This is what a balanced layer feed with no treats delivers

[Perris]

You can assume or guess

What do you think an industrial layer chicken is fed then?
I think it is obtuse to guess anything other than layer feed.

to take a picture of a molting or severly undernourished chicken

I didn't take the picture. The people trying to find this hen a new backyard home took the picture.

My chickens and a lot of other chickens don't get treats per se either and they sure as heck don't look like that.

I'm delighted to hear it. What exactly does 'don't get treats per se' mean?

 

[FrostRanger]

Are you aware that the vast majority of research work on feed nutrition has been done on broilers, i.e. chicks up to 6 weeks old, and not on layers? That the industry is aware that the needs and metabolism of hens are not the same as the needs and metabolism of a chick? That the numbers for the ME of different raw materials vary with numerous factors and are inconsistent throughout the industry?

Let me give you some idea of the issues. This from a 2008 paper:
"There is substantial scientific literature available on P requirements of broilers but less on the P requirements of layers and turkeys. Unfortunately, there are large differences among the recommendations given. For example, in 19 papers published since the literature that was used by the NRC (1994), different values for the P requirements in starter phase broiler diets are provided (Angel, 2006)…. the reported differences in requirements remain large…. one salient fact becomes obvious. It is difficult to make comparisons between studies. In P requirement research as well as phytase efficacy work, certain information that has a large impact on the results has to be included in the published work. Information that needs to be included is as follows: animal breed, strain and age, start and end weight, replication and birds/replicate, pen size and animal density, actual mortality and whether the data are corrected for mortality, prior nutrition (especially as it pertains to Ca, P, and vitamin D), age of the breeder flock where chicks came from, feed consumption, formulated and analyzed diet Ca and P, and, if possible, phytate P. Also of importance are diet information specifics that cover formulated diet vitamin D, ME, fiber, all vitamins and microminerals, the amount of each ingredient used, formulated and analyzed diet protein and fat, and light schedule used. Feed additive (coccidiostats, antibiotics, growth-promotants, pro- or prebiotics) information to provide includes the product name, active ingredient, and inclusion level. Details of prevailing environmental conditions, vaccination program used, and finally, if floor pen work is conducted, type of litter used, and whether it has previously been used should also be included…. In addition to the variation in quality of information related to efficacy of phytase, there is no international standard assay for expressing phytase activity (Selle and Ravindran, 2007). This void leads to confusion when analyzing different phytase sources, especially when the same designation of units (phytase units) is used across procedures. Differences in the specifics of the assays (such as buffer, pH, temperature used) can induce a 3- to 4-fold difference in the measured phytase units (Ward and Campbell, 2007). The confusion has only increased in the last couple of years as new Escherichia coli-derived phytases have come on to the market for commercial use. These new enzymes appear to have greater impact on making available other nutrients that can be bound to the phytate molecule such as amino acids, minerals, and carbohydrates (Cowieson et al., 2006; Pirgozliev et al., 2007; Selle and Ravindran, 2007)….
Powers & Angel, A Review of the Capacity for Nutritional Strategies to Address Environmental Challenges in Poultry Production, Poultry Science 2008 https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00090

That is entirely besides the point. The amount of research in question of layer feed vs broiler feed does not change the fact that commercial layers are kept in a very different environment than backyard layers and the the fact that the differences in their care and environment are not controlled for (some of these factors such as lack of adequate room are known causes of feather picking) means we can't say what caused it. Not to mention the type of layer feed backyard keepers are feeding their birds is different from what commercial birds are being fed anyways so even if what those particular birds are being fed has had any impact on their general condition it doesn't mean much for Joe or Jane chicken keeper as they aren't feeding that particular layer feed anyways. Not all layer feed is created equal after all and the feed for commercially raised birds isn't going to generally be top of the line stuff. All we can say for sure is the birds in the picture look rough (although given we don't know the time of year they might be molting so it's possible they don't normally look that rough)

 

[Perris]

your speculations on the subject are getting a bit repetitive @FrostRanger , and are not made any more accurate by repetition. If you understood what I quoted you would see the point. You ignore the evidence I gave that one of the best backyard feed firms here also supplies in minimum orders of 4 tonnes - how many backyard birds would someone need for that to be eaten before expiry date I wonder.

