Cornish Thread - Page 34

Quote:

Originally Posted by galanie 

What I get from that article is that they were developed from Aseel or Asil and now look nothing like them. So while they don't look like Asil any longer, they do look like the Cornish that I've seen pictures of from the early 1900's.

Well, what I understood from the article is that they were originally a much more slender fowl--still by all means a meat bird but much more agile and dual purpose than the modern Cornish. Notice what the author said about the Cornish being an "able flier" that roosts in trees when on free range. That sounds nothing like the modern type Cornish. Also, the author made a good point about artificial insemination and egg-laying ability. I personally do not think that any breed should be bound to existence merely by artificial insemination: it makes them harder to keep and honestly it makes them much more liken to the Cornish rock. As far as egg-laying, I have not heard of Cornish being reasonable layers, and I think that is because this trait has been bred out of them since the 1900s.

Do you have photos of the 1900s birds you were talking about? I haven't seen pics from that period but I saw an old illustration of Cornish bantams and believe me they look nothing like the modern Cornish bantam.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. Hope to hear from others soon!

~Gresh~

The Cornish description was put in the APA SOP in the late 1800's. I don't have a British Standard, but the Australian Standard (which I assume would be the same as the UK version) describes Indian Game in pretty much the same terms as the APA does. None of them view it as a dual purpose birds, it is a meat bird.

You won't be seeing Cornish fly into trees, but there is no need to AI them either.

Walt

All of my Cornish live breed, at least in their early years, but I was warned to keep them in pens large enough for them to travel about in. Nether do any of my mine have the extreme short shank set way out on the side of the body, and the shows I've seen have had none of that type being exhibited. Mine do have some trouble getting to a 3 ft roost, and a few don't bother to use even the lower roost. I have seen them have a bit of trouble getting off their backs. They have functional bodies, but are neither athletic nor graceful. They were developed as the ultimate meat bird, and if you're not in a hurry for them to reach processing size, in my opinion they still are exactly that. 

I've seen old drawings of Indian Games that do show an upright bird with heavy breast meat, actually looking quite a bit like the illustrations used by McMurray as to what their "Cornish" are supposed to look like.    I've had some crosses verging on that shape and stance, but minus the hard feathering. Actually, I believe that once you have that great heart shaped body of good Cornish, they are going to have to have a carriage much closer to horizontal.

Sure is an interesting article...

I've been told many times- but my 'average' cornish hens-- as they've been called-- are an agile flyer, and a good layer if the high protein feed is poored to them. 

I would like to know the source or your article-- as I'm sure many people who are in this breed need to read it-- but as already been stated-- none will believe it, or approve of it. 

Putting my knowledge of the livestock industry, and the fads and trends that have occured in the other species-- I tend to agree 100% of what I just read here- and has been called facts.

One last thought- I wonder if the forefathers of the modern Cornish purposely made an impractical bird-- to avoid the hobbiest, and commercial interest that was at one time strong-- and now so much growing by the day?  I wouldn't put it past them.

If a person writes an article about anything.......it does not make it fact.

Walt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresh 

Well, what I understood from the article is that they were originally a much more slender fowl--still by all means a meat bird but much more agile and dual purpose than the modern Cornish. Notice what the author said about the Cornish being an "able flier" that roosts in trees when on free range. That sounds nothing like the modern type Cornish. Also, the author made a good point about artificial insemination and egg-laying ability. I personally do not think that any breed should be bound to existence merely by artificial insemination: it makes them harder to keep and honestly it makes them much more liken to the Cornish rock. As far as egg-laying, I have not heard of Cornish being reasonable layers, and I think that is because this trait has been bred out of them since the 1900s.

 

Do you have photos of the 1900s birds you were talking about? I haven't seen pics from that period but I saw an old illustration of Cornish bantams and believe me they look nothing like the modern Cornish bantam.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, though. Hope to hear from others soon!

 

~Gresh~

Gresh;

I can understand why an admirer of game fowl would not like the appearance of Cornish. The name "Indian Game" was dropped a long time go, but still many years later than the breed itself had proved not to be suited for the purpose it was originally meant to serve. They became a meat breed, and primarily bred only for show today. While I can't say their value to me would be lessened if they laid more eggs, LOL, I really don't have a need for chickens that roost in trees or capable of long flights. LOL

Kfacres;

If my understanding of what I read is correct, and my memory is working, you had or have a DC cockerel of quality given to you by a friend of mine, and also have some Brahma, Wyandotte, Cornish mixed cockerels that you are using to cover some semi white laced red pullets bred from hatchery stock. If their type is what you want as a hobbyist, that is fine with me. Personally I would not call the eggs and chicks you're selling Cornish, or even "heritage" Cornish, or Indian Games. I doubt that the developers of Cornish conspired to breed Cornish to a standard designed to keep hobbyists from having them, though just as I don't have a use for Leghorns or American Games [both of which are capable of flying well and roosting in tress], some hobbyists will have no use for Cornish.   

I finally found the link Galanie posted of some copyrighted pictures of early to middle 1900s Cornish. they were not what I call slender bodied. LOL

http://www.poultryphotos.co.uk/asil_indian_montage.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cedarknob 

Gresh;

I can understand why an admirer of game fowl would not like the appearance of Cornish. The name "Indian Game" was dropped a long time go, but still many years later than the breed itself had proved not to be suited for the purpose it was originally meant to serve. They became a meat breed, and primarily bred only for show today. While I can't say their value to me would be lessened if they laid more eggs, LOL, I really don't have a need for chickens that roost in trees or capable of long flights. LOL

 

Kfacres;

If my understanding of what I read is correct, and my memory is working, you had or have a DC cockerel of quality given to you by a friend of mine, and also have some Brahma, Wyandotte, Cornish mixed cockerels that you are using to cover some semi white laced red pullets bred from hatchery stock. If their type is what you want as a hobbyist, that is fine with me. Personally I would not call the eggs and chicks you're selling Cornish, or even "heritage" Cornish, or Indian Games. I doubt that the developers of Cornish conspired to breed Cornish to a standard designed to keep hobbyists from having them, though just as I don't have a use for Leghorns or American Games [both of which are capable of flying well and roosting in tress], some hobbyists will have no use for Cornish.   

Forked tongues talk from both sides of their mouth.

How's your young pulling pup doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kfacres 

 

 

One last thought- I wonder if the forefathers of the modern Cornish purposely made an impractical bird-- to avoid the hobbiest, and commercial interest that was at one time strong-- and now so much growing by the day?  I wouldn't put it past them.

      Why would anyone create a breed of chickens that didn't appeal to anyone?