Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[Fred's Hens]

Reputations are powerful information. When folks buy certain strains of birds from certain breeders the productivity of those birds is not a secret, or not a secret for long, especially in the instantaneous nature of the information age.

Again, I only do large fowl Rocks 'n Reds and focus only on these two breeds in the American class. But, these are the bread and butter of the "Heritage" movement, the homesteader focus, the Community Supported Agriculture movement and the like.

I was in Knoxville last weekend with the APA National. I know what I saw. I know what I heard and who I listened to. This very conversation was being openly held. P. Allen Smith was there and his troops were there in force. All I can do is report what happened. Again, internet chatting by folks who have never been to a large event like this or never exhibited anything or never participated or contributed as members in these various organizations make a lot of comments based solely on what they hear and repeat on the internet. The reality on the ground with real life people often paints quite a different picture.

 

[bnjrob]

Reputations are powerful information. When folks buy certain strains of birds from certain breeders the productivity of those birds is not a secret, or not a secret for long, especially in the instantaneous nature of the information age.

Again, I only do large fowl Rocks 'n Reds and focus only on these two breeds in the American class. But, these are the bread and butter of the "Heritage" movement, the homesteader focus, the Community Supported Agriculture movement and the like.

I was in Knoxville last weekend with the APA National. I know what I saw. I know what I heard and who I listened to. This very conversation was being openly held. P. Allen Smith was there and his troops were there in force. All I can do is report what happened. Again, internet chatting by folks who have never been to a large event like this or never exhibited anything or never participated or contributed as members in these various organizations make a lot of comments based solely on what they hear and repeat on the internet. The reality on the ground with real life people often paints quite a different picture.

It's good that this is being talked about. Is there anybody that had a good idea about where the disconnect between SOP breeding and production breeding has occurred? Without knowing what has caused this, it will make it difficult to find effective solutions to the problem.

On the surface it seems like it's the judges who are placing birds that don't meet production criteria as causing this problem. But then, how do they know whether the bird really is productive or not? It seems like it is a circle of needing to have some accountability with the breeders for ensuring good production, but no way to prove that the birds are more than just pretty feathers.

 

[RedRidge]

 
I've chatted online with Walt and he's great.  Have learned so much from him. 


I'm a newbie to the serious breeding things, have only been doing it a few years.  And of course I wanted birds that hadn't been kept very well, or by many folks,  through the 20th century.  So it's a big challenge to get our birds to where we want them to be.  We finally have enough birds that I am not so worried if a predator gets one, that we can start doing more with our breeding.  For these first few years, it has just been trying to get enough birds on the ground to have backups in case something happened, since I can't just run to the feed store and get more if some of them become part of a coyote buffet.  We have seen some improvements in the pinched tail issues already.  Still need to work on some other things and bring up production more both in egg laying and more meat on the breast.  We have more eggs than we can use ourselves already, but we know that the birds can do better since we've seen the differences in the groups we have that came from different breeders. 

Think you're right - the judges, and probably politics have played a large part in this problem of non-thrifty show birds.  I was shocked to see that the APA put up a resource that said that show birds didn't lay as well.  To even mention it means this is obviously a problem that is fairly well known and wide spread - yet it goes against what the SOP even says about having productive birds.  Which does seem to indicate that the judges are not reading their SOP and they are placing pretty birds that aren't as productive, and so the breeders are breeding to win the judge's favor and not to have a well rounded, pretty yet utilitarian bird. 

I found a reference in old literature regarding a change to the SOP for Mottled Javas that sounds like perhaps it was more about politics and making pretty birds that wrought the change in the SOP.  And if that one small color change happened because of politics and personal views, it is more than likely that other changes in SOPs and in how judges evaluate the birds have also occurred for reasons not related to utility production.

I have no desire to show, but I  know I need to because Javas need to be seen and they aren't shown much at all.  And it would be interesting to have someone else lay eyes on our birds to see if they can offer any fresh insights to us.  But I don't care for the showing that seems to be mostly about pretty birds and not a well rounded bird that looks nice but is also productive.  I want my Javas to be what Javas used to be, back when the poultry literature talked about how wonderful they were as layers and as good eating, and being pretty birds that were also great for having on a farm. 

