Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[FOGELLY]

Pretty sure I'm more simple minded than you fogelly
Charlie

Charlie, all I know is I had a great uncle named Gene who was married to my aunt Jean and their offspring wore blue jeans.

A Mind is a terrible thing to waste.


Oh BTW Charlie that is a cool site you have going with the breed census and breeder list. Good Work.
Ron

 

[3riverschick]

This discussion we are having about the art of breeding vs the science of breeding is real interesting. If one is researching this in Google books the following terms will help. Art of breeding. Breeding to type. Breeding to feather. Scientists investigating hybridizing were around before Mendel. With the advent of of popular breeding of purebred animals circa 1850, all manner of breeding plans gained public attention. The hybridizers continued their work after Mendel's work was forgotten. In the 1890's, we see books about breeding to type and the art of breeding. Mendel was not rediscovered until 1902. Between 1896 and 1920,we see books about the competition/conflict between science and art in breeding.
With the rise of the commercial hybrid chicken, we start to see more science than art. As the terminology of the scientific/commercial hybrid world pervades the show and hobby poultry world, we see an odd mixture of terminology start to develop. Kinda a pig latin mix of scientific and art of breeding terms.
Both science and art have their place. Yet, where today do we see the art of breeding explained to us? Danne Honour is re-editing his "art of breeding" compilation book onto DVD When it is released, will be a help. There are old classic books on Breeding to type and the art of breeding and secrets of breeding. However, they need to be read with discernment, ferreting out the philosophy and breeding advice while discarding the antiquated health and management techniques.
The veteran breeders on this list whom we so appreciate, understand the art of breeding. Yet, sometimes I think their recitations in that regard are perceived as mere advice instead of actual sharing of the art. Be nice if there was some way to string together all the art of breeding advice.
Best,
Karen

 

[Fred's Hens]

Good points. A little dose of reality is of value.

I think the fantasy you refer to persists because people are told that certain breeds are "at risk," some critically, etc. Everyone wants to help save a breed and genetic material. That's a noble thing. Truly. And there are "authorities" out there telling us that anyone can help save a breed, which ends up including those who don't own any roosters.

Do you think that maybe there are different levels of participation? Without any certain level being necessarily a better level of participation that the others, but maybe some levels can get more accomplished? For instance, one who will keep roosters and breed a hundred or more chicks a year, raise them up to so many months, pick their five to add to the breeding group ... this participant will get more accomplished toward keeping the standard.

Another participant who is willing to breed to the SOP and sell eggs or chicks will be working on another portion of the process of breed preservation, which is getting chicks into the hands of people who just want some eggs and will enjoy and promote the breed just because they own a few.

Still another participant in the preservation of the breed will be that person mentioned above that will buy chicks from breeders of heritage breeds. It takes a little bit of effort to find a breeder (as opposed to propagator) sometimes, but buying chicks from her/him supports that breeder's efforts to preserve the breed and is, therefore, ultimately helping to preserve the breed.

Anyway. I don't have the answers. I'm just thinking out loud. If there are different levels of participation in heritage breed bird preservation (ALBC preservation), then I fall in the group that just buys a few from breeders. I don't end up with many heritage breed chickens for various reasons, but I have a few and I enjoy them. Of course, I look for ones that lay eggs because I keep chickens for their eggs. (I have some non-ALBC heritage breeds (as in old type of chicken, but not APA) that I've been keeping, but they, of course, don't count here.)

What do you think, Fred's Hens, (or anyone, I guess), you wrote: "Use some hatchery grade hens to practice on." Do you think it's necessary that one use hatchery grade birds to practice on? What if a person got some good (not superlative) breeder quality chicks and practiced on those? (If money isn't an issue for the buyer. And whatever the breeder was willing to part with.)

