Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[SallyinIndiana]

My heritage RIR came from the south and are now in Indiana with me. I find it nice that he mentioned Indiana. My RIR don't seem to mind 25-40F weather but snow oh my they acted like I had come up with a new way to torture them.

 

[Beekissed]

Quote:
I was reading about this and have been reading here and on other threads regarding heritage line chickens and I've often heard people refer to their RIRs, BAs, NHs, etc. laying 5 eggs a week and I get the gist that this is all that can be expected of these breeds when bred from heritage lines to SOP. But I've read several old stock books that describe chickens from back in the 1900s as having similar laying records to the ones detailed above and so was wondering, whose line of heritage birds and what breeds are laying more than 5 eggs a week on average? If they lay more than 5 eggs per week, how many years can they keep up reasonably good production?

Henderson's list the egg laying of the BA as "average", so I'm thinking it's not a very good guide for this information on chickens. Most of the BAs I've ever had down through the years were my most prolific layers with performances comparable to leghorns and RIR.

 

[gjensen]

I was reading about this and have been reading here and on other threads regarding heritage line chickens and I've often heard people refer to their RIRs, BAs, NHs, etc. laying 5 eggs a week and I get the gist that this is all that can be expected of these breeds when bred from heritage lines to SOP. But I've read several old stock books that describe chickens from back in the 1900s as having similar laying records to the ones detailed above and so was wondering, whose line of heritage birds and what breeds are laying more than 5 eggs a week on average? If they lay more than 5 eggs per week, how many years can they keep up reasonably good production?

Henderson's list the egg laying of the BA as "average", so I'm thinking it's not a very good guide for this information on chickens. Most of the BAs I've ever had down through the years were my most prolific layers with performances comparable to leghorns and RIR.

Bee, I believe those charts are useless. I was looking over the ALBC's chart recently, and was thinking someone has had different experiences than myself.

I could not really say what was out there or not. I suspect that concerning standard bred birds that you could still see good numbers with some of the Mediterranean strains. I can say that with some confidence because I believe if I controlled the conditions my birds were in, that my Catalanas would reliably put up good numbers. That is the experience of others as well. I have one hen in particular that lays six a week pretty consistently.

I have not had them long enough to say what they would do over a few years.

The standard bred American breeds that I have had did perform relatively well. I would not have entered them in any contest either. But . . .if someone wanted to put pressure on those things, in time they could have seen improvement.

I do not consider the hatchery birds, mostly, when I think of these things. It has been my experience that the type was so similar between breeds that other than a color pattern difference, I would want to call them all the same. I am sure that there are exceptions.

 

[thedragonlady]

I have to say that it is my worst fear that one of my Langshans would one day knock into my knee and somehow disable me by clawing my face apart. Then I die a slow death by being picked clean by starving birds...

Good think I don't have to worry about that at all in any of my pens. They get 2 chances. The first one is a practice run...second time and they wind up as a delicious and revenge-filled dinner.

What are you thinking "? You are the Human. They are the chickens;. Would you be outraged if your children kicked you in the shins ? I'd have half killed mine.Your attitude is spilling over into your flock.Get your head straight.

 

[Lacy Blues]

Question: with regard to the sex-linked bantam gene... I have one pullet who is a "bantam" but she is huge (at least compared to the other pullets in the same pen. I need to compare her to my large fowl females but I think she's probably at least as big as they are. My question is, since she has the bantam gene, if I cross her with a large fowl male, will she produce small chicks or larger chicks?

Does anybody have any suggestions for me on this? Or should I just use her with a large male next year?

Oh, on the molting of young birds... I hatched last December and those are the young birds that are finishing up their molting now. Would this molt be equivalent to the one usually done at 18 months as there has been a total change in feathers? Will this show me the same things as that later molt? Bob used to say... breed from your older birds who have gone through that first big molt and you will know what you truly have. So, what I'm wondering is, could this situation be considered the same way?

 

[Beekissed]

Bee, I believe those charts are useless. I was looking over the ALBC's chart recently, and was thinking someone has had different experiences than myself.

I could not really say what was out there or not. I suspect that concerning standard bred birds that you could still see good numbers with some of the Mediterranean strains. I can say that with some confidence because I believe if I controlled the conditions my birds were in, that my Catalanas would reliably put up good numbers. That is the experience of others as well. I have one hen in particular that lays six a week pretty consistently.

