- Sep 23, 2014
- 2,176
- 348
- 208
Now..... if it actually does what he claims and increases "Fertility" wouldn't it have to have something "unmentionable" in it?
I'm guessing that formulation costs extra.
But if what it really turns out to be is a hatching egg sanitizer... which is what his description does actually sound like as to how it works... then the eggs might seem as if more of them were fertile, because some of the early die off/failure to develop may well be due to the bacteria counts. It's an inexact use of language
Did you look at the bacteria counts in those papers? Those articles are from universities. The first one is from the extension service at North Carolina State University, the other one is from UC Davis.
The NCSU pub said that after 14 days of storage, hatching egg bacteria counts went from 154,000+ bacteria per egg to over 310,000 bacteria per egg. They documented that when eggs were properly sanitized as soon as possible after collection, the number of bacteria colonies went from 121,000+ per egg (on the control eggs), down to 331 colonies per egg. That reduction in bacteria apparently greatly reduces microbial infiltration of the egg.
I bet the bacteria are more of a problem in incubator eggs than in hen-hatched eggs, because the darned incubator creates a certain amount of condensation, which helps the bacteria penetrate the shell. Sweating is bad.
The UC Davis article has very clear, nicely written instructions and a variety of options.
Given that I had a several quitters last summer, and no eggs that made it to pipping, I'm thinking I will look into this further.