Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[LeslieDJoyce]

I've heard it a lot too, although it's mostly novices saying it. Which makes sense because they're mostly the ones that get wrapped up in the "purebred line" gibberish, while most the experience folks care more that it fits the description (all descriptions, including production, I'm looking at you show only folks with poor laying Leghorns!) I follow the Delaware closely because there are people I consider friends working with the breed. Modern genetics and methods should allow us to far exceed the originals, although with the Delawares being such a recent creation maybe not as much as some of the older breeds. Remember on a historical timeline, none of the popular American Class Breeds (or even the non-popular ones) are all that old, however with far more advanced genetic knowledge, and far far more advanced nutrition knowledge we should still be able to make birds that look the part and far outproduce the originals. It's fascinating that people chase "heritage" production, when heritage production wasn't all that great if you look at what was provable fact, and not fairytales.

Edit: We've talked about your Delawares a lot Leslie, and I think y'all are doing an amazing job with them! I really enjoy following the progress being made!

I was told a version of that first thing by a poultry scientist interested in small flock/pastured poultry production ... that with our better feed we should get BETTER results today than they did back when Delawares were used in the Industry. The science I've read on the topic suggests that nearly all of the 300%+ improvements in meat birds since Delawares were in use is due to breeding, not husbandry. And from what I can determine, nobody has been breeding Delawares to even maintain their historical meat-bird utility for like 70 years now. So ... I'm not ready to believe it.

I think I've read some old timers take the position that Delawares aren't really a breed, not just newbies. "Too modern," "a lot of hype." I probably agree with the "a lot of hype" thing, but we like how the Delawares dress out compared to some other pretty-good-for-meat-back-in-the-day breeds, so I do think there is a "breed" worth breeding under the feathers.

I've been to like two poultry shows as a spectator, one tiny, the other small. People were super eager to give me advice about what to cross into my Delawares to improve them, though I had no Delawares at the show, so I'm not sure what faults people were trying to fix. I was surprised at the variety of breeds people suggested I cross into the Delawares ... pretty much anything that comes with the silver columbian pattern, or in white, or either of the two parent breeds, or has a big chest, or yellow legs ... I'm very new to breeding, so it confused me a lot.

I'm not interested in introducing more stuff into my Delawares right now. But, I did send a nice meaty cockerel off to someone to cross into her hatchery Delawares. She can hatch some from the cross, and some from her previous breeding setup. Already there are obvious differences ... the ones with my line mixed in started out heavier and wider, the others are feathering faster.

The Old Timer advice I have listened to advises against crossing lines/breeds. @BGMatt and I have gone around and around about it. Because Matt has done some big improvements in not a lot of time with some difficult birds, I assume using the "mix it up" style of breeding he advocates, I am starting to think about how "chicken soup" breeding might be useful. Matt has nice birds! And he's generous with them, too. Certainly most people working with Delawares have no choice about it ... hatchery stock comes pre-mixed, though it seems there is a trend of getting birds from as many sources as possible with plans of intermixing them all -- even the decidedly inferior ones. I can't quite wrap my head around it, to be honest. Lucky for me, my line is a special case, so I don't have to think about it much.

I'm interesting in finding out if there are any preserved lines of Delawares just to see how they look and how fast they grow, etc. Like a time travel trip. Though, with 60-70 years of breeding "choices" factoring in, I don't really know what I hope to learn.

 

[BGMatt]

I was told a version of that first thing by a poultry scientist interested in small flock/pastured poultry production ... that with our better feed we should get BETTER results today than they did back when Delawares were used in the Industry. The science I've read on the topic suggests that nearly all of the 300%+ improvements in meat birds since Delawares were in use is due to breeding, not husbandry. And from what I can determine, nobody has been breeding Delawares to even maintain their historical meat-bird utility for like 70 years now. So ... I'm not ready to believe it. 

I think I've read some old timers take the position that Delawares aren't really a breed, not just newbies. "Too modern," "a lot of hype." I probably agree with the "a lot of hype" thing, but we like how the Delawares dress out compared to some other pretty-good-for-meat-back-in-the-day breeds, so I do think there is a "breed" worth breeding under the feathers. 

I've been to like two poultry shows as a spectator, one tiny, the other small. People were super eager to give me advice about what to cross into my Delawares to improve them, though I had no Delawares at the show, so I'm not sure what faults people were trying to fix. I was surprised at the variety of breeds people suggested I cross into the Delawares ...  pretty much anything that comes with the silver columbian pattern, or in white, or either of the two parent breeds, or has a big chest, or yellow legs ... I'm very new to breeding, so it confused me a lot. 


