I went to Focus on Farming again this year, and enjoyed it, as usual. Sometimes there is a session where no class jumps out at me as a “must hear,” so I just randomly pick something, and end up finding it really interesting. The first one of these was a class called Locally Sourced Grains for Poultry Production. It was taught by James Hermes, Extension Poultry specialist at OSU. In fact, he’s the only Extension Poultry Specialist in the West; and the last one hired since the ‘80s.
He explained that the poultry industry is already pretty advanced, so it’s not like universities are getting tons of funding to do research projects on improving poultry production. The big producers like Draper Valley and Foster Farms have their production models, they are happy with them, and they don’t require a lot of innovation. Additionally, their industry is very closed, so there is no opportunity for small producers to enter or compete with either chicken or egg producers in the mainstream.
So that leaves niche markets, both for small producers to tap, as well as for Dr. Hermes to research! One of the areas where we can out-compete the “big guys” is in offering poultry products from alternatively fed and cared-for animals. Consumers are getting more sensitive to issues with corn, soy, and GMO crops; as well as welfare issues and the carbon footprint of shipping feed across the United States. Many are willing to pay extra for chicken and eggs where birds have been raised in a non-mainstream way. This is not an option for the big guys: their whole model is dependent upon confinement and shipped GMO corn/soy blends.
So, Dr. Hermes has been doing some studies to assess the viability of alternate feed sources for chickens, and things we can source locally. Any discoveries he makes may help local producers increase the niche market.
First, he wanted to point out that growth hormones are never used on chickens, and never have been. Consumers are increasingly sensitive to this subject, so many poultry producers write “no hormones” on labels. But it turns out, growth hormones don’t work on chickens like they do on other animals: chickens lack the additional hormone receptors to required take advantage of them. So it’s a moot point.
His second strong point is that chickens are monogastrics, like pigs and humans. None of us can be “grass fed” in terms of living largely off of grass. We lack the type of stomach required to ferment forage and convert it into energy. We can derive some vitamins and minerals from greens; but we require higher protein energy sources to survive and thrive. So, chickens need grain as the bulk of their diet, plain and simple.
And, their digestive system and nutritional needs are actually somewhat fragile and particular. You wouldn’t think it when considering what chickens are willing to eat: I’ve seen mine eat cooked chicken, recently expired chicken peers, bacon, dead mice, and Styrofoam!
The first limitation is that they need adequate methionine, a sulfur-containing amino acid. It turns out that the only feasible way of getting this into feed is via chemical sources. So, thus far, the organic standard has been allowing a deviation here for poultry feed. But this is changing, as of 2012, now feed can only contain 2 lbs/ton of synthetic methionine, which is half of what chickens require. Research is being done to find alternate and natural sources, and none have yet been identified. So right now, organic chicken feed is going to be suspect for providing adequate nutrition.
The standard chicken diet for many decades has been 2/3 corn, 1/3 soy. They grow well on it, produce high volumes of good quality eggs on it, and develop little diarrhea or other digestive upsets from it. (And my thought: one might conclude that we’ve been feeding this for so long, we’ve bred a population of chickens which is now optimized to thrive on corn/soy.)
Cottonseed is a good, high protein feed; but is not a viable option for laying hens, because it causes egg yolks green and egg whites pink!
Canola is not an option for brown egg layers, they have a genetic mutation that comes from the Rhode Island Red strain which reacts with Canola to create fishy-tasting eggs. Flax above 5% in the diet, and fish meal in the same quantity, also causes a fishy taste in eggs.
Wheat and barley are not easily digested by chickens without added enzymes to help them break it down. Chickens, of course, are not mammals, so are not designed to digest milk, they lack lactase. So, though they enjoy consuming milk and will grow on it, it gives them diarrhea and a presumed gut ache, limiting performance.
Oats have too much fiber, which does not sit well with the bird digestive tract- chickens get diarrhea from too many carbs. Dried beans also don’t fly (though Dr. Hermes said he intends to do more study with cooked beans). Camelina is ok, up to 10% in the diet.
Not enough research has yet been done on triticale, millet, or other more exotic grains (Dr. Hermes requests that if people know of local sources of these grains, he’s interested in procuring them for study).
Dr. Hermes did find that field peas, up to 30% in the diet, were ok, and the chickens performed almost as well as on the standard diet. Garbanzo beans and lentils also did pretty well in his trials.
But thus far, no big recommendations that can challenge the old standard of corn/soy blends. Scratch and Peck is pulling it off: creating a corn- and soy-free chicken feed. But at considerable cost (nearly double); which is probably not sustainable for anybody who owns more than a dozen chickens or is trying to maintain a profit margin. So, interesting conclusions, but nothing solid yet for producers to work with in meeting this consumer demand.
