Just wanted to share photos of our 6-week-old hatch!

[Achelois]

We're just a family raising for eggs, looks and fun for the children, so we have a mix of mainly heritage breeds crossed to first gen hybrid mutts - but we are raising extra this year hoping for some rugged, pretty hybrids to sell and hubby is going to eat the roos while I'm not watching! We hatched several clutches last Spring but they were all with bought eggs. This is the first time we've hatched from scratch.

The first hatch was a bit of a surprise though. Our roo is a Light Sussex so all babies are his.

I hatched some from our gingernut girls expecting some pale ginger Sussex looking hens, but unfortunately they are virtually indistinguishable from the three purebred LS we hatched out! She's 3/4 Light Sussex & 1/4 Rhode Island Red.




This was my experiment with a sex linked cross. I wasn't sure if it would work mating my LS roo over the barred rock girls. I hatched three of those, and two of them looked exactly like barred rocks, starting out with a spot on their little dark heads. Those are roos without a doubt. This one I believe is a girl and she's patterned quite differently. Her back is completely dark, unlike the boys:



This one was the biggest surprise of the lot, but perhaps that just shows my naivety when it comes to avian genetics. I hatched her from my purebred lavender Araucana girls (British standard, so they have tails). Now, I would have thought if you cross a white bird with a grey bird you'd get a bird that's grey, white or in between, but clearly not! I think she's gorgeous with her pea comb, head tuft and white ear lobes...husband thinks she's just another brown chicken. Her brother is somewhat speckled all over, so I'm not sure this look is something I can repeat - I'd like to, though. Hoping their eggs should be a pale blue/olive, given that gene IS dominant, right? We're keeping this one as she's pretty and we'd like to see what she lays.



So, I've also hatched some purebred Light Sussex as I mentioned before, which are much harder to pick from the crosses than I thought they'd be. They seem vigorous and healthy but is it ethical to breed these to sell, since they're half-full brother-sister crosses? I've heard you can breed up to six generations before getting a new roo but that sounds like a lot. Mind you, we are small town folk now ;-)

 

[chooks4life]

They're cute. You had me at 'mongrel' haha, I love my mongrels. How strange that your last one has a white ear patch above her earlobe, that's unusual. Her coloring you should be able to recreate, but watch out for the barring taking over the partridge/duckwing patterning if you cross them. I had to eradicate all barred birds to retain the laced/partridge/wild type patterned ones. Her legs look unusually short, too, or is that the camera angle?

So, I've also hatched some purebred Light Sussex as I mentioned before, which are much harder to pick from the crosses than I thought they'd be. They seem vigorous and healthy but is it ethical to breed these to sell, since they're half-full brother-sister crosses? I've heard you can breed up to six generations before getting a new roo but that sounds like a lot. Mind you, we are small town folk now ;-)

Most people inbreed. I inbreed all birds at least once, usually more, to see what bad genetics they're carrying, even when you get new unrelated stock in it's best to test breed because there is always something lurking. Every breed has some bad genetics, basically. Even crossing unrelated birds you're still going to have some bad genes getting passed on, often invisibly. Sometimes a new cross between unrelated birds produces a new defect neither parent line showed in offspring with others.

The problem with everyone saying inbreeding is ok for a few generations is that they're assuming you're starting with completely unrelated stock, but in reality, since so many people are already inbreeding for those few generations (or nonstop in many cases, too) you're often actually starting off with all-inbred birds in the first place.

As a general rule of thumb inbreeding to produce birds you're going to allow to breed or sell as breeders should only be done with a good idea of what genetics they carry and what outcome you want, and with preparation to cull ruthlessly, as it's rather likely you'll produce some birds with problems sooner or later. Often a heck of a lot sooner than you expected, unforrtunately. I would not do brother-sister myself. The last thing you want to do is produce a lot of lovely, beautiful animals you get attached to, then later on with more education under your belt, look at them through new eyes, or see their offspring, and know you've got to stop breeding their faults on or even cull them.

