BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[Molpet]

I am sure this has been posted before.. but incase anyone is interested, heritage birds comparison of weights and food consumption.. your milage may differ.
from: https://projects.sare.org/project-reports/fnc12-866/
DATA
I have included multiple charts with the following data, but here it is in a simple text format. I have ordered data within the following sections based simply on the order of the shelters on pasture, not from highest-to-lowest or lowest-to-highest. This is for ease of comparison.

Total feed consumption per bird, by breed:
– Dominique – 22.808 lb.
– White Plymouth Rock – 24.385 lb.
– Naked Neck – 24.137 lb.
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 26.487 lb.
– Speckled Sussex – 20.821 lb.
– New Hampshire Red – 24.302 lb.
– Delaware – 23.110 lb.
– AVERAGE – 23.721 lb.

Average live weight per bird at processing (18 weeks 4 days), by breed:
– Dominique – 4.388 lb.
– White Plymouth Rock – 5.010 lb.
– Naked Neck – 4.815 lb.
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 4.686 lb.
– Speckled Sussex – 4.103 lb.
– New Hampshire Red – 5.238 lb.
– Delaware – 4.801 lb.
– AVERAGE – 4.720 lb.

Average dressed weight per bird, by breed:
– Dominique – 2.98 lb.
– White Plymouth Rock – 3.40 lb.
– Naked Neck – 3.38 lb.
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 3.17 lb.
– Speckled Sussex – 2.85 lb.
– New Hampshire Red – 3.29 lb.
– Delaware – 3.03 lb.
– AVERAGE – 3.16 lb.

Dressing percentage rate, by breed:
– Dominique – 67.86%
– White Plymouth Rock – 67.84%
– Naked Neck – 70.27%
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 67.74%
– Speckled Sussex – 69.52%
– New Hampshire Red – 62.87%
– Delaware – 63.02%
– AVERAGE – 67.02%

Feed efficiency rates based on live weight (lb. feed per lb. gain), by breed:
– Dominique – 5.20
– White Plymouth Rock – 4.87
– Naked Neck – 5.01
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 5.64
– Speckled Sussex – 5.08
– New Hampshire Red – 4.64
– Delaware – 4.81
– AVERAGE – 5.02

Feed efficiency rates based on dressed weight (lb. feed per lb. carcass), by breed:
– Dominique – 7.66
– White Plymouth Rock – 7.17
– Naked Neck – 7.13
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – 8.34
– Speckled Sussex – 7.30
– New Hampshire Red – 7.38
– Delaware – 7.64
– AVERAGE – 7.49

Cost of production per lb. dressed weight, by breed*:
– Dominique – $4.08
– White Plymouth Rock – $3.71
– Naked Neck – $3.73
– Silver-Laced Wyandotte – $4.21
– Speckled Sussex – $4.01
– New Hampshire Red – $3.82
– Delaware – $4.05
– AVERAGE – $3.90
* These cost figures are to be used for reference only, and are not intended to be authoritative or even typical. Clearly one’s own enterprise costs will vary largely depending on a number of factors. Farmers should input their own relevant costs, using the breed-specific data above, to best determine their own potential outcomes. My own production costs are based on the following:
– cost per chick of between $1.34 and $1.45 (depending on breed);
– feed cost to butcher date at $0.365/lb. for bagged non-GMO feed;
– processing equipment rental cost of $75.00 for one day;
– bags, clips, and labels at $0.371 per bird;
– mileage to pick up chicks from the hatchery, pick up feed, and pick up and return processing equipment;
– and approximate shelter depreciation cost of $1.00 per bird.

 

[DesertChic]

My goals this year are to primarily keep doing what I've been doing, because I'm getting really good production results. I've managed to breed some large, hardy NNs that have also proven to be outstanding layers. At this point I've got a lot of good stock to work with, so I just want to accentuate the best of their genetics and cull for the poor.

I've hatched out small flocks of Lavender Australorps and Swedish Flower Hens and also secured some Aloha chicks from the creator of the breed just north of me in Phoenix. They add more eye candy to my flocks and can help me add more color variations to my NNs. I'd still like to get some Buff Brahmas, which I would eventually cross with my NNs. I've just always coveted the breed but have held off getting them out of fear that subjecting them to the summer AZ heat would amount to cruelty.

