Things I don't feed my chickens😊

[NatJ]

I'm not realy talking about food as much as general health and illness.

Again, some things will be more applicable than others, but in most cases broiler chicken studies will be more useful than cattle or pig studies. Since there are usually no studies on chickens kept in typical backyard flocks, the broiler studies provide more information than the "none" and "a few anecdotes" we would have otherwise.

As an example, whether fermented feed improves health (usually yes by a small amount) might apply to other breeds as well. But what percent of chickens die from a particular strain of virus may be way off, high or low, as compared with specific other breeds or mixes.

I agree that there are enough differences that the studies should be viewed with caution, not accepted as 100% accurate for all chickens. But I do think they have some use in some cases.

 

[NatJ]

Older definitions are not always correct definitions. If you followed what you said, then you would be saying that a chicken and a peafowl are the same thing just because they can create offspring?

Are the offspring fertile? As in, can those offspring produce babies of their own?

I think horses and donkeys have always been considered separate species, ever since the concept of species was around at all. And it has been known for thousands of years that donkey x horse produces a mule, which is an offspring but almost never fertile. Mules would be one reason that "fertile" is part of the definition, not just "offspring."

 

[EddieSalita]

Older definitions are not always correct definitions. If you followed what you said, then you would be saying that a chicken and a peafowl are the same thing just because they can create offspring?


What? What are laughing emojis supposed to tell me?

Are the offspring fertile? As in, can those offspring produce babies of their own?

I think horses and donkeys have always been considered separate species, ever since the concept of species was around at all. And it has been known for thousands of years that donkey x horse produces a mule, which is an offspring but almost never fertile. Mules would be one reason that "fertile" is part of the definition, not just "offspring."

Indeed. I didn't say offspring. As natj points out...... I said FERTILE offspring. Fertile is absolutely the key word overlooked.


"Species
A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. However, the classification of a species can be difficult—even riddled with controversy."
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/species/

It's been an acceptable basic definition for a long time. I alluded to the difficulty and controversy in my post.

Zebra horse hybrids in either direction are also sterile.

Ligers and tigons are other examples. They rarely produce fertile offspring. Ie: they are sterile. They are compatible enough on a chromosomal basis to produce viable offspring. Even displaying significant hybrid vigour. But that offspring cannot reproduce. So like a mule they are doomed to never be biologically classified as a species.
It's different story with fish. Different species can interbreed and have viable offspring. Creating something new. But getting those offspring to breed true to type is another matter. But it can happen. It happens in nature, and in aquariums. Which is perhaps why there are so many locality variants and subtypes in places like the African rift lakes and coral reefs. In aquariums we have things like flowerhorns which are controversial.

Like fish, I imagine there is a bit of this that can happen in reptiles and birds. Especially when geographical isolation occurs. It's seems a trend that the higher the order of animal, the more compatible they have to be to create fertile offspring. But I'm not a zoologist, amd nature has a way of breaking the rules.

There is so much we don't understand.

On peafowl and chickens:

https://pangur-and-grim.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F631812643925213184

.

 

[Farmgirl283420]

Indeed. I didn't say offspring. As natj points out...... I said FERTILE offspring. Fertile is absolutely the key word overlooked.


"Species
A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. However, the classification of a species can be difficult—even riddled with controversy."
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/species/

It's been an acceptable basic definition for a long time. I alluded to the difficulty and controversy in my post.

Zebra horse hybrids in either direction are also sterile.

Ligers and tigons are other examples. They rarely produce fertile offspring. Ie: they are sterile. They are compatible enough on a chromosomal basis to produce viable offspring. Even displaying significant hybrid vigour. But that offspring cannot reproduce. So like a mule they are doomed to never be biologically classified as a species.
It's different story with fish. Different species can interbreed and have viable offspring. Creating something new. But getting those offspring to breed true to type is another matter. But it can happen. It happens in nature, and in aquariums. Which is perhaps why there are so many locality variants and subtypes in places like the African rift lakes and coral reefs. In aquariums we have things like flowerhorns which are controversial.

Like fish, I imagine there is a bit of this that can happen in reptiles and birds. Especially when geographical isolation occurs. It's seems a trend that the higher the order of animal, the more compatible they have to be to create fertile offspring. But I'm not a zoologist, amd nature has a way of breaking the rules.

There is so much we don't understand.

On peafowl and chickens:

https://pangur-and-grim.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F631812643925213184

.

Poor birds