Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[gjensen]

I have a question about selecting for egg production.

I read that high producing egg layers only last for a couple years or so. Many dual purpose old breeds will keep laying many more years than that, yet they don't lay as many eggs in a year.

So, my question is, if you have a Standard bred dual purpose breed and you select toward better egg production, will they lay 200 eggs a year for only a couple years? Or will they lay 200 eggs a year for many years?

In other words, are you increasing total egg production for the life of the hen?

It is my opinion that 200 eggs in a year is a good balanced number. I do not see 200 as a high number. Also the 200 number is just a number used to illustrate an idea.

That is kind of what I was trying to communicate. My position would be that I expect my hens to be good layers, but I have no desire to see birds burned out on the extreme end of it. On the other hand, the last thing I would want is a hen that is a poor layer over a long life. She would have been useless enough to begin with. She certainly would not help her breed's case any.

And no a bird that lays 200 eggs in her hen year will not keep laying 200 eggs. The quantity will decline year to year, and I think that is acceptable and expected.

Increasing total egg production and the life of the hen? Depends on the hen, and how long she lives, and how long you chose to keep her.

This is in part why I mentioned my thoughts. My focus is the main points. When they come into lay, when they molt, how long it takes them to molt, and egg size.

A breed that should come into lay around 24wks., but takes 32-34 weeks is starting to lay so late that she may wait until Feb. before she really gets going. If that extends her life . . .well, I do not want it extended. And I do not think she is any more likely to live longer anyways. Then if she only lays medium sized eggs and is a large to extra large breed, she is eating a lot of feed to do what little she is. In fact she is prone to getting fat, laying less, and having a short life.

Molting later instead of earlier is not going to take years off of her life. The season is just extended a bit.

And if they lay 200 eggs early in life . . . .(this is how I picture my Cats) . . . 220-180 first year. 200-160 second year. 160-140 third year. 140-120 fourth year. If I had something along these lines in a hen of mine, I would be tickled. And they all do not have to be at that level. It would be unreasonable to expect some breeds to do that.

There are some breeds that do not live long and are very poor layers. I think concerning life and longevity, the extremes should be avoided. Whether it physical extremes, or performance extremes.

 

[hellbender]

~~ inversely related. Say what?

Sounds like one of those "Math" terms!!

Say it ain't so ! , and while you're at it, please define it.
Thanks,
Karen

I know exactly what he meant...actually it's almost self explanatory but for additional definition and clarity, please request info from call ducks.

 

[MagicChicken]

Quote:
In an inverse relationship the things do the opposite of each other. So, in the chicken-related example, as body size gets bigger egg size supposedly gets smaller. And vice versa. (Other posts have debated the details of this specific size/egg relationship. I'm not going there.)

Sarah

 

[hellbender]

In an inverse relationship the things do the opposite of each other. So, in the chicken-related example, as body size gets bigger egg size supposedly gets smaller. And vice versa. (Other posts have debated the details of this specific size/egg relationship. I'm not going there.)

Sarah

 

[call ducks]

Quote: Yes there is a direct correlation between egg capacity (in both laying and size capacity's). In my flock of Sussex, I know with out certainty that the light smaller birds well lay better, larger eggs than my heavier hens.

Take Cornish for example and they lay small, eggs and you might get 3-5 per week. Now you could say that is because of shape but that is not fully true. Because a wider broader back should allow more room for larger eggs but that is not the case.

Have you ever wondered why a leghorn is such a small chicken but can produce such large eggs? It is not just because of their breeding nor there shape. The shape allows more room in the ova-duct thus allowing more eggs to be on the go at once - but it does not influence size.

Any way belive what you want to. I will belive what I want to.

 

[call ducks]

Quote:
Soo It makes sense to me but not all.... Ohh good god I love my brain some times....

The large the hen the smaller the egg. There is a inverse (or upside down) relationship to the size of the hen and the size and productivity of said hen.

You could use inverse coloration and that should maybe help you?

Trust me... I don't do math so I try not to use those witchery words!

 

[thedragonlady]

Soo It makes sense to me but not all.... Ohh good god I love my brain some times....

The large the hen the smaller the egg. There is a inverse (or upside down) relationship to the size of the hen and the size and productivity of said hen.

You could use inverse coloration and that should maybe help you?

Trust me... I don't do math so I try not to use those witchery words!

