Backyard Poultry Forum • View topic - positives FOR breeding disease SENSITIVITY

Backyard Poultry Forum

Chickens, waterfowl & all poultry - home of exhibition & backyard poultry in Australia & New Zealand
Login with a social network:
It is currently Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:19 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:11 pm 
Image

i will come back later after releasing anger elsewhere. stay tuned and enjoy looking at this young malay rooster who was not crowing yet and never will.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:02 pm 
so what is the positive?...they die!

why??

because it means you have a captive market for your birds where they have to be vacinated for them to be bred. when they want more they gotta come back and buy off you.

it makes rare breeds rarer...so you gotta bird that is increasing in value.

this mainly helps if you have a show winning line like you win in canberra or at a royal.

will be back later.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:35 pm 
Offline
Wise One
Wise One

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:42 pm
Posts: 2695
Location: Canberra
I await in anticipation to read what you have to say on this subject.

Whilst sometimes controversial I always learn alot from what you have to say on such subjects.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline
Old Mother Goose
Old Mother Goose
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:06 pm
Posts: 5886
Location: Canberra
K,

Whilst you know I am a supporter, I dont think your hypothesis about "breeding chooks so they die quickly and you sell more" is fair....

yours,
Raf

_________________
Breeder of Blue Laced Red Wyandottes.

See www.bluelacedgold.wordpress.com for details


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:03 pm 
well also you don't have to breed so many birds so the need to select for birds that succumb to disease is reduced and you can put your efforts into birds that will win. you don't loose your top birds, it can live to breed on.

you can feel fairly confident your birds will live for a reasonable lenghth of time so:

A. you don't breed so many
B. you can sell birds with the security that these birds have a less chance of dieing and so make your clients happy.
C. you can breed from your young birds as you do not have to worry about keeping them through a couple of cycles of reproduction just to ensure they are survivers.


by buying vaccinated birds you can feel happier that they won't die so easily, especially those pretties. also because you regard your chookies as pets on the same level as a cat or dog as you want your family members to last a long time. thus the keeper of vaccinated chickens does not have to deal with the issues of death and dieing so often.

to the show person who likes to show birds, it is cheaper to buy a vaccinated bird from an exhibition line than it is to breed them yourself. if you live in an area where you have no competition from like minded people (they buy the same birds as you) and maybe need to excel against a local exhibitor and breeder it can be your only chance to beat them.

you don't have to worry about or think about the issues of breeding for disease resistance. it is easier not to have to deal with these issues.

you can see yourself as keeping a rare breed alive, a special strain still in existance, similar to the above statement...you are preserving the line for someone else, for the future.

you don't have to worry about health issues that much, you don't have to worry so much if the bird might be dead or dieing tomorrow.

you don't have to think about the ethics of what you are doing in that perhaps government might make regulations in the future to restrict backyard vaccination or the vaccine might not be available, you have trust in the world. you don't have to worry about 20 or 50 years in the future as you have trust in our scientific expertise to solve future problems.

if you are in it for the short term, like 10 years you don't have to learn about genetic diversity, the problems of inbreeding, genetics, what becomes of your product, how your product affects the genetics of the whole of the breed/line/ country.

i can go on about the use of antibiotics as that too is an issue as people who breed your vaccinated birds and do not vaccinate themselves so can/may/possibly/not necessarily will have all sorts of problems with them and many will trapse off to the vet for for antibiotics and other chemicals to ease the symptoms or cure the ill. and think of the market you create for the alternate products too for those who do not want to use chemicals and normal potions as they may have ideas of living organically or independantly selfsufficient.

to be continued.

edited to take out offensive statement an quote.


Last edited by ruff on Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:48 pm 
Offline
Great Game
Great Game

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:57 am
Posts: 1267
Location: Hamilton Vic
Ruff - At the risk of upsetting you further - it is a shame that this discussion seeks to belittle those who disagree

ruff wrote:
you don't have to think about the ethics of what you are doing in that perhaps government might make regulations in the future to restrict backyard vaccination or the vaccine might not be available, you have trust in the world. you don't have to worry about 20 or 50 years in the future as you have trust in our scientific expertise to solve future problems.

if you are in it for the short term, like 10 years you don't have to learn about genetic diversity, the problems of inbreeding, genetics, what becomes of your product, how your product affects the genetics of the whole of the breed/line/ country.


