Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[3riverschick]

Epigenetic effects can have a significant impact on development of an organism. There are indications that those epigenetic effects may sometimes be heritable. Which is something a lot of folks "know" by observation but science has been slow to document. It's not easy to document and there is considerable argument about what is really going on - particularly regarding heritability and how that might work. Here's an article that discusses epigenetics, although it does not relate directly to chickens:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

And this article on genetic imprinting may relate to why some birds are prepotent - able to stamp their characteristics on their offspring regardless of the quality of their mate. The article relates mostly to mammals. The process likely occurs in chickens too but the specifics may be different:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/imprinting/index.html

Sarah

HI Sarah,
Ok, now you got my attention. Especially in the bold text above. For years
I did a private evidence-based study in dogs relating to enhancing the immune
system by helping create a better foundation upon which the immune system
could mature after the puppy was born. Ended up as a written Protocol for
raising puppies during the neonate period. I spent about 10,000 hours over
4 years doing that. I see a parallel here and was just starting to research it
when this study came up via the www.ixquick.com engine, my fav.
And here it is, fascinating, I haven't finished reading it yet:
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisp...n-in-the-chicken-by-neonatal-programming.html
Best,
Karen

 

[colburg]

On the subject of prepotency:

Chapter IX of The Call of the Hen. By Walter Hogan

Has anyone tested the organ of amativeness theory? Universities? Hatcheries? Backyarders? Any published results?

Fred, do you notice that your matings with the largest skull have the best prepotency? Is this the reason I've seen you mention breeding for larger skulls? I've seen you talk about it many times on various threads.

colburg

 

[Beekissed]

Short answer: Yes they may have different results in their lines because environment plays a role in the end results.

Longer answer: Genes give a road map but the environment affects how the genes are expressed. Different genes may be turned on or off by different factors in the environment. Feed and forage are a big part of environment but there are also weather conditions, ventilation issues, lighting changes, housing differences, pathogen and predator differences which can all be triggers for epigenetic effects (effects of the environment on genes and the way they function).

Epigenetic effects can have a significant impact on development of an organism. There are indications that those epigenetic effects may sometimes be heritable. Which is something a lot of folks "know" by observation but science has been slow to document. It's not easy to document and there is considerable argument about what is really going on - particularly regarding heritability and how that might work. Here's an article that discusses epigenetics, although it does not relate directly to chickens:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

And this article on genetic imprinting may relate to why some birds are prepotent - able to stamp their characteristics on their offspring regardless of the quality of their mate. The article relates mostly to mammals. The process likely occurs in chickens too but the specifics may be different:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/imprinting/index.html

You don't have to know any of this stuff to breed chickens. Most of it was "discovered" in the last couple of decades. But the folks who said "buy from south to north" knew from experience that this kind of stuff happens, even if they didn't know how it worked.

Sarah

Thank you for the thorough explanation and links on that! That's what I was looking for on the topic. I was wondering how widely those variances could account for the differences people are seeing on birds shared from the same line and how one would measure that vs. individual husbandry methods, the old nature vs. nurture argument.

From what I understood of the one article if the lines were in the same environment, fed the same feeds, exposed to the same environment one would not even know it until the fourth generation of any epigenetic changes. But, with these lines being scattered like seeds to the wind, how soon would the lines change entirely due to the wide variances in the environments, husbandry methods, etc? Which could make a case for a way to actually strengthen the original line in some ways by breeding the better variances back to the old line at the old environment...but wouldn't that just change right back within 4 generations again at the old location?

At that point, would each line at different points of the globe, being raised in their individual specifications really only be what they will be where they are at after the 4 th generation, no matter what other genetics were introduced into the mix? If so, can improvements to a line only be environmentally specific and cannot be repeated if that line were moved to a new location? If that were the case, it would be somewhat impossible to improve a western line with eastern blood after the 4 th generation or am I seeing this as too black and white as it's epigenetics and DNA that makes the line? How much influence over the line does these epigenetics have?

At that point, it would be somewhat like folks who say they can't keep coccidia out of their soils where they live and so cannot use the advice from someone at another location...wouldn't advice from an eastern breeder on a western line~ vice versa~ be minimally relevant as one would have to take in the fact of epigenetics when tempering that advice?

Hey beekissed, congrats on your Educator award!

Thank you! That happened a good while back and I don't exactly know why or from whom but it was very nice...but I don't really feel like an educator..more like a student here. Always a student.

 

[Fred's Hens]

Yes, I like a nice head, nice and wide as well. I'm well aware of the theories from Hogan's era about skull shape. I remember him referencing this to humans, as in trust a fellow with this shaped head and don't trust a fellow with that shaped head. Aways make a guy take his hat off before having dealings with him, was a memorable Hogan philosophy.

You gotta take a lot of old time stuff with a healthy grain of salt. Let's just leave it at that. Take the good, leave the questionable. I like a big head because I believe it looks better, healthier and closer to the SOP on my birds, but not because I share the ideas of Hogan's era about head influencing human character or that head shape in birds demonstrates pre-potency.

 

[Fred's Hens]

Let me tell you all a story from when I was a little boy coming up. Maybe it will help, maybe not a lick, but old guys like to tell stories, so here goes.