Sorry to be a bit of a downer there, I found some of this sort of stuff out the hard way so I hope to help others avoid doing the same. My biggest mistake was not inbreeding to begin with, ironically; everyone says unrelated stock is pretty safe but that was so far from the truth in my case. I got the most stupendous amount of bad genetics from a few unrelated birds, and how amazingly dominant those genetics turned out to be. Sometimes I'd cross unrelated lines and something new and virulently fatal showed up in their cross; that happened to me with early-onset leukosis between unrelated parents.

Now, I have multiple different family lines, and when I get new stock in, I cross them with every line I can, then inbreed their offspring back to them, perhaps even their grand-offspring too. Then I eat them all, lol. Well, actually, I rehome the best as pets or layers for others, but I always tell them they're inbred and whatever other faults I found in them. Most people don't want to know, unfortunately, which only perpetuates problems. I've learned to vet who I sell to carefully, so they're not going to go breeding on a bad trait. Anyway, after inbreeding I will have a solid idea what sort of likely issues they have.

Best wishes.

 

[Achelois]

Thanks for your advice! You're not a downer; I like realists.

Quote:
I love the ear patches! That with the araucana hairdo...she reminds me of a 1920s flapper which makes me smile. I'd love to get just the breast pattern, the neck ring and the ear patches without all over speckles. There's no barring in her history that I know about, which is why this surprised me - I can see the sussex neck ring on her and the barred rock cross, but that wee girl (Tweet, as named by the 10-year-old) is 50% pure lavender araucana and 50% light sussex. I have more of them brooding to see if it happens again as I can see them being popular little birds, although I do feel a bit sorry for the roos who won't have much on them for eating. For some reason, the thought of killing little roosters makes me sadder. It seems wasteful somehow, although I know that's a silly way to think. Not that I eat chicken anyway

Legs look the same as all the others, I think that's just the camera angle. Here's another one, still with some foreshortening:




Quote:
That's the thing...I really don't know how many lines these birds had been bred for before I got them :/ I really only bred the two together because I was begged for a light sussex just for looks and no one around here is selling them - a friend wanted to steal my Betty White! But now I know I can get a virtually identical looking bird that's 1/4 rhode island red I think I'll go with that - most folk around here are lifestylers or backyarders who aren't wanting to breed their own but just want a pretty flock to look at. Which is how we started out, I guess. The only birds that have gone to breeders are some of last year's roos, but these ones are for the pot.

Quote: How soon do these problems show up, generally? Are they obvious deformities and things that will kill them as chicks, or horrid things that shorten their lives later on? That worries me a lot more.

The only peculiar thing I've noticed - and I don't know if it's a 'thing' at all - is that the 1/4 rhode island red chicks have the ugliest beaks. It's apparent when they hatch, that the beak is huge and follows the curve of the skull rather than abruptly narrowing down...like a dinosaur or a puffin. Not sure if you can see it in the first photo, but geez, those beaks were ugly. It could be the Rhode Island red, perhaps...I know when my gingernuts come inside I get flashbacks to the 'raptors in the kitchen' scene.


Quote: I'm also aware that being in New Zealand, an island nation of 4 million people...everything and everyone is a little bit related ;-) Import laws are strict as we have a lot of endemic bird species, and there are breeds I'd LOVE to import and breed - like Marans - ones that are simply not available here. One day, when I have a lifestyle block and a few spare thousand I'll take the gamble!

Quote:
Faults meaning health issues, or just not perfect breed standard? We're just breeding pretty backyard layers really, not going towards any kind of show quality bird - we don't have the space for it. Of course, I'm indebted to those who do or else all our birds would look like red junglefowl. There are people I won't sell to though - like someone I know who has about as many roosters as hens and the hens are miserable and their backs scratched bare, and I've told her, but nothing's changed :/

 

[chooks4life]

Thanks for your advice! You're not a downer; I like realists.

Oh good, it's an unfortunate situation when someone finds straight-talking upsetting.

