a whole lotta fuzzybutt.... last of the grass until spring! We got our christmas snow tonight!
Michigan
- Thread starter Grammi
- Start date
- Status
a whole lotta fuzzybutt.... last of the grass until spring! We got our christmas snow tonight!
Quote:
X2
I think we have a nice balance of worriers, researchers, questioners, answerers (sic), newbies, old hands and even a curmudgeon or two. But there is always someone to turn to when one has a problem or good event to share.
X2
I think we have a nice balance of worriers, researchers, questioners, answerers (sic), newbies, old hands and even a curmudgeon or two. But there is always someone to turn to when one has a problem or good event to share.
- Apr 19, 2009
- 4,203
- 172
- 253
Quote:
I'm not going to "jump all over you". I am going to explain why this theory does not work biologically lest people are reading and thinking "Gee! We can keep sickly birds because they'll pass on RESISTANCE!"
Ummmmmm, no.
That would be great if that's how it worked, I suppose. It'd certainly be a whole lot more feel-good for those who like to save everything, if nothing else. Unfortunately, it just does not.
The first thing we have to understand to know why not is how exactly being sick results in immunity or "resistance" to that illness. When a chicken -- or any animal -- is ill the body creates certain antibodies to fight that disease off. In some cases these antibodies remain in the body for a long time after the illness has passed, ready and waiting, to attack should that particular nasty rear its head again. In other cases the body simply "remembers" how to quickly and efficiently manufacture these antibodies; it "learns" how to fight off the disease so next time it's faced with the disease it's able to fend it off quickly and easily. This is an exposure related resistance. It's resistance, but it's not a natural lack of sensitivity such as the resistance that you'll often hear people talking about breeding in.
There are a couple of reasons for this. The first and foremost is that exposure resistance cannot be passed on from chicken to chicken to chicken. It is due to personal exposure and that is the only way it can be gained. Each chicken must develop this immunity on its own. There is evidence that antibodies can be passed trans-ovarially, that is from hen to chick via the yolk in the egg, but these antibodies -- like the antibodies passed to other species in the same way -- are short lived. Most are completely gone by three weeks of life at which point the chick then has zero immunity to those diseases. Another important thing to know with this is that even when antibodies are passed on they're usually passed on in much smaller quantities than they are found in the hen herself which means the chick isn't even wholly protected on day one. He simply has a small amount of antibodies present that may or may not afford him a little bit of immunity. It's also important to know that not all antibodies are passed on to begin with. Antibodies against Salmonella, Infectious Bronchitis, Fowl Plague and a few others have been observed but there have been plenty of trials where none at all were observed as well.
The second is that exposure resistance is expensive. To have every chicken needing to get ill and then better again in order to capitalize on "resistance" is not an economic way to raise birds. In many cases carriers are the exception to the rule, the survivors and the mortality rate of the disease may be as high as 80-90%. Losses are expensive, treatments are expensive, ill chickens are time consuming. Aiming to create birds that will result in time and money down the drain is not effective. That's why we have vaccines, to artificially give exposure immunity to chickens who cannot be reasonably expected to have natural resistance. It's cheaper, quicker and more effective to administer faux exposure immunity than to wait for the real exposure immunity to take its course with one's birds.
Now, the type of resistance you would want to (and can) breed for is natural resistance; a genetic propensity to lack sensitivity to pathogens and a strong immune system to fend them off without clinical affliction. These are the chickens who never fall ill to begin with. Some call them hardy, some call it vigor. Whatever you call it they have a demonstrated ability to not just survive, but thrive. This is "survival of the fittest" because chances are your chicken with exposure immunity wouldn't have survived the disease without your intervention. These are the chickens that can pass their genetics on to offspring and be reasonably expected to create more of the same. Because their resistance is genetic, not created out of previous illness, it can be passed on to future generations.
This isn't to completely discount environment. There is strong evidence across species boundaries that indicates that an overly-sterilized environment leads to a compromised immune system. But there is also strong evidence that a genetic component for reacting in such a way that the immune system is boosted when exposed to pathogens, rather than afflicted with illness, plays a large role in the overall hardiness of an animal -- which includes humans.
lol This is the same thing I said you just used alot more words.
I never referred to building resistance by keeping sickly birds who dont recover. But breeding birds that do recover and ones that dont get sick at all. Your "natural resistance " paragragh. Old timers didnt cull their entire flocks. If they found them they culled the ones that were poorly and not up to snuff. Probably ate em. The survivors that never got ill or recovered were the ones producing the next hatch. Why do I say "found"? Cause on those farms the chickens free ranged everywere. If they got sick they either recover or died in the bushes.