My Silver Grey Dorkings are finally mature enough for me to discern the breeders from the culls, so I'm now working more intensively on improving their genetics as well. It looks like I'll be getting my first taste of pure Dorking meat this year.

Beyond that....I have a lot of culling to do. I've got too many birds and now that I know what I really want it's time to get rid of those who don't fit into the breeding programs, whether by selling them off or sending them to freezer camp. My feed budget could use a break.

 

[call ducks]

Breeding for egg production is the first step to breeding for a true dual purpose bird.

Breeding for production traits takes a better poultryman/poultrywomen than breeding to the SOP (just here my reasoning before knocking me, those who breed to the SOP are good breeders as well).

When breeding for egg production many things play a factor it is not just the hens. But cocks play a huge role in breeding for egg production. Selection must be made in both sexes for egg production traits. As well records should be kept of when breeding for egg production and test mating should occur. To learn how to select for production traits one must track down a old school farmer. Farmer being the key. You can improve on egg production in both size and yield within three generations if selection is done correctly.

Breeding for meat production takes an artisan - One must juggle egg production and body size. They must keep records of weights and set minimum weights for birds to be at a certain age ( depending on sex).

Form fallows function in very few breeds. Well the only one that comes to the top of my head is Sussex. Look at the cattle and poultry industry if function fallows form they would not be using four way crosses....

 

[hellbender]

This is certainly relevant to chickens...and just about any other small farm STOCK owners.
I wonder if many of you have been keeping an 'eye' on the various financial stock markets and exchanges? The Dow has reached an all-time high today....

.... Not so fast. I'm a student of history and most people realize that history does repeat itself. I won't go into details but our nation is sitting on an economic boiling cauldron and there is no way that it can long continue at this pace and not boil over.... scalding everyone below and only some of the big-wigs making off with everything that's left. Read up on what sort of situation the country was in just before the activities around the stock markets before the situation got too hot and blew this country into the 'Great Depression' and that pushed us into World War...again.

I'm not the least bit happy with our current bunch of freaks in the White House and Congress but there is plenty of blame to go 'round and plenty far back beyond Bush ...Not the point.

I expect there might be times coming sooner than any of us can realize where having a small plot of garden and a few chickens and meat rabbits in their sheds will be life saving. This kind of stock will have real value should what might happen to our economy, does happen.

I used to play the 'market' but got out in one piece after the scrum in 1987....never to make that mistake again. I have friends who 'kept the faith' and many are living in squalor, compared to their previous highs.

That's it....just pay attention. Try to get rid of debt and do everything you can to stay out of debt.

Some may laugh at this post and what it's words mean but they fail themselves if they don't at least look around and see what's been going on, hell, what is going on!

That is all....................................RON

 

[TopHatsNSpats]

Quote:

Not entirely apples and oranges. I am a smallhold farmer and breeding criterion are the same in all species, really. You select what is important to you and you move forward on your path. I also do AKC shows as well as producing dogs for very specialized purposes (SAR, service dogs for the handicapped, etc.) so I am no stranger to the kind of backbiting that exists between people on a mission to purify their breeds and weed out those who are not breeding what they think is right, by hounding them to death. I have seen how form follows function can be used to build a great line, and also how it has been perverted to create extreme animals with certain features focused on to the exclusion of all else. Sometimes this is good, but often it devolves into a screaming match when people with different images in their head of the 'perfect' Whatsit start arguing about type and etc. I am a live-and-let-live kinda gal, if a breeder is going in a direction I am not interested in I will wish them well and go my own way, but I do wish that so many people did not find it necessary to snipe at others who have a different vision.

I am interested in both production and type in my birds, because the bulk of my business is producing attractive ornamental fowl that also lay well. That is the niche I decided to fill, and it works for me, but maybe not for others. In that regard, I am looking for handsome showy birds that the owner can enjoy looking at strutting around in a BYC environment, but as a farmer I am also interested in boosting egg production. In my own case, I do not sell eggs, I have flocks I keep just to produce eggs to incubate and sell, and others I keep just for egg production for my family and the dogs. I'm always interested in finding better ways to do things, and that happens when you talk to other producers and find out how they are working through different problems. It works better when people can respect each other and just listen to learn instead of feeling like they have to dictate to others how it has to be. That's my .02 anyway.

