Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Our needs are about a dozen eggs a month and a small fryer a week. Unless one is planning on marketing their excess (which I don't) it seems like a good idea to honestly judge the family's needs and choose accordingly. I was drawn to this thread because the whole "chicken as a pet" concept, which is pervasive on this BB, is not me.

My family is redneck on one side and hillbilly on the other. Their concept of dual purpose was a gamecock that could be eaten if necessary. : )

This topic now has me inquiring into dual purpose Bantams as a possible solution to my current space restrictions.

I could keep a few large fowl birds, but I would be able to keep MORE bantam birds, thus opening up my possibilities for a better breeding program. Thanks for the idea guys! I never would have thought about keeping banties otherwise.

Oh, and as for needs, my husband and I are not huge egg users, maybe going through a couple dozen a month, max. And one bantam bird with plenty of side dishes would feed us a great meal. Thinking a large bantam or small large fowl will suit us well for this period of our lives, and keep me in the birds, so to speak, until I have more space for my ultimate goals.

Yep, this is exactly what I decided to do. With the LF for more of a meat bird role

 

[spartacus_63]

Quote:
Oh Bob, you are so full of knowledge and information but surely you can't mean that statement the way it sounds! You out of everyone here have come closest to creating your own strain of exactly what so many of us on this thread want, and I don't understand why there is conflict, but I suspect it might have something to do with comments such as this. It sounds straight up snobby! Ok, if I had birds like yours, I might be a snob about them too...but really!

If I don't show my birds, and it won't be an option as there are no APA shows in Alaska, I will know their value by how many eggs they put in my basket and how many pounds of meat they put in my freezer and how pleasing they are to look at. I will take pleasure in knowing they are a useful animal that adheres at least mostly to the standard, but perhaps not perfectly on all points. I will be proud of the history the birds represent, even if I am not fortunate to lay my hands on the purest of pure bloodlines to start with.

AFTER those things are being improved upon with good success, of course I'm sure all of us intend to breed birds that look as they ought to look. And I believe most of us could pick up a standard, study it, compare it to good examples that we can suss out from the garbage, hopefully with a hands on approach but at least in pictures, and breed towards a bird that would do our grandmother's proud, if not the top APA judges in the country.

I sincerely hope that Heritage will not become a term reserved for show birds. It offers so much more to so many very different situations than that.

I agree HHF. In five years I will not have shown any of my birds except to a prospective client or a curious neighbor, yet I WILL have realized not only the value of my birds but also the value of my time. If my flock is still producing and my goals still being met, then that is proof enough to me of the value of my birds and my effort.

As far as breeding backwards, that would all depend on your destination in reference to your location. Some breed for looks, others for function in priority. I for one am more concerned about the birds structure and vigor first. With out these traits in dominance, the flock will be less capable and more vulnerable.

 

[Robert Blosl]

I used this term breeding back wards to a beginner a few months ago this person has been concerned about her methods of breeding their birds and was worried about going backyards rather than breeding them up. They are so determined to try to be a family that helps breed a rare breed to help preserve them for the future.

They sent me some pictures yesterday of their R I Reds that they have been corresponding to me about. How disappointed I was when I looked at the pictures of the birds that she emailed me.

She could not go no further backyards than she is right now. I don't know how I am going to tell her these are not the Rhode Island Reds I use to breed. She thought she had Mohawk line of Rhode Island Reds but the person selling her eggs on ebay must of used a Indian name like Tomahawk other than my term from the 1940s.

They are the common production reds and even if I had some chicks from her line I could never breed them up in 20 years to the old heritage level.

It seems that 95 % of the people I try to help out are in this level and want to take these kind of chickens and turn them into a heritage type of bird.

It just wont work. They are just to far down the ladder of overall gene type of the breed.

Even the people who have these breeds who show them or line breed them are way down in over all quality these days.

O well. Thats the way it goes some times. bob

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
I know the state fair has a poultry show, and there are several in Washington state.
Quote:
Actually, you will only know their worth *to you*, but not their true worth as a representative of a pure breed of poultry. That takes showing and putting them out there for a critical assessment from an impartial judge. That's what Bob is saying.

