BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[hellbender]

Pursuant to my earlier posts regarding feathering rate, I have just finished An Introduction to Form and Feathering of the Domestic Fowl by Brian Reeder. On page 43 he writes, "The slow feathering gene in exhibition lines seems to have a positive effect on some of the pattern gene expressions, (ie. lacing, etc.)"..."Personally, I find the gene nearly useless for hobby breeding and the only instances where I would want the gene is if my focus were on one of the patterned varieties where (it) is assumed to enhanced feather markings. It is often stated in the hobby that slow-feathered birds mature to a larger size...However I have been able to produce birds of very large size that did not carry slow feathering." He offers no hypothesis as to how slow feathering is supposed to improve lacing. He does later state that "bunny" tails in Wyandottes, and the pitiful excuses seen in show-strain Barred Rock tails are due to choosing for short feathers. He also later writes that narrow feathers are dominant to wider feathers, and the wider "feathers tend to show more substance and durability." page 51. He also believes the degree of fluffiness is amenable to selection. page 56.

To reiterate, at no point in this book did I find any explanation of why slower feather growth should improve lacing.
On to the next book.
Angela

Either way, it sounds like an advantage to me...and weren't you considering 'offing them'?

 

[neopolitancrazy]

Either way, it sounds like an advantage to me...and weren't you considering 'offing them'?

Oh, yeah, they are already in the cull pen. I had out of town visitors last weekend, so the nekkid chicks are still alive, but on death row (too ugly to feed, but not the time or crowd for chicken-slaughtering.)

The next book, Genetics of the Fowl by F. B. Hutt contains two relevant chapters. In the chapter on plumage he writes that rapid-feathering New Hampshire chicks were consistently heavier than the slower ones, in a 1945 study. In the chapter on plumage color, Hutt states that lacing is probably autosomal recessive and makes no association between lacing, feather growth or chick growth.

So far, what I have is a personal repugnance for slow-feathering plus a suspicion that more rapid feather cover is associated with faster growth, better vigor and similar desirable qualities versus an unsubstantiated rumor that selecting slower feather growth will produce prettier markings on the feathers. If I come across any other literature that is pertinent, I will appraise that as well. For now, those slow-feathering chicks are headed to the freezer, though I am keeping all the parent birds at this time.

Best wishes,
Angela

 

[hellbender]

Oh, yeah, they are already in the cull pen. I had out of town visitors last weekend, so the nekkid chicks are still alive, but on death row (too ugly to feed, but not the time or crowd for chicken-slaughtering.)

The next book, Genetics of the Fowl by F. B. Hutt contains two relevant chapters. In the chapter on plumage he writes that rapid-feathering New Hampshire chicks were consistently heavier than the slower ones, in a 1945 study. In the chapter on plumage color, Hutt states that lacing is probably autosomal recessive and makes no association between lacing, feather growth or chick growth.

So far, what I have is a personal repugnance for slow-feathering plus a suspicion that more rapid feather cover is associated with faster growth, better vigor and similar desirable qualities versus an unsubstantiated rumor that selecting slower feather growth will produce prettier markings on the feathers. If I come across any other literature that is pertinent, I will appraise that as well. For now, those slow-feathering chicks are headed to the freezer, though I am keeping all the parent birds at this time.

Best wishes,
Angela

Enjoy 'em!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gjensen]

Fast feathering is an advantage and linked to some other advantages. One of the advantages is that the growing bird utilizes less energy towards staying warm, and more towards growth. Energy is required for both.

The NHs were the prime example in their day, far exceeding any other. The faster feathering was promoted in some other breeds along the way. The Rocks and Reds of the day were slow to feather. It is not surprising considering their heritage.
An example is the Malay in the Red background. Malays like the rest of the Orientals are very slow to mature sexually, and slow to feather. Brahmas exhibited the slow feathering, comb type, and size of the rest of that class. We show them in an Asian class, but they are very Oriental.
The Orientals (Asians) had a lot of influence on our dual purpose breeds. Directly or indirectly contributing size, muscling, bone etc. The breed Java is closely linked (or was in it's origins) to these birds. Large, but slow growing, and slow feathering birds.
The breed NHs broke this mold, and really changed the way we saw meat producing birds.

On the other end of the spectrum is what is called bankiva fowl. Gamecock breeders see chickens in two classes. These (which include Sumatra, English Game etc., birds more closely resembling the jungle fowl that we know), and the Orientals. The bankiva fowl being light athletic birds that are fast to feather and mature. The Orientals being large boned, heavy, and slow to feather and mature. Their flesh is also hard. Cornish have hard flesh, but it is good for gumbos etc. where the meat is required to stay firm. Cornish were traditionally crossed with softer fleshed breeds.

The Mediteranean class is more on the one end of the spectrum lacking any real Asian or Oriental influence. More like the bankiva type fowl, they are very fast to feather and very fast to sexually mature. My Catalanas outpace by far my fast to feather and mature NHs. The Meds are in a class of their own in this respect. Less what has been lost of course. My Catalanas are well ahead of most birds early on. In line or along the lines of Leghorns etc.

