BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[seventreesfarm]

Just thought of another question - has anybody found any correlation of body shape/type to laying ability?

When I talk about wanting to breed for a certain conformation, I don't mean 'standard of perfection' but more like a mental picture of what a good laying hen looks like to me. But I bought some hatchery brown leghorns to keep the eggs coming while I work on my main flock, and they are seriously not what I think of as a 'laying hen'. They look like roadrunners, but are supposed to be egg laying 'machines'. Kind of like how dairy animals look so scrawny compared to meat animals.

I prefer hens that look more like barred rocks, kind of a solid dual-purpose shape, but maybe that's counterproductive to breeding for production??

 

[LindaB220]

As I 'patiently' search for Delawares which I decided to cross a little, I got a recommendation over the weekend to try New Hampshires by XW Poultry Ranch. Well, things happened quickly and....



23 birds arrived yesterday morning....all alive.

Sitting in the post office was a chirping box from Meyer Hatchery that I'm sure could hold 100 chicks. I asked the one lady there if they get chicks a lot and they said yes, just about every day. I didn't know it was so popular in my area!

Keep us informed how they turn out.

 

[jonsccm]

Just thought of another question - has anybody found any correlation of body shape/type to laying ability?

When I talk about wanting to breed for a certain conformation, I don't mean 'standard of perfection' but more like a mental picture of what a good laying hen looks like to me. But I bought some hatchery brown leghorns to keep the eggs coming while I work on my main flock, and they are seriously not what I think of as a 'laying hen'. They look like roadrunners, but are supposed to be egg laying 'machines'. Kind of like how dairy animals look so scrawny compared to meat animals.

I prefer hens that look more like barred rocks, kind of a solid dual-purpose shape, but maybe that's counterproductive to breeding for production??

I have often wondered about this my self. I have been told that you want a good wide body but the mass producers in the world are narrow tight feathered flighty birds. I think most back yard breeds were dual propose and so they tryed to keep them heavier. A hefty bird does not do anything well when it has a narrow body. You can't have the best of both worlds and that's the down side of dual pourpuse. Or can you.....?

 

[seventreesfarm]

I have often wondered about this my self. I have been told that you want a good wide body but the mass producers in the world are narrow tight feathered flighty birds. I think most back yard breeds were dual propose and so they tryed to keep them heavier. A hefty bird does not do anything well when it has a narrow body. You can't have the best of both worlds and that's the down side of dual pourpuse. Or can you.....?

We tried raising speckled sussex some years back because they kept coming up in discussion as the best dual purpose birds. They really weren't. Maybe it was the hatchery stock, and we also didn't feed them special rations. But they were better for soup than roasting.

Same goes for other dual purpose animals we tried...dexter cattle, pygora goats. Interesting experiments, but didn't really stand out for either purpose.

My area gets gold in winter, so I like to have a stouter bird with good feathering. I like a wide-based, short, triangular tail that doesn't stick up from the topline much. Not squirrel or rooster tail. I haven't done any testing yet to back my hunch, but it just seems like a bird with a bigger tail is putting energy into feathers, not eggs or meat. And I'm hoping the wide set base means wider pelvic bones. I'll definitely take notes when I go over my pullets this weekend, write down who has which kind of tail, then see how that pans out in terms of laying.

My leghorns aren't laying yet either, and are so flighty I haven't really handled them to check pelvic structure. But they have those skinny long tails I hate. Some of my ameraucana crosses have those tails too, so I guess I'll see who lays what soon enough. I planning to try a few leghorn crosses next season, just for the heck of it. My customers like pretty eggs, not white ones, so hopefully a cross will mean production and interesting shell colors.

Also, I've read most of the books on this list and gleaned a lot of ideas. I'm sure they are all old news to people here though - http://www.sustainablepoultrynetwork.com/highly-recommended-books-to-read/

 

[LindaB220]

We tried raising speckled sussex some years back because they kept coming up in discussion as the best dual purpose birds. They really weren't. Maybe it was the hatchery stock, and we also didn't feed them special rations. But they were better for soup than roasting.

