Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[Fred's Hens]

In general I'd agree with that but there are exceptions. Let me give one example that was so extreme it stuck in my rapidly failing memory.
A woman exhibited what she entered as a large fowl Bearded Buff Laced Polish Cockerel. It had no lacing & very little in the way of secondary sex characteristics. The bird was maybe 2 months old & was still in it's juvenile plumage. It didn't weigh more than 1 1/2 pounds if that. I didn't need a scale to disqualify that bird.
In the way of additional info the woman had BYC bumper stickers on her show box & had hung a sign on the cage informing me the of the bird's name [critical to the judging process. She came up to me later & was upset because the bird was disquallified because it was a "very sweet bird" & didn't deserve to be disqualified.
At the other end of the scale I remember a Golden Sebright cock bird that was about the size of a large fowl Hamburg hen [came from Ideal Hatchery I later learned]. Didn't feel the need for a scale in that case either. This owner asked me to talk about the class later & was very receptive to learning. Said when he saw how much smaller all the other birds in the class were he knew there was a problem. I introduced him to Herb Rogers 7 he ended up buying a pair of birds to take home.
These are the kind of extremes I was talking about. They happen once in awhile here & not just in Fair shows. In both cases I suppose I could have just placed the birds, neither were in large classes, but would that really have been a service to the exhibitors?

What great stories, really great.

 

[Marengoite]

I know you're going to froth at the mouth when I say this. BOTH should be preserved.

Well said.

Different owners have different goals. Hatcheries are like gateway drugs. I'd rather get a bad chicken in the hands of a good person than a good chicken in the hands of a bad person. The good person will soon be on the path to broadening their horizons.

rick

 

[Marengoite]

Since heritage birds are not used for large scale meat production that's really pointless.
That is what broilers are for

I guess we could say the same about production Reds, i.e. that heritage birds aren't used for large scale egg production, so it's really pointless to breed for increased production.

But wasn't the SOP written for BOTH utility and appearance? The descriptions I read for some breeds justify some of the conformity on the basis of production needs.

Not meaning to pick an argument, Mike, but there is a lot to be said for meat that isn't snow white, watery, and underage like what we get from production broilers. Some of us like flavorful chicken with a little bit of texture.

rick

 

[Robert Blosl]

It's tough to get both size and egg production. There is a documented negative correlation between growth rate (rate of growth, final body weight, frame size) and reproduction. This includes egg production as well as fertility and hatch ability. Not saying you can't work towards both, but it takes effort because size and reproduction work against each other. If you concentrate too much on size and less on reproduction then reproductive characteristics will diminish. We often see this less in fertility and hatch because we cherish any egg laid and if the offspring meets the SOP we keep it as a breeder and often ignore its mothers rate of production.

Can you get both? Sure, but exhibition poultry enthusiasts want birds that meet the SOP much more than they want a bird that lays lots of eggs. So there goes the egg numbers with each successive generation.

Can you get both Yes. It takes time and lots of money but its worth it in the long run. 30 years ago my friend in Washington State said I shipped you 13 White Rock Chicks I told my wife what in the HECK or worse did he do this for. Well I raised them up and half came from a breeder in Penn and half from a breeder in California named Bowen. I raised them up and they where both white both big birds but one strain had smaller bone in the legs. I kept the ones with the larger bone and put together two family's. The first year I hatched 10% of the chicks. My friend who sent them to me said I needed to pull the vent feathers because they where to fluffey. I refused and put together two more mating the next year. That year I hatched about 20% of the chicks then the next year 35% then the next year 50% and on my sixth year I hatched 80% of my fer til eggs. However, my White Rocks started to loose their size so I thought. People where saying they sure got good type but they wont win up here in the mid west they aren't big enough. So I bought me a scale and weighed the birds at 10 months of age. They where one to one and a half pounds over standard weight. I did this with my Rhode Island Reds I pushed them to mature faster in the brooder box and only selected the chicks that feathered the fastest, laid the quickest and crowed be for their brothers and cousins when they reached sexual maturity.

What did I end up with. A strain of Rhode Island Reds that no longer had stringy feathers over the back area as pullets. I saw the pullets and handled them this past weekend that where my stock 17 years ago. They had tight webbing and still do. I also got a more natural typed bird. They where brick shaped on the reds and had a shape like gravy bowls or Derby hats on the White Rocks. The White Rocks feather quality are so good I can sell the feathers to tie flys for tying flys. Great quality of feathers.