Quote:
Then again, the road paved with good intentions leads to, well, you know.

If good intentions were all it takes, we wouldn't have Dominiques that look like rose comb barred rocks, nor would we have anything like "production reds".
Quote:
Anyway, my experience with other purebred animals says that most people are completely incapable of reading a breed standard and sussing out the best representative of the breed in any species. That's why we have shows in the first place, hopefully to select the best representatives according to the standard for future breeding stock. "Kennel blind" doesn't just apply to dog breeders.

Quote:
I believe that "heritage" will eventually become a marketing ploy, a word MOL used to denote a general sense of age, but nothing formal. You won't be able to certify it like "Organic", and there is no poultry registry to confirm pedigree, so it will become a catch all for anything that is not a Cornish rock cross or battery layer. Already I have seen someone refer to "Freedom Rangers" as a "Heritage French Breed" because so and so has been breeding them for "x" number of years... (they're a crossbreed; the free ranging French version of the CornishXRock.)

As an aside, not picking on you HHF, but what is with the "garbage" term? It's a chicken, just not one bred for the showroom. As long as it lays eggs, and or dresses out nicely for the table, it is not "garbage". Referring to a perfectly useful animal as "garbage" strikes me as snobbery, JMHO. For the most part, I think our Grandmothers would be proud we keep any poultry at all.

 

[WallTenters]

This has been a really interesting topic. I really hope that we can continue to get along and enrich each other with our opinions.

When Keith and I first started with the Dominiques, it was purely as a homestead supplier flock. BUT we quickly realized that higher quality birds (yes, bred to standard) were going to suit our needs much better than the rose combed barred rocks

. We, especially I, have learned SO much and am really looking forward to the next hundred years learning! Yes, I fully intend to live that long!

I agree with buffalogal - though I know there are exceptions to the rule, generally it takes an outside eye to really see your birds for what they are. We are all prone to placing favoritism on one trait or another, and before you know it your whole flock is ruined. I think Bob has made an excellent point of this trying to warn us all - there are many articles on his website about how one hen or cockerel can end up "infecting" your whole flock with a bad trait such as a poor topline.

Soon, it has been amplified so much you're not even looking at the same breed. So even though you're still farming a homestead flock, you're not farming a homestead heritage flock. Just as if you only breed for looks and throw out your best producers, you will soon find yourself with a lot of pretty, but otherwise useless birds. HOWEVER, form follows function, and there are reasons for the standard calling for certain things, even if we may not understand them.

I think there is a general misunderstanding (though perhaps it's true in some breeds? I haven't seen it but I'm pretty new to all of this so I can't say it's not out there) that a show bird can't be a good producing bird as well. This is not true. I love speaking to folks that are really passionate about their breed, who show them and work to improve them every year. They have much better producing birds than I have, and I only hope to one day have that ideal egg size/number for my breed. You just have to remember that not every breed of chicken was meant to be an outstanding producer or meat or eggs. Many heritage breeds aren't going to give an egg every day, all year round, or even anywhere close. And no, they aren't going to butcher out at 5lbs carcasses in 8 weeks. But we're working on heritage birds not because they're the most productive, but because these breeds are a part of our history and... at the risk of overusing the wonderful word - part of our heritage.

If we all work to improve our breed and breed them up to the standard, we will one day find ourselves with beautiful AND productive birds.

 

[HaikuHeritageFarm]

Hmm, lots to think about and distract me from work. Thanks a lot, guys!

Actually, you will only know their worth *to you*, but not their true worth as a representative of a pure breed of poultry. That takes showing and putting them out there for a critical assessment from an impartial judge. That's what Bob is saying.

