which suggests not much change.

I agree manure should not be in animal feed.

I do think there has been some change. Maybe not enough. I came across this recently. I've not been able to find much information about what the ingredient is. Purina claims the additive helps defend your flock against Avian Influenza and other viruses that could be spread by feed.

https://www.purinamills.com/Campaigns-and-Events/flockstrong

@U_Stormcrow Have you read anything about this feed ingredient?

Poultry litter, containing feces and deadstck, is still allowed as an ingredient in cattle feed, and -surprise - bird flu pops up in cattle in the US only.

It is my understanding the US is the only country testing dairy cattle and bulk milk tanks. Through bulk milk tank testing the US has found cattle testing positive that are asymptomatic. These would not have been found without routine testing.

In the UK it was found in sheep in March 2025. The sheep showed signs of mastitis just like the US cattle. These sheep were only identified due to a poultry outbreak otherwise they may not have been found at all.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/avian-influenza-bird-flu/uk-reports-h5n1-sheep-poultry-outbreak-farm

I think the world needs to watch more closely.

Edit to add link about sheep.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

https://www.purinamills.com/Campaigns-and-Events/flockstrong

@U_Stormcrow Have you read anything about this feed ingredient?

"FlockStrong" is an advertising gimmick, and their words are couched in terms that make them simple puffery. NOT LEGAL ADVICE

Their system includes "ancient grains" (corn, milo, oats), carrots, peas, wheat, sunflower seed, safflower seed, protein pellets w/ a vitamin premix, and lots of bacteria... Which they advertise as containing prebiotics, probiotics, and vitamins A, D, and E to "support" gut health, immune health, and "help defend" against virii, including AI.

To the extent that it conveys that a healthy bird is less prone to disease than an unhealthy bird, it is true. To the extent it suggests some greater protection? That's on you.

I can't find an ingredient list quickly to identify what their new "FeedLock" process or ingredient is, but it looks like whole grains - already naturally resistant to spoilage and bacterial infestation for purely mechanical reasons. If they coat their protein pellets in wax, they would increase their resistance to spoliation as well. Could be something just that simple. Will know more once more info is available.

Right now, its buzzwords, and a not particularly impressive guaranteed nutritional label. I wouldn't feed it to my birds, much better options available at the likely price point. Purina makes nutritionally superior feed at lower price. But I'm sure plenty of consumers will buy into the hype. Clearly, so is Purina.

 

[saysfaa]

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

...

I read the whole thing. A bit quickly, I will admit.

It is a crock.

It is full of "may" and "could" with almost no perspective.

Yes, bacteria is found in animal-based ingredients. Bacteria is found everywhere.

Poultry litter. That Florida produces hundreds of millions (or whatever super big number) of tons of chicken litter doesn't mean it is fed. Hiding behind *federal and state not requiring reporting* is a copout. The author should go look if they think it is a significant amount.

When they do use specifics - it weakens their case. The example using Belgian plant-based ingredient,

"rendered animals" sounds horrible. Wasn't it this thread where we discussed what "rendered animals" means? Making ghee from butter is rendering. The ghee is great food, so are the milk solids left after the ghee is removed.

"not fit for human consumption" sounds horrible. It can be horrible (I don't think that kind gets into animal feed very often). but it mostly isn't. We fed some "not fit for human consumption" products to our cows. It was poptarts rather than animal products but the concept applies. Some were there because they baked a little too long. Some had a mixup in the recipe - didn't add enough salt. Some were mislabeled - the labels in the labeling machine weren't changed to blueberry instead of strawberry when the filling was changed over, some had the package ripped, and so on. I looked up what sorts of things the USDA defines as "unfit for human consumption" and it includes these sorts of things. I think it is much more these sorts of things than what your article implies.

Using "diseased animals" sounds horrible. I think it is also not represented fairly (but I don't have time to look just now.)

Will edit shortly if my battery doesn't die first.

I'm all for improving the system. It certainly isn't perfect. This paper doesn't look to me like improving the system is their motivation.

Whatever their motivation, they seem to be quite effective in vilifying the use of animals as products as livestock feed. What would that leave? A choice between soy and chemicals or malnutrition for omnivores like swine and chickens? I get that this whole thread is about a fourth option - basically that of having a small holding (if I have the European concept correct) is a viable option. I agree it is, assuming one has enough land and is willing to manage it appropriately (that is, look messy and/or cultivate the variety needed.)

 

[Perris]

In the UK it was found in sheep in March 2025.

it was a single sheep, not sheep plural. It thus appears to be akin to the cases where isolated mammals here and there are found with it, and apparently have it by ingesting dead infected birds or feces intentionally or unintentionally.

These sheep were only identified due to a poultry outbreak otherwise they may not have been found at all.

"The case was identified following routine surveillance of co-located livestock on a premises where avian influenza had been confirmed in captive birds" NB *routine surveillance of co-located livestock*
from the source DEFRA notice that your source cidrap.umn picked up, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/influenza-of-avian-origin-confirmed-in-a-sheep-in-yorkshire

 

[saysfaa]

...

I'm all for improving the system. It
This paper doesn't look to me like improving the system is their motivation.

Not that they need to have such a motivation. But they do need to do a lot less stretching and jumping to conclusions to actually make their cases.

Well, now my phone is overheating to the point of functioning irraticly. So, I give up on trying to clean up the presentation of what I am trying to say here and in the last post.

 

[Perris]

It is a refereed paper in an edited academic journal, and there are 4 authors. You might not like what they say, but it cannot be dismissed so easily.

On the data they specifically say "DATA SOURCES: We reviewed published veterinary and human-health literature regarding animal feeding practices, etiologic agents present in feed, and human health effects along with proceedings from animal feed workshops. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles and books identified using PubMed, Agricola, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases. DATA SYNTHESIS: 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.” "

They used what data exists. One of their main complaints is that the data necessary to link robustly feed and its consequences is not collected. Do you concur with the need for that data @saysfaa ? Do you really think individuals could collect it? by asking farmers and feed corporations nicely?

 

[Perris]

This one is behind a pay wall

 

[Perris]

so is this one

 

[Perris]

It is my understanding the US is the only country testing dairy cattle and bulk milk tanks. Through bulk milk tank testing the US has found cattle testing positive that are asymptomatic. These would not have been found without routine testing.

I believe this started because dairy workers and cats on dairy farms were getting sick with conjunctivitis and suchlike. Other countries don't do it because other countries don't allow poultry manure in cattle feed and their dairy workers and cats haven't got sick.

 

[NanaK]

"The case was identified following routine surveillance of co-located livestock on a premises where avian influenza had been confirmed in captive birds" NB *routine surveillance of co-located livestock*
from the source DEFRA notice that your source cidrap.umn picked up,

I was not trying to point a finger at the UK. I think all countries should be looking harder.

I was saying this sheep was only found because of *routine testing around an outbreak*. No outbreaks, no testing.

I believe this started because dairy workers and cats on dairy farms were getting sick with conjunctivitis and suchlike.

The cattle is the US?
The cattle problems started with a group of dairy cows that had mastitis. All tested negative for known pathogens that cause mastitis in cows. Cats on the premise were fed raw milk and got sick. I also read mice at some of the locations also tested positive for ai. Cows are also moved from one farm to another at some point. They think this caused the spread between farms. Milking machines also caused spread between cows.
Workers also got sick and reported milk splashed into their eyes while working.

I do not think manure should be in any animal feed.

If manure in feed is causing outbreaks, I think ai would be more wide spread in many farm animals other than dairy cattle.

If ai would become widespread in swine, I think humans would be next.