They had a lot more knowledge and gadgets than we give them credit for "back then". There are sketches in the books that I read of incubators heated with kerosene just like a lamp.
Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry
- Thread starter Yellow House Farm
- Start date
Please say your kidding? You think farmers wrote the standards? Why would farmers write some that would cut their right hand off?
Farmers back in the 1800's, quickly realized that when they crossed Jim bob's cock bird with his hens, resulted in highly productive layers. Why would a farmer decied to write something that made it near impossible to introduce new genetics? Just does not make sense.
And I suppose you think the 'heritage' Rhode Island reds we have today are the real thing. I suppose you have not seen a truly heritage Rhode Island Reds, those were nasty, nasty cock birds. But man could the hens ever lay! - This comes from my grandfather who is older than the hill that he lives on. You truly think that a good example of a dual purpose chicken is one that lays 30 eggs! You can hardly establish any kind of breeding program. A hen that lays 30 eggs a year is going backwards. You ask any old poultryman, any Amish farmer, what they think. I can almost guarantee that. 30 eggs a year, not even three dozen eggs a year.
Everyone seems to forget that chickens we know of to day are new to the world. These breeds only represent a small, small, portion of time that represents recent development. Of course there is market for birds - Myself I could sell all my cull pullets in two days. My mentor can easily sell her pullets.
Clearly it's not just these 'new folk that are on the backyard bandwagon' that are causing decline of heritage breeds - how can they when they don't breed?! It's the generation that was born after the 1940's that relies on a poultry 'cookbook' to tell them how the bird should look. But it does not describe how a bird should produce, it does not describe how to breed.
I think In order to be a good breeder you have to think out side of the box...These breeders the one's that are one in a million have different ways of thinking, they know there birds, their line, and the products intimately, they are entrepreneurs and farmers that understand the most basic's of breeding and can do extraordinary things without the need for a cookbook....
And Arielle, I am very excited for the trip - It something that just recently came up. But agriculture varies vastly in the EU than in NA. In fact I can easily say we in North America, lag a good 10 years behind the EU. Mom works for an a crown corporation dealing in Agriculture so I have some reasons to base that on.
Here's The Journal, from 1901. That's 112 years ago. It's online and free to read. You'll see breeds advertised, incubators, hatcheries and all kinds of information.
You're right. The breeds, shows, commerce, hatcheries and all the rest shows that poultry keeping was far more sophisticated and advancements made much earlier than many folks imagine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi...epage&q=plymouth rock journal poultry&f=false
I've been keeping poultry since 1959 and learned from my grandmother who kept poultry since 1898. She adored Barred Rocks. She didn't keep mutts and absolutely refused to keep a "Red" chicken. LOL Yes, she was very breed aware as early as the turn of the last century. Much of what I know and think about poultry husbandry I learned at her apron strings.
You're right. The breeds, shows, commerce, hatcheries and all the rest shows that poultry keeping was far more sophisticated and advancements made much earlier than many folks imagine.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi...epage&q=plymouth rock journal poultry&f=false
I've been keeping poultry since 1959 and learned from my grandmother who kept poultry since 1898. She adored Barred Rocks. She didn't keep mutts and absolutely refused to keep a "Red" chicken. LOL Yes, she was very breed aware as early as the turn of the last century. Much of what I know and think about poultry husbandry I learned at her apron strings.
I have seen some plates of the old incubators-- ancient times used cave -like structures with heating sections.
However, since so many of my non-hatchery girls go broody, I expect the broody hen was very valuable.
When reading the sussex flowl, I realized that when the author writes about the 15 years of progress-- that really was 15 years to move from recognized to remarkable improvement. At a time when thousands of sussex were produced in that local region of England for the tables of London.
Progress can be slow when many factors playinto the picture, including needing to eat enough food yourself. IT is the rich and well off that had the luxury of very good breeding stock. Subsistance farms lived by a diferent standard.