From what I understand about breeding out pinched tails, we need to focus on abdominal capacity.  That said, I'm wondering... is that how you're doing it or do you have another method that has proven beneficial?

I find that the pinched tails and less body cavity also contribute to later pol... those big bodied girls just get down to business sooner. The other thing I've discovered... the eyes are no replacement for the hands - you have to pick them up and physically feel them and weigh them, measure their capacity relative to the one next to them, etc. Our eyes can only tell so much.

 

[gjensen]

Here's a K who at 22 weeks was setting the pace for the rest of the group. Other K's have since caught up with him, but his quicker fleshing makes him a breeder for me. I think 20 weeks would be a a realistic goal for a first cull with this breed.

20 wks would be a reasonable consideration for the breed you are working with. Getting too far away from that would be a waste of resources in my opinion. Again, I am referring to an initial cull. There should certainly be enough retained for a final selection.

Just be careful, and this may sound contrary to what I said prior. It is not just when, but how they flesh out. They can get too big on their legs also, and there is a correlation between the size at that age, and their final size. Time would teach you what birds at that age will grow to be too big on their legs. We would not want them to lose fitness, or we might as well grow out hybrids. Emphasizing well spaced strong legs with good shanks should be helpful. Paying attention (feeling through the feather) for well developed thighs is another. Good thighs is good for the carcass and the bird.

Be careful about length with this breed. Some of the faster developing birds may be shorter birds and length. You would not want cobby looking birds where the hens did not have the necessary length for this type to have the capacity to be reasonable long term layers. Type is still the priority.

 

[Fred's Hens]

It's good that this is being talked about. Is there anybody that had a good idea about where the disconnect between SOP breeding and production breeding has occurred? Without knowing what has caused this, it will make it difficult to find effective solutions to the problem.

On the surface it seems like it's the judges who are placing birds that don't meet production criteria as causing this problem. But then, how do they know whether the bird really is productive or not? It seems like it is a circle of needing to have some accountability with the breeders for ensuring good production, but no way to prove that the birds are more than just pretty feathers.

The "disconnect", the term you used, likely occurred when classic Large Fowl birds gave way to the commercial hybrids in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The egg producers shifted to those high powered commercial layer hybrids and the broiler industry became dominated completely by the CX type broiler.

Add to that the cultural shift of 90% of Americans living on farms in 1900 to 90% of Americans living in cities by 1980.

Who cared about those old breeds? They held no purpose in the commercial world, so it was thought. The only folks really keeping those old breeds and old lines going was hobbyists who predominately were interested in the birds in fanciful way.

As for judges, at the typical show today, 80% of the birds entered are ornamental or bantams. These large fowl American class type birds are numerically overwhelmed by comparison. That is first thing to remember. Secondly, one's bird gets handled very quickly by the judge. The judge may have 400 birds or more to handle. How long can he spend handling any one bird? Not that long. Besides, could you or I hazard a guess about a bird's productive record just by handling it, knowing nothing of it's age? I highly doubt it. So this judging aspect isn't going to happen at the exhibitions.

Where real judging is going to take place is in the market place by the consumer. If I buy into a strain of standard bred birds and spend a year with them and they do not or will not perform, I'm going to "judge" that. Just as I judge all consumer goods purchased and good products rise in popularity and poor performing products sink into oblivion, as they should.

 

[bnjrob]

The "disconnect", the term you used, likely occurred when classic Large Fowl birds gave way to the commercial hybrids in the late 1950's and early 1960's. The egg producers shifted to those high powered commercial layer hybrids and the broiler industry became dominated completely by the CX type broiler.

Add to that the cultural shift of 90% of Americans living on farms in 1900 to 90% of Americans living in cities by 1980.

Who cared about those old breeds? They held no purpose in the commercial world, so it was thought. The only folks really keeping those old breeds and old lines going was hobbyists who predominately were interested in the birds in fanciful way.

As for judges, at the typical show today, 80% of the birds entered are ornamental or bantams. These large fowl American class type birds are numerically overwhelmed by comparison. That is first thing to remember. Secondly, one's bird gets handled very quickly by the judge. The judge may have 400 birds or more to handle. How long can he spend handling any one bird? Not that long. Besides, could you or I hazard a guess about a bird's productive record just by handling it, knowing nothing of it's age? I highly doubt it. So this judging aspect isn't going to happen at the exhibitions.

