Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[3riverschick]

I have, as well - many thanks, Scott, for the referral to the book. (I have also learned that it's not a good idea to print it off in color....)

Ouch, that gets expensive!

 

[Wynette]

Yeah, I thought I switched the setting to B&W....whoopsie.

 

[LeslieDJoyce]

...
The trap nest text book, . Wellcome, Frank Orville,
1862- [from old catalog] 129 pages .
http://tinyurl.com/qdrnb97
THE ORIGIN OF THE BROWN EGG FAD.
(Written for the Eastern Poultryman.)
...
Let us examine a chocolate colored shell laid by a Plymouth Rock of a
"brown egg strain." We find that the color does not permeate the entire
shell. The inner membrane that first encloses the egg before the shell
is formed is white; the structure of the shell itself is white; the outer
surface of the shell only is brown. It is merely a surface tint from the
brush of the artist Nature serving to distinguish one family from another.
Who can say that birds in their wild state are not guided and aided in
the protection of their species by the color of their eggs
It is said that the color of the flower serves to point out to the bees the
place where honey is to be found and the bee in turn carries the life-
giving pollen to other flowers.
...

Thanks for posting this! I especially liked this part. I touched on this in a big post I made about egg colors a while back. Breeding for egg color is, IMO, one of the cooler art projects ever.

 

[3riverschick]

Oh well this is interesting. I had presumed that because both Dr. Pearl
and Mr. Smart were so highly regarded, that their work on the same
subject would agree in details. Such is not the case.
L1= a trap nest proven good layer.
L2= a trap nest proven average layer
Zero= a trap nest proven poor or non layer.

Page 22 of Mr. Smart's book,
"Dr. Raymond Pearl has suggested that the dam transmits her
fecund factor to her sons and that they, in their
turn, transmit it to their daughters, which in due course
develop it. While admitting the value of Pearl's work
and its correctness in some respects, our own research work
goes to show that in detail it will have to be considerably
modified. Pearl's contention was :—
(1) That an L2 male was one bred from an L2 hen.
(2) That an LI male was one bred from an LI hen.
(3) That a Zero male was one bred from a Zero hen.
The points in which we differ from Pearl can best be
shown by the following statement, which our experience
from the matings of various fecund types suggests to us
as correct:—
(a) L2 hens give both L2 and LI males.
(b) LI hens give both LI and Zero males.
(c) Zero hens give only Zero males.
(d) Exceptions may occur either in the case of dimorphic
or reversionary types, as we have already
explained, but these variations are the exception
and not the rule.
According to our contention, then (and it is supported
by a great deal of evidence collected from our own research
work and from that of other experimentalists), it does not
in the least follow that because a male is bred from an L2
hen that he himself is L2, and therefore able to transmit
L2 to his daughters. He is frequently LI, and our experience
is that LI males will give mostly LI daughters, and some-
times some Zeros. This is a very serious matter, and to
remain in ignorance of it, or not to appreciate it at its true
value, is to run a grave risk of breeding a very high percent-
age of low fecund pullets, if not to ruin the fecundity of
the entire stock."

I am slowly coming to understand that , tho both attributes
are important, what comes out of a female is more important
than the shape of the hen itself.
Best,
Karen

 

[BGMatt]

Oh well this is interesting. I had presumed that because both Dr. Pearl
and Mr. Smart were so highly regarded, that their work on the same
subject would agree in details. Such is not the case.
L1= a trap nest proven good layer.
L2= a trap nest proven average layer
Zero= a trap nest proven poor or non layer.

Page 22 of Mr. Smart's book,
"Dr. Raymond Pearl has suggested that the dam transmits her
fecund factor to her sons and that they, in their
turn, transmit it to their daughters, which in due course
develop it. While admitting the value of Pearl's work
and its correctness in some respects, our own research work
goes to show that in detail it will have to be considerably
modified. Pearl's contention was :—
(1) That an L2 male was one bred from an L2 hen.
(2) That an LI male was one bred from an LI hen.
(3) That a Zero male was one bred from a Zero hen.
The points in which we differ from Pearl can best be
shown by the following statement, which our experience
from the matings of various fecund types suggests to us
as correct:—
(a) L2 hens give both L2 and LI males.
(b) LI hens give both LI and Zero males.
(c) Zero hens give only Zero males.
(d) Exceptions may occur either in the case of dimorphic
or reversionary types, as we have already
explained, but these variations are the exception
and not the rule.
According to our contention, then (and it is supported
by a great deal of evidence collected from our own research
work and from that of other experimentalists), it does not
in the least follow that because a male is bred from an L2
hen that he himself is L2, and therefore able to transmit
L2 to his daughters. He is frequently LI, and our experience
is that LI males will give mostly LI daughters, and some-
times some Zeros. This is a very serious matter, and to
remain in ignorance of it, or not to appreciate it at its true
value, is to run a grave risk of breeding a very high percent-
age of low fecund pullets, if not to ruin the fecundity of
the entire stock."

I am slowly coming to understand that , tho both attributes
are important, what comes out of a female is more important
than the shape of the hen itself.
Best,
Karen

That is the type of thinking that leads to our current commercial birds, which is harmful to the long term impact of the birds. Without the shape and size to support the large number of eggs, the health of the bird and the length of their productive lifespan is drastically shortened. The shape of the bird is therefore very important.

Edit: Of course if we're breeding to the Standard we don't have to worry about that and we can then just worry about what she actually produces. I have found in practice though that Hogan's methods always and I mean always ring true. (at least the laying evaluation part, I never bothered with, and remain skeptical of the skull pre-potency stuff)

 

[Fred's Hens]

I have learned an awful lot from reading the Plymouth rock breed book.....a lot about mating, origins, mistakes to avoid, etc

Along with the SOP, this is the most important book for any Rock head to possess.

