Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[finnfur]

But work worthy of doing? Increasing the productivity of the standard bred fowl can only improve the ability to breed them, as the more eggs you get the more you have to hatch and the more you can improve the breed. It only stands to reason that birds that fertile and productive are also going to be those that pass along their traits more readily and easily, wouldn't it?

I got a taste of that just this past year when I was doing some experiments on a different hatching method and also with my first foray into using a regular incubator. In each case, using more standard bred WR eggs than any other but including eggs from hatchery stock in the coop, I consistently hatched out WAY more hatchery mix birds each time. So much so that out of four incubation attempts I only had 2 full blood standard bred WR chicks make it to hatch. On the other hand, I had 22+ of the hatchery stock mix to make it to hatch. That hatchery stock sampling were from one BA and one ancient WR, the standard bred sampling came from one WR and one Delaware. The standard bred Delawares had no showing at all as not one of theirs made it past the 10th day.

I know it's not a double blind study, the gene sampling too small, and there are too many variables to mention, but it was pretty convincing to me all the same. Put it down to mutt vigor or increased fecundity, but the hatchery stock seem like they possess a pretty viable offering to improve the current performance of some standard bred birds. And I know that statement just made some faces pucker up, but I'm not likely to care about that. I'm just thinking out loud and that idea has been floating around in there for some time now.

Its certainly not something new - its the way my Aunt raised them 60 years ago.
they feed the farm family in a self sustaining fashion - survival of the fit and if they didn't produce they
went to the pot- I don't remember her ever freezing anything - it was butchered weekly as needed .
They had a coop but free range foraged all day everyday.

 

[bnjrob]

But work worthy of doing? Increasing the productivity of the standard bred fowl can only improve the ability to breed them, as the more eggs you get the more you have to hatch and the more you can improve the breed. It only stands to reason that birds that fertile and productive are also going to be those that pass along their traits more readily and easily, wouldn't it?

I got a taste of that just this past year when I was doing some experiments on a different hatching method and also with my first foray into using a regular incubator. In each case, using more standard bred WR eggs than any other but including eggs from hatchery stock in the coop, I consistently hatched out WAY more hatchery mix birds each time. So much so that out of four incubation attempts I only had 2 full blood standard bred WR chicks make it to hatch. On the other hand, I had 22+ of the hatchery stock mix to make it to hatch. That hatchery stock sampling were from one BA and one ancient WR, the standard bred sampling came from one WR and one Delaware. The standard bred Delawares had no showing at all as not one of theirs made it past the 10th day.

I know it's not a double blind study, the gene sampling too small, and there are too many variables to mention, but it was pretty convincing to me all the same. Put it down to mutt vigor or increased fecundity, but the hatchery stock seem like they possess a pretty viable offering to improve the current performance of some standard bred birds. And I know that statement just made some faces pucker up, but I'm not likely to care about that. I'm just thinking out loud and that idea has been floating around in there for some time now.

I think that serious breeding work is worth doing, but most folks I know don't want to do that much work. It's easier to get hatchery stock and replenish from that, or simply let your birds flock mate than it is to breed to any type of standard.

I did not anticipate SOP breeding when I first decided I wanted chickens for eggs, meat, and farm help. But after researching things and seeing the differences in appearance of hatchery vs standard bred stock, and knowing that I wanted to help preserve an old breed, I switched gears to breed to the SOP so that my Javas looked like Javas and if I was going to encourage other folks to help keep them from nearly going extinct again, that I was disseminating birds that at least sort of resembled what they are supposed to look like, even though they still have some improvements that I'm working on. But it's about needs and priorities. A large priority for us having chickens was not just utility farm birds, but also birds to connect us with history. For people that simply have a priority for eggs, meat, or pretty feathers, most any hatchery bird will do that for them, while costing less and taking up less time and energy.

Technically if you were a farmer letting your birds free range and flock mate without making actual breeding decisions, after a while, that would be breeding to some sort of standard, because survival of the fittest would take over and you'd only be getting the birds that were smart enough and hardy enough to survive. I read an article recently about raising turkeys in an old book and the author mentioned that the farm wife was the one that generally took care of the poultry flocks, and she didn't have time to be worrying about whether or not they had the right feather color or whatnot. Her priority was to have food on the table and to sell birds to make money to run her household. That made me laugh.

Personally, I think that too many show people have for too long been worried about making pretty birds to win ribbons, rather than looking at their utility purposes. The day I found on the APA's website a blurb about exhibition birds not laying that well - that was disturbing. How can you perpetuate these birds if they don't lay? There was just a discussion in an APA group with some folks mentioning this and that they knew of breeders that were trying to keep their birds from doing a lot of laying, because they wanted good looking birds that could win ribbons and a hard working laying hen is likely not going to be as pretty. That only serves the purpose of people looking for ribbons, not people that want useful birds or want to help preserve a breed standard.