After two years you suggest, if any hens are still alive and maybe one looks especially promising, maybe it could be used to breed from with a newly bought rooster? That hen will have proven herself longevity wise and might possibly already have a good laying record if records were kept. If fifty chicks were hatched out of her maybe one or two would be great? You know how that can work. The genetics would be there as a possibility because she'd be a heritage chicken from a breeder. Couldn't this be a way for the owner of the little backyard flock that has newly moved to the country to have a head start on a heritage flock. Maybe? Your thoughts?

Here's the thing. My original post was not addressing participation in preserving heritage breeds at all.

It was addressing those who in their initial blush of enthusiasm for keeping a few birds, but who live in a restrictive urban setting, really don't need heritage/heirloom birds at all. People like to have designer clothes and collect pretty things, get caught up enthusiastically in fads and I get that. But, If they are a newbie, which was stated in the original post, they do indeed need to first master flock keeping, even with a few backyard hens in that restrictive urban setting. My experience is that many folks come and go and a couple of years usually shows who is who. Of course, those starter birds can be heritage/heirloom type but can just as easily be hatchery stock fowl. Anyone who has followed my posts here over the years knows very, very well that I am not the least bit prejudiced against utility grade stock. Shoot dang, I've got a barn full of utility birds, for pete's sake.

There's plenty of fantasy roll playing threads on here, if one wants that kind of thing. I'm not good at fantasy stuff.

If one cannot breed heritage/heirloom birds, than merely keeping a few is a dead end. Not a problem and hey, if one can procure a few? Why not? But, the fact is that's the end of them. That is often the reason that many breeder's are hesitant to sell birds into that situation. Some breeders don't care a bit who buys their excess birds. It all depends.

Only those who have the facilities, the requisite space for multiple pens, runs, coops, brooders and so? Yes, breeding simply takes space. It often requires people to have dozens of birds on the ground, many of which are roosters or cock birds. The reality check was simply to point out that this cannot be done in a restrictive urban setting. I don't see that as being mean, but merely realistic. That is hardly news. There's nothing earthshaking here.

Fact is, I spend most of my time mentoring younger folks in birds, gardening, carpentry and many aspects of rural life. All my heritage birds, to date, have been gifted or entrusted to younger folks who show a genuine interest in learning and growing. I'll mentor them, help them and encourage them. Got to say, however, that they all country young folk with room and space to do it. I'm a farmer and I've never shown a bird, although some of these young folks surely will.

I'm old. I'm country. I'm a dinosaur from a previous age. While I work hard at speaking with finesse, I can sometimes be blunt and I'd rather speak honestly about stuff and don't mind apologizing for having done that. Sometimes it's what needs to be said, not just patronizingly what folks want to hear.

Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[FOGELLY]

Fred very well spoken for an dinosaur!
But I guess takes one to know one.

Being from a previous age means "Heritage" to you is more than a name you hang on a bird.

Ron

 

[kathyinmo]

I'm old. I'm country. I'm a dinosaur from a previous age. While I work hard at speaking with finesse, I can sometimes be blunt and I'd rather speak honestly about stuff and don't mind apologizing for having done that. Sometimes it's what needs to be said, not just patronizingly what folks want to hear.

 

[cgmccary]

Agree with you 100% Fred Hens

 

[CharlieVoda]

I do not really know what my birds genetics are. I think it would probably be real real expensive to know exactly what they are.
In fact I am willing to bet that I could buy several flocks of great breeding birds for the money I would have to invest in the testing to find this out if it is possible.
I do know my Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical Insurance will not cover tests on my birds. My agent told me they could not be my dependents anymore even if I paid their premium.

I think that when I decide to breed a female or male RIR without any black in the hackle to offset the abundance of black in another bird I am adjusting the dumber switch on one or more of these 'rb/rb' or something else in the genetic code. We are probably cranking the dumber switch up or down all the time in the ways we pair our birds together.

The problem is I only know how to do this by either advice from a mentor or trial and error.
Well I guess that really isn't a problem it is part of the whole breeding process. For me the breeding process is my love hate relationship with my birds. It is what gives me the strength to carry buckets of water out to the barn and snowblow their runs 4 months out of the year. Got to love them birds.