 

[gjensen]

thank you....it would be a huge amount of extra work and record keeping to achieve nothing

In my first post I told you that "you have to roll up your sleeves and go to work", and "you will do better to be flexible along the way". Again I mentioned that "the best plans , do not make up for smart selection". No matter your plan, it boils down to good selection. You can have the best plan, and pick the worst birds. You can have an inferior plan, and pick the best birds. It is not the plan. It is the selection.

You laid a partial plan. I do not like it, but I saw nothing that would hurt you . . .IF you select the right birds. You would have figured the rest out along the way. "you will do better to be flexible along the way".
For example, you would have learned that your best laying pullets will generally be the best laying hens. You would have adjusted by evaluating a female through her pullet year, which ends at her first molt. She would be roughly a year and a half old. It would probably be advisable to breed your best birds in the late winter or early spring of the 2nd year. The cockerels in their first year, proving them over hens, and judging them by their offspring. They should be retained until their offspring is evaluated. The cock is half of the influence, so it would not be advisable to neglect the influence the male has even in an egg laying flock. You would pick offspring from the best hens, but genetic variability will teach you that all of her sons will not contribute consistently.

Can this get too complicated for a small flock? Yes. That is why you have to come up with "your own plan, and your own rhythm". Adjusting along the way. It isn't the plan as much as it is smart selection.

Egg size is easy to select for. Average the size of your eggs. Decide what your minimum would be. You have to set eggs, so your initial standard cannot be too high. From there do not set eggs below a certain size. As the average improves, raise the bar. "Little by little, bit by bit".

I told you more than you think I did. You did not get what you wanted, but you really did get what you needed. Start with your own plan, and as you learn, you will adjust. A religious adherence to a plan will not make you a good breeder. BUT, as time goes on, you will develop your own rhythm. It really becomes a rhythm of sorts. Your own plan, your own rhythm.

The suggestion to review the "ALBC guidelines" (Which is not their own. It is very basic culling guidelines passed down along the way.) is a good starting place. If you are not blindly and religiously adherent to this "plan", you will learn that there is more to it than that. You would not want to quit learning would you?

If you read this, and then go back and read my last response, you may start to see the connection.

I agree that striving for extreme performance on both sides (meat and eggs) would be a lesson in futility. I do not agree that there cannot be good performance on both sides. I would say that there should be good performance on each side, or it is not a dual purpose bird. A strain that lays 200 extra large eggs, and produces fryers @ 12-14wks is a darn good strain. This strain could pay their own way, and is worth something. This imaginary dual purpose flock would be more economical to raise than two, in a homestead type setting. Thus the reason for all of the dual purpose breeds. Commercialization requires specialization. A homestead or backyard would be better served by a dual purpose bird, where both (eggs and meat) were given equal priority, and the cost of such was a concern.

 

[gjensen]

Standard-bred Wyandottes, silver laced, golden laced, white, buff, black and partridge...
copyrighted by Reliable Poultry Journal Publishing Company in 1903. (This is a collection of poultry journal articles.)

In an article entitled "The Beauty Breed" by Fred G. Mason, he states, "If your stock reaches standard weight at maturity without the aid of surplus fat, be content and do not seek to add to their size, as it will rob them to a great extent of two of the most important qualities that should characterize the Wyandotte, namely egg production and early maturity."

In "Standard-bred White Wyandottes," Arthur G. Dustin is quoted as, "if we keep trying as the demand seems to be to add a pound or two over standard weight, will we not lose the early maturing qualities in a great measure?"

In "Breed to an Ideal," Charles C. Arnold states, "The Wyandottes are considered to be one of the best general purpose fowls and when we increase their size we prolong their maturity, and when we lengthen their maturity we are losing in their useful qualities."

John H. Jackson states in "the Breeding of White Wyandottes," that "Wyandottes, by intelligent selection and mating, can be brought to a very high state of perfection and still hold their utility qualities to an unexcelled degree." And,"big Wyandottes do not lay as well as standard weight fowl...These standard weight birds are the ones that mature the quickest."

I purchased this book off Amazon, though it is probably available on the Internet.

Best wishes,
Angela

This is a positive and helpful contribution. I hope that some will consider this.

Practical experienced revealed this to me, while experimenting along the way. (The dreaded cross breeding etc. that I used to do) What I noticed was that a percentage of the frame would be established before they began really filling out. The birds with the taller and longer frames would take more time for them to be established, and you could even do the slow maturing breeds with big frames harm by pushing them to much.
What I was looking at was the growth curve, and at what ages they reached an appropriate weight to harvest. What I began to notice was that there was a tendency for the shorter birds (in length) to fill out an fill out sooner, or for the smaller lighter birds to mature sexually at a younger age. Because I was cross breeding etc. I had a lot of variability to look at.
There is a certain tendency.

This is how my love affair started with NHs. I came to appreciate the shorter and wider birds. They had better early carcasses. It is no coincidence that they should be shorter and wider than the Rhode Island Red, and that they became more popular than the Rhode Island Red concerning the production of meat. Intentional selection for early weights and maturity from a single breed, bred them shorter and wider. It did help that I preferred the lighter red color, and that the black tail had more contrast, along with the ticking. LOL.

Other illustrations on this point are the extremes. The slowest of the American Breeds to mature was the Jersey Giant. The slowest of the Mediterranean breeds to mature and develop is the Minorca. Both are the largest breeds with the most frame in their class.
Someone commented recently that it was advised to avoid selecting the fastest maturing Jersey Giants, and historically this was sound advice. The Minorca breeders warned against the same, believing correctly that the faster birds tended towards the smaller, lighter, Leghorn type birds. The Giants advantage was extra large capons, and the Minorca's advantage was extra large eggs. Neither was expected to mature sexually, or reach the peak of their growth curve at an early age.

Thompson, perhaps the best Rock breeder ever, emphasized appropriate size and rates. He did not want excessively fast growing birds, or excessively slow growing birds.

It is no coincidence that the oversized Rock strains are also excessively slow to mature and develop.

Another illustration is that bantams tend to mature earlier than their large fowl counterparts.

In the exhibition world it is thought that bigger is better. The bigger bird is more "impressive" in the show pen. I have heard "breed them as big as you can get them". This view is only an example of one, but it reveals a belief in what will win.

Bigger is not always better.

The APA is discussing re emphasizing production, and if they are truly serious, the first thing they will do is pull out the scales. The early breeders knew and understood what an appropriate weight for the breed is. The standard weights did not get pulled out of thin air. The standard weights provide an anchor to the breeder. It should correct us from extremes. Another thing they would have to do to re emphasize production is penalize the excessively feathered breeds that are not ornamental. The excessive quantities of feather is a hindrance to proper production fowl. Those two things is all they have to do, and really all that they can do in the showroom. Both would cause an uproar, but all the judge has to do is pick the truly better bird. We have forgotten what better is, in many cases. But the breeders have to get the better birds in the pens.
These comments are also general and not to imply anything universal.

Now, these links discussed are not necessary links. Our ability to make improvements is only limited by genetic variability. It is not to say that there are not exceptions to this rule. The modern poultry industry's accomplishments are in a large way overcoming these tendencies and supposed limitations. The commercial broiler is an example. Consider both their size and rate of development. Love them or hate them, anyone that truly knows poultry realizes the level of accomplishment. Love them or hate them, genetically, it is an impressive accomplishment.

Strains vary as individuals vary. Working with whatever we have to work with, we may realize that our strain is more efficient at a slightly larger size. We are limited within a strain to the genetic variability available. What is important is that we use the standard weights as an anchor, and the range of tolerance as a tool instead of an excuse.

It is easy to lose size, and very difficult to gain size. The tendency is to drift back towards mediocrity (the jungle fowl), and lose size. It is easy to head downstream, but difficult to head against the current. We should be reluctant to use an undersized individual unless it is paired with an oversized individual. That is if we have any options at all. With some rare and neglected strains, we have to do what we have to do. But . . .if we are stuck, we have to do something. We cannot wallow in it forever. That would be insanity.

