BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[draye]

I am a little confused. Please tell me the difference between a "sex link" and an "ISA brown". What I thought was. one is breed to be easy to sex the other more eggs.

ISA brown is just another sexlink chicken. It is originally bred by a certain production company (sorry I don't remember the name of it but the name has the initials ISA in it). It is basically a red sex link but more of a brienish cast to it hence the brown on the ISA.

There are also some known as Bovine Browns also the same thing. It all amounts to which company uses what rooster over which breed if hen. Or combinations thereof.

Hope thus makes since.

 

[Beer can]

Another one is Tetra Tints. I disagree with sexlinks being the best layers. RIRs and Leghorns lay every day and don't peter out at a young age like those sexlinks.

 

[Ifish]

Another one is Tetra Tints. I disagree with sexlinks being the best layers. RIRs and Leghorns lay every day and don't peter out at a young age like those sexlinks.

Not sure anyone here claimed sexlinks were the best layers, but they are certainly really good. Brown egg business? You should have Sexlinks, type of good.

The names for all of these sexlinks are Trademarked, and some genetic material is copyrighted. All chicks come from one source type of thing, like Monsanto seed. I feel it's a shame and will not purchase trademarked or copyrighted poultry. I have nothing against anyone who does, it's just a personal thing for myself. They certainly have their niche, but good'ole red sexlinks lay **** well without the name.

 

[draye]

Another one is Tetra Tints. I disagree with sexlinks being the best layers. RIRs and Leghorns lay every day and don't peter out at a young age like those sexlinks.

The red Sexlinks that I've seen are among the best layers I've ever encountered. Everyday layers the majority with one taking a day off every once in a whole. You know every hen needs a break once in a while.

And these didn't lay out in a year either I've seen them go for three years before starting to decline. I'm not saying all are on the same level, some are better than others. Even within the same batch there would be a few slackers.

Now on to what I have most are every other day layers and to me that is pretty good. They seem to last longer in their laying I can get a good three years from them and sometimes longer I've had two or three that went four years. Again there are some that will lay almost everyday with them missing about every third or fourth day.

 

[Mini Meat]

I have been lurking on this thread and just want to add ( since it is a thread about production).

Most breeds of livestock are regional (and adapted to their climate and conditions). That fact that they are usually named for their place of origin testifies to that. The fact that a NH or RIR or any other breed did this or that in so and so's flock 100 or more year ago means little to me (other than a starting point) since I don't live in New Hampshire or Rhode Island, and I may or may not care for my birds in the same way as so and so.

I am a firm believer in developing a flock that meets your production needs on your property, under your management style.

I once read an article about a rancher in Texas who, on the most barren of landscapes, developed landrace of cattle that thrived in his environment. When asked how he choose his breeding stock he replied that he chose the shiny ones. Regardless of size he chose the shiny ones that shed out their costs first because they where thriving on his land under his management. He didn't feed, he didn't cottle, he didn't do much, but his heard met his needs.

I think, my point is; productivity has to be measured against inputs, and what the manager is willing to input. This must be considered. Expecting a bird with a 10 pound genetic potential to thrive on a low input management system is not going to yield results regardless of how many chicks you hatch.

More, wether meat or eggs, may not be an appropriate goal. Sufficient, that is what I am after. The question I will ask my self is... was it worth it?

 

[JRNash]

I enjoy the history behind the development of the different breeds.

 

[Our Roost]

Mini Meat, your comments get to the root of utility breeding for a homesteads specific needs. Farmers had to evaluate the climate in which they lived and how they lived as to what would fit into their needs and lifestyle don't ya think? Pretty much all livestock evolved this way. Heritage breeds were developed such as RIR's and NH's and so named for origin. S.O.P. had to be the farmers original blue print or specs for each bird breed after the English started setting standards way back when they started recognizing and categorizing birds and attaching a breed name to them. Today, we try to continue with those practices to preserve them the way they were intended to be. But the big picture is following our ancestors practices and tinkering with our own creations to fit our own needs. We use their creations or heritage breeds as they are called maybe not to bring them back to the specs they originally were, but to personalize or develop our own strain. Good luck in your endeavors!

 

[Our Roost]

I have a question. When a man and women engage in wedlock, the female relinquishes her maiden name and their offspring children and herself take on the last name of the male parent. This name will carry on as long as an offspring male transfers it to his offspring or sibling males. I occasionally read about newly created bird breeds developed and now available in limited quantities. They have coined a new name. Shouldn't the male parent bird breed name carry on with the new strain?

 

[gjensen]

I have been lurking on this thread and just want to add ( since it is a thread about production).

Most breeds of livestock are regional (and adapted to their climate and conditions). That fact that they are usually named for their place of origin testifies to that. The fact that a NH or RIR or any other breed did this or that in so and so's flock 100 or more year ago means little to me (other than a starting point) since I don't live in New Hampshire or Rhode Island, and I may or may not care for my birds in the same way as so and so.

I am a firm believer in developing a flock that meets your production needs on your property, under your management style.

I once read an article about a rancher in Texas who, on the most barren of landscapes, developed landrace of cattle that thrived in his environment. When asked how he choose his breeding stock he replied that he chose the shiny ones. Regardless of size he chose the shiny ones that shed out their costs first because they where thriving on his land under his management. He didn't feed, he didn't cottle, he didn't do much, but his heard met his needs.

I think, my point is; productivity has to be measured against inputs, and what the manager is willing to input. This must be considered. Expecting a bird with a 10 pound genetic potential to thrive on a low input management system is not going to yield results regardless of how many chicks you hatch.

More, wether meat or eggs, may not be an appropriate goal. Sufficient, that is what I am after. The question I will ask my self is... was it worth it?

There is some logic in this, but that is not to say that one that thrives here will not thrive there. That poultry is so adaptable explains their worldwide distribution. Wherever we are, they are.

Productivity is measured against input, because there is no return without an investment. "El nihilo, nehilo fit". "Out of nothing, nothing comes". The Latin phrase here is referencing origins, but it applies here also.

The entire commercial poultry industry is built on return on investment. The fundamentals are no different for us though we operate in a different model. We have to be careful though. It is easy to establish a false economy, and deceive ourselves.

 

[gjensen]

Another one is Tetra Tints. I disagree with sexlinks being the best layers. RIRs and Leghorns lay every day and don't peter out at a young age like those sexlinks.

To compare sex links with anything is too general. There are many strains of sex links. The comparison does not work. specially compared to Leghorns and RIRs which consist of many strains. It just cannot be done generally like that and have any truth to it.

Now to build ideas off of numbers rather than impressions, ISA Browns is more specific. They lay as well as any commercial Leghorn. They do eat more than some of those Leghorn strains. For brown egg layers, by the numbers, you will not get any better.

These comparisons are more intelligently done by the numbers and with specifics including specific strains. Generalizations do not work, and are not helpful.

The established commercial strains have published numbers that are recognized and established. Comparisons by the numbers can be made among commercial strains.