Standard of Perfection - Page 17

  Hi,

   Another thing Broomhead wrote which really caught my attention. In discussing the Light Sussex, he states that much has been made of the long keelbone in the breed. This is a marker for quality in a meat producing bird. He also states that too long a keel isn't found in the better egg layers. So Broomhead says in a dual purpose breed like the Light Sussex, not to worry too much about the length of the keel, instead to put more effort into the length of the back. I have never seen this mentioned anywhere else.

 How does concentrating on the length of the  back conpensate for an average , rather than a long keelbone? In other words, instead of concentrating on an extra-long keelbone,  Broomhead seems to write that concentratng on length of back will accomplish the same thing...and by extension seems say that doing this will give one a bird which is truly dual purpose, both a quality egg layer and meat bird.  I don't get where the length of back comes in as a favored virtue?

 Thanks for any enligtenment.

 Karen

Yes Bob we do this exact thing with our Dominiques and the digital cameras and image editing software do make it easier. In Photoshop I can simply put the SOP male as a layer over an image of our males in a similar stance (trying to get a Dominique to hold still is like pulling eye teeth from a bull elk lol). and fade the layer so it's see through enough (I do some other editing, like desaturating etc but that's fairly optional). It has been a great tool for us. HOWEVER the birds in the standard are never perfect, and furthermore are not actual birds. I always give the male Dominique tail as an example of this, look at the original Carter birds that were used for the photos and you can see the tail is even more exaggerated. So we often look at the photos of the Carter birds AND the standard photos. We do NOT use the newer standard photos because they look a bit cartoonish and the legs are terribly wrong for the Dom anyway. 

However, when we are looking at keel bones, capacity, etc etc etc all these things that cannot just be seen in a photo - having an idea of exactly what those best birds should be would be helpful. Our breed is not supposed to be egg machines or meat machines but something in between both, so while we do practice culling for both we sometimes wonder if maybe this hen's lines are too egg oriented (giving up heft in her offspring), or this hen is going to throw too meat heavy birds (which would eventually sacrifice eggs or thriftiness maybe). Maybe these fears are unfounded, my business partner and I are still beginners. We just want to do what's best for the breed at every turn and it seems that there are plenty of books on selecting for this trait or that trait, but nothing specific on "a Dominique should measure 4 man's fingers from keel to pubic" or something like that. Phew would that be priceless!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Blosl 

I dont think that will happen in the standard. Its simple however. Years ago when we had slide projectors and slides I took a picture of a Rhode Island red out of my black and white standard. Then the slides came in and I projected it onto the wall to the size of a normal 18 month old rhode island red cock bird and hen. The cock bird and the picture where about right so I measured the size of the slide on the white sheet on the wall. The length from the beak to the end of tail was 24 inches the distance from the ground to the top of his head or top of the comb was 24 inches. The width of back was about seven inches. Did not measure the female slide. I just produced females that would lay 2 1/2 half oz eggs at ten months and lay ed about 200 eggs per pullet year. The size of the males was about one to one and half pounds over weight. Some of my friends had males longer than mine about three to four inches but they were not balanced they where all tail.

 

Today I don't know if you can do this with a digital camera. I took a picture of a new fishing lure in my digital camera this moaning put the chip in my computer sent the picture to photo bucket and in about one minute I posted the picture of the fishing lure on the forum fishing board for a guy to see. Thats pretty impressive. In two minutes you can post a picture from the hand to the site. I had to wait a week for the slides to come back to the drug store when I did the measurement thing thirty years ago. The black and white pictures in the standard are pretty good in size and comparison to the real bird. Mr. Reese took a slide like I did and cut out a plywood silo wet and painted it dark brown and had it hanging in his chicken house. It looked like the real thing. bob

And how would you apply this to a breed calling for a shorter back? Lol oh the challenges never end :)
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3riverschick 

  Hi,

   Another thing Broomhead wrote which really caught my attention. In discussing the Light Sussex, he states that much has been made of the long keelbone in the breed. This is a marker for quality in a meat producing bird. He also states that too long a keel isn't found in the better egg layers. So Broomhead says in a dual purpose breed like the Light Sussex, not to worry too much about the length of the keel, instead to put more effort into the length of the back. I have never seen this mentioned anywhere else.

