Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[finnfur]

I think you automatically assumed I would/wouldn't be doing certain things and that's not very productive when giving advice.. thanks for the warning though.. and thank you everyone else leaving your insight and giving advice. It's all taken in and food for thought and will be applied to my decision making.

Cody I think you will do great - there is a lot of good information on this thread- don't hesitate to ask-Good luck in your choice

. Even worse are those who think it's perfectly fine to eat a chicken that doesn't have a name but the minute you put a name on one, it's no longer humane to eat it.

I don't know but can tell ya for sure "Bob " was delicious.

 

[RedRidge]

If you have never had chickens before, I would suggest you start with day-old hatchery chicks to learn basic chicken-keeping. If you enjoy being a flock keeper, you can gradually upgrade your flock to the breed of your choice as time and finances permit. My parents, siblings and I have regularly ordered hatchery chicks over the past 40 years with uniformly good results; they are consistently healthy, vigorous and reasonably priced. These large companies are professionals and generally far more reliable than the poultry equivalent of puppy mills, no matter how cutesy their blogs or Facebook pages. I would also suggest you build all your coop/run before you bring home your first chick, and build it as strong and predator-proof as if their lives depend on it, (because it does!) But first and foremost, be certain your city ordinances, neighborhood covenants, rental agreement and the like will ALL permit chickens on your property.

Best wishes,

Angela

A question on this point - I decided to start with hatchery chicks (from Ideal), partly because of the monetary investment and the anticipated learning curve but also because I have a few breeds I'm interested in and wanted to start with a few of each to get a feel for them. 
My question is - how representative do you think hatchery birds are as far as breed temperament?  Will I really learn about keeping New Hampshires, for example, or are hatchery birds very different from breeder stock?
Unfortunately, it appears no one within a hundred miles keeps the breeds I'm looking for so the only way to get acquainted seems to be to just dive in. 

I haven't read the other replies but will tell you in my experience there is NO comparison. I raise standard bred RIR. The hatchery birds are flightier, and the cocks are mean. I keep at least 6 standard bred cocks and they are sweet as honey. Do not judge a breed based on hatchery stock. As fat as RIR, hatchery birds aren't even all RIR genetics, they've had Leghorns and others breed into them over the years so they really aren't the same thing at all.

 

[RedRidge]

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

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

 

[Beekissed]

I agree 100%. An effective yearly cull not only removes undesirable genetics but it also decreases stocking rates and stress on the soils, restores normal social structure of the flock, frees up coop space, decreases a strain on the flock owner's time and resources. Mastering that one skill can turn flock tending from stressful and problematic to a pleasant and orderly undertaking.

One who culls effectively each year never has to worry about if little Marcy is getting picked on by the other hens, about all the noise and trouble keeping "extra" cockerels, about that one chicken limping and unable to mount the roosts or get a place at the feeder, about the chicken that is perpetually broody, etc. All those birds would be meeting a humane death and be repurposed for food and the flock restored to normal production, health and social behaviors, while feeding and penning routines are reduced to practical and efficient ways.

 

[gjensen]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Beekissed]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree! And not because I feel like folks just need to toughen up~which I do~but because it's just that crucial to poultry as a whole. Poultry everywhere. It's very easy to keep and maintain good genetics in any species that is a food animal simply because culling them has the added benefit of producing food for something or someone else.

Whenever any animal is taken out of the food chain and has no natural predators(chickens kept in Ft. Knox situations) this is a recipe for disaster. Add the need to give meds to maintain the health of animals raised in such a system and you start to see the downfall of a species. At that point there is no breeding of only the strong survivor animals. The species as a whole will suffer a slow but imminent lessening of strong genetics until they are pretty much all the same.

Individual breeds are already showing that lessening of quality as they are bred more for pets than for utility....the Buff Orpington, IMO, is one of these breeds. Used to be a fine utility bird, a true dual purpose of hardy nature and good laying, good on forage and feed thrifty. Now it's the Golden Retriever of the poultry world due to the high demand for it as a pet chicken and all the health issues have come along with it. Now they are prone to overeating, saggy crops, oviduct prolapse and the resulting egg binding, poor feathering, etc. In short, their performance is now iffy and they don't live long lives as a layer bird, nor are they really any good as a dual purpose, unless they have been carefully bred by a breeder for all their original good traits they are only good for pets...and not even for that because now they have health issues that cut their lives too short.

 

[gjensen]

I agree! And not because I feel like folks just need to toughen up~which I do~but because it's just that crucial to poultry as a whole. Poultry everywhere. It's very easy to keep and maintain good genetics in any species that is a food animal simply because culling them has the added benefit of producing food for something or someone else.

Whenever any animal is taken out of the food chain and has no natural predators(chickens kept in Ft. Knox situations) this is a recipe for disaster. Add the need to give meds to maintain the health of animals raised in such a system and you start to see the downfall of a species. At that point there is no breeding of only the strong survivor animals. The species as a whole will suffer a slow but imminent lessening of strong genetics until they are pretty much all the same.

Individual breeds are already showing that lessening of quality as they are bred more for pets than for utility....the Buff Orpington, IMO, is one of these breeds. Used to be a fine utility bird, a true dual purpose of hardy nature and good laying, good on forage and feed thrifty. Now it's the Golden Retriever of the poultry world due to the high demand for it as a pet chicken and all the health issues have come along with it. Now they are prone to overeating, saggy crops, oviduct prolapse and the resulting egg binding, poor feathering, etc. In short, their performance is now iffy and they don't live long lives as a layer bird, nor are they really any good as a dual purpose, unless they have been carefully bred by a breeder for all their original good traits they are only good for pets...and not even for that because now they have health issues that cut their lives too short.

