Cornish Thread

[flyingmonkeypoop]

Im not too sure on the recessive eye color or not. The birds my grandfather had were more of the Indian game style. He raised dark cornish for as long as my mom can remember. There were many times when I'd go out and just stare at the majestic beasts of birds he had. They had the huge body with proportionate legs and always seemed very proud. His main rooster was as tall as I was, had the glossy dark hackles and white eyes. I dont know if he ever showed any of them, they were mainly his dual purpose birds. He always had a couple groups totaling maybe 20 birds that laid a fair number of eggs and always produced a nice carcass. He always kept a few white araucana hens with the flock just for the eggs and the look of the rumpless birds. Some of my first birds that I was able to keep at his house were the 'accident' chicks that one of the araucana hens hatched out, it was what got me started on chicken genetics, the birds looked overall like rumpless dark cornish with bad color. They ended up going away to 'camp G.E.' because he didnt want to worry about them mixing with his pure birds. I'm not sure what happened to his chickens when he passed on, no one in the family seems to know either, its a shame.

When I judge cornish I look for a nice looking bird that fits the standard, not the current breeding fad like with some breeds where everyone selects for tails because thats what other judges are placing. I go by the standard the best I can. There have been birds that some breeders would consider trash that I have placed higher because they conform to the SOP. The things I dont like about so many cornish bantams is many of them have hideous parrot beaks and like you said, cankles, bulging eyes, they just dont look like a cornish should. There are a few other bantam breeds that look way different than the largefowl counterpart and way different than the standard.

 

[A.T. Hagan]

Quote:
This is why I elected not to go with show Cornish. If I have to AI them then it's not a sustainable project.

 

[SteveH]

A.T. Hagan :

Quote:
This is why I elected not to go with show Cornish. If I have to AI them then it's not a sustainable project.

All of my show strain DCs pictured are the result of live cover, i.e. natual, mateings. They are not great layers, but he said they've shown 100% hatches this year compared to not a single egg from his bantams hatching............... but said they are so leggy he doesn't want them. In my opinion, they're pretty extreem as far as frame, width, and heavy muscle, and on pretty thick, short shanks also; but not nearly short legged enough to suit the breeder I got them from. He kept only one older hen that may be finished laying, and one pair of the juvenile offspring that are all on noticably shorter legs, hopeing to breed them yet shorter.. He had recently acquired the LF, but a long time bantam breeder, and has succeded over the years in breeding them to the extreem that wins...................... but they've failed to produce a fertile egg so far in 2011. I asked him why, if he felt the extreemly short legs set so far apart was the problem, would he resort to A.I. to breed more. His reply was "I don't set the standard, I breed to the standard." I have to admit his senior bantam roo looked cool, he was as wide or wider than he was tall, but he couldn't breed. He was much more concerned with the "best" roo having some red tinge on his shoulders and lacking pearl eyes then he was that he couldn't breed.................... but said lack of pearl eyes was a minor deduction compared to his superior type.

I'm a novice fan of LF show Cornish, but read the very latest published S.O.P. completely different to the one they're seemingly judged by. They're supposed to be judged as the ultimate meat breed, and further described as haveing moderately short legs. I nether see nor understand how lowering them to 3" shanks set so far apart improoves their value or worth as a breed.​

 

[big medicine]

I don't think it necessarily has to be an either or type of proposition here. Dad has raised standard white Cornish for as long as I can remember. These have always been Lewis Strait bloodlines. Dad and Lewy visited and traded birds back and forth many times over the years, so these were good SQ birds. Dad would not have the first idea about how to AI a bird, he always managed to raise some chicks. With the exception of his old male producing all pullets and then getting old on us, leaving us with out a viable male a couple years ago. Granted there have been times where fertility could have been better. But that is the nature of the beast. I remember Lewy saying once it would have been much easier raising a less difficult breed, but they just weren't Cornish.

This is why old time breeders are so hesitant to part with stock, having invested so much blood, sweat, and tears in breeding these birds. They are not willing to trust some upstart will have the dedication to the degree necessary to stick with it and not quit, there by pissing away all their hard work. The simple fact of the matter you have to be more than a little touched to deal with all the challenges that raising Cornish entails, in my oppinion. Most people come to their senses and switch to something a hundred times easier, like Brahmas in my case.

 

[A.T. Hagan]

Of course I haven't seen all show Cornish there is to see. I'm sure they run the range of type. In fact I've only seen a handful thus far, but of those that I have seen they seem to be too short legged to easily breed so I wanted to avoid those.

This is the problem with excessive focus on cosmetic standards while paying much less attention to their practical value. Breeding difficulties and low fertility really hurts the practical value of a bird that is supposed to be able to supply a family's dinner. Chunky, broad breasted, heavy are what we are after, but when taken to the point that its' hard to produce chicks with them then it's gone too far. Cornish should not be any more difficult to breed than a well bred Rhode Island Red or Barred Rock otherwise they lose much of their practical value.