I cared for 200-250 birds every year since I was 7 years old. I had to brood them, bury the ones that didn't make it, water them, feed them, tend them and so forth. I say so may chickens you cannot imagine. One two breeds at our place, White rocks and White Leghorns. Couple hundred white Leghorns. All white birds, right? yup. All alike, right? One just like the other, right? Nope.

You got so, even as just a boy, you could tell them apart. You could just notice a good head, the slightest differential in combs shape and fit. My job on the butchering assembly line that was the family's activity was the hooker and chopper. I used a fowler's hook, grab them up, take them to the block, lay his neck and head out and chop. 220-230 times. Head after head. You were "judging" heads, if you will, for hours at a time. Buckets and buckets of chicken heads to go bury. Might sound gruesome, but it just was what it was.

You handled every bird. I could tell their weight to within an ounce or two, I reckon. You could feel their keels and breasts, hold their legs (saying to yourself, "nice thick legs") or say, (whoa! there's a strong one.) and judge, judge, judge each and everyone. In a sub-conscience way perhaps, but that's what was happening.

To this day, I can walk into a pen of a hundred or two hundred, virtually identical birds to the uninitiated, and my eyes see individual birds, not just blurs of sameness that other might see, I don't know.

Still learning. Still listening. Still growing, I hope.

 

[cbnovick]

'Tis the season....Show season that is and I have some "heritage large fowl" up and coming prospects for the Tucson, AZ -APA sanctioned show (@1100 birds).

Got some photos to share...if every one will indulge me??

First up, is a Buff Rock 17 week pullet (Roebuck bred and I hatched)...hoping that tail and hackle finish real soon.







Next is my BO pullet (Dragonlady sire via hatching eggs from Jim Hall) at almost 18 weeks...length of back is better than depicted here. Again with waiting on the tail to finish.






Last but not least....an 8 month old NH pullet in lay bred by XW poultry (Jeremy) who came out west to add to be one of the breeders for 2014's F2 generation of this german sired /Good Shepherd strain hen cross. One cannot appreciate her chrome yellow legs with just a hint of horn wash due to the grass hiding them.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Yes, I like a nice head, nice and wide as well. I'm well aware of the theories from Hogan's era about skull shape. I remember him referencing this to humans, as in trust a fellow with this shaped head and don't trust a fellow with that shaped head. Aways make a guy take his hat off before having dealings with him, was a memorable Hogan philosophy.

You gotta take a lot of old time stuff with a healthy grain of salt. Let's just leave it at that. Take the good, leave the questionable. I like a big head because I believe it looks better, healthier and closer to the SOP on my birds, but not because I share the ideas of Hogan's era about head influencing human character or that head shape in birds demonstrates pre-potency.

It is, however, helpful in gaging general size. Often comparing two like birds skull-skull helps one recognize which is actually the larger, broader bird.

Which, of course, Fred knows....

 

[Arielle]

So, what does that mean for the heritage stock chick hatched at Farmer A's farm and shipped to Farmer B's farm? That they will automatically have different results in their lines, even if they feed the exact same ration because the environment has changed? What things in that environment~other than the local pathogens that could effect growth rates~could affect the course of their development per genetic predisposition?

THs was a point that BOb BLosl often mentioned. A change in location effected the phenotype of the bird. I'm sure I can't describe it like he does, so I will leave that to others.

 

[MagicChicken]

Quote:
LOL! Bee, I am going to give you some advice that I got from your old-timers thread (and others) way back when. It goes for all of us. Especially me.

Don't get all wrapped around the axle about this stuff. Breed chickens. The birds will tell you if you are improving things or not. If you have a specific breed, breed toward the standard. If you are raising your own backyard mixed-breed flock, breed toward whatever standard is in your head. Most of us want healthy productive chickens. So breed from the healthiest, most productive, best-looking chickens you've got. If the next generation is better, great. If the next generation is worse, change what you are doing. In Bob's words, KISS. Keep it simple!

If you get birds from somewhere else, know that they may react differently at your place. Be prepared to hatch and cull a lot until they have stabilized and are back on track, having adapted to the new location.

Kicking the can down the road...

Sarah

P.S. Most of what I know about raising chickens has come from Beekissed and Bob Blosl and Walt and from many of the other folks on this thread. For which I am hugely grateful. Without you all I wouldn't have had a clue. Thank you.

 

[Arielle]

Magic, that is SO very interesting to me. I purchased some birds from a breeder in Florida in February; they're single combed, and GOODNESS they have honking huge combs. I have the exact same breed, and live in Michigan. The breeder told me that the birds bred in Florida have larger combs due to the comb helping to dissipate heat, and that through the years, they've adapted to heat by (in one way) increasing comb size. My first thought was....HUH? I thought she'd gone off her rocker. But, the longer I thought about it, the longer it made sense. I'll find out for myself in a few years, I guess, as I'm keeping that line pure on my farm. If I see comb size diminishing, I guess that'd fall under the proof being in the pudding.

THis has happened in humans and other animals too, though most people don't recognize the adaptations. It becomes part of the genetic footprint. In colder regions extremities get smaller. For example, THe artic fox has much smaller ears than all other fox. ANother example: In the Inuits the ears are smaller and the fingers shorter and the body thicker. Environment has a way of applying pressure to the genetics it is presented with. Survival of the fittest has many levels of meaning.