It's interesting that you saw a difference in hatching between the standard bred and hatchery. Does make you think that the hybrid vigor could be at work. We only have ever had our standard bred Javas, except when I was a kid and that doesn't count because they were there for layers, not seriously breeding. But I know that I don't have nearly the amount of problems with our birds that my friends who have hatchery birds have. But then too, part of that could be differences in husbandry.

For me, I would not want to have recently crossbred Javas, but that's a preference based on my historical research and experience with them. But I can see that if there are SOP breeders out there that have been focusing too much on appearance characteristics and not as much on production and hardiness, then if they can't fix that problem, infusing with hatchery stock may help. But I have a feeling that there are enough show breeders that don't think there is a problem.

Today, there really is no great need to keep productive birds. We have discretionary money that our ancestors did not have, so we can keep totally useless chickens, because we can go to the store to get eggs and meat to feed our families. If people were dependent on feeding themselves and their families with what they could grow and raise, like their ancestors - they'd be less concerned about a pretty feather duster and more concerned about having a chicken that lays decently and gives them meat.

 

[Beekissed]

That's how many a farmer improved their cattle or sheep herd as well...introduce a very good bull over scrub cows to breed some quality into the herd. Same with sheep. It takes longer~much longer with cattle~ but one gains mutt vigor mixed with purebred goodness and it can make magic happen. I think, though, that one would still have to cull the mutts to get the best of the best of that particular gene offering, just like they would with the standard bred line, and it would be fiddly to keep and maintain the good body style. Maybe it could be done, maybe it couldn't and maybe problems would surface down the road and maybe they wouldn't, but I still see possibilities there.

 

[Beekissed]

Quote:
That's the part that concerns me. Because there is no need, there is no focus. The whole problem I see with that is my own integrity. If one wants to claim a bird that is standard bred and that they are breeding to standard to preserve a particular breed, wouldn't they then have to do that in more than just looks? Weren't most dual purpose breeds developed for a "purpose", as indicative by the title "dual purpose"? Then, if one takes away the one purpose or another, then they can no longer claim that breed is still a dual purpose. Or if both purposes are somewhat diminished from the original breed performance, can one still consider it true to that breed or just a moon cast shadow of that breed?

No, I no longer HAVE to breed for productivity as my children are grown and money is not as tight, but if one wants to go that far, one could say it's just cheaper to buy eggs from the store and be done with it. Money is still not so free out there that I can justify spending it on chickens while other folks go hungry, so I feel better about using it judiciously as I want to be a good steward of that money.

For my life and my values, I must still focus on the purpose of the breed or I am accomplishing little and I don't like to see my time in this world whittled away on mediocre things. Now that I have more time to devote to this chicken thing, I've decided to put it to better use than just raising hatchery stock for eggs and meat but also stock that look like their intended breed. But if I cannot have both breed looks and also their intended purpose, I don't really even see the point. What, at that point, am I preserving? A pretty feather duster that I can eat? That's nice and all but I would hate to breed an animal and take away its true potential and purpose and then put my name on that effort.

Others may have their reasons for breeding chickens and I have mine and I'd like mine to show integrity and good use of the time left to me on this Earth, even time used on chickens.

 

[bnjrob]

That's the part that concerns me. Because there is no need, there is no focus. The whole problem I see with that is my own integrity. If one wants to claim a bird that is standard bred and that they are breeding to standard to preserve a particular breed, wouldn't they then have to do that in more than just looks? Weren't most dual purpose breeds developed for a "purpose", as indicative by the title "dual purpose"? Then, if one takes away the one purpose or another, then they can no longer claim that breed is still a dual purpose. Or if both purposes are somewhat diminished from the original breed performance, can one still consider it true to that breed or just a moon cast shadow of that breed?

No, I no longer HAVE to breed for productivity as my children are grown and money is not as tight, but if one wants to go that far, one could say it's just cheaper to buy eggs from the store and be done with it. Money is still not so free out there that I can justify spending it on chickens while other folks go hungry, so I feel better about using it judiciously as I want to be a good steward of that money.

For my life and my values, I must still focus on the purpose of the breed or I am accomplishing little and I don't like to see my time in this world whittled away on mediocre things. Now that I have more time to devote to this chicken thing, I've decided to put it to better use than just raising hatchery stock for eggs and meat but also stock that look like their intended breed. But if I cannot have both breed looks and also their intended purpose, I don't really even see the point. What, at that point, am I preserving? A pretty feather duster that I can eat? That's nice and all but I would hate to breed an animal and take away its true potential and purpose and then put my name on that effort.

