Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[Yellow House Farm]

Greetings! Using Standard-bred heritage poultry as a basis for traditional food production is a passion of ours. With heritage fowl, there is an entire cycle of food production that fills the calendar with seasonality and surprise, which differs in outstanding fashion from the current hum-drum of same-old same-old that has replaced our traditional food supply since the rise of the chicken nugget.

It would be a pleasure to start a dialogue, in conjuction with the other fine threads in this section dedicated to heritage poultry, about the ins and outs of using Standard-bred poultry on the homestead.

This can be a place to share experience, ask questions, and work out solutions with regards to egg production, meat production, feather harvest, etc., all in relating back to the breeding efforts of an ever evolving homestead flock of heritage fowl and even waterfowl.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Wow! So much thought.

The difficulty is that there's so much to know, and it is always hard to resist drawing hasty conclusions or not thinking things through. Let's try to break things down.

1. Before the mid-19th century, no bird received so much attention in breeding as the OEG. The OEG was the end all be all of chickens. One book I like to read from the 1600's which addresses the respectable hobbies of the country gentleman goes into great length in describing the care of the game cock. Indeed, for a post-fight game cock, his instructions are very specific: Suck the puss out of the head wounds with one's mouth; once wounds are clean, seal them from the elements with butter; give them no food and naught but your own fresh urine to drink; put them in a wicker basket and place them in a low oven for a sweat. If he's still alive in the morning, repeat process. What's weird about this is that, with reflection, all of it is pretty sensible from a pre-science point of view. Point over point, he's close (but no cigar).
2. The first modern bird that really reigns for a mass-produced, farming-focused, dual-purpose fowl is the Dorking. Strong documentation exists through the 1700's. The dominant color was white and a color referred to as "partridge" which is a cocker term for BBR pattern(s). There are other breeds that hold strong presence throughout this time period in the Western European world: the Spanish, Hamburg, Polish, La Fleche, and Crevecoeur are the extra-Dorking breeds most praised. Thoughts on this time period: Strong poultry keeping is definitely localized. There are areas of good production. There are areas of absolutely horrible production. There is no universally read instructive literature concerning poultry that informs the industry; thus, poultry and the husbandry thereof were not consistent across the board. In most regions, poultry was of dismal quality and highly unproductive by any current standard.
3. In the mid-1800's onward, new and published scientific understandings lead to a new interest in genetics and the possibility of animal improvement. This does not only happen in poultry but in all aspects of animal husbandry. At the beginning of this time period, most breeds of anything are mediocre producers at best. There is much pressure rising from a very quickly increasing human population for an increase in protein production. University extension services are on the rise, the need for a more systematized food production is felt. Transportation improvements, as well as improvements in commodity grain production, allow for more imaginative and expansive moves by food producers. Among university agricultural and extension publications the clear superiority of pure-bred stock is established for both egg and meat production both in North America and in Europe. Breed registers are established and quickly rise in importance. The APA becomes the centrifugal force of poultry production in North America.
4. During this time period, a hen that lays 150 eggs a year is a boon, remembering that 80 +/- eggs had been the reigning average. The SOP and the rise in (trade) shows leads to the highest level of form and feather production ever to have existed in poultry production. Shows provide a highly publicized venue for peer-review and the establishment of reputation for quality. The nature of agriculture and habits/modes of transportation encourage localized production of stock and reputable breeders of SOP quality purebred fowl are able to sell stock in strong number and earn a considerable income. Some make it as a sole income; others use it as a strong augment to other incomes.
5. From the late 1800's to the early 1900's several breeds come to the fore, four have the greatest impact: the Leghorn, the Plymouth Rock, the RIR, and the NH. Breeds such as Orpingtons, Wyandottes, Sussex and Minorcas are also significant. The dynamic stories of these breeds are great to study very carefully as they really do a lot to help one develop an understanding of the nature of the rise of purebred poultry as the heart of poultry production. The story of the "Danish" Brown Leghorn is very telling and indicative of the transformation of poultry production as a marriage of Extension/Academia and farmers for the goal of food production. The emergence of the RI Red is a fantastic tale. The Plymouth Rock redefines farm poultry. The Leghorn quickly becomes the early star of mass egg-production, replacing the Hamburg if not for volume than for egg-size, and the NH is the first meat chicken qua meat chicken developed since the Dorking. The 100 years between 1850 and 1950 mark an absolute transformation in food production throughout the industrialized world, and standard-bred poultry and livestock are at the heart of it as well as the contemporaneous developments in the scientific understanding of how animal systems actually work such that one might capitalize on production. Insofar as family farms were the core of food production, there was room for multiple breeds and varieties to hold influence and opportunity to shine on a local/regional level.
6. Crosses are of very little importance before WWII and really before the 60's. The single most important market for hybrid broilers was for early broilers, i.e. broilers that were going to be dressed out between January and May. They tended to be produced by crossing a fast growing breed, i.e. Leghorn on a slower growing, bulkier female, Brahma, Rock, etc... In 1940, 40% of all poultry in NH were NHs. In New England there was a very sizable poultry industry up through WWII and even into the 70's numbering in the millions of birds. New England over-wintered a lot of chickens The old poultry barns still dot the landscape, but most folks don't know what they're looking at. Poultry was one of New England's most significant products. NHs, RIRs, and White Rocks, which emerge onto the scene in Maine dominate the landscape.
7. Many biases emerge throughout the first half of the 20th century which are to the advantage of some breeds and varieties and to the disadvantage of others. Most of them were of no actual farming value, i.e. white or yellow skin, white or brown shelled eggs, etc.... Nevertheless, these biases shaped much of what was developed breed-wise.
8. The breeds that emerged supreme did so because they were the unique focus a many farms which did a lot to increase the general quality of the breed because selection to the Standard could be an industrial-sized mass effort. Eventually the productive qualities of certain breeds came to consistently outshine others.
9. Just about WWII and the decade or so that followed, a general shift happened in the ability of refrigeration to allow for larger production and longer product retention, medical improvements allowed for larger-scale production, and contemporaneously instituted government food-safety, etc regulations forced producers to higher levels of food-safety professionalism. Those who had the funds and knowledge could make the jump, those who didn't could not. Continued expansion and ever stricter regulations made it more and more difficult for any one individual to break into the market in a profitable way. The overhead was more and more threatening. In the fifties and sixties, certain producers began to buy out the most renowned strains of productive standard-bred fowl. The Delaware was the swan song of standard-bred poultry in industry.
10. In 1982, the invention of McDonald's chicken nugget blew the demand for chicken sky-high and the world of poultry production utterly transformed.
11. Thus, although standard-bred poultry is not currently the vital core of the poultry industry, it was for almost 100 years, and the American Poultry Association and the Standard of Perfection demarcate clearly the critical link between backyard, mongrel scrub fowl and modern industry. The scientific understanding needed to support the current poultry industry was slowly gleaned and developed with cooperation between extension services and small-scale APA-based farmers. Without this essential time period of study and growth the poultry industry of today would not exist.
12. It is also essential to understand that there was no old-time poultry industry of any size or national importance before the 1800's save a certain localized productions that fed the London and Parisian markets. Germany was a desert; Italy and Spain were disorganized. Six foundational breeds ran the show for food production, and the Game cock was king.
13. The single most valuable work I know to give anyone a clear understanding of the standard-bred, which was the only, poultry industry 100 years ago, is John Henry Robinson's work the Principles and Practice of Poultry Culture. Read it from cover to cover. It takes a lot of reading and research to begin to form a clear idea of poultry history. The current notion of food-fowl versus fancy fowl really only dates from the 40's. Nevertheless, insofar as the poultry industry, born of the 1850's and afterward, was always changing and new breeds were always being introduced or developed, several breeds, which originally held strong productive importance, did become more relegated to folks committed to them for nostalgia or because their markets were more limited and controlled. Leghorns and Minorcas replaced Hamburgs, Polish, and Spanish, and eventually the Leghorn took the bag. Rocks replaced Dorkings. Wyandottes almost made it, but White Rocks cut them off. The RIR eventually took over the brown egg market, and the NH reigned in meat for a good few decades.
14. The credit that any high quality specimens of any single breed and variety of poultry exist today is due exclusively and unequivocally to APA breeders who are grounded in the SOP. Without the SOP and without poultry shows, there would be nothing but industrial stock, because nothing of quality is produced at all outside of APA or industrial breeders.
15. The reason that SOP stock is not always as productive as it could be is that a relatively few fanciers are sustaining a mammoth sum of breeds and varieties. The vast majority of people with chickens get them from hatcheries and are genetic dead-ends. They know nothing of good poultry culture. In order for standard-bred poultry to reach high levels of production, specialization is necessary, and outstandingly few people are willing to limit the number of breeds and varieties they raise. Almost without exception folks with whom I speak are trying to figure how to raise two or more breeds with two or three small coops and a capacity for 30 chicks a year. Nothing will ever come of this, and if I try to tell them, they're full of excuses and bla-bla, but one is not above the rules of the game.
16. If one wants to produce fowl of quality both for the table and for exhibition, one must first and foremost remember that this used to be a profession and not a hobby, and these breeds were developed by poultry professionals not a hand-full of folks looking for amusement on the weekends. If you want professional quality birds, you must run your set-up professionally. If you can only raise 100 chicks a year, then you can raise one breed well. "Well" implies selecting for meat, egg and fancy points. If you try to do more than one breed and variety, you will fail to maintain all of these qualities; that is all. It's not a matter of how you "feel" about it; it's a question of the exigencies of the profession. The best breeders in the country run their spaces in a professional manner. Many fanciers are in it because they love the shapes, sizes and colors. They keep more breeds than they should if there goal were for production. However, they do maintain their breeds in much better form than any hatchery, and anyone willing to specialize can procure stock and then begin a specialized program of selection.
17. If you haven't done this, you don't really know what you're talking about. If you haven't done this, i.e. raised out a minimum of 100 birds per annum over the course of several years, you don't really know what improvement is or how it is had. If you are not working with large fowl on this scale as a minimum, you don't really know what it means to select for production. I don't say this to insult, it's just the facts of poultry life. If you want to improve a truly rare breed and increase its production think of 150 to 200 birds raised a year. If you want to raise under 100, raise only one breed. If you want to raise under 50, raise one variety of one breed that is in relatively good condition.
18. Maintaining #17 over a period of multiple years, showing as actively as possible, and conversing with and learning from those who have gone before is the number one way, and perhaps the only way, of becoming a breeder of high quality fowl.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Read this one slowly, maybe a couple of times, but once you grab it, it will be like an ah-ha moment.


One of the best little tidbits, probably the single best, in the book Start Where You are with What You Have, a book that Bob recommended a few years back and which I was finally able to get a copy of, is that:

breeding poultry is ultimately maintaining a strain an flushing out all of the negative recessives while fixing the positives

Eliminating negative and fixing positive dominant traits is fairly straightforward. They're easy to get rid of, and they're easy to hold onto. It's all of the various recessive genes that are harder to deal with and for which you have to go fishing. As you maintain a strain, the birds become more and more unified genetically. As this happens they share in common the many traits which were more individually dispersed among their forebears. As more birds come to share recessive genes, there is an increased likeliness that progeny will manifest phenotypically a trait that was beforehand hidden deep in the genetic code of some of their ancestors. That quality might be positive; that quality might be negative. As one continues to maintain a strain, these traits will emerge; it then requires a little bit of genetic savvy to know how to eliminate them, if they are negative traits.


It is important to recognize the difference between maintaining a strain with a pedigree of related birds, i.e. birds of a clan versus breeding higgledy-piggledy without records and ending up pairing siblings indiscriminately and other such folly, which causes too many negative recessives to emerge at once creating a great big mess of negative traits.

So, as one is maintaining a, broadly speaking, inbred clan, which we call a strain, one is constantly selecting for vigor and health as well as breed specific positive traits while flushing out and culling for the many negative recessives which emerge.

Now, say one begins to inbreed and after so many years a deformity arises, what can be done?

Well, one typical response is to panic and to bring in new blood. What happens in this scenario is that the resultant heterogeneity introduced by the new blood causes the flushed out gene to recess; ergo, it goes back into hiding. One might think, "Oh thank God for that new blood", but one hasn't eliminated the trait; it is still there; it is merely in hiding, as it was before. If one continues to breed, it will emerge again. On the other hand, introducing the new blood, has also introduced into the mix a whole host of new recessives, which over time will have their chance to emerge as well. Thus, it's a quick fix but a compounded problem. Moreover, the flock has, at this point, lost the coveted, standard-based uniformity it was beginning to achieve.

On the other hand, breeding is about cultivating an ever deepened awareness. This is why mentors and show attendance are so very necessary for becoming an excellent breeder. There are so very many traits of which one must be aware. If a negative recessive emerges, and if it is not caught, meaning if it is not perceived and culled, and then if those birds are then bred from, the result will be a strengthening of that recessive in the phenotype, i.e. one starts to see more and more birds with the deformity. If this is allowed to go on for too long such that one's flock becomes homozygous for a recessive trait, we say that the trait is "locked in" or "fixed", which means that the only way to get rid of it is to actually bring in new blood that is able to first mask it and then as it begins to reappear, which it eventually will, one will have the sense to recognize it and to cull for it accordingly.

So the trick is not to cover up the recessives but to know how to get rid of them. For this, one uses the progeny test.

To promote understanding, in order for a recessive trait to emerge visibly a chick must receive that gene from both parents. So, only if both parents have that gene will it emerge.

Thus, for a progeny test, on takes the bird, or birds, with the deformity and breeds them to birds that appear to lack the deformity. Then, one hatches the eggs from specific pairings and keeps meticulous track of who's who. It is important to hatch enough chicks, perhaps a couple of dozen, in order to have a large enough control group. NB: These chicks are not meant to become breeders; all of these chicks are destined to be culled from the flock because every single one of them will have the negative gene regardless of whether or not it is visible. Now, as they develop, some the chicks from some pairings will exhibit the negative recessive trait, while other pairings will not. What this means is that in the breedings where some of the chicks--not all, but some--are manifesting the recessive trait, that trait is present in both parents, the one that visibly possesses the trait as well as in the parent that does not visibly (phenotypically) appear to have it. That seemingly innocent parent is a carrier; even though it appears not to have it, it will disperse the trait throughout the flock and must be culled.
Then, among other test matings, there will be groups in which none of the chicks manifest the negative trait, assuming the control group is large enough (two dozen chicks as opposed to only three chicks) one can assume that the parent, who does not appear to have the negative trait, actually does not. This parent is then saved for future breeding.

Only these parents are allowed to move forward, these parents who, when paired with a bird that visibly manifested the negative trait, threw no chicks with that trait. They can be assumed to be clean of that trait. All other breeders are then culled, and only these birds are used moving forward. Your flock will then be clean of the negative gene.

Thus inbreeding allows us to draw to the fore and maintain all of the hidden positive recessives that are needed for an excellent bird, and it allows us to concentrate in our flocks a high level of good things, including vigor and disease resistance. On the other hand, inbreeding also allows us, whether we like it or not, to flush out the latent negatives and then, through the art and science of breeding, to eliminate them.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

My thought is that you can only raise as many breeds as you have the infrastructure to maintain properly. For most that's one or, perhaps, two. However, a pen of hens with a cock is not housing breeders. One needs multiple spaces for cocks and females. Then there are growing-out facilities, which although they can be simple, must be adequate.

I'm not really into discussing "breeds". A breed is what the SOP says it is, I think it is much more valuable to discuss strain because that's what birds are. They are strains. Names are labels. Types are breeds, Strains are what is in your backyard.

If I were to have to choose between a bird that wasn't a top producer but matched the SOP or a bird that was a great producer but did not match the SOP, I'd go with the bird that matched the SOP. As BGMatt pointed out, it is easier to get production into a bird that matches the SOP than it is to get SOP onto a random bird.

I think that the right bird for you is the bird that you want to look at, read about, study, breed, hatch, cull, weight, etc... That's the right bird for you. The internet and lots of books for that matter are full of folks saying things about breeds that they have no business saying. This false information brings people to fall for breeds they shouldn't and reject breeds they shouldn't.

What is rare? Almost every single thing in the Standard is rare in SOP form. The rarest chickens are well-bred chickens. I'd relinquish the rare label. I'd choose a breed or choose a color. If you choose a breed, raise the variety or, if the case be, one of the two or--in the rarest cases--three varieties in that breed that are actually of quality. They are carrying the breed; they are that breed. Color really is skin deep, and I am a firm believer that we need to concentrate on specific varieties in breeds if want anything to survive in high quality at all. There are some breeds with multiple varieties, it might seem like it's a tragedy if one or even several die out, but it's really not. Lots of color varieties were just someone's experiment that caught on long enough to get into the SOP; however, every breed has specific colors, or a specific color, that is its anchor. That's the one, or those are the few, that people should back, because those are the varieties that will usher that breed into the future. Whenever I see color projects, I feel sorry for the breed, because it's core is being neglected for some fad. Take Cuckoo Dorking for example, much effort was exerted into getting them into the Standard, but to what avail. The Dorking was a dying breed, and here people were--neglecting the breed in order to promote an historically unimportant variety. Who cares about Cuckoo Dorkings? The only Cuckoo variety of anything that has any hopes of being impactful is the Dominique. Cuckoo in anything else is never more than a fad. While folks were "working on" the Cuckoo Dorking, the Dorking itself was slipping away.

Just because a color exists in the SOP doesn't mean it is, or even ever was, any good. There are Blacks and White in many varieties--they are lovely. People often micro-focus their vision on an aspect of a pattern, but the beauty of a flock is in the symmetry and the balance of the type of the birds of the flock. If you're new to chickens, read that sentence again until it makes sense. When you look out at good birds and they make you go, "Wow" it is in their symmetry and balance of type. Color on scrappy birds looks ragamuffin. If it is a specific color that calls you, find the breed or perhaps breeds that own that color and then go there. For example (and this is just my crazy, unfounded, and silly opinion):

If you want Blue and a Wyandotte, you can get Blue Wyandottes. Then you can kick and scream for 30 years until you've got them good and strong (maybe if you're lucky), but to what avail? Blue belongs to Andalusians, and Wyandottes are White, SL, and Columbian. I'm of the opinion that those efforts should go in a direction that will matter in the long-run and be impactful for the breed and the next generation. If I wanted Blue Wyandottes, I'd sit quietly and decide what was more important, Blue or Wyandottes. Then I'd make up my mind and do one or the other. I believe that this would lead to efforts that would actually promote and preserve a breed as opposed to simply self-isolating with a fad that won't go anywhere.

So:

1. If you're raising less than 100 a year, have one breed.

2. If you choose a breed--adopt the primary variety, or ONE of the primary varieties (a hint only two breeds I can think of have 4 primary varieties; some have three; most have two; the luckiest have one (I say the luckiest because everyone who raises that breed raises them, and then they actually stand a chance of being awesome))

3. If you choose a color--find the breed or, perhaps, breeds that own that color and go with ONE of them (unless you can raise 200 chickens a year and then go with two of them (maybe))

4. Find the strain(s) that best match the SOP that you can find, and if their production isn't where you want it to be, hatch a 100 and start selecting.

5. Don't give up, and if you need a distraction, get a bantam.

 

[gjensen]

"Over caring" for the birds will not weaken the individuals genetically. There is the potential to breed needy birds over multiple generations.

Some immediate risks to "over caring" is making them vulnerable to extreme shifts in temperature (when the power goes out), raising fat birds, etc.

I did not say the above to disagree, but a clarification for the general audience.

Culling to me, other than some as local layers, means killing them. I do not keep laying flocks etc. My breeding flock does the laying. If they are not worth breeding they are not worth feeding. If they are good healthy layers, I will let local non breeders have them as layers without a cockerel. No cockerel that is not worth breeding will leave this yard again. I have made that mistake before. There is enough junk floating around. I do not need to contribute to the masses.

I would go as far to say that if someone has trouble with putting a bird's head on a stump, they have no business keeping poultry at all. Unless a spouse is willing to do all of the killing etc. Even someone with a few backyard hens is vulnerable to a dog attack etc. It may become necessary to bring suffering to a swift end. Killing is part of raising and breeding poultry.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Yup, just for clarity, I'm not recommending the old "rotten road kill on stakes over the hen run" trick. That may have been something Harvey recommended, maybe not, I don't know. As was implied on here a bit back, chickens are built to eat it, but anything can toxify The difficulty with allowing meat to rot in enclosed runs for the production of maggots is that it's going to lead to a level of consumption without the moderation that access to free-range would support. Frankly, I wouldn't do it. We don't eat sick; we don't eat rot. To each his own.

