BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[southernmomma]

I have this theory that a meat bird usually has to give in the egg department. ANd being a meat breed, perhapsthe SUlmtalers compensate by making a smaller egg.

Well, I'm sure no expert but I agree. It would seem even "dual purpose" shifts one way or the other. I had a look at them on multiple sites~ kinda cool! Of course, since I'm running in circles trying to find my ideal breed, I'll be curious to see if they go broody for you

Well, now I'm here too! At least there was only 40 pages to read.

I'm really interested in how management/feed affects my end growth. Dorkings are such a slow growing breed. I'm not sure that the readily available commercial feeds are what they do best on, but I'm no expert to go developing my own rations. And trying to supplement too much might just do more harm than good. Mostly I think they just need free range. Not sure I can give them all that they need without higher losses than I'm willing to take. So I'm looking at a balance. Figuring out where my cull points are going to be. This is one of those areas where hatching larger numbers of chicks allows you to figure things out a bit faster perhaps.

Anyway, this is all very interesting. I want my birds to be productive. This is my hobby, but I don't want a bunch of freeloaders! Its a breed that was known as a roaster, so I know I'm looking at a slower growing bird. But my job is going to be finding the sweet spot. I want to process a bunch of 'no way you will ever be a breeder' birds at 6 months. I'm then willing to hold onto some maybes for a bit longer to see how they develop, but the free loaders have to go!

Jennifer

Again, I'm sure no expert, but I've done a silly amount of reading on the Dorking and the thing that strikes me most often is that the less they're messed with (scientific term, lol) the better they seem to do. Just a general impression so I think you're bang on and I also think there's a lot to be said with a back to basics approach.
When you process will you please please take pictures of the carcasses? I've seen processing pics from YHF but I'd like to see yours as well...is it Reds or SG's? Anyway I'd like to have a general comparison of variety as I do prefer the single comb bird.

Cheers!
M

 

[Arielle]

One aspect of keeping chickens is the housing situation. MEaning botht he coop and the run. THe run can be as small as an enclosed area or as big as unlimted free ranging. What is required is security from predators. I have incureed more losses with poultry than sheep which has been zero in 25+ years of sheep. At this point I am struggling to understand why the fencing has worked for the sheep but not for the poultry . . . maybe a better word is frustrated. THe birds go over the fencing and go whereever they want. Often into unprotected areas and sometimes the coyote/ raccoon come in from the unfenced areas.

I have put the insulators for a section that was without fencing, but struggle with keeping the electric fence system grounded. THe wire that I have has not been install because of a stumbling block. THe ground dries out and the electric fence works poorly in the areas it is installed. . I have not found an swer: a coninually wet area that has adequate sun exposure for the solar panel. THe run off is vast here in the spring and it all dryies up by late summer. Is there a special area I should be looking for, or a way to create a "wet area" ---perhaps around the horse trough??? it stays wet ish there as the water is dumped and refilled every couple of days. Will the horse get a pulse thru the ground ???

 

[3riverschick]

I've actually seen Broomhead's stuff before, the issue with both his (and Hogan's for that matter) is that mathematical dimensions for ideal laying are going to be different based on breed. The principles used to obtain their answers are sound, but especially the raw capacity numbers, a Sussex is going to have much different dimensions than a Hamburg for instance. When I'm picking my breeders I have to use different criteria for my Leghorns than I do for my Langshans. I do highly suggest both authors works, but the important lesson is not the hard numbers, but how they arrive at those, the process. Just a small but important footnote. We must take our breed into account when talking about any dimensions.

