No difference between pasture raised chicken eggs and caged chicken eggs.

I get down on my hands and knees to to follow the chickens as they forage. I will follow them sometimes over several acres. The groups of chickens are small, as in never more than 20 (most immature), and often only a pair (cock and hen). The majority of the insects consumed are inconspicuous and herbivorous. Taxonomically, the insects are dominated in terms of number and biomass by grasshoppers / crickets, caterpillars of moths / butterflies, and larval diptera (especially crane flies). The latter groups also has a lot detritivores in the lineup. Occasionally termites and isopods (pill bugs) are consumed in mass. Pill bugs here have a lot in common with lobster when it comes to carotenoids. Trophically, this grouping differs markedly from farmed insects that fed largely on grain or grain byproducts. The diet does not impact protein (amino acid profile) or mineral profile, but it does impact fatty acid profile. Additionally, a big part of the dry mass of a given herbivorous insect is the plant material in the digestive tract.

This last summer we collected a couple hundred lbs of Japanese Beetles (see following links;https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/making-feed-from-japanese-beetles.1223688/#post-19604687 and https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...low-cost-bio-attractor.1258075/#post-20185033 and https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...es-to-pens-of-chickens.1256756/#post-20164846). The analysis of those beetles, which eat vegetative plant material as larvae and adults, differs markedly from grain fed meal worms. Hopefully I can get those results published shortly in a table form making comparisons easy.

When is comes to consumption of plant material, the chickens are not eating the equivalent of watery lettuce or sugar rich fruit. They are preferentially targeting meristems of actively growing plants, especially legumes. Meristems even targeted now as the birds dig through the snow for them and insects lying in torpor. Those actively growing meristems and young leaf times are more easily digested and have higher levels of protein and vitamins related to tissue growth and differentiation in the plant.
You really get down on your hands and knees and follow them? How is that possible?
 
some of you guys really crack me up. It was mentioned that the title of the post was not correct because there was more fat or what ever. I was just doing an internet search for nutrition of chickens and found this "study". It seemed to be well done and sponsored by an agricultural college not a feed company or something with self interests. The conclusion of the study was that there was essentially no benefit in the fat and or fat soluble vitamins between free range and "caged" chickens. There was in fact some small differences in the quantity of fat as pointed out so vehemently by a couple of posters. So yes the title of the post is not completely accurate.

I think in trying to discredit me, these angry posters are missing the point of having an interesting conversation in which hobby chicken raisers can discuss their experience and knowledge. It is always a given that very little here is scientifically accurate mostly because there are so many variables in chicken raising and especially in nutrition that what applies to me may not apply to you or you may not agree which is fine.

In the end, it is up to everyone here reading these posts to filter out what they think is interesting or helpful or beneficial and embrace it or not. For example, I learned some things like the color of eggs is not related to the fat or cholesterol and that darker eggs may have more antioxidants then lighter colored eggs because of the consumption of pigmented veggie consumption. I found it very interesting that according to this study, even though there is more fat in the eggs of chickens that eat bugs, the fat is essentially not more or less healthy than the fat in eggs from chickens on a grain diet. I also realize that there are many other studies that contradict this which is why this whole chicken thing is so complicated. But as it is in chickens it is in life. I don't even fully understand my own diet which is much more complicated than my chickens.

Anyway, I hope the conversation here and elsewhere continues as we all benefit by the exchange of ideas and experience. I hope the haters and criticizers can chill out go play video games to release their stress instead of taking it out on posters.

Thanks for participating and enjoy what you do every day.
 
But see, the actual science of the article states there is a clear difference and the author's opinion is "The range eggs had higher fat levels, including for n-3 (13.8 mg/50 g), but this would not be viewed as a nutritional advantage...".

I would suggest the author read up a bit more on nutrition before making such claims.
 
I think the study refers to the amount of cholesterol which does not seem to vary between eggs with more fat although I did not notice if it was of the LDL (bad) or HDL (good) cholesterol. Also added omega three is less beneficial if the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 is disproportional. Problem is everyone seems to get what they want to out of all these studies. Kind of like the old joke of the three blind men describing an elephant.
 
I'm pretty sure the general consensus, backed by science, is the modern Western diet has way too much omega6 and way too few omega3 ... not sure why eggs with higher omega3 would be seen as a disadvantage. Factory egg producers add flax to their feed to increase omega3, and advertise such as higher omega3 content. . . Seems even they think it's an advantage.
 
Last edited:

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom