BREEDING FOR PRODUCTION...EGGS AND OR MEAT.

[MBK Farm]

I agree that it is the most important thing we do. Killing the most inefficient birds, is the best way to improve an average, and insure that we breed better birds etc. etc.

Everyone that has actually tried to breed birds for any time would agree that bird culling is the first and most important thing we do concerning selection....

Now I wandered a bit off track, but I tried to make a point. Our choices and decisions do reflect on us. The birds do belong to us, and are at our mercy. They serve at our good pleasure.We are not subject to them, and not at their mercy. Our success or lack of does reflect on our decisions which are a product of our ideologies and philosophies. It does not reflect on the birds or the excuses that we make.
When we cull, we are making decisions on the future of that flock. We should want the best for it, and only breed the best. To do it, does require some hatching and killing. That is part of it.

Killing is part of it, and it requires a lot. If you enjoy eating chicken, that is not a problem. That is what we are supposed to do with chicken. Eat it, and their eggs.

Yes, agreed. Culling and killing is all a part of livestock stewardship and breeding up. The first critical component of all this is to acknowledge the fact that the animal is livestock in order to make the necessary progress. Then we "breed to the need". It is a numbers game of sorts with the eye of the "master" needing to be trained and focused, but sacrificing essentials cannot be tolerated. Livestock is an investment of our time, money and labor into another living creature. It is to be treated fairly and handled with dignity and treated with the respect it is due. But, at the end of the day it is under our care because of the reasons of our choosing and to satisfy our needs for its utility/function.

In the case of heritage chickens and "breed to the need", the SOP would be one of the essentials that needs to be acknowledged in my opinion. Yes, it's a reference of sorts, but also serves as a guide for the training of the "master's" eye. In my opinion it needs to be acknowledged and obeyed, again, to the point of our choosing. That's the key isn't it? Finding that line where our personal needs dovetail with that of the guide. If the individual breeds aren't acknowledged and mass hybridization rules the day there will come a point where the hybridization in and of itself will no longer be as effective. So, the standards of the SOP do have their place and the preservation of the individual breeds are a worthy and necessary thing (now more than every in my opinion).

As far as the killing goes, fortunately, I love chicken. It is our household's primary protein source. Conservatively we need at least 50 chickens a year for our own home's personal consumption. Yes, about a chicken a week is what we could EASILY consume (many more in some years where we host BBQ's and what not) so the culling is not only part of the breeding for us, it's a necessity of production. Eggs are something we readily consume and currently purchase from other local farmers at this time so we have a need here as well. So, we've come full circle back to the title of this thread.

 

[MBK Farm]

150 birds and only a trio to be left with after culling! So when mentors prompt me to hatch out mass numbers of project birds to work with so I can select a handful to keep for breeding I begin getting frustrated with those efforts and lines of thinking. First off, being a relatively small time enthusiast housing no more birds than I can handle, going big or going home doesn't work for me. Only being involved with raising chickens for a little over 4 years the questions of who, what, when, and how is very important when your ambitions take you deeper into the world of creation and all the different elements of breeding. I not only inquire but also depend on relative information provided by more people in the know and evaluate what I have been told. The definitions of breeding techniques alone will cause you to question whether you are outcrossing or crossbreeding or something totally different like creating a hybrid. Utility breeding is the best way I can explain my efforts using what I consider good progeny stock to get there. Using smaller numbers to work with is not to say a lot of culling wont be done and necessary while choosing the best choices from small numbers. The overall effort to me is continuous improvement. When you utility breed, basically you are establishing your own perspective of what you want from your efforts. You are tinkering with genetics and some unknowns which haven't been created by you. No one has defined or set any SOP standards in which to guide you except the chickens themselves!

Yes, I understand where you're coming from with space restrictions and what not. I think the 150 number to keep 3 would be dependent upon where a person currently is with their program. Those numbers might be quite conservative in the early years and quite overstated if a program is going well and has been underway for many years. I think the main point from the passage is stressing the fact that a breeder should only be using the best of the best. Marginal stock will only lead to marginal gains, if any. BUT, with ALL animal husbandry there are some things that can be done as shortcuts...

The initial purchase of high quality stock from another breeder that aligns with our vision and goals and is of prime importance. Here we not only pay for the stock, but we also purchase time and that breeder's expertise in kind. This helps cut down on the gross numbers I would think.

There may also be "creative" approaches to the numbers game. Establishing satellite growers or hatcheries might be considered. I've read about breeders aligning themselves with their fellow neighbors and getting them to share in the project to a point. Just throwing some thoughts out there.

At some point all breeding and livestock development is a numbers and time game. If you're able to really juice the numbers the time portion of the equation shrinks. But, at the end of the day, getting our stock to where WE SATISFY OURSELVES takes a significant time investment no matter how you slice it. Hopefully, this is time we find enjoyable and well worth the investment.

 

[Ifish]

A breed should look as it should, and do as it should. A leghorn that looks perfect and lays brown eggs is not a leghorn. I will agree with that.

The Standard defines a breed type, and historically, we understood the role of that type. The Standard is unable to define specifically what a bird should do. I wish that it did, or at least provided minimums. It does describe production characteristics generally under "Economic Qualities".

I believe in a form/function relationship. IMO neither follow neither, and there is an inter relationship of sorts. Equipped to perform does not equal performance. Some will perform well in spite of equipment, but usually lack durability and longevity. Commercially, livability is measured in %, they do have good rates, but are never evaluated after two years. They are dog food by then.

It is a mistake to imply that good type necessarily equals good performance. The genetics concerning performance is varied. There is a lot that comes together to make a good bird good. It is also a mistake to say that type does not matter. It does. Anyone that has spent any amount of time handling commercial layers notices a uniformity of type even in between strains. There is an actual ideal laying type.

So I would disagree when it is said that the SOP outlines how productive a breed should be. All it does (and all it intends to do) is define breed type and character. It was and always has been up to the breeders to select for utility. And they did. These breeds were very commercial in their own time.

"Chickens are chickens". Of course they are all chickens. Much separates the breeds though, and it is not just "production". Some were never considered utility, and always have been ornamental. Then performance for some breeds was very competitive. The English Games, Aseels, Shamos etc. Each with their own type for their own style. They each thrived in their own arena, but not outside. Poultry was kept and raised for thousands of years for reasons (religion etc.) before it was first intentionally selected for egg laying in the Middle East. They have been kept for other than productive reasons for a lot longer than they have for meat and eggs. The Aseel is at least 4,000 years old, and the New Hampshire is confined to a single century.

I wasn't trying to imply that good type always equals good performance. Just that the breed has the potential for good production when following the guidelines laid out by the SOP. I may have misunderstood the purpose and am thankful for the clarity. For years with my Sexlinks I never had to look at an SOP or even a breed description. My understanding is, by breeding toward the SOP for New Hampshires, you should have a meaty chicken that has decent laying potential (I understand that there is more to it). I thought that the SOP was written with production in mind for most breeds.

I didn't say that production only separated the breeds. I rushed through that part of my reply and reading it this morning I wasn't very clear. IMO, production can be good or bad, and type needs to be used as well. A Shamo is not expected to lay like a leghorn, and "Type" clarifies that. I could be wrong and misunderstanding, and I'm ok with being corrected. I'm going to learn more by getting more involved in these discussions.

 

[Our Roost]

Marginal stock, marginal gains? This is where I disagree. More numbers doesn't always mean better birds, it only means more to select from still choosing the best of the best from those numbers and documentations. Professionals are basically saying if you hatch 150 birds for example, you will be lucky to get a half dozen birds worthy of keeping! If you bring the utility factor into play, looks mean nothing and its more about the production of those mass numbers regardless of overall appearance. Keep in mind that you are developing your own S.O.P. and following your own wants and needs. The goals for a professional looker verses the production is much more different. I don't care if a bird is brown or blue or green, how does it perform?

 

[gjensen]

I wasn't trying to imply that good type always equals good performance. Just that the breed has the potential for good production when following the guidelines laid out by the SOP. I may have misunderstood the purpose and am thankful for the clarity. For years with my Sexlinks I never had to look at an SOP or even a breed description. My understanding is, by breeding toward the SOP for New Hampshires, you should have a meaty chicken that has decent laying potential (I understand that there is more to it). I thought that the SOP was written with production in mind for most breeds.

I didn't say that production only separated the breeds. I rushed through that part of my reply and reading it this morning I wasn't very clear. IMO, production can be good or bad, and type needs to be used as well. A Shamo is not expected to lay like a leghorn, and "Type" clarifies that. I could be wrong and misunderstanding, and I'm ok with being corrected. I'm going to learn more by getting more involved in these discussions.

I agree with intelligently breeding a pure breed to a Standard. I do not believe that we can have or breed a "pure breed" without a recognized standard. Otherwise a breed, in time, will lose it's identity along the way. They would evolve into something else entirely.
I also believe that for those with project birds need a standard of sorts for themselves, or they heading in circles and getting nowhere fast. Even a non standard is a standard of sorts.

I do not believe that breeding to the Standard makes a bird productive however. Breeding a bird to be productive is what makes them productive. I make these comments because there has always been some here that imply that breeding to the Standard somehow takes care of everything else. Even supposed long time breeders. Well, to be frank, they are full of it. Breeding productive birds requires a process of it's own and in addition to the Standard (in the case of Standard bred birds).

You are right. Type does matter. That is a fault of the other extreme position. Type does matter a lot. And you are correct that we should never expect a Shamo to lay like a leghorn. They are not capable because of their type. Shamo are built for straight up, stand up power boxing matches that last a long time. A leghorn could not thrive here either because they do not have the type to perform here. Leghorns are layers, and the best layers that ever were. The early breeders of leghorns got it right. Commercial leghorns and exhibition Leghorns have the same type that they always had. The breed has not changed much because they have not had to. They got it right.
I brought up the misc. games to point out that this production stuff with these birds is recent history. We tend to think of it as if it is all of their history, which is very far from the truth.

What we tend to do is drift towards one extreme or another. Type does matter, but it is not all that matters. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. If you want larger eggs, only set larger eggs. If you want more eggs, pick your best layers and the sons from those layers. Then emphasize the males that have the best performing offspring etc. It is not just how much they lay per week, it is what they lay in a year. So length of lay does matter. When they start, stop, pick it up again etc.
The most effective way to progress is to select directly. Why go around . . .well . . .

I find that we can have a little rhythm to the process that flows with the seasons. It is just a process, that for me, goes along with breeding to a Standard.

And speaking of the sex links . . . .no need for a standard, but they do have uniform type. A Leghorn type with softer feathers. When we have felt them with our hands, and many of them, we can identify good laying type with a blind fold on.

 

[gjensen]

Marginal stock, marginal gains? This is where I disagree. More numbers doesn't always mean better birds, it only means more to select from still choosing the best of the best from those numbers and documentations. Professionals are basically saying if you hatch 150 birds for example, you will be lucky to get a half dozen birds worthy of keeping! If you bring the utility factor into play, looks mean nothing and its more about the production of those mass numbers regardless of overall appearance. Keep in mind that you are developing your own S.O.P. and following your own wants and needs. The goals for a professional looker verses the production is much more different. I don't care if a bird is brown or blue or green, how does it perform?

You are thinking negatively, concerning yourself with what you cannot do, instead of what you can do. If you can only hatch a few dozen, then only hatch a few dozen, but do it spring and fall. Make each batch from a small family. Go from 36 to 5 etc. 5 birds of 36 is the top percentile. The point is breed from the top %.

See, you missed the whole point. Breeding birds is about moving a population in a particular direction. There is no direction in the middle. Retaining 15 of 30 birds is going to keep you very much in the middle. The top is at the top, the bottom is at the bottom, and the middle is in the middle.

It does not matter why you are breeding. The fundamentals do not change whether you are breeding solely for production, a standard, or both. The genetic fundamentals are still what they are. Inheritance is inheritance. Your best birds are always at the top, the least are at the bottom, and you average birds (the majority) are in the middle. If you want to make any progress at all, you have to use your best birds that are few, and in the top %.

It does not matter, nor does it care whether or not we agree. It is not what we want it to be or not. It is what it is.

I would suggest seriously considering these concepts as you move along. I suspect with more experience, and watching how these things are inherited, will bring your thoughts more in line with what is suggested here. You are attempting to move a population. Change a population. Improve a population.

 

[Beekissed]

Marginal stock, marginal gains? This is where I disagree. More numbers doesn't always mean better birds, it only means more to select from still choosing the best of the best from those numbers and documentations. Professionals are basically saying if you hatch 150 birds for example, you will be lucky to get a half dozen birds worthy of keeping! If you bring the utility factor into play, looks mean nothing and its more about the production of those mass numbers regardless of overall appearance. Keep in mind that you are developing your own S.O.P. and following your own wants and needs. The goals for a professional looker verses the production is much more different. I don't care if a bird is brown or blue or green, how does it perform?

I'm with you on that. If what they are stating is true, there will always be a top 5% worthy of keeping, whether you hatch a 100 birds or you hatch 20 birds, so why the insistence on hatching 100 birds? It's like trying to play the lottery at that point, so the more tickets you buy, the better chance you win....I don't believe that translates to chickens. I've read of old timer breeders who do the hatching game and I've read of those who keep it small and they seem to all be making the same gains except one makes them more quickly. It's not a race, it's a process and it's not a competition...at least it's not for me. Seems to be that for some.

I'm also with you on production...what does it matter if the birds all look right, if they can't produce well? For me, one is not worth having without the other. I'd rather keep it in the middle of the road where they look like they are supposed to but they also lay like they are supposed to, or I'm just breeding some attractive meat.

 

[Ifish]

I agree with intelligently breeding a pure breed to a Standard. I do not believe that we can have or breed a "pure breed" without a recognized standard. Otherwise a breed, in time, will lose it's identity along the way. They would evolve into something else entirely.
I also believe that for those with project birds need a standard of sorts for themselves, or they heading in circles and getting nowhere fast. Even a non standard is a standard of sorts.

I do not believe that breeding to the Standard makes a bird productive however. Breeding a bird to be productive is what makes them productive. I make these comments because there has always been some here that imply that breeding to the Standard somehow takes care of everything else. Even supposed long time breeders. Well, to be frank, they are full of it. Breeding productive birds requires a process of it's own and in addition to the Standard (in the case of Standard bred birds).

You are right. Type does matter. That is a fault of the other extreme position. Type does matter a lot. And you are correct that we should never expect a Shamo to lay like a leghorn. They are not capable because of their type. Shamo are built for straight up, stand up power boxing matches that last a long time. A leghorn could not thrive here either because they do not have the type to perform here. Leghorns are layers, and the best layers that ever were. The early breeders of leghorns got it right. Commercial leghorns and exhibition Leghorns have the same type that they always had. The breed has not changed much because they have not had to. They got it right.
I brought up the misc. games to point out that this production stuff with these birds is recent history. We tend to think of it as if it is all of their history, which is very far from the truth.

What we tend to do is drift towards one extreme or another. Type does matter, but it is not all that matters. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. If you want larger eggs, only set larger eggs. If you want more eggs, pick your best layers and the sons from those layers. Then emphasize the males that have the best performing offspring etc. It is not just how much they lay per week, it is what they lay in a year. So length of lay does matter. When they start, stop, pick it up again etc.
The most effective way to progress is to select directly. Why go around . . .well . . .

I find that we can have a little rhythm to the process that flows with the seasons. It is just a process, that for me, goes along with breeding to a Standard.

And speaking of the sex links . . . .no need for a standard, but they do have uniform type. A Leghorn type with softer feathers. When we have felt them with our hands, and many of them, we can identify good laying type with a blind fold on.

I am starting to understand now. Thank you.

With the sexlinks being a hybrid, there is no standard, but you are right, they were pretty uniform. We had some 2 finger birds, pinched tails, and some with narrow pelvic bones, but most were what you'd expect from hatchery stock, and laid a lot of eggs. We didn't breed them, it was just an egg hobby that we had for years. Now with getting into the Heritage birds and breeding, it's a whole different learning curve. Trying to figure out a system that works for us, and breeding quality birds that show and produce, is a welcomed challenge for us.

 

[Ifish]

I'm with you on that. If what they are stating is true, there will always be a top 5% worthy of keeping, whether you hatch a 100 birds or you hatch 20 birds, so why the insistence on hatching 100 birds? It's like trying to play the lottery at that point, so the more tickets you buy, the better chance you win....I don't believe that translates to chickens. I've read of old timer breeders who do the hatching game and I've read of those who keep it small and they seem to all be making the same gains except one makes them more quickly. It's not a race, it's a process and it's not a competition...at least it's not for me. Seems to be that for some.

I'm also with you on production...what does it matter if the birds all look right, if they can't produce well? For me, one is not worth having without the other. I'd rather keep it in the middle of the road where they look like they are supposed to but they also lay like they are supposed to, or I'm just breeding some attractive meat.

I plan on hatching 75-100 eggs per year and culling down to about 20 birds, my egg layers and breeders. This will fill my freezer with meat, fridge with eggs, and hopefully produce some nice birds. So I see a few benefits of hatching 100 chicks, but cannot comment on the necessity of it. People with much more knowledge than I have done their flocks well by hatching many and culling hard.

 

[ocap]

I am a little confused. Please tell me the difference between a "sex link" and an "ISA brown". What I thought was. one is breed to be easy to sex the other more eggs.