I love the ear patches! That with the araucana hairdo...she reminds me of a 1920s flapper which makes me smile. I'd love to get just the breast pattern, the neck ring and the ear patches without all over speckles. There's no barring in her history that I know about, which is why this surprised me - I can see the sussex neck ring on her and the barred rock cross, but that wee girl (Tweet, as named by the 10-year-old) is 50% pure lavender araucana and 50% light sussex.

The mix you're talking about often produces penciled or partridge patterned chooks from my experience, as solid colors often hide patterned genetics beneath them, so to speak. Sussex are often like that, and the only time I ever had an Araucana, he was a ginger and lavender colored one, and his daughter with a plain red hen is patterned. You probably will get more like this one chick of yours.

I have more of them brooding to see if it happens again as I can see them being popular little birds, although I do feel a bit sorry for the roos who won't have much on them for eating. For some reason, the thought of killing little roosters makes me sadder. It seems wasteful somehow, although I know that's a silly way to think. Not that I eat chicken anyway

Sussex are supposed to be dual purpose birds but a lot of people bred away from that, breeding only for looks or laying qualities. They might be alright for eating, I don't know.

Legs look the same as all the others, I think that's just the camera angle. Here's another one, still with some foreshortening:



Is the araucana a bantam?

That's the thing...I really don't know how many lines these birds had been bred for before I got them :/ I really only bred the two together because I was begged for a light sussex just for looks and no one around here is selling them - a friend wanted to steal my Betty White! But now I know I can get a virtually identical looking bird that's 1/4 rhode island red I think I'll go with that - most folk around here are lifestylers or backyarders who aren't wanting to breed their own but just want a pretty flock to look at. Which is how we started out, I guess. The only birds that have gone to breeders are some of last year's roos, but these ones are for the pot.

If you can get Buff Orpington or Brahmas of light, buff, or a few other colors, you can have Light Sussex looks in your flock immediately.

How soon do these problems show up, generally? Are they obvious deformities and things that will kill them as chicks, or horrid things that shorten their lives later on? That worries me a lot more.

It's hard to generalize because the potential genetic faults are myriad and complicated. It all depends on what they're carrying. Unfortunately many serious faults have no external signs.

Externally obvious deformities are probably one of the less common things to kill chickens, far more goes wrong internally on a regular basis. For example hens with internal laying issues, that's a heritable trait to watch out for but has no signs until the offspring reaches laying age. This is one reason hatcheries often put out such bad offerings, how can you know what you're breeding when you're culling all your breeders comparatively young and never watching anything but a minor percentage of all offspring produced grow to maturity?

Some very serious faults will show within the first generation or two, but as you noted, horrid things can indeed shorten their lives later on (for this reason among others I intend to never own Isabrowns again), so your best bet is to keep good records (including photographs) and keep your breeders for at least a few years.

Generally, if it's something you need to worry about, it will crop up rapidly, i.e. within one or two inbreedings; anything that takes prolonged inbreeding to show will only really be an issue if you intend to do long term inbreeding in future, or not keep records.

The only peculiar thing I've noticed - and I don't know if it's a 'thing' at all - is that the 1/4 rhode island red chicks have the ugliest beaks. It's apparent when they hatch, that the beak is huge and follows the curve of the skull rather than abruptly narrowing down...like a dinosaur or a puffin. Not sure if you can see it in the first photo, but geez, those beaks were ugly. It could be the Rhode Island red, perhaps...I know when my gingernuts come inside I get flashbacks to the 'raptors in the kitchen' scene.

They're like feathered little T-Rex's, indeed. I don't know if it's a fault, I can't see anything unusual in the pics, but it may have been more pronounced as chicks. If so, it'd be worth keeping an eye on.

There are some very parrot or hawk style beaks getting around, often in 'Game' breeds like Malay; some breeds have a lot of curvature and it's not ideal at all. If it doesn't look right to you, I'd recommend you don't dismiss it on the basis of you being new to this, because chances are you're right. Just my 2 cents on it. I spotted a lot of things that were wrong years and years before I had the 'book learning' to understand what they were and why they were wrong.

