Starting a replacement flock

[ChickenCurt]

I know everyone disagrees with me on that but it's still pretty evident in my flocks that it has no ill effects and no long term effects. The level of calcium absorbed and utilized out on forage is much higher even than can be found in layer rations. I have never had a bird with gout, bumble foot or any other health problem that would stem from calcium toxicity so I'll continue to give that same advice. Young animals are growing bones and utilizing calcium a lot more than one would think, hence the milk intake for most young animals after birth. For young fledglings in a nest, they are consuming large portions of calcium through the bones~or with lesser birds, the shells of bugs~ to help with bone and feather growth.

As a nurse I'm not convinced that excess calcium is the main cause for gout, in animal or human. I'd be more convinced that diets high in proteins and fats will produce it more quickly.

Not everyone.

I have noticed that many read too much...

kidding, but there is a lot of paranoia in worrying about what ifs. Keeping a healthy flock prevents most things. If one is worried about chicks eating adult food raise it up, my birds have to stretch to get to their feeders. Mostly so they don't poo in it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Looks like we are going tom have to agree to disagree on this issue Bee and pretty much agree on everything else. Do as you will, but I still don’t see what you gain with your way or lose with mine.

Here is the “discussion” on that protein/calcium study. They don’t say that high calcium causes gout. They say that high protein with or without the high calcium causes gout. I think the high levels of protein they are talking about is in the 30% range, not what we normally use, but I haven’t been feeding even slightly raised levels except 20% Starter for the first 4 weeks when I have young chicks. Everything else is normally 15% or 16% protein. I don’t see the advantage of paying $2 more per bag or something they don’t need.

In the present study, growers fed on the HC diets had severe kidney damage, which further confirms a previous report (Wideman et al., 1985) that rearing pullets on high calcium diets can cause kidney lesions. Moreover, growers fed on the HCHP diets in our experiment had not only severe kidney damage but also typical visceral gout. In the previous studies, several investigators have suggested that hyperuricaemia was preceded by the development of tophaceous deposits in parenchymatous organs (Pegram and Wyatt, 1981; Siller, 1981). The results in the present experiment suggested that high dietary calcium could cause significant hyperuricaemia in growing layers. The experiment also indicated that plasma uric acid concentration significantly increased in growers fed on high dietary protein, which is in agreement with a previous report (Hocking, 1989). The combined effects of high dietary calcium and high dietary protein in the HCHP group resulted in the occurrence of typical visceral gout in our experiment. We believe that high dietary calcium for growers was the primary cause of visceral urate deposition and that the increase in urate excretion associated with the HP diet is a secondary cause of visceral urate deposition.

In previous studies, growers fed on HP diets developed classical signs of articular gout (Siller, 1981; Hocking, 1989). However, no signs of gout were observed in growers fed on HP diets in our experiment although plasma uric acid concentration significantly increased. We suggested that the different results might be associated with the concentration of protein in the diet and length of feeding.

The HP diet caused hyperphosphataemia and significantly higher urinary phosphorus excretion compared with the control, which suggested that growers reared on a high protein diet had higher rates of intestinal phosphorus absorption. Birds fed on the HC diet had hypercalcaemia and hypophosphataemia and significantly higher urinary calcium and phosphorus excretion, suggesting that growers raised on this diet had higher rates of intestinal calcium absorption and lower rates of intestinal phosphorus absorption. Hypercalcaemia was associated with the HCHP diet but it did not cause hyperphosphataemia, suggesting that growers raised on HCHP diet had higher rates of intestinal calcium absorption and normal rates of intestinal absorption.

Plasma uric acid concentrations were significantly higher in the HC and HCHP growers than in the controls. Urinary uric acid excretion in birds with severe kidney damage caused by the
HC and HCHP diets was not significantly less than in the control, suggesting that increased plasma uric acid is not the result of decreased urinary uric acid excretion. Our results also supported a previous study showing that plasma uric acid concentrations are not directly related to calcium-induced kidney damage (Wideman et al., 1993). Other factors such as the higher protein ingested in HCHP may have increased plasma uric acid.

Urine volumes were significantly greater in growers raised on HC and HCHP diets than the control diet, which caused severe dehydration in the birds in our experiment. We believe that the increased urine volumes and severe dehydration were associated with kidney failure induced by high dietary calcium and were a primary cause of deaths.

