Ask FDA to approve implants for chickens to prevent egg production

Pics
Out of curiosity, can you provide any research on why you stated that nature intended them to lay only 15 eggs a year? I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'm simply stating facts based from a biological and historical viewpoint. If that were true, Poultry would not exist. Poultry are prey animals and prey animals breed rapidly to make up for the fact that they're actively being hunted by bigger animals. Very, very few prey animals live to what would be considered middle age.That's why rabbits and mice breed so quick. I've read books from 200, 400, and more years ago and they mention the productivity of hens being about 2-3 times a week. Eggs are also culturally significant and the only regular source of protein most cultures had, I have had Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Asian and European recipes from thousands of years ago that feature eggs since eggs were in abundance. How far back do we have to go to get the mythical 15 eggs a year "the way nature intended"?
That's also a lousy qualifier for this particular argument.
If we did things "the way nature intended", that would mean violent, painful and slow death
would be apart of every day life.
Watch a show on lions, you'll notice that more often than not, when they finally get a zebra to the ground and start eating, he's still alive and will be until the blood loss or shock do their part.
The circle of life and all that, for something to live, something must die.
'As nature intended' would be letting disease, complication and injury to go untreated in our families and animals.
Nobody would have secure coops or runs and nature would run it's course on our flocks and and worrying about reproduction issues or life spans would be moot.
'Mother Nature' shouldn't be pictured as a beautiful, goddess covered in flowers, but as a wizened crone, dressed in skins and bones and dripping blood.
You treat your hens the way you see fit, I know you'll give them the best care, but you might want to change your argument to you simply don't want them to lay eggs to avoid reproduction issues, since the others are unfounded.
I had two 9 year old Hens, one still layed once or twice a week, the other never layed a day in her life, both were healthy (except for the shrunken comb on 'Slacky McHennerson') and probably would have lived much longer except for the coyotes. Reproduction issues can cut a hens life short but most are treatable and not laying doesn't mean a longer life.
 
Out of curiosity, can you provide any research on why you stated that nature intended them to lay only 15 eggs a year? I'm not trying to start any arguments, I'm simply stating facts based from a biological and historical viewpoint. If that were true, Poultry would not exist. Poultry are prey animals and prey animals breed rapidly to make up for the fact that they're actively being hunted by bigger animals.
Native galliforms in our region (turkeys, grouse, bobwhite, etc.) all lay 6-18 eggs a year, and they persevere 🤷‍♀️ In fact, that 6-18 eggs/year seems to pop up with a lot of bird types. Jungle fowl, many kinds of ducks, ostriches in the wild, and so on. So maybe that's the source there.

This thread's very thought-provoking. Based on my experience, which was profound to me, I've signed the petition and appreciate the discussion, @arosenzweig.
 
I believe wild Jungle fowl lay between 15 and 30 eggs a year.
All the domesticated breeds that I can think of lay more than 50.
It seems unlikely to me that breeding domesticated hens that to lay the same quantity of eggs as wild jungle fowl is unrealistic.
Breeding hens to lay less eggs is a going proposition if one is prepared to put a couple of decades of work into it to achieve significant and repeatable results.
The large increases in the egg laying abilities of the common sex linked battery hens is achieved mainly by adjusting the speed of ovulation.
Simply put you can have say 100 eggs a year for ten years, or 300+ eggs for three years and the remaining and the remaining 100 eggs in year four.
I would be interested to see some evidence from studies that confirmed that if a hen was given the drug mentioned by the OP at the point of lay for the rest of her life she would live a substantially longer life.

As mentioned in the thread we neuter other creatures and don't have concerns about preventing a natural function so I can see no logical reasons why a hen should be any different. While there is a lot of evidence that non productive males and females undergo physical changes, putting on excess weight for example and this may have knock on effects for their live expectancy, many such creatures live to a ripe old age.

I don't see why this drug shouldn't be available and I know in many places it is and has extended life.

Get a different breed if that's how the OP feels isn't really a solution given the OP already has a flock and has dealt with early reproductive disorders.
 