Same goes for other dual purpose animals we tried...dexter cattle, pygora goats. Interesting experiments, but didn't really stand out for either purpose.

My area gets gold in winter, so I like to have a stouter bird with good feathering. I like a wide-based, short, triangular tail that doesn't stick up from the topline much. Not squirrel or rooster tail. I haven't done any testing yet to back my hunch, but it just seems like a bird with a bigger tail is putting energy into feathers, not eggs or meat. And I'm hoping the wide set base means wider pelvic bones. I'll definitely take notes when I go over my pullets this weekend, write down who has which kind of tail, then see how that pans out in terms of laying.

My leghorns aren't laying yet either, and are so flighty I haven't really handled them to check pelvic structure. But they have those skinny long tails I hate. Some of my ameraucana crosses have those tails too, so I guess I'll see who lays what soon enough. I planning to try a few leghorn crosses next season, just for the heck of it. My customers like pretty eggs, not white ones, so hopefully a cross will mean production and interesting shell colors.

Also, I've read most of the books on this list and gleaned a lot of ideas. I'm sure they are all old news to people here though - http://www.sustainablepoultrynetwork.com/highly-recommended-books-to-read/

A crested cream legbar crossed with a leghorn hen will give you bright blue eggs. SBELS

 

[Arielle]

Just thought of another question - has anybody found any correlation of body shape/type to laying ability?

When I talk about wanting to breed for a certain conformation, I don't mean 'standard of perfection' but more like a mental picture of what a good laying hen looks like to me. But I bought some hatchery brown leghorns to keep the eggs coming while I work on my main flock, and they are seriously not what I think of as a 'laying hen'. They look like roadrunners, but are supposed to be egg laying 'machines'. Kind of like how dairy animals look so scrawny compared to meat animals.

I prefer hens that look more like barred rocks, kind of a solid dual-purpose shape, but maybe that's counterproductive to breeding for production??

Quote: I have struggled with the SOP on body types too and the answers are along the lines of " simply that is how they are supposed to be"-- which I interpret as an artist's decision and not because 2 traits are positively correlated via a scientific study.

Generally speak though, the larger the bird the more nutrients and energy and $$ required to maintain the bird in addition to the direct cost of egg production. I now look at how much my girls eat easpecialy over the cold winter months. -- a much higher feed bill than now and it has me thinking . . .

 

[gjensen]

I've gone back and read some earlier posts by Hellbender and have to agree with Turk. I think this IS the thread for that conversation and I believe we would have Hellbender's whole-hearted support in our quest to breed for production, eggs or meat. I also think he meant for this thread to be for the experienced to share their successes and newcomers to learn and ask questions unencumbered by ideals and requirements set by those not specifically concerned with production.

I do believe that breeding towards a standard is important but it can be a standard, like I said before. It can still be standard even if you are crossing breeds, "improving" a strain, etc. I too am not interested in willy nilly breeding from the hatchery surprise box, but I am interested in exploring ways to get where I want to go. I would love to hear about hybrid vigor, cross breeding and then crossing back, etc. I have a very clear picture of where I hope to end up.....it will probably take years to get there, lol, but it's an exciting journey.

So I say this @bmvf , share your plans and ideas. If Hellbender dislikes the direction of the thread he will let us know
M

Breeding for practical reasons (production) runs along many lines. Not necessarily intersecting or running away from each other, but running parallel.

In other words, you were mentioning a desire for sustainability. A non commercial approach. That is one path, where you use birds that are not especially needy, rustle up much of their own, self perpetuating, etc. This is a lower output method, but the advantage is that it is low input. in difficult times, low input rules. I guarantee if the **** hit the fan, the big heavy dual purpose birds would suddenly become less appealing.

Then there is the put the old pure breeds back to work idea. A commercial mind set, but using out of date commercial birds to do it. The wishes are from pure nostalgia, a desire to be more sustainable, meet philosophical ideal etc.etc. I think this effort includes to sticking to breed type etc. if the desire is to put an old breed back to work, then there must be some commitment to it as a breed. they do not have to be shown. breeds evolve, and some come it improvement. Some call it going backwards. Some breeds have been well taken care of, and are still what they were. Many are not as productive as they could be, because we do not use them as we did. often this turns into a rebuilding project.