November 19, 2012 at 12:06 am
Fish & meat scraps should be considered as a potential source of methionine. Sesame seed holds promise as a soy alternative. Sprouting seeds such as mustard, alfalfa, & legumes also holds promise & seems to make them more digestible. They (University researchers) should also explore the cultivation of mealworms, maggots, and spiders (seriously). We grew Japanese millet and our chickens loved it, same with amaranth.
November 19, 2012 at 5:25 am
CF, chickens and sulphur, eh? Reminds me of the first sci-fi book I read as a kid: The Wonderful Voyage to the Mushroom Planet,” the plotline of which involved the scientist Tyco Bass and the construction of a space ship designed to fly to the mushroom planet whose inhabitants were ill from some mysterious disease. Turns out they were suffering from a sulphur deficiency. The homemade rocket ship blasted off for the MR planet carrying a pet hen. The sulphur in her eggs turned the MR inhabitants green again and healthy.
The pet rooster (Fred Rogers) we had was death on crane fly larvae as well as having a personal vendetta against the family who adopted him. TMJ
November 19, 2012 at 7:21 am
Most of the alternative chicken feeds that I’ve looked at have fish meal as the primary protein boost. That is contrary to the “all vegetarian” diet touted by most chicken/egg producers now, as being “natural”
as you point out, chickens are not vegetarians by choice. There is literally nothing they treasure more than a tasty bug or wriggling worm.
The issue with feeding meat to animals that it’s illegal unless the meat is cooked sterile — I get this question all the time from people on why they cannot legally feed meat to pigs. They can, it’s just cost-prohibitive for the most part. Costs too much to cook it.
One thing that old-time poultry farmers used to do is to hang the carcasses of slaughtered animals in their chicken houses. Maggots would drop off the carcasses to be eaten by the chickens. I’m sure modern consumers would be horrified by that these days, but it’s an effective way to produce a high-protein supplment using only waste products as input.
November 19, 2012 at 6:12 pm
>It turns out that the only feasible way of getting this into feed is via chemical sources.
Oops, someone forgot to tell that to our chickens … 🙂
Most of the things extension people say only make sense if you add “… in a big confinement operation” or something like that at the end of each sentence. If you look at who paid for the most of extension research done in the last 40 or 50 years, the results trumpeting corn and chemicals like a silver bullet for everything should not surprise at all. If people who make tools for manually drawn blueprints were doing the research about computers, do you think we’d have CAD software now? 😉
And it’s important to remember that driving down the price was always their number 1 priority, damn the torpedoes … errr, taste, nutritional value, health and environmental effects, etc. This is probably not applicable to your operation – I mean, sure, we all want to bring the price down but not by running over everything else, which is what they do. Not to mention that even if you try very hard, just by the nature of the laws we have now, you could never be as efficient at externalization of costs as the big boys, so once again – a big chunk of this research is not applicable.
As for making profit – Yes, organic feed is twice as expensive but we can sell organic eggs @ $5 vs. $2.50 for conventional and there is huge untapped market … the limit for us is the organic feed availability, not luck of customers. And that’s even before getting into all that “if that kills bugs dead may be it’s not so good for us too” and “the planet we’re leaving to our children” stuff.
I remember once I was sitting on some extension workshop about profitability taking notes on how many pounds of fertilizer I need per acre of pasture when it dawned on me – this is probably exactly the same advice from the same people who told farmers how to farm for the last 40 years and very few of my neighbors who’s been doing it all their lives make any real profit, most of them just do it for taxes or because their Dad used to do it. And the guys who do make profit are way ahead of the extension – most of them are doing some version of holistic farm management with bits from Salatin sprinkled here and there. I excused myself and left. We were in the black 4 out the last 5 years and unless there is a major catastrophe, will be laughing all the way to the bank this year too. Our fertilizer cost? Zero. Sheep’s pee will do just fine if you know what you’re doing. Sheep (and chickens) were doing great for thousands of years without any help from the chemical companies. Why would they suddenly need it now? Typical solution in search of the problem, it seems like.
There are extension people who actually keep up with real (aka independent) research but not that may. If you have a chance to visit any NCAT events check it out (also their brochures on ATTRA website are great). They do say silly things every once in while but I’ll take their advice over regurgitated corn and chemical propaganda that the extension pushes every time.