Get a different breed if that's how the OP feels isn't really a solution given the OP already has a flock and has dealt with early reproductive disorders.

I agree that for OP's current chickens, having the implant available would be good.

But getting a different breed (that already exists) is closer to a solution than waiting for someone to breed different chickens, and THEN getting that new kind of chicken.
 
I like low productive breeds, so that's what I keep. I added some Red JungleFowl to my collection recently.
Screenshot_20220921-195616_Chrome.jpg

I have a high Production hybrid, an AustraWhite I'm gonna cull next spring, so she doesn't come down with a reproductive issue which are common with them, & other Production hybrids.

My two oldest hens died between 7-8 yrs old, maybe alittle older. Both were Mille Fleur D'uccles.

Personally I'm not up for the implant idea.
I agree with NatJ on the low Production breeds.
 
OK
I think I may be on track now.

You're hopeful that someday in the future, hens will be bred to lay less and less and go back to the way nature intended which is to lay roughly 10 eggs per year.

But in the meantime, the implant is needed to control (prevent) production, so they can live longer. So breed wouldn't have any bearing on this line of thinking. You would be able to control (prevent) ovulation in production breeds and/or "heritage", so theoretically you could get to that 10 egg a year goal just by using implants, so breed shouldn't even be considered.

Implants last 3-4 months, but let's go 4 months. So, 3 times a year, you would have the implant to prevent ovulation/egg production completely.
So if your goal is to have 10 eggs a year, then adjust implants accordingly to have her come out of lay, then repeat the implant to stop production again.

Then there's so many questions and decisions.
Do you let a pullet come into lay naturally for the first 10 eggs of her life, once that's done, then start implants until the next year rolls around. Or do you start implants before she comes into lay, wait until nearing a year, stop the implant, get 10 eggs and restart implants.

Or you could just start implants before lay and continue on indefinitely, so she never lays eggs, just continue the implants 3 times a year for the rest of her life.

Interesting.
Hope you find some answers.
 
I wish we had the vets some of you all have! The only avian vet we've been able to see is a professor at a nearby veterinary school who has co-authored a textbook on chicken medicine/surgery.

She said she'd lose her veterinary license if she administered deslorelin to our 2-year-old Brahma with suspected salpingitis. She said no vets are allowed to give deslorelin to chickens and was very stern about it.

I had our Miss Peep euthanized rather than put her through surgery (only to relapse because she couldn't have the hormones to stop her from producing eggs).

Every one of our birds is a companion (unfortunately, for my heart) and while I acknowledge deslorelin may not be the perfect solution for that condition, I would've appreciated the option be available to her.

My eyes and ears are open for vets who interpret the rules differently. FDA rules are often created to address unhealthy practices in the commercial food industry to keep our food supply healthy (e.g., by reducing hormones and antibiotics in meat). But while my chickens do produce a small amount of food, our chickens' treatment, production, and living quarters are completely different than a commercial farm.

It shouldn't be too much to ask that the FDA offer separate guidance for small-scale/companion chicken owners.
Miss Peep sounds precious. I feel for you and her. We can't really blame the doctors, it's the way the law is. I had the same experience. I realize there are some doctors who will do the right thing anyway, which is wonderful, but it shouldn't have to be so hard. Thank you for signing and giving a voice to the voiceless.
 
I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who has contributed to all sides of this topic. This has been a healthy discussion with many viewpoints brought to the table. For a while this lay stagnant and I wondered if anyone would read but now it's got us all thinking and discussing, which is nice.

Every day we have with our feathered friends is a blessing. They are earth angels (even come with wings!) One of the things I love about roosters is the lack of eggs, that's probably why they also have such amazing personalities because they are not hungry all the time.

Let's also take a moment to consider Matilda, the magician's apprentice who lived to be sixteen years old. This hen had a quirk that she naturally didn't lay eggs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_(chicken)

That's not to say that any chicken can live to be that age, or that implanting would cause a chicken to live that long if started at an early age. There are many variables. Implanting is not perfect, but it would be nice to be fully legalized and have more options down the road. No doctor should have to be afraid of losing their license vs administering care.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom