BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[NanaKat]

The bird Hellbender posted is a Golden Cuckoo Maline with the turkey head.
The more typical Belgian Maline is a black cuckoo with a single comb.

The turkey head was the breed that sparked my interest...I even started a thread seeking eggs.

 

[Beer can]

You ALL are doing AWESOME things with your breeds, I hope to eventually come into this discussion with what I know, rather than what I want to do...
Edited to say, this is the best discussion thread on BYC I have ever seen, and I'm on a few, It had dang well better stay open so we all can keep on improving, not just our birds, but ourselves....

 

[gjensen]

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.

Bee, respectfully, you are trying to critique something for the sake of being critical. You have not offered a credible or constructive alternative. I have tried to explain to you the factors that come into play. There are many variables to consider when we consider these topics.

These are things that we have to sort out for ourselves along the way.

The proof in the pudding is in the eating. I suspect that you will have a more involved and evolved view in time, if you remain interested in what you have recently started. That is you will have a sense of what it will require with your own birds, with your goals, and in your time. Then you will be able to offer a perspective based on your experiences.

 

[gjensen]

Concerning appearances, color, form, and function . . .

Obviously, color has no positive bearing on performance. There is no negative correlation either. There is neither a positive or negative effect. Color is never a factor. Breeding choices can be, so if color is prioritized to the exclusion of productivity, then selection is the concern. It is an elementary view that associates color with production traits. They are unrelated and there is no positive or negative effect on production itself.

Concerning form. Form is a necessary consideration. Pluck all of the commercial layers you can get your hands on and you will find a very uniform type. Pluck a selection of commercial Leghorns and you will find a similar type that is uniform in conformation. This is not coincidence. Commercial geneticists have narrowed down the most productive and efficient type. Enough of everything, and not too much of anything. Longevity with these birds is a separate and related consideration.
It is no coincidence that these have the type, though smaller, of the Standard Leghorn. The Leghorn breeders got it right. It is also not a coincidence that production bred Reds etc. evolve towards a more Leghorn type.

Conformation of form is not unique to laying fowl. It has always been a primary driver behind table fowl. Uniformity of quality is always a concern. Commercial meat strains have their unique and uniform type. Their type has become the standard of modern table fowl.
In the past, breeds bred and raised for the table had their own unique type. A good example was the English Sussex. The English was ahead of much of the poultry breeding world with this excellent (for their time) table bird. If anyone was to review the Standard, or knew the breed, they know that they have a cinderblock shape. These proportions allowed a meaty bird to sit flat on a plate. They did not want a bird that would role around on a plate. They wanted a particular type, for a particular reason, on a particular bird. They were after all, dual purpose table birds.

Pure function is often driven by unseen characteristics. Rate of growth, rate of sexual maturity, lay rate (or cycle), length of molt, etc. etc. etc. are considerations of their own. They can be had (in a limited way) in addition to, or excluded from the points above. All of these have to be evaluated on their own. They come together to make a productive bird. Coupled with an appropriate type, their potential is maximized. A actively productive birds is the sum of it' parts. There are many necessary selection points individually evaluated.

Each on its own is unrealized potential.

Selecting for uniform conformation is selecting for uniform quality and purpose. It is when it is done to the exclusion of their active characteristics that a less productive bird is bred.

So form and function is two truths in parallel. The best birds are a marriage of the two. Form is not contradictory to function, and function is not contradictory to form. Form is the potential function, and function is the form in action.

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

I think a lot has to do with what a given person's goals are. Backyard birds solely for personal meat/egg use and enjoyment vs. breed work - conservation work with a breed or joy of working on a breed (including SOP), which may or may not include selling or passing on birds that will have a breed label on them (and therefore upping the ante re: what one is representing compared to a backyard project).

Yes, that sounds like a simplistic statement, but for myself, as I first started recently and now have cockerel selections to do, I find that when I get distracted or confused, it's almost always because I either lost sight of my original goals, or my goals are evolving and I didn't consciously acknowledge or notice it.

I can appreciate the work folks do toward SOP and health/vigor/production in a breed, and indeed, learn an awful lot by following discussions on selection and management, while knowing some of that is not important for my own birds. (That's why I follow the heritage large fowl thread...)

- Ant Farm

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

Concerning appearances, color, form, and function . . .

Obviously, color has no positive bearing on performance. There is no negative correlation either. There is neither a positive or negative effect. Color is never a factor. Breeding choices can be, so if color is prioritized to the exclusion of productivity, then selection is the concern. It is an elementary view that associates color with production traits. They are unrelated and there is no positive or negative effect on production itself.

Concerning form. Form is a necessary consideration. Pluck all of the commercial layers you can get your hands on and you will find a very uniform type. Pluck a selection of commercial Leghorns and you will find a similar type that is uniform in conformation. This is not coincidence. Commercial geneticists have narrowed down the most productive and efficient type. Enough of everything, and not too much of anything. Longevity with these birds is a separate and related consideration.
It is no coincidence that these have the type, though smaller, of the Standard Leghorn. The Leghorn breeders got it right. It is also not a coincidence that production bred Reds etc. evolve towards a more Leghorn type.