 How does concentrating on the length of the  back conpensate for an average , rather than a long keelbone? In other words, instead of concentrating on an extra-long keelbone,  Broomhead seems to write that concentratng on length of back will accomplish the same thing...and by extension seems say that doing this will give one a bird which is truly dual purpose, both a quality egg layer and meat bird.  I don't get where the length of back comes in as a favored virtue?

 Thanks for any enligtenment.

 Karen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggiesdad 

 WHEN in the chicken's lifespan does this wing and tail judging and culling occur? Is it a set number of weeks, or is it the breeder's best judgment of when it takes place?

 

As a novice I would hate to cull a perfectly good bird because of a normal molt or change of feathers...

I would like to know this, also. I'm checking 11 week old Delawares. So far, the breastbones all feel correct. But the wing feathers are not all as perfect as you describe. So, at what age would you check this for an accurate representation?

Thanks,

Kim

This is something to check with knowledgeable breeders IN YOUR BREED. Many heritage birds will seem inferior as chicks or the young birds will lie about their qualities to you. I am not an expert in this but to the first person asking the question perhaps you should post what breed you have.

Allot depends on the breed when it comes to say Rocks you want a gravy bowl look. You got to have a round breast on your birds to get it. if you do not have a good keel bone to meat on the birds will be short in the chest and the males when ten months old look sawed of in the beast. They will past  on to the off spring. Tonight my little dog and I went out to get the eggs at eight pm as its going to freeze down her and befor I got around the coops the lights were on and I just stood there and looked at the big large fowl hens in the pen. There breast are so extended and round and I saw the gravy bowl look I always think about on a rock. In large fowl reds I want a brick shape and the underline comes out then extends forward and up you cant have this unless you have a good keel  bone. Length of back must be moderately long to have over all balance. You can tell if your birds are short in back when they go through their first molt and are about 16 to 18 months old do they have a brick shape or a boxy look. If they have a boxy look you need more length of body or back. In Rocks they will be more round like a wyandotte. It just depends on the breed. Many of the lesser breeds are in need of length of back and body because they have been so run down over they year do to lack of interest. Its hard to take a chicken that is only a 85 to 90 point bird and make them look like the standard. It may take ten years to get to this goal. Balance is the key. bob

I have birds who are 9 months old and I haven't made my final selection for my breeding flock.

I can take a few of the better birds to show and let the judge sort them out, because different judges will place the birds differently.  It's easier for me to select my breeding stock than it is to guess what bird the judges will like.  The show birds might or might not end up in my breeding flock.

I can do my first cull at 8-10 weeks.  Cull into my freezer for obvious flaws, weak temperament, mismarks.  Bodies and plumage change  a lot over the first year. Shape of the head can change a little bit. A bird with  a slightly low forehead might turn out fine by the time he is finished growing.

When you are trying to establish a decent flock, you must wait longer to cull because your birds are more valuable to you when the flock is small and quality is being built. One quality chick can make a huge difference to your flock.  Once you have hatches with 30% of the chicks going to be quality, then if you make a mistake in your early culling, you haven't hurt yourself.

Just a suggestion: when you are starting cull really tough.  You don't get quality animals from breeding stock that is so-so with many forgiven faults. Work hard until your breeders are all top quality animals.

Bob, you kinda left us hanging on the egg laying improvement? What the secret?

Well, i didn't get much done today after seeing this thread. I started reading it and couldn't stop until i read it all. Mr.Miller has the wisdom that I can almost guarantee goes in  many more fields than poultry. I know a great teacher when i see one.  I only hope you are just getting started with the lessons.

Only on about post #20 but had to chime in.  I love this kind of stuff!  The SOP has a lot in it but not as much detail for a lot of the breeds.  I wanted to share that a friend recently came into possession of a pre-SOP poultry book on standards.  I believe it is a precursor from about 1860 to early 1870s (sorry can't remember the year).    The drawings are wonderful and the descriptions are close to what we have today but between the two (especially the drawings) you can tell there have been changes.  Even some of the names are different and I was wondering if names have changed to better describe origins of breeds or changes as they cement their breeding before entering the SOP?  Also, not to stray from genetics to far as I just read the New Hampshire description, what  is in a name?  Are they origin descriptors from breed, location, person, or other?  It seams like all of the above.

Again, thank you for sharing.  This is somewhat heavy reading but I am enjoying it!