To imply that someone who vaccinates birds is unethical is unfair. The ethics of looking after animal welfare are also strong. It may be true to say that vaccines may not be available in the future but who knows? To use the cynical view of the world you have implied, then it would also be true to say that the more vaccination the greater the drive to make the product available because they will make a bigger buck.

To vaccinate or not vaccinate has absolutely nothing to do with someone's desire to understand genetics, the legacy they wish to leave, or their gullibility to be sucked into some conspiracy theory.

I have bred poultry for more than 20 years and the current resurgence in backyard poultry is heartening. I am very happy to supply birds to those who want a pet that lays eggs and wish it to live with them forever, I am also happy to sell birds to someone who replaces their birds with new pullets every year. To each their own.

I know that I will not change your opinions, you are entitled to them. The fact that we both have strong opinions does not make either of us right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:55 pm 
Offline
Old Mother Goose
Old Mother Goose
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:06 pm
Posts: 5886
Location: Canberra
Edited - no longer required, just a mis communication between old friends.

_________________
Breeder of Blue Laced Red Wyandottes.

See www.bluelacedgold.wordpress.com for details


Last edited by rwood on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:18 pm 
Offline
Gallant Game
Gallant Game

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 544
Ruff,

I suspect that your cynical comments have arisen from either of these possible scenarios:

1) This was a bird that you bred, that showed great promise (marking, genetic or show potential wise) but which, as a consequence of your "survival of the fittest" policy on breeding unfortunately did not prove to be one of the "fittest" (hence your anguish as to why you should bother with breeding for disease resistance when there are "clear advantages" to not do so)

or 2) You purchased this bird from another breeder who did not share your "survival of the fittest" breeding policy and which, upon introduction to your flock, has succumbed to disease that your own flock is resistant to.

I realise that you and I have different views on this, and we discussed these opposing views some years ago at The Coop - for my own situation, I do not vaccinate -but certainly would consider it if it was cost effective to do so.

I also believe that it is not realistic to breed a strain of fowl that is "resistant to everything" (especially not in Australia - given that there are so many exotic diseases that exist that you simply couldn't expose birds to, to breed for resistance to that disease). The birds that you have bred, which are no doubt very resistant to your local ailments (and which others have verified as being strong and vigorous in their environments) would also equally without doubt fail against some ailment somewhere in the world.

The issue of genetic diversity is another one where I believe we have some differeng views: by not selecting for disease resistance, I do not believe this implies that you are selecting for disease sensitivity: you are simply not practicing selection at all. So, unless the other traits that you are selecting for are actively linked to disease sensitivity and hence you inadvertantly select for this susceptibility, the disease resistance genes should still be segregating in the population as a whole (you just don't get to see which individuals posess those disease resistance genes, because they don't get to express them in the face of disease challenge). Consider the example of smallpox in humans - it has often been said (I certainly agree) that, as a consequence of smallpox vaccination (and surely there would be few people claim that smallpox vaccination was a bad thing) the human population is now highly susceptible and vulnerable to the potential effects of a smallpox outbreak. Does this mean that if smallpox broke out, there would be nobody left and humans would become extinct? No - there would certainly be waves of death and destruction, but still those who have those genes for smallpox resistance who would survive. Consider the situation of smallpox introduction to the Americas by Europeans - there are repeated record of whole villages of Native American being almost completely wiped out: but the thing is "almost completely" - not "Native Americans are now completely extinct due to smallpox" (incidentally - that can't be blamed on the presence of vaccination).

Htul


Last edited by Htul on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:34 pm 
Offline
Great Game
Great Game

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:57 am
Posts: 1267
Location: Hamilton Vic
htul you raise an important point that in the absence of either a positive or negative selection pressure the alleles that are present will remain in the population at a frequency equal to that they started with (this is known as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium). In the case of vaccinated birds you are right that the vaccine would just mask their expression which is an environmental not a genetic effect.