 

[Mrs. Fluffy Puffy]

I have a broody LF Dark Cornish hen named Autumn. She is a very sweet girl. A friend of mine gave her to me, she thought she was ugly, and thought she was an Easter Egger boy..but when I got her home I found she was not correct and was a Dark Cornish Hen!

I used to have a Dark Cornish bantam, Sparrow, but she died this summer to the heat.

Autumn is is such a sweet girl, I keep trying to tell her she is setting on fake eggs...but she doesn't listen to me!

I'm surprised how FAT she is! All my other chickens don't gain weight like she does, I suppose there is something in the genetics (sp?) that makes them gain weight better than other chickens.

~ Aspen

 

[big medicine]

A.T. Hagan :

Of course I haven't seen all show Cornish there is to see. I'm sure they run the range of type. In fact I've only seen a handful thus far, but of those that I have seen they seem to be too short legged to easily breed so I wanted to avoid those.

This is the problem with excessive focus on cosmetic standards while paying much less attention to their practical value. Breeding difficulties and low fertility really hurts the practical value of a bird that is supposed to be able to supply a family's dinner. Chunky, broad breasted, heavy are what we are after, but when taken to the point that its' hard to produce chicks with them then it's gone too far. Cornish should not be any more difficult to breed than a well bred Rhode Island Red or Barred Rock otherwise they lose much of their practical value.

Said like a sensible, non touched person. My hope with our blue laced red "Cornish" project is to produce a bird strong in the good points while lessening some of their limiting qualities, providing folks with a good sustainable meat bird that is a stronger layer of large eggs.​

 

[SteveH]

Quote:
I'm a bit opinionated, and when I finally speak a bit outspoken in my opinions. I'm well aware this has often alienated from many people, and in this case Cornish show breeders. Never the less...............................................

When you mention "he always managed to raise some chicks"; does this mean it was often difficult to get fertile eggs?

I really like these DC I just got, think they are better quality than the two cockerals I bought last year after a very long search to find some, and I was even very happy to get the two cockerals. I can see things on each hen that I would like to improove, the juvies are too young for my inexperienced eye to judge as to how will they grow out, but can't see that lowering them closer to the ground would be an improovement. So, can you explain to me why continueing to breed them even yet shorter is a good thing? Now I realize that wide birds look wider when their height is shorter, but this is only matter of relativety. Am I so wrong in not wanting to breed them any shorter shanked? Are the show breeders so right in wanting to continue to take them lower?

I suppose in today's world, the Cornish are obsolete because so few people either want to or can breed and raise their own chickens, especially for meat only, and there are definately birds better suited for dual purpose meat/eggs combination if they are looking for them. So Cornish become [IMO] like the old English Bulldog: once capable of catching and holding a bull, now bred only for show purposes unless as a pet and often even incapable of live breeding or natural birth even at pet quality. Had the standard of perfection not been changed over the years to keep up with the nonfunctional changes the bulldog breeders were makeing to win shows, the English Bulldog would be a fine dog. If APA judges were looking for a "moderately short shank" instead of a cankle

, I think breeders would be striveing to breed a healthier Cornish, perhaps have bred them to be a little quicker growing or improoved their egg production a bit.

 

[SteveH]

Quote:
Said like a sensible, non touched person. My hope with our blue laced red "Cornish" project is to produce a bird strong in the good points while lessening some of their limiting qualities, providing folks with a good sustainable meat bird that is a stronger layer of large eggs.

I'm very happy with the chicks I hatched from your project, and judging from the eggs they hatched from, you succeeded quite well at increasing egg size.

I have same age Orpimgtons that visually look to be growing much faster, but that's an illusion quickly smashed if you pick them up. I was looking at them again today, and think that one cockeral I kept might be blue laced after all. If all goes as planned, they may get another shot of pure Cornish added later this year or early next.

 

[big medicine]

Quote:
Fertility seems to be hardest to achive early, the hens tend to start laying well before the males seem to be able to hold up their end of the deal. By the time the males get in gear, egg production seems to be backing down due to going broody, or molt, or just the fact they aren't Leghorns.

Another issue seems to be fertile eggs that fail to hatch. Fully formed chicks that don't pip. Unsure why, or how wide spread this is.

As to the short leg. I'm not totally convinced that show breeders are trying to breed a much different bird than the ones I have seen in my lifetime, but no I see no advantage to breed for exaggerated shortness. I got out my 1947 SOP which has a 1929 A.O. Schilling illustration that shows a nice typey, stout, wide, medium/short shanked bird. Other than maybe a slightly more upright stance, I do not see much radically different than what you might see at shows today, as far as large fowl go. Never was around bantams enough to have a sense about them.

I suspect these have been issues for Cornish breeders long before our time as well.