I like your implementation too.
Good job.
Good job.
Chicken Breed Selector Test
- Thread starter BarredBuff
- Start date
Quote:
This is an excellent observation and spot on.
This is an excellent observation and spot on.
Efficiency, ease of care, or space available sometimes trump quantity. There are plenty of reasons to search up breeds other than your 5.
Agreed, one can always find reasons to do anything - it is our nature to do so.
My support for the Big 5 comes from the fact that before we had "chicken fancy", and fanciers, we had chickens. Back then, differences in calculated precision were less important than similarities in performance. Ultimate precision is not always it's own reward, contrary to popular thinking.
Now, in fairness, we live in a New Age of re-awakened 'urban chicken wrangling.' While this is not as revolutionary as we may think, it does present sound reasons for certain choices to be made. Small chickens are better in the small yard, and so on. Even smaller birds fit better into diapers - and eat less of your popcorn during the movie. That works.
But the Big 5's benchmark importance has not diminished in the slightest. We rebel against the so-called limits of only five choices, but if this were about mere need, then we could adapt to them.
During the Depression, when many chickens moved into the urban landscape, that is exactly what happened. I've asked "old timers" who lived back then what sort of chickens they raised in the city, and invariably one of the Big 5 or their derivatives were mentioned. For most, "just chickens" would do. Fancy or purpose-built chickens were useless to them.
Some will say ".. well, that is all they had back then!" and they would be right. Which bolsters my conviction that just because we can create more varieties, doesn't mean we must have more. Compromise usually offers such a paradox, at some point.
Our challenge is to reconcile ourselves to that.
So, I'll suggest that you are both right and wrong. Aint the universe a great place to live?
Agreed, one can always find reasons to do anything - it is our nature to do so.
My support for the Big 5 comes from the fact that before we had "chicken fancy", and fanciers, we had chickens. Back then, differences in calculated precision were less important than similarities in performance. Ultimate precision is not always it's own reward, contrary to popular thinking.
Now, in fairness, we live in a New Age of re-awakened 'urban chicken wrangling.' While this is not as revolutionary as we may think, it does present sound reasons for certain choices to be made. Small chickens are better in the small yard, and so on. Even smaller birds fit better into diapers - and eat less of your popcorn during the movie. That works.
But the Big 5's benchmark importance has not diminished in the slightest. We rebel against the so-called limits of only five choices, but if this were about mere need, then we could adapt to them.
During the Depression, when many chickens moved into the urban landscape, that is exactly what happened. I've asked "old timers" who lived back then what sort of chickens they raised in the city, and invariably one of the Big 5 or their derivatives were mentioned. For most, "just chickens" would do. Fancy or purpose-built chickens were useless to them.
Some will say ".. well, that is all they had back then!" and they would be right. Which bolsters my conviction that just because we can create more varieties, doesn't mean we must have more. Compromise usually offers such a paradox, at some point.
Our challenge is to reconcile ourselves to that.
So, I'll suggest that you are both right and wrong. Aint the universe a great place to live?
Last edited:
purelypoultry
Songster
I am not familiar with the Big 5? What do you mean by this?
Is there any chance I can integrate one of these chicken breed selectors into my website?
Is there any chance I can integrate one of these chicken breed selectors into my website?
Quote:
You already know the The Big 5, you just don't know you do. The Big 5 are simply the traditional dual purpose birds raised in America for well over a century now:
- Plymouth Rocks (in their many varieties)
- Reds (Rhode Island and New Hampshire)
- Wyandottes
- Orpingtons
- Brahma
* The bantam versions of these, where they exist, are included. Note I have eliminated the Leghorn - it is a great egger, but a scrawny and meager table bird.
While two of these are not American in origin, they were all developed to the peak of effectiveness and efficiency long before we came along with our dizzying array of breeds. They served the profitable food markets of America until the advent of specialization and factory methods in the 1950's. Back when chickens were reared by the hand of man, under the glow of Gods sun, these were the ones most often recommended for success. If that is what you, too, intend for chickens, they remain the optimum choice.
Once the second age of 'chicken fancy' got going (early 1900's), we began to see an explosion of varieties and oddities. There are more than I can count, or care to, most of which have their adherents. Some are downright popular, especially the *cute* ones. But, many of the 'new breed' (pardon the pun), while useful, have limited long-term viability. To borrow a current phrase, without careful management they're *unsustainable.* Many retain that flaw, no matter how much you 'manage' them. Cornish X's and Sex-links are an example of this.
Some perfectly suited birds are regional favorites, like the trusty Buckeye... which sadly limits their availability and probably their breed longevity if we're to be honest. A few other good ones are near extinct and so can be discounted for general use.
There can be more than five, as we know. Wherever people are involved, you will find the desire for unique difference. And "choice" is the main reason behind the many varieties available. What is often overlooked is that the highly bred, 'genetic soup' breeds will begin to fail after just a few breeding seasons. Without careful culling and selection, they revert back to their ancestral origins. Even with careful management, there is always the "sport," trying to kick back.
Most modern-day chickeneers are not up to the task of breeding for type and don't know how to be. When they do try it, they prefer to create colorful feathers, going for a certain "look." This is what I like to refer to, tongue in cheek, as "yard confetti."
But these Big 5 have been bred out long and true enough to remain useful, even IF we fail to maintain their purity. Before the 1900's, America's poultry business was a shoddy thing, barely able to supply the growing population. We were the laughing stock of the international competitions of the day. These five breeds were the beginnings and the foundation that brought us from that lowly state. They upheld poultry's Golden Age.
This is why I remain stubbornly convinced that, while you can do whatever you want, you need no more than the Big 5 breeds and their derivatives, on your own small steads.
You already know the The Big 5, you just don't know you do. The Big 5 are simply the traditional dual purpose birds raised in America for well over a century now:
- Plymouth Rocks (in their many varieties)
- Reds (Rhode Island and New Hampshire)
- Wyandottes
- Orpingtons
- Brahma
* The bantam versions of these, where they exist, are included. Note I have eliminated the Leghorn - it is a great egger, but a scrawny and meager table bird.
While two of these are not American in origin, they were all developed to the peak of effectiveness and efficiency long before we came along with our dizzying array of breeds. They served the profitable food markets of America until the advent of specialization and factory methods in the 1950's. Back when chickens were reared by the hand of man, under the glow of Gods sun, these were the ones most often recommended for success. If that is what you, too, intend for chickens, they remain the optimum choice.
Once the second age of 'chicken fancy' got going (early 1900's), we began to see an explosion of varieties and oddities. There are more than I can count, or care to, most of which have their adherents. Some are downright popular, especially the *cute* ones. But, many of the 'new breed' (pardon the pun), while useful, have limited long-term viability. To borrow a current phrase, without careful management they're *unsustainable.* Many retain that flaw, no matter how much you 'manage' them. Cornish X's and Sex-links are an example of this.
Some perfectly suited birds are regional favorites, like the trusty Buckeye... which sadly limits their availability and probably their breed longevity if we're to be honest. A few other good ones are near extinct and so can be discounted for general use.
There can be more than five, as we know. Wherever people are involved, you will find the desire for unique difference. And "choice" is the main reason behind the many varieties available. What is often overlooked is that the highly bred, 'genetic soup' breeds will begin to fail after just a few breeding seasons. Without careful culling and selection, they revert back to their ancestral origins. Even with careful management, there is always the "sport," trying to kick back.
Most modern-day chickeneers are not up to the task of breeding for type and don't know how to be. When they do try it, they prefer to create colorful feathers, going for a certain "look." This is what I like to refer to, tongue in cheek, as "yard confetti."
But these Big 5 have been bred out long and true enough to remain useful, even IF we fail to maintain their purity. Before the 1900's, America's poultry business was a shoddy thing, barely able to supply the growing population. We were the laughing stock of the international competitions of the day. These five breeds were the beginnings and the foundation that brought us from that lowly state. They upheld poultry's Golden Age.
This is why I remain stubbornly convinced that, while you can do whatever you want, you need no more than the Big 5 breeds and their derivatives, on your own small steads.
Last edited:
Quote:
You already know the The Big 5, you just don't know you do. The Big 5 are simply the traditional dual purpose birds raised in America for well over a century now:
- Plymouth Rocks (in their many varieties)
- Reds (Rhode Island and New Hampshire)
- Wyandottes
- Orpingtons
- Brahma
* The bantam versions of these, where they exist, are included. Note I have eliminated the Leghorn - it is a great egger, but a scrawny and meager table bird.
While two of these are not American in origin, they were all developed to the peak of effectiveness and efficiency long before we came along with our dizzying array of breeds. They served the profitable food markets of America until the advent of the specialized factory methods took over in the 1950's. Back when chickens were reared by the hand of man, under the glow of Gods sun, these were the ones most often recommended for success. If that is what you, too, intend for chickens, they remain the optimum choice.
After the second age of 'chicken fancy' got going (early 1900's), we began to see an explosion of varieties and oddities. There are more than I can count, or care to, most of which have their adherents. Some are downright popular, especially the *cute* ones. Some of the 'new breed' (pardon the pun) are useful, but have limited long-term viability. Cornish X's and Sex- links are an example of this. Others are regional favorites, like the trusty Buckeye, but again, this limits their availability and probably their breed longevity. A few good ones are near extinct and so can be discounted for general use.
There can be more than five, certainly. Where there are people involved, you will find the desire for unique difference. And "choice" is the only reason behind the many varieties available. What is often overlooked is that the highly bred, 'genetic soup' choices will begin to fail after just a few breeding seasons. Without careful culling and selection, they revert back to their ancestral origins. Even with carfeul management there is always the "sport," trying to kick back.
Most modern-day chickeneers are not up to the task of breeding for maintenance and don't know how to be. They prefer to make colorful feathers and are going for a certain "look."
But these Big 5 have been bred out long and true enough to remain useful, even IF we fail to maintain their purity. Before the 1900's, America's poultry business was a shoddy thing, barely able to supply the growing population. We were the laughing stock of the international competitions of the day. These five breeds brought us from that lowly state and upheld poultry's Golden Age. This is why I remain stubbornly convinced that we need no more than these five breeds and their derivatives, on our own small steads.
Intreresting.
You already know the The Big 5, you just don't know you do. The Big 5 are simply the traditional dual purpose birds raised in America for well over a century now:
- Plymouth Rocks (in their many varieties)
- Reds (Rhode Island and New Hampshire)
- Wyandottes
- Orpingtons
- Brahma
* The bantam versions of these, where they exist, are included. Note I have eliminated the Leghorn - it is a great egger, but a scrawny and meager table bird.
While two of these are not American in origin, they were all developed to the peak of effectiveness and efficiency long before we came along with our dizzying array of breeds. They served the profitable food markets of America until the advent of the specialized factory methods took over in the 1950's. Back when chickens were reared by the hand of man, under the glow of Gods sun, these were the ones most often recommended for success. If that is what you, too, intend for chickens, they remain the optimum choice.
After the second age of 'chicken fancy' got going (early 1900's), we began to see an explosion of varieties and oddities. There are more than I can count, or care to, most of which have their adherents. Some are downright popular, especially the *cute* ones. Some of the 'new breed' (pardon the pun) are useful, but have limited long-term viability. Cornish X's and Sex- links are an example of this. Others are regional favorites, like the trusty Buckeye, but again, this limits their availability and probably their breed longevity. A few good ones are near extinct and so can be discounted for general use.
There can be more than five, certainly. Where there are people involved, you will find the desire for unique difference. And "choice" is the only reason behind the many varieties available. What is often overlooked is that the highly bred, 'genetic soup' choices will begin to fail after just a few breeding seasons. Without careful culling and selection, they revert back to their ancestral origins. Even with carfeul management there is always the "sport," trying to kick back.
Most modern-day chickeneers are not up to the task of breeding for maintenance and don't know how to be. They prefer to make colorful feathers and are going for a certain "look."
But these Big 5 have been bred out long and true enough to remain useful, even IF we fail to maintain their purity. Before the 1900's, America's poultry business was a shoddy thing, barely able to supply the growing population. We were the laughing stock of the international competitions of the day. These five breeds brought us from that lowly state and upheld poultry's Golden Age. This is why I remain stubbornly convinced that we need no more than these five breeds and their derivatives, on our own small steads.
Intreresting.
purelypoultry
Songster
Is the term big 5 something you came up with yourself?
Quote:
It is.
I have read more old poultry books and texts than even I like to contemplate; my shelves are full of those I've collected. Notice the descriptor beneath my name? That was bestowed on me - these people know me very well...
I noticed in all the vintage books that they ALL endorsed the breeds I've come to call, "The Big 5".**
In time I came to realize this was no mere coincidence, nor was it deliberate. These breeds were recommended for the simple reason that they were proven.
