Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[fowlman01]

Quote:
If you were to breed to the American Standard Of Perfection, you will have a viable chicken that will excel in it's original purpose. The standards are in place to insure taht the various breeds stay true to their original purpose. This is not like German Shepard dogs. Judges look for the original qualities that the specific breeds were bred for years ago. I think that if you read the SOP descriptions you will agree. Is there a particular breed(s) that you can cite that has lost it's qualities because of the SOP? I can't think of any and I have raised most breeds of chickens. I am not talking about hatchery chickens, where quantity is sometimes more important than quality.

Walt Leonard

If you're not selecting for egg production, it's going to fall by the wayside. The way fragrance fell by the wayside when they were breeding roses strictly for long stems and color. I was unaware that poultry shows judge performance as well as looks.

Obviously a judge is not going to know how many eggs a hen lays when he is judging a bird, but if the breed is a breed noted for egg laying or is a dual purpose breed, the SOP will call for a body form that will enhance these qualities. Once we breed away from the functional form for an ornamental form there would be a decline in the original purpose of the bird. In terms of egg production...if the birds don't lay, they kind of eliminate themselves.

The APA does not promote breeding away from the original purpose of the birds.

Walt Leonard

 

[joletabey]

I think, at least in the case of the Delaware, if you breed to the standard, you will get your dual purpose bird, because form fits function. A deep bodied bird, well rounded, with the legs set apart is probably going to be meatier, and be a better producer. And according to my mentor in this (hiya Walt), you breed for the SHAPE and FORM first, then the color. That's why Kathy mentioned building her barn before she paints it, regarding her Delaware flock. This means that the SOP includes the dual purpose nature of the bird in it's very definition.

ETA: Well, I posted at the same time Walt did -

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
Look at the picture of the Orp in my avatar. She was a great layer and obviously there would have been plenty to eat. Polish and particularly Silkies are ornamental breeds.I'm not sure what a Orlop is.

 

[hallerlake]

If form follows function, then breeding for function would automatically give me birds that conform to the standard? I've heard remarks on the way tails and wings are held. How do they follow function?

I'm not trying to be pissy here. I honestly want to know.

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
If you're not selecting for egg production, it's going to fall by the wayside. The way fragrance fell by the wayside when they were breeding roses strictly for long stems and color. I was unaware that poultry shows judge performance as well as looks.

Obviously a judge is not going to know how many eggs a hen lays when he is judging a bird, but if the breed is a breed noted for egg laying or is a dual purpose breed, the SOP will call for a body form that will enhance these qualities. Once we breed away from the functional form for an ornamental form there would be a decline in the original purpose of the bird. In terms of egg production...if the birds don't lay, they kind of eliminate themselves.

The APA does not promote breeding away from the original purpose of the birds.

Walt Leonard

I agree with what Walt said but I would also would like to add a Good Breeder would never let egg production drop in his/ her breeding program.
(breeders know that it takes eggs to produce chicks)

Chris

 

[joletabey]

Hallerlake, they might not, but body shape definitely does - I think any purebred is a total package. You need the form to function as the animal is intended - like eggs and meat in chickens, or performance ability in a cow horse, then you have the looks that make the individual breed more distinguishable as that particular breed. Otherwise, why have breeds at all?

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
The wing carriage has a lot to do with the viability of a bird..particularly in male chickens. Pinched tails, wry tails are the outward manifestation of an un-thrifty bird. A chicken with a pinched tail almost always has a shallow or narrow body. Not always, but quite frequently. All these seemingly unrelated points come together to make a viable bird.

Walt Leonard

 

[akpeeps]

Quote:
I have some Speckled Sussex pullets, but they are hatchery stock. I got them to replace my eggs layers which are now 5-6 yrs old. I also have 10 Silver Dorking eggs in my incubator as we speak. I don't know the background on their lines but I'm sure they're just from backyard stock. I had one Dorking roo that I got last year that was given to me and dearly loved him. He was just over a year old when he was killed in July by a stray dog. I would love to work on the Dorkings but can I really start with hatchery/backyard stock? Does anyone know who has Silver Dorkings that are being bred to the standard? Which lines should I look for?

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
Obviously a judge is not going to know how many eggs a hen lays when he is judging a bird, but if the breed is a breed noted for egg laying or is a dual purpose breed, the SOP will call for a body form that will enhance these qualities. Once we breed away from the functional form for an ornamental form there would be a decline in the original purpose of the bird. In terms of egg production...if the birds don't lay, they kind of eliminate themselves.

The APA does not promote breeding away from the original purpose of the birds.

Walt Leonard

I agree with what Walt said but I would also would like to add a Good Breeder would never let egg production drop in his/ her breeding program.
(breeders know that it takes eggs to produce chicks)

Chris

Absolutely! Good breeders need to have birds that perform. Once you mention showing, people start comparing chickens to dogs and other things that are shown. Generally the only changes to the SOP have been changes that make the descriptions easier to understand. The descriptions are not changed for fad reasons. For the most part the Heritage breeds descriptions are the same as they were when first recognized. There are photo's and drawings by Schilling that prove that.

