Pellet vs Free Range/Foraging

[NatJ]

But, ranging chickens are likely to eat other things apart from plants. Even with the Ex Battery hens I now care for, vegitation is way down the list of feeding preference. They do eat some types of grass and a number of other plants. One would have to know the nutritional content of all the bugs, roots and other stuff they eat to make a valid judgement. This isn't really feasible.

In the example with deficient soil, all parts of the plants should be equally deficient, so whether the chickens eat the vegetation or the roots will not matter. And where would the bugs and worms and other creatures get the missing minerals? They can't get them from the plants (which don't have enough), and they can't get them from rotting vegetation (which doesn't have enough) and they can't get them from the soil (which doesn't have enough).

So in that example, everything the chicken eats will be deficient in the same minerals. There will be no good source that the chicken can find, to make up the difference. So yes, the chicken will be deficient in the minerals, unless someone brings in a source of those particular minerals.

 

[Shadrach]

In the example with deficient soil, all parts of the plants should be equally deficient, so whether the chickens eat the vegetation or the roots will not matter. And where would the bugs and worms and other creatures get the missing minerals? They can't get them from the plants (which don't have enough), and they can't get them from rotting vegetation (which doesn't have enough) and they can't get them from the soil (which doesn't have enough).

So in that example, everything the chicken eats will be deficient in the same minerals. There will be no good source that the chicken can find, to make up the difference. So yes, the chicken will be deficient in the minerals, unless someone brings in a source of those particular minerals.

Yeah but, the evidence says they do survive in such environments. There isn't any debate to be had. All over Asia Africa and parts of the Med chickens live free range with no commercial feed. They may well be deficient in some chemicals but they still live and breed and lay eggs.
For many the above is the whole point in keeping chickens; they adapt and can survive in conditions that most other livestock can't.
It may well be true that one could increase egg production and body weight with better feed. In many places any foods that can do this are eaten by the humans.
It is only a very small minority of people in this world who keep chickens confined to a coop and run and feed them only commercially produced feed.
The model is just too expensive for poorer people. I've been shocked at the difference in the feed costs between the Ex Battery and rescue chickens and the tribes in Catalonia not to mention the cost of the coops and the security and the never ending health problems.
A single 20kg bag of feed lasted about 25 days for a varying population between 20 and thirty mixed breed and age and sex chickens with the free rangers in Catalonia. We buy 3 x 20kg bags of feed for 20 hens and one rooster here in the UK.

 

[saysfaa]

If all you want is for them to live long enough for their chicks to survive, and give some extra eggs along the way that you can eat.... then, yes, they don't need a balanced diet, much less an optimal diet.

They did so on people's farms here before iodine was added to salt. So did the people who ate them and the other local food. I remember seeing goiters as big as softballs on people.

Hee, hee... the people also lived long enough to replace themselves .... not so much to give some extra eggs along the way

 

[saysfaa]

Not to say any deficiency will kill them that fast.

Or that it is wrong to aim for them to live long enough to reproduce themselves instead of any other goal. Like the switching feeds every three weeks vs feeding chick starter until they start laying, just because you can get closer to optimal doesn't mean it should always be done.

For what it is worth, growth is only one way to tell if there is an effect. It really doesn't work to just accept smaller or slower growing chickens as if that is the only effect.

 

[Perris]

But what rarely gets taken into account in the feed and keeping debates is a very simple fact; the more eggs a hen lays the more feed she needs. While high production hens produce a lot of eggs, they also need a lot of feed to make those eggs.

This is an important point. It is the extreme laying performance of the modern production hen which demands extreme feeding to make all those eggs.

If it isn't optimal

Somewhere along the line the 'minimal' that feed manufacturers aim for has turned into 'optimal'. How did that happen?

Balanced is each component being in the window between enough to not have a big negative effect and not so much that there is a big negative effect. This after considering how each component interacts with each other component.

Optimal is the precise point between enough and too much. Any less and the results are not quite as good; any more and the results are not quite as good.

What about the definition of minimal?

 

[saysfaa]

...Somewhere along the line the 'minimal' that feed manufacturers aim for has turned into 'optimal'. How did that happen?