Where real judging is going to take place is in the market place by the consumer. If I buy into a strain of standard bred birds and spend a year with them and they do not or will not perform, I'm going to "judge" that. Just as I judge all consumer goods purchased and good products rise in popularity and poor performing products sink into oblivion, as they should.

True enough with the commercialization and lack of serious "old style" breeders for many of the birds during the 20th century. I see the effects in our flock.

Yes, the show I attended last month was overwhelmingly bantams and the large fowl that was there did not have a lot of breed variety. I saw the judges handle some birds - the birds that looked to me to be standard bred birds. There were a number of what appeared to be hatchery birds that the judges didn't even bother to get out of the cages. It would be difficult for them to handle all the birds if they all were very much alike and required each of them to have a hands on exam to determine the winner. Even with our small flock, it takes a lot of time to go through them all and physically examine each one.

This is why I can't get my head around what more the APA can do to fix this, since the only thing they can do is to pressure the judges. The SOP already says to place emphasis on productive qualities. But without being able to prove to a judge about production, the judge can't really do more than determine that a bird has the correct type for the breed. And obviously judging and placing birds for good type isn't working that well, if we have this problem of breeders breeding unproductive birds.

If the consumer is what can drive the change, then widespread public education is needed. And how does one go about educating them? And who will do it? Is this something that the APA can or should take on? I don't know.

There are so many people buying and selling chickens willy nilly out there, it seems like an almost insurmountable task. You've got to educate the public on the difference between hatchery and standard bred birds and get them to want to go with standard bred birds. Then you have to get them to put pressure on the breeders to breed birds to the SOP and still make sure they are productive. That's a lot of work and I wonder if it is more work than anyone will want to take on.

 

[gjensen]

I still hold to that form does not follow function, and function does not follow form. I see them running parallel and working together to make a complete bird.

I hear and read a dogmatic adherence to the Standard as a complete guide to breeding productive birds. Though it is the best work I know for our purpose, I never got the impression that it was meant to explain how to breed productive birds.

With some of the Standard bred birds that I have kept, they fell short on a variety of points that added up to a less than productive birds. Usually the lay rate is not that bad. I do not think we expect 6 egg per week commercial performance. 5 would be nice, but four would not be the end of the world.

An appropriate POL is subjective. Most would agree that an April hatched bird that did not come into lay before the days were too short would be considered unproductive. You could be feeding that bird up to 16 wks longer to get eggs from her. If that is agreed, 32 wks is much too late. 28 wks is pushing it. An early April hatch will have pullets laying by October if POL is @ 24wks. That same batch hatched in March would be in full lay and the egg size up before the earliest hens molt
POL is not in the Standard or should it be. That is up to the breeder, and would have been a given 75 years ago.

Egg size is a problem in many. A 7 1/2 lb hen should not be laying medium large eggs. That is just a matter of selecting the largest eggs, raising the bar periodically. An appropriate size of egg for the size of hen is relevant. If I wanted medium sized eggs, I would rather feed a medium sized breed.

Early molters that take a long time to molt is killing time. She quit before her time, and eggs are lost. It isn't as if she quit eating. These hens are easy to identify and mark. The hen that waits for spring to warm up before she comes into lay is wasting time, but she is eating feed. Often these tendencies go together. A month on each side of winter might be 32 eggs. It could be the difference between a 140 egg per year layer, and a 160 egg per year layer. Perhaps more when these same birds are often not reasonable winter layers, and take summer breaks.

For the majority of the Standard bred birds that I have kept, if these three points were improved, the birds would be much improved. Their type and capacity was great, overall. It is the things that a judge cannot see where they fell short.

Cockerels that require too much time (and feed) to be useful. Many are not worth plucking at 16 wks., and are all feather. They look like something until we pick them up. Some should not be. It is only an illustration. Some cannot be useful at a young age when so much protein and energy is devoted to feather rather than flesh. They often dress out fine as adults. LOL. Excessive feathering is a challenge for some.

I do not expect remarkable carcasses at young ages, just useful ones. They are fryers at these ages. They are not as attractive, but they are tender. I never saw where plucked dead birds were attractive anyways. I prefer them battered and fried or grilled. We will slow roast a few roasters, but otherwise I will save the big money for steak and lobster. LOL.