EGG PRODUCTION: When I did this I knew I was pushing the fast feathering egg laying traits. My birds both breeds started pushing the 200 mark. I was not interested in any higher. I wanted a dual purpose breed that I could show, produce good egg production and had lots of meat on their bones to eat. That's what the old timers wanted when they invented the breeds in the old days. I was just following instructions past onto me by the interviews I made of the old boys be for they died.

One was Ralph Brazelton. He got 200 eggs on a average on all his Orps and the interesting that floored me was he did this with out using lights to stimulate their egg production. This can be done with the Buff Orpingtons that I saw this weekend. It only takes a little time and a few years of work but the pay off is fantastic.

No let me make one thing clear on some of you I think you are so caught up with Hatchery Fowl that you are having a hard time converting over to Standard Breed Fowl. So are so use to getting tons of eggs from these Hatchery chickens and you dont want to give this up. Its like I have a friend who converted from a Babtist 40 years ago to a Catholic. I have had three who have done it in the past 30 years. Its not easy but they stuck with it and did it. When I was a boy a lady who taught me about chickens went from Catholic to Methodist. I could not understand this being born and raise a Catholic. I do now I married a Methodist 44 years ago. You got to decided if you want to take on a rare breed and try to maintain it or improve it but dont make it something it was never intended to do. Most of the breeds you want are DUAL purpose breeds. You get a little of every ting but if you want eggs then get you some Rose Comb Brown Leghorns. They need help or Rose Comb Black Minoricas.

All this stuff you are worried about is not productive on my part. Schilling use to have a saying and I think of it off ten. Put your Plow down deep and move in a straight line.

He also had a saying Whatch out for FAD ISMS. Don't get caught up in a FAD. Breed your favorite breed as it was suppose to be breed. If it don't work out to your liking abort the project and try another breed till you like what you have.

Good discussions. I have some ideas from your thoughts for our next Poultry Show and when these beginners come up to me I can give them a list of breeds and a Poultry Press Paper and say here you go. Look at this get back with me and if you find some ting you will like let me know. If not continue on to the Feed store or your favorite Catalog and get some of those chickens.

If your HAPPY AM HAPPY.

 

[gjensen]

I think that you can have both to. Even if it means that you have to hatch twice as many to select from. I do not know a lot, but I do know length of lay is as relevant as lay rate. A preference for a pullet that comes on early, and a hen that molts late has a month of laying that her siblings might not. A pullet that gets started early is going to lay a few more over the winter. A pullet that starts late, might wait until well after Christmas before she decides to go to work. I for one am not interested in feeding a bird for 9 months plus before they start laying, unless that is a historic characteristic for the breed. I like chicken noodle soup a little too much for that.
I think that these things matter. If improving what we have means anything. A breed is going to be a whole lot more popular if it can do what it is supposed to do. What these birds could do is what made them popular to begin with. They were the best that we had. We were a bit more practical than we are now. If we are interested in preserving these breeds, then their usefulness is relevant. Store bought Tomatoes look great, but they have no substance. In America today, how it looks matters most. I just think we have what it takes to have both.
The largest concern from locals that get birds from me is when are they going to start laying. I have learned to temper their expectations, and educate them on what they are getting. It is a reminder of what most people want poultry for. They are farm animals for food, not lawn ornaments. It is just nice to have an attractive, historically relevant bird to keep for that purpouse.
I do not expect them to perform like production birds. I do not want production birds. I want good looking, meaty birds, that are useful. I did not want an ugly wife, nor did I want a beauty queen. I wanted her to be attractive in my eyes, a pleasure to live with, and have substance. I want it all. When you have a little of it all, you have something special. That is something to preserve. I do not like shallow emptiness. That is vanity.

 

[Wynette]

If we all bred our birds to have more meat we all end up with a bunch of Jersey Giants.

Would that be such a bad thing?

