BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[NanaKat]

 
     This discussion has me in awe when I look at the depressing results of my efforts. Working with birds that are already in a rare state and needing rejuvination is definitely a challenge. Having insufficient numbers is pretty critical.You pool your thoughts from mentors who are supposed to be in the know and find that there is really no perfect recipe to resurrect your specialty breeds or even heritage breeds. Interjecting fresh blood from another strain can be a temporary quick fix but the longevity soon wears off and the battle continues.  Yes, inbreeding is to me the main issue with longevity. More birds, less issues, less birds, bigger issues over a shorter period of time. In my opinion, you have to have enough stock to rotate on a slated basis to keep constants in check. Anything less and over time you are going to see a breakdown in both vigor and quality. I prefer utility breeding verses show quality breeding.

Yellowhouse farm was successful with inbreeding his white dorkings. What he did was hatch a lot and cull very hard. You might need to hatch out 200 and only keep three for several years but it can be done and is better than trying to mix lines.
Chicken genetics are not like human genetics.

Our Roost...you definitely deals ibex my situation to a T.
And ronott1 has suggested what I've been trying to do over the past 6 years....although only 100 hatched from the big pen and 25 from the trios.

     More numbers yes! So when you start with just a handful of birds that lay an egg every other day, don't expect many on the ground your first year. Keep in mind that only a select number of these will be suitable for breeding stock the following season. And so goes the game.

That is exactly how our stuff goes.  Ours do not lay every day and they go broody a lot, so it definitely cuts down on the numbers of eggs available for hatching.  Since we hatch from multiple cocks in each bloodline, we alternate years in hatching from different sires - otherwise we would not have enough room for them all. 
...
....
Of course with both genders we always watch them all along for either really good traits or undesirable traits.  With our one bloodline we are finally able to start putting a little more emphasis on earlier maturing.  You can't totally neglect a trait when you're breeding, but you can choose where to put the varying degrees of emphasis, based on what is going on in the flock.

I've seen too many people get set so far back because they culled too heavily to start with and didn't have backup breeders and lost birds.  If the birds are easily replaceable, that works fine, but if you can't just go to the store and get more, making sure to have backups is so important.  Even if they are the junior varsity team, the genetics is still there so you won't lose everything if you lose birds.  We have far more birds than what we breed with but having more of them alive *just in case* makes it easier to do the culling of the first string birds and still have a safety net. 

Most definitely hatching more, culling hard and keeping a second string of both pullets and cockerels as backup requires the space and financial commitment. Fortunately we have the space for those pens.

15 to 20 years without an outcross can become much easier with birds that can lay until they are 10. Longevity has been sacrificed in many programs that have taken many generations to cull out bad traits, or should we say, human defined bad traits. Many generations in a short time frame can get you a long way from where you started.

Selecting for longevity allows good genetics to continue to be available. That is one of many long range goals on my breeding plan. I currently have five hens in the flock that are 5 and 6 years of age..

Getting back to the hard core facts with numbers, lets keep in mind the available space some people just don't have. Not everyone has the appropriate property or space to even be talking about this concept. Flock size and manageability begins to become a serious issue when someone thinks about breeding what I call a backyard of a few chickens. Although I don't discourage any ones ambitions, its only fair to let them know what they can expect from the result of small numbers. I myself could definitely hatch out more birds, but I could not manage that amount.  At one time a mentor told me to either go big or go home!  In a good way, I completely understand what was meant by that.

I heard the same thing when I got started with my flock of Columbian Wyandotte.

I know next to nothing about seriously breeding birds, or any animal, for that matter...just from reading, watching, being around such things on the farms and farming community.  I'm curious as to why one must hatch hundreds of birds a year to improve a flock when other animals/herds can see improvement with just one offspring/litter per year and see improvement year after year?  Why the huge numbers each year to make flock improvements? 

We have Angus cattle and while thru selective breeding, we see improvement in our calf crop when bringing in a great bull with epd values for carcass. But that same bull might not have the epd for milk factor for the replacement heifers we want. We must match a low birth weight bull with good maternal epd factors when breeding for those replacements. We might breed half siblings to get a good bull calf to raise as a breed bull but it takes two years to see his full growth potential. Just crossing two registered bloodlines doesn't guarantee a great calf crop.
Sure takes a lot longer for a bull calf to make it to a herd sire. A calf no matter how average or even one below standard may still be sold at market to cover its feed bill. Mistakes still make money.

With chickens...in one hatching season, careless or hidden traits in pairings can do havoc to your grow out pens. Having to cull a whole clutch of chicks because defects popped up gets discouraging really fast (example: the year I had horrible combs on 25 chicks out of 40 hatched from one cock and three hens. Grew them up to six weeks and canned all of them). Switched cocks and the next 50 chicks were much improved.

