Marans - SOP discussion thread

[math ace]

Yes, this statement was very confusing to me because to me TILTED means going UPHILL, at least that is my first thought otherthan when something is tilted sideways....

 

[math ace]

That went better

 

[math ace]

Ok... so we looked at the SOP photo back in 8/13 and decided that the tilt was a tilt downward towards tail.

So... I know it should be downward tilt even though I was brain dead when I questioned the SOP sketch changes...

I still, for what its worth, think the SOP would be more clearly worded if a word or two was added to clearly identify which way the tilt is or where the incline is...

 

[marquisella]

Ok... so we looked at the SOP photo back in 8/13 and decided that the tilt was a tilt downward towards tail.

So... I know it should be downward tilt even though I was brain dead when I questioned the SOP sketch changes...

I still, for what its worth, think the SOP would be more clearly worded if a word or two was added to clearly identify which way the tilt is or where the incline is...

Is there any chicken that is lower at the shoulders than the tail? I'm not sure, but I think that when they wrote it, it was "assumed" that the tilting would be understood to be from the shoulders to the tail...

 

[math ace]

Is there any chicken that is lower at the shoulders than the tail? I'm not sure, but I think that when they wrote it, it was "assumed" that the tilting would be understood to be from the shoulders to the tail...

Oh assuming is so bad...

Yes.. We get the whole tilting from SHOULDER to TAIL... What we are left assuming is whether the tilt is downward or upward. The next statement does not state that we are at the tail looking backwards, instead it flows as if it is clarifying how much of a tilt you are viewing from the shoulder to the tail. "slightly more inclined than the female"

There are breeds like the Delaware where the back is concave in shape... tilting down and then back up.

We have always complained that the SOP is written for those who already know what they are doing. This is another example of where a word or two would leave no doubt. The first thing that gets shoved down a person's throat is the need to own an SOP and yet there is a gap between what is written and what a "newbie" can understand. Hence the need for threads like this one.

There have been several times where we have had to contact Walt for clarification of the written word.

Just a thought... Take it or leave it...

 

[marquisella]

Quote: We all know what the saying is about assuming...

 

[maryhysong]

We all know what the saying is about assuming...

Yep. Now why can't the folks writing the SOP write it for people that might be new to all this? I have to agree with mathace that some places need clarification.

 

[maryhysong]

Wynette, thank you for your additional comments on those pullets, much appreciated. I will try and get some better pics of green97 this weekend. I do think she is just molty and loosing feathers, I don't recall her wing looking odd before.

 

[maryhysong]

What is the Hogan test?

Wynette linked to the book. Hogan's method, he claimed he could predict within a very few eggs how many a hen laid in her first laying year. Gives a number of examples where he tells the owners how many their hen has laid and he is very close to the actual trap nest record.

Part of the Hogan test is width between the pelvic bones as well as how thick those bones are and if they are straight. Thinner bones like 1/8 inch are usually found in heavy layers like leghorns, thicker bones, even up to an inch thick in a meat breed like cornish. You also check the depth of the abdomen, measuring from the pelvis to the tip of the breast bone, the more space there the better as it's more space for digestion and reproduction.

He gives charts using those three measurements to give a range of how many eggs the bird should lay in their first laying year and gives you an idea of which ranges you would want in your birds for your purpose, layers, dual purpose or meat.

It's a very interesting read and makes sense to me. He also does a head measurement, especially on cocks to be used for breeding. Now being a man of his times he relates it to the study of the skull and whether certain features of the skull marked a more intelligent person. So the first two times I read the book my eyes sort of glazed over on that part. However, I have some buff plymouth rocks and have been hanging over on that breed thread. It's pointed out many times there to select birds with good depth of head. So maybe Hogan wasn't too weird there afterall.

 

[maryhysong]

OK realized I had forgotten about a pullet. I had put her in the layer pen so I could see her egg color and forgot about her being there

She's coming off her molt and laid her first egg in awhile today. A solid #4. Matches the shade card exactly, even down to the dark freckles.

Red55, Too dark, I'll check her eye color again to be sure, but I think it's dark (this pic from 10/2/13) A little copper on her neck. Her comb has a wrinkle in it and she has just a very few little fuzzy feathers on her legs. But I think her topline, tail angle are ok. what do you all think?