All of these points are easy for an amateur like myself to identify and measure. My opinion is these are some of the most overlooked points and can be the difference between a productive bird and an unproductive bird. You cannot see it looking at the bird. All of the capacity in the world will not correct it. It is just a matter of watching and marking birds. Keeping a few more than we need, so we can afford to rid ourselves of the poorest performers. Breeding birds that have been evaluated. The best judges will not see it in the hand. The mentors will not teach it. The Standard will not tell us to. We have to know them ourselves. If it matters to us, we will. If it does not, we will not. If the eggs and meat was our livelihood we would. It isn't, so often we do not.

 

[DesertChic]

The SOP says "Judges and breeders therefore, in all cases, are instructed to give full consideration to those fundamental characteristics which are necessary to maintain vigor and production at the highest level consistent with true breed type."

Judges and breeders have been given the directive that they are supposed to interpret the SOP and judge/breed with production in mind. But you can't really prove how well your bird lays or at what age they sexually matured or at what age they attained SOP goal weight. And since the APA has admitted on their website that most show birds don't lay as well, then obviously something has been missed in the judging process or the breeding process since there are apparently many breeders breeding to what the judges want to see in order to get a win, yet productivity is being lost.

The slow food movement also has its issues and part of that is the unrealistic expectations of the public. They want cheap food. No "heritage" standard-bred chicken is going to out-produce a modern-meat-mutt-hybrid chicken. Yet these modern meat chickens aren't very sustainable for a flock kept long term on a farm. I just saw a thread on one site recently where someone thought that the birds they had were sick - but it was because the birds had not yet been slaughtered and the folks didn't realize that these modern birds start keeling over from organ failure if they aren't slaughtered soon enough. Yet they were people trying to be "sustainable". I have not heard of anyone trying to breed from these hybrids at their home (probably because they are unhealthy and don't live very long anyway). Once they slaughter the birds, they order more from the hatchery. That is not a sustainable practice. But the amount of breast meat on those birds and the short time frame in which they are ready to be butchered is what the majority of people are interested in because it is less work and less feed than to raise a truly sustainable flock for the long term. Same thing with egg chickens - it is easier for folks to get more layers at the feed store than it is for them to raise birds that can keep the flock propagated for the long haul without having to restock from somewhere else.

You really have to enjoy the whole breeding process and the work it entails if you're gonna do it. And I don't think the public wants to do that much work. Even the slow-food/sustainability advocates are going to have to change some of their expectations of what a bird can and cannot realistically produce and then they need to work on retraining the public and getting the public to stop being in the "supersize fast-food mode".

Hopefully this mentality is changing. As someone completely new to raising chickens, I'm one of those people who, not knowing any better at the time, bought my first flock from the feed store. I've no regrets as I'd rather learn about keeping chickens (and make the majority of my mistakes) on hatchery stock while I increase my knowledge base and investigate heritage breeds so I may choose a breed that fits my personality, lifestyle and needs. I'll never be able to accommodate a huge flock at my home, but with a little more time and preparation I will soon be able to start breeding a heritage flock for preservation purposes as well as for personal production needs. For us newbies, the enjoyment comes from the increasing enchantment we experience when raising these wonderful birds. It's infectious, and I can personally testify to the fact that it spreads through communities. I've personally interacted with a small handful of people at my business who after "talking chicken" with me are now very interested in raising their own birds. The dialog has to begin somewhere, and sometimes it begins with one woman who falls in love with that silly little hatchery chick at the feed store, and then eventually wants to go beyond "average".

 

[gjensen]

True enough with the commercialization and lack of serious "old style" breeders for many of the birds during the 20th century. I see the effects in our flock.

Yes, the show I attended last month was overwhelmingly bantams and the large fowl that was there did not have a lot of breed variety. I saw the judges handle some birds - the birds that looked to me to be standard bred birds. There were a number of what appeared to be hatchery birds that the judges didn't even bother to get out of the cages. It would be difficult for them to handle all the birds if they all were very much alike and required each of them to have a hands on exam to determine the winner. Even with our small flock, it takes a lot of time to go through them all and physically examine each one.