But now when people talk about diseases they refer to culling their entire flock.
Again, is this doing chickendom any favors? Not only having these diseases spread by wild birds but more and more folks are getting chickens.
Having a closed flock will be next to impossible unless you are a chicken farmer with huge sheds to lock them in.
As you pointed out, we are the offspring of survivors. Our chickens should continuie to be the offspring of survivors.
I also am a supporter of vaccines. One of the more natural ways we can jump start the immune system against cocci and mareks.
AGAIN, this is JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION which I am entitled too and do not jump on me for it.
I'm sorry. I don't think I articulated myself very well. We are absolutely not saying the same thing I am specifically responding to the implication that not culling chickens who have survived disease will somehow lead to resistance in the greater chicken population.
This part:
I'm not going to "jump all over you". I am going to explain why this theory does not work biologically lest people are reading and thinking "Gee! We can keep sickly birds because they'll pass on RESISTANCE!"
Ummmmmm, no.
That would be great if that's how it worked, I suppose. It'd certainly be a whole lot more feel-good for those who like to save everything, if nothing else. Unfortunately, it just does not.
The first thing we have to understand to know why not is how exactly being sick results in immunity or "resistance" to that illness. When a chicken -- or any animal -- is ill the body creates certain antibodies to fight that disease off. In some cases these antibodies remain in the body for a long time after the illness has passed, ready and waiting, to attack should that particular nasty rear its head again. In other cases the body simply "remembers" how to quickly and efficiently manufacture these antibodies; it "learns" how to fight off the disease so next time it's faced with the disease it's able to fend it off quickly and easily. This is an exposure related resistance. It's resistance, but it's not a natural lack of sensitivity such as the resistance that you'll often hear people talking about breeding in.
There are a couple of reasons for this. The first and foremost is that exposure resistance cannot be passed on from chicken to chicken to chicken. It is due to personal exposure and that is the only way it can be gained. Each chicken must develop this immunity on its own. There is evidence that antibodies can be passed trans-ovarially, that is from hen to chick via the yolk in the egg, but these antibodies -- like the antibodies passed to other species in the same way -- are short lived. Most are completely gone by three weeks of life at which point the chick then has zero immunity to those diseases. Another important thing to know with this is that even when antibodies are passed on they're usually passed on in much smaller quantities than they are found in the hen herself which means the chick isn't even wholly protected on day one. He simply has a small amount of antibodies present that may or may not afford him a little bit of immunity. It's also important to know that not all antibodies are passed on to begin with. Antibodies against Salmonella, Infectious Bronchitis, Fowl Plague and a few others have been observed but there have been plenty of trials where none at all were observed as well.
The second is that exposure resistance is expensive. To have every chicken needing to get ill and then better again in order to capitalize on "resistance" is not an economic way to raise birds. In many cases carriers are the exception to the rule, the survivors and the mortality rate of the disease may be as high as 80-90%. Losses are expensive, treatments are expensive, ill chickens are time consuming. Aiming to create birds that will result in time and money down the drain is not effective. That's why we have vaccines, to artificially give exposure immunity to chickens who cannot be reasonably expected to have natural resistance. It's cheaper, quicker and more effective to administer faux exposure immunity than to wait for the real exposure immunity to take its course with one's birds.
Now, the type of resistance you would want to (and can) breed for is natural resistance; a genetic propensity to lack sensitivity to pathogens and a strong immune system to fend them off without clinical affliction. These are the chickens who never fall ill to begin with. Some call them hardy, some call it vigor. Whatever you call it they have a demonstrated ability to not just survive, but thrive. This is "survival of the fittest" because chances are your chicken with exposure immunity wouldn't have survived the disease without your intervention. These are the chickens that can pass their genetics on to offspring and be reasonably expected to create more of the same. Because their resistance is genetic, not created out of previous illness, it can be passed on to future generations.
This isn't to completely discount environment. There is strong evidence across species boundaries that indicates that an overly-sterilized environment leads to a compromised immune system. But there is also strong evidence that a genetic component for reacting in such a way that the immune system is boosted when exposed to pathogens, rather than afflicted with illness, plays a large role in the overall hardiness of an animal -- which includes humans.
lol This is the same thing I said you just used alot more words.
I never referred to building resistance by keeping sickly birds who dont recover. But breeding birds that do recover and ones that dont get sick at all. Your "natural resistance " paragragh. Old timers didnt cull their entire flocks. If they found them they culled the ones that were poorly and not up to snuff. Probably ate em. The survivors that never got ill or recovered were the ones producing the next hatch. Why do I say "found"? Cause on those farms the chickens free ranged everywere. If they got sick they either recover or died in the bushes.