Walt Leonard

 

[Jared77]

I lurk here a lot but I can't help but comment on this thread....

As to Delawares, I am going to argue about the date. How often did the APA put out their standards? Since the Delaware wasn't developed till 1940, and it takes a while to develop a breed, it makes sense they might not be included prior to the supposed cut off date. How many Standards were published between 1940 and 1952, when the Del was accepted? There has been almost a ten year span since the last SOP in 2001 and the new one coming out this fall. I can see how the Delaware might have slipped through the cracks on that dateline, and I believe they should be included.

Where do you draw the line? If this is the only measuring stick that the Heritage folks can use is the APA standard can use or choose to use, then you have to use it and if you don't meet the criteria then sorry but the breed isn't considered heritage. At some point the line has to be drawn and who's in is in. Not everybody can be heritage or its a useless title. Or (which is what Id like to see done) base it off when the breed was first appeared versus when it was accepted as standard. A lot of breeds can say when they first appeared at show, I've even read when first colors appeared in the breed on some breed info/history sites. I think that's a more accurate measure of a breed being heritage then when they were accepted especially if there is those kinds of gaps in the standard being updated.

If its an example of what the breed used to be I think more people would be on board with keeping some of the rare or heritage breeds. Thats the biggest frustration I and others had when looking at breeds. Its so tough to find a bird today that exhibits all the traits that the breed is known for. I'm not talking show quality I'm talking about why people kept them. For example lets take the Barred Rock. It was the most popular chicken in the US up until World War II right? It was so popular because it was such as an outstanding farm chicken. It was hardy, docile, and excellent production of both meat and eggs. A great all purpose bird. Now look at todays Barred Rock. Sure the egg production is sound heck it might even exceed Grandpa's old flock, but go process some today and you'd better prepare some extra side dishes if your serving that bird for dinner. Yes part of its diet, but if the breeding isn't there for it to carry a lot of flesh diet can't compensate for all of that25.

On the meat forum its asked all the time about what breed should I get to have a sustainable flock of meat birds. People want to eat better for you chicken. More and more people are looking at raising their own birds to avoid the hormones, the medications, and who knows what else goes into the production meat bird that is sold in stores. I'm part of those folks too, that's what got me looking at chickens in the first place. I said this on the Delaware thread and I'm sure I offended some folks there with it but it bears repeating. And to the Delaware folks I meant no harm. People are not breeding birds to the idea (not the ideal) but the concept that the breed was created for. The Delaware was the broiler till the CX came along. The Barred Rock was the ideal farm chicken. Same with the Wyandotte another great farm chicken. The RIR is an egg laying machine. Where have those birds gone? Why have we gotten so far away from those standards and expecations with regards to what we keep when we talk about a majority of these breeds? My father came with my family to the county fair and we went into the poultry barn. He saw a few barred rocks and looked at me and said "Now theres a chicken!" He told me about how they'd go to his Uncle's (my great uncle) farm and those were the birds he and everybody around him kept because "they gave you breakfast and dinner" as folks were fond of saying. Id kill to have some of those old style Barred Rocks that he remembers from when he was a kid.

Bring back those kinds of birds, a Delaware, a Rock, a Wyandotte, a New Hampshire to name a few that is built like a meat bird with good fleshy thighs and a presentable breast. Breeds with a high fertility rate, is a respectable layer to replenish the number of chicks needed to process out in the fall and people would be on board wanting those breeds. Look at how popular the Freedom Ranger is and its a ho-hum French hybrid hybrid that won't breed true. There are a number of folks keeping some of those birds back to try to reproduce the Freedom Ranger. There will always be the folks who keep CX but there are plenty of folks that would be willing to keep a bird past 16 weeks to process if it could be kept in a flock to be sustainable and rendered a 6lbs carcass when dressed out. That's why the Buckeye has gained in popularity. Its hearty, carries a lot of flesh, forages well, respectable layer, low maintance, and breeds easily. Its what most small flock owners would if they kept only 1 breed. Sounds a lot like the breed descriptons I mentioned above doesn't it?

I hope I don't sound like I'm being too harsh but its been a very frustrating search for the breed I want and then finding the birds I want within that breed to make it worthwhile to keep them. Its very disheartening when I'm told its just easier to keep a layer flock and a tractor full of CX for the freezer. I'm more than willing to give a bit on the size of the carcass or egg production because those are factors I know I can improve on. The hardest part for me is finding a solid starting point with respectable stock to breed up from.

We see the occasional really nice bird on here, how do we get more of those birds that are up to standard available for more folks?

edited because cat jumped on the keyboard before I could finish my thought​