Egg laying behavior

[bobbi-j]

I see your point.

I think some of the most promising naturalistic alternatives, aside from warm housing and season-appropriate rations, probably involve to breeding efforts to select for winter laying. Some chickens being bred to thrive in chilly, darker weather than others--some happily forage in the snow.

That could be viewed as "messing with nature" i suppose, but to my mind its different: you are selecting animals with biorythms more in harmony with local conditions rather than artificially and radically altering the environment of birds in a way less in harmony with their genetic coding. In a nutshell, It's when there's a dissonance between the genetic memory or evolved niche, if you will, of an animal, and the conditions it finds itself in that tends to promote pathologies. I guess thats MY point...

And of course just letting them rest in winter is a very acceptible option for some. Having a chance to build up new reserves and recover from the stresses of a laying season can mean improved egg quality and vigor once laying resumes...

OK - another point I was trying to make. Could using light in the winter to encourage laying cause cancer and increased infections, etc? But to state unequivocally that it WILL do so, without any resource to back that statement up is more like fear-mongering than sharing helpful information.
If such research were presented, I would gladly read it because, despite the fact that someone has decided I'm narrow-minded because I manage my chickens a certain way, I am willing to consider other viewpoints. Also, if I had ever noticed that my winter-laying chickens were in any way less healthy than my non-winter laying chickens, of course I would discontinue that practice.

 

[triplepurpose]

I hear ya, actually. Perhaps i might have worded things better--no, I'm SURE i COULD have worded things better!

But i also think "fear mongering" is an unfortunate choice of words... it was more intended to spark thought and question the potential trade-offs of practices than to monger fear...

Nor did i call anyone "narrow-minded," for the record--i merely referred to methodologies or working approaches as being "narrow-minded", as contrasted with more holistic ones with a "wider view." The distinction between rhetoric and name-calling makes all the difference in the world!

Honestly, my views on this are not as dogmatic as it might seem--im not convinced that use of artificial lighting is always wrong in all cases, or that there is only one humane way to do things--a lot has gotten lost in trying to over simplify the points i was trying to make for the sake of a point. the truth is that the many nuances surrounding the subject of supplementary lighting and its effects (known and otherwise) and commonly associated practices and their implications on performance and welfare--not to mention the pros and cons of other approaches--is really a much bigger and more complex discussion than this space and medium provides us with. Or is fair to the OP, i think.

To put my original reply in context, i was responding to the OP, who seemed to be laboring under a misapprehension that large amounts artificial lighting were important or even necessary for layers--they even mentioned keeping light on 24/7 (neither necessary nor healthy). Given this picture, and the direction of some of the prior responses, I was simply attempting to round out the discussion by offering a perspective that
seemed underrepresent in the discussion.

It was not part of my intent to upset or offend anyone, nor to "scaremonger," and i apologize for any hurt or confusion my awkward words may have caused in that regard.

 

[bobbi-j]

I hear ya, actually. Perhaps i might have worded things better--no, I'm SURE i COULD have worded things better!

But i also think "fear mongering" is an unfortunate choice of words... it was more intended to spark thought and question the potential trade-offs of practices than to monger fear...

Nor did i call anyone "narrow-minded," for the record--i merely referred to methodologies or working approaches as being "narrow-minded", as contrasted with more holistic ones with a "wider view." The distinction between rhetoric and name-calling makes all the difference in the world!

Honestly, my views on this are not as dogmatic as it might seem--im not convinced that use of artificial lighting is always wrong in all cases, or that there is only one humane way to do things--a lot has gotten lost in trying to over simplify the points i was trying to make for the sake of a point. the truth is that the many nuances surrounding the subject of supplementary lighting and its effects (known and otherwise) and commonly associated practices and their implications on performance and welfare--not to mention the pros and cons of other approaches--is really a much bigger and more complex discussion than this space and medium provides us with. Or is fair to the OP, i think.

To put my original reply in context, i was responding to the OP, who seemed to be laboring under a misapprehension that large amounts artificial lighting were important or even necessary for layers--they even mentioned keeping light on 24/7 (neither necessary nor healthy). Given this picture, and the direction of some of the prior responses, I was simply attempting to round out the discussion by offering a perspective that
seemed underrepresent in the discussion.

It was not part of my intent to upset or offend anyone, nor to "scaremonger," and i apologize for any hurt or confusion my awkward words may have caused in that regard.

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for taking things personally. It's hard to have a good discussion online, as one can't read "tone" in text.

You do make good points. I don't believe it's all one way or another. Sometimes I use lights (starting around late Dec., early Jan. after their feathers have come in from molting) and sometimes I don't - usually when I have younger pullets that will potentially lay through the winter. I would probably think differently if I were trying to keep my chickens for 7 or 8 years, as opposed to rotating out my older flock (processing them) to make room for younger birds. I don't know that supplemental lighting is going to cause cancer in a bird that's processed at 2 or 3 years old, but the chances may increase in a pet bird that is kept longer. It is good for people to see more than one view and make up their minds according to their flock goals and personal opinions.

 

[triplepurpose]

Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for taking things personally. It's hard to have a good discussion online, as one can't read "tone" in text.

You do make good points. I don't believe it's all one way or another. Sometimes I use lights (starting around late Dec., early Jan. after their feathers have come in from molting) and sometimes I don't - usually when I have younger pullets that will potentially lay through the winter. I would probably think differently if I were trying to keep my chickens for 7 or 8 years, as opposed to rotating out my older flock (processing them) to make room for younger birds. I don't know that supplemental lighting is going to cause cancer in a bird that's processed at 2 or 3 years old, but the chances may increase in a pet bird that is kept longer. It is good for people to see more than one view and make up their minds according to their flock goals and personal opinions.

Speaking of which--and not to beat this to death, but--one thing that came to mind as well are the implications for those who are breeding replacement layers from closed flocks, which is somewhat less common now, granted, but which was often the default in times past, and still has a lot of good points to recommend it in my view (disclaimer, also the circumstances of yours truly at present). Even if one decides it isnt crucial to the basic health of their working hens, it might be very wise to actually encourage a winter break from laying IF you intend to breed from those hens in the spring--as most breeders I'm aware of at least do for their breeding birds. Producing topnotch hatching eggs, and by extension chicks, is a more delicate process than simply producing your standard eating egg. Also if you are a breeder specifically breeding for longevity that could factor in to your thinking as well in how to want to balance things I imagine.

Of course, deciding "whats best" is always a balancing act between so many factors and every single situation is in some way unique, even when two peoples goals are similar. That really can't be overstated--so thanks for the reminder!