In pleading one or other special cases or excuses, and all without a jot of evidence in support, you're just acting as apologist for the commercial feed industry.

 

[FrostRanger]

The amount of speculation one can do on the causes of their condition is exactly the point. There are too many variables at play to say anything scientifically

 

[Perris]

OK. Question for you @FrostRanger

The American Livestock Conservancy advice I posted earlier (https://livestockconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Heritage_Chicken_Feed_Guidelines.pdf ) includes the phrase

a more nutritionally complete feed ration

What do you understand by the term 'complete feed'?

 

[FrostRanger]

A complete feed is a feed that will provide at least the bare minimum amount of nutrition to keep an animal alive and in fairly good health when fed as the only thing the animal eats. They're making optimizations when they talk about making it more complete

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Are you aware that the vast majority of research work on feed nutrition has been done on broilers, i.e. chicks up to 6 weeks old, and not on layers? That the industry is aware that the needs and metabolism of hens are not the same as the needs and metabolism of a chick? That the numbers for the ME of different raw materials vary with numerous factors and are inconsistent throughout the industry?

Let me give you some idea of the issues. This from a 2008 paper:
"There is substantial scientific literature available on P requirements of broilers but less on the P requirements of layers and turkeys. Unfortunately, there are large differences among the recommendations given. For example, in 19 papers published since the literature that was used by the NRC (1994), different values for the P requirements in starter phase broiler diets are provided (Angel, 2006)…. the reported differences in requirements remain large…. one salient fact becomes obvious. It is difficult to make comparisons between studies. In P requirement research as well as phytase efficacy work, certain information that has a large impact on the results has to be included in the published work. Information that needs to be included is as follows: animal breed, strain and age, start and end weight, replication and birds/replicate, pen size and animal density, actual mortality and whether the data are corrected for mortality, prior nutrition (especially as it pertains to Ca, P, and vitamin D), age of the breeder flock where chicks came from, feed consumption, formulated and analyzed diet Ca and P, and, if possible, phytate P. Also of importance are diet information specifics that cover formulated diet vitamin D, ME, fiber, all vitamins and microminerals, the amount of each ingredient used, formulated and analyzed diet protein and fat, and light schedule used. Feed additive (coccidiostats, antibiotics, growth-promotants, pro- or prebiotics) information to provide includes the product name, active ingredient, and inclusion level. Details of prevailing environmental conditions, vaccination program used, and finally, if floor pen work is conducted, type of litter used, and whether it has previously been used should also be included…. In addition to the variation in quality of information related to efficacy of phytase, there is no international standard assay for expressing phytase activity (Selle and Ravindran, 2007). This void leads to confusion when analyzing different phytase sources, especially when the same designation of units (phytase units) is used across procedures. Differences in the specifics of the assays (such as buffer, pH, temperature used) can induce a 3- to 4-fold difference in the measured phytase units (Ward and Campbell, 2007). The confusion has only increased in the last couple of years as new Escherichia coli-derived phytases have come on to the market for commercial use. These new enzymes appear to have greater impact on making available other nutrients that can be bound to the phytate molecule such as amino acids, minerals, and carbohydrates (Cowieson et al., 2006; Pirgozliev et al., 2007; Selle and Ravindran, 2007)….
Powers & Angel, A Review of the Capacity for Nutritional Strategies to Address Environmental Challenges in Poultry Production, Poultry Science 2008 https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00090

A lot of that is specific to P. While chickens are digestively agnostic to the sources of many of their nutritional needs, they almost can't use phytate Phosphorus (that is, plant-based P) because of the way plants lock it up molecularly. Chickens have great difficulty prcessing it into a bioavailable format.

Some commercial feeds get around that issue here in the US by providing enzymes (phytase) to break down they phytate P into more useful sctructures - but there is still wide disagreement as to how effective the various phytase enzymes are inside the bird (and like all biochemical reactions, conditions inside the bird have an effect. Intestinal pH, I suspect, is a strong factor, but my chemistry starts getting weak at this point). Others provide non-phytate P sources (i.e. Calcium DiPhoshate or DiCalcium Phoshate), usually as alternative to Calcium Carbonate as the primary Ca source (this has other benefits as well - including lower risk of calcium toxicity in roosters). Others provide animal-based P sources. Or a combination of the three.