( I know the history of horses better than chickens. In Europe the King of Prussia wanted better horses for his stables and calvary, so set up breeding stations in the countryside for the local farmers to bring their mares to the stallions. In short time the entire population of horses had improved dramatically. THis breeding practice still exists today in Germany.)
However, since so many of my non-hatchery girls go broody, I expect the broody hen was very valuable.
When reading the sussex flowl, I realized that when the author writes about the 15 years of progress-- that really was 15 years to move from recognized to remarkable improvement. At a time when thousands of sussex were produced in that local region of England for the tables of London.
Progress can be slow when many factors playinto the picture, including needing to eat enough food yourself. IT is the rich and well off that had the luxury of very good breeding stock. Subsistance farms lived by a diferent standard.
( I know the history of horses better than chickens. In Europe the King of Prussia wanted better horses for his stables and calvary, so set up breeding stations in the countryside for the local farmers to bring their mares to the stallions. In short time the entire population of horses had improved dramatically. THis breeding practice still exists today in Germany.)
Not think. Know. The histories are right there. Fred's Hens is on top of things with documentation. Your ideas that the Standard and it's breed descriptions do not take into account production, that they are counter productive to production and prohibit adding new blood are not just wrong, but horrifyingly stupendously so.
I did not say it was ok or acceptable that a dual purpose bird be a bad layer, only that I understand and can see why a show breeder today might not care. Personally I just think that means they're a bad breeder and don't know what they're doing, but I can see and understand why production isn't as important as it once was.
The reality is, once bigger businesses got involved and it was cheaper to produce the hybrid layers and hatchery birds of today and replace a flock every couple years, than the actual breeds from the first part of the 1900's. Really the only thing besides looks that suffers in today's model is meat quality in dual purpose hatchery birds because commercial hatcheries have had to sacrifice that for better egg production or higher profit margins. Commercial egg farms moved beyond breeds in the 50's or earlier. Same with commercial meat farms. And for production, go nuts on that modern stuff. But if you want to talk heritage, then you include both production and the standard.
You're right, the newcomer backyard folk aren't breeding mostly although a look around this site would prove otherwise. They want cute little pets. They don't care about preserving a breed, or working on production qualities, why should anyone want to mentor someone that isn't going to advance their birds? You make your own point on why there is a lack of mentors with the old school of thought when you say you can sell all your cull pullets quickly, so can I, can you sell breeding pairs and trios as easily? Nope. People only want pullets. Why waste time with those folk? If you (a generic you, not tryin to offend) want to be a serious breeder, improve a heritage breed, focus on all aspects of it and the husbandry of poultry you'll find no shortage of mentors and help. There's people right here in this thread that have shown that is true on both sides! Heritage breeds can't produce? Look at what Yellow House Farms has done with their Dorkings, a breed that has been left on life support for many many years.
It's true, if you throw the standard out the window you can produce some amazing producing chickens. It's what the commercial industry did, it's what hatcheries have done, but as the title of thread says Heritage, and if you want to preserve the way things were done before that, and America has a rich poultry history, then you can't vilify and disrespect the standards that were created and adhered to by the same folks that you claim to hold up. That's all I'm saying and apparently not clearly enough and taking too many words to say.
Edit: What you propose and call breeding from that point of view anyone can do. It's just reproducing birds with no real ideal or vision of what they should be and if you breed yourself into a corner, no problem just throw something else in the pot. Real breeding is a lot harder, that's what so few can successfully do.
Last edited:
E.B Thomson made$47k selling his Ringlet strain of show Rocks in 1927, he also refused $1000.00 for his first place cockerel at Madison Square Garden. Showing chickens was a big deal back in the late 1800's and early 1900's The APA is the oldest livestock organization in the USA.
I found these letters regarding the SOP set forth by the APA kinda interesting. They were published in the Fanciers' Journal and Poultry Exchange May 14, 1874. Guess even back then there were disagreements about things.
THE LAST REVISION OF THE STANDARD.
To Wm. H. Churchman, Esq.,
President American Poultry Association, Claymont, Del.
