Ineresting -- California Grey is considered dual-purpose, but is smaller than the Leghorn

[Bullitt]

I find this interesting.

The California Grey chicken was developed as a dual-purpose chicken that lays a lot of eggs. Weight: Female-4.5 lb.; Male-5.5 lb.
http://www.strombergschickens.com/product/California-Grey-Chicks/Best-Egg-Laying-Chickens


But the White Leghorn is as big or bigger than the California Grey. Hen-----4 1/2 lbs; Rooster------6 lbs
http://www.cacklehatchery.com/whtleghornpage.html
http://www.idealpoultry.com/item.html


And the Brown Leghorn is as big or bigger than the California Grey. Hen -------4 1/2 lbs; Rooster----6 lb
http://www.cacklehatchery.com/brownleghornpage.html
http://www.idealpoultry.com/item.html



Yet, Leghorns are generally considered only for laying eggs. I think we need to reexamine our thinking. We have become so used to a huge chicken, because the bigger the chicken the more money the corporations make.


"The American Brown Leghorn Club reports that throughout 1938 the Pullman Company purchased only Brown Leghorns to be served in their dining cars, even though today, they are not usually raised as meat birds."
http://www.purelypoultry.com/brown-leghorn-chickens-p-865.html


If Leghorns would just occasionally go broody, I would say Leghorns would be the best all-around chicken breed.

 

[Bullitt]

I was just looking at the Australian standards for Leghorns, and they are quite a bit heavier. They call for a hen that is a pound heavier, and a rooster that is 1 1/2 pounds heavier. I am guessing this probably reduces egg-laying ability, though.

http://leghornclubaustralia.webs.com/leghornstandards.htm



Cock

3.40 kg

(7 ½ lb)


Cockerel

2.70-2.95 kg

(6-6 ½ lb)


Hen

2.50 kg

(5 ½ lb)


Pullet

2.00-2.25 kg

(4 ½ 5 lb)

 

[Bullitt]

What do you think about this?

 

[Bullitt]

Okay, this is the last time I am going to post to this thread if no one responds.

 

[Old Rando]

What sort of a response are you looking for? You didn't seem to be asking any questions only stating facts. Anything can be used as "dual purpose" if you want. I grew up eating bantams, bantam crosses and leghorn cockerels, we also ate the eggs. They were dual purpose for us I suppose, but I doubt if anyone else would call them that. Young leghorn cockerels make nice fryers when young . I would assume a California Grey would be the same.

 

[Bullitt]

What response am I looking for? I am sorry if it wasn't clear. But you seemed to give some good comments.

I find it interesting that the California Grey is considered a dual-purpose breed, but it is maybe slightly smaller than the Leghorn which is not generally considered a dual-purpose breed. If you look up most websites about Leghorns, it will usually state, "Purpose: Egg-laying." The California Grey lays about as well as the White Leghorn.

I am just curious how Leghorns have come to be seen as only for laying eggs.

 

[Old Rando]

Bullitt you have brought forth some interesting facts. I certainly don't know as to the whys that you have brought forward. I have no personal experience with California Greys but I have read of them. Do you happen to know if they might develop more meatier frames at an earlier age than leghorns? Maybe this might cause some to feel they deserve a dual purpose status. Most chickens aren't allowed to grow to a very large weight before butchering anyway.

I have seen old photos taken in the 1920's-30's of what appeared to be white leghorn cockerels being raised for meat production while the pullets were separate for their egg production. This was of course before the development of the modern Cornish cross meat birds. Nothing can compete with them for early meat production which ended the large scale use of others for meat. Maybe the California Greys were developed with this earlier type of meat/egg production in mind.

These are just my thoughts and nothing else. You have just set my mind to pondering.

 

[Old Rando]

I tried to copy and paste the link from Feathersite on the California greys but it wouldn't work. Anyway it stated that the California Grey was developed in the 1930's to be a dual purpose breed that was larger than a leghorn. Your sources don't agree apparently. From personal experience I have never seen any of the production leghorns to be as large as those stated, especially the Australian standard. Maybe that was the idea initially for the California Grey to be meatier sooner than a production strain leghorn.

 

[Bullitt]

Just click the links. They work when I click them.

"Anyway it stated that the California Grey was developed in the 1930's to be a dual purpose breed that was larger than a leghorn."

I did not see that about being larger than the Leghorn. Where did you see that?

That may be the answer, then. I think many strains of Leghorns have been bred to be bigger since that time.

I am sure many people use Leghorns as dual-purpose chickens.

 

[Old Rando]

I was not having a problem with the link , I couldn't get my computer to copy and paste the links. Still can't.

The very first paragraph, fourth sentence in the Feathersite article states they are " heavier than a Leghorn but not as chunky as a Rock". The size standards that you have posted are show standards that doesn't relate to the development of either of these breeds as productions birds. That was their first use production not show.