P is one of the big factors arguing aganst "vegan" chicken feeds, or relying solely on greens as a chicken's diet. Unfortunately, for most, the availability of insect protein seasonally is somethign they ca only guess at - its another big question mark (often unanswerable) in their nutritional intake from a pasture or range. The critical Amino Acid Methionine, of course, is the other.

 

[fowltemptress]

Ok, I'm dipping out. I can only handle so much

At this point I'm pretty sure they're a troll, so there isn't much point in engaging, anyway. Good effort, though.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

At this point I'm pretty sure they're a troll, so there isn't much point in engaging, anyway. Good effort, though.

I've engaged with Perris for a couple years now. Perris is NOT a troll. Perris *is* convinced that the way battery hens are commercially raised and used is wholly inappropriate, and puts personal resources at stake rehoming and rehabilitating those birds when their factory days are over.

For those reasons, I propose that you should respect Perris. Not for taking a moral stand and talking about it - any blowhard can do that - but for taking a moral stand and doing something about it out of their own pocket. Other People's Money is cheap - ask any socialist - but Perris sacrifices of personal resources to do as he preaches. Perris also takes the time to do the research, and is well read on the subject of poultry nutrition. More so than the vast majority of those here on BYC.

Perris holds a number of other views with similar stridency, some of which intersect with chicken keeping and poultry nutrition. Again, respect for consistency and acting in accordance with professed beliefs.

Now, we can (and i certainly do) dispute the conclusions drawn from some of that research, the logical jumps sometimes taken in seeking support for Perris' prefered policy views, and the credibility of some of Perris' sources. All subject of reasonable debate. We can (and have) even debated the practicality of those policy prescriptions. Perris has returned the favor where my comments are involved, and I hope we have both learned somethign from it.

We might also take exception to using a lie for good purpose (i.e. the battery hen picture which started this post) as an attack on layer feed formulations generally. That's an argument from emotion - the shock of the thing exceeds its probative value. Outrage can certainly be a hallmark of trollish behavior - but the comments which follow are far more substantive than troll-like in my view.

For that reason, I conclude Perris is definitely NOT a Troll.

Debate the research, debate the value of the example, debate the conclusions like civilized persons - but don't disparage the messsenger as if it somehow conclusively answers the questions posed.

My suggestion only, take it as you will. I believe it a reasonable proposal.

 

[scyllarus]

I read most of the thread and frankly? @Perris You might get more traction if you either presented this as a more open discussion, or at least stuck to an argument. You demand scientific papers, but never produced proof that *your* assertion (that a battery hen's poor condition was solely based on her feed) was scientifically backed, *then* claimed later that most studies are done on broiler chickens and so might not be applicable. You assert that the photographed chicken was fed layer feed, which we have no proof about aside from knowing that this is a laying hen from a rescue, and then state that everyone who points this out is being obtuse while refusing to acknowledge the idea that other factors may come in play for that hen's condition. Heck, someone (I think @/Shadrach) even posted pictures of ex-battery hens from slightly different situations as part of their argument that environmental aside from food plays a role, and I don't remember seeing it addressed.

Like - look, I don't really believe in feeding 100% chicken kibbles, and I don't even keep chickens. I keep quail, and they get enrichment - especially food enrichment. Heck, my dogs rarely touch their kibbles because we cook often and have plenty of healthy scraps. But - and this was also brought up previously in the thread - many people may not have access to or knowledge of healthy foods for chooks. Anyone who chooses to feed non-commercial foods is taking their chickens' well-being into their own hands - and those hands may be expert or they may be well-intentioned but misinformed. Plus, when someone comes onto the forum with a sick chook, none of us are able to fully evaluate the bird! All we can advise is removing sources of poisoning or malnutrition, then trying to fix any possible nutritional deficiencies. The implication that "if commercial feed is so good, why do you need to supplement" is not a fun "gotcha!" - it's just ignoring the underlying logic of how you figure out and fix an illness.