Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[gjensen]

Some excellent points. I maintain only 4 breeding pens of RIR, a trio in each pen plus a dozen or so who didn't make the cut who are just layers, and an extra backup cock for each pen. Haven't counted but, for breeding purposes those numbers aren't bad. I'd like to get my breeding project birds down to those same numbers within the next year and a half. But MY RIR line is a great line and all culling is knit picky.
However, my genetic project is at peak required space right now. I have F1s, F2s, BC1s, BC2s, and am working on the next generations from those. AND, to this point, I have two distinct, unrelated lines of each of those groups (because until recently no one else was doing this project the way it needed to be done imo). By fall of 2016 I hope to have only enough for 4 distinct breeding pens, but you have to cull really deep to get that far. And frequently you can not really realize what you had and can cull too soon if you aren't careful. Those breedings where you realized that that step forward you took has created two steps back? You're better off backing up one step rather than willingly taking the results of the wrong step forward.
In short, what I'm over wintering this year is not an every year thing. It's a means to an end, and finally that end is in sight. If all goes well, that end won't be the headlight of an oncoming train. LOL
And it's nice that someone else is really now taking this project seriously. I now have some of his genetics and am taking him several pullets when I make a trip there in 2 weeks

I certainly was not being critical. I only wish that I could keep those kinds of numbers. It would be nice. There is a lot that I would like to do or try.

I get you on the project. Sometimes you have to make a mess to fix I mess. I get that to.

 

[TeaChick]

Can't complain!

God has been good to me and the blessings just keep flowin'! Will definitely post results of anything that happens with this that I find remarkable, as I love a good experiment.

How are you?

That's great! Thanks, I'll be looking for them. Yeah, I know. =)
I'm alright. Busy and a little tired, but no complaints.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

I used to be a real diehard Salatin fan [...] His live in pretty bad conditions and are not healthy looking at all, so I'd just take his pasture advice and some of the bits about larger livestock and use them, but the man don't know ding diddly dang about how to do chickens, IMO. He's all about the money and not a bit about their health and natural life.

Indeed, although I've never seen his place, I've seen this many times through my involvement in the local food movement over the years. Animal farmers, to be what our heart echo asks for, need first and foremost to be about the animals themselves. And I am a firm believer that being concerned with the nature of your breed is the NUMBER ONE indicator of someone who is truly becoming an animal breeder/farmer worthy of emulation. When we are at the local market, I target one farm because they're registered Herefords on pasture and another because they're registered Nubians.

Some will. Many like the idea of it, but are not sincerely interested in learning to breed productive birds that represent the breed well. That is what I would like to see. People learning to breed good birds, and learning what a good bird is.

I am a sucker for the nostalgia to, but no matter the time and place, a good bird is a good bird. A vigorous healthy flock of good type and color that is genetically sound, and is still relatively productive, is worth something. They are both a pleasure to look at, and a joy to own.

Amen! It's joyful. RIchard Schock's flocks of Minorcas are amazing!

Yes. He is another poultry producer. He feeds purchased birds on grass rather than on litter. He sells and promotes an idea. I am not putting him down, but there is more to poultry than feeding broilers purchased from a hatchery. Any beginner in poultry can buy chicks, pack them in a wire pen, move them regularly, keep them fed and watered, and process them when the time comes. I am not impressed.

Exactly, it has only randomly to do with poultry. When the poultry is the goal, that's a whole different matter.

That implication would not be accurate necessarily. There is a correlation on some level, but all links are not links of necessity. Links can be made, and links can be broken. Feed efficiency is the largest advantage that smaller breeds have concerning laying. The larger breeds often did as well during laying trials, but were left behind because they ate more feed. It is true that laying strains tended to be lighter in weight. Then, they were not selected for anything else.

Hogan saw a connection between breed size, metabolism, and lay rate.

Hogan had a lot of brilliant ideas, but we have learned a lot about production genetics since then. There are main points that may be useful for us today. It is in reality, more of a culling method than a breeding method. Breeders should be proven by their performance, and by the performance of their offspring.

