What exactly does breed for resistance mean?

[Jmurcks]

Quote:
Awesome, thanks!

 

[gogoalie]

Funny, what would happen to the birds that are exposed to the pathogens that domestic fowl are exposed to? There's no hatchet in the wild, 'cept maybe some wild animals that would get to eat carion, & more nutrients into the soil...should a flock of wild red jungle fowl get exposed, & one or two, just happens to survive the outbreak, & produce viable offspring, that gene pool is strengthend, not weakened...

 

[coq au vin]

Quote:
Wild birds don't live in overcrowded, unsanitary filth. (generally)

The fact remains that the carriers are carriers and the ones that resisted it in the first place are the ones that are more fit.

 

[CityChicker]

This has been a really interesting thread. I think some of you are spot on and some have downright bizarre ideas of breeding for resistance. I think there needs to be a distinction between breeding for resistance in the truest since and simply breeding for strong stock (something somewhat intangible in that we don't know all the factors that make an individual strong or weak). In the strictest sense, breeding for resistance would (to me) be breeding for the genes that protect birds from certain diseases. There are a few known genes that do protect against some specific illnesses, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope of BYC (and it is beyond my current level of education, so I can't say that I feel confident discussing that topic in detail).

There are probably multitudes of factors that make a flock strong and culling for that begins before and during incubation. This fact seems to be lost on many. I have raised birds since the 70's and have been working on a degree in Animal/Poultry science for a few years now in addition to coming from a family that has been in the business. The way that I was raised to do things is so far removed from the way I see people from BYC do things it is hardly even similar. I was taught to raise lots of birds and CULL, CULL, CULL. This holds true not only from a flock management/husbandry perspective, but also from a breed development/improvement perspective.

I have always been taught to only breed from the best stock possible. Set only the well formed and properly colored eggs. Do not assist in hatches. Raise only chicks that show signs of strength and vigor. Cull birds that do hatch, but show signs of any weakness. Definitely do not keep stock that shows signs of illness and NEVER shotgun medicate. As others have said, do not pass your problems on to other people. Cull the birds that are "weaklings". Constantly select for strong, vigorous birds. You don't want to keep the birds that were sick and recovered. You want to keep the birds that never got sick in the first place!

Anyway, all of this seems somewhat counter to the husbandry I frequently see practiced by BYC'ers. When my parents and grandparents were working with a particular breed, they would hatch, at a minimum, a few hundred birds each year in that breed and cull the heck out of them. For some breeds that we kept more for utility (another whole discussion that seems lost on a lot of modern poultry breeders), like the Plymouth Rocks, we would hatch several hundred in one season. My grandparents kept a stump with two nails and an axe in the middle of the yard (sound familiar, LOL). They would cull at the drop of a hat. I swear sometimes they would cull if a chicken just looked at them the wrong way, LOL. They also had incredibly strong and beautiful stock that also served its' purpose (again, the utility for which it was bred). They certainly never would have assisted hatches or made valiant efforts to save or nurture birds that were obviously weak in the first place.

This is what breeding for strong (and yes, probably "resistant") stock means to me. Whether or not, it is "resistance" in the truest academic sense, I am not sure. Day in and day out here on BYC, I see people do things that run completely counter to everything I have learned about poultry husbandry. This is another discussion that really makes me wish that BYC would have some sort of advanced topics board or something similar. As someone that has raised birds for decades, it is obvious to me when someone does not know what they are talking about (and there are a few on this very thread). It is less obvious to people that are new to the hobby. That is unfortunate as we have a number of outspoken "gurus" on BYC that know very little about poultry keeping.

 

[kathyinmo]

Quote:
Oh, what a great idea. I wonder if that would be a possibility? I guess we could check with Nifty (Rob) and see.

 

[snowbird]

The most important fact about keeping poultry is you should do what makes you happy, not what makes someone else happy. I like the vaccination way of doing business, If others like others ways that is fine with me. I have been doing it this way for over 50 year and have no intention of changing now as I am happy with the end result. Just be happy with what you are doing.

 

[speckledhen]

Quote:
Very good suggestion, Don. I agree that to vaccinate or not is a personal decision.

It's great to know all your options and the repercussions of each of those.

 

[halo]

Quote:
I read it differently than you do, I guess. I look at it this way .... they are ALL exposed. Some react (get sick) and others have a resistance. It makes no sense to me to keep (or treat) a sick bird to breed.

Why keep a sick bird around? Even if they do survive (treated or not), I would think they would (or could) produce less healthy progeny with a weaker immune system. I believe you breed healthy birds, not sick birds. You breed the survivors of the exposure, not the sick ones that recovered.

Very well stated.

 

[halo]

Quote:
Wild birds that get sick are eaten by critters. The ones who don't get sick live to breed on. Nature has its own "hatchet".

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
300-500 depending on what I want to show.