Dear Sir : The universal dissatisfaction exhibited among
American poultry breeders and fanciers with the results of
the hastily concluded. Convention held at Buffalo in January
—of which you were presiding officer—prompts me to
address you directly, for the purpose of presenting to you
officially my views, already communicated publicly through
two of our leading poultry journals.
Personally, I have no especial interest in the matter of
a " Standard of Excellence " for adoption at American poultry
exhibitions, because I long since ceased to be a contributor
of my stock to our public shows—after a successful
career for years among sharp competitors with my Chinese
fowls, which proved (at least to me) of the most flattering
and remunerative character; but, feeling the same lively
interest in the welfare of my brother fanciers at large that
I have indulged for over a quarter of a century, and believing
that I know something about this subject (or ought to)
through past long experience, I desire to call your attention,
and, through you, the notice also of the officers and members
of the new "American Poultry Association " to my
views, and to this end I respectfully present the following
specific objections to the " standard" just issued under your
auspices, which is offered to the poultry societies of the
-United States as law, to govern their conduct at future public
fowl exhibitions. These objections to, and my opinion
" are in part as follows
e phraseology in this work is unwisely and
unnecessarily arbitrary in its general character, and alto-
gether offensive, especially through the mandatory dictum
embodied in its badly framed " instructions to judges."
Second. Said "instructions" cannot be made practicable
or useful, since their subjugative and imperative wording
must inevitably have the effect of preventing any independent,
competent, honorable man, from accepting the always thankless
post of a judge at our shows, under the compulsory
rules thus prescribed to control his own opinion.
Third. In my judgment, no such gratuitous manacles
should be provided for fair honest judges ; and I am not
ready to admit that any "association" or- set of men,
through their simple ipse dixit, have the right to impose
such regulations either upon Show judges, or any other
state, county, or town association.
Fourth. I am convinced, through numerous adverse letters
latterly received, and by free oral communication with
scores of American fanciers, that this work, in its present
highly objectionable form, can never be adopted to any
extent by poultry societies in this country as a standard,
and that it is for this reason comparatively worthless for its
intended purpose as a rule.
Fifth. The standard, as published, was evidently made
up in too hurried a manner at the best, and, though the
intents of its framers may have been good, it fails in details,
in many respects, to meet the needs and the views of the
American poultry fraternity generally, who find this but a
rehash of former ignored similar works.
Sixth. I believe it will be condemned likewise on account
of its incompleteness, its apparent partiality, its
palpable omissions, and in several instances (as 1 look at it),
the parodoxical nonsense of its stated requirements and
declarations as to " disqualifications " in certain breeds.
Seventh. In this connection, I cite for example the bald
inconsistency in this standard, regarding the prize requisites
for " Brahma " fowls. The Light Brahmas must have
"legs strong, and well feathered to tips of outer toes." ....
The Dark Brahmas must have "legs strong, well feathered
outside, to the ends of outer and middle toes." In points,
symmetry counts ten in the Light Brahmas, and the same
quality in the Dark Brahmas counts fifteen, according to
this standard. Why should this difference in the same qualification
be thus rated, and why should there be required
this difference of " feathering on the toes," upon two colors
of the same birds ? Can anything be sillier than these two
assumptions ?
In the " Game Bantam " list, on page 32, but 95 points
(instead of 100) are set down for judges to " strictly adhere
to " in deciding upon this class. As to the " Cochins " (see
page 16, in the list of qualifications), this standard declares
" vulture hocks objectionable, but not a disqualification."
On pages 18, 20, 21, same chapter, in the list of disqualifications
for Partridge, White, Buff, and Black Cochins in each
variety, your standard declares separately, " vulture hocks
are particularly objectionable." What are we to understand
by these fiat contradictions, uttered in the same breath ; and
how are judges under your positive instructions to " adhere
strictly to your rules " on page 3 and i, to decide this point?