When you start with six hens and a cock as I did, you want numbers. You want insurance that you will have reserve birds in case something happens to your cock. Over 6 years, my flock of CW has grown to 13 hens and three cocks. I hatched 50 to 100 chicks from each pen and selected only the birds that met the criteria for each breeding season. It took two years to get the combs in good shape. Three years to work on type and body. It has taken three years to get good yellow legs. It has taken four years to double egg production.proper tail, wing carriage, stance and heft are always on the list each year. And always a corner of the eye on color.

 

[Beekissed]

Are there any known poultry breeders with a finished product? As in, they have bred high numbers for many years and have bred all undesirable traits out of their lines and the birds are now exact to the SOP while still performing well in laying, meat, or both?

If not, how many numbers and how many years would it take, exactly, if no one has a finished product? Or are these just theories of how one would actually attain such a goal but it's never actually been done?

Just trying to get a grasp on reality vs. theory.

 

[NanaKat]

That was why I listed the years it has taken me to work on some of the issues I was seeing in the offspring in my original flock. It was a closed flock for many years in the hands of the first two owners. I had purchased chicks from the last owner the year before and had a nice pair. When I got the flock, they were the final birds the breeder had kept as breeders. The hens were lovely, but the cock was not as nice as my cock. He suggested using my cock instead of his bird. So I started there. Six years now working towards the SOP.
I think I have made significant progress in making improvements.
As for any breeders reaching perfection...I've seen some beautiful birds at the shows. When talking to the breeders about carcass and egg production, some breeders have maintained both along with beauty. Others focus on only show and in my opinion, that is a shame.

 

[varidgerunner]

Are there any known poultry breeders with a finished product?

Murray McMurray.

 

[Beekissed]

Well, they do hatch large numbers and millions buy their chicks, so I guess you could call that a finished product or a success of some kind. Many, many satisfied customers, too.

 

[hellbender]

Murray McMurray.

 

[bnjrob]

Are there any known poultry breeders with a finished product? As in, they have bred high numbers for many years and have bred all undesirable traits out of their lines and the birds are now exact to the SOP while still performing well in laying, meat, or both?

If not, how many numbers and how many years would it take, exactly, if no one has a finished product? Or are these just theories of how one would actually attain such a goal but it's never actually been done?

Just trying to get a grasp on reality vs. theory.

Never heard of any. I don't think there can ever be a finished product because there's too many genetic variables that can pop out traits in the birds even when the traits are not seen in the parents. We've seen this with our flock. The breeder we got our original birds from has told people she never had a problem with this or that trait, yet the birds we got from her wound up with the very traits she said she has never had in her flock. There is one gentleman that has been keeping our breed for longer than most Java keepers and is considered to be a top breeder of them, and even he has mentioned having to cull birds every year that have the wrong color feet. The longer you breed, the closer you could get to perfection, but there's still no guarantee, and there is no such thing as the perfect bird anyway.

And when you're talking about the perfect bird as being one that conforms to the SOP - the perfect bird is mostly an accumulation of all the best traits seen and desired among various birds of that breed, but it doesn't mean that all the birds of that breed possess all those traits in one package deal. The SOP for Javas was actually changed from what was seen in most Java flocks, to traits that were NOT normally seen in Javas. Why? One time it was changed because the Plymouth Rock fanciers were upset that their Rocks looked too much like Javas (Javas were used to make Rocks), and they demanded that the Java SOP be changed - instead of breeding their Rocks so that their appearance would differ more from the Javas. There weren't as many vocal Java fanciers at the time, so the APA bowed to pressure to please the Plymouth Rock breeders, and as a result, a variety of Java went extinct. Another time they changed the Java SOP to *update* the look of the Java. They said it needed to stop looking so old fashioned and that by changing the SOP, Javas would not only have a more modern look, but it would also weed out people trying to pass cross-breed birds off as Javas.

Then too - what is perfection? What would be a finished product in a bird? Many people consider a *quality* bird to be one that has been bred to the SOP and conforms closely to the SOP. But other people would consider a *quality* bird to be a healthy bird that lays enough eggs to perpetuate the flock and provide food, no matter what it actually looked like. And of course having a finished product is subjective anyway. I can always find room for improvement in many things, but some people may see it differently and be happy with what they have.

Breeding strictly for production will get you results a lot faster, no matter how many you hatch, compared to breeding to the SOP. And breeding to the SOP while trying to maintain or improve production takes even longer. I've got some Javas that lay darn near every day, and while they are nice looking birds when they are running around the pasture, when they are next to one of my SOP-bred birds, their appearance doesn't look nearly as impressive. A lot of it is our own perceptions and personal goals for our birds.