But now when people talk about diseases they refer to culling their entire flock.
Again, is this doing chickendom any favors? Not only having these diseases spread by wild birds but more and more folks are getting chickens.
Having a closed flock will be next to impossible unless you are a chicken farmer with huge sheds to lock them in.
As you pointed out, we are the offspring of survivors. Our chickens should continuie to be the offspring of survivors.
I also am a supporter of vaccines. One of the more natural ways we can jump start the immune system against cocci and mareks.
AGAIN, this is JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION which I am entitled too and do not jump on me for it.
I'm sorry. I don't think I articulated myself very well. We are absolutely not saying the same thing I am specifically responding to the implication that not culling chickens who have survived disease will somehow lead to resistance in the greater chicken population.
This part:
I am not sure that culling a chicken that has survived a disease is doing Ckickendom any favors. In other words- How can we produce chickens resistance to these diseases if we cull them?
And then this in the newer response:
And then this in the newer response:
But breeding birds that do recover and ones that dont get sick at all. Your "natural resistance " paragragh.
Birds that recover from disease do not have natural resistance; they have exposure resistance. As I explained above there is a big difference. The very fact that they fell ill to begin with -- thus having to recover -- demonstrates that they do not possess natural resistance. As I explained above, exposure resistance cannot be bred into future generations. The theory simply doesn't translate into reality. It does not work that way. It does work that way for chickens that never fall ill despite exposure to pathogens that would make illness likely. We ARE talking the same thing there, I think.
And, just for clarity's sake, when I say "sickly" I don't mean birds who are consistently or repeatedly ill, but simply those who are susceptible to illness. Probably not the best terminology on my part, best I could think of at the time though.
As to the old timers argument, it's the same as what I responded earlier to the other poster -- sorry, drawing a blank on the name right now -- yes, it's true that old timers didn't cull entire flocks and it's true that some of the best flock management goes back to these days but as I said before the danger comes when you blindly combine modern convenience and technology with old time theory. Old Timers didn't cull entire flocks, but they also didn't coddle sick chickens. How many times in this thread alone have we talked about someone who has an ill chicken in the house or in an "ICU" of some sort? Often with added heat, modern medicines being employed, special diets being offered, etc. We've even had people hand and force feeding chickens to keep them alive. Many times these chickens recover, it's a marvel of our modern times and it's great that people don't have to lose beloved pets, but it renders the flock management of our ancestors absolutely irrelevant.
So yes, if you want to leave your chickens to their devices if they fall ill, offer absolutely no extra supportive care or treatment and then breed the survivors of illness for the sake of capitalizing on the hardiness in recoverability we could certainly make a fair argument that that is doing something for "chickendom"; breeding chickens who survive illness with the incredible amounts of supportive care afforded them by our modern times however, is not in any way contributing to greater resistance or hardiness in subsequent generations.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and as I said before I am not trying to jump all over you, but some of what you're proposing just plain doesn't work biologically. It's definitely not personal, I just think it'd be wrong not to respond with the other side of things especially with how many people read and take most of their education from here -- many without ever even responding to ask questions themselves.
Birds that recover from disease do not have natural resistance; they have exposure resistance. As I explained above there is a big difference. The very fact that they fell ill to begin with -- thus having to recover -- demonstrates that they do not possess natural resistance. As I explained above, exposure resistance cannot be bred into future generations. The theory simply doesn't translate into reality. It does not work that way. It does work that way for chickens that never fall ill despite exposure to pathogens that would make illness likely. We ARE talking the same thing there, I think.
And, just for clarity's sake, when I say "sickly" I don't mean birds who are consistently or repeatedly ill, but simply those who are susceptible to illness. Probably not the best terminology on my part, best I could think of at the time though.
As to the old timers argument, it's the same as what I responded earlier to the other poster -- sorry, drawing a blank on the name right now -- yes, it's true that old timers didn't cull entire flocks and it's true that some of the best flock management goes back to these days but as I said before the danger comes when you blindly combine modern convenience and technology with old time theory. Old Timers didn't cull entire flocks, but they also didn't coddle sick chickens. How many times in this thread alone have we talked about someone who has an ill chicken in the house or in an "ICU" of some sort? Often with added heat, modern medicines being employed, special diets being offered, etc. We've even had people hand and force feeding chickens to keep them alive. Many times these chickens recover, it's a marvel of our modern times and it's great that people don't have to lose beloved pets, but it renders the flock management of our ancestors absolutely irrelevant.
