MILO
213 posts
Feb 27, 2007
9:37 PM
|
Hi guys. I am pretty jazzed. I have 100% fertility with 100% hatches on the first round... 8 individual pens, with 16 very healthy youngsters. With all the cold and rain, I thought something was bound to go wrong. I have new breeders and some really old birds. A great way to start off the new season. Do you guys find the first round to be this productive, because usually my second and third is the strongest?
c
|
Frankie
116 posts
Feb 27, 2007
10:06 PM
|
sounds like your off to a good start best of luck.
Frankie
|
MILO
214 posts
Feb 27, 2007
10:44 PM
|
thanks!
|
kcfirl
70 posts
Feb 27, 2007
11:12 PM
|
Milo,
I had 7 pairs and ended up with 8 babies weaned and in the kitbox from the first round. I had 3 babies die either on the floor or in the nest when we had cold weather a month ago.
Firl
|
slove
16 posts
Feb 28, 2007
12:28 AM
|
milo
hope my birds do that good have fun with it
DJ
|
Velo99
954 posts
Feb 28, 2007
4:41 AM
|
Same here Milo,
14 eggs 14 chicks. Got my breeders all healthy and gave them a sal bac immunization a month prior. Ran lights 12-14 hours a day.
Last year I had 5 birds survive from the first round. Big difference huh?
----------
V99
Good spinners don`t always
make good breeders.
http://www.bluedotloft.50megs.com
|
bman
238 posts
Feb 28, 2007
6:49 AM
|
Milo,
Good job!
6 pairs 1st round;2 infertile,1 loss,9 in the kit box.
2nd round; 1 infertile 7 hatched waiting on last four to hatch.
----------
Ron
|
MILO
215 posts
Feb 28, 2007
6:56 AM
|
Good to hear about you guys having good results, and those that have improved.
c
|
ArlenS
34 posts
Feb 28, 2007
10:48 AM
|
Breeding a few birds through this winter in an unheated loft west of Denver CO has been a pain because of persistant cold weather. We set a record for snowfall and persistant snow on the ground. I had 3 feet of snow on my loft in December. The level of interest in mating is less (I still need to supply lighting to increase daylight hours), and takes longer. Of 4 eggs laid in December, 3 were set on, hatched and survived. However, I had to go out nightly for a few nights and place the hen on top of the chicks when they got a little older until she got the idea. The first egg froze prior to setting, so I can't know if it was fertile. I just happened to go out late at night and found an almost frozen chick that fell out of the nest at a few days old. I warmed it and it survived. Two eggs laid in January hatched but the chicks died the next night when it got to minus 17F. Of 3 eggs set on in February (I accidently broke the fourth trying to remove stuck-on feces - guess I won't try that again), all hatched and survived. After I accidently broke the above-mentioned egg, I let the hen set on the remaining egg for 4 days and removed it (she subsequently laid again in about 9 days). I then took the egg that had already incubated 4 days and fostered it under ring-neck doves (doves have an incubation period of 14 days versus pigeon eggs 18 days). These doves will set on eggs if I put them in a nest even if they haven't laid eggs themselves, and will even set on a ping pong ball. The egg hatched before my eyes 5 days ago, and the doves' milk came in right away. The male was so desperate to help he would set on top of the female when she was setting on the chick. I should have taken a photo. I would remove him to make sure the chick didn't get squashed. So far so good. Those doves are going to look silly trying to set on a baby pigeon as big as they are at 2 weeks. In summary, although numbers are very low, fertility has been good. Hopefully, this will be the last winter that I need to breed through, although I may let the doves foster more single pigeon eggs during winter. I keep them in a cage in the garage during winter.
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2007 11:06 AM
|
Ballrollers
683 posts
Feb 28, 2007
10:58 AM
|
Man, some of you guys are off to great starts! I had about 20% of my first round raise singles...single eggs layed, or one infertile or otherwise not hatched. Two hatchlings froze in the cold snap we had...
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2007 10:59 AM
|
STARFIRE
332 posts
Feb 28, 2007
11:22 AM
|
-Hey Guys:
I have a question for all you purists.You breed your birds for years and years and eliminate,or not breed from, all the defects that you can see in them.That includes -rolldowns -bumpers -outflyers-wing switchers-loose rolls-fast flyers-Not faceing the kit when completing the roll-fly too high-toolow.ETC.My question is. Whith all this elimination going on.WHY DO YOU STILL GET THESE DEFECTS IN YOUR BIRDS???Let hear a few ideas.or reasons, as to why this is still going on.Why cant we eliminate all the defects.
STARFIRE
|
motherlodelofts
1490 posts
Feb 28, 2007
11:46 AM
|
Stan , the gene pools are vast , and it boils down to a point of trying to "limit" the defects that pop up.
These are not machines, with that said, I have bred from well bred birds and I have bred from those that weren't.
Or if you will "refined" verses not , there is a world of difference between well bred birds and those that aren't.
Many things need to be taken into consideration, not the least of trying to breed birds to mentaly and pysicaly "handle" the roll, which covers most of your list of defects.
Scott
|
Ballrollers
685 posts
Feb 28, 2007
6:51 PM
|
Stan,
Let me try to add a little science to what Scott is saying from experience. In livestock breeding, we once assumed that every difference between one bird and another was attributable to a gene which one bird had and the other lacked. Geneticists have found lots of DNA , not actual genes, but "regulatory DNA" that expands or limits the degree to which genes are expressed, the same genes, being expressed differently; sort of like a dimmer light switch regulates the brightness of identical light bulbs according to the amount of electricity permitted to reach the bulb. So this accounts for enormous variability of gene expression.
Scott's recommendation to include only "refined" or "well-bred" birds in our breeding programs may, in reality, be referring to limiting ourselves to birds with less diversity or lesser amounts of the regulatory DNA available, as well as more consistency in the genetic package to begin with. Clear as mud? LOL!
YITS,
Cliff
Last Edited by on Feb 28, 2007 7:13 PM
|
MILO
217 posts
Feb 28, 2007
6:57 PM
|
I guess I can consider myself a purist for all intensive purposes...LOL You can't fully eliminate these "defects", but only control them and keep their numbers down. Rollers from start to finish are not animals of perfection. Not even in the least. Rollers in the wild would in perhaps only two generations lose the ability to roll all together. In essence, we are cultivating flawed animals. We tinker with them genetically to fit our likings. Do you think parlor rollers would have evolved on their own in an uncontrolled environment? I think not. The mechanices of roll follow neurological, AND physical guidelines. It is really not as simple as one would think. For the non-purist I would ask - Why would you want to quadruple the number of things that could go wrong by adding more variables (both good and bad) to the pot? Tightly bred families make for excellent stock lines. Crossing two highly inbred families makes for a SPECTACULAR F-1. I think many can be fooled by this. Cross them again, and results will be poor in my opinion. If you bring the F1 back to the source, then you can keep it going. Its not a purist mentality, it's just trying to keep variance to a minimum. There is no connection in stubborn breeding practice to prove a point, and intelligent breeding practice to refine birds with a purpose. I find too many guys try to make it political, but when if you look at it intelligently, and objectively, the answers are there for all to see.
c
|
motherlodelofts
1493 posts
Feb 28, 2007
7:59 PM
|
Cliff , you went way over my head LOL
|