I think it comes down to playing to the logical strengths of the breed shape. It is extremely important to remember that "dual-purpose" is a spectrum, not a specific do on the line of productivity. Putting on flesh and yummy fat and the laying of eggs tend to be negating traits. Dual purpose does not mean both equally but both respectably. Most breeds, which is really to say most, if not all breeds, are better adapted for one than the other, though. That's OK.

Had never had a problem with a pullet molting the first winter before, but if I hatch so early again and have them molt again their first year, then I'll just give up the winter hatching altogether.

We concentrate on Mottleds, although we do have some Blacks and some non-standard colored Javas. We've got two Mottled bloodlines, including the McGraw line birds that Bob Blosl had stumbled upon and rescued.

Molting, especially neck molting but sometimes full molt, in the winter happens to birds that, via being hatched early, peak in maturity and then are exposed to descending light which triggers molt. Birds that do the bulk of their feather during the period of ascending light will molt during the period of descending light.

I think that focusing on Mottled Javas is wise. It goes back to playing to their strengths. The only other Mottled dual-purpose breed is the Houdan, which has other unique points that single it out. When it comes down to it, the most impressive Black dual-purpose bird out there is the Australorp, and they exist in excellent form. They are followed by the Black Orpingtons. Javas simply aren't going to compete with them, but add the mottling and they acquire a kind of aesthetic edge.

Though my flock does represent a few generations, I have nothing of the numbers that you guys describe. Even with what I have, here at the last minute, I am considering not using a few.

I would have to hatch into the thousands to justify a hundred over wintered adults. It is my opinion that it takes 12-16 chicks to know what you can get from a mating. It could be as many as 24. I try to get 8-10 in a season, and hope they are good enough to keep for a repeat the following year. They would have to be especially helpful to use a third or fourth time. So with 20 hens, that is 160 in a year. I am not implying that I do this precisely, but it is a reference. It is how my brain works. So 90 hens would be for me, 720-900 chicks.

The 90 hens number I am using is based on a hundred birds, 10 being males.

As much as I wish that I could hatch that many, I am not set up for that. Even if I was, I would be hard pressed to find 90 hens that I felt was worth the time and expense to feed. I guess that I could if I hatched and grew out 720-900 birds. It still might take a couple years to come up with the 90 hens. The more I had, the more selective I could be.

It is good to hear that some might be able to effectively manage breeding flocks of that size. I am just not one of them.

George has it. If you have 70 breeders then yo're not culling even remotely hard enough, unless you're hatching in the multiple thousands. If you have 15-25 breeders and then a huge laying flock, that's a different story.

 

[3riverschick]

That implication would not be accurate necessarily. There is a correlation on some level, but all links are not links of necessity. Links can be made, and links can be broken. Feed efficiency is the largest advantage that smaller breeds have concerning laying. The larger breeds often did as well during laying trials, but were left behind because they ate more feed. It is true that laying strains tended to be lighter in weight. Then, they were not selected for anything else.

Hogan saw a connection between breed size, metabolism, and lay rate.

Hogan had a lot of brilliant ideas, but we have learned a lot about production genetics since then. There are main points that may be useful for us today. It is in reality, more of a culling method than a breeding method. Breeders should be proven by their performance, and by the performance of their offspring.

Amen to the bold type above. This is where the brilliance of Oscar Smart steps in. Britain's foremost poultry biologist of his day, his "Inheritance of Fecundity in Fowl" (pub. 1921) is a great simple system for breeders to track laying potential in their flocks. Fortunately for us, it is available online at Hathi Trust Digital Library. Yes, it does involve trap nesting. But only between Nov. and Feb. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924003164450;view=1up;seq=3
Smart ( who died very young in 1919) was a contemporary of Raymond Pearl who wrote "Breeding poultry for egg production" (pub. 1911) http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044107218356;view=1up;seq=1 Note in "section a " on page 175 that Pearl did not agree with Smart. Where Pearl had conclusions, Smart developed a successful system based on the reverse of Pearl conclusions in section a . Quite interesting.
Best,
Karen

 

[Beekissed]

I guess I'm a little confused if the premise is that we know more about genetics now than we knew when Hogan first published a pamphlet on it back in 1903....but a book about genetics written in 1911 has the truer information on genetics than Hogans? I guess the take away from that kind of thinking is that anyone who makes good sense to you, no matter when they published their genetic information, is the one more useful to you in your breeding strategies and not necessarily the progressiveness of the knowledge?