Eighth. In the case of " Houdans," your new standard
requires [vide page 67), that " the toes shall be five in number,
the fifth claw turned upward;" and "the absence of
the fifth toe is a disqualification." Now it is notorious that
the fifth toe belongs rightfully only to the Dorking fpwl,
(originally), and also that seven out of ten of our best Hou-
dan breeders recognize only four toes for this variety, in its
French purity.
Ninth. In the classification of " Games," more than half
a dozen known established varieties are omitted in the new
lists entirely—as the Irish Grays, the Shawl Games, the
Spangled, Birchin Duck, Blues, Bed Duns, Brass Back,
Blue Beds, etc., no one of which varieties do I find alluded
to, even in this " revised " new standard ; but all of which
are largely bred in America, by such fanciers as Van Winkle,
N. J. ; Col. Meacham, Mass. ; Bestor, Conn. ; Bicknell,
N. Y. ; Hancock, Mass., and others.
Tenth. No mention is made in this work of several other
distinct, well known, and long bred varieties of fowls, which
are far more familiar to Eastern breeders, than are those
last named—and the query is often put, upon examining
this "American standard"—How are we to get our birds
into future shows? To wit—the " Black Javas," the"Guilderlands,"
the " Bolton Grays," the Marsh, the Forbes, the
Bailies' Shanghais, etc. Why are all these varieties which
we have bred for years and years, thus left out in the cold ?
The formal presentation of these ten cogent reasons is
made without argument, and simply in the shape of facts.
I deem them, Mr. President, of sufficient consequence to
arrest the attention of yourself, and that of your official
associates, and to warrant your society in attempting a complete
correction of the errors herein complained of.
I desire that this communication may be received in the
spirit in which it is written; but I submit, in view of the
premises, that this new American Standard of Excellence,
as revised under the auspices of the American Poultry Association
at Buffalo, is not what the poultry fanciers and our
breeders in this country want—what they need—what they
expected—and what they are bound to have—sooner or
later ; and that is an improvement upon all former abortive
and ill-planned attempts in this direction.
I could urge upon your consideration, further, the fact that
your new standard is not put forth at a popular price—one
dollar being at least eight times the cost of this pamphlet.
I could point out what I deem grave mistakes in your
admission of known cross-bred fowls in this standard's lists,
as recognized varieties. I could reiterate remarks that are
oft repeated among New England breeders, to the effect that
all these faults of omission and commission point indubitably
to a purpose, on the part of a few managers, at the
expense of the many poultry men in this country, but I
forbear to enlarge for the present.
As I have publicly suggested, I repeat it—the fanciers
and breeders of America demand "a new deal" in this
standard matter. Will it be agreeable to you and your
associates to call another Convention of all interested in this
subject, at a conveniently early day, and at a central place,
where we may come together en masse, and in open meeting
discuss and vote upon this subject of & final revision of the
American standard, where all parties may have the opportunity
to hear and be heard, without being compelled to
pay three dollars for the privilege ?
Through such means, the standard that we all want, and
need, may be properly and appropriately arranged, and we
may thus get, in my opinion, a reliable work, which every
fancier in America will thankfully accept as authority, and
which every Society will immediately adopt as a useful, practical,
applicable, and acceptable "American Standard of
Excellence." I am respectfully yours,
Melrose, Mass., May, 1874. Geo. P. Burnham.
A SENSIBLE PROPOSAL.
J. M. Wade, Esq.
Your Fanciers' Journal, through its contributor, Mr.
Burnham, has taken the initiative in a matter of the greatest
importance to poultry interests, and I was pleased to see,
in a recent number of your admirable weekly, his ideas of
the new National American Standard and its projectors.
Mr. Burnham is a veteran in poultry breeding, and his advice
on this subject of properly revising our standard is
well-timed. If such a convention as he suggests could be
held this summer, it would undoubtedly be attended by our
poultry men generally ; and in an open, fair meeting, where
all could be heard, a good many new ideas and valuable
hints as to what we ought to have in an American standard
would be brought out to manifest general advantage.
