Topic of the Week - Organic/Natural Chicken Keeping

[Rose_adamaj]

It looks like a high quality processed feed Rose. Do you let your flock free range to forage for bugs, plants, fungi etc. to eat too?

Yes, they free range most of the day.
I have an area that I am also going to plant things for my flock. I haven’t decided exactly what yet. Years ago I grew all kinds of things, I’m a little limited on what I can do now.
I read your article on making your own feed. I am not able to do that, so I tried to find a feed that, while processed, is the best I can get.

 

[TaylorGlade]

We don't do organic. We do insist on non-gmo though. We eat their eggs and follow a mostly non-gmo diet ourselves. We feed a locally sourced feed but I cannot remember the name of the top of my head. Most treats are organic (from our own garden or purchased). Our birds are all less than 1 year old and, as to date - no pests so far.

 

[BDutch]

Proof organic is healthier.

Organically Healthier? A study into biomarkers for possible health effects of organic food, using a chicken model'
The publication (pdf) is in Dutch:
https://www.louisbolk.nl/sites/default/files/publication/pdf/1946.pdf
I translated the first pages with google.

Resume
The aim of the 'Organic Healthier?' project was to search for 'biomarkers' that reveal possible health effects of organic food. For many people, an important reason to buy organic products is the assumption that organically grown products are healthier than conventionally grown products. If health effects can be confirmed, this will motivate consumers to purchase organically grown products and could stimulate the organic products market. However, to date, little research has been done into the possible effects of organic products on health.

More than 100 studies have compared the levels of ingredients in organic and conventional products. Some of these studies show that organically grown produce may differ from conventionally grown produce, for example in higher amounts of dry matter, more antioxidants, higher or equal amounts of vitamin C and minerals, and similar or better quality of protein in organically grown produce compared to organically grown produce. with conventionally grown.

Furthermore, it has been described that fewer contaminants such as pesticide residues, usually less or equal amounts of nitrate and lower or equal amounts of mycotoxins occur in organic products.

Differences in nutrients can form the basis for differences in health effects, as has been shown in recent animal studies (Lauridsen 2007, Finamore 2004, Staiger 1988). To date, representative parameters for research into the health effects of organic products are lacking. Particularly for research into health effects in humans, it is important to have correct biomarkers in order to conduct targeted research.

Biomarkers are indicators for biological processes and should match the question to be investigated. Much research has been conducted into finding biomarkers for specific diseases, but to date little research has been conducted into biomarkers for 'the healthy state' in healthy individuals. The current study looked for biomarkers for research into the health effects of food from different cultivation methods, carried out in healthy chickens, but with a view to future research in humans.

Study design
The present study was designed by an international group of research institutes, as members of the International Association for Research on Organic Food Quality and Health, FQH. This study first looked for the differences in ingredients for chicken feed from different cultivation methods, organic and conventional. Secondly, a feeding experiment with chickens was conducted to find biomarkers that could be indicative of health. The study was conducted by a Dutch consortium of institutes, the Louis Bolk Institute, TNO Quality of Life, RIKILT Institute for Food Safety and Wageningen University - Department of Animal Sciences, and various other institutes in the Netherlands and abroad. Several of these institutes are members of FQH. The project design has been reviewed and approved by the FQH Scientific Advisory Committee, as has the report. The study was financed by the Dutch government (the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Ministry of Economic Affairs), Rabobank and Triodos Bank.

Working hypothesis
Organically grown products have a more favorable effect on health. Research questions 1. 2. Can differences be found in the ingredients for chicken feed, obtained from organic and conventional cultivation systems? Can biomarkers for health effects be identified related to the consumption of organic feed compared to conventional feed? a. Is there a difference in the developing immune system in chickens fed two different feeds? b. Are there differences in the functions of organ systems, in the sense of positive or negative health effects, that are related to the consumption of the different foods?

 

[BDutch]

Continued to the end of ‘Organically Healthier? A study into biomarkers for possible health effects of organic food, using a chicken model'

Results of the feeds and ingredients • Most consistent was the difference in the amount of protein, on average 10% higher in the conventional feed. In wheat, soy and barley, the percentage of amino acids was 10-40% higher in the ingredients used for the production of conventional feed. The digestibility of the amino acids appeared to be better in conventional feed. • The content of phytosterols was higher in soy and barley, in the conventional feed (feed B). • Most organic ingredients (feed A) contained more vitamin K and organic soy contained more isoflavones and vitamin E, especially alpha-tocopherol. The organic peas contain more folic acid. • Vitamins B5 and C were higher in conventional corn, peas and wheat (feed B). • Regarding microbiology, no major differences were observed between organic and conventional feeds, but in the feed of organic origin (A) more fungi and a higher amount of aerobic were found colonies and Enterobacteriaceae. • However, higher levels of LPS endotoxins were measured in the conventional feed (B), especially in the feed that the first generation of animals. • Using complementary methods, such as biophoton measurements, protein ratio and crystallizations, the ingredients, originating from different cultivation systems can be significantly distinguished. The researchers were able to correctly identify the origin as organic or conventional for those products with which they had experience.