I agree. I think it is interesting that Smart remarks ( concerning the Hogan system) that he considers
it a culling practice, not a breeding operation. Smart bases his book on determining productivity in
hens so one can use the info when mating to achieve better laying in the next generation.
i.e. a breeding operation.
Best,
Karen

 

[BGMatt]

I agree. I think it is interesting that Smart remarks ( concerning the Hogan system) that he considers
it a culling practice, not a breeding operation. Smart bases his book on determining productivity in
hens so one can use the info when mating to achieve better laying in the next generation.
i.e. a breeding operation.
Best,
Karen

That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it was some sort of rivalry sneaking in to the remarks? Your best laying birds are going to produce (ideally in theory anyway, and I find it holds up pretty well) birds similar to themselves. Hogan's system is a culling system...for breeding purposes as well, but it doesn't require the breeding aspect, I recommend it to everyone even that is just buying pullet hatchery chicks so that they can weed out the poor layers if they're in the city or something and can only keep a small number of birds.

 

[3riverschick]

That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it was some sort of rivalry sneaking in to the remarks? Your best laying birds are going to produce (ideally in theory anyway, and I find it holds up pretty well) birds similar to themselves. Hogan's system is a culling system...for breeding purposes as well, but it doesn't require the breeding aspect, I recommend it to everyone even that is just buying pullet hatchery chicks so that they can weed out the poor layers if they're in the city or something and can only keep a small number of birds.

I think the bold type is what Oscar Smart was referring too.
Best,
Karen

 

[chickadoodles]

I am still pretty new to poultry I got my first chickens last spring. I started with abt. 2 dozen birds and wanted to raise some for eggs and some for meat for my DH and I. But we have found we don't want to eat the birds we raise. Also I was wondering if someone could help me kind of figure out where to go from here.

Last year a small community of people that have moved into our area like fresh meat and stopped when they saw our birds in the run and asked if they could buy some of our birds. Well we sold them some, and they kept coming back for more every month they told their friends about about our birds and they started coming to buy birds. Then people driving by stop and ask if they can buy some birds. Others came to see our set up and asked to buy birds. Truckers traveling thru stop and ask if they can buy birds...
My thing is I know how many I sold last year and thought I would double the number of birds to have here this year, but now people are asking to buy chicks also. I bought over 100 birds hoping to get some grown out to hatch and keep a supply on hand but they are already getting into my stock and I can see I need probably twice as many or more. I am on a major hwy. And not far off the hwy is my coop and runs. They saw all the chickens and turkey last year and wanted some to start their own flocks or to eat. I have plans to build a
30'x50' building divided into 8 breeding pens and 2 grow out pens for the birds. I just don't know where this is going or how to plan for all this.

All of my birds are large fowl most I got from a couple hatcheries. Two breeds of chickens I got from breeders and would like to breed for other reasons.

I also ordered heritage turkey and bbw and bbb turkey so I will have alot more turkey this year. Last year I sold them all and did not have enough.

Can anyone give me some helpful advice please?

 

[gjensen]

That doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it was some sort of rivalry sneaking in to the remarks? Your best laying birds are going to produce (ideally in theory anyway, and I find it holds up pretty well) birds similar to themselves. Hogan's system is a culling system...for breeding purposes as well, but it doesn't require the breeding aspect, I recommend it to everyone even that is just buying pullet hatchery chicks so that they can weed out the poor layers if they're in the city or something and can only keep a small number of birds.

Matt, Smart's comments are true. Hogan's system is not a breeding program. It often is not the case, where the best performing birds, produce excellent performing birds. It was also shown later to not be as reliable as originally thought. It is reliable enough, for backyard, or small farm.

The commercial industry moved towards "proving" the performance (more reliable), and proving the breeders. Particularly the sires, because of how much influence they have. They would test huge amounts of males, and track the inheritance. That is a breeding program.

There is so many examples where the best birds do not produce the best birds, not matter what traits are considered. One example is studies where the inheritance of resistance to particular pathogens was not found to be reliably produced by parents that were themselves resistant. They made faster progress by test mating survivors that did succumb as well as those that did not. Using both allows the breeder to make faster progress. This would be a bad way to manage disease in a small flock however. These were flocks that were intentionally exposed. Obviously the best management tool in a small flock is to cull any bird that gets sick.