Whatever may be done, one thing is evident, and that is
that this last "revision" of the standard is no advance on
former efforts of the kind, and cannot answer the purpose
or fulfil the expectations of American poulterers. To say
nothing of its mistakes, omissions, inconsistencies, and glaring
contradictions, the rules laid down at its commencement,
controlling our judges at exhibitions, are strikingly in
bad taste, and to my mind altogether superfluous. I hope a
new convention will be held, and I trust that such meeting
will be fully attended. In this way, I think, we may not
only correct the errors of this almost useless work, but manage
to get out a good American standard.
C. H. E.
Boston, April, 1874.
THE LAST REVISION OF THE STANDARD.
To Wm. H. Churchman, Esq.,
President American Poultry Association, Claymont, Del.
Dear Sir : The universal dissatisfaction exhibited among
American poultry breeders and fanciers with the results of
the hastily concluded. Convention held at Buffalo in January
—of which you were presiding officer—prompts me to
address you directly, for the purpose of presenting to you
officially my views, already communicated publicly through
two of our leading poultry journals.
Personally, I have no especial interest in the matter of
a " Standard of Excellence " for adoption at American poultry
exhibitions, because I long since ceased to be a contributor
of my stock to our public shows—after a successful
career for years among sharp competitors with my Chinese
fowls, which proved (at least to me) of the most flattering
and remunerative character; but, feeling the same lively
interest in the welfare of my brother fanciers at large that
I have indulged for over a quarter of a century, and believing
that I know something about this subject (or ought to)
through past long experience, I desire to call your attention,
and, through you, the notice also of the officers and members
of the new "American Poultry Association " to my
views, and to this end I respectfully present the following
specific objections to the " standard" just issued under your
auspices, which is offered to the poultry societies of the
-United States as law, to govern their conduct at future public
fowl exhibitions. These objections to, and my opinion
" are in part as follows
e phraseology in this work is unwisely andunnecessarily arbitrary in its general character, and alto-
gether offensive, especially through the mandatory dictum
embodied in its badly framed " instructions to judges."
Second. Said "instructions" cannot be made practicable
or useful, since their subjugative and imperative wording
must inevitably have the effect of preventing any independent,
competent, honorable man, from accepting the always thankless
post of a judge at our shows, under the compulsory
rules thus prescribed to control his own opinion.
Third. In my judgment, no such gratuitous manacles
should be provided for fair honest judges ; and I am not
ready to admit that any "association" or- set of men,
through their simple ipse dixit, have the right to impose
such regulations either upon Show judges, or any other
state, county, or town association.
Fourth. I am convinced, through numerous adverse letters
latterly received, and by free oral communication with
scores of American fanciers, that this work, in its present
highly objectionable form, can never be adopted to any
extent by poultry societies in this country as a standard,
and that it is for this reason comparatively worthless for its
intended purpose as a rule.
Fifth. The standard, as published, was evidently made
up in too hurried a manner at the best, and, though the
intents of its framers may have been good, it fails in details,
in many respects, to meet the needs and the views of the
American poultry fraternity generally, who find this but a
rehash of former ignored similar works.
Sixth. I believe it will be condemned likewise on account
of its incompleteness, its apparent partiality, its
palpable omissions, and in several instances (as 1 look at it),
the parodoxical nonsense of its stated requirements and
declarations as to " disqualifications " in certain breeds.
Seventh. In this connection, I cite for example the bald
inconsistency in this standard, regarding the prize requisites
for " Brahma " fowls. The Light Brahmas must have
"legs strong, and well feathered to tips of outer toes." ....
The Dark Brahmas must have "legs strong, well feathered
outside, to the ends of outer and middle toes." In points,
symmetry counts ten in the Light Brahmas, and the same
quality in the Dark Brahmas counts fifteen, according to
this standard. Why should this difference in the same qualification
be thus rated, and why should there be required
this difference of " feathering on the toes," upon two colors
of the same birds ? Can anything be sillier than these two
assumptions ?
In the " Game Bantam " list, on page 32, but 95 points
(instead of 100) are set down for judges to " strictly adhere
to " in deciding upon this class. As to the " Cochins " (see
page 16, in the list of qualifications), this standard declares
" vulture hocks objectionable, but not a disqualification."