I have not had them long enough to say what they would do over a few years.

The standard bred American breeds that I have had did perform relatively well. I would not have entered them in any contest either. But . . .if someone wanted to put pressure on those things, in time they could have seen improvement.

I do not consider the hatchery birds, mostly, when I think of these things. It has been my experience that the type was so similar between breeds that other than a color pattern difference, I would want to call them all the same. I am sure that there are exceptions.

So, are most heritage line breeders not breeding so much for production levels but just mainly on body type and such? Or does function follow form? If it does, then it would stand to reason if the SOPs were established back when they were having birds with exemplary laying, that the birds bred to that standard today would also have outstanding laying performances as well, wouldn't it?

I don't mean to make generalizations of all heritage breeds or compare them to this group of BAs described before, but I've read some pretty interesting accounts of laying performances from birds back in that period and I'm curious as to if anyone is duplicating that performance level in their breed here?

 

[rodriguezpoultry]

What are you thinking "? You are the Human. They are the chickens;. Would you be outraged if your children kicked you in the shins ? I'd have half killed mine.Your attitude is spilling over into your flock.Get your head straight.

Or someone could get their feathers all ruffled over something that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously in the first place...but attacking humor works also.

 

[rodriguezpoultry]

One year ago today Bob posted this.........the bold is my doing......when the thread would get off-track, he would always pop-in and redirect it.......missing him today....

Bob was also good at having a good laugh at the random ramblings that occur when poultry people get together. Remember to not take your poultry too seriously.

 

[BGMatt]

So, are most heritage line breeders not breeding so much for production levels but just mainly on body type and such?  Or does function follow form?  If it does, then it would stand to reason if the SOPs were established back when they were having birds with exemplary laying, that the birds bred to that standard today would also have outstanding laying performances as well, wouldn't it? 

I don't mean to make generalizations of all heritage breeds or compare them to this group of BAs described before, but I've read some pretty interesting accounts of laying performances from birds back in that period and I'm curious as to if anyone is duplicating that performance level in their breed here? 

Form allows function. I wouldn't put too much stock into old fairy tales of laying prowess either, your average farm chicken circa 1900 rarely laid more than 100 eggs a year.

Many breeders only breed for form because that's all they care about, they have enough numbers that even an average or subpar layer gives them enough birds to show and that's what they care about. I personally think that is short sighted and poor breeding form as not caring about type and breed characteristics and breeding entirely for performance.

If you want to call yourself a "heritage" breeder (or in some minds a good breeder period) I don't see how you can ignore one or the other. If you ignore the production aspects of your breed you're doing a disservice by not giving them a chance to pull their own weight and defray their own cost which punishes you too. If you ignore breed type and characteristics, you no longer have anything but a mutt.

 

[Beekissed]

Quote:

That would depend on who determines the quality of or the description of a "mutt". If by mutt one means a bird that no longer resembles some SOP silhouette but has amazing function for that particular breed, then it would rely on what is the purpose of a chicken in the first place. From what I can understand, a lot of breeds were established from crossings of this or that other breed to gain meat or laying performance, or both, better feathering or more hardiness under certain weather conditions, etc., and by anyone's definition nowadays, the crossing of several breeds to get an end product that has traits from all of them would be a "mutt". I have a dog like that...amazingly good dog that I would stand behind for many of his amazing traits, but in the end he's still considered a mutt by anyone else.

Then, one takes that mutt and breeds more of the same until all those traits emerge consistently and then you can call it a "breed". In the end, all the pretty feathers and great looking bodies are nothing without a purpose and a chicken's sole purpose is to provide food and breed more just like it that can provide food. If that is the purpose, then one could reasonably say that the breed that supplies the most food, consistently, survives well and breeds more of the same kind, consistently, would be a top specimen in the chicken world...regardless if it meets some standard written long ago by men long dead.

I would say, if one were to be breeding a breed to SOP and it couldn't provide a goodly amount of food to justify its purpose, then it would no longer possess the traits for which one would naturally want to breed a chicken, for chickens are first and foremost food. Or have all breeds just dissolved into hobbies for elitists? If so, then why would any practical person want to call themselves a "heritage breeder"?

Just throwing thoughts around and looking for a light to be shed on some questions.....