This is what a balanced layer feed with no treats delivers

[fowltemptress]

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.

Perris can take care of himself, I'm sure. If he's not a troll, scyllarus just left some wonderful advice on a better approach - there are probably others that I've skimmed past, too, since people tend to be nice here. His dogmatic adherence to the unnuanced, food based armchair-diagnosis of the pictured chicken is what makes him sound like an unhinged troll in this thread, and the only thing I was basing my assumption on. I certainly don't hold it against someone for looking out for the welfare of birds.

 

[Perris]

Thanks for your feedback all. I shall try to take it on board.

Meanwhile, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject.

I believe many of you have a misplaced confidence in the quality of commercial feed - all of it, because of how it is formulated, irrespective of the undeniably great variation in the quality of different brands.

My final quotes for your consideration are from a paper published in Animal Nutrition 2023. I hope you will follow the link and read the whole paper.

" It is not unknown for a single nutrient value to be reported for a laying hen trial with ingredients sourced over many months. Nutritionists need a single value to put in their requirement matrices, so little value is placed in reporting more than an average value. The result is that fully half of the birds receive feed with below average nutrient levels, or an arbitrary “margin of safety” is used to assure that some higher than half of the birds receive the required amounts.

For ingredient composition matrices, many nutritionists
routinely rely on suppliers to analyze their feed ingredients and
provide needed values to balance their feeds. Single values for
nutrient levels are used. There is no formal method for considering
ingredient variation in least-cost feed formulation models
(although stochastic models have been discussed at least since the
1990's) (D'Alfonso et al., 1992; Roush et al., 1996). Trace element
nutrition may be particularly disregarded by nutritionists who only
want to over-supply inexpensive feed components as insurance
against potential problems: Distillers by-products, excellent sources of B-vitamins are added to many poultry diets without any
changes in vitamin premixes."

It is pointed out just a little bit earlier in the paper that "Vitamin B12 may be the most extreme example of overfeeding. It has never been shown to be needed (dietarily) past the first week of a bird life, but it is routinely added to feed for all classes of poultry".

Elsewhere it asserts "there is no one “requirement” for all nutrients. The reality is that there are different feeding levels that result in perfectly healthy birds with different characteristics, and maximum growth does not necessarily mean maximum profits. Birds fed higher amino acid levels grow faster on less feed and have more carcass yields due to less carcass fat (Lemme et al.,2008). The response to increasing energy levels is somewhat similar, except that birds fed higher energy levels grow faster on less feed but have lower carcass yields due to increased carcass fat."

And, for those who emphasise how modern birds are genetically unlike heritage or birds of old: "As the birds' genetics have changed, and feed utilization efficiency has increased, the nutrient intakes per unit of growth have greatly decreased, suggesting that the birds may not be getting enough nutrients compared to the old studies where their “requirements” were determined". So the feed may actually be more inadequate for modern production stock, like the bird in the photo, than it is for backyard chicken breeds and strains.

It is an open access paper. Anyone can read it freely. The authors have no competing interests. Pesti & Choct, 'The future of feed formulation for poultry: Toward more sustainable production of meat and eggs' Animal Nutrition 15 (2023) 71-87
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.02.013

 

[U_Stormcrow]

Thanks for your feedback all. I shall try to take it on board.

Meanwhile, this is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject.

I believe many of you have a misplaced confidence in the quality of commercial feed - all of it, because of how it is formulated, irrespective of the undeniably great variation in the quality of different brands.

My final quotes for your consideration are from a paper published in Animal Nutrition 2023. I hope you will follow the link and read the whole paper.

" It is not unknown for a single nutrient value to be reported for a laying hen trial with ingredients sourced over many months. Nutritionists need a single value to put in their requirement matrices, so little value is placed in reporting more than an average value. The result is that fully half of the birds receive feed with below average nutrient levels, or an arbitrary “margin of safety” is used to assure that some higher than half of the birds receive the required amounts.

For ingredient composition matrices, many nutritionists
routinely rely on suppliers to analyze their feed ingredients and
provide needed values to balance their feeds. Single values for
nutrient levels are used. There is no formal method for considering
ingredient variation in least-cost feed formulation models
(although stochastic models have been discussed at least since the
1990's) (D'Alfonso et al., 1992; Roush et al., 1996). Trace element
nutrition may be particularly disregarded by nutritionists who only
want to over-supply inexpensive feed components as insurance
against potential problems: Distillers by-products, excellent sources of B-vitamins are added to many poultry diets without any
changes in vitamin premixes."