On pages 18, 20, 21, same chapter, in the list of disqualifications
for Partridge, White, Buff, and Black Cochins in each
variety, your standard declares separately, " vulture hocks
are particularly objectionable." What are we to understand
by these fiat contradictions, uttered in the same breath ; and
how are judges under your positive instructions to " adhere
strictly to your rules " on page 3 and i, to decide this point?
Eighth. In the case of " Houdans," your new standard
requires [vide page 67), that " the toes shall be five in number,
the fifth claw turned upward;" and "the absence of
the fifth toe is a disqualification." Now it is notorious that
the fifth toe belongs rightfully only to the Dorking fpwl,
(originally), and also that seven out of ten of our best Hou-
dan breeders recognize only four toes for this variety, in its
French purity.
Ninth. In the classification of " Games," more than half
a dozen known established varieties are omitted in the new
lists entirely—as the Irish Grays, the Shawl Games, the
Spangled, Birchin Duck, Blues, Bed Duns, Brass Back,
Blue Beds, etc., no one of which varieties do I find alluded
to, even in this " revised " new standard ; but all of which
are largely bred in America, by such fanciers as Van Winkle,
N. J. ; Col. Meacham, Mass. ; Bestor, Conn. ; Bicknell,
N. Y. ; Hancock, Mass., and others.
Tenth. No mention is made in this work of several other
distinct, well known, and long bred varieties of fowls, which
are far more familiar to Eastern breeders, than are those
last named—and the query is often put, upon examining
this "American standard"—How are we to get our birds
into future shows? To wit—the " Black Javas," the"Guilderlands,"
the " Bolton Grays," the Marsh, the Forbes, the
Bailies' Shanghais, etc. Why are all these varieties which
we have bred for years and years, thus left out in the cold ?
The formal presentation of these ten cogent reasons is
made without argument, and simply in the shape of facts.
I deem them, Mr. President, of sufficient consequence to
arrest the attention of yourself, and that of your official
associates, and to warrant your society in attempting a complete
correction of the errors herein complained of.
I desire that this communication may be received in the
spirit in which it is written; but I submit, in view of the
premises, that this new American Standard of Excellence,
as revised under the auspices of the American Poultry Association
at Buffalo, is not what the poultry fanciers and our
breeders in this country want—what they need—what they
expected—and what they are bound to have—sooner or
later ; and that is an improvement upon all former abortive
and ill-planned attempts in this direction.
I could urge upon your consideration, further, the fact that
your new standard is not put forth at a popular price—one
dollar being at least eight times the cost of this pamphlet.
I could point out what I deem grave mistakes in your
admission of known cross-bred fowls in this standard's lists,
as recognized varieties. I could reiterate remarks that are
oft repeated among New England breeders, to the effect that
all these faults of omission and commission point indubitably
to a purpose, on the part of a few managers, at the
expense of the many poultry men in this country, but I
forbear to enlarge for the present.
As I have publicly suggested, I repeat it—the fanciers
and breeders of America demand "a new deal" in this
standard matter. Will it be agreeable to you and your
associates to call another Convention of all interested in this
subject, at a conveniently early day, and at a central place,
where we may come together en masse, and in open meeting
discuss and vote upon this subject of & final revision of the
American standard, where all parties may have the opportunity
to hear and be heard, without being compelled to
pay three dollars for the privilege ?
Through such means, the standard that we all want, and
need, may be properly and appropriately arranged, and we
may thus get, in my opinion, a reliable work, which every
fancier in America will thankfully accept as authority, and
which every Society will immediately adopt as a useful, practical,
applicable, and acceptable "American Standard of
Excellence." I am respectfully yours,
Melrose, Mass., May, 1874. Geo. P. Burnham.
A SENSIBLE PROPOSAL.
J. M. Wade, Esq.
Your Fanciers' Journal, through its contributor, Mr.