As to the notion of "selecting to one's own "standard'", I think that's more of an excuse, which stands for "didn't start with good stock and can't be bothered to find any." There are so many different types available in the Standard that developing a new one is going to take some doing. If one's selecting away from the Standard towards something else, chances are one's going somewhere already in the Standard. Why not just start with the breed that is there to satisfy that typical goal. Once type is set, one is always doing the work of selecting for productivity, etc...

When folks talk about selecting for productivity as if it were an alternative form of selection that differs from SOP selection, it is an expression of their misunderstanding. Specific types exist to serve a particular production. Selecting for that type is like setting the stage. However, once the stage is set, then comes the work of selecting individuals within the breed parameters that exemplify the production criteria for which the particular type was developed. If one is "selecting for production" in a direction that diverges from breed type, one is leaving the breed of origin and developing something different. A pure example of this is the development of the NH out of the RIR. "Pure" RIR's were selected in a different typical direction over a period of 15 or so years and the product was a NH. Now, this was no accident, and it happened via cooperation between serious farmers with vast resources. When random folks just start crossing this or that with a pipedream and naught more, one's just jumbling genes. The development of the NH wasn't just a random experiment; it was the work of poultry professionals with a very clear goal and the resources to attain that goal.

As I mentioned above, when dealing with standard-bred, aka heritage, breeds, one needs to be chicken-focused, SOP focused. Otherwise, one is serving a different goal, which is of course fine, but it's not to develop poultry of quality. It is good to state that it's important to be clear on the "issue" with hatchery poultry. First of all, chickens are strong resourceful birds, and hatchery birds aren't bad birds. The major criteria behind what they have selected for is egg-production, which one can feel when holding them, if one knows what to feel for, which is why most hatchery stock lay fairly decently. Now, all hatcheries are not created equal, and many hatcheries have healthy and productive lines of one bird, while having lines that are generally "less than" of another bird. Now I say "bird" and not "breed". They're just birds, not breeds, even if hatcheries get away with selling them under the title of a specific APA breed because the market is not regulated. The SOP type for each breed is the pedigree of that breed. Chickens are "standard-bred", it is their standard type that establishes them as a representative of that breed. Just because a chicken is Buff with white legs doesn't mean that it is a Buff Orpington; it just means it's a buff bird with white legs that lays eggs. Hatcheries sell birds by feather color and pattern, but feather color and pattern is a variety statement and not a breed statement. Their birds are mutts because they do not breed to the SOP. Now, having said that, if one starts with healthy and productive hatchery stock and then one starts breeding them "for production"--what's that about? Hatcheries aren't run by know-nothings, especially large hatcheries. They have all sorts of employees, consult and sometimes employ experts, conform to regulations, confront diseases professionally, maintain gene pools en masse. If one gets hatchery Silver Spangled Hamburgs, they're going to lay strongly, forage excellently and have strong predator instincts. What "new" criteria does one think one is going to select for?

If one wants to see an amazing bird, one wants to see a good, healthy, bird that has the basic size, type, and feather quality that forms the base of an excellent SOP specimen. Upon that base is painted the variety. This is the work where art and science et to breed thee fowl in the first place. That's what breeders do, and it's what we do that hatcheries don't do, I dare say, even can't do, because this is the work that comes from hands-on, specimen by specimen selection: focus, discipline, self-imposed limitation, commitment, uber-adequate floor-space, free-range, individual bird knowledge. Modern meat production? They win. Modern egg production? They win. Old school, drop-dead beautiful farm fowl with adequate small-farm and homestead appropriate adaptations? We hold the key to that--because we hold the Standard. You're not going to develop birds that lay better than hatchery birds. You're not going to develop meat crosses better than their meat crosses. What you can do is make one, or perhaps two, breeds visually stunning with honestly dual-purpose, family appropriate, small-scale, diversified farming worthy specimens of fowl that embody the ideals of the SOP that date from a time when land owners were more fluent in the lingo of strong, on-farm poultry production.