It is pointed out just a little bit earlier in the paper that "Vitamin B12 may be the most extreme example of overfeeding. It has never been shown to be needed (dietarily) past the first week of a bird life, but it is routinely added to feed for all classes of poultry".

Elsewhere it asserts "there is no one “requirement” for all nutrients. The reality is that there are different feeding levels that result in perfectly healthy birds with different characteristics, and maximum growth does not necessarily mean maximum profits. Birds fed higher amino acid levels grow faster on less feed and have more carcass yields due to less carcass fat (Lemme et al.,2008). The response to increasing energy levels is somewhat similar, except that birds fed higher energy levels grow faster on less feed but have lower carcass yields due to increased carcass fat."

And, for those who emphasise how modern birds are genetically unlike heritage or birds of old: "As the birds' genetics have changed, and feed utilization efficiency has increased, the nutrient intakes per unit of growth have greatly decreased, suggesting that the birds may not be getting enough nutrients compared to the old studies where their “requirements” were determined". So the feed may actually be more inadequate for modern production stock, like the bird in the photo, than it is for backyard chicken breeds and strains.

It is an open access paper. Anyone can read it freely. The authors have no competing interests. Pesti & Choct, 'The future of feed formulation for poultry: Toward more sustainable production of meat and eggs' Animal Nutrition 15 (2023) 71-87
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.02.013

None of which suggests that a 100% free range diet is superior, about whose nutritional value you know even less, and whose seasonal variations are even more certain. Nor does it address problems of certain geographic areas of known trace mineral deficiencies (such as the huge swaths of the US which extreme selenium deficiency in the soil - something needed in such trace quantity it would be nearly impossible for a backyard keeper to successfully microdose as a supplimental). Nor does it support "all green/vegan/whole grain" feed regimens absent supplimentation with whom it is impossible to reach some of those published dietary minimums without exceeding other targets to potentially harmful excess.

It is better, thinks I, to be confident that most of our birds needs are being met most of the time for the major nutritional requirements than to know nothing about their intake and nearly nothing about their potential dietary selections, then hope they will figure it out for themselves and assume that its even possible for them to do so from the available options...

(US Selenium level map - if its barely present in your soil, it will be barely present in your greens, and then barely present in the things that eat of your greens - like your chickens - absent supplimentation)

 

[lightm]

I believe Perris is a woman. I do respect her very much. Not that it really matters to the conversation.

It is completely obvious to me that feeding only pre-made commercial feed to your chickens is not ideal. It's common sense. Are you going to be happy with the exact same food every day even if it's nutritionally balanced? Not to mention if it's actually balanced. Have you not seen how excited your birds get at the encounter of real food?

We all need real food, whole foods! I do find the advice "stop feeding treats " on many byc posts absurd. I shake my head.

However, I agree with many that one is not able to conclude what perris wants to conclude in the very first post.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

It is completely obvious to me that feeding only pre-made commercial feed to your chickens is not ideal. It's common sense. Are you going to be happy with the exact same food every day even if it's nutritionally balanced? Not to mention if it's actually balanced. Have you not seen how excited your birds get at the encounter of real food?

Then by analogy, we humans (who should be smarter than chickens) should comprise our diet of doritos, Starbuck's "coffee" drinks, hot dogs or hamburgers (for variety), oreos (twinkies if you are tired of oreos), and ice cream (any flavor).

Have you seen how excited humans get at those foods?

Bird's excitement for treats - which should be thought of as enrichment not nutritionally but in environmental variety - is no indication of their dietary value.

"not ideal" does not mean that switching to an even less ideal, "all natural" feed regimen is either superior or practical.

Truly Feral flocks exist in the FL keys, the Everglades, Mexico, parts of Spain, south Asian jungles, and not many other places. Semi feral flocks can be found a bit further from the equator - there's a famous one in Georgia, Hawaii has several, another near Austin TX off the top of my head.

There is good reason that feral flocks aren't self sustaining in New York, or California, Arizona, Ohio, England, etc. Nor would most consider the performance in egg and meat yield acceptable from those feral flocks - which is why humans have been breeding chickens to produce more (and need more support from humans as consequence) for thousands of years.