So yes, if you want to leave your chickens to their devices if they fall ill, offer absolutely no extra supportive care or treatment and then breed the survivors of illness for the sake of capitalizing on the hardiness in recoverability we could certainly make a fair argument that that is doing something for "chickendom"; breeding chickens who survive illness with the incredible amounts of supportive care afforded them by our modern times however, is not in any way contributing to greater resistance or hardiness in subsequent generations.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and as I said before I am not trying to jump all over you, but some of what you're proposing just plain doesn't work biologically. It's definitely not personal, I just think it'd be wrong not to respond with the other side of things especially with how many people read and take most of their education from here -- many without ever even responding to ask questions themselves.
- Apr 19, 2009
- 4,203
- 172
- 253
I interpret closed flock the same way as KrisRose, nothing in, but no restrictions on anything going out.
If someone really wanted to prevent wild birds from being contributors to flock issues there is bird netting that could be used to keep them out of runs. Ours free-range so it's an impossibility here, but if you've already got them penned that might be an option. Wild birds could still land around the run but the chance of transmission of anything is pretty low at that point. Then the chickens could still be outside. I'm not sure it's a worthwhile pursuit for most cases, but some may find it worthy of their time and money to do so.
If someone really wanted to prevent wild birds from being contributors to flock issues there is bird netting that could be used to keep them out of runs. Ours free-range so it's an impossibility here, but if you've already got them penned that might be an option. Wild birds could still land around the run but the chance of transmission of anything is pretty low at that point. Then the chickens could still be outside. I'm not sure it's a worthwhile pursuit for most cases, but some may find it worthy of their time and money to do so.
O.K. here is where I have a problem.
Breeding survivors of illness/infection.
I bought two chicks that tested positive for cocci in their stool and I choose not to put them into my flock. But those chicks and their chicken parents had survived coccidia and they were all just carriers now. And the seller may have had a closed flock to things coming in but they did not have any policy against selling chicks who had survived coccidia to me.
I don't see how breeding and selling those chicks to me would do anything for creating a stronger breed of chicken. All it would do is infect my flock and then contaminate my soil. So I think when people's flocks have coccidia they should stop sellling those same chickens/chicks to others. To eat the eggs and sell the eggs for eating is probably fine. I do not know if hatching eggs from a mother hen who has coccidia would contaminate the incubatore or not and thus cause the chicks in the brooder to have coccidia.
Also, what if Farmerboy had kept his survivors of MG respiratory virus and then sold eggs to all of us to hatch. Well, as I understand it - the survivors while no longer actively sick, would be carriers and the eggs they lay would carry the virus/bacteria. The chicks we hatch would be carrying respiratory disease and may become ill and spread it to our flocks. Seems like soon all chickens will be carriers of respiratory disease if we keep breeding all the carriers and keeping the surviors.
Some of these chicken diseases remind me of HIV. There are people with full blown AIDS and then there are people carrying HIV. And I think the way that the Center for Disease Control is handling the epidemic is to recommend that people take precautions not to infect each other. So maybe we should start there and when our chickens have disease that will be carried in their bodies for their lifetime (MG, MS, Mareks and others) or a parasite that lives on in the intestine for the chickens whole life (Cocci)- maybe we should take precautions not to infect other chickens. That would mean close your flock on the other end - stop swapping, selling, shipping and hatching these birds that carry disease/illness.
If you want to keep a flock on your property that has survived respiratory disease or coccidia that is your right. But for us to be breeding survivors of those illnesses and hatching new chicks from those survivors or even to bring in new healthy chicks to those flocks does not seem wise. Didn't farmers used to say 'put new chicks on new ground' and 'don't mix old and young birds? Also when you buy a farm, if they had chickens, 'let the soil sit for 4 years before putting chickens on it?' (It takes 4 years or a good hot fire to get cocci out of soil.) That is Old Timer wisdom.
Breeding survivors of illness/infection.
I bought two chicks that tested positive for cocci in their stool and I choose not to put them into my flock. But those chicks and their chicken parents had survived coccidia and they were all just carriers now. And the seller may have had a closed flock to things coming in but they did not have any policy against selling chicks who had survived coccidia to me.
I don't see how breeding and selling those chicks to me would do anything for creating a stronger breed of chicken. All it would do is infect my flock and then contaminate my soil. So I think when people's flocks have coccidia they should stop sellling those same chickens/chicks to others. To eat the eggs and sell the eggs for eating is probably fine. I do not know if hatching eggs from a mother hen who has coccidia would contaminate the incubatore or not and thus cause the chicks in the brooder to have coccidia.