Where this quantitative genetic theory can fail in poultry breeding (as well as the linkage effect that you have already mentioned) is that our populations are small and we do not practise random mating. So allele shifts can occur due to founder effects or drift due to the introduction of a new sire and the use of this sire and his sons over multiple hens. This is where I think that an understanding of quantitative (or population) genetics can help exhibition poultry breeders in the same way that the discussion of qualitative traits like plumage colour can help in breeding and maintaining colour patterns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:26 pm 
this is going to take me a while to answer and i will do it in several posts which may finish tomorrow as i work my way through and answer while i am thinking straight, although tiredness is catching up.

firstly my apologies to RAf for taking offense so quickly. i misunderstood your statement and have deleted my bad behaviour. i hope you can accept my oppologies and i will take into account what you really meant when i continue after discussing each point brought up by others. I am sorry Raf for being so rude.

remembering this is a debate please all, including myself, lets not take offence.

i amgoing to sort out something to eat and have a shower first as i have been mowing and killed the mower...again.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:55 pm 
lets start by talking about this bird. it is a malay game cockerel about 5 months old. it was GIVEN to me by a friend as a chicken along with its sister who had an obvious genetic deformith of the beak. my frin could not kill it so i took it and observed the defect for a while and photographed it and then put it down.

my friend spends a lot of money buying birds, usually as eggs from sources he hopes will e good and that will improve his birds. perhaps my anger is that he gets ripped off as my friend does not vaccinate and would so love to have nice birds and rare birds.

it died over night, i found it dead in the cage where he slept. the only problem he had was he shook, sort of trembled all over for a couple of months now. Marek's affects the nerves in many different ways and i am not about to go and have him tested. i am glad in a way that he died as now i will get rid of the 2 hens i have (different breeding) and forget about my obssesion with malays. as much as i would like to have them i have too many breeds, too many interests, and there are other things in the world to do. perhaps a little knowledge i have gleaned in the short time i have had malays will be of use one day.

to be continued as i am photographing the supermoon at the same time i am answering this.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:16 pm 
Offline
Old Mother Goose
Old Mother Goose
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:06 pm
Posts: 5886
Location: Canberra
Ta :hiya:

_________________
Breeder of Blue Laced Red Wyandottes.

See www.bluelacedgold.wordpress.com for details


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:03 pm 
first i am going to answer black leghorn.

he said:


Quote:
To imply that someone who vaccinates birds is unethical is unfair. The ethics of looking after animal welfare are also strong. It may be true to say that vaccines may not be available in the future but who knows? To use the cynical view of the world you have implied, then it would also be true to say that the more vaccination the greater the drive to make the product available because they will make a bigger buck.


i imply that someone who breeds birds is responsible for their genetic welfare...different to welfare in general as it is a long term approach. do people not vaccinate to satisfy their own needs one way or another and do they ever consider what is ethical and if what they do is by creating a live artifact?


Quote:
To vaccinate or not vaccinate has absolutely nothing to do with someone's desire to understand genetics, the legacy they wish to leave, or their gullibility to be sucked into some conspiracy theory.



perhaps when breeding animals are people who should understand genetics, no matter if they are using artificial means to keep their product alive and to propergate it. ignorance is not an excuse to maintain or develop an inferior product.

Quote:
have bred poultry for more than 20 years and the current resurgence in backyard poultry is heartening. I am very happy to supply birds to those who want a pet that lays eggs and wish it to live with them forever, I am also happy to sell birds to someone who replaces their birds with new pullets every year. To each their own.


i have discussed this with micki before. it was his business and i feel if you are selling to people who just want a few hens that is fine. you need to sell a quality product and birds that are vaccinated need also be bred for resistance too as this helps in the efficiency of the vaccine. i bet you don't tell these people that they cannot hatch their own chickens under a hen but have to use an incubator and certain precautionary methods with vaccines to allow their chickens to grow and live a healthy life.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:33 pm 
and now to answer Htul who i feel is far superior to me in genetics knowledge and i really should wait for the morning when i maybe more alert.