 

[Texasmja]

I think that you can have both to. Even if it means that you have to hatch twice as many to select from. I do not know a lot, but I do know length of lay is as relevant as lay rate. A preference for a pullet that comes on early, and a hen that molts late has a month of laying that her siblings might not. A pullet that gets started early is going to lay a few more over the winter. A pullet that starts late, might wait until well after Christmas before she decides to go to work. I for one am not interested in feeding a bird for 9 months plus before they start laying, unless that is a historic characteristic for the breed. I like chicken noodle soup a little too much for that.
I think that these things matter. If improving what we have means anything. A breed is going to be a whole lot more popular if it can do what it is supposed to do. What these birds could do is what made them popular to begin with. They were the best that we had. We were a bit more practical than we are now. If we are interested in preserving these breeds, then their usefulness is relevant. Store bought Tomatoes look great, but they have no substance. In America today, how it looks matters most. I just think we have what it takes to have both.
The largest concern from locals that get birds from me is when are they going to start laying. I have learned to temper their expectations, and educate them on what they are getting. It is a reminder of what most people want poultry for. They are farm animals for food, not lawn ornaments. It is just nice to have an attractive, historically relevant bird to keep for that purpouse.
I do not expect them to perform like production birds. I do not want production birds. I want good looking, meaty birds, that are useful. I did not want an ugly wife, nor did I want a beauty queen. I wanted her to be attractive in my eyes, a pleasure to live with, and have substance. I want it all. When you have a little of it all, you have something special. That is something to preserve. I do not like shallow emptiness. That is vanity.

 

[Maggiesdad]

@ Bob - The one in the middle was a Methodist... Johnny Cash

Takin' it slow and going down the middle of the road.

 

[3riverschick]

Just a super post, Aveca! So much to chew on here.

excellent info on egg laying low numbers and size..Ive found it has a lot to do with fat..say orps that get fat , production goes way down.

This matches my research and explains why the Sussex folk demand fine scales on the legs. Quality of scales on the legs is indicative of quality of skin on the rest of the bird. Fine skin = elasticity in the skin which allows it to stretch when the abdominal organs expand when the female starts laying. Coarse scales are indicative of coarse skin which is associated with a layer of fat under the skin. This fat makes the skin less elastic, which doesn't gve the abonmianl organs as much room to expand= less egg laying production.
Broomhead: "The quality of the flesh and the abdomen should be pliable and of fine texture, elastic one might almost say, giving the internal organs every chance of expansion. As the laying period approaches there is greater activity of the digestive system, while the ovary and the oviduct increase their size. If, therefore, the abdominal cavity were hard, full of fat and incapable of expansion, one sees how difficult it would be for the hen or the pullet to produce her "egg. It is therefore, well in the Light's favour as a layer that the Standard demands "skin, clear and of fine texture," and "flesh, fine."

(aveca's post snipped for bevity)

.
..orps tend to be a bit grizzle fat..avoiding that helps..more gizzle around thighs less eggs..when talking to australorp breeders in australia, they told me they try very hard to avoid grizzley leg areas, they associate that with lower egg production..Im not sure exactly how that might play a part but they think that way from past experience..thier birds can be quite round and orp in type large legs , good meat there with required tighter feather and that gizzle is the bain of that breed..thier judges actually feel around for it..it is expected to find some in orps..it comes with them.
Please can you explain "grizzle fat"? What is it? I know in Sussex a looser feathered bird is not as good a layer as a close feathered bird. Broomhead: " (see next post)

Also, Broomhead explains that in Sussex, one ought to be able to see the thighs defined in the feathering and not hidden by the feathering as in Orpingtons. Do you suppose that has something to do with grizzle fat, or is it just a loose/close feathering thing?
Broomhead: "Sussex type. The Standard demands short and stout thighs, with short and strong legs. Short is hardly the correct definition. One looks for shortness of leg and low carriage of body in the Orpington fowl; but, while these two breeds have something in common, there is a decided difference between them in this respect, Viz., the body feathering of the Kent breed should be such as almost entirely to hide the thighs, whereas the thighs of the Sussex should stand out. And if actual measurements were taken it would be found that the shank of the Orpington is shorter than that of the Sussex."
Best,
Karen

 

[3riverschick]