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

Never heard of any. I don't think there can ever be a finished product because there's too many genetic variables that can pop out traits in the birds even when the traits are not seen in the parents. We've seen this with our flock. The breeder we got our original birds from has told people she never had a problem with this or that trait, yet the birds we got from her wound up with the very traits she said she has never had in her flock. There is one gentleman that has been keeping our breed for longer than most Java keepers and is considered to be a top breeder of them, and even he has mentioned having to cull birds every year that have the wrong color feet. The longer you breed, the closer you could get to perfection, but there's still no guarantee, and there is no such thing as the perfect bird anyway.

And when you're talking about the perfect bird as being one that conforms to the SOP - the perfect bird is mostly an accumulation of all the best traits seen and desired among various birds of that breed, but it doesn't mean that all the birds of that breed possess all those traits in one package deal. The SOP for Javas was actually changed from what was seen in most Java flocks, to traits that were NOT normally seen in Javas. Why? One time it was changed because the Plymouth Rock fanciers were upset that their Rocks looked too much like Javas (Javas were used to make Rocks), and they demanded that the Java SOP be changed - instead of breeding their Rocks so that their appearance would differ more from the Javas. There weren't as many vocal Java fanciers at the time, so the APA bowed to pressure to please the Plymouth Rock breeders, and as a result, a variety of Java went extinct. Another time they changed the Java SOP to *update* the look of the Java. They said it needed to stop looking so old fashioned and that by changing the SOP, Javas would not only have a more modern look, but it would also weed out people trying to pass cross-breed birds off as Javas.

Then too - what is perfection? What would be a finished product in a bird? Many people consider a *quality* bird to be one that has been bred to the SOP and conforms closely to the SOP. But other people would consider a *quality* bird to be a healthy bird that lays enough eggs to perpetuate the flock and provide food, no matter what it actually looked like. And of course having a finished product is subjective anyway. I can always find room for improvement in many things, but some people may see it differently and be happy with what they have.

Breeding strictly for production will get you results a lot faster, no matter how many you hatch, compared to breeding to the SOP. And breeding to the SOP while trying to maintain or improve production takes even longer. I've got some Javas that lay darn near every day, and while they are nice looking birds when they are running around the pasture, when they are next to one of my SOP-bred birds, their appearance doesn't look nearly as impressive. A lot of it is our own perceptions and personal goals for our birds.

Very nicely put.

(I think having a finished product would be boring... I'd have to go ahead and get those goats then.

)

- Ant Farm

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

We've talked a little bit here on this thread (where many of us are somewhat utilitarian in focus) about the fact that SOME of what's in the SOP (for older breeds) is there for a production reason (e.g., associated with healthy body structure, etc.). @gjensen , I think you have discussed this in terms of working on the whole bird, etc., in terms of working toward SOP for your birds while preserving production aspects.

So I was wondering - aside from cosmetics, what would be the purpose for selecting for straight combs, and culling cockerels with crooked or otherwise poorly or unevenly formed combs? I have a medical background - I found myself wondering if it could uncommonly be a marker for skull defects or genetically linked to some other potentially serious issue.

I'm just curious...

- Ant Farm

 

[varidgerunner]

Now to add depth, to the discussion, I don't pretend to be a chicken breeder, I am just trying to keep the ones I have like they were when I got them. I have done a bit of farming with various other livestock, and I have dabbled with hunting dogs. Hounds would be easier for me to use to illustrate, because I am more familiar with them. A lot of people get the notion that if they cross a bulldog, for pure toughness, with a bloodhound, for nose, with a German Shepherd, for smarts, with a Greyhound for speed, that they would have a hound far better than the ones that people have been perfecting for hundreds of years to have those traits balanced within one family. Now, you might end up with a really outstanding individual, but it is much more likely that you will end up with a dog that is as slow as a bloodhound, the speed of the bulldog, the scenting ability of the greyhound with below average smarts that looks like a German Shepherd. Some of the traits are actually antagonistic to each other in some cases, dogs that stay barking up a tree good sometimes aren't as good at making something decide to climb a tree, sometimes dogs with a real good nose aren't very fast. This could carry over into fowl, in that high egg production might be antagonistic to efficient meat production. Crossing a leghorn with a cornish might not be a viable solution.

Getting the traits that you want balanced is much further compounded when we add silly human contrivances as phenotypic color selection. The best dogs I have hunted with have been bred by breeders who didn't give a rip what color they were as long as they got the job done. Breeding for balanced performance AND the right color add much more need for depth in the breeding program. Most unique color schemes most likely came about because a breeder noticed that the stock in his or her program that exhibited the performance or production traits they wanted also happened to come a certain color. It made for an easy marker for the ones that were bred right. It is much more likely that someone bred a breed that did what they wanted and the end result happened to be a certain color, than that someone started with a certain color and then selected for the desired production traits, in most instances.