Where is NL in the world?
Too much calcium
- Thread starter chickpeatay
- Start date
NL = Netherlands; Holland. Northern Europe on the North Sea
Oh of course! My apologies!
I was thinking "New ...." something, lol.
I'm always blinking at the abbreviations and slang here on Backyard Chickens, coming up with all these weird guesses, until the lightbulb flicks on!Oh of course! My apologies!
After a career in the VA (by the way, I will always read "VA" as Veterans' Administration, not Virginia), I have what I call "acronymophobia" - a fear of abbreviations!
Me too! (re VA)
We had 17 layers and added this year, 6 2.5 month pullets and 15 7 week old, of which we are fairly certain that 3-4 are cockerels. We only have room for 8-9 pullets of the 15. That will be a total of 31/32 layers...expensive to feed them organic. At least the free range all day every day and our land is organic
We have been offering crushed egg shells as a couple customers return the eggs shells every week, which gives us 6 dozen shells a week. I'm certain we will need to purchase OS as the pullets begin to lay.
Well, I hinted, but @Perris didn't take the bait!
Here's his revised article on roll-your-own healthy chicken feed: https://www.backyardchickens.com/articles/wholesome-homemade-feed-2.79307/
Everything I have seen about this research was in Dutch.
https://www.louisbolk.nl/actueel/biologische-voeding-gezonder
The research was only initial bc the large scale farming industry objected further research. The researchers were put under pressure to rewrite the conclusions. It was a scandal when reporters (next post) published what happened. :
I translated part of the explaination
Chicken experiment
The core of the research was to see whether chickens that ate organically grown feed were healthier than their counterparts that were fed regular feed. This research took place between 2005 and 2007 in collaboration with WUR, TNO and RIKILT and was innovative because such a study had never been conducted before. The research was conducted blindly, which meant that the researchers did not know which chicken was fed which feed. The chickens that the researchers qualified as 'healthier' turned out to have been fed organic feed. This research indicated that the immune system of organically fed chickens recovers faster than that of chickens that were fed regular feed after they had been infected with a virus. This could have been a reason for further research. Huber explains in detail in the broadcast why this did not happen.
Positive Health
Cees Veerman, former Minister of Agriculture, explains in the broadcast that there were multiple interests at play at the time, which is why he now recommends taking the signals from the research seriously and conducting more in-depth research into them.
The Louis Bolk Institute often seeks innovation. This chicken experiment was sound, innovative research and the technical research possibilities have improved considerably more than 10 years later. As for the research into the health effects of organic feed or broader health effects of food: this remains an underexposed subject and the Louis Bok Institute would like to continue this.
The core of the research was to see whether chickens that ate organically grown feed were healthier than their counterparts that were fed regular feed. This research took place between 2005 and 2007 in collaboration with WUR, TNO and RIKILT and was innovative because such a study had never been conducted before. The research was conducted blindly, which meant that the researchers did not know which chicken was fed which feed. The chickens that the researchers qualified as 'healthier' turned out to have been fed organic feed. This research indicated that the immune system of organically fed chickens recovers faster than that of chickens that were fed regular feed after they had been infected with a virus. This could have been a reason for further research. Huber explains in detail in the broadcast why this did not happen.
Positive Health
Cees Veerman, former Minister of Agriculture, explains in the broadcast that there were multiple interests at play at the time, which is why he now recommends taking the signals from the research seriously and conducting more in-depth research into them.
The Louis Bolk Institute often seeks innovation. This chicken experiment was sound, innovative research and the technical research possibilities have improved considerably more than 10 years later. As for the research into the health effects of organic feed or broader health effects of food: this remains an underexposed subject and the Louis Bok Institute would like to continue this.
(Still looking but it will be too much to post)
Last edited:
5 years after the experiment a TV research team opened a ‘black book’ about how the ‘chicken experiment’ was compromised.
In the video they show what happened https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/het-kippenexperiment
Unfortunately it is in Dutch and has no subtitles.
Background
The exhausted soil 1: The chicken experiment
07-12-2021
•
reading time 1 minute
•
viewed 19385 times
•
Do you want to eat vegetables that are not sprayed, do you want to drink milk from cows that have been able to graze in the meadow, do you fancy honest chicken? Then you buy organic products. Moreover, organic farming is also good for the environment, because it is better for the soil and biodiversity. Many consumers also choose organic because they think it is healthier. But there has been a lot of discussion about this for years.
In 2005, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned a group of leading scientists to investigate this thoroughly: is organic food healthier or not? They set up a large-scale experiment with chickens. Half of the chickens are fed organic feed, the other animals are fed 'conventionally' grown feed. Zembla discovers that as the presentation of the report approaches, a conflict arises about the results of the research, in which the top of research institute TNO and Wageningen University play a remarkable role.
The presentation must be different, conclusions must be adjusted. The result: organically fed chicken is not healthier. What happened here? For the first time, key players tell what happened behind the scenes. In the first part of the series 'The exhausted soil', Zembla investigates the chicken experiment.
The exhausted soil 1 - The chicken experiment: Thursday 15 July, 11:00 PM NPO2
The exhausted soil 2 - The Farmers' Loan Bank's excuse: Thursday 22 July
The exhausted soil 3 - Big money: Thursday 29 July
Last edited:
I've read the article. Its paper thin on what the research supposedly showed, with no link to the research paper. I'll post some links later that show a rather "mixed bag" in the NL on Organics
@stormc
https://edepot.wur.nl/534188
Is organic food healthier? Possibly, but according to Zembla, that conclusion from a study by WUR and others should not have been drawn. Is that correct? We check it in the Facts section.
