BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[ronott1]

I like the Basque a lot~ any broody strains developing?

M

One of the Skyline Basque went broody the first year. She did not want the chicks though.

 

[hellbender]

FYI.....This came today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With regard to the Proposed Video.


Ron, alright, I've run it past the Staff, and we are in agreement that it's alright to post this video. A few things we need for you to agree to (just reply to this PM that you agree):

1) it must be in the meat birds section.
2) it must contain "warning - graphic video" in the title of the thread
3) you must be careful it's not "too" graphic. I don't feel the need to explain that, as I believe you know what we mean.

4) you must send me a link immediately after you've posted it (this is so that I can watch it for awhile to be sure it's received with the intention it was posted for).

 

[hellbender]

Another FYI...No matter what you folks think of my stock or farm, it should all be shown in it's best light. The camera man is a professional. he has agreed to do this work for free so he gets to have it on a TV farm show run by the local channel he works for.

They are going to do the 'farm thing' tomorrow, then all the rest will be devoted to the 'clinic'.

Jason asked me why it takes three days to pull off this 'clinic' and the only reason I can think of is That Mr. Mong wants to appear to earn his money. But gain...Neither Jason nor I picked up caponizing on the first day it was explained and shown to us so perhaps Mr, Mong knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[BGMatt]

Speaking of hatchery stock and what they are bred for.

For a dual purpose production minded person, is it better to breed a show type, SOP, bird towards production? Or is it easier to take a production bred bird (such as hatchery stock) and breed towards the SOP?

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about creating a bird that can compete at shows or is something to brag about on the SOP threads at BYC. I'm talking about taking a hatchery bird and breeding it towards it's intended dual purpose.

You will have more success taking birds bred to the standard and selecting for production traits. When talking dual purpose the hatchery birds come up short in the meat area because they are selected for egg production and lack the size the originals had. "Slow" growth is often cited, but many have let it get worse than it should be. The historical records back this up, birds were productive much sooner than they are now and faster growing. This is something that can be selected for, but must be paired with size otherwise you lose your dual purpose.

I've said before, and have experience both sides, it's far easier to take a show bred line (that has been neglected for production, not all have been) and selectively breed them to be productive, than it is to take a productive hatchery line and breed it up to the original purpose of the breed. Many, many of the old "show" lines were also top producing farms. Grove Hill Leghorns for example would win the Madison Square Garden shows and were a top egg producing line as well. The Reese lines of Rocks and Reds were productive dual purpose farm fowl in addition to winning at the largest shows of the day too.

A good example of this in the modern day is what Joseph at Yellow House Farms has done with the White Dorking.

 

[Arielle]

Matt-- do remember BObBlosl posting the list of Reese stock available-- loosing track of time, either winter 2013 or 2012 . . .I have searched online for that info and it is not to be found . . . .contact info was only via that post that BOb made.

 

[ronott1]

You will have more success taking birds bred to the standard and selecting for production traits. When talking dual purpose the hatchery birds come up short in the meat area because they are selected for egg production and lack the size the originals had. "Slow" growth is often cited, but many have let it get worse than it should be. The historical records back this up, birds were productive much sooner than they are now and faster growing. This is something that can be selected for, but must be paired with size otherwise you lose your dual purpose.

I've said before, and have experience both sides, it's far easier to take a show bred line (that has been neglected for production, not all have been) and selectively breed them to be productive, than it is to take a productive hatchery line and breed it up to the original purpose of the breed. Many, many of the old "show" lines were also top producing farms. Grove Hill Leghorns for example would win the Madison Square Garden shows and were a top egg producing line as well. The Reese lines of Rocks and Reds were productive dual purpose farm fowl in addition to winning at the largest shows of the day too.

A good example of this in the modern day is what Joseph at Yellow House Farms has done with the White Dorking.

Yes! It would be a better way to go.

 

[southernmomma]

Matt-- do remember BObBlosl posting the list of Reese stock available-- loosing track of time, either winter 2013 or 2012 . . .I have searched online for that info and it is not to be found . . . .contact info was only via that post that BOb made. 

Somewhere along the line I found info stating he wasn't shipping *anything* anymore~ eggs, birds, nada. Could be false....don't know if that changes anything for you though.


One can breed for meat or egg production without referencing a breed SOP, correct? If one was gifted a flock with unidentified heritage could the generic rules of breeding for meat or eggs not be applied with success?

M

 

[BGMatt]

Matt-- do remember BObBlosl posting the list of Reese stock available-- loosing track of time, either winter 2013 or 2012 . . .I have searched online for that info and it is not to be found . . . .contact info was only via that post that BOb made.

Yes, I remember that last year, however one can't get caught up in line names, it's a trend I see all the time and it just doesn't make sense. Once the original person is no longer directly making the decisions for the birds it's not REALLY their line anymore. One can ruin a line or improve a line very quickly, either way let that person take the credit or blame they deserve. Something marketed as a Reese line, or a Grove Hill line bird today is nothing more than advertising and may or may not live up to it's original billing.

Somewhere along the line I found info stating he wasn't shipping *anything* anymore~ eggs, birds, nada. Could be false....don't know if that changes anything for you though.


One can breed for meat or egg production without referencing a breed SOP, correct? If one was gifted a flock with unidentified heritage could the generic rules of breeding for meat or eggs not be applied with success?

M

Absolutely. It's why so many of the breeds have standards that read so closely to one another with really fairly minor differences. Every dual purpose fowl has a standard that uses lots of words like "wide", "broad", "full". Almost every egg laying breed uses the words "long" and "deep". Heck, I'm pretty sure that if you bred a bird solely for dual purpose production of eggs and meat, standard or not, you would eventually reach a bird that in silhouette anyway closely resembled a Plymouth Rock, or a New Hampshire or a Sussex, or etc. If you bred birds for egg production you'd likely end up with something that looks an awful lot like (again in silhouette) a Leghorn, or Campine, or Andalusian, etc, etc.

Edit: The first 40 or so pages of the Standard are fantastic because it explains structure, has diagrams etc. It's well worth the purchase.

 

[hellbender]

Yes, I remember that last year, however one can't get caught up in line names, it's a trend I see all the time and it just doesn't make sense. Once the original person is no longer directly making the decisions for the birds it's not REALLY their line anymore. One can ruin a line or improve a line very quickly, either way let that person take the credit or blame they deserve. Something marketed as a Reese line, or a Grove Hill line bird today is nothing more than advertising and may or may not live up to it's original billing.



Absolutely. It's why so many of the breeds have standards that read so closely to one another with really fairly minor differences. Every dual purpose fowl has a standard that uses lots of words like "wide", "broad", "full". Almost every egg laying breed uses the words "long" and "deep". Heck, I'm pretty sure that if you bred a bird solely for dual purpose production of eggs and meat, standard or not, you would eventually reach a bird that in silhouette anyway closely resembled a Plymouth Rock, or a New Hampshire or a Sussex, or etc. If you bred birds for egg production you'd likely end up with something that looks an awful lot like (again in silhouette) a Leghorn, or Campine, or Andalusian, etc, etc.

I'm in complete agreement with you, Matt!

 

[Arielle]

THe reason I brought up Mr Reese's list is that he has NH that are bred for meat first, and as I remember his description of his birds, didn't claim SOP breeding, in fact, made a pont of clarifying the opposite, that they were not sop. TO me I see two things: he is honest, and he breeds for what a poultry bird was intended: meat. Whe I talked to Mr Rhodes I was struck by his honesty-- did not brag about his birds but was very matter of fact.