Others may have their reasons for breeding chickens and I have mine and I'd like mine to show integrity and good use of the time left to me on this Earth, even time used on chickens.

Right there with you.

I keep hearing that the APA is going to start pushing productivity, but have not heard how it will be done. I mean really, how can you judge some kinds of productivity in a show bird, short of having it lay an egg in your hand? It's up to the individual person to choose what they breed for. The judges can feel for meat on the birds' bones, but they can't tell how well the bird lays. Not unless they choose to ignore parts of the SOP. The layers will start losing their yellow skin color. But with our Javas, if they don't have yellow feet, they get disqualified. Well guess what - almost all of my Javas wind up with their yellow feet fading out once they are laying consistently. So how can I take a productive hen to a show when its yellow feet have faded out, only to have it DQ'd because its feet aren't yellow? And I imagine that this is a quandary for breeders of other yellow legged/footed birds if their SOP demands them to have that coloration too. I haven't come up with a good answer for that yet.

 

[Beekissed]

Right there with you.

I keep hearing that the APA is going to start pushing productivity, but have not heard how it will be done. I mean really, how can you judge some kinds of productivity in a show bird, short of having it lay an egg in your hand? It's up to the individual person to choose what they breed for. The judges can feel for meat on the birds' bones, but they can't tell how well the bird lays. Not unless they choose to ignore parts of the SOP. The layers will start losing their yellow skin color. But with our Javas, if they don't have yellow feet, they get disqualified. Well guess what - almost all of my Javas wind up with their yellow feet fading out once they are laying consistently. So how can I take a productive hen to a show when its yellow feet have faded out, only to have it DQ'd because its feet aren't yellow? And I imagine that this is a quandary for breeders of other yellow legged/footed birds if their SOP demands them to have that coloration too. I haven't come up with a good answer for that yet.

I recently read Call of the Hen by Hogan and back in his day the APA was starting to train judges in his methods to determine if a hen was a layer or not. I've not read about any other method short of an Xray that could be that consistently right, so they might try that once again?

It would be interesting to see if they went back to that criteria just how fast focus would change. From what I read in Hogan's book, the breeding for looks in the APA was a problem even then.

 

[bnjrob]

I recently read Call of the Hen by Hogan and back in his day the APA was starting to train judges in his methods to determine if a hen was a layer or not. I've not read about any other method short of an Xray that could be that consistently right, so they might try that once again?

It would be interesting to see if they went back to that criteria just how fast focus would change. From what I read in Hogan's book, the breeding for looks in the APA was a problem even then.

Yeah, I think there got to be a big disconnect between the *poultry fanciers* that had money to waste on pretty birds, and the normal folks that just wanted useful birds. I've seen hints at this with my historical research on Javas. They were never very popular with show people, but they were being kept on farms for utility purposes. But the commercialization of poultry was the death knell since the show people didn't seem to like them much and people weren't needing to keep chickens for food as often.

Should be very interesting to see what happens as the APA tries to focus more on production.

 

[DesertChic]

That's the part that concerns me. Because there is no need, there is no focus. The whole problem I see with that is my own integrity. If one wants to claim a bird that is standard bred and that they are breeding to standard to preserve a particular breed, wouldn't they then have to do that in more than just looks? Weren't most dual purpose breeds developed for a "purpose", as indicative by the title "dual purpose"? Then, if one takes away the one purpose or another, then they can no longer claim that breed is still a dual purpose. Or if both purposes are somewhat diminished from the original breed performance, can one still consider it true to that breed or just a moon cast shadow of that breed?

No, I no longer HAVE to breed for productivity as my children are grown and money is not as tight, but if one wants to go that far, one could say it's just cheaper to buy eggs from the store and be done with it. Money is still not so free out there that I can justify spending it on chickens while other folks go hungry, so I feel better about using it judiciously as I want to be a good steward of that money.

For my life and my values, I must still focus on the purpose of the breed or I am accomplishing little and I don't like to see my time in this world whittled away on mediocre things. Now that I have more time to devote to this chicken thing, I've decided to put it to better use than just raising hatchery stock for eggs and meat but also stock that look like their intended breed. But if I cannot have both breed looks and also their intended purpose, I don't really even see the point. What, at that point, am I preserving? A pretty feather duster that I can eat? That's nice and all but I would hate to breed an animal and take away its true potential and purpose and then put my name on that effort.