I am guilty of this myself, but not of my own doing as an original cause. My NHs are much too large. They are too large when I started with them. As I rightly selected for wider and deeper birds they have trended even larger, though incrementally. They are at a point where it may take an intentional effort to breed them smaller. My assumption has been that by not selecting for size they would trend smaller. That is not the case if you are picking for early weights and fleshing. My better birds have been wider and deeper than their counterparts, and also heavier. Fortunately their rate of maturity is not bad, though they are not where I would like them to be, or think that they could be, considering where they are now.

I do not want a newcomer to think we are saying that smaller is better is either. Far from it. Breed appropriate weights is what we are saying so that they are equipped to be as they could. I would rather start a little too large rather than the other extreme. The hatcheries are on the other extreme for the most part.

 

[gjensen]

If you don't mind a newbie question - what is the "peak of the growth curve", age wise? NH and Delawares are the two dual-purpose breeds that piqued my interest.

Growth curve is a term used to express the rate of growth and rate of decline. If you calculate the percentage gain weekly, on a chart, you will see it rapidly rise, then drop off. The peak of the growth curve is the point before rate of percentage gain begins to plummet. Different strains will look different on the chart. Some are rather flat, some are pretty sharp, some plateau, etc.
I use this expression because it describes adequately lbs. of feed per lb. of flesh. If they get to 75% of their weight at 14, 16, wks. etc. then we use twice as much feed to get a carcass that weights 10-15% more at 28wks etc.

The flatter the growth curve, the less suitable they are for this purpose.

The goal is to get an adequate carcass as close to that peak as possible. It is easier said than done, but once an acceptable target is established, then the birds can be properly evaluated and the progress tracked. That target might be two or three weeks past the peak, but then we can make progress. We cannot make progress just waiting until they get big enough. We are at the mercy of the flock, and the flock is applying the pressure rather than the breeder. That is upside down, and backwards. That is how some breeds and strains ended up where they are at. An absence of pressure on the traits that made them productive. It is use it or lose it. It takes years to recover what has been lost over years. It is possible that it is not even recoverable at a certain point.

All this requires is a pair of hands, interest, a scale, observation, and a calendar. Different years will have slightly different results. Weather, seasons, etc. play a role.

Anyone serious about breeding for production has to become familiar with how they grow out. It is not just when, but how. That is if they are interested in the production of fowl meat. You have to have targets, and you have to evaluate them. Otherwise we are just playing pretend. Anyone can raise up chicks, and dress them when they get big. How do we know unless we know?

All of the above expressions and numbers are just illustrations.

 

[gjensen]

I like this part of your post and appreciate your position. I would use the term break even instead of making a profit. I feel that break even should include the actual cost for replacements and 'facilities' since they may have come out of pocket. I would worry about labor if I were in the egg business but it's a hobby for me.

Regarding my post from a few days ago, I need to break even or at least get close. Yes, there is a case to eating your own home grown food raised the way you want it raised but then rather than $2.50 eggs, maybe $4 eggs is what they are actually worth. In my case I need to find better ways to feed them cheaply. But I don't have the time. I am sure I put 270 hours in the past 3 weeks. It was just work, work, work. My chicken tractor that my NH's will use is about 2 hours from completion which will save me in feed.

As I work with my Dels and NH's, I also have the same thoughts as George. You can't raise a dual purpose bird that is efficient in laying eggs. Maybe I need to play around with cheaper feed for my layers, I dunno. My one problem is that I'm not into marketing eggs or trying to get people to buy them so I have no need for extra eggs. I should reduce my flock to enough birds that will provide for the family but also can fill the incubator when I want a hatch for butchering. The other option is to just buy some really efficient layers like Leghorns and CX's for meat.... but I'd rather breed my own birds.

You have run into what we all run into when the money matters to us.

If you can get your birds where you feel good about them, selling some extras helps. I am a reluctant seller, but the locals keep coming. I have gotten rid of quite a few in the last few weeks, and this week. 5 and 6 wk. old birds that I see that has no hope of making it here. They cost me a $2.00 of feed at this point (for illustration), and am letting them go for $5.00 and $6.00. It would have cost the buyer as much to purchase the chick, feed them, heat them etc. so my conscience is clean.