Just saying 🙂 Of course, your experience may be different. I just thought this post was a huge contrast to some of your other posts, where you experiment and analyze and double-check everything rather than believing someone who probably doesn’t even have a commercial chicken operation himself 🙂
BTW, while I don’t comment that often I do read (and enjoy) all of your posts – your engineer’s approach to farming is definitely something very refreshing and often useful as well. Please keep it up 🙂
November 20, 2012 at 3:56 am
Rebecca- I think he is trying to explore choices which are reasonably available here on the west coast. He did mention millet, but hasn’t found a source for it yet. I wonder about meat scraps- our state law requires that if you feed them to pigs, you must first obtain a “license to feed garbage” (which sort of ruins the positive image of recycling… 😉 ) and you have to prove you can super-cook it to kill pathogens. I would imagine the rules are the same for chickens, tho as far as I can tell, the law doesn’t specify.
There was another presenter at the conference who talked about feeding sprouted grains to big livestock- I’ll try to write about that, it was interesting!
November 20, 2012 at 3:57 am
Love the name, TMJ. Indeed, they do love a wiggling grub, don’t they?
November 20, 2012 at 3:59 am
Bruce, I always wonder about that silly “vegetarian fed” claim to– is this something consumers are asking for, or just something large scale producers choose to put on the label, for lack of anything better to claim??
November 20, 2012 at 4:19 am
Leon, point taken, though I think this guy is trying to reach beyond the standard knowledge of the last 50 years, he just hasn’t found any good answers yet. And for high productivity and low cost, it *is* hard to compete with corn and soy- there is a reason they’ve become the de facto standard.
He did basically say that “big chicken” isn’t paying him to do research anymore, so he’s pursuing these new avenues that support small, niche farming. I think he’s just trying to be practical, and limit the search to things we can actually get in our area which aren’t prohibitively expensive. He seemed sincere when he said he’s interested in doing more studies, if people can point him to local crops to test. His tests are simple: just an 8 week trial on broilers, which he gets for free, so the only cost is procuring the feed- no big research dollars needed. Probably a great project for students to oversee.
OSU is really aggressive at exploring alternate feed research, they’ve done some really interesting work with sheep and brassicas as well. I think WSU and OSU are doing some really great work overall, exploring a lot of interesting areas of agriculture, and looking beyond today’s model to what tomorrow may hold.
It’s interesting that you are able to support a double-the-price model with eggs in your area. Granted I have a small sample size (only a few customers!), but since I charge $4/dozen already, people aren’t wiling to go to $8 for non-corn, non-soy eggs. And I don’t blame them, that is a lot of money to pay for eggs! Interestingly, I don’t have people demanding organic as much as non-soy, and some non-corn. Some people ask about organic, and when I tell them what I do, they are OK with that. I think the word “organic” is losing some of its punch, as people go beyond the term to get at what they’re really after- natural, low volume, local, humane, etc.
November 21, 2012 at 11:06 am
Corn and soy are great plants, sure. But I suspect what really gives them their super powers are subsidies, cheap oil and ability to make your problems someone else’s headache (aka externalization of costs). I think (afraid?) we’ll have a chance to test this theory soon.
He sounds like a one of the good guys (we have a few too) but imagine how difficult it must be to look anew at what what you’ve believed in (and preached) for 40 years or so … I wonder if the extension will be able to reinvent itself or become irrelevant … By the way, at least as far as the sheep go your U sounds dreamy – if you ask our guys anything about sheep, their reply will be – Why don’t you raise cattle? 🙂 OK, they’re getting better now but still …
Yeah, $8/dz would be impossible, I guess, so our approach was to initially lower our inputs both in materials and time by using a design that basically allows chickens to do what they do best and let nature to supply things, so we don’t have to … sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t 🙂
People are absolutely confused about labels and marketing claims and I really can’t understand why – with so many good guides available nowadays … but they would rather spend three hours reading Facebook where some loony tells then that organic means vegetarian but it’s bad for you because the government poisoned your drinking water then spend 15 minutes to read the real thing … May be the whole system should be simplified to the point where it’s either a picture of skull and bones or smiling sun, you know like in kindergarten 🙂
November 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm
But, in these trials, he was only looking at performance on the grains, not cost. Corn and soy still win as far as growing chickens the fastest on a free-choice basis. Their subsidized cost just makes them all the more attractive, and makes it hard to compete if you opt for anything else.
We are far from the grain belt here, so I think all grain feed is more expensive for us than elsewhere in the country. Grain-fed agriculture had pretty much gone away in our state, before the localvore movement appeared; and now that’s the only thing that supports it, because it is expensive.
I think it’s probably also likely that the chickens we have now have been inadvertently bred for optimum performance on corn and soy; just by virtue of having fed it for so long. The best performers on this diet have been selected for many, many generations. I think it’s possible that if we want a chicken that does better on barley than on soy, for example, we may have to breed one.
