Shadrach's Ex Battery and Rescued chickens thread.

[tranquiliti]

'ecological stoichiometry'

 

[Perris]

yeh, bit of a mouthful that one! But it gives fair warning what to expect when you read those papers! Nutritional geometry is much more user friendly, and useful from a chicken-keeper perspective.

Basically ES is good for the micronutrients, and NG for the macronutrients. They are not in conflict and some current work is trying to tie it all together into one theoretical package.

 

[Shadrach]

Maybe they're expecting a colder winter?

Maybe. I've read that slow moulters tend to lay fewer eggs than than fast moulting birds. At the rate this lot are going I doubt I'll see an egg until next Spring!

 

[BDutch]

@Perris, its because of your influence that I started to give the chickens, layers, broodies and 6+ weeks old chicks a choice in feed. Always chick feed available, and a small bowl of layer pellets on the side.
I never saw the chicks/juveniles eat from the layer pellets. The layers and Black (mamma) do eat both.
Besides this commercial food there is other food available too, of course. Only no tinned fish. I get it when you give no commercial feed but don’t understand why you find this so important for everyone.

So I can truly say you are a bit of an influencer.

 

[Shadrach]

As most readers of this thread will know, I have been investigating chicken nutrition for some time now, and recently more specifically on how they know how to select a balanced diet from what's on offer to them. I posted something on it on another thread yesterday, which I repeat here because Shad mentioned it and I think he at least might be interested in it.

Recent research in ecology, biology, and associated subjects has shown that the sense of taste has a large role to play in animals' selection of what to eat and how much of it to eat. Broadly speaking, the sweet taste detects carbs, and the umami (savoury) taste detects proteins. Calcium, phosphorus and sodium are detectable by many animals, and since they are nutrients that are essential in small quantities but are toxic in large quantities, the tastes for these are either consumptive and aversive, depending on circumstances; the taste is appealing if that nutrient is needed at that time and is in an appropriate concentration, and aversive if that nutrient is not needed or is in a too-concentrated form for that animal's metabolism to process. That is why, for example, we and our chickens may eat something with gusto one day and be sick of it the next.

If you want to read more on this, the key terms to research are 'nutritional geometry' and 'ecological stoichiometry'.

So you're saying we and chickens are fussy feckers. I already know that. On the available evidence it looks like chickens make better diet choices than we do. I wonder what they would pick if I took them shopping at my local supermarket.
I've read a lot of these studies on nutrition for people and chickens. None of what I've read for humans or chickens leads me to think that the conclusion I came to long ago is wrong, eat a bit of everything with an eye on the science but common sense engaged.
Unfortunately for contained birds they don't have the opportunity to make much in the way of choices about what they eat because they can't go shopping.
Should one be unfortunate enough to find oneself in hospital with weight problems/eating disorders or often just plain ignorance about nutrition you are likely to get the human equivelant of commercial feed for chickens; a balanced but hightly processed milk shake with all the basic nutrients.
I know I keep repeating myself but the above problems are not feed problems, they're keeping condition problems. Let the chickens have access to a wide range of forage produce and the chances are they'll sort themselves out and pick as varied a diet as the forage permits.
If they can't get out of their coops and runs they can't do this. What's more, most of the home brew feeds have many of the same problems as the commercial feed; it's the same day in day out. Food boredom anyone?
Now all we have to do is persuade people not to keep chickens in cages, even if they do give ten square feet per bird.
I'm still where I was 15 years ago, an acre of mixed vegitation per tribe will probably suffice as a chicken supermarket, plus all the other benefits lots of room will provide.
It's not going to happen is it? The coop and run model is firmly entrenched and with that comes the hospital milkshake/commercial feed.

 

[Perris]

Only no tinned fish. I get it when you give no commercial feed but don’t understand why you find this so important for everyone.

I recommend sardines, not just any old tinned fish.

Sardines are forage fish - caught from the wild, not farmed. A lot of the fish in the supermarket these days is farmed, which is problematic in all sorts of ways, just like industrial chicken or beef production. The lower down the food chain a fish is, the more likely it is to be healthy. The smaller it is, the more likely it is to be wild and caught in open water. Sardines satisfy both categories. They contain a good amount of protein, all the electrolyte minerals (calcium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus) plus some iron, zinc and manganese, plus B vitamins, and the whole suite of essential amino acids.

And besides all that, tinned sardines are available even in small corner shops, and are one of the cheapest fish to buy anywhere, because they are plentiful in the sea. I do not understand why anyone chooses any other type of fish.

On the available evidence it looks like chickens make better diet choices than we do

Our senses have been hijacked by food processing companies, who have found (just by trial and error presumably) that they can fake the flavours that activate the taste buds, so our body thinks we are consuming something other than what we are actually consuming. Chickens are fooled likewise with commercial feed. It doesn't make either of them healthy or balanced. And although our taste buds are fooled, the sensors sampling through the gut and the rest of the body know we are not meeting our nutrient targets, so we overeat in order to try to reach them. Obesity scientists are very interested in NG studies.

Also, commercial chicken food lacks all the things we haven't yet spotted as important for their health, but which are present in natural foods. A lot gets lost in processing (not least fibre); only some of it e.g. essential amino acids gets added back later in concentrated form. Evolution does not work as fast as modern foods have changed; our biology is fit to work with real food, not ultra processed food.

 

[L-plate chicken mum]

I would think a very slow moult. Which has less impact on their health.

Mine always have a slow moult , they never get naked patches. Except once, poor Pino my lavender Dutch about 8 years ago.

Black showing how heavy its gets most years.
View attachment 3971673

Mine are mostly doing the slow route but poor Henny is miserable, bare neck & derriere and yesterday her tail feathers all fell out. Not her usual free spirit

 

[Shadrach]

To illustrate just how confusing diet advice can be, this is what Bristol Royal Infirmary will give you to put on weight and get the basic nutrients. Looks remarkably like commercial chicken feed except the fat content is much higher.
But, we are told that we should be reducing fat and sugar in our diet if we wish to remain healthy.

 

[Perris]

if it's any consolation, lipids of any kind are much less significant than protein or carbs, NG studies found. The body can convert most things into other things- what we call 'essential' x, y or z are the ones we have to consume because we can't make them, like vitamin C.

 

[Perris]

Yes it is confusing, but it is important not to overgeneralize and throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sugar is the fuel for every cell in your body; you need it. So do your chickens.

Digestion converts carbohydrates into sugar (monosaccarides, e.g. glucose, fructose (fruit sugar)), in which form it is absorbed by the gut and travels in the bloodstream to all parts. Glucose is the main product of photosynthesis, and is the main fuel for all lifeforms. So sugar per se is not a bad thing.

High-fructose corn syrup is a sucrose substitute widely used in processed foods and drinks, and the finger is pointing in its direction as the smoking gun of the obesity epidemic.