I keep them distinct, although I can see how it might not look like it. I agree feed manufacturers aim for the lower side of the acceptable range and not for the optimal amount speaking strictly of nutrition. Some definitions of optimal include costs as variables in the equations.

I don't think commercial feed is optimal, nutritionally. Just that it is far closer to it than I can put together even strictly nutritionally.

What about the definition of minimal?

I haven't thought about that much. Off the top of my head, I think it depends on the goal. It could be enough to keep them alive in the short term, enough to keep them from showing noticeable (or bothersome) effects for their expected lifespan, enough to keep that element from being the limiting factor.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

This is an important point. It is the extreme laying performance of the modern production hen which demands extreme feeding to make all those eggs.

Somewhere along the line the 'minimal' that feed manufacturers aim for has turned into 'optimal'. How did that happen?

What about the definition of minimal?

Perris, since you seem to be asking in good faith, I'll take a stab at this.

Commercial "Layer" formulations are largely based on studies from the 60s, 70s, some early 80s. They were intended to determine the most cost effective way to feed commercial egg layers under commercial mangament conditions, where further reductions in the nutritional quality of the feed would result in additional chicken and egg production losses (on average) costing more than would be saved in reduced feed expense. That's where the 16% protein, 4% calcium figures largely originate.

It is both a purpose-built feed, not intended or well suited for anything but commercial layers under commercial mangement (i.e not hatchlings, not roosters, not "show silkies" - just prime age leghorns and similar breeds/hybrids such as the various RSL and BSL production lines intended to be kept only till first adult molt, then sold for some other purpose, such as pet food.) I think it a good example of "minimal".
Obviously, costs have changed since then, science has improved (Met levels can now be measured independently, when at the start of those studies, they were impractical to measure at all, and for many of those studies, Met + Cys or SAA sulphur containing amino acids were measured.) Europe, which is at the cutting edge of synthetic amino acid research in the poultry world has studied the matter further, finding that for commercial layers, commercial conditions, crude protein can be dropped to 14% without significant impact on production IF synthetic methionine and lysine are added to bring feed values up to certain target numbers. Here in the US, owing in part to cost differences associated with our various crops, higher crude protein levels (i.e. the old 16% figure) are more frequently seen, based on the old research, and likely in part based on consumer habit.

Now, if you were to pull up a Cobb 500 or Lohman feed manual, you would find a number of target numbers for various amino acids, crude protein, fiber, fat, vitamins, etc usually in three week blocks or so setting forth targets intended to maximize broiler growth of those lines at those ages while minimizing losses due to diet and genetic propensity. That's more like "optimal". Obviously, a Cx will (on average) survive on lesser nutritional values, it grows more slowly, never reaches the same feed efficiencies, isn't as robust from a disease or parasite challenge perspective.

Of course, Cx are intended for table, and those optimal growth recommends are intended to support that end use. SO perhaps they are a "bad" example of optimal.
There are also "optimal" targets for birds which can be determined from review of the research with a concern other than minimal cost. We know, for instance, that higher than 16% protein feed (setting aside, for the moment, iindividual amino acid targets) is better for the birds than 16% protein feed, being associated with increased feed efficiency, more robust immune systems, faster growth rate, larger overall size, increased productivity in frequency of lay and average size of lay. We ALSO know that those improvements are relatively minor (often on the order of 1-3% ea), and not strictly cost effective - and yet many backyard chicken owners choose such feeds and/or recommend them because cost isn't a first concern and we (well, some of us) are interested in a longer average life for our birds than a commercial egg laying facility. That's closer to optimal. The same can be said if we look at CA : P ratios (and even P-type), individual amino acid levels, niacin levels, and a host of others.

and at some point, additions in nutritional value cross into a range where they have either no measurable benefit over any reasonable time scale or even begin to pose a danger to the birds they are intended to feed. Fat levels go from recommends around 3.5% (a little higher for waterfowl) to about 6-7% (for "finishing" Cx before table) to percentages associated with much higher incidence of fatty liver disease.
Calcium needs for most birds are around 1-1.5%, birds actively laying need more (how much more being dependent on frequency and size of egg shell of course). That's not well studied axcept in commercial layers under commercial conditions - so offering a free choice calcium source (i.e. oyster shell) allows a laying hen to eat to meet her needs in addition to the 1%+/- minimal supprot she recieves in her All Flock/Flock Raiser mix. Another common recommend by posters here at BYC.

