Day 59 of incubation and I am confused.

I don't know about everyone else, but I was at 86F because I live in Phoenix, AZ, and the air conditioner in our house failed several times this summer, and it took over a month to fix/replace all the relevant parts. The first failure took place when we were out of town, and I probably lost 4 out of 20 eggs because of it. 86F meant that I had a few degrees of wiggle room, and probably saved the rest of the eggs when the air conditioning broke the second time.

a lower incubation temp means longer hatch times

I would not cut. However, if you do - make small "V" shaped-window cuts and not a big gaping hole where half the egg spills out.

I incubated at 86.6-87ish and was happy with the results. The eggs pipped at 62 and 63 days and they all came out with no issues, no egg sack, etc. I think people have checked the temps/hatch time on maternal eggs and they are closer to that range. People up the temps to speed the process a few days and when I read reports of babies coming out deformed, egg sacks attached, umbilicus attached, underdeveloped, etc. the person usually cites a higher incubation temp. Lots of resources suggest there is more risk in overheating than underheating the eggs so this is another argument for leaving a little 'wiggle room.' They are very fragile as embryos and small babies and I'd much rather give them a little more time to develop slowly. Science proves that heat can disrupt cell division as well - which is obviously happening aggressively in a developing baby.

/2cents

89 has been my magic number out in 56-59 days usually

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLang

I incubated at 86.6-87ish and was happy with the results. The eggs pipped at 62 and 63 days and they all came out with no issues, no egg sack, etc. I think people have checked the temps/hatch time on maternal eggs and they are closer to that range. People up the temps to speed the process a few days and when I read reports of babies coming out deformed, egg sacks attached, umbilicus attached, underdeveloped, etc. the person usually cites a higher incubation temp. Lots of resources suggest there is more risk in overheating than underheating the eggs so this is another argument for leaving a little 'wiggle room.' They are very fragile as embryos and small babies and I'd much rather give them a little more time to develop slowly. Science proves that heat can disrupt cell division as well - which is obviously happening aggressively in a developing baby.

/2cents

---

I agree completely with this argument. I did a ton of research as to the best temperature to incubate at. About 86F is the natural incubation temperature. I would much rather wait longer and have healthier babies, than get it too hot and risk problems. That said, I don't think 89F is a bad temperature, and it has been proven to produce perfectly healthy babies in a shorter time. I just prefer to err on the side of caution.