 

[RedRidge]

As a side note is like to add the two most common mistakes newbies make when getting any new kind of livestock. And really, this is true if you're a backyard hobbies or big breeder. I cannot stress these two points enough. And imo there is never an excuse for avoiding these two most common mistakes.
1) they NEVER cull deep enough. I won't get into the definition of culling other than to say it means "removing from the breeding group and not allowed to procreate" as a bare minimum. For us this means butchering if they don't meet our three farm requirements to live here: 1) you must have a job, 2) you may have shoulders, and 3) if you're a potential breeder you may be an improvement over your parents. Everyone has their own definition of culling... we don't keep our culls. Define it how you want, just don't breed it.
2) they over care for their stock and inadvertently create weakness in hardiness combined with way too much work for themselves. Over caring and doing things "for" your stock that is unnecessary not only becomes costly and time consuming, but it means you are not doing #1 above - culling deep enough.

I love my stock. They are my pets. Many have names. But if I'm avoiding the 2 mistakes above properly, they will be hardy, healthy, productive pets...not just pets who monopolize my time and/or money caring for them, or my mind worrying over them.

 

[bnjrob]

Okay...I'm going to reveal just how inexperienced I am right now, but...what does SOP stand for? I keep seeing references to "SOP" breed standards, but I don't know how to find info on such standards.

SOP is the Standard of Perfection. It's the guideline for breeding the traits that make a chicken look like a particular breed. There is way more to a breed than just feather colors, but a lot of folks don't realize it. You can get it here: http://www.amerpoultryassn.com/store.htmm There are places to get old versions for free or cheap, but they do not have the most current information and may not have the extra info that is provided regarding general breeding of poultry.

I don't think that breeding to the SOP and breeding for production are mutually exclusive. But I think that there are more people who breed for looks rather than for production simply because people are so removed from their food that they can't think about production - especially meat production. And on this particular site, the pet chicken keepers far outweigh both show people and homesteading types that use chickens as livestock.

There are "old" breeders who get on here once in a while, but most do not. But when you practically get crucified for discussing the only medicine being used for your flock is an ax...who wants to deal with the outrage constantly from the folks who shove antibiotics down their chickens' throats every time they hear one sneeze? Heck, some people wind up with their posts deleted because someone complained and the moderators removed the "offensive" posts because many folks don't want to hear about butchering their "roo".

Then too - I don't find that there is really a lot of things that can be said about breeding for production without just rehashing the same information repeatedly, in short cycles. Discussing non-production breeding has more facets to it and I think that it is easier to keep the conversation flowing on those lines because there are so many more differences when it comes to breeding for physical appearance. How many times can you go over examining your birds for keel depth, pelvic width, size, vigor, trapnesting, getting rid of pinched tails, etc. before you end up with the conversation being exhausted? I think that also plays a part into why you don't see as much conversation on the threads regarding production.

A number of "old" breeders that I have interacted with consider looking at production as part of breeding to the SOP. You just don't find them online all the time. And if you want to get info from them, then you have to ask questions because the few that do get online don't know what information people are looking for if people don't ask.

I've seen plenty of people breeding "show birds" that don't have a clue about or care about production. But there are people that breed for both. And it's a challenge, I think it's more challenging than just breeding one way or another. And for me, with a dual purpose bird, that makes it even more of a challenge to balance production and breed to the SOP so that my Javas don't wind up looking like Plymouth Rocks down the road but also still produce decent meat and eggs.

I wouldn't go by the threads on this site as being all inclusive of the folks out there that do breed for production though. Because it isn't. This is a good site to start with as you're learning, but there are other places to interact with more serious production and SOP breeders. I get more personal messages and private emails on these types of subjects just because lots of people don't want to post publicly and wind up getting hate email.

 

[gjensen]

This is not a criticism of what you guys are doing, and I get why. Still, there is no way in the world that I would wait 40 wks for processing. At last years feed cost that would be (for me) around $22.70 per bird. Not only that, but the pullets from a similar strain would cost about 17.60 before laying their first egg, and that is not including the cost to maintain the breeders that produced that pullet. This is feed alone, and for me that is approximately 80% of the total cost. Again not including the cost to maintain the breeders. When 20% is added on and the breeders are factored in, that is very expensive poultry meat. Labor is not considered. I like chicken, but not that much.