 

[3riverschick]

I am slowly coming to understand that , tho both attributes
are important, what comes out of a female is more important
than the shape of the hen itself.
Best,
Karen

That is the type of thinking that leads to our current commercial birds, which is harmful to the long term impact of the birds. Without the shape and size to support the large number of eggs, the health of the bird and the length of their productive lifespan is drastically shortened. The shape of the bird is therefore very important.

Edit: Of course if we're breeding to the Standard we don't have to worry about that and we can then just worry about what she actually produces. I have found in practice though that Hogan's methods always and I mean always ring true. (at least the laying evaluation part, I never bothered with, and remain skeptical of the skull pre-potency stuff)

Edited by BGMatt - Today at 2:08 pm
----
For me this is a complicated subject because here are several ways to view every sentence I write about it. Often I spend a lot of time re-editing my posts to try and make myself clearer. Apparently I failed this time by not realizing the 2 ways which you have taken to dissect it. Yes, you are right in both explanations. I was basing my comments on the knowledge in your quote:
Of course if we're breeding to the Standard we don't have to worry about that and we can then just worry about what she actually produces.
Yes, I was presuming one was already breeding to the Standard and what one was looking for was increased fecundity within a strain of SOP fowl. In other words, all things being equal, determining fecundity by recording egg production was more instructive them physical observation of birds already bred to the Standard. Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it!
Best Regards,
Karen
Still trying to divine whether "physical observation" or "egg production record
keeping " ..is it one or the other? Why don't the 2 sides agree?

Trap nest folk say Hogan is hokum. Hogan says trap nesting isn't necessary. Oh my poor head.

 

[BGMatt]

I am slowly coming to understand that , tho both attributes
are important, what comes out of a female is more important
than the shape of the hen itself.
Best,
Karen

That is the type of thinking that leads to our current commercial birds, which is harmful to the long term impact of the birds. Without the shape and size to support the large number of eggs, the health of the bird and the length of their productive lifespan is drastically shortened. The shape of the bird is therefore very important.

Edit: Of course if we're breeding to the Standard we don't have to worry about that and we can then just worry about what she actually produces. I have found in practice though that Hogan's methods always and I mean always ring true. (at least the laying evaluation part, I never bothered with, and remain skeptical of the skull pre-potency stuff)

Edited by BGMatt - Today at 2:08 pm
----
For me this is a complicated subject because here are several ways to view every sentence I write about it. Often I spend a lot of time re-editing my posts to try and make myself clearer. Apparently I failed this time by not realizing the 2 ways which you have taken to dissect it. Yes, you are right in both explanations. I was basing my comments on the knowledge in your quote:
Of course if we're breeding to the Standard we don't have to worry about that and we can then just worry about what she actually produces.
Yes, I was presuming one was already breeding to the Standard and what one was looking for was increased fecundity within a strain of SOP fowl. In other words, all things being equal, determining fecundity by recording egg production was more instructive them physical observation of birds already bred to the Standard. Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it!
Best Regards,
Karen

Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

I think the important takeaway is no matter which method you use, it's important to pay attention to the production of your birds. Our 'Heritage" fowl should be productive and earn their keep, not just a pretty picture of the past. These birds are a living history, and there is NO reason to not have them pull their own weight. I know an unfortunate number of people that keep a flock of standard bred birds for showing and then buy hatchery stock for eggs, or commercial meat birds for meat, why? If you pay attention you can do both with one flock.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a 'layer" pen too, but it's not hatchery junk, it's just odds and ends that I've collected and either am not breeding, or I had a pair and something happened to the male, a breed I'm just trying out etc etc etc. Guess that makes it more of a "pet" pen, but I hate applying the "p" word to our livestock. Poultry are NOT pets, never have been, never should be.

 

[3riverschick]

Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding you.

I think the important takeaway is no matter which method you use, it's important to pay attention to the production of your birds. Our 'Heritage" fowl should be productive and earn their keep, not just a pretty picture of the past. These birds are a living history, and there is NO reason to not have them pull their own weight. I know an unfortunate number of people that keep a flock of standard bred birds for showing and then buy hatchery stock for eggs, or commercial meat birds for meat, why? If you pay attention you can do both with one flock.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a 'layer" pen too, but it's not hatchery junk, it's just odds and ends that I've collected and either am not breeding, or I had a pair and something happened to the male, a breed I'm just trying out etc etc etc. Guess that makes it more of a "pet" pen, but I hate applying the "p" word to our livestock. Poultry are NOT pets, never have been, never should be.

Why don't Hoganists and trap nesters get along? why does each side say the other is unnecessary?

 

[BGMatt]

Why don't Hoganists and trap nesters get along? why does each side say the other is unnecessary?

I don't know. I think the big difference is the Hogan Method tells us about current and future production, while trap nesting doesn't tell us anything about future production or offspring's production, only past. As you pointed out it doesn't take the body or shape of the bird into account, but we know these are important for consistency. I've used both, and found them to be complimentary (by which I mean, each has confirmed the others findings), but Hogan's method is a lot less work and fuss, especially for newcomers to use and learn. What I have NOT found is there is no correlation between a good laying bird and having good laying offspring according to Hogan's Method. I have ALWAYS found that a bird that scores well on his system, and conforms to the standard will almost ALWAYS produce good producing and good scoring offspring. Which is why I have never bothered confirming the pre-potency theory.

Edit: I guess in my rambling I actually answered the question. Trap-nesting is limited in that it only measures past production. I have never had trap-nesting not confirm the Hogan method, except I've always found the Hogan Method correct for future production as well, which makes trap nesting not needed.