It is helpful for me to see the development of breeds along two lines. Having a sense of their background does provide us some insight into what we see.

 

[gjensen]

Oh, yeah, they are already in the cull pen. I had out of town visitors last weekend, so the nekkid chicks are still alive, but on death row (too ugly to feed, but not the time or crowd for chicken-slaughtering.)

The next book, Genetics of the Fowl by F. B. Hutt contains two relevant chapters. In the chapter on plumage he writes that rapid-feathering New Hampshire chicks were consistently heavier than the slower ones, in a 1945 study. In the chapter on plumage color, Hutt states that lacing is probably autosomal recessive and makes no association between lacing, feather growth or chick growth.

So far, what I have is a personal repugnance for slow-feathering plus a suspicion that more rapid feather cover is associated with faster growth, better vigor and similar desirable qualities versus an unsubstantiated rumor that selecting slower feather growth will produce prettier markings on the feathers. If I come across any other literature that is pertinent, I will appraise that as well. For now, those slow-feathering chicks are headed to the freezer, though I am keeping all the parent birds at this time.

Best wishes,
Angela

Genetics of the Fowl is a good and helpful book. Everyone should have it. Some of it is outdated, but the fundamentals are there. I first picked it up twenty years ago, and it stirred some interests. I should read it again. I do own a copy.

 

[rc50]

I own a copy too... If you can find it online some where.... Look for "Animal Breeding" by A. L. Hagedoorn, Ph.D.


it is good .... get a copy from after 1948...


Keith

 

[gjensen]

I own a copy too... If you can find it online some where.... Look for "Animal Breeding" by A. L. Hagedoorn, Ph.D.


it is good .... get a copy from after 1948...


Keith

Thank you for the book suggestion.

We would all do better if we read more books.

 

[gjensen]

gjensen, depth is very important and thank you for commenting on this subject matter of breeding. Yes I do plan to crossbreed another breed into this mix after my initial outcross is complete. The steps getting there takes time and yes I am working with a smaller batch. If I'm not happy with the expected results and data from my initial outcross then I bail on the project. Why waste time and money on a false economy! But, if I do reach that level of success, numbers will become more important for sure. I will definitely need some depth to retain that in which I have been striving for in this utility strain. Great perspective!

Look at it as protecting your work. You want a solid foundation, and not a thin foundation.

Out crossing is acceptable, of course. Do you want to risk your progress? You do want to limit the risk.

You will get so far along, if you are successful, that you will be reluctant to expose yourself to that risk.

Eventually you will have to have an outcross, like it or not. Then you will either have to have built your own (something I am doing), or find one that you believe is acceptable. That is a hang up with going your own way. There is nothing out there with what you have to fall back on. The more rare the breed, the more few the good options are.

Look at it this way. My Catalanas are at this point unique. Where will I go for an outcross in five years that will not set me back five years?

Any breeder that has made progress will not want to lose that progress. Most to protect themselves when doing an outcross, will do the initial mating on the side. See how the cross nicks, and possibly even cross the offspring back to their birds a second time, making the offspring 3/4 before it is committed to their existing flock. The idea being some control over the results, and limiting the risk.

So it is not about the silly comments about gambling, racing, or any other haphazard thing. It is about establishing a sure foundation, building upon it, improving it, and making adjustments with caution. It is about making a commitment to success. Moving beyond liking the idea of it, or playing pretend. It is about committing to the process, and making a commitment to the birds. Consistently moving the population in a direction whereby they are improved, and you benefit from them more and more.
All of this requires what it requires. Once we get in to it, and get a certain length down the path, we do eventually see what we do need.

Now there are many people that purchase excellent exhibition stock, and perpetuate small show strings for lengths of time. We will here much of it along the way, but that is not what we have been discussing here. You cannot go and purchase what you are trying to build. Neither can I. Especially if performance matters anything at all. I can purchase attractive exhibition Reds easily. When I reached a dead end with something like that, I could purchase another of quality, and keep "kicking the can" down the road. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that is a different matter. Breeding for different reasons, and different goals.

By my choices, I have forced myself to be more self reliant. I cannot replace what I have. I will be required to have the depth to go lengths of time on my own. And really, why would I want to go any other way? This is my project, and my birds.

They are getting to a point where I do not want to risk the gains.

 

[rc50]

Here here. ...I could not agree more. ..the thing of it is once you add something you can get more than you want and then there you are working again at what you do not want. ...number one reason an out cross is always the very last method you use. ..,,)

 

[Our Roost]

gjensen, All good points and advice. Baby steps! Slow goes the process. Will start with data and record keeping of development first. Chicks are growing fast and changing very rapidly. I will do first weight check before I coop them in another week or 2. At 6 weeks old now I just now altered feed from medicated 18% chick starter to an 18% protein starter grower feed and will up that in 2 weeks to 20% meat and broiler feed. I may cut it with some scratch grains for other nutritional benefits. I feed my dual purpose birds similar feed and am very happy with both health and productivity.