Hatching without shell- I'm doing it!

[Mrs J]

Just the fact that it made me feel bad to think about. What if it didn't work the first time and I had a chick's life in my hands?
I would be interested in watching or reading about an experiment like this, comparing the development of a quail to a chicken, but I don't want to do it myself. I've realized there is really no benefit to doing it, other than a bit of interesting research. It's not worth the life of an innocent creature.

Ahh bless you. I’m exactly the same, I couldn’t personally do it, but I would be interested to see for educational purposes. Best wishes

 

[Torinik]

I'm using eggs that would otherwise be eaten, so I thought that might make it slightly less bad.

There's nothing bad about your (ended) experiment, or even the set-up for that matter.

Once it has been done and documented, what is the use in doing it again?

It's called peer review, and that's pretty much the very basis of the scientific method.
Let's see if we can replicate what that guy did, and see if we observe the same outcomes by doing everything the way he described he did it.

Very unfashionable and even politically incorrect nowadays. Whatever 'scientists' say has become indisputable. This has become the narrative and mindset of the day.

Well, think again, if it can't be replicated and confirmed time after time, those 'scientists' either made a mistake or very much more likely told a damned lie!

In the UK, a scientist proposing an experiment involving live animals must submit the aims, the rationale and the fully-detailed protocol to an ethical commitee.

That begs the question who gets to be on all these commitees and what agenda are they serving.
What is ethics in the first place, and where should we draw a line? Is that a hard line we draw, or is it a phantom line that shifts depending on who wants to experiment?
Those to who the phantom line applies in fact don't even have to face any of the countless commitees. 'Science' has become a very dodgy field that very often just collapses under the scrutiny of science and the scientific method.

 

[BelovedBirds]

There's nothing bad about your (ended) experiment, or even the set-up for that matter.





It's called peer review, and that's pretty much the very basis of the scientific method.
Let's see if we can replicate what that guy did, and see if we observe the same outcomes by doing everything the way he described he did it.

Very unfashionable and even politically incorrect nowadays. Whatever 'scientists' say has become indisputable. This has become the narrative and mindset of the day.

Well, think again, if it can't be replicated and confirmed time after time, those 'scientists' either made a mistake or very much more likely told a damned lie!





That begs the question who gets to be on all these commitees and what agenda are they serving.
What is ethics in the first place, and where should we draw a line? Is that a hard line we draw, or is it a phantom line that shifts depending on who wants to experiment?
Those to who the phantom line applies in fact don't even have to face any of the countless commitees. 'Science' has become a very dodgy field that very often just collapses under the scrutiny of science and the scientific method.

It's happened multiple times in confirmed cases, so there was no "mistake" or "lie" or need to try it again.

It isn't about it being unfashionable, it's about it being unethical. It's a life, and it deserves consideration.

 

[BelovedBirds]

Just the fact that it made me feel bad to think about. What if it didn't work the first time and I had a chick's life in my hands?
I would be interested in watching or reading about an experiment like this, comparing the development of a quail to a chicken, but I don't want to do it myself. I've realized there is really no benefit to doing it, other than a bit of interesting research. It's not worth the life of an innocent creature.

That's a very mature view to have.
And hey, if this kind of thing takes your interest, perhaps one day you'll be one of those scientists, and have the equipment and environment to make it successful! Or perhaps you'll get to do something similar and still experience it yourself.
Just for now, I don't think it would be worth it, for both you and the embryo

 

[Jenni Hen]

There's nothing bad about your (ended) experiment, or even the set-up for that matter.





It's called peer review, and that's pretty much the very basis of the scientific method.
Let's see if we can replicate what that guy did, and see if we observe the same outcomes by doing everything the way he described he did it.

Very unfashionable and even politically incorrect nowadays. Whatever 'scientists' say has become indisputable. This has become the narrative and mindset of the day.

Well, think again, if it can't be replicated and confirmed time after time, those 'scientists' either made a mistake or very much more likely told a damned lie!





That begs the question who gets to be on all these commitees and what agenda are they serving.
What is ethics in the first place, and where should we draw a line? Is that a hard line we draw, or is it a phantom line that shifts depending on who wants to experiment?
Those to who the phantom line applies in fact don't even have to face any of the countless commitees. 'Science' has become a very dodgy field that very often just collapses under the scrutiny of science and the scientific method.

Every experiment is done under a particular set of conditions and the conclusions are only valid for that set of conditions. If you repeat an experiment you don't reach exactly the same conclusions (the data won't be exactly the same) so you have to look at the detail of the conditions to explain any differences. The conditions that other scientists use will differ from the original, inevitably or by design; comparing results and explaining differences leads to further insights.

Peer review is the review of the write-ups of the experiments before the write-up is published. Reviewers are invited by the organisation that is considering publishing the write-up. Their job is to check for errors & omissions and make suggestions that would benefit the people who will read ithe write-up, if it is published.

I understand that submissions to ethical committes are anonymous. Their members are usually distinguished in their field and they work to the legal requirements and principles. (e.g. failsafe on the heating system is a legal welfare requirement but whether the rationale could be justified would involve principles.)

 

[yakitori]

My goal is to observe the development of a quail embryo and compare it to that of a chicken. I don't really know what else to say. Everyone here has such good reasons for their opinion, and this is no exception. All your reasons are valid and uncombatable.