Others may have their reasons for breeding chickens and I have mine and I'd like mine to show integrity and good use of the time left to me on this Earth, even time used on chickens.

The one thing that I still believe is working in favor of poultry husbandry is the growing trend in this country towards consuming a better quality of food. There's always going to be an abundance of people who are perfectly happy buying whatever is cheapest no matter what its contents or freshness, but more and more I'm encountering people who are far more discriminating and actually WANT to get back to basics. They don't just grow a small garden, but insist on making it as organic as possible. They don't just want cheap eggs, but farm fresh eggs...and some of them decide they want chickens...and then they catch the "chicken bug" and what started as buying a few birds from the local feed store expands into something much more significant. This certainly isn't the case with everyone, but it IS happening. I'm encountering people closer to home who not only question me regularly about selling them eggs and meat, but want to actually learn about chickens and the differences between the breeds. Most have no idea how many different breeds of chicken there are, and once they start learning a little bit beautiful things start to happen.

 

[RedRidge]

My livelihood is meat, dairy & eggs. We sell beef, lamb, poultry, rabbit, eggs and herd shares. Our rare trips to the store consist of coffee and toilet paper, not food.

I have shown all of the above for 2 reasons... to continually check myself that my breeding is on the right track, that my stock is not only functional, but structurally correct according to standard. The other reason is to legitimize any quality breeding stock I choose to sell. I don't show a lot, but there's something to be said for being able to sell a quality product based on past sales and word of mouth as opposed to other avenues of advertising. I don't particularly enjoy showing. And I have not shown the larger stock in about 2 years - just not as easy to halter break those calves as it used to be. But the periodic feedback and socializing with other fanciers is a worthy investment of some of my time. Assuming, of course, that you remember that the results are simply someone else's opinion on any given day.
I haven't been to a poultry show since Dec, and have no plans for any this year. But I will say that the value in spending a few days a year with other, more knowledgeable people is a great way to get feedback. I honestly learn a lot more from other fanciers who take the time to handle and evaluate my birds than I do from a judge who spends 20 seconds with them in his hand.
The same goes for rabbit showing. The interaction with other breeders is invaluable information.
The point here is, breeding quality stock is a combination of production qualities, SOP qualities, and in our case sustainability and forage conversion abilities. Our livestock all free range and are rotationally grazed daily - all cocks/cockerels are together yet 20 acres away from all hens/pullets except Jan - March when they are in breeding pen trios. We find this to be a great balance of hardiness yet controlled breeding.

 

[bnjrob]

The one thing that I still believe is working in favor of poultry husbandry is the growing trend in this country towards consuming a better quality of food. There's always going to be an abundance of people who are perfectly happy buying whatever is cheapest no matter what its contents or freshness, but more and more I'm encountering people who are far more discriminating and actually WANT to get back to basics. They don't just grow a small garden, but insist on making it as organic as possible. They don't just want cheap eggs, but farm fresh eggs...and some of them decide they want chickens...and then they catch the "chicken bug" and what started as buying a few birds from the local feed store expands into something much more significant. This certainly isn't the case with everyone, but it IS happening. I'm encountering people closer to home who not only question me regularly about selling them eggs and meat, but want to actually learn about chickens and the differences between the breeds. Most have no idea how many different breeds of chicken there are, and once they start learning a little bit beautiful things start to happen.

I think some of these people are going to be the ones that help save some of the old knowledge and skills that society is losing. Like you, I am frequently having people asking me questions in person, online, over the phone. They want to know more about all the *old fashioned* things that we do with chickens, gardening, self-sufficiency. I'll be at the store reading a label on something and have someone ask me what I'm doing, what I'm looking for, what the difference is in a product. At the feed store a couple of days ago, the guys in there wanted to know more about why I was taking pictures of the nutrition labels to compare them and what I was looking for, how I was planning on using the feed in my flock, etc. People you wouldn't think are interested in this stuff are hearing bits and pieces of things and are just waiting for someone to show them what is out there.

I was disappointed this past week in group with folks that think it isn't their place to try to teach people things unless people ask to be taught. The conversation started with talk of teaching people the proper names for chickens (cock, cockerel, hen, pullet). I had someone tell me that they don't feel the need to use correct terminology in a setting that doesn't include serious chicken breeding folks, and that they don't want someone to educate them on a subject unless they ask the person to. Another person said it wasn't their place to give information that someone didn't specifically ask for. People don't always know what they don't know. They may not know the questions to ask. The very people that lament the loss of knowledge and skills are some of the very people claiming it isn't their place to look for learning opportunities in any situation. I don't know how these people reconcile things in their minds if they want knowledge and skills passed on but refuse to share knowledge.