 

[DesertChic]

I guess I'm a little confused if the premise is that we know more about genetics now than we knew when Hogan first published a pamphlet on it back in 1903....but a book about genetics written in 1911 has the truer information on genetics than Hogans? I guess the take away from that kind of thinking is that anyone who makes good sense to you, no matter when they published their genetic information, is the one more useful to you in your breeding strategies and not necessarily the progressiveness of the knowledge?

The way I see it, I know we understand more about the genetics in terms of the actual science, such as identification of the particular alleles and their locations on the DNA strand, how they may or must combine to result in certain characteristics, etc. But when it comes to husbandry practices it seems that much was figured out by the early 1900s based on practical observation and application of techniques combined with sound record keeping. They may not have known the specific allele for black vs white vs barred, but they figured out how to pair up the birds for breeding in order to get the results they were looking for based on observations. People like Hogan figured out that examination of the bird's body told you a fair amount about production without needing to resort to the use of a microscope.

 

[Beekissed]

After reading his book, I'm inclined to agree and make the observation that the man seems to have spent his whole life handling birds of different breeds and types and observing these numerous points of interest in regards to laying, fecundity, meat capabilities, etc, as opposed to a group of scientist working on controlled groups of individual breeds for a set period of time, in the interest of big agribiz corporations, doing experiments on individual theories. I could be very wrong about all that but it's the impression I get in articles and studies I've read. I know they have the advantage of having the facilities, the years of study and experiments compiled one atop another, more education perhaps but it all seems to lack the continuity of Hogan's more earthy approach to observing traits.

Hogan's seem to encompass so much of the chicken's anatomy, their developmental growth from chick onward and even up to chickens in the 4-5 yr range, which are not typically studied for commercial poultry biz to any great extent nowadays, if ever. A more hands on approach is always more attractive to me when gleaning knowledge from someone....I want to know it from someone who has had their hands on many a chicken, many breeds, have delved into their anatomy up close and personal and have observed them in all stages of growth, not to mention actually raised their own birds and not shoved that care off on underlings.

 

[DesertChic]

After reading his book, I'm inclined to agree and make the observation that the man seems to have spent his whole life handling birds of different breeds and types and observing these numerous points of interest in regards to laying, fecundity, meat capabilities, etc, as opposed to a group of scientist working on controlled groups of individual breeds for a set period of time, in the interest of big agribiz corporations, doing experiments on individual theories. I could be very wrong about all that but it's the impression I get in articles and studies I've read. I know they have the advantage of having the facilities, the years of study and experiments compiled one atop another, more education perhaps but it all seems to lack the continuity of Hogan's more earthy approach to observing traits.

Hogan's seem to encompass so much of the chicken's anatomy, their developmental growth from chick onward and even up to chickens in the 4-5 yr range, which are not typically studied for commercial poultry biz to any great extent nowadays, if ever. A more hands on approach is always more attractive to me when gleaning knowledge from someone....I want to know it from someone who has had their hands on many a chicken, many breeds, have delved into their anatomy up close and personal and have observed them in all stages of growth, not to mention actually raised their own birds and not shoved that care off on underlings.

I feel the same way! I'm a bit of a science geek and love the minutia of detail discovered by in-depth analysis, but sometimes you just need simple practicality to help guide you. Hogan knew chickens. He dealt with them every day in the real world...not in a lab from 9-5. He's one of those people from the past that I really wish I could just go back in time to spend a day with. I suspect I would learn more from him in that one day than I have in all the days I've spent reading and researching.

 

[bnjrob]

After reading his book, I'm inclined to agree and make the observation that the man seems to have spent his whole life handling birds of different breeds and types and observing these numerous points of interest in regards to laying, fecundity, meat capabilities, etc, as opposed to a group of scientist working on controlled groups of individual breeds for a set period of time, in the interest of big agribiz corporations, doing experiments on individual theories. I could be very wrong about all that but it's the impression I get in articles and studies I've read. I know they have the advantage of having the facilities, the years of study and experiments compiled one atop another, more education perhaps but it all seems to lack the continuity of Hogan's more earthy approach to observing traits.