Burnham, has taken the initiative in a matter of the greatest
importance to poultry interests, and I was pleased to see,
in a recent number of your admirable weekly, his ideas of
the new National American Standard and its projectors.
Mr. Burnham is a veteran in poultry breeding, and his advice
on this subject of properly revising our standard is
well-timed. If such a convention as he suggests could be
held this summer, it would undoubtedly be attended by our
poultry men generally ; and in an open, fair meeting, where
all could be heard, a good many new ideas and valuable
hints as to what we ought to have in an American standard
would be brought out to manifest general advantage.
Whatever may be done, one thing is evident, and that is
that this last "revision" of the standard is no advance on
former efforts of the kind, and cannot answer the purpose
or fulfil the expectations of American poulterers. To say
nothing of its mistakes, omissions, inconsistencies, and glaring
contradictions, the rules laid down at its commencement,
controlling our judges at exhibitions, are strikingly in
bad taste, and to my mind altogether superfluous. I hope a
new convention will be held, and I trust that such meeting
will be fully attended. In this way, I think, we may not
only correct the errors of this almost useless work, but manage
to get out a good American standard.
C. H. E.
Boston, April, 1874.
The very fact that a large number of the breeds he references in his letter no longer exist speaks volumes I think. Moreover most, if not all, of the others he mentioned that are in existence are barely so.
Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting read.
Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting read.
That was the first attempt at a Standard and no doubt controversial. The APA Standard of today is quite different than the first Standard in 1874. Most people that like to talk about the Standard have never owned or even looked at one. It addresses the whole bird, not just color or feathers along with diagrams showing the correct skeleton etc. Real poultry breeders can make birds big or small, it is all in selection and has nothing to do with pure bred birds. In fact big large fowl are usually winners in a show, (everything else being equal) so the emphasis would be to make them bigger not smaller.
I lived on a poultry farm 70 years ago. We had leghorns....for meat (fryers) and eggs. The Leghorns back in the 40's were very large birds that looked pretty much like a good show Leghorn of today. There were no Freedom Rangers, Red Comets, sex links or skinny hatchery birds back then. The internet is full of mis-information about chickens. The birds back then did not lay like hatchery birds of today. These hybrids have all been manipulated to perform a task....mostly to lay eggs. On the farm we would have culled birds that look like most hatchery birds of today. Squirrel tail, crow head, shallow chest were all signs of a unthrify bird and were disposed of right away.
Walt
I lived on a poultry farm 70 years ago. We had leghorns....for meat (fryers) and eggs. The Leghorns back in the 40's were very large birds that looked pretty much like a good show Leghorn of today. There were no Freedom Rangers, Red Comets, sex links or skinny hatchery birds back then. The internet is full of mis-information about chickens. The birds back then did not lay like hatchery birds of today. These hybrids have all been manipulated to perform a task....mostly to lay eggs. On the farm we would have culled birds that look like most hatchery birds of today. Squirrel tail, crow head, shallow chest were all signs of a unthrify bird and were disposed of right away.
Walt
A breed has no hope or future without a recognized Standard.
You can breed productive birds without a Standard.
Some people that breed birds for exhibition have small concern for production qualities.
A breed's purpose, and it's "economical qualities", is very important to some people that breed and exhibit their birds.
If not for a Standard, and poultry shows, we would have a lot less than we do now.
You can breed productive birds without a Standard.
Some people that breed birds for exhibition have small concern for production qualities.
A breed's purpose, and it's "economical qualities", is very important to some people that breed and exhibit their birds.
If not for a Standard, and poultry shows, we would have a lot less than we do now.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Success stories about resetting pecking order?- Started by Buffbrahmabantam
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Chicken unable to walk properly after heavy moult- Started by Kiwi_The__arnevelder
- Replies: 2
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
BYC's 52-week Photography Challenge. Week 2: (Jan 12-18, 2026). Theme: Flock Star- Started by Lacy Duckwing
- Replies: 95
-
-
-
Help I have a butt pecker
- Started by Hannah2911
- Replies: 49
-