The report ‘The Chicken Experiment’, which
BNN/Vara broadcast on 22 October, focuses on the
2007 study ‘Organically Healthier?’. A consortium of institutes
(WUR, TNO, Rikilt, Louis Bolk Institute)
attempted to find indications of possible health effects of organic food. The study with chickens, as a stand-in for
humans, tested the effects of conventional versus organic feed.
the immune system of the ‘organic chickens’ responded more strongly. Their catch-up growth was also faster. The report concludes that
no health effects can be linked to these findings. The
scientific evidence is too weak for that. Huber agrees with this, she says when asked. The issue
According to Zembla, the scientific conclusions of the chicken study
were adjusted under pressure. That is a serious accusation.
Research leader Machteld Huber (at the time
Louis Bolk Institute) tells Zembla that
when presenting the final report to
then Minister of Agriculture Gerda Verburg, she had to say that no conclusions could be drawn from the results. That was preceded by heavy pressure from TNO, she uses the word blackmail.
'In my opinion, the study shows that there are indications that
organic is healthier and that
further research is therefore
desirable' the effects of organic food on humans.
In my opinion, the study shows that there are indications that organic is healthier and that further research is therefore desirable. That is what I wanted to say during the presentation. But TNO and WUR found that conclusion too premature. I was not allowed to draw a conclusion in which the word health appears.’
According to Huber, that conclusion meant that follow-up research was off the table. But that is too simplistic, as is evident from a response from the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality to the Zembla broadcast. Due to the disagreement about the
interpretation of the study, then-Minister Verburg asked the Health Council for
advice. The council advised that the follow-up research proposed by the researchers was ‘less desirable’. Zembla did not mention this fact. The minister then pulled the plug. ‘Painful, and actually scandalous, that it turned out this way’, says Huber about the
course of events. ‘We are now 13 years further on. We would have been so much further along if follow-up research had been done.’
The disagreement starts with the interpretation of the differences found. ‘The question is whether catch-up growth is a health phenomenon or not’, Huber explains. She is a doctor. ‘In the medical world, it is. The research was not intended to develop better chicken feed, we were looking for indications of
Resource 05•11•2020 PAGE 8
The facts
The chicken study was conducted double-blind. It was only when the report was almost finished that it became known (to the researchers) which chickens had been given which feed. The
chickens on conventional feed grew slightly better.
After a disruption of the immune system
The verdict
The conclusions of the chicken study have not been adjusted, as Zembla claims. The results do give reason for further study.
That did not happen on the advice of the Health Council. Incidentally, that follow-up research may still take place, LNV reports
in response to the Zembla report
Tis is a translation of a Fact check article (pdf) of the university (WUR) that collaborated in the chicken experiment/research
https://edepot.wur.nl/534188
Is organic food healthier? Possibly, but according to Zembla, that conclusion from a study by WUR and others should not have been drawn. Is that correct? We check it in the Facts section.
The report ‘The Chicken Experiment’, which
BNN/Vara broadcast on 22 October, focuses on the
2007 study ‘Organically Healthier?’. A consortium of institutes
(WUR, TNO, Rikilt, Louis Bolk Institute)
attempted to find indications of possible health effects of organic food. The study with chickens, as a stand-in for
humans, tested the effects of conventional versus organic feed.
the immune system of the ‘organic chickens’ responded more strongly. Their catch-up growth was also faster. The report concludes that
no health effects can be linked to these findings. The
scientific evidence is too weak for that. Huber agrees with this, she says when asked. The issue
According to Zembla, the scientific conclusions of the chicken study
were adjusted under pressure. That is a serious accusation.
Research leader Machteld Huber (at the time
Louis Bolk Institute) tells Zembla that
when presenting the final report to
then Minister of Agriculture Gerda Verburg, she had to say that no conclusions could be drawn from the results. That was preceded by heavy pressure from TNO, she uses the word blackmail.
'In my opinion, the study shows that there are indications that
organic is healthier and that
further research is therefore
desirable' the effects of organic food on humans.
In my opinion, the study shows that there are indications that organic is healthier and that further research is therefore desirable. That is what I wanted to say during the presentation. But TNO and WUR found that conclusion too premature. I was not allowed to draw a conclusion in which the word health appears.’
According to Huber, that conclusion meant that follow-up research was off the table. But that is too simplistic, as is evident from a response from the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality to the Zembla broadcast. Due to the disagreement about the
interpretation of the study, then-Minister Verburg asked the Health Council for
advice. The council advised that the follow-up research proposed by the researchers was ‘less desirable’. Zembla did not mention this fact. The minister then pulled the plug. ‘Painful, and actually scandalous, that it turned out this way’, says Huber about the
course of events. ‘We are now 13 years further on. We would have been so much further along if follow-up research had been done.’
The disagreement starts with the interpretation of the differences found. ‘The question is whether catch-up growth is a health phenomenon or not’, Huber explains. She is a doctor. ‘In the medical world, it is. The research was not intended to develop better chicken feed, we were looking for indications of
Resource 05•11•2020 PAGE 8
The facts
The chicken study was conducted double-blind. It was only when the report was almost finished that it became known (to the researchers) which chickens had been given which feed. The
chickens on conventional feed grew slightly better.
After a disruption of the immune system
The verdict
The conclusions of the chicken study have not been adjusted, as Zembla claims. The results do give reason for further study.
That did not happen on the advice of the Health Council. Incidentally, that follow-up research may still take place, LNV reports
in response to the Zembla report
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Open Contest Waterfowl & Water Photo Contest
- Started by Kiki
- Replies: 77
-
Ended Official BYC Poultry Caption Contest 05-23-25 Pic by AidKD- Started by TwoCrows
- Replies: 71
-
The Moonshiner's Bootleg "I'll Make You Famous" Hatch-A-Long- Started by The Moonshiner
- Replies: 69
-
Calcium bolus please HELP
- Started by Joyce_Turner
- Replies: 59
-