Good post Bee.

Breeding birds, or any animal, is another level of responsibility and involves hard choices. I breed chickens because I can use them as they were intended to be used. I love dogs, and was always interested in breeding German Shepherds. I love the breed. I never have because I never felt that I was in a situation where I could properly train and evaluate the breeders. I feel that they need to be proven at a high level. Instead I will enjoy the labors of others. That is a level of responsibility that I was not prepared to make. It is a big responsibility and requires dedication. I admire those that consistently produce good, sound, working dogs.

The day I start going backwards, and stop making progress with my birds, I will quit doing it all together. I will have no chance of getting anywhere at all settling for mediocrity when comparing birds within my own flock and the birds that I started with. If I cannot make progress or if I am taking them the wrong way, I will concede and allow someone more qualified and experienced to enjoy their craft. I am not saying that someone new should give up, but make the necessary decisions to get better. I have a lot to learn, and am learning a lot.

As RedRidge mentioned, our best birds are in the top 5-10%. Now what do we do with the other 90%? I hope it isn't that we breed them. I can see sharing the next 20% as breeders to start other flocks, but hypothetically, that leaves another 70%. Half of those are pullets that can be shared locally, but that leaves at the bare minimum 35% of the birds hatched for the chopping block.

I have no issues with people breeding ornamentals, though that is not my interest. Providing they are breeding healthy, sound, and vigorous birds. It still requires hard choices along the way. I do wish that we could get a better sense of what they were (and could be), and be faithful to it.

 

[Beekissed]

Slightly off topic but still in the realm of the judicious cull, I know that much has been said about hatchery stock and how they've introduced leghorn blood into many of the breeds to increase laying, but that's not uncommon and was just how some breeds were developed and other breeds improved upon back in the day. I don't know that it's such a bad idea to still utilize these methods of breeding, though not on the mass scale of the hatcheries. I think that's their only problem...they are not culling and breeding carefully to use these traits effectively while still maintaining the integrity of the original breed.

For instance, the Australorp. It was developed when breeders were attempting to increase laying performance of imported Orpingtons.

Quote:
Of course, the BA is no longer considered a true Orpington and has become a breed in its own right, but think of what they were trying to do. I think we have gotten so hung up on breeding to the standard for some breeds that we've forgotten that these original breeders were trying various other breeds in their flock to improve this or that trait in their chosen breed. Mostly the laying, feathering or meat characteristics.

I think that's what bothers me the most when I see folks disparage hatchery stock so badly. Yeah, they aren't ideal and they are not often fully resembling their breed of origin but I can see where one could incorporate their superior laying genetics into a standard bred flock and improve both in the doing of it. Half the work is done and we need no longer breed full leghorn, Minorcas, Langshan blood into the breed, though I'm sure those traits will still pop up now and again and have to be bred out. I think it would just take a steady hand, a good eye and judicious culling to gain greater laying productivity in our standard bred stock.

At least, that's my amateur take on it all and I could be just dreaming pipe dreams here but I still don't find hatchery stock as repugnant as most folks. They may be mutts but they are mutts that work and I love a working animal. I don't feed anything that doesn't earn its keep here, so utility is high on my priority list.

 

[bnjrob]

Slightly off topic but still in the realm of the judicious cull, I know that much has been said about hatchery stock and how they've introduced leghorn blood into many of the breeds to increase laying, but that's not uncommon and was just how some breeds were developed and other breeds improved upon back in the day. I don't know that it's such a bad idea to still utilize these methods of breeding, though not on the mass scale of the hatcheries. I think that's their only problem...they are not culling and breeding carefully to use these traits effectively while still maintaining the integrity of the original breed.

For instance, the Australorp. It was developed when breeders were attempting to increase laying performance of imported Orpingtons.


Of course, the BA is no longer considered a true Orpington and has become a breed in its own right, but think of what they were trying to do. I think we have gotten so hung up on breeding to the standard for some breeds that we've forgotten that these original breeders were trying various other breeds in their flock to improve this or that trait in their chosen breed. Mostly the laying, feathering or meat characteristics.

I think that's what bothers me the most when I see folks disparage hatchery stock so badly. Yeah, they aren't ideal and they are not often fully resembling their breed of origin but I can see where one could incorporate their superior laying genetics into a standard bred flock and improve both in the doing of it. Half the work is done and we need no longer breed full leghorn, Minorcas, Langshan blood into the breed, though I'm sure those traits will still pop up now and again and have to be bred out. I think it would just take a steady hand, a good eye and judicious culling to gain greater laying productivity in our standard bred stock.

At least, that's my amateur take on it all and I could be just dreaming pipe dreams here but I still don't find hatchery stock as repugnant as most folks. They may be mutts but they are mutts that work and I love a working animal. I don't feed anything that doesn't earn its keep here, so utility is high on my priority list.

There is a place for hatchery and standard bred. For most people's needs, I think hatchery will fit their needs just fine whether they want eye candy, eggs, or meat. It's a lot of work to breed to the standard. And when you are also concerned about production, adding that on top of SOP breeding makes even more work.

 

[Beekissed]

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.