I'm not interested in introducing more stuff into my Delawares right now. But, I did send a nice meaty cockerel off to someone to cross into her hatchery Delawares. She can hatch some from the cross, and some from her previous breeding setup. Already there are obvious differences ... the ones with my line mixed in started out heavier and wider, the others are feathering faster.  


The Old Timer advice I have listened to advises against crossing lines/breeds. @BGMatt
 and I have gone around and around about it. Because Matt has done some big improvements in not a lot of time with some difficult birds, I assume using the "mix it up" style of breeding he advocates, I am starting to think about how "chicken soup" breeding might be useful. Matt has nice birds! And he's generous with them, too. Certainly most people working with Delawares have no choice about it ... hatchery stock comes pre-mixed, though it seems there is a trend of getting birds from as many sources as possible with plans of intermixing them all -- even the decidedly inferior ones. I can't quite wrap my head around it, to be honest. Lucky for me, my line is a special case, so I don't have to think about it much.

I'm interesting in finding out if there are any preserved lines of Delawares just to see how they look and how fast they grow, etc. Like a time travel trip. Though, with 60-70 years of breeding "choices" factoring in, I don't really know what I hope to learn.

Just a quick point of fact. I have not gone outside the breed to make any improvements in my current breeds. Not to say that I wouldn't if needed, but have not. Outcrosses were between different lines because it was needed, it's the only way to make improvement in some cases, and if you know what you're doing and can cull ruthlessly, there is no faster way to improve. You can set traits later.

Going to a different breed can be done, but requires even more caution. Ideally you'd want to use something that the breed was created with, or as close as you can get (if you're trying to do something like a new variety). With the Delawares for instance, it makes zero sense to outcross to Columbian anything, Delawares are NOT supposed to have color in male saddle. Now if there were decent Light Sussex out there that might make a little more sense due to them being on wheaten base pattern and therefore not having that color in the saddle. However that introduces the problem of white skin, which is dominant, so it would take two generation to get rid of, there's some type variance as well that would take a couple years to fix.

Edit: in your position with what you have, there would be no need and you're still getting plenty of variance in offspring to select from.

What I was facing with Buff Leghorns was gene pools that didn't have a lot of variance, so while birds were healthy, and productive etc, the problems I wanted to fix would be near impossible to do with simple selection. So I went to two breeders whom had stock that complimented the weaknesses, combined those birds and thanks to ruthless selection now have Buff Leghorns that are excellent examples of the breed, and on the road to being true standouts after only three breeding generations.

The other improvement project was Blue Langshans. Nobody had ones I liked when I got back into poultry seriously, period. So "you start with what you have", I had good Black Langshans, Blue is a dilute of black, I acquired blues from several different sources and bred them in, again it took three years, and unlike with the leghorns a lot of weird issues popped out that weren't visible in any of parent stock, but now my Blues are every bit as good as the Blacks.

Outcrossing is the fastest way to improve, however it's not as consistent. If you're in a breed that is in a good place, or are trying to stabilize qualities already there, line breeding makes sense. It also makes some degree of sense to a new breeder, if they resist the temptation to get into some rare, weird variety or breed that needs a lot of work, because starting with good stock in an established breed can really help you learn. If one goes out and buys Light Brown Leghorns from Mark Atwood (note, actually from Mark, not someone claiming his line) or gets Black Minocras from Richard Schock, or something like that it makes zero sense to outcross. If one buys Barred Rocks from one of these fly by night people obsessed with "Good Shepard Line Barred Rocks" they'd better also buy some Rocks that actually have tails, either Barred, or outcross to white. If they buy "Maria Hall Jersey Giants" they'll need to outcross for size and body width. Etc etc etc. Make sense?

 

[gjensen]

Any line, strain, breed, etc. is a sum of it's parts. It is a collection of traits and characteristics, both seen and unseen. Some can be evaluated in hand, some have to be proven. I would be reluctant to call a bird that laid brown eggs, a leghorn. No matter how good it looked.

Most today, is of the mind set that if it looks the part, so it is. I am in a minority group today, believing that it ought to look the part and play the part.

Now, I will not debate what a bird should be able to do precisely. There is no clearly defined definition. Everyone's standard is different, so it becomes a circular argument that goes round and round. In the Standard, we do have the heading, Economic Qualities, and therein rests some expectation of the bird's performance. For the Delaware, there is a reasonable expectation of performance. They should grow fast, and be good layers of large brown eggs. That is pretty simple and clear.

Based on my experience with the breed, other breeds in this class, and twenty years of evaluating how different birds perform, I have my clear and defined Standard. Birds of this type should weigh 5 1/2 pounds live weight in 12-14 wks. They should have a reasonable carcass at this age. Rocks would be later, Javas later still. They should also come into lay @ 20-22 wks, and lay 180-220 large to extra large light brown eggs. That is neither impractical or unrealistic. Those are realistic expectations.