The more they range, the less you are feeding them, as you know. However to maximize that. The more they can get from the ground they are on, the better. A mono culture pasture is only going to provide so much though. What they need in the largest qty. is energy. Green forage is low in energy. Some edible weeds helps. The legumes and greens. They will eat grass, but do not try to make it do too much. Chickens are high starch low fiber animals. Rabbits are high fiber, low starch animals. Ideally, digestible greens should not make up more than 25% of their diet. I tend to think of a mix of legumes, greens, and herbs. In that order. I do not put any emphasis on grass though I do get some benefit from it. In our area the more coarse grasses like Bahia, Bermuda, Centipede etc. thrive. Lawn fescues are more tender than these. We get too hot to depend on fescue. Crabgrass, everyone's weed is a pretty good grass. Allowing grasses and "weeds" to go to seed, then cutting it is good. The more seed available, the less they will rely on your grain.

It seams that you would have access to bulk grains in your area. Oats are great, have a good amino acid profile etc. The oats hang up (everything has a hang up) is that they are high fiber. Soaking them or fermenting them has been the gamecock breeders solution to the high fiber problem for 100s of years. Whole corn is low in fiber, high in energy, and very digestible. It's hang up is that it has a poor amino acid profile (needs to be coupled with something else), and low in protein. Wheat is intermediate of the two, but too much causes it's own problems.

It seams that you would have some extra milk. I would consider how to integrate the system a little more. The milk would be a good source of protein and fat. Yes, they need fat to. A little would go along ways.

Kitchen scraps helps cut the cost. Cutting costs at home is cutting those scraps. We do not want to feed them even more expensive feed, but the scraps that are there can be used by the birds. During World War 2 Europe's birds were kept alive on scraps, and steamed potatoes. Grain was not much of an option during the rationing.

Controlling waste is important. Pellets are helpful. Feeding them once per day, if they are ranged, is helpful (this pushes them farther from the coop). Bee likes to ferment her feed, and I think it is worth considering. I free feed, but I make them run out of feed. The birds that are in mobile pens are moved to time with them running out, and cleaning up their waste themselves. I will let the housed birds run out for a day a week occasionally, and this encourages them to clean up their spilled feed. The old gamecock breeders believed in withholding feed a day a week, and only feeding them what thy would clean up in a sitting. They wanted their birds a "little hungry", and did not want them to get "fat and lazy". They are different birds, and for different reasons, but there is something to be gained by the perspective.

With the dual purpose breeds, starting to cull cockerels early is helpful. You can split and grill young birds as early as 6 wks if they are any good. If they are not, get them there. One bird per person per sitting. It is not what we are used to but it cutting waste by consuming birds unfit for breeding. Be careful though. Don't kill what could be used in a breeding pen to help you.
Always cull your least productive birds. Eat your layers. Your pullets will be the most productive in their first year, less in the second, and third etc. Only keep the best every year, and stew the rest. They need to be pretty good to live three years. If they are good enough to live three years, get as many chicks as you can from them. They are proven. If you have an excellent cockerel by then, use him with them. Youth on one side will mean better fertility and hatchability. Use a proven cock on good one year old hens.

Advertise and sell sex linked chicks in the spring. They will come. Pay for that good incubator with chicks. Do a fall hatch. People like to get POL pullets in the spring. That would be a good time to get rid of culls.

Feed is 80% of the cost of keeping birds. The rest is all of the rest. But do not be tempted to sacrifice performance for economy. That is a false economy. They are the most efficient when they are at their genetic potential. Productivity is genetics first, and management second.

If you can get where they cost you 1.50 per dozen, sell clean eating eggs for $3.00. Have them bring a carton, or come up with an economical way to get clean cartons, and then clean them. This will pay for the breeder's feed, and may help with other costs.

Cull, cull, cull. You are better off with less birds that are good, than more that is not. Starting out, it could be helpful to get to a couple trios and work from there.

You can get it where it makes sense to you, but it will take some time to find your own rhyme and reason. In the mean time, breed good birds. There is a lack of and demand for good birds that perform well. Right now, it is usually either or. You have the genetics to get them there. You will have to breed it out and into them.

You are also smart and thoughtful enough to do it.

 

[bnjrob]

I agree with all those things- but they have to mature reasonably quickly, too. I like the gjensen rule of thumb- eggs at 20 weeks, and an edible cockerel before he (the chicken) crows.