Oh one more thing I do know! That is how fortunate I am to have all of the folks on a few of these treads to get help from and all of the breeders I have known over the years.

Good luck with the birds
Charlie

 

[normanack]

Here's the thing. My original post was not addressing participation in preserving heritage breeds at all.  

It was addressing those who in their initial blush of enthusiasm for keeping a few birds, but who live in a restrictive urban setting, really don't need heritage/heirloom birds at all.  People like to have designer clothes and collect pretty things, get caught up enthusiastically in fads and I get that. But, If they are a newbie, which was stated in the original post, they do indeed need to first master flock keeping, even with a few backyard hens in that restrictive urban setting. My experience is that many folks come and go and a couple of years usually shows who is who.  Of course, those starter birds can be heritage/heirloom type but can just as easily be hatchery stock fowl.  Anyone who has followed my posts here over the years knows very, very well that I am not the least bit prejudiced against utility grade stock.  Shoot dang, I've got a barn full of utility birds, for pete's sake. 

To play devil's advocate, perhaps embracing the newbie desire for heirlooms could be a good thing. Sure, the birds they buy from real breeders aren't going to carry on the good genes. But they almost certainly won't be bred in an indifferent manner, either, as trendy new chicken owners tend to live in areas with heavy restrictions on number and gender.

And they represent a big market. If Yuppie John has expensive dark heritage RIRs, Yuppie Joe will see them and want them too. Or he might try to one-up John with heritage Sumatras. Who wins? The real breeders. They sell more birds for higher prices. There is wider recognition of and demand for these birds. Inevitably there will be a small percentage who become serious about their chickens, and the breed has higher numbers and a better foothold against extinction.

If genuine, dedicated breeders only sell to the tiny pool of people who are already dedicated enough to find out about heritage breeds, how can the breed grow?

p.s. Fred, I know this wasn't what you were addressing, but it led into my point. Sorry for co-opting your original intent.

 

[Chris09]

I think that when I decide to breed a female or male RIR without any black in the hackle to offset the abundance of black in another bird

Charlie

This might help you and or others out some;

THE BONE OF CONTENTION HACKLE TICKING
By GEORGE SCOTT, F.Z.S. Hon. Secretary of and Club Judge to the
British Rhode Island Red Club.

Despite the oft-expressed opinions of both English and American authorities to the very positive contrary, there is a whole batch of fanciers who will, because the standard calls for a clear hackle in the male and a ticked hackle in the female, persist in the idea that double mating is essential to success. On the face of things I am free to own that this view would appear to be entirely correct. But let
us adjust our spectacles and look a little deeper. The Rhode Island Red is not, as many people are remarkably fond of asserting, a self-colored fowl. It carries in plain view certain prominent, distinct, and well-defined black markings. Experience, of a most painful kind, has pointed out with no uncertain finger that these black markings are essential to the production and retention of the desirable
rich, deep red body color. Now it is a remarkably nice point, the maintenance of the equilibrium, as it were between the black and the red. Unbalance the thing one way or the other and blank ruin stares you in the face. Err on the side of too much black and nature kicks out an ugly foot and gives you enough smutty, peppered, and lace-hackled birds to last a life-time ; eliminate just a little too much black in your matings and you will blush every time you are called upon to explain to your visitors that you don't really keep buff Rocks!
The black ticking in the female's hackle to the degree called for in the standard is, in my opinion (which opinion, by the way, is held by the most competent American authorities), a valuable and almost essential point in the production of rich, dark, even red surface color. But to include ticking in the male hackle would be to overdo the whole thing. Such a mating, with ticked hackles on both sides, would completely upset the balance and the resultant progeny would be as sorry a lot of Reds as ever sickened mortal eyes. The alternative put forward by the reformers is to have clear hackles in both
sexes. And just as surely as the ticked hackled male would cause a surfeit of black in the mating, spelling irretrievable ruin, so. would the clear hackled female, by upsetting the balance in the other direction, slowly but surely produce a race of buffs. The whole truth of the matter is that the adoption of ticked hackles in both sexes or plain hackles, it matters not one jot which, would, if the standard in its ether points were retained, involve as an absolute necessity double-mating with all its tiresome bother. The standard was framed by American fanciers after much experience with the breed. And at no time since its compilation have responsible and competent Red authorities,either in the United States or England, seen fit to change it in any solitary detail. As a result of much experimenting and the widest observation, it has been proved beyond doubt and beyond question that the present standard description of hackles is the best, most attractive, and only practical one. The opinions
of novices and outsiders notwithstanding, it is as a matter of accurate truth the only way in which it is possible to breed standard exhibition specimens without double mating.

