Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General breed discussions & FAQ' started by hellbender, Dec 27, 2013.
You like that chart don't you. LOL.
I hate that chart. LOL.
If you've already answered this previously then I apologize for asking again, but do you trap nest?
I hate it too, because it lets me know when I will get less eggs.
I do not have a close source of egg like what my flock lays so I have to keep them going. I hate to see people cry when I can't get eggs to them.
I found a different chart:
What are your thoughts on Sandhill. He seems to be pushing his Delawares to be big and productive. I only asked because I have a credit there. ha. On his NH he mentions that they are nice birds with a good orange color. What does that say?
No. I only keep track by the pen.
Trap nesting is only practical where you can check every hour or two. Especially in the summer time. You could cook a bird pretty quick in the summer. This doesn't mean that no one can do it. It only means why I do not do it.
I think tracking them by the pen is good enough. If I have 4-8 birds in the pen, I can give their average. I can also identify the poorest layers. Often you can drastically improve the average, just by removing the poorest producer(s).
I picked up on a couple Catalanas that is the same strain, but long removed. Where the ones I had were laying 6 per week (at that time), they were laying 4 per week. In a pen of 8 that really hurt the average. Removing one helped. Their eggs were easy to identify because they were smaller and rounder. I had to keep one, because I needed a shot of vigor. The one I got rid of was for other reasons. The point is how the lowest producers, even though few, hurt the overall numbers to a large degree.
I wouldn't, but that does not mean that you should not. "When we all go the same way, we all go the wrong way".
You may be happy with their Delaware. They are better than some that I have seen. They are supposed to be good layers.
I cannot say about their NH. When I was trying NHs, I did not know about Sandhills. "nice birds, with good orange color" doesn't say a lot does it? If you do try them, I would like to see them.
I do like Glenn, so I would never try to steer anyone from purchasing from them. Some of what they have is pretty good. Comparatively speaking.
this is what I needed, actual numbers
My one brahma hen is "Standard" and has a molt that is almost six months without an egg (no lights)
if my australorp or brahma can't match your NH then I understand why they become extinct, no sympathy. I want productive dual purpose!
I might redefine my brahma as decoration but as far as today goes she is not dual purpose, might not even be single purpose. (unless I can find a strain that I can breed to her to increase her line's potential.)
I raised hatchery partridge rocks several years ago and five months pullets dressed out at 2 3/4 lbs., cockerels at five months 3 1/2 lbs. six or eight weeks older than yours for the same weight.
Brahmas were considered dual purpose birds back when 140 eggs was a good layer. Mostly they were valued as large roasters, particularly in the NE market for a time. Over time they were replaced because of their slow growth and inefficiency. Truthfully today, they are largely ornamentals. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them. It is just the way it is. Things change. They are wonderful and beautiful birds for those that admire them. Hopefully there will always be admirers. They contributed greatly to later breeds.
Brahmas are Asiatic fowl. Back in the day, though soft feathered birds, they were slow to feather. With their combs, size, and style, they remind me of Oriental Games with soft feather and larger size. Oriental Games are painfully slow to mature. It can take two years for one to fully develop.
The NHs I described were an ideal. Not what I actually have. Mine have not performed that well. A later post describes my experience with my birds. On the other hand a strain cross that Jeremy (Jwhip) did perform that well for me. He gifted me a batch, and they reminded me that it was still possible. I have to concede that there was some hybrid vigor involved, but good selection could get these birds right. It would take hatching in numbers, and absolutely ruthless selection over time.
The Australorps should perform about as well as the NHs. They were developed similarly. One exclusively bred from the Orpington, and the other the RIR. Both were intentionally selected by similar criteria. Faster growth, early POL etc. They are actually similar birds with similar types.
The reality is that most of us do not and will not have an ideal. It does not mean that we cannot (or should not) work towards an ideal. The fun is in the getting there.
Roughly what time period was 140/year considered *good*? Is there someone that has put together any lists of what the average numbers for eggs/year was for time periods? Terms like *good* and *poor* are so subjective and relative. It would be nice to have real numbers to see where people were coming from at different time periods when they say a breed was a good layer.
You can find this by skimming through old articles and literature. You can compare the numbers with remarks on their ability to lay. These kinds of numbers were common before the turn of the century. It wasn't like poultry nutrition was an advanced science either. No lights. Broody hens etc. Some would do better than that, but many would not. Poultry was not a farm priority early on. The south in the 1850s would have had more games and game mixes than anything else.
Everything changed as the century turned. Before that, poultry keeping was rather crude compared to what our birds get today.
I do not think there is a one stop shop for numbers like this. There is more and more numbers available later. Into the 1930s and 40s when there was a more broad effort to improve the fowl. The laying trials supply a lot of numbers, but the remarks are more centered around the exceptional individuals. They do not represent a whole.
The Call of the Hen refers to numbers. The time the book was written can be taken into account. A couple old genetics books speak of numbers, but they only represent the strains they are working with, and this is later still.
The advertisements that came on later were attempts at sales, so that might be questionable. They do claim a lot of numbers, but they are later.
The most I have been able to gather 1900-1920 is passing comments, and remarks on different breeds.