Big chickens DO lay big eggs. My Orp hens all lay extra large to Jumbo eggs. Here is a photo of Dolly at three years. I have 5 pullets out of her in my flock, and 2 double grandsons. She started laying at 5 months old to the day, as do her daughters.They all lay through heat and cold, for about 9 -10 months. Dolly is a 9 lb. hen, and her daughters are large also.There is a lot of meat on their bones, particularly breast meat. My understanding of Orps in the past is that they were kept as layers, until they ceased to pay their way, at which time they became Sunday dinner.The cockerels became dinner at 6 -7 months old, and had plenty of meat.This flock certainly meets that criteria.

Dolly, on left, at 3 years, just coming out of molt. Her grand daughter is below at one year.

2 of Dolly's cockerel grandsons at barely 6 months old.Plenty of meat on those boys, but both have been retained for breeding.

 

[gjensen]

Farther into the past there was a few that thought there could be a relationship between size and level of productivity to include size. You can find some references to this in old literature. We were in our infancy concerning the genetics behind these things.
Since then we have found that these assumptions were based on the genetics they had to work with. Laying genetics, is not linked to size. It is a separate subject all together. Tendency (which is more about history and past selection) and positive inseparable links are two different things.

What has enhanced this misconception is that it has been discovered that breeding a large bird, and lets say with a bantam, that though the offspring would be intermediate of the two . . .the egg size would trend more on the larger size. The results could be like the birds being half the size of the large birds and the eggs being 3/4 the size. It is not so much proof of egg size, vs bird size as it is how the genes are inherited.
It is true that proportionally bantams can tend to lay larger eggs. What this represents is a natural resistance against a reproductive ideal. Kind of like the bantams tendency to get larger, and a larger breed tends to get smaller. There is a natural genetic drift back toward jungle fowl size. Some breeders call that drifting back towards mediocrity. We have to apply genetic pressure to maintain size etc on ether side of the spectrum.

The largest eggs I know of are from large breeds. Egg sizes that would handicap a smaller bird.

Consider the historic reputation of the Minorca. The largest of all of the Mediterranean breeds. They also had the reputation of laying the largest eggs. They also laid them in high numbers, and were used in commercial operations.This logic just does not make sense.
They were replaced by commercial leghorns, but the reason is that the smaller body sizes required less feed for body maintenance. They also come into lay sooner, but these birds were expendable. Living no more than two years. And they certainly never laid the egg sizes that the Minorca did.

If someone wanted to, they had the resources, and some beyond me motivation to do it, they could breed a Leghorn the size of a Jersey Giant and get ultra high production. It just does not make any sense to do it. That would be a huge amount of wasted feed from a commercial standpoint.

A small light framed Sussex is no Sussex at all. They could be called production Sussex etc, but in reality the only thing they would have in common with real Sussex is a color pattern. What makes a breed a breed is it's type. Then what it does. It should look and perform like a Sussex.

There is nothing morally wrong with taking Sussex and breeding them lighter and smaller etc. However, there is a point where they could and should no longer be called Sussex. The breeder has changed them into something else. If I take German Shepherds and bred them to half size, and with lighter frames, then they are no longer German Shepherds. They are something new.

That would be like calling New Hampshires, Rhode Island Reds. The NH was developed from RIRs alone, but they changed them enough that they turned them into another breed all together. If this logic was not the case, then every breed of dog we have is still a wolf. Even the little Mexican Hairless dogs.

Every breed has defining characteristics, and the reason we have a standard. We can do as we please, but we should be sensible enough to understand that the changes we make is changing something into something else. If I am looking to purchase good Sussex, then that is what I am looking for. If I want a light framed layer of no particular importance, then I am going to purchase some hybrid layers that I can expect an industries resources in developing the most efficient birds possible. I can get mediocrity at a livestock auction.

I will concede that I have a yard full of mediocrity. My goal is not to continue down that road however.

 

[NeilsHamburgs]

Soo It makes sense to me but not all.... Ohh good god I love my brain some times....  

The large the hen the smaller the egg. There is a inverse (or upside down) relationship to the size of the hen and the size and productivity of said hen.

You could use inverse coloration and that should maybe help you?

Trust me... I don't do math so  I try not to use those witchery words!

So an ostrich should lay an egg about the size of a raisin?

 

[hellbender]

So an ostrich should lay an egg about the size of a raisin?