Close-feathering * Loose-feathering , and Laying Propensity

Familiar Science & Fancier's Journal, Volumes 3-4
Sept. 15, 1877 , Page 185 .
POULTRY BREEDING FOR PROFIT.
By J. F. D., in Live Stock Journal.
"TIGHT OR LOOSE FEATHERING.
Some time ago I purchased some colored Dorkings, whose grandparents emanated from a luxurious home in an aristocratic quarter, and about the same time I purchased some silver-grey Dorkings, whose grandparent was one of Baily's hens, and hence had lived in open quarters. As to age and size they were about equal, but I do not think if I had tried my utmost, and of set purpose, that I could by any possibility have had two sets of pullets more diametrically opposed to each other, for, while the colored Dorkings were soft and loose, or open-feathered birds, the silver-greys were hard and close-feathered—so beautifully closefeathered that at a little distance it was difficult to distinguish where one joined another, and as tightly fitting and as close to the body as a lady's glove on her hand. On arrival, and in my ignorance, I admired the colored Dorkings the most; but when the weather began to get cold a marked difference was immediately observable, and which increased. In short, the colored Dorkings in cold weather resembled an East Indian black in the streets of London on a frosty day—blue, shivering, and chattering, and always aiming at warmer quarters, while the silver-greys walked about in utter defiance of slush, sleet, and snow, and as comfortable as English lads frolicking on the ice. The colored Dorkings eat fully one-third more food, and do not lay more than one-fourth of the eggs. Since December, when the silver-grey Dorkings commenced to lay, up to the present time, they have laid every other day generally; besides this they have frequently laid numbers in daily succession, and occasionally I have had more eggs than birds, i. e., two in one day. I do not believe that even the black Minorcas could have beaten the silver-grey Dorkings during the last six months, whatever happens in the other half of the year. These are in truth splendid layers, and their food is plain and substantial, viz., barley, Indian corn, buckwheat, vegetables, and household scraps.
In every respect they fare alike, but notwithstanding that the point of color is in favor of the colored Dorkings, they are the most unprofitable birds that ever belonged to me, while the others, on the contrary, are most profitable, and all the difference lies in the closeness of the feathers. This closeness of feather should not be confounded with abundance of feather, for I have some Cochin hens, aud the close-feathered birds lay more than the loose, open, and very abundantly-feathered ones. I now attach more value to close and tightly-fitting feathered birds than to color, and firmly believe by strict attention to that main point (not forgetting the others) to be able to defend the Dorkings against all comers. Modern breeders, in their desire to improve the size and color of the Dorkings, have done it in such a way as to deal a severe blow to the reputation of this splendid breed of fowls. For the purpose of being able to produce large cockerels and pullets at the autumn and winter shows, they have resorted to an artificially created warm temperature, so as to hatch a brood of chickens as near to the 1st of January as possible. This being done for some generations, loose-feathered birds is the result, and a very moderate supply of eggs the consequence. A remarkably large Dorking pullet which I purchased for my best trump card, laid the fewest eggs of any hen I ever had, and ultimately died from congestion or inflammation, produced by moderately cold weather. No bird commencing the summer with a decent constitution could have been more unprofitable, and in the way of food she was a glutton. When this bird arrived, our family circle broke out in raptures, and particularly in this direction: "What beautiful soft feathers 1 like touching some lady's muff!" Being densely ignorant on the matter, I of course was equally delighted, but did not mourn for her when she went the way of all flesh. When I hear (or see in print) some breeders saying that much depends on the character of the soil—dry, gravelly, and chalky, in contradistinction to any other combination of geological materials—whether Dorkings flourish or not, I think of my damp and altogether unlikely place, and my closely-feathered Dorkings, and marvel at the great number of the most diverse opinions which can be held on any given thing, when the real and all-important point is altogether ignored. Of course the best place for birds which are bred up in hot-houses is a tropical country, but if English breeders want the large population of the British Islands for customers, they must breed to suit their requirements, and not for very exceptional customers in the neighborhood of Timbuctoo, which perhaps would have suited the large pullet spoken of. Notwithstanding that the black breeds arc generally the best egg-layers, yet in this climate it is better to have a close feathered white bird than a loose-feathered black one,
and which is the reason why, here and there in this country, we hear of white Dorkings, Cochins, Leghorns, and Minorcas, laying better than darker-colored birds. I am very sorry, indeed, to see breeders virtually sacrificing closeness of feather for the sake of having early broods in some cases, and large birds in others, by resorting to an artificially-produced warmer climate, for closeness of feather once gone, or more properly a shunt having been given towards looseness of feather, cannot be again, in my opinion, attained by the same stock. To obtain closeness of feather, such breeders would have to commence dc novo with stock birds already possessing that indispensable qualification towards abundance of eggs. (snipped fro brevity) And what I am astonished at is, that the infinitesimal should be made so much of, and the momentous should be ignored as something of very little value."