I absolutely agree that an outside opinion is valuable, but I do not think that entering the bird into a show is the only way to obtain that objective perspective. I also do not feel that it alone can decide a heritage bird. IMO, even if a bird scores a 98 out 100 but it doesn't produce worth a flip, it is no more a heritage bird than a production red. I think we agree on this point. It's all about the whole package, and showing a bird no more proves that whole package than packing it into a battery cage and counting how many eggs it's going to poop out in a year. Showing a bird only evaluates the physical traits and condition of a bird on a given day. MY eVALUATION of the bird's performance throughout the year, its hardiness, it's production capabilities, it's worth as a sire or dam, etc. are, IMO, every bit if not far MORE important to the preservation of a "heritage" breed than what physical characteristics a judge is able to eVALUATE on a single given day.

So really, the only way a show could prove the worth of a bird as a representative of a heritage breed is if you had to turn in record books of it's health and production history with sworn statements every time you put it on the table.

Yes, it goes both ways...

And if form follows function, doesn't it make sense that someone that wished to achieve the most useful homestead utility bird would breed towards the type best suited to producing that? In a way, if the standard really outlines the TYPE that is best for production capabilities, and I do believe it does, doesn't it follow that your average joe, through a process of selecting large, meaty birds with deep chests and wide bodies, open pelvis to prevent laying issues, etc that even if selecting just for those things they should be able to end up with a decently typed heritage bird?

But, perhaps I give others too much credit. I seriously doubt I'm a savant, but these are just things that make sense to me. The SOP is based on production ability, so, naturally, a bird exhibiting a high degree of production ability should fit the SOP. Ergo, breeding for production is breeding to the SOP...

Blah. Back to work.​

 

[WallTenters]

Quote:
That's the thing though - the SOP for any breed as being the ideal bird, but instead just the ideal for THAT BREED....

A lab won't be the best sheep herder, no matter how much I want them to be. Sure, I could breed labs and choose the best herders, but pretty soon my labs would be more like border collies and I would not be maintaining the breed, no matter how productive they are in my eyes. If I want a sheep herder, I should just get a border collie, and leave the labs to the hunting and kisses.

If you want the ideal egg layer, get a commercial leghorn or production red. But if you want to homestead with heritage birds, breed them to the standard, and also watch production and growth to make sure it's ideal for that breed.

 

[HaikuHeritageFarm]

We're talking circles. We agree, we just have different ways of saying the same thing, apparently.

And if we don't agree, I will concede to agree to disagree. But I really don't think we're that far off. We have the same goals, I'm sure of it, it's just that I intend to arrive there via a slightly different approach.

 

[WallTenters]

Fine by me. As long as you do it with Dominiques

 

[HaikuHeritageFarm]

Quote:
Dominique LF really do fit my criteria, but it looks to me (and I may be wrong, I have yet to find anyone with them,) that the Dominique Bantam is probably on the smaller end of the banty spectrum compared to some of the others.

There are several good LF on the "Alaska Approved Homestead Bird" list now:

Dominiques
Chanteclers
RC Dorkings
RC RIR or RIW
Wyandottes
Russian Orloffs
Buckeyes

Maybes Include:
Houdans
Crevecours
La Fleche
Hamburgs
Brabanters
McGraws
MAYBE Brahmas, but I've said before and I'll say it again...I just don't have the patience for 'em!

Basically any good dual purpose, rose/pea/walnut combed bird has potential, provided it's on the heavier end and not too lightly feathered. I am very attracted to Houdans and Crevecours, but need to experiment with those crests before I commit. I'm actually looking into their bantam versions, too. Seems like there is a possibility that they might be more readily available in higher quality as bantams, so it could be a good chance to learn the basic type and characteristics before I embark on a major LF improvement project.

So, the bantam list is currently (in order of promising attributes so far researched):

Bantam Wyandotte
Bantam Houdan
Bantam Crevecour
Bantam Buckeye
Bantam Chantecler (Can't find any, have no idea.)
Bantam Dominique (Possibly too small)
Bantam Plymouth Rocks (Big combs!)
Bantam RIR (Big combs! Do they come in RC?)
Bantam Cornish (Same cold hardiness issues I had with LF?)
Bantam Orloff (Also probably too miniaturized.)

Someone else asked earlier in the thread but I don't think it was addressed, does anyone have any background on these bantam breeds? Were they historically useful birds at all, or only miniaturized for fancy? Either way, this should be interesting.