Heritage Large Fowl - Phase II

[3riverschick]

Bob would have been be very happy to hear this...I'm very happy to hear this as well. Many people think that Standard bred birds are nothing more than a pretty bag of feathers and shows are for beauty alone and not function. There is no reason that breeding to the APA Standard should not increase the productivity of any breed. Most large fowl were bred to perform...they did not have the luxury to breed ornamental chickens.

Walt

I wish this book was in the public domain. However it has been reprinted. there is a great slim book out there
written by C.J. Davies, "The Theory and Practice of Breeding to Type...". Published in 1928. It does a
wonderful job explaining the symbiotic relationship between utilitarian and fancy breeders.
Best,
Karen

 

[Fentress]

Just spoke to a Barred Rock breeder who is within reasonable driving distance! Egg production could be a little higher, grow out could be a little quicker (but I think that is typical for a BR), but the meat qualities should be very good. He said that the clarity of the barring needed more work, I told him that was OK. LOL. Standard Bred Utility Yard Fowl for home consumption, that is my goal. We will see how it works out. Won't it be nice to have roosters that don't attack and cockerels that can actually look decent on the dinner table!

 

[BGMatt]

There's a few reasons I see where the disconnect happens between standard bred birds and utility.

One big problem is in a lot of other species their show standards don't even pay lip service to purpose. Yes I am looking at the AKC here. People see that and assume the same is true with poultry.

The second big problem is education. Many that say they want to breed to the standard either don't, or don't understand how, or don't understand why it is written the way it is. They know the standard says a Rhode Island Red should have a long brick shaped body. (Paraphrased of course) but they do not understand why the breeds creators thought that was important (it's to give room for internal organs, bigger longer digestive tracts to better process food, and plenty of room for oviduct and egg producing organs, and a long keel for lots of breast meat). Or in some breeds people see the standard weight and to "increase size" they breed heavier, but heavier is not always better, if it's a bird that is fat as opposed to thrifty you will lose egg production, increasing weight with large frames and in broad bodies but keeping an eye on abdominal fat is key.

Understanding anatomy and it's role in our birds, understanding that the why and how, and then sharing it with others will slowly gain momentum.

And of course as always, ruthless culling is vital in breeding programs. And very selective breeder selection. Sure you might want to keep 25 hens for example to provide eggs, but why would you not select and breed from only the 2 best of those 25? My buddy called me this week saying his feed bill was too high, but he had too many good birds to breed from, what that is code for is "I'm not being selective enough."

 

[3riverschick]

On the lighter side:

Cato, Marcus Porcius Roman farm management; the treatises of Cato and Varro done into English,
with notes of modern instances, by a Virginia farmer
Published by : New York The Macmillan company
Ok, this is just odd. The author lived from 234-149 B.C .
This old Roman text annotated by modern farmer.
The chicken section is entertaining. http://tinyurl.com/lo4x7p
Staring at Page 306 .
http://digital.library.cornell.edu/...c=cdl&cc=cdl&idno=cdl374&q1=poultry&submit=Go

 

[MagicChicken]

That is why it is important to be mindful of a breed's historic reputation, paying attention to the description under "economic qualities". It is laziness to do otherwise. We do these birds no favors by not preferring productive individuals, good sized and shaped eggs, appropriate rate of growth, etc.

I have been frustrated by people scoffing at breeding to a Standard, and whether or not they could be a practical option. I do not get it. On the other hand, we need to be honest with ourselves. Many of our best looking strains, perform very poorly. Not all of them do, but is sometimes the case.

I have been unable to rationalize breeding a breed without a standard. Also, I do not see a standard description as an all inclusive directive on breeding poultry.

I agree with Walt. These breeds were bred to perform, so do we breed these birds to perform? We were much more practical then than now.

There are many points that are easy to identify that has no mention in the Standard. It did not have to be. It was largely known. Point of lay, age a bird gets to an appropriate weight, when they molt, how long they take to molt, egg size and quality, etc. These are all easy for anyone to identify and can be measured.

These birds should not just look as they should. They should do as they should. What good is a Leghorn that lays few eggs? A New Hampshire or Delaware that is slow to feather out and mature? A seven pound hen that lays medium sized eggs?
I have had and heard mention of pullets that come into lay @ 32-36 wks. It is mentioned as if it is some badge of authenticity concerning the label "Heritage". That sits well with me concerning some of the oldest breeds, or breeds that were developed for other reasons. For most farm fowl, I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense. I understand that we are starting with what we could, so I am not knocking them. Still that does not mean that it is good enough.

Most of the breeds and varieties that I am interested in were farm fowl, so I see them as farm fowl. I would like to see them perform like a good farm fowl. I believe that is a reasonable expectation.

Good points, and I totally agree with you.