This reasoning might make it fine to me personally. The tough part of this experiment is usually getting a live chick at the end of the incubation period. but if it’s just comparison of embryos, it doesn’t seem hard to get the embryo to develop right up to hatch, so with adequate research and preparation, likely the experiment will only need to be repeated once or twice.

Never the less, I will always find the loss of life (or potential life) devastating.

Like the others, Rambo’s videos disturbed me due to the sheer number of failures.. and it was all very unnecessary.

 

[Patiocoturnix]

I have only tried this once and not for an experiment (well kinda) I dropped one of my eggs while candling and cracked it beyond repair so I tried to do this but it did not work nothing ever devolved it turned out the egg wasn’t even fertile.
I wouldn’t do just to do it for the fun of an experiment. Maybe if I was a scientist with a high end lab I would. But only if it made a difference with helping hatch rates of endangered birds or something of the sort.
But this type of experiment has always intrigued me maybe one day if I ever end up cracking a egg to bad again I will but for the time being it will stand an unanswered question if this is possible with quail.
I hope the best to anyone who reads this thread and tries it but be aware it is super super hard to get it to work it’ll take hundreds of embryos to get it to work. And if you do do it don’t go every where posting about it to try and gain fame. (I know oob child was not going to do it for fame)

 

[Oob Child]

I would try if I dropped a developing egg, but I wouldn't do it otherwise anymore.

I have only tried this once and not for an experiment (well kinda) I dropped one of my eggs while candling and cracked it beyond repair so I tried to do this but it did not work nothing ever devolved it turned out the egg wasn’t even fertile.
I wouldn’t do just to do it for the fun of an experiment. Maybe if I was a scientist with a high end lab I would. But only if it made a difference with helping hatch rates of endangered birds or something of the sort.
But this type of experiment has always intrigued me maybe one day if I ever end up cracking a egg to bad again I will but for the time being it will stand an unanswered question if this is possible with quail.
I hope the best to anyone who reads this thread and tries it but be aware it is super super hard to get it to work it’ll take hundreds of embryos to get it to work. And if you do do it don’t go every where posting about it to try and gain fame. (I know oob child was not going to do it for fame)

 

[Jenni Hen]

I would try if I dropped a developing egg, but I wouldn't do it otherwise anymore.

It's clear you were being thoughtful about whether it would be a good idea or not.

 

[kornbr3d]

"But why is it so bothersome to think about this, opposed to allowing the egg to hatch, then eating the chicken a few months later?! Wouldnt the former be more humane?

We are essentially "messing with nature" everytime we hatch eggs in an incubator, or even purchase from a hatchery where eggs came from an incubator. Ultimately, I bet an incredibly small percentage of backyard chickens are naturally born - and even smaller where the broody hen can be traced back a few generations of not being hatched in an incubator.

I think in general, a chickens life has been deemed expendable to an extent - and it is most likely because it is a rare animal where we eat them, but also keep them for "pets". (I don't care who you are. If you throw them treats and talk to them, it's a pet)

"It is chickens. The same chickens who I put upside down in a cone, bleed out then sprinkle with salt and BBQ after throwing treats to them the previous day."

BastyPutt,

Thank you for what I feel are definitely some of the more reasonable viewpoints on this subject. I was somewhat surprised at the amount of people that found the intended experiment to be cruel and inhumane, and already had their pitchforks in hand!

Especially considering that most of them have no problem taking an egg from it's mother, placing it into an incubator, raising it to good eatin' size, snapping its neck, letting it bleed out, etc, etc, etc, and then sitting down at the dinner table and eating it after taking care of it from birth till dinnertime. I'd dare to say that is much more cruel than what they were intending to do in their experiment regardless of whether it was a success or failure, or how many times an attempt was made.
NOTE: I'm not judging anyone for anything described in this paragraph. I have done and will be doing everything mentioned myself!

I'm no scientist or avian biologist so I'm not going to make claims as to what stage in embryonic development a bird becomes sentient, but I do know for a fact that in-between the hatch and the slaughter a bird develops lots of feelings, forms relationships, and has what they feel are friends, enemies and family. Which confuses me as to how it's more reasonable to take its life at 6wks+ of age knowing that than it is to do so while still being developed?

I'm not saying anyone is wrong for their stance on the topic because we are all free to have own own feelings, emotions and viewpoints on topics. Hell, sometimes I have different ones on the same topic within a few minutes or hours. Lol

-------------

To the OP, I don't feel your experiment is/would have been any more cruel than just eating the egg, or raising it till it was perfectly plump and then taking its life and then eating the meat. To be honest I'd never even heard of such an experiment being performed, and always thought that the membrane that lines the inside of the egg was extremely vital to the hatching process and the development of the embryo. I guess I thought so because when assisting chicks that were having a problem breaking out after pipping I've seen(or thought I'd seen) blood running through what appeared to be veins that were either in that membrane or attached to the inside of it, .

Now I'm questioning everything I thought I saw, and everything I thought I knew about eggs and newly hatching chicks.

I knew when coming into this thread there were going to be people against it, but I was surprised to see to what extent, and then some of the reasons they described that it was wrong in their opinions.

I think it was a good discussion, and I don't think you should feel bad about wanting to perform the experiment on a quail egg since you said you were unable to find any data on it being done before. I'm genuinely curious myself now that you've introduced me to the topic, but I don't have the patience or attention span for something like that!

This is just my own take and opinions on the subject, and I don't expect everyone to agree!


kornbr3d