Quote:
I realise that you and I have different views on this, and we discussed these opposing views some years ago at The Coop - for my own situation, I do not vaccinate -but certainly would consider it if it was cost effective to do so.


i realize this and it is great to debate such things, it helps both of us develop our opinions and question what we really believe. if we cease to think of these things then it is a sad world.

Quote:
I also believe that it is not realistic to breed a strain of fowl that is "resistant to everything" (especially not in Australia - given that there are so many exotic diseases that exist that you simply couldn't expose birds to, to breed for resistance to that disease). The birds that you have bred, which are no doubt very resistant to your local ailments (and which others have verified as being strong and vigorous in their environments) would also equally without doubt fail against some ailment somewhere in the world


this is the challenge.we know so little, mostly what we do is trial and error. oh wouldn't we love to breed a multiresistant bird but it is impossible....most likely. we can try to breed a bird that evolves along with the pathogens present that too are evolving. as an individual in a small town even someone who has no scientific standing our jobs are pointless and futile. it will get us nowhere but maybe, just maybe someone may think about it and a seed will be sown.

Quote:
The issue of genetic diversity is another one where I believe we have some differeng views: by not selecting for disease resistance, I do not believe this implies that you are selecting for disease sensitivity: you are simply not practicing selection at all. So, unless the other traits that you are selecting for are actively linked to disease sensitivity and hence you inadvertantly select for this susceptibility, the disease resistance genes should still be segregating in the population as a whole (you just don't get to see which individuals posess those disease resistance genes, because they don't


the act of selecting is the act of discarding and collecting. you yourself know that the dominant genes may well be eradicated. the reason why the exhibition breeders and the breeders for pretties select is for those traits, be it for sale or exhibition....whoops i forgot the brown eggs. mutations are generally regarded as unwanted as no one wants to find out about them as they tend to be one eyed these days where once upon a time a mutation may have been selected for or ignored. vaccination is a blanket. as many people say it is the best birds they will loose and perhaps these best birds are a select combination of lethal genes like a white bird in the wild that can be camoflaged with paint.

Quote:
Consider the example of smallpox in humans - it has often been said (I certainly agree) that, as a consequence of smallpox vaccination (and surely there would be few people claim that smallpox vaccination was a bad thing) the human population is now highly susceptible and vulnerable to the potential effects of a smallpox outbreak. Does this mean that if smallpox broke out, there would be nobody left and humans would become extinct? No - there would certainly be waves of death and destruction, but still those who have those genes for smallpox resistance who would survive. Consider the situation of smallpox introduction to the Americas by Europeans - there are repeated record of whole villages of Native American being almost completely wiped out: but the thing is "almost completely" - not "Native Americans are now completely extinct due to smallpox" (incidentally - that can't be blamed on the presence of vaccination).


a dangerous experiment to have to do with our poultry isn't it? even with our human population. human society would collapse under such a load if tested to the negative. i suppose if we are lucky we can avoid such in our live stock. perhaps such a catastrophy can be minimized in humans by finding out in such things in poultry. remembering a chicken can be bred in 5 months, less than 2 generations in a year. such mistake should show themselves long before humans whoes generations are about 15 years apart.

i am sure i read this post differently a few hours ago. asi was thinking about the answer while mowing the lawn.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:40 pm 
Offline
Old Mother Goose
Old Mother Goose
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:15 pm
Posts: 5577
Location: St georges basin (NOWRA) nsw
It is amazing the difference between poultry and parrots. In ringnecks for example every breeder is always on the lookout for the tiniest sign they could be onto a new mutation because a new mutation in a ringneck parrot could be worth many thousands of dollars. The common colours are now almost worthless, green, blue $50 yet a green with a different pattern that is rare or never seen before can sell for $20,000 or more.

Then you take a breed of chicken and something new or interesting shows up and its the oposite reaction from breeders.

_________________
MY WEBSITE http://shambhala-birds.webs.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
©2004-2014 Backyardpoultry.com. Content rights reserved
freestone