Having the birds "do as they should" has become my new priority. This year I took my most java-looking hen with a long, straight back and paired her with a complementary cock to offset her flaws. Should have been great. Trouble is she has laid all of 7 eggs since December (it is now late March). Four of the seven eggs she laid were clear. None of her other eggs hatched. The cock she was paired with did just fine siring other hens' chicks. Most of my hens lay 4-5 eggs/week. She is a dud. So my breeding program is taking a step back while I regroup. Not giving up, just refiguring my strategy to get production up as well as improve type.

In the meantime, several of this year's chicks look pretty good. Crossing my fingers that some of them are actually female. October's broody hatch had a 5:1 cockerelullet ratio. Ouch.

You can't have much of a breeding program if the hens don't lay.

Sarah

 

[RedRidge]

There's a few reasons I see where the disconnect happens between standard bred birds and utility.

One big problem is in a lot of other species their show standards don't even pay lip service to purpose. Yes I am looking at the AKC here. People see that and assume the same is true with poultry.

The second big problem is education. Many that say they want to breed to the standard either don't, or don't understand how, or don't understand why it is written the way it is. They know the standard says a Rhode Island Red should have a long brick shaped body. (Paraphrased of course) but they do not understand why the breeds creators thought that was important (it's to give room for internal organs, bigger longer digestive tracts to better process food, and plenty of room for oviduct and egg producing organs, and a long keel for lots of breast meat). Or in some breeds people see the standard weight and to "increase size" they breed heavier, but heavier is not always better, if it's a bird that is fat as opposed to thrifty you will lose egg production, increasing weight with large frames and in broad bodies but keeping an eye on abdominal fat is key.

Understanding anatomy and it's role in our birds, understanding that the why and how, and then sharing it with others will slowly gain momentum.

And of course as always, ruthless culling is vital in breeding programs. And very selective breeder selection. Sure you might want to keep 25 hens for example to provide eggs, but why would you not select and breed from only the 2 best of those 25? My buddy called me this week saying his feed bill was too high, but he had too many good birds to breed from, what that is code for is "I'm not being selective enough."

These are very good points. But there are those out there that are promoting purpose and structure both. The Belgian Tervuren is a good example.
While many breeds such as retrievers have divided into two distinct groups, some breeds such as the Belgian Tervuren remaining excellent herding dogs to this day. The Belgian tervuren who won at West Minister this year is also a HTCh - herding trial champion. Sad that she was one of the few dogs there to have titles on both ends and the only one with two championships, but at least those needs do still exist.

My Tervs, titled in obedience, tracking, agility, and most importantly herding (with some national rankings) each received conformation majors/points from Dr. Battaglia. He and his wife, also a judge, like correctness and performance in one package. If they can't work they are useless... You won't see then reward an overweight lab who can't efficiently retired a duck.

 

[3riverschick]

I agree. The collies out of my bitches are multi-talented. Jamie, owned by Toni in OK , at 11 ys. old, just
became the only collie in the breed to attain both a Heel To Music and Canine
Freestyle Dance Championship. Among his many other titles.
He is pointed in the show ring.
Best,
Karen

 

[thedragonlady]

At the moment I have 34 babies in my greenhouse brooder . They age from 4, at 3 weeks, to the rest, 2, and 1 week olds. They are consuming 2 QUARTS of medicated chick starter a day, plus whatever small seeds my Sun Conures don't eat. This makes for a pretty hefty feed bill, and will continue to do so, until they come into lay, and start paying for themselves. I can't imagine fooling around with birds that didn't lay until 9-10 months old, and I'm sure the old timers wouldn't have either. 24 weeks is my absolute cut off, or a bird makes soup.By that age, most of the cockerels have been very tasty too.

 

[BGMatt]

At the moment I have 34 babies in my greenhouse brooder . They age from 4, at 3 weeks, to the rest, 2, and 1 week olds. They are consuming 2 QUARTS of medicated chick starter a day, plus whatever small seeds my Sun Conures don't eat. This makes for a pretty hefty feed bill, and will continue to do so, until they come into lay, and start paying for themselves. I can't imagine fooling around with birds that didn't lay until 9-10 months old, and I'm sure the old timers wouldn't have either. 24  weeks is my absolute cut off, or a bird makes soup.By that age, most of the cockerels have been very tasty too.

Question, something I'm trying to help a friend with, do you notice that with the early point of lay that you end up with a large sexual dimorphism with the cockerels finishing out much larger than the pullets? The idea being a pullet that starts laying early has to split her calories between growth and laying.

 

[Canieldonrad]

A lot of people raise their birds for show here. And I am one of them. But I can't help but notice the weight gain on my Buckeyes. I had a roasted Cockerel tonight, butchered around 10½ weeks of age. And the size of the bird's carcass prompted me to gauge the size of his more fortunate siblings. What I saw was quite surprising, in a very good way(or weigh). At 11½ weeks my cockerels were around 4lbs(one reaching 4¼). Which is a great size for a 3 person meal, shared with my father and my mother.

I'm somewhat curious as the size and age you all begin to cull.