Conformation of form is not unique to laying fowl. It has always been a primary driver behind table fowl. Uniformity of quality is always a concern. Commercial meat strains have their unique and uniform type. Their type has become the standard of modern table fowl.
In the past, breeds bred and raised for the table had their own unique type. A good example was the English Sussex. The English was ahead of much of the poultry breeding world with this excellent (for their time) table bird. If anyone was to review the Standard, or knew the breed, they know that they have a cinderblock shape. These proportions allowed a meaty bird to sit flat on a plate. They did not want a bird that would role around on a plate. They wanted a particular type, for a particular reason, on a particular bird. They were after all, dual purpose table birds.

Pure function is often driven by unseen characteristics. Rate of growth, rate of sexual maturity, lay rate (or cycle), length of molt, etc. etc. etc. are considerations of their own. They can be had (in a limited way) in addition to, or excluded from the points above. All of these have to be evaluated on their own. They come together to make a productive bird. Coupled with an appropriate type, their potential is maximized. A actively productive birds is the sum of it' parts. There are many necessary selection points individually evaluated.

Each on its own is unrealized potential.

Selecting for uniform conformation is selecting for uniform quality and purpose. It is when it is done to the exclusion of their active characteristics that a less productive bird is bred.

So form and function is two truths in parallel. The best birds are a marriage of the two. Form is not contradictory to function, and function is not contradictory to form. Form is the potential function, and function is the form in action.

This is EXCELLENT. Thank you!

- Ant Farm

 

[hellbender]

Concerning appearances, color, form, and function . . .

Obviously, color has no positive bearing on performance. There is no negative correlation either. There is neither a positive or negative effect. Color is never a factor. Breeding choices can be, so if color is prioritized to the exclusion of productivity, then selection is the concern. It is an elementary view that associates color with production traits. They are unrelated and there is no positive or negative effect on production itself.

Concerning form. Form is a necessary consideration. Pluck all of the commercial layers you can get your hands on and you will find a very uniform type. Pluck a selection of commercial Leghorns and you will find a similar type that is uniform in conformation. This is not coincidence. Commercial geneticists have narrowed down the most productive and efficient type. Enough of everything, and not too much of anything. Longevity with these birds is a separate and related consideration.
It is no coincidence that these have the type, though smaller, of the Standard Leghorn. The Leghorn breeders got it right. It is also not a coincidence that production bred Reds etc. evolve towards a more Leghorn type.

Conformation of form is not unique to laying fowl. It has always been a primary driver behind table fowl. Uniformity of quality is always a concern. Commercial meat strains have their unique and uniform type. Their type has become the standard of modern table fowl.
In the past, breeds bred and raised for the table had their own unique type. A good example was the English Sussex. The English was ahead of much of the poultry breeding world with this excellent (for their time) table bird. If anyone was to review the Standard, or knew the breed, they know that they have a cinderblock shape. These proportions allowed a meaty bird to sit flat on a plate. They did not want a bird that would role around on a plate. They wanted a particular type, for a particular reason, on a particular bird. They were after all, dual purpose table birds.

Pure function is often driven by unseen characteristics. Rate of growth, rate of sexual maturity, lay rate (or cycle), length of molt, etc. etc. etc. are considerations of their own. They can be had (in a limited way) in addition to, or excluded from the points above. All of these have to be evaluated on their own. They come together to make a productive bird. Coupled with an appropriate type, their potential is maximized. A actively productive birds is the sum of it' parts. There are many necessary selection points individually evaluated.

Each on its own is unrealized potential.

Selecting for uniform conformation is selecting for uniform quality and purpose. It is when it is done to the exclusion of their active characteristics that a less productive bird is bred.

So form and function is two truths in parallel. The best birds are a marriage of the two. Form is not contradictory to function, and function is not contradictory to form. Form is the potential function, and function is the form in action.

 

[gjensen]

Ant Farm, they are all a contribution. Even extremes contribute. We just get silly with our ideology, as if there is a moral right and wrong dictated by our opinions.

An example is the Cornish that became such a large contribution. People forget, or did not know, that Cornish were ornamental exhibition fowl. That is what they were bred for. How they looked. Not how they performed. They were bred from performance fowl, but of a different kind. They were bred from birds bred to perform in the pit. These birds had firm flesh, well developed breast. and well developed thighs.

Bee, as much as she complains about SOP birds is using them in her new breeding project.

They are different birds bred for different reasons. Both are a contribution to the whole.

 

[Our Roost]

No!!!! This is a what I believe to be a turkey headed Malines, not the same but of the same family. Will try to post a pic of what a real malines looks like.

 

[hellbender]

No!!!! This is a what I believe to be a turkey headed Malines, not the same but of the same family. Will try to post a pic of what a real malines looks like.

I thought they ALL were Malines...just different varieties???