We also know from experiences when calcium was mis-measured at the mill that very high levels of calcium are dangerous even to prime layers, with reports of rapid increase in mortality of birds accidentally fed with 10%, 15% calcium mixes, just as we can see the clinical results of excess calcium build up in old roosters, and limited studies on the effects of high calcium levels in birds of both genders prior to onset of lay.

That 'more than minimum, less than dangerous', nothing in the feed that's likely unusued/wasteful to any particular degree feed for our birds, management, and purpose is "optimal". and of course it varies - a Cx and a show Silkie and a Production Red have very different purposes, and somewhat different dietary needs.

 

[Perris]

thanks U_Stormcrow, that's very useful. I'd just like to add that, as pointed out by someone else on another thread, individual birds will metabolize different elements of their diet differently (these figures are all based on averages), so a prepared feed is aiming to be the best in a nutritional 'one-size-fits-all' scenario. Birds free to forage can select what they think or know they need from what's available.

 

[Aunt Angus]

Is this discussion either by its original context or its evolution only contemplating free ranging in suburban backyards?

I started this thread. I have a small farm. My land can easily support my goats, except for copper and selenium which must be supplemented. I imagine my chickens could also survive fine, but I can't really let them free range 24/7 because there is a HEAVY predator load here in the woods.

All I was trying to find out is if I'm harming my flock inadvertently by letting them forage, since many, many folks report that not feeding solely balanced commercial feed is contributing to the problems and losses my flock is experiencing. I don't even care about egg production at the moment. I just want my chickens and ducks to stop dying.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

thanks U_Stormcrow, that's very useful. I'd just like to add that, as pointed out by someone else on another thread, individual birds will metabolize different elements of their diet differently (these figures are all based on averages), so a prepared feed is aiming to be the best in a nutritional 'one-size-fits-all' scenario. Birds free to forage can select what they think or know they need from what's available.

well, two points:

1) you absolutely CAN choose a commercial mix purpose built for a specific use, i.e. layer feed. And, with the exception of the reduced total calcium (for which there is good nutritional reason), the nutritional offering in the typical "all flock" is as good or better than a similarly branded and market positioned "layer" formulation - worst case is that some of the "excess" in the All Flock is excreted w/o use, but more often, the All Flock - while better - is still somewhat less than the "perfect" diet for that particular bird at that particular moment in its life.

2) birds which forage ARE limited to whatever's available. If its not present in the environment, they can't obtain it. If it is present in the environment, they have to obtain it in the form available - for good or ill. Often, that's ill - particularly if an excess of high fat sources for the needed nutrition are the only (or preferred) source. High fat seeds like sunflower are a good example of this - a chicken getting most of its Met and Lys from sunflower seeds is also ingesting a lot of fat, which brings concerns of its own.

Finally and as reminder, I do both. I provide my birds a commercial feed (one, in fact, that I know is bad for some of them - excess calcium for my roos), and I allow my birds to free range acres at their liesure. They are almost never locked up. Its educated risk taking - i can't know the nutritional value of my acres at any given moment, so I provide a base which meets their minimums (and a bit more), and allow them to forage in addition/as alternative. I put more than minimal effort in ensuring that the pasture is varied in content during every season (to the extent we have seasons here) - but I don't pretend that square footage alone ensures a diet on which they can thrive - particularly as I knwo that the optimal levels of Met - the first and most critical Amino Acid for a chicken - is higher than can be obtained from vegetable sources found in nature, and the availability of animal or insect protein sources in my pasture is largely beyond my control.

I'm not against Commercial Feed. I'm not against Foraging per se. I am for understanding the limitations of whatever you do choose to do. One of the costs of free ranging/foraging is that you simply can't know. Best guess, and some intelligent assumptions based on observation of their forage area is close as it gets, while the likelihood of a bird ever reaching its potential is reduced (how greatly being a factor of breed and forage both - the more we humans have tinkered with the line, the greater its dietary requirements are likely to be to reach its full potential).