That sounds crude to some but the strain of birds worked with is better adapted to their environment through the generations of birds, but especially the breeders.

What this shows, in part, I believe, is the inheritable influence of the family behind the birds.

When a gene pool is tightened up, like in a well bred exhibition birds, the results are reliable. But of course there is still some degree of variation in the flock. Selecting the best birds is generally the best idea. It is usually noted along the way where one bird produces more of tis or that, and therefore useful for this or that. Possibly a bird that is not especially strong themselves.

Proving the breeders in my Catalana flock will be part of the process. Of course I am picking the best offspring to move forward with, but I need to emphasize the breeders that have produced well, or a trait where I am short.

Hogan's system is not as perfect as it was once thought. There are some exaggerations that go along with it. It is still the best system for us, when we keep the other systems in mind.

I think the best options for us is to use the basics of this system to identify who comes into lay first, who goes into molt last, who comes back into lay first, weed out chronic non producers etc. With the absence of trap nests, this is our best option.
Obviously, we should be using the best producers from the best typed birds, in keeping with what defines the breed. Also raise them as closely to the system that they fit the best, because different birds will sometimes perform better or worse under particular conditions. They always do better when they are "happy",

Matt this is addressed to you, but written for the general audience. Some thoughts to consider.

 

[gjensen]

Well, I'm sure no expert but I agree. It would seem even "dual purpose" shifts one way or the other. I had a look at them on multiple sites~ kinda cool! Of course, since I'm running in circles trying to find my ideal breed, I'll be curious to see if they go broody for you


Again, I'm sure no expert, but I've done a silly amount of reading on the Dorking and the thing that strikes me most often is that the less they're messed with (scientific term, lol) the better they seem to do. Just a general impression so I think you're bang on and I also think there's a lot to be said with a back to basics approach.
When you process will you please please take pictures of the carcasses? I've seen processing pics from YHF but I'd like to see yours as well...is it Reds or SG's? Anyway I'd like to have a general comparison of variety as I do prefer the single comb bird.

Cheers!
M

Dual purpose, the label, is generally misunderstood. The label means that the laying hens have enough flesh to be useful after they are replaced. In that sense, most are. The desire was to have a good fowl for the table, and the spent layer to not be a waste product. This meant birds with more flesh, which also meant larger birds. Some of the larger breeds were never known for this for misc reasons. For example, Minorca. They are large enough, but the emphasis was the exceptionally large eggs. Certainly doesn't mean that there is not enough flesh on the hen to be useful though. The males take too long to fill out the extra large frame to ever be known as a meat bird.

Modern concepts of efficiency have proved this concept to be irrelevant, but it is still relevant to small flocks that do not fit modern standards for efficiency.

Contrary to our thinking the smaller more active birds are the most efficient birds for small farms. We do not keep large dual purpose fowl for their efficiency, but for our pleasure.

Modern fast maturing breeds have the most potential for some level of efficiency. Birds processed at the peak of their growth curve, that comes as early as possible, is the birds most efficiently processed. Raising birds to older ages, gets less and less efficient. This is the concept behind the modern broiler industry, started by birds like the new Hampshire and Delaware. That is part of the draw to the Catalana Delaware, and New Hampshire for me. I call the Catalana the "Spanish New Hampshire".

Other than European styled "fattening" fowl, the concept of raising chicken for meat is modern. The move to the cities at the turn of the century opened this market it up. Before fowl meat was a luxury for the wealthy or a seasonal treat for the peasant. Generally speaking.

 

[gjensen]

Well, now I'm here too! At least there was only 40 pages to read.

I'm really interested in how management/feed affects my end growth. Dorkings are such a slow growing breed. I'm not sure that the readily available commercial feeds are what they do best on, but I'm no expert to go developing my own rations. And trying to supplement too much might just do more harm than good. Mostly I think they just need free range. Not sure I can give them all that they need without higher losses than I'm willing to take. So I'm looking at a balance. Figuring out where my cull points are going to be. This is one of those areas where hatching larger numbers of chicks allows you to figure things out a bit faster perhaps.