I was thinking on this issue while I was outside doing chores.

We have a very wasteful society. We can't seem to be happy unless we have not only enough to satisfy us, but enough to throw away too. And I'm guilty of it too. We slaughtered some turkeys this week and I threw away the heads, feet, heart, gizzard, and lungs - because those parts still gross me out. The free range chickens ate the livers and testicles but they won't eat the rest. I understand the enormity of the need to feed the masses who live in the cities, but reality is that we throw away a ton of food. And people expect to have an enormous variety of the same type of product to choose from - they want to be able to choose which brand, which color. That alone causes the commercial industries to produce far more than is actually needed. North America could feed a good portion of the rest of the world just with what we throw away in our homes, our restaurants - not to mention what goes bad on cargo ships and in warehouses when there are fights over money. I heard on the news about tons and tons of apples rotting in the Pacific Northwest in the last couple of years after they were harvested. We actually produce far more than necessary.

I was at Walmart yesterday and looked at egg prices. They have come down some. But the sheer amount of eggs, not to mention the variety of brands available, was huge. How many of those eggs actually get eaten? How many people actually eat 200-300 eggs in a year - which is what folks want their modern hen to lay? I'm talking the average city/town dwelling person.

People generally eat eggs for breakfast and use an occasional egg when making a cake. Now I can use a lot of eggs, but I also make things like pasta, biscuits/breads, pie crusts and other ready-made items that most people buy premade at the store in boxes and cans. And we eat a lot of quiche to use up eggs. I purposely use more eggs than other people because I have them and want to decrease waste. Yet even with feeding eggs back to our birds, I still end up throwing away a lot of eggs that wind up so old that it's too hard to get the sticky dry yolks out of the shells so I can use the shells. And my old fashioned birds molt for about 4 months, they go broody all the time, and even when they are laying consistently, they lay every other to every few days unlike modern birds. Yet I still was throwing away eggs when we only had a handful of hens. If our society were more temperate in their habits and did not demand to have more than enough eggs to feed themselves and still have eggs to throw away, the commercial poultry industry would not need to operate in the manner that they do.

Meat is the same way. How much of it gets thrown away or goes bad before it is eaten? How many people turn up their noses at meat that have the *sell quick* tags on them? People now believe that the government mandated/encouraged *sell by* dates means that a product is suddenly rotten and they have to throw it away. I have a sneaky suspicion that much of those sell by dates and friends that way.

Most people don't have any idea how much they eat of different items because they no longer have to produce it themselves. They believe what the commercial industry tells them because they don't know any better. And these large corporations are making a killing on the ignorance of the buying public. There's a guy out in California that I read about who was changing his commercial laying operation over to free ranging, heritage birds. Last I saw, things were going ok for him. He had to change his business model some but it was worth it to him to have a more sustainable flock. Should be interesting to see how he does as time goes on. I believe that if there were not huge monopolistic corporations that were paying outrageous executive salaries and dividends to stockholders - to people not even actively involved in the growing of poultry products - small family farms could produce enough food for everyone and not have to rely on the genetically patented birds that commercial growers are required to use by contract.

When I look at people complaining that the old breeds don't do it for them production wise, I think their expectations have been tainted by the commercial industry's propaganda. But I also think part of it may be that even the old bloodlines aren't producing like they did 100 years ago because of people's mistakes. These old breeds were barely kept alive after commercial poultry took over. And the folks keeping the birds alive were show people that were more interested in pretty feathers than continuing their ancestor's tradition of making sure the birds were thrifty and lived up to their utility purpose because they no longer had to worry about growing their own meat and eggs anymore. So we're having to improve the old breeds to get them back to where they used to be at. The research I've done and learning from Bee and some others how they feed them and their families with their old fashioned birds - I think we're the problem, not the birds.

In regards to an edible cockerel before he crows - for my breed that is not possible - for the fact that my cockerels often start crowing at 1 month old. Now that I've spent a few years selectively breeding for production and not just SOP, I'm getting more meat at 5 months old. Enough for a meal for two people and depending on how we use it, sometimes leftovers too. My Javas also generally start laying at 5 months.