The vast majority of backyard keepers don't have the climate, the acreage, or the performance desires that Perris does, it is unreasonable to believe they can use Perris' methods and expect similar results.

 

[Rose Quartz]

I do not dispute what you are all saying about the conditions the egg industry adopts (it's at least as bad in the USA as here btw), but you are distracting from the subject of feed by looking at the environment. Yes I know both play a role.

But people keep claiming on BYC that a so-called 'complete balanced layer feed' will provide everything a hen needs, and since that is all a commercial hen gets, her condition demonstrates that it is not complete. It is merely adequate for a short life. It does not provide enough for her to thrive; it is just enough to keep her laying eggs until she is about 1 year and 5 months old, at which point she is thrown away, like the ones in the picture.

I don't give my hens anything extra besides the 'complete feed' i get at any old feed store here, and all the space they could desire. They're overweight and have all their feathers. It has everything to do with the living conditions.

 

[Rose Quartz]

I agree entirely with you about the appalling conditions these poor birds have been kept in and are allowed to go on to (the vast majority of them won't find even these homes and will be slaughtered). And I agree that conditions have an impact. But none of us knows that the bird in the photo was picked on, bullied, or has started moulting at 72 weeks. I can understand people pointing to these possible factors to explain the bird's condition, but it might just be wishful thinking. What we do know is that all that bird has eaten is commercial starter, grower, and then layer feed.

Lol you're basically saying we know all humans have breathed air every day so that must be why there are murderers. It's in the air. There's no proof that it's something else because they all breathed air their whole life.

 

[lightm]

Then by analogy, we humans (who should be smarter than chickens) should comprise our diet of doritos, Starbuck's "coffee" drinks, hot dogs or hamburgers (for variety), oreos (twinkies if you are tired of oreos), and ice cream (any flavor).

Have you seen how excited humans get at those foods?

My point is about diversity/variety of food consumption, about real foods and whole foods. The excitement is about getting out of eating the same form of feed. The analogy for humans would be more like pilots in space eat the same nutritionally balanced packets of food, but are they going to be happy about this for 3 straight years?

"not ideal" does not mean that switching to an even less ideal, "all natural" feed regimen is either superior or practical.

I believe Perris is more for advocating some free ranging and/or some real foods in addition to commercial feed. This is better.

As you stated below, it's hard to do what Perris does, but my understanding is that she is not trying to make people to go to the other extreme (all natural), rather she wants to convince people that adding some natural/real foods to highly processed commercial feed is beneficial.

The vast majority of backyard keepers don't have the climate, the acreage, or the performance desires that Perris does, it is unreasonable to believe they can use Perris' methods and expect similar results.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I believe Perris is more for advocating some free ranging and/or some real foods in addition to commercial feed. This is better.

As you stated below, it's hard to do what Perris does, but my understanding is that she is not trying to make people to go to the other extreme (all natural), rather she wants to convince people that adding some natural/real foods to highly processed commercial feed is beneficial.

Perris is pretty firmly in the exclusively free range camp. Perhaps free range with supplementation of natural foods to credit Perris' position re "treats"...

Definitely not where I'm at, which is commercial feed supplemented by free ranging in a polyculture planted for that purpose. and I'm the first to recommend people not follow the method I use unless they've done the research, have the resources, and are willing to take similar risks.

...and for most BYCers, what I do isn't a practical option even if they had done the research and were willing to take the risks. They don't have the climate (8A), or the acreage (I have 30), with the ability to develop a four season varied pasture. (In fairness, I have one season - summer, several weeks on either side of summer we will call "near summer", and a few days of actual cold each year, punctuated by the occasional hurricane, tornado, or severe thunderstorm - Florida Panhandle/"Wiregrass" Region). That isn't most people's yard or climate. Nor do I have an HOA or a Zoning Regulation forcing me to cage my birds 24/7.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Indeed, but it won't happen. A hen just released from a commercial egg farm is as close as we are going to get to seeing what a 100% commercial feed diet does to a bird, I think.

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread past page three. What I think that photo shows is a commercial hybrid layer bred to be a fast molter that has finished a laying cycle and is molting. I've had some hens that were fast molters look really awful until they grew new feathers.

You might find some of the photos in this molting contest of interest.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/threads/post-your-best-worst-chicken-molt-pictures-2023.1593891/