Based on the results of the present study, it is concluded that both high dietary calcium and crude protein concentrations caused hyperuricaemia in growers, which resulted in the occurrence of typical visceral gout. Therefore, recommended dietary concentrations of calcium and crude protein should not be exceeded and, specifically, growing layers should not be fed on a commercial layer ration.


My two week old chicks fly up to my adult feeders to eat. Raising the feeders has not been a solution for me.

 

[mocluckin]

Beekissed... AWESOME info! Thanks so much for sharing.

 

[Beekissed]

Looks like we are going tom have to agree to disagree on this issue Bee and pretty much agree on everything else. Do as you will, but I still don’t see what you gain with your way or lose with mine.

Here is the “discussion” on that protein/calcium study. They don’t say that high calcium causes gout. They say that high protein with or without the high calcium causes gout. I think the high levels of protein they are talking about is in the 30% range, not what we normally use, but I haven’t been feeding even slightly raised levels except 20% Starter for the first 4 weeks when I have young chicks. Everything else is normally 15% or 16% protein. I don’t see the advantage of paying $2 more per bag or something they don’t need.

In the present study, growers fed on the HC diets had severe kidney damage, which further confirms a previous report (Wideman et al., 1985) that rearing pullets on high calcium diets can cause kidney lesions. Moreover, growers fed on the HCHP diets in our experiment had not only severe kidney damage but also typical visceral gout. In the previous studies, several investigators have suggested that hyperuricaemia was preceded by the development of tophaceous deposits in parenchymatous organs (Pegram and Wyatt, 1981; Siller, 1981). The results in the present experiment suggested that high dietary calcium could cause significant hyperuricaemia in growing layers. The experiment also indicated that plasma uric acid concentration significantly increased in growers fed on high dietary protein, which is in agreement with a previous report (Hocking, 1989). The combined effects of high dietary calcium and high dietary protein in the HCHP group resulted in the occurrence of typical visceral gout in our experiment. We believe that high dietary calcium for growers was the primary cause of visceral urate deposition and that the increase in urate excretion associated with the HP diet is a secondary cause of visceral urate deposition.

In previous studies, growers fed on HP diets developed classical signs of articular gout (Siller, 1981; Hocking, 1989). However, no signs of gout were observed in growers fed on HP diets in our experiment although plasma uric acid concentration significantly increased. We suggested that the different results might be associated with the concentration of protein in the diet and length of feeding.

The HP diet caused hyperphosphataemia and significantly higher urinary phosphorus excretion compared with the control, which suggested that growers reared on a high protein diet had higher rates of intestinal phosphorus absorption. Birds fed on the HC diet had hypercalcaemia and hypophosphataemia and significantly higher urinary calcium and phosphorus excretion, suggesting that growers raised on this diet had higher rates of intestinal calcium absorption and lower rates of intestinal phosphorus absorption. Hypercalcaemia was associated with the HCHP diet but it did not cause hyperphosphataemia, suggesting that growers raised on HCHP diet had higher rates of intestinal calcium absorption and normal rates of intestinal absorption.

Plasma uric acid concentrations were significantly higher in the HC and HCHP growers than in the controls. Urinary uric acid excretion in birds with severe kidney damage caused by the
HC and HCHP diets was not significantly less than in the control, suggesting that increased plasma uric acid is not the result of decreased urinary uric acid excretion. Our results also supported a previous study showing that plasma uric acid concentrations are not directly related to calcium-induced kidney damage (Wideman et al., 1993). Other factors such as the higher protein ingested in HCHP may have increased plasma uric acid.

Urine volumes were significantly greater in growers raised on HC and HCHP diets than the control diet, which caused severe dehydration in the birds in our experiment. We believe that the increased urine volumes and severe dehydration were associated with kidney failure induced by high dietary calcium and were a primary cause of deaths.

Based on the results of the present study, it is concluded that both high dietary calcium and crude protein concentrations caused hyperuricaemia in growers, which resulted in the occurrence of typical visceral gout. Therefore, recommended dietary concentrations of calcium and crude protein should not be exceeded and, specifically, growing layers should not be fed on a commercial layer ration.


