Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings <rumblingsDELETE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:56:56 +0000
Jill wrote:
rumblings wrote:Jill wrote:rumblings wrote:You have said that the set was ALL non-starters at candling,Poor shells may not be the only factor then??Do you not believe that poor shells allow infection in and thatPoor shells would certainly not give a great hatch but should not
this kills of the chicks??
give all non-starters.
No I think I did have some fertile ones. They didn't reach 11 days
though.
I would expect shells that are simply weak to develop chicks that go mostly to term, embryos stopped at 11 days is hardly started.
If you were so unhappy about the egg size, shape, condition, and shell thickness when they arrived, then you should have returned them.
I didn't realise the significance of the blotches until I asked here. I was concerned at the size and emailed the seller about that and was assured that he wouldn't send out double yolkers and that at 87gm the largest egg was too small to be one of his double yolkers.
Having rested them, candled them before setting, and set them you made the choice to accept them as fit to set
I accepted the eggs as fit for the purpose but now, looking at the bigger picture it seems they were not. I didn't like the look of them but I was not knowledgeable enough to reject them on appearance. Are you saying that all the Ebay buyers who bought them in good faith and believed them to be fit for the purpose deserve what they got because they set them instead of returning them??
and as eggs you would want to perpetuate in your breeding stock.
I didn't know that shell quality was highly heritable - or even that it was important. I've just learned that in this thread - so I don't think your statement is fair.
The candling before would have shown the areas of shell weakness whether it was caused by the hen or by the post office.
Can you give more detail?? I still have the eggs and would like to be able to determine this.
put alongside
with Eggbox having hatched from the same breeder on collection,
suggests summat happened between collecting eggs from nestbox and
them arriving at you.
Chirpy claims to hatch them with good results. If true this would
support what you suggest.
Weak shells + heavy eggs = invisible cracks = death of chick before
chipping ?
Before chipping possibly, but not before candling at 11 days.
And the areas of weakness were visible before setting with a candler.
The other damage that is common in posted eggs is the membrane being damaged from the shell. Especially those parcels that go great distances, as they can go by plane. In some circumstances they can get decompressed which creates a bubble between membrane and shell.
The other damage is the twisting of the yolk in the egg, damaging the structure.
All of which can create the probelms you are experiencing however good the eggs were to start with.
OK. So why do these eggs consistently fare worse in the post than others??
They are packed in polystyrene boxes and then a single layer of bubble
wrap and then cardboard outer (ie quite a small compact package. I'd
be happier to see a very thick layer of bubble wrap to give more shock
protection. I had some duck eggs through Ebay - they were a similar
weight but had good thick shells and were wrapped in inches of cling
film - and results were 3 out of 7 (not great I know but I was happy
with that)
As I have said -- there are many routes that post takes from different locations, this can have a serious impact on the outcome of posted eggs. A small light box is ripe for abuse.
and Eggbox has been luckier than(and most or all of the Ebay buyers)
you
and the postal service is the common link between them.
What about these ones??
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=46292
You have to make your own decisions, weigh up the risks, communicate with the breeder, describe your requirements, assess the eggs on arrival,
Rest the eggs on arrival for several days, turning 3 times a day, candle them very carefully before setting,
You are knowledgeable enough to be able to be critical.
Once you set them you have accepted them.
see above - and I'd also ask if this would apply to vegetable seeds - Take an example of an Ebay seller selling non viable seeds. They may look OK to the layman's eye so would you say that by planting them he has accepted them?? If planted with controls, the buyer or buyers would soon determine that they were not fit for the purpose for which they were sold, and the fact that they have accepted them by planting surely would not absolve the seller of responsibility. OK the eggs are different as the shell faults are visible but the average buyer can't be expected to realise the significance of them.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Jill
- Re: blotchy shells
- References:
- blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Amy Blankenship
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Amy Blankenship
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Jill
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: eggbox
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: eggbox
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Jill
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Jill
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: rumblings
- Re: blotchy shells
- From: Jill
- blotchy shells
- Prev by Date: Re: blotchy shells
- Next by Date: Re: blotchy shells
- Previous by thread: Re: blotchy shells
- Next by thread: Re: blotchy shells
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|