Anyway, this is all very interesting. I want my birds to be productive. This is my hobby, but I don't want a bunch of freeloaders! Its a breed that was known as a roaster, so I know I'm looking at a slower growing bird. But my job is going to be finding the sweet spot. I want to process a bunch of 'no way you will ever be a breeder' birds at 6 months. I'm then willing to hold onto some maybes for a bit longer to see how they develop, but the free loaders have to go!

Jennifer

The modern Dorking has been raised and selected on modern rations for many generations. Corn has dominated our Dorkings feed for a century and more. They do as well on a well balanced ration as any of our breeds.

Finding the "sweet spot", is to provide a good ration, manage them well, and select from birds that best meet your ideals.

 

[BGMatt]

Matt, Smart's comments are true. Hogan's system is not a breeding program. It often is not the case, where the best performing birds, produce excellent performing birds. It was also shown later to not be as reliable as originally thought. It is reliable enough, for backyard, or small farm.

The commercial industry moved towards "proving" the performance (more reliable), and proving the breeders. Particularly the sires, because of how much influence they have. They would test huge amounts of males, and track the inheritance. That is a breeding program.

There is so many examples where the best birds do not produce the best birds, not matter what traits are considered. One example is studies where the inheritance of resistance to particular pathogens was not found to be reliably produced by parents that were themselves resistant. They made faster progress by test mating survivors that did succumb as well as those that did not. Using both allows the breeder to make faster progress. This would be a bad way to manage disease in a small flock however. These were flocks that were intentionally exposed. Obviously the best management tool in a small flock is to cull any bird that gets sick.

That sounds crude to some but the strain of birds worked with is better adapted to their environment through the generations of birds, but especially the breeders.

What this shows, in part, I believe, is the inheritable influence of the family behind the birds.

When a gene pool is tightened up, like in a well bred exhibition birds, the results are reliable. But of course there is still some degree of variation in the flock. Selecting the best birds is generally the best idea. It is usually noted along the way where one bird produces more of tis or that, and therefore useful for this or that. Possibly a bird that is not especially strong themselves.

Proving the breeders in my Catalana flock will be part of the process. Of course I am picking the best offspring to move forward with, but I need to emphasize the breeders that have produced well, or a trait where I am short.

Hogan's system is not as perfect as it was once thought. There are some exaggerations that go along with it. It is still the best system for us, when we keep the other systems in mind.

I think the best options for us is to use the basics of this system to identify who comes into lay first, who goes into molt last, who comes back into lay first, weed out chronic non producers etc. With the absence of trap nests, this is our best option.
Obviously, we should be using the best producers from the best typed birds, in keeping with what defines the breed. Also raise them as closely to the system that they fit the best, because different birds will sometimes perform better or worse under particular conditions. They always do better when they are "happy",

Matt this is addressed to you, but written for the general audience. Some thoughts to consider.

You're correct. I guess it's the techniques used that is important. I learned the same methods as part of the judging competitions for FFA to evaluate for future and past egg production, then when I read Hogan's book 15 years later it hit home. I guess I need to go back and read it some more. Anyway, the techniques used and championed by Hogan have served me well over the years picking my breeders (all else being equal the better producing bird goes to the breeding pen, the non-producers leave or go to the show pen). Guess it's more of an accessory than a breeding thing in and of itself. In a shocking development the first priority is the standard for me, everything else is a tool to make sure those birds not only look the part but play it too.

I have found, and not monitoring as closely as I should perhaps since I don't trap nest to prove it, that egg laying is highly inheritable, far more so than conformation points at any rate. Very very few birds are worse producers than their parents, with the vast majority being about the same and a decent percentage being better (at least more than the rule of tens that I strongly believe applies to conformation traits).