These numbers which are only meant to illustrate, are revealing. I am sure these numbers can be debated, but some of these large breeds eat around 5oz of feed per day after 16wks. @ 16 wks, my fryers run about $6.40 per bird in feed. I try to make this first cull not too far away from the peak in the growth curve which generally coincides with molting into their adult feather which requires a lot of protein. From there, their rate of growth steadily declines.

The only thing that I process after 16 wks. is a percentage that made the original cut. 75% of the cockerels are cut in the first round. By 24wks I can tell who my best birds are. Past 24 wks. I only keep a few extras to see where they are at in the spring.

If we cull young, we can push rate of growth and early maturity. I understand that breeds and strains mature at different rates, but we will never see them improve unless we expect improvement. They will not improve unless we kill the birds that are running behind. And it isn't the size they get ultimately that makes them useful, as when they might reach useful weights.

Some of the breeds that we discuss were never meant to be meat birds. Dual purpose does not mean a meat bird. Dual purpose means cockerels that are not a waste product, and the hens have enough meat to give them a value when she is past her prime. Some make better fryers young than roasters late. Some were valued as roasters, and many of these were raised in battery cages where there exercise was restricted and fattened.

I realize that many raise there birds solely for evaluating them according to the Standard, and I am glad that they do. We would have little that was worth anything to talk about otherwise. On the other hand, if putting these birds to work is motivating, we should put them back to work. Otherwise they will wax worse and worse. If breed preservation is truly a consideration, they would be much more popular with a wider variety of people if they even performed at all. I attribute much of the Buckeyes renewed interest to the ALBC improvement efforts, and an interest in eating our own birds. As it is now, light fryers from Leghorns makes more sense economically, and that does not make a lot of sense.

Again this is not a criticism. I hope it is not taken that way. None of our birds are where they should or could be. I just do not see how we can make progress otherwise.

 

[gjensen]

I'm working on starting a New Hampshire flock, in hopes of one day becoming a reputable breeder of them.
I also hope to start a Narraganset flock of turkeys within the next two years, with the same hope in mind.
I would welcome any and all advice and experience that anyone would be willing to share.

You have good taste. LOL.

I would recommend not aspiring to anything. Those motivations get lost to the wind at some point anyways.

Get to know the breed would be my advice. Often learning a sense of a breed, and why it has the type that it does gets lost in the enthusiasm. It is surprising how so many overlook this most elementary point.
If you truly admire and love the breed, rather than the idea of it, you will get to know it intimately. A knowledge that is more than a collection of facts.

The typical advice to purchase and use the Standard. Not to neglect the first part, which is your foundation. Memorize the standard for your breed. Get to know other breeds, especially breeds in the same class. Know how they were used, and why one might have an advantage over another in some respect. The breed's type both sets limitations, and enables them. The breeder determines whether or not they realize their potential.

If it is possible. Show your birds. Some may not know your breed as well as you, but you will surround yourself with experienced poultry breeders. Their practical experience and perspective is invaluable. Ask questions that you have been unable to resolve on your own. Other breeders will take you more seriously if you take it seriously.
Gather all you can, including a couple books on breeding poultry. The larger the paradigm, a broader perspective to draw from.

Learn what you can before you even source the birds. It is helpful to know what you are looking for, and why you might prefer one over the other. You could potentially save yourself a lot of time, moving forward. Once you have them. Roll up your sleeves, and go to work. It is one thing to read and talk about it. Another to do it. There are countless internet experts that have no practical experience, and therefore, no practical knowledge. Know who you are talking to. It doesn't mean they have nothing of value to offer. We just have to sift through it. Be careful not to dismiss it too easily. I have rejected ideas to have been convinced by them later.

Facilities before the birds. There is no joy in chasing our tails. Once it starts, it happens fast.

Bob's advice to start small, and slow, was wise. There are disadvantages to being small, but especially initially, there are more advantages. It takes some time to get a feel for them. There are enough NHs now, to pick up on some later if you need to.

Most of all, enjoy the birds. If they were not enjoyable, the rest means nothing. It is a hobby. Poultry people tend to be opinionated. You would think it was a religion at times. We can take it too seriously. It requires some passion to persevere. On the other hand, poultry people tend to be generous and good natured people. Even if it does not seam like it in internet posts, where a lot is not communicated.

Every spring, hope is renewed. It is an enjoyable hobby.