This is why I can't get my head around what more the APA can do to fix this, since the only thing they can do is to pressure the judges. The SOP already says to place emphasis on productive qualities. But without being able to prove to a judge about production, the judge can't really do more than determine that a bird has the correct type for the breed. And obviously judging and placing birds for good type isn't working that well, if we have this problem of breeders breeding unproductive birds.

If the consumer is what can drive the change, then widespread public education is needed. And how does one go about educating them? And who will do it? Is this something that the APA can or should take on? I don't know.

There are so many people buying and selling chickens willy nilly out there, it seems like an almost insurmountable task. You've got to educate the public on the difference between hatchery and standard bred birds and get them to want to go with standard bred birds. Then you have to get them to put pressure on the breeders to breed birds to the SOP and still make sure they are productive. That's a lot of work and I wonder if it is more work than anyone will want to take on.

My position would be that the APA has done enough, and what more they could do would be to emphasize it as an example. It sounds like that are preparing to do that.

I do not know that the judges can do much more. Perhaps Walt could explain what more a judge can do. Regardless, they would judge what we bring them.

I am not sold on the consumer driving any change. Certainly some are interested, and I imagine that some will always be. Maybe more than now, but realistically, how many more? Maybe I am a skeptic, or more skeptical than I should be.

Getting more interested in keeping Standard bred birds is easier, but is still no small task. We cannot take the position that our birds are better than your birds and expect to get anywhere. That turns people away.
I do believe that productive birds sell themselves. If I can have quality NHs that lay 200 eggs a little over 2oz, and provide a reasonable carcass @ 14-16 wks, why would I buy an undersized ugly red bird from a hatchery? The only selling point they have at that point is convenience, and economy. Many will go with that regardless if they are buying half of the bird. Literally.

It would be a definite benefit to the breeds if the hatcheries had an economic incentive to produce better birds than they do, but I wonder if that could be maintained given non selection is part of their game.

We are in a definite minority. Most do not care about what we are discussing. Of course many do, but compared to the overall boom in poultry keeping . . . Most want pretty layers with "good personalities", of pretty colored eggs. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is as far as most will get. I can't see them making any difference either. Can they really ever, other than provide an outlet for our culls? The strength of a breed is the sum of it's parts preserved by individual breeders. Not in how many may have them in their backyard layer flock.

The best hope that the breed's have is that their is a continued interest in exhibiting the birds. That is what saved them before this boom of interest took place, and that is what will save them when this surge of interest settles. And it will. The public will move on to slay other imagined dragons, and much of the backyard poultry community will be put off by birds getting sick. Killing them. Growing weary of cleaning coops from year to year while paying more for their eggs than they would at Walmart. It may be that we will not be able to continue to afford the luxury of this hobby.

I like Joseph's approach to promoting the excellence that can be achieved in this hobby by those that appreciate it. I think that is their best selling point, and encourages an interest in breeding birds. Promoting the joy that is in the effort of breeding birds is their best selling point, and good birds sell themselves. As a result supporting the APA and exhibiting and promoting the breed of choice.

I would not want to take away from that, but I would like to add to it. Like many people that visit this thread, I would like to take these excellent birds and make them more productive. Having my cake, and eating it to. I keep the birds I have because I enjoy them. Not because they are practical, but I would like to be more practical about my selection. As a result making them more practical to keep. They are livestock after all. I expect to do this by simply expecting it of them. I like the idea of raising them as if I did depend on them, because if I did, I sure would expect more. I do not want to needlessly waste. It isn't as if my good will or resources has no end.

 

[maryhysong]

Getting the birds out to the farmer's markets would be great. Although there is such a problem with being allowed to do that - the red tape to be able to sell food like butchered chickens, is unreal in a lot of places. They frequently make it so that only large, well funded farms can afford all the fees and setup to be allowed to sell their farm products.

Yep; I can sell direct to consumer from my 'farm' but to sell at the farmer's market I have to process in a USDA licensed facility; the closest one being around 70 miles away and I don't know if they would do poultry even if I could afford it. We have to work to get a lot of laws changed; just grateful that CA, AZ and other places are putting 'cottage' laws in place for home baked and canned good sales. Still some restrictions and still some red tape but nothing like it was.