As I noted above, "poultry fancy" is nothing new. We're currently in our 4th period of it, by my reckoning.
But the admonishment from the experts of the day was always that you stick to one or two of the Big 5 breeds - FIRST.
Get fancy and play with breeds after that.
* I also noticed a similar and recurring "Big 5 Rules of Chicken Keeping," from those same arcane texts.
We modern chicken heads often forget these "Big 5 Rules" - if we've ever learned them.
But that is for another post, as we've probably hijacked this one enough.
It is.
I have read more old poultry books and texts than even I like to contemplate; my shelves are full of those I've collected. Notice the descriptor beneath my name? That was bestowed on me - these people know me very well...
I noticed in all the vintage books that they ALL endorsed the breeds I've come to call, "The Big 5".**
In time I came to realize this was no mere coincidence, nor was it deliberate. These breeds were recommended for the simple reason that they were proven.
As I noted above, "poultry fancy" is nothing new. We're currently in our 4th period of it, by my reckoning.
But the admonishment from the experts of the day was always that you stick to one or two of the Big 5 breeds - FIRST.
Get fancy and play with breeds after that.
* I also noticed a similar and recurring "Big 5 Rules of Chicken Keeping," from those same arcane texts.
We modern chicken heads often forget these "Big 5 Rules" - if we've ever learned them.
But that is for another post, as we've probably hijacked this one enough.
Last edited:
Quote:
I just did. I like it--I love how the breeds update in a list of clickable links immediately, and when you make a selection you have pictures right there. Instant gratification--always a good thing.
I also tried BYC's, Rob. I didn't get any results, either. I put in pretty straightforward traits...lemme go back and I'll let you know exactly what I did.
ETA: Ok, here's what I selected on the BYC breed selector my first go 'round:
Standard
Dual purpose
medium, high (rate of laying)
medium, large (size of egg)
all egg colors checked
pea, single, rose
seldom, average (broodiness)
all climates
didn't check any breed temperament traits
So, what I did wrong was that I didn't check any temperament traits? I was assuming if I left them empty, that would constitute "doesn't matter," when in fact what I needed to do was check them all if I temperament was not important to me (when I checked them all, I got several results). Would it make it a bit easier if there was a "does not matter" type of selection for the different fields?
I just did. I like it--I love how the breeds update in a list of clickable links immediately, and when you make a selection you have pictures right there. Instant gratification--always a good thing.
I also tried BYC's, Rob. I didn't get any results, either. I put in pretty straightforward traits...lemme go back and I'll let you know exactly what I did.
ETA: Ok, here's what I selected on the BYC breed selector my first go 'round:
Standard
Dual purpose
medium, high (rate of laying)
medium, large (size of egg)
all egg colors checked
pea, single, rose
seldom, average (broodiness)
all climates
didn't check any breed temperament traits
So, what I did wrong was that I didn't check any temperament traits? I was assuming if I left them empty, that would constitute "doesn't matter," when in fact what I needed to do was check them all if I temperament was not important to me (when I checked them all, I got several results). Would it make it a bit easier if there was a "does not matter" type of selection for the different fields?
Last edited:
When you said, "didn't check any breed temperament traits" does that mean they were all selected or none were selected? In each row at least one characteristic must be selected to get any results.
Quote:
I meant that none were selected. I tried it a second time with the same selections except for temperament--the second time I selected them all, and I got plenty of results. What I was after was a way to select "doesn't matter," which was I why I left them all blank the first time. So I just had it backwards.
Personally, I would prefer to have a "doesn't matter" option, rather than have to select every characteristic to get the same result. I realize now that I can select every trait as an alternative, but it was confusing the first time I did it.
I meant that none were selected. I tried it a second time with the same selections except for temperament--the second time I selected them all, and I got plenty of results. What I was after was a way to select "doesn't matter," which was I why I left them all blank the first time. So I just had it backwards.
Personally, I would prefer to have a "doesn't matter" option, rather than have to select every characteristic to get the same result. I realize now that I can select every trait as an alternative, but it was confusing the first time I did it.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Shadrach's Ex Battery and Rescued chickens thread.- Latest: rural mouse
-
-
-
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
2 yr old Rhode Island Red passed away- Started by Stardustrose
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 67
-
-
-
-