Spoiler: Results of the chickens in Dutch

Resultaten van de kippen
Beide generaties dieren en alle drie de kippenlijnen werden onderzocht. Bij de evaluatie van de effecten, werden de resultaten van de dieren uit de controle-lijn (C) van de tweede generatie als het meest informatief beschouwd, omdat deze populatie de natuurlijk voorkomende genetische variatie representeert. De resultaten van deze dieren worden hieronder gepresenteerd.
• Alle dieren uit de tweede generatie werden als volledig gezond beoordeeld. Toch is de eindconclusie dat de twee
groepen op de verschillende voeders duidelijke verschillen laten zien in diverse aspecten van hun fysiologie.
• De dieren op het gangbaar geteelde voer (B) waren significant zwaarder gedurende het gehele experiment. Relatieve groei was significant groter bij gangbaar gevoerde dieren in de eerste 5 weken van hun leven, maar daarna begonnen
de biologisch gevoerde dieren harder te groeien. Na de KLH challenge werd een afname van de groei met 20-30% waargenomen gedurende twee weken in beide groepen. Na deze groeiafname vertoonden de biologische gevoerde dieren een grotere groei (inhaalgroei), dan de gangbaar gevoerde dieren.
• Diverse immunologische parameters toonden een verschil tussen de beide voergroepen. Dit gold zowel voor de humorale als de cellulaire componenten van het immuunsysteem, zowel aangeboren als verworven. De dieren op biologisch geteeld voer toonden hogere LPS-antilichaamtiters in het bloed (C-line, in de H-line omgekeerd); een hogere KLH-geïnduceerde complement-activering (klassieke route), als afspiegeling van de activering van het aangeboren immuunsysteem; hogere vaccinatie-antilichaamtiters (bijvoorbeeld gericht op Gumboro), als blijk van activering van het adaptieve systeem; en een hogere in vitro respons op voedingsextracten in aanwezigheid van ConA van leukocyten uit het perifere bloed. De immunologische resultaten bleken niet volledig consistent, maar werden als geheel geïnterpreteerd als een aanwijzing voor een hoger immunologische reactievermogen bij dieren die voer van biologische herkomst gehad hadden.
• De resultaten van de metabolomics van het bloed toonden een duidelijk verschil tussen de groepen, vooral na de challenge. Een hoger gehalte aan vrije vetzuren en onverzadigde lipopolysacchariden in het bloed van de dieren op voer A, leidde tot de interpretatie van een sterkere reactie op de challenge met een bijbehorend metabolisme, ten teken van een sterkere acute fase reactie bij de dieren op biologisch voer.
• De resultaten van de metabolomics van de lever toonden een toegenomen activiteit van de pentose-fosfaat-route bij de dieren die biologisch gevoerd waren, alsook meer markers voor het levermetabolisme en voedselopname (vitamine E).
• Genomics onderzoek toonde bij de gangbaar gevoerde dieren een lagere expressie van genen aan, die gerelateerd zijn aan de cholesterol-biosynthese. Deze bevindingen werden bevestigd bij een follow-up analyse. De verwachting van een verhoogd plasma cholesterol-gehalte bij deze groep dieren kon echter niet worden bevestigd m.b.v. metabolomics.
• Onderzoek met pathologische anatomie toonde enkele verschillen aan in orgaangewichten, tussen de voer-groepen en tussen de lijnen.

Conclusions
With regard to the feeds, it can be concluded that the analytical differences in the ingredients and feeds were most evident for the content of proteins and amino acids and some micronutrients. Although differences were noted, the feeds were sufficiently nutritious for the growing chickens and, apart from protein, no major differences in effect on the chosen health parameters were expected.

Although all chickens were healthy, obvious differences in measured parameters were noted.

The conventionally fed control line animals showed greater weight gain, while the organically fed animals showed stronger immune reactivity, a stronger response to the challenge, and a slightly stronger recovery from the challenge in terms of catch-up growth.

The results are based on the findings in the control line animals, as these represented natural genetic variation. But the results from the special high and low line chickens in this research model supported the conclusion regarding an enhanced immune-reactive capacity in the animals fed organically grown feed.
As for the nutritional factors that could explain this difference, the higher protein content of the conventional feed should be considered as the factor that could have caused the greater weight gain in this group. The factor(s) in the diet that could cause the physiological differences in response to the challenge are not yet clear. There are indications in the literature that enhanced immune reactivity could be related to the lower body weight of the animals concerned.

The significance of the different physiological responses with regard to short- and long-term health of these animals is still unclear. This should be clarified in a follow-up study.

All things considered, it can be concluded that the study has generated an enormous amount of information and has also produced effects that were not anticipated. An important outcome of this study is that food ingredients from different origins can have a small but clear effect on the immune system and metabolism of healthy animals.

Furthermore, it became clear that the concept of 'health' and the physiology and immunology of health are as yet little explored areas in research.

Identified biomarkers
The biomarkers in this study that are clearly representative of the different effects of the two nutritional regimes are growth and, especially after exposure to a challenge, evaluation of the responsiveness of the immune system, of metabolic responses in blood and liver and genetic regulation in the intestine .

Recommendations
The results of this study are promising. The study showed that small differences in feed, due to different cultivation systems, can impact immune reactivity, metabolism and gene expression in healthy animals. Before these results can be used in humans (the ultimate goal), the results need to be confirmed. This would first have to be done again in chickens, which should be followed for a longer period of time (perhaps until natural death), and which should be examined after a stronger challenge with an infection model or other disease model.
Feed ingredients for such follow-up research should be obtained from best practice farms in the same region. The feed given to animals must be extensively researched in order to be able to relate the effects found in the animals to the ingredients in the feed. In addition, the ingredients should be thoroughly investigated, also in relation to the products that consumers buy, to gain more insight into the representativeness of the products.

In the future, research with mammals is recommended, preferably with pigs, because these animals are most comparable to humans. Human research is the ultimate goal.

Original title of the research report: Organic, More Healthy? A search for biomarkers of potential health effects induced by organic products, investigated in a chicken model. Machteld Huber M.D. overall editor. ISBN 978-90-74021-56-2
2007 Louis Bolk Institute, publication number M22
The report can be ordered via [email protected]

 

[Iluveggers]

For the pesticide residue alone, I’m sticking w organic for my flock, and organic for my family.