November 22, 2012 at 1:08 am
CF, I know your acreage is rotated as pasture for the sheep, but have you considered growing your own corn for feed–at least for the corn portion of the diet? I’m sure you could find some non-gmo seed: there are seed catalogs that specialize in heirloom, not tweaked seed. I believe there is a grist mill or two in the area, so you wouldn’t have to “combine” your crop. I suppose growing your own “hen scratch” is land and labor intensive, but the idea of small-farm self-sufficiency seems appealing. And corn grows well here in the PNW. I have no idea of the size of the flock you have to feed. Just a thought…. Maybe I’ve read too much Emerson.TMJ
November 22, 2012 at 4:18 am
TMJ, it’s definitely a possibility and many farmers do grow their own corn for feed. It still requires equipment to harvest it and get it dried for storage; or alternatively you can green chop it and put it in the white baleage bags. Thus far, I don’t have the bandwidth to do my own tillage, planting and harvesting, nor to manage someone who can do it for me. If I were doing it full time, I would try to do more of this myself.
We have looked for someone to cut hay for us before, and it’s hard to find someone reliable, who will prioritize being here at the ideal time for harvesting, especially if you don’t have a large crop. I drove pea harvesters when I was in college, and I remember then, farmers getting irate when the parent company would be late getting a field cut when juggling too many fields that ripened at once. This would render peas with low sugar content, which lowers the price. So I think whenever you have somebody else harvest for you, you’re at their mercy, and you are not their only customer or priority…
November 22, 2012 at 3:06 pm
> I think it’s probably also likely that the chickens we have now have been inadvertently bred for optimum performance on corn and soy; just by virtue of having fed it for so long.
This is exactly what I meant – because corn and soy fit so well in the industrial agriculture model driven by subsidies and cheap oil they a) got a lot of attention, research, breeding, etc. and b) development of everything else from equipment to chickens was heavily affected by whether it works well with corn. It’s a co-evolution – we have corn that’s much better for chickens than it was 50 years ago and we have chickens that are doing much better on corn than their grand-grand- … – parents. It worth noting, of course, that our super-plant are also extremely high-input ones, so the system is pretty fragile. I guess any very efficient system is by definition …
How much is the bag of corn (#50) in your parts? Around $13 here.
November 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Leon, I think so; and it seems like the world goes through major shifts every once in a while, as something in the system changes. I think the system we have now was built on the assumption of cheap labor and cheap corn; so now that neither is very cheap anymore, we’ll have to reinvent ourselves. I really see the labor part in sheep- the traditional lambing model is very labor intensive and I don’t think it’s sustainable these days, we have to produce sheep that can do it themselves most of the time. There are plenty of extension agents and sheep researchers still repeating the same 100 year old lore about jugging ewes, but also quite few who are forward-thinking and not saying that any more.
A 50 lb bag of grain here is over $15/bag retail (of course less if you buy more than a ton at a time). A couple of years ago, it was about $11/bag, so it has really gone up.
December 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Hello, I came across your blog while researching for a product my company just produced. It’s an all-natural feed additive for poultry. Not sure if it’s something you’ve incorporated into your chickens’ diets, or if it’s something you would consider, but I’d be happy so send out a free sample. It’s called Gro2Max (gro2max.com), though despite the title, it doesn’t turn chickens into big, hulking creatures, it just improves their nutrient intake & immune systems, and helps to protect the digestive system from pathogens. I’m hoping to get it into use by people who appreciate natural products for their chickens. Hope I’m not being too spammy! Feel free to email for a packet.
Cheers
Greg
December 12, 2012 at 3:06 am
Haha, Greg, just because you apologized for being a little spammy, I’ll allow it! 😉 I’m fascinated by your product, because your web page prominently displays a “large scale indoor agriculture” photo, but it would seem your most likely target audience is possibly more the new-age kind of people who either have small farms, or are doing something different, like pastured poultry? I like the idea of what you’re doing, it seems like a viable replacement for the practice of antibiotics in feed, with something that is a little more natural and sustainable. Cool!
December 12, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Yes, I know, re: the web photo. I didn’t choose that one. I’m going to look for something more suitable. I think the idea was to appeal, in part, to farms that currently function in more of a factory-style, non-sustainable way, to target them with the idea of changing their practices from use or over-use of antibiotics to the adoption of a natural preventative approach, as with probiotics. There is a cost-saving element to the product (chickens use less feed with the probiotic additive and add weight more weight naturally) that would potentially appeal to purely bottom-line oriented farms. But, yes, the small farm operators who are already more forward-thinking and accustomed to the holistic approach are certainly going to be more receptive initially, and we’re hoping that segment will like the product for its natural attributes–at least primarily. I’ll send out a packet so you can give it a try!