Hi Blooie! I appreciate the response. As I mentioned, I don't see feathering rate or poultry climate acclamation as solely genetically-triggered events. Even us humans have adaptability built into our bodies. For example, that's one reason people tan or get darker when they are exposed to the sun. Increased pigmentation is our body's way of adapting to an environmental change so that we can flourish and survive.
However, my issue with the way some people attribute the feathering rate of chickens is where I have concern. The slow-feathering (SF) phenotype in chickens is controlled a dominant sex-linked gene (
K) with (
k+) being the fast-feathering (FF) phenotype. Males with the genotypes (
K, K) and (
K, k+) will express the SF phenotype; whereas, males with the recessive (
k+, k+) will express the FF phenotype. For females it's a bit more simple: (
K, -) for SF, and (
k+, -) for FF. Those genotypes are the overarching controlling factors of chicken feathering rates.
As for anecdotal accounts, I always weight them with a bit of caution and skepticism before really believing them. I'm much more prone to evaluate scientific research that has been vetted through the scientific method. In fact, I don't always trust my own casual observations. Let me give you an example:
I used to play a lot of online backgammon at a particular website. Although the website developer claimed to use a fair pseudo-generator to generate dice rolls randomly, it always seemed as if double sixes and double aces appeared beyond their expected probability frequency rate. In the website chat room this was brought up, and others made mention of observing the same phenomena. Once the group-think ball got rolling, someone eventually told the developer that the pseudo-generator was not working properly. Things got very testy to say the least.
Anyway, the data from all of the dice rolls from all of the backgammon games played at the website over the years was still available, so one very smart backgammon player downloaded all of the dice rolls and did a frequency analysis. Come to find out, the pseudo-generator was nearly spot on. Only the frequency of double 4s was more that what it should have been, but even that frequency variation was not significantly different from what was expected.
What I learned from that experience is that group think can be a powerful influence in the face of truth, and I also learned that I could not trust even my own anecdotal observations. So for me, empirical evidence is very important, and using it in an honest scientific study is how to get to the truth.
BTW, the smart guy who did the analysis still had some detractors who insisted that his analysis must be wrong because they had seen the double-six anomaly with their own eyes. The smart guy posted that they were being superstitious, and then moderators had to intervene. I find raising chickens so much more relaxing than playing backgammon these days.