Also, what if Farmerboy had kept his survivors of MG respiratory virus and then sold eggs to all of us to hatch. Well, as I understand it - the survivors while no longer actively sick, would be carriers and the eggs they lay would carry the virus/bacteria. The chicks we hatch would be carrying respiratory disease and may become ill and spread it to our flocks. Seems like soon all chickens will be carriers of respiratory disease if we keep breeding all the carriers and keeping the surviors.
Some of these chicken diseases remind me of HIV. There are people with full blown AIDS and then there are people carrying HIV. And I think the way that the Center for Disease Control is handling the epidemic is to recommend that people take precautions not to infect each other. So maybe we should start there and when our chickens have disease that will be carried in their bodies for their lifetime (MG, MS, Mareks and others) or a parasite that lives on in the intestine for the chickens whole life (Cocci)- maybe we should take precautions not to infect other chickens. That would mean close your flock on the other end - stop swapping, selling, shipping and hatching these birds that carry disease/illness.
If you want to keep a flock on your property that has survived respiratory disease or coccidia that is your right. But for us to be breeding survivors of those illnesses and hatching new chicks from those survivors or even to bring in new healthy chicks to those flocks does not seem wise. Didn't farmers used to say 'put new chicks on new ground' and 'don't mix old and young birds? Also when you buy a farm, if they had chickens, 'let the soil sit for 4 years before putting chickens on it?' (It takes 4 years or a good hot fire to get cocci out of soil.) That is Old Timer wisdom.
Last edited:
I agree with ChickenGrandma. That is why I culled my flock, even my hen of 9 years. I miss her, but it was for the safely of other people's flock and my future flocks.
I am going to order Turkey poults from Porter's for his turkeys are tested clean of MG. I have brought chicks and poults from Randy, he is a very nice guy, and I like him. But I do not know if his flocks are disease clean, so until I know that his flocks are clean, I will have to buy poults from a clean source.
Since the minimum order of poults from Porter is 15, and I do not need 15 turkeys to start with, is anyone interested in splitting an order with me? I want 10 Bourbon Red poults. Please P.M. me. Thanks!
I am going to order Turkey poults from Porter's for his turkeys are tested clean of MG. I have brought chicks and poults from Randy, he is a very nice guy, and I like him. But I do not know if his flocks are disease clean, so until I know that his flocks are clean, I will have to buy poults from a clean source.
Since the minimum order of poults from Porter is 15, and I do not need 15 turkeys to start with, is anyone interested in splitting an order with me? I want 10 Bourbon Red poults. Please P.M. me. Thanks!
- Apr 19, 2009
- 4,203
- 172
- 253
Quote:
Hurry up Santa. I need that lump of coal for heat!
Hurry up Santa. I need that lump of coal for heat!
Good morning Michiganders!
I wanted to take this quiet moment to say "MERRY CHRISTMAS"! I also hope that you have a wonderful time sharing specials memories with family and friends this holiday. We will be going to a neighbors for Christmas and tonight we have our village church Candlelight service....which is always wonderful.
Chickmate...it was so nice of your to reach out to the young boy...yes you do have to be careful but meanwhile you have lifted his spirits and spread kindness. God Bless.
I wanted to take this quiet moment to say "MERRY CHRISTMAS"! I also hope that you have a wonderful time sharing specials memories with family and friends this holiday. We will be going to a neighbors for Christmas and tonight we have our village church Candlelight service....which is always wonderful.
Chickmate...it was so nice of your to reach out to the young boy...yes you do have to be careful but meanwhile you have lifted his spirits and spread kindness. God Bless.
Good Morning Everyone.......I've recharged my batteries and I'm ready for the next 2 days of family & friends, laughter & fun, hugs, & kisses, good food & wine and what ever comes my way!!
Wishing All My Wonderful Friends a Very Merry Christmas
. Hope you all have a wonderful and Blessed Holiday!!
Wishing All My Wonderful Friends a Very Merry Christmas
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
Standard (not Bantam) Blue Silkie Rooster?
- Started by Sherrirod
- Replies: 0
-
-
Open Contest BYC Poultry Caption Contest 01-02-26 Pic by Bawkmeow- Started by TwoCrows
- Replies: 8
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Introducing TUDYBOOK - The Tudy Coloring Book Generator- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 70
-
-
Official BYC Poll: How Many Chickens Do You Have?- Started by BYC Project Manager
- Replies: 49
-
-