Also there is the experimental crowd that enjoys creating. I think this angle is interesting considering all of the genetic traits that we have access to. A single commercial sex linked male, that is generally considered a waste product, can drastically improve the production of a flock in a short period of time.

Finally there is those that prefer to purchase their birds every year or two, and operate as growers and producers. These do not want to breed their own replacements.

This is just a general run down, but the point is that there is more than way to skin a cat. When you look across the forum as a whole, or especially the internet, there is a variety of approaches, ideals, and mindsets. the only thing we a have in common is the chickens.

I feel like I can see it from a variety of view points, and I think they are all interesting. My Catalana project can fit into more than one. It has a bit of creativity evolved, because my desire is to build a productive, genetically viable (and stable) flock, that is both productive and lower input. A bird that would be especially useful in leaner times, but could be managed with a semi commercial approach otherwise. Also self perpetuating, using broody hens. Still at the end of the day, breeding to a standard and hoping to build a flock of birds that represent the breed well.

 

[LindaB220]

Check out the E. O. Basque thread. It looks good. Both for cold and heat.

 

[seventreesfarm]

I now look at how much my girls eat easpecialy over the cold winter months. -- a much higher feed bill than now and it has me thinking . . .

We're trying out growing some supplementary feed, mainly corn, wheat, beans, kale. In the winter our woodstove is usually going, so I use it to cook up a pot of beans (since legumes need to be above a certain temp for 15 minutes to deactivate a harmful enzyme). They get beans for breakfast, greens after work, and I scatter corn and wheat in their bedding at bedtime if it's going to be cold. So far it seems to help keep production up, but it's extra labor for me.

Then again, we sell enough eggs to cover feed, so that helps.

 

[gjensen]

I have often wondered about this my self. I have been told that you want a good wide body but the mass producers in the world are narrow tight feathered flighty birds. I think most back yard breeds were dual propose and so they tryed to keep them heavier. A hefty bird does not do anything well when it has a narrow body. You can't have the best of both worlds and that's the down side of dual pourpuse. Or can you.....?

Type is according to breed, and type is about capacity. A breeds type suits the bird for the purpose. I realize that you know this, but my point is that it isn't solely about egg laying. It is also about health, longevity, dual purpose characteristics etc. etc.

Commercial layers are all about eggs, and nothing else. Extra size and weight means extra. feed, which affects efficiency etc. BUT, if you pick the birds up and handle them, you will begin to notice that there is a lot of capacity built into that bird for it's size. Even from one lone to the other, the feel much the same. They have a type and that type is pretty uniform from one line to another. They have the capacity, just nothing else.

I keep pointing out things like point of lay, length of molt, when they molt etc. These things are rarely discussed and not mentioned in any standard, but important. Improving the timing of the molt, length of molt, and point of lay can mean an extra month of eggs. Commercial birds excel on these points.

Breeding for production is striving for a collection of small victories. A little here, and a little there. Collectively it can be the difference between a 180 egg per year layer, and a 220 egg per year layer. A lot of these little victories have nothing to do with type. If I can gain a month of laying time from my flock, that can mean 20 eggs.

Laying genetics is more than breed type. I agree with that, and the commercial hybrids prove some of the misnomers concerning this. Breed type is important, but mostly for the role the breed filled historically. And yes, some types are better than others for a purpose.

I am going to use the New Hampshire for example. They did not have a standard developing the breed. They only selected for fast maturity, and a meaty carcass at a young age. They, on their own, became shorter, wider and deeper birds. The shorter wider birds developed faster. These kinds of things is where the breed types come from. Longer birds with larger frames take more time to develop. Our largest is slow to develop. The Jersey Giant. The are big birds with big frames. It takes time to develop those big frames.

So type is relevant and capacity does matter. It is just that there is more to it than that. Breeds are phenotypes, and genotypes. Much of what is discussed are the things than can be seen. I try to add emphasis to the things we cannot see, but we can still measure.

Breeding for production is based on measurable, not hypothetical, philosophies, ideals or theories.