GEORGE SCOTT, F.Z.S.
Hon. Secretary of and Club Judge tw the
British Rhode Island Red Club.

When Breeding
Never use a male with;
black striping in the hackle
all-black undercolour
a light hackle
a buff breast
(in the case of a cockerel) white in
tail, wings, or hackle.

Never use a female with;
white in any section
all-black undercolour
a mottled breast
a heavily-striped hackle.


KAUFMANN & WINDHEIM
©1911

Surface Color
To begin with the plumage must be dark; most everybody knows that but here is where the trouble lurks. The dark dirty, musty chocolate color, is not red, neither is the
dark dead appearing color red, but the kind of red we want is the bright but rich, deep looking, with plenty of strength and of the lasting kind. Both in female and male this is
true as the female is just as important as the male in the breeding yard. The color must be uniform, must be even with no light straw hackles; with no two or three shades on the surface of the male; he must have the solid black tail that sets him off. We must work up on the wing question, get the black, but get it in the right place. Never breed from a bird that
shows the slightest touch of peppering in the wing bows as that is a very bad feature. A bird with this defect will throw at least ninety per cent of the chicks full of black.

Under Color
Last of all but most importantunder color. It must be red as the day of smut has passed. Many breeders think smut helps to get the rich surface color but they are sadly
mistaken. Smut will help you to get a dirty dark surface color, but not the clean rich shade that we are after. A smutty feather here and there will not do very much harm
but if a bird shows smut so strong that you cannot look at the undercolor without seeing it, discard such a bird at once. Mr. Breeder, smut will not help but it will do harm, so
cut the bird heavily that has it, no matter how good he may be otherwise. It is worse in a male than in the female. White of course is out of the question, as a bird that
shows white, no matter how perfect he may be otherwise is simply a cull. This we think most every breeder knows. Through all this color madness, however, do not let your
birds run down small but keep up the size because color and size make the Rhode Island Red and no matter if you should have all the other qualifications combined you would have
nothing if these two are left out. We have followed the above laws as closely as possible over sixteen long years and the record that our birds have made in the show room
is well known to every Rhode Island Red breeder in the country.


1 An Ideal Mating.
A male bird, youngster, or veteran, it matters not one jot which, fit to get into the money at the Club Show itself, mated with long-bodied, low-tailed females of rich dark red throughout; the undercolor of which, if it errs at all, must be inclined to smuttiness, carrying black in tail, strong wing markings, and hackle ticking to the extent called for in the standard and not one atom more.
The neck hackle of every solitary one of these females must be intensely dark red, preferably even darker than the rest of the plumage. Invariably, if diligent search will unearth it, a yearling hen of the quality described is infinitely to be preferred to a pullet. Knowledge of each bird's ancestry I am taking for granted, and that male and female both are, wherever possible, of the same strain.

2. A Mating Designed to Improve the Color of Cockerels in a Strain where they are inclined to be too Light a Shade of Red.
Select the best, most even and soundest of these inferior cockerels, paying particular attention to the soundness of his undercolor. With him mate hens or pullets, dark even red,
with smut in otherwise red undercolour, dark red hackles (preferably showing a little smut at base of hackle) that are darker even than the rest of the plumage, and good black tails.


Chris

 

[mbmess2003]

Chris, referencing the above picture that shows proper ticking of the hackles....does that go for the German New Hampshires as well?