--->Yes but then it is us and not the bird who is interested in following a
>paleo diet.

In my opinion , if the paleo eating concept have some value ,it is in the
idea of genetic adaptation to the original diet with which we  or other
animal evolved.. The slow process of  a species's genetic adaptation to its
environment that provide the  foods,  is something that we are learning to
not mess up with.
We know that the nutrient profile of a cow raised on its original diet
(grass) is closer to a wild herbivorous than a grain fed cow and healthier.

>
>I'm prepared to argue that these eggs are perfectly suited to a paleo diet.

Was your question  not a true question that you allready made your mind
about it ?

>Where do we draw the line?

that is the thing ,there is no line , there is only a learning process about
what made the paleolithic peoples or hunter gatherers of yesterday healthier
than their neolithic cousins and what made the primitive neolithic peoples
healthier than their more modern counterpart, and what makes an industrially
processed diet more damaging than a whole food ones...
i see a trend in our devolution ...
>
>I think this becomes a debate about form vs substance. I for one am
>interested in substance more than form. I am interested in eating a diet
>that contains paleolithic *nutrient proportions*, regardless of the form in
>which I get them.

The nutrient proportions might be an aspect,  that we believed we could
bypassed when we changed it.
BUt i am sure that, it doesn't explain by itself the degrading of our health
there is more to a food  or a diet that its nutrient content, (the whole is
greater than the sum of its part)
>
>In principle (though probably not in practice) I would not object to a
>paleolithic powdered meal replacement mix for mixing into water three times
>per day, provided that the mix contained the proper paleo proportions of
>vitamins, fats, proteins, fiber, etc. Such a mix would not be paleo in form
>but it would be paleo in substance.

i will say the opposite that such a mix will be paleo in form ( following
your own defintion of paleo -- nutrient proportions) but not in substance
(in essence)



>In practice I might prefer to match the paleo diet in both form and
>substance, but this is only because I would rather allow for the
possibility
>of some as yet undiscovered health benefits to the genuine prehistoric
diet.


we agree on that one! but what about the possible undiscovered health
benefits from a diet including chickens eating its natural original diet and
living its original life style. ( bugs ,worms,  greens , seeds etc...
scratching , running free , dusting ,social interactions etc...)
like usual the scientists take one aspect ( omega 3 here) and make a whole
world from it and on top of that  are patenting the "discovery"


>On p. 83 of Neanderthin, Ray Audette states: "Eggs fortified withe omega-3
fatty acids are also closer to wild eggs in nutrition." This is the last
sentence in a paragraph about the nutritional value of wild, free-range, and
factory eggs.>

So , for sure in comparaison with the eggs raised on by products of the
meat, grain and pulse, and oil  industry ( pelleted feeds) those eggs are
closer to the chicken potential.
but in comparaison with a chicken running free living off bugs, greens , and
wild seeds that is pathetic.

>, they need to be off flax seed
>for at least 3-4 weeks before they are bred or there will not be enough
>cholesterol in the eggs to nourish the development of chicks. Breeders
>need
>a high cholesterol diet!

>So, this is a non-chemical, non-genetic way of tailoring eggs as a >HUMAN
food by making them different than what a baby chick needs.

Thank you Laurie for your post there is nothing more enlightening than a
down to earth experience.
How healthy can we expect to be by feeding on  animals that can't even
reproduce properly.?

>
>And I am planting the seeds of
>greens that are nutritious for poultry in the area of the chicken yard, so
>they can graze.

this is i think,  a good source of omega 3 fatty acids, greens like purslane
contain thoses.  what about the fats in worms and insects?
. There is so many wild plants  or wild animals ( insects and
worms) , a chicken could eat that nobody bother analysing . they will
certainly provide all the nutrients that researchers are trying to supply
with a "reliable " source.
Is flax seed the only source available of omega 3s ,certainly not but the
most easely commercialised in quantity.
if 10 percent of flax seeds are needed to get eggs with the wanted
nutritional profile ( do we really want low cholesterol foods in the 1st
place) but have the side effect of making the animals incapacited in their
fertility, there is something wrong in flax seeds as the only source of
omegas 3s ( in chicken or humans) There is may be a lesson  to learn in the
flax seed fad.
don't forget that those nutrition studies start with the premice that
chicken will be raised in battery or" industrial free range" so they have to
found out the most economical way to provide the least depleted nutrition.in
an unurturing , unourishing environment.
Flax seed is cheap to produce in quantity. so there we go ,flax seed  "a
toutes les sauces"., or fish oils ( we have to make a profit out of the by
product of fish processing).

don't buy into it ( figuratively , or  don't buy it litterally,  if able to
rely on unindustrial
sources)


ps,<< the girls are the breeds
I selected after a lot of research, to lay naturally-colored rainbow eggs>>

what is the breed and what is your criterias for choosing them?
jean-claude