Alright, let’s have this debate.
I’ve been studying eye sign for 15 years. Pair birds based on it, select young birds based on it. My results speak for themselves - consistent top 10% in my combine.
But every time I mention it online, people act like I’m talking about astrology.
So let’s hear it. Who believes in eye sign? Who thinks it’s complete nonsense? And most importantly - why?
I’ll bite.
I think eye sign is pattern recognition that FEELS meaningful but isn’t actually predictive. You remember the times it “worked” and forget the times it didn’t.
Show me a double-blind study where eye sign selectors consistently outperform random selection. Until then, it’s just confirmation bias.
Your results are good because you have good birds and good management. Not because you looked at their eyes.
Been in this game 33 years. Used to be a hardcore eye sign believer.
These days I’m more skeptical. I’ve seen birds with “perfect” eyes that couldn’t find their way home from 50 miles. And birds with “bad” eyes that won championships.
That said, I do think eye health and clarity tells you something about overall condition. Sick birds show it in their eyes before anywhere else.
Is that “eye sign”? Maybe. But it’s not the mystical breeding tool some people claim.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Eye sign as a primary selection tool? Probably oversold.
Eye sign as one factor among many? Probably has some value.
I look at eyes but I’d never cull a bird from proven bloodlines just because the eye doesn’t look right. Performance and pedigree matter more.
In the Netherlands and Belgium, most serious fanciers laugh at eye sign. We breed from results, period.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing. But the top lofts here don’t use it and they consistently produce world-class birds.
Just my observation.