Hogan's seem to encompass so much of the chicken's anatomy, their developmental growth from chick onward and even up to chickens in the 4-5 yr range, which are not typically studied for commercial poultry biz to any great extent nowadays, if ever. A more hands on approach is always more attractive to me when gleaning knowledge from someone....I want to know it from someone who has had their hands on many a chicken, many breeds, have delved into their anatomy up close and personal and have observed them in all stages of growth, not to mention actually raised their own birds and not shoved that care off on underlings.

This is exactly why I quit worrying about trying to learn more about modern day chicken genetics, at least for a while. There are a few people that raise my breed that can tell you all about this allele and that allele. But in looking at their chickens - I'm not seeing that they have raised birds that look any better than what the rest of us have, and they're not doing it any faster either. There is so much to learn out there, that I figure if our ancestors could raise nice looking, healthy, productive birds hundreds of years ago, without all the fancy scientific equipment, until I have time or get stuck with something, I will use the old fashioned methods that have worked for a long time. After all, I have old fashioned birds anyway.

 

[gjensen]

After reading his book, I'm inclined to agree and make the observation that the man seems to have spent his whole life handling birds of different breeds and types and observing these numerous points of interest in regards to laying, fecundity, meat capabilities, etc, as opposed to a group of scientist working on controlled groups of individual breeds for a set period of time, in the interest of big agribiz corporations, doing experiments on individual theories. I could be very wrong about all that but it's the impression I get in articles and studies I've read. I know they have the advantage of having the facilities, the years of study and experiments compiled one atop another, more education perhaps but it all seems to lack the continuity of Hogan's more earthy approach to observing traits.

Hogan's seem to encompass so much of the chicken's anatomy, their developmental growth from chick onward and even up to chickens in the 4-5 yr range, which are not typically studied for commercial poultry biz to any great extent nowadays, if ever. A more hands on approach is always more attractive to me when gleaning knowledge from someone....I want to know it from someone who has had their hands on many a chicken, many breeds, have delved into their anatomy up close and personal and have observed them in all stages of growth, not to mention actually raised their own birds and not shoved that care off on underlings.

My position is that both men's work makes for a good read. It isn't that one is necessarily better than the other. It is that you have two men with a different perspective, and approach. Where one focused on the merits of individuals, the other focused more on inheritance. That is simply put, but I am only trying to illustrate how I look at it. We also do not know all that either man considered or evaluated etc. All we can see is a summary, the conclusions that they came to, and what they emphasized. Both would be equally hands on concerning experience, just two different approaches.

We do well to incorporate the emphasis from both sides. It is one thing to evaluate the birds, and another to successfully breed them and expect improvement from one generation to another. Both are important, and both should be emphasized. The emphasis shifted towards inheritance, because that is where the progress continued to be made. It is one thing to get layers to 200 eggs by culling effectively, and another to get to 300 eggs. Again this is a simply put illustration, but this environment is not the place for the details.

I think we do well to consider when these were written. They were both written at the beginnings of an industry and a new science. Just 25 years later, we were much farther along. Where these men (and others) laid a foundation, others built upon it. 25 years later we were farther still. I do not say this to discredit the authors, or their work. They were better poultry men then than I will ever be. We may never see poultry men like this again. I do say this so that we can benefit from what came later, and even corrected some of the positions that they held. It would make no sense to religiously adhere to something that is not infallible. On the other hand it would make no sense to dismiss them either.

Hunt's Genetics of the Fowl is a good companion for these two books. Some of it is outdated, but I consider it part of a good foundation like the other two. It is not as hands on, but covers a lot of material on an intermediate level. Then add a couple modern books, which are not cheap, but are interesting. Not necessary of course, but it does interest me. They work great together and one puts the other in perspective etc. It was a good starting point for me anyways.

I like the discussion on books. We are all better for reading them. Regardless what our interests are or emphasis is. All of us that want to get better at what we do, or learn more about what we enjoy, would do well to emphasize reading these books. We are kind of relearning what has been forgotten.