Since a strain, line, breed, etc. is the sum of it's parts, I am not a purist. I will not wallow in mediocrity because I am stuck in my own mire. I would do what was required to make real improvements. That said, I also realize that if I re create something today, it will not be as it was yesterday. We would be discussing two different animals all together. We all know they are a re creation and different. It is not preserving what was, it is making something new. That does not make them bad, it just makes them different. They still can make a very positive contribution.

If I was satisfied with the performance of my birds, I would work with what I had, and try to make incremental steps forward. What else can we do? That is all we will ever do. If it bothered me enough, it would motivate me enough to make choices. I would set out to do what it would take to get them where they ought to be. I would not settle for less, unless I was happy with less. It is not as if there is not enough points of selection.

 

[LeslieDJoyce]

There are people out there advertising Delawares harvestable at 12-14 weeks. But I have never gotten proof that any of today's Delawares perform that way. Maaaaaaaybe in an industrial setting? On pasture people typically suggest 2 extra weeks. I've never harvests any of mine that young. I don't think I'd like the results much. I'd like to speed mine up, eventually, and might need to outcross to do that, but think I'd do the breed more help by focusing on other things and keeping my line closed for now.

I think probably the preserved show line of Barred Plymouth Rocks used in the recreation project had been slowed WAY down compared to the "industrial" BPRs Ellis had in his mixed flock that produced his Superman cock he based the Delaware breed on. Perhaps also the New Hampshires too. I'm not sure where we'll pick up speed without losing the good stuff. I can't realistically do the experimenting here. I can continue to share the "meaty" cockerels with the breeder near here who is working on that.

I don't honestly know how far off the mark Delawares are compared to other breeds in the economic descriptions of the Standard. I'm keeping better records this year so I'll have a better idea about that.

 

[finnfur]

History - The Delaware of George Ellis 1948 contest only averaged NY dressed at 2.85 pounds at 12 weeks- that was straight run chicks. I don't know how much
feathers and blood would add to that but would not think very much.The national chicken council showed broiler weights [live] in 1945 at 3.03 /12 weeks and 1950 broiler weights live at 3.08/10 weeks. Not sure if the CornishX had entered the market in numbers to effect those 50's figures.
We have some benchmarks for comparisons we just need to start recording in those time slots for comparison.
I believe the U of DEL study was at 15 weeks for comparison.

 

[MagicChicken]

History - The Delaware of George Ellis 1948 contest only averaged NY dressed at 2.85 pounds at 12 weeks- that was straight run chicks. I don't know how much
feathers and blood would add to that but would not think very much.The national chicken council showed broiler weights [live] in 1945 at 3.03 /84 weeks and 1950 broiler weights live at 3.08/70 weeks. Not sure if the CornishX had entered the market in numbers to effect those 50's figures.
We have some benchmarks for comparisons we just need to start recording in those time slots for comparison.
I believe the U of DEL study was at 15 weeks for comparison.

Some of these numbers are not making sense to me. 84 weeks is over a year and a half old. 70 weeks is well over a year old. Did they mean 84 and 70 days?

 

[finnfur]

Some of these numbers are not making sense to me. 84 weeks is over a year and a half old. 70 weeks is well over a year old. Did they mean 84 and 70 days?

Thanks - it was brain error - they gave days and I was converting to weeks and typed what I was seeing- Good catch - I edited LOL
Betcha though I was talking about stewing chickens

 

[BGMatt]

Thanks - it was brain error - they gave days and I was converting to weeks and typed what I was seeing- Good catch - I edited LOL
Betcha though I was talking about stewing chickens

Those are live weights right? The second set of numbers? The first one from 1948 days dressed weight, so can't directly compare, other than guess.

 

[finnfur]

Those are live weights right? The second set of numbers? The first one from 1948 days dressed weight, so can't directly compare, other than guess.

Kinda - but that was NY dressed which is plucked and bled - still has head , feet and innards - That was the common way of marketing them then.
I don't think the feathers and blood would have added a tenth of pound. Even though I have heard a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

 

[LeslieDJoyce]

Kinda - but that was NY dressed which is plucked and bled - still has head , feet and innards - That was the common way of marketing them then.
I don't think the feathers and blood would have added a tenth of pound. Even though I have heard a pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

Ahhhhhhhh! I'm not quite old enough to have know that, and didn't know to look it up (cuz the post had other little accuracy/transcription/formatting issues that sent my brain spinning). This is all starting to make more sense!!!

-- I've been asking about how birds were dressed back in the day, as this is relevant to carcass weights, for sure --