The link I tried to create in the body of my post doesn't work but the one at the bottom works fine. Sorry about that.

We have talked to many people about our naked chicken problem...local farm stores, cooperative extension, online...I have found that only people who have chickens as pets have been able to relate to this problem. The people at cooperative extension had no idea what I was talking about. At the end of the summer (2005), we dusted the coop and the chickens for mites, even though we saw no signs of a mite problem. We thought it was worth a shot. That didn't make a difference. As I said in my original posting, they kept growing shoots but then they would be gone within days. We didn't know if they were picking on each other, or if they were doing it to themselves. With the cold winter approaching, we planned on heating the coop with a heat lamp. Once the weather started to get cold, low 40's and 30's, miraculously, they started growing feathers and this time the shoots didn't disappear within a few days like before! They eventually all grew their feathers back, some took longer than others. But it got pretty darn cold before they were back to normal. At the time we didn't have a rooster, so we thought maybe we needed one to keep the peace. This past spring we got two new chicks. One rooster, one hen. Once the warm weather came, our girls, once again, got naked. They stayed that way all summer. Some worse than others. We introduced the rooster and new hen to the pack and they moved into the coop at the end of the summer. They all got along well but the original 6 remained naked. The two newbie's remained fully covered. We had a warm start to the winter, and in early January once it finally got cold, they let their feathers grow in, once again! One took alot longer than the others but she got it eventually. From all of this, it seems to me, this is mostly, if not completely self inflicted. Apparently, they know to let them grow in once it gets cold enough and they also must like a little air conditioning in the summer. This is our second winter with this problem. They will be 3 yrs. in April. We will see if we go through this again or if the rooster does the trick for this group. I don't have high hopes though. He is basically one of the girls, and has his own problems...He has Marek's disease (I learned this from the poultry expert from Cornell University), which is some neurological disease. We had to nurse him along...has has alot of balance problems, no longer crows, and no longer has "interest" in the girls. I wonder if the new hen will catch onto the behavior in the spring? I have decided chickens are wierd! I think this group has a pretty sweet life, free ranging and eating the day away. I guess they get bored... This group has worked out a system for themselves and I guess we are okay with it, even though they look hideous ("What's with your chickens?"). Although, every time they have to re-grow feathers, we have a major egg slow-down. I think if they have spotty feather loss it's probably because they are low-hen on the totem pole. But the kind of allover and complete feather loss, like mine have is self inflicted. I mean, they get EVERY last feather and in places it would not be easy for another chicken to reach. I don't know what you should do if they don't grow them back, other than heating the coop. I LOVED the baby bib idea and hadn't heard of the Vicks idea. I think I may try that one. Good luck.

Coincidentally, I left a post on another thread a little while ago that addresses the idea that certain plants "must dry between waterings." This is one of those statements that could be useful if it was properly qualified, but is simply wrong on its face. Strangely enough, I even used aralia as an example of plants that do indeed rebel quickly and notably when over-watered; however, that the plant doesn't like the stress associated with over-watering is not an indication it likes the stress associated with a dry soil, either. Following, is a copy/paste of what I offered on a thread about F alii. Remember it was written and posted before this thread appeared: [The question was asked] "Before I lightly water, should the soil be completely dry from top to bottom of my pot?" Your question begs a yes/no answer, but if I answered YES, I would be wrong, and NO wouldn't be very helpful because it needs qualifying to be useful. Some growers confidently give the advice that plants like succulents, schefflera, aralia, ficus, and many others, should be allowed to go dry before you water again. This is an error that cuts against the well-being of the plant. These plants TOLERATE drought stress better than most other plants when they're taken as a group, but that doesn't mean they are immune to the ill effects of drought stress - they're not. Let's add some perspective though, to what I just said. It's easy to see how that advice originated and came to be accepted as a near universal truth, when in fact it should be relegated to the pile of horticultural myths. Aralia, for example, is a plant that reacts quickly and poorly to soggy soil conditions. Somewhere, someone writing a plant book said, "I don't think my readers will understand, or want to be bothered with what it takes to understand, this watering business, so I'd better make sure the information I supply at least keeps them from killing their plant from over-watering." The author then evaluates whether or not it's better to let the plant go dry and suffer the effects of drought stress, or to tell them to keep the soil moist and risk the grower being too heavy-handed on the watering can. The lesser of the evils is to let the plant dry down before you water. It's not "good for the plant"; it's simply 'less bad' than over-watering. 'Balance', is a nuance that escapes a high % of even long-time growers. It's important to understand that what you THINK you're seeing isn't always what is actually happening. For instance, many growers assume that when you can only detect (with finger/probe) moisture in the extreme bottom of the pot, all the roots above the detectable moisture level are unable to take up water and nutrients. That's what it LOOKS like - the soil is dry - right? That's what we assume and what we act on, if we don't understand that plants take up water a molecule at a time from a microscopically water in the bottom of the pot diffuses in vapor form throughout the entire soil mass. So in actuality, it might only be the top 10% of the soil that is actually too dry for the plant ..... and the roots in the top 10% of the soil are going to be almost all conducting/anchoring roots anyway. Additionally, when there is moisture detectable only at the pot bottom, the diffusion rate can easily be high enough that not only will there be water available in vapor form in the upper part of the pot, but enough diffusion might be going on that it maintains the integrity of that microscopic film of water on colloidal surfaces from which plants gather water. Remember, plants don't take up water in sips/gulps like we do. Water moves into the plant a molecule at a time, so water that can actually be SEEN in soils is inhibiting of root function. That's why it's so important to understand that evenly damp or moist is the ideal state of water retention for almost everything we grow. HOW to achieve 'evenly moist' is part of the same play - just a different act. At this juncture, what's important is that 'evenly moist' is ideal, but if you have to err, err on the dry side - but not TOO dry. One thing you need to consider is where the roots are in the container. A 12" pot containing a plant with 3" of root depth due to a recent root pruning/repotting/potting up, shouldn't be allowed to dry down as much as the same set-up that's mature (roots have thoroughly colonized the soil mass). The key to this whole watering thing is reducing the amount of perched water in the soil to the greatest degree possible. It may seem like word play, but reducing the amount of perched water a soil CAN hold is better than working toward reducing the amount of perched water a soil DOES hold. The reason there is a difference is, the former is achieved as a function of particle size and the physical properties of the particles, both of which affect ACTUAL aeration and drainage. The later can be achieved via a variety of ways that don't necessarily depend on changes in particle size and aeration; so while the net result is still an improvement, it's not as significant an improvement as reducing the amount of water a soil is capable of holding. Al

While the television tuner can become intermittent and/or fail, it really is somewhat rare. I highly recommend connecting your television to your husbands coax feed to see if the problem is still there - just part of the basic troubleshooting process. If it gone you know the television is OK and it is a signal issue. As far as who to call, there is not a simply answer anymore. Cable companies used to wired the cable to multiple rooms for you. Now they have typically taken the telephone company approach of a demarcation point at your house where their line responsibility ends on the outside of your home and your responsibility begins. Since your husband's television is working OK, and I'm suspecting your television will work OK on his coax feed - the problem is then on your side of the demarcation point - or simply the wiring which is your responsibility. That should be something your "local TV guy" should be able to address. One possible reason why the problem may occur more on commercials is that local ads are inserted into the network program stream and slight variations in the signal may occur.