My two week old chicks fly up to my adult feeders to eat. Raising the feeders has not been a solution for me.

Great article! What was the high level of calcium they were using?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you look at the top of that second article it gives it in grams, High Calcium 36.3, low calcium 8.5. Since the last statement in their conclusion was “ Therefore, recommended dietary concentrations of calcium and crude protein should not be exceeded and, specifically, growing layers should not be fed on a commercial layer ration.” I’d guess the low was pretty close to 1% like there is in Grower or Starter and that the high one was about 4% like Layer.

 

[Beekissed]

If you look at the top of that second article it gives it in grams, High Calcium 36.3, low calcium 8.5. Since the last statement in their conclusion was “ Therefore, recommended dietary concentrations of calcium and crude protein should not be exceeded and, specifically, growing layers should not be fed on a commercial layer ration.” I’d guess the low was pretty close to 1% like there is in Grower or Starter and that the high one was about 4% like Layer.

That's a higher calcium than I've ever even heard...36.3%????.

Most layer is somewhere between 3-4 %. How does testing for calcium of 36.3% even compare with 4 %? Of course that level of calcium would be dangerous.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you look at the top of that second article it gives it in grams, High Calcium 36.3, low calcium 8.5. Since the last statement in their conclusion was “ Therefore, recommended dietary concentrations of calcium and crude protein should not be exceeded and, specifically, growing layers should not be fed on a commercial layer ration.” I’d guess the low was pretty close to 1% like there is in Grower or Starter and that the high one was about 4% like Layer.

That's a higher calcium than I've ever even heard...36.3%????.  Most layer is somewhere between 3-4 %.  How does testing for calcium of 36.3% even compare with 4 %?  Of course that level of calcium would be dangerous. 

Grams Bee, GRAMS. 36.3 GRAMS. As I said above, I figure that is about 4%.

 

[Beekissed]

Gotcha. It's been a long day.

I like studies and they are interesting, make no mistake. But they are in controlled settings with different feeds, birds and perimeters than a typical backyard flock. I'd like to be able to say they all apply and try to use them and they would seem to be the way to go, because people with PH.Ds developed them...but I'm just a hillbilly with a bunch of yard birds and I find none of that applies to me. It hasn't applied in the past many a long year and it won't apply tomorrow.

My birds enjoy uncommon good health and long life so maybe because they don't fit into the test perimeters, they don't process calcium in the same way. The more one exercises, the more calcium is removed from the blood and stored in the bone, thereby not passing through the kidneys and causing damage. My birds are out on range at 2 wks of age, running for their food and I suspect the extra calcium is just what they need to keep up with their vigorous little lives and support all that activity.

The only laboratory I have is back in that meadow and the results have been favorable. Over the years I've come more and more to realize that what goes on in laboratories and conducted by folks smarter than I is often more dangerous than anything I can ever do to my chickens.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Bee I don’t call myself a hillbilly. The mountains were about 3 miles north. I was in ridge country. Hills were considered flatlands.

As I said, we’ll just have to disagree. But consider this. You are telling people calcium doesn’t matter. If yours forage much it probably doesn’t matter that much. It’s not what is in one bite, it’s how many total grams of calcium they eat a day over a time period. Is everyone you’re advising raising them the same way you are? Do your conditions apply to them?

I’m going to bed. Have a good one.

 

[Beekissed]

Bee I don’t call myself a hillbilly. The mountains were about 3 miles north. I was in ridge country. Hills were considered flatlands.

As I said, we’ll just have to disagree. But consider this. You are telling people calcium doesn’t matter. If yours forage much it probably doesn’t matter that much. It’s not what is in one bite, it’s how many total grams of calcium they eat a day over a time period. Is everyone you’re advising raising them the same way you are? Do your conditions apply to them?

I’m going to bed. Have a good one.

No, it doesn't apply to them~but then, how much of anything that anyone says on here about their own flocks apply to other people's flocks. I don't worry too much about what I say on here as there are always about 10 other people to disagree and advise differently and folks generally listen to the majority on things.

Well...other folks listen to the majority. I'm pretty much the only one that doesn't.

It's chickens, not life or death or anything of great note. Folks can take it or leave it.