I'm also aware that being in New Zealand, an island nation of 4 million people...everything and everyone is a little bit related ;-) Import laws are strict as we have a lot of endemic bird species, and there are breeds I'd LOVE to import and breed - like Marans - ones that are simply not available here. One day, when I have a lifestyle block and a few spare thousand I'll take the gamble!

Same here in Australia, we may be a bigger country with more of a chook population but same issues with very limited imports and inbreeding nonetheless. Only recently an import of about 4000+ birds of rare breeds was utterly destroyed because a few tested positive for Salmonella, which needless to say we already have in Australia. Such a waste!

With some time and learning, and practice... And yes, resources like finances, acreage, etc... I'd bet you could 'recreate' Marans or any other breed you like.

Faults meaning health issues, or just not perfect breed standard? We're just breeding pretty backyard layers really, not going towards any kind of show quality bird - we don't have the space for it.

I don't sell unhealthy birds, so no actual health issues although some have bad genetics which I give warning of, and I only breed mongrels, so there's no breed standard I'm attaining to, only my own preferences.

When I refer to faults, I'm talking about things like selling a proven broody hen to raise turkeys because her line showed it carried leukosis; she in herself is not affected, a healthy and hardy little hen, but I rehomed her because I don't want her genetics in the flock, and the person I rehomed her to was not going to breed her, only use her as a mother for turkeys.

I also sell off birds with behavioral faults that aren't severe (I cull the severe ones of course) --- like any that are a little too skittish, or too noisy or show human-averse traits... Some other examples include chickens with more crest than I want breeding on (crests that impede eyesight cause them social difficulties as they're not able to respond to body language others are communicating with, so they are often bullied as if they were blind because they effectively are, and even once you've removed bullies from the flock their crests continue to put them at risk of things like predator attacks if they're freerange as mine are)... Also, birds of a type I don't like (like a very decent young rooster I rehomed because he was almost solid black, no other fault present)... Stuff like that. The worst traits end with me, I don't rehome them unless as with that broody hen I know the person taking them is not going to play around with bad genetics.

Of course, I'm indebted to those who do or else all our birds would look like red junglefowl. There are people I won't sell to though - like someone I know who has about as many roosters as hens and the hens are miserable and their backs scratched bare, and I've told her, but nothing's changed :/

That person you know has poor quality males, hard-moulting females, or both. No doubt the hens are complaining, but the roosters are ignoring their pleas. That's not actually natural; in the wild, a male who abused his mate like that would fail to pass on his genes, either within his lifetime or within a short few generations after it, due to the negative effect of their abuse on the hen's health. Such traits are strongly heritable and a male who shows any tendency to abuse hens almost always produces even nastier sons.

Modern roosters of many lines are devoid of many ancestral instincts and have often only retained the instincts for mating and a few other limited behaviors, but the fully instinctive rooster is an exemplary father and mate, who would never rip out feathers from his mates or insist on mating a hen who was complaining or resisting.

There are times when the hen is physically receptive and times when she's not, and it pays for a male to heed her responses. The smart male is not trying to coerce a hen into mating when the hen actually has an egg moving into the laying tract, for example, or when she's sick or injured or brooding. The stupid male coerces matings under all of those circumstances, and in the wild he would not propagate his genetics.

Also, in the wild the hens would select against him by leaving him; scientific studies show female mate selection across the species is even more important than male mate selection.

Many modern hens are completely resigned to their brutal lives under behaviorally faulty little feathered dictators, so they no longer attempt to select the right male to breed with as they quite often do not have a choice. It's one thing to choose the mates for the hens, that's not abusive, but it's another thing to force them to live with an abusive male; it's not ethical to force them to live under such conditions. It's not excusable away as being 'just how chicken society is' because that is utterly incorrect; what we're seeing there are conditions brought about by our husbandry methods over generations. It is, thankfully, easily able to be corrected.

Chickens are designed for bi-parental social structures, having large clutches and requiring both parents in attendance to ensure best survival chances, and as with any species naturally exhibiting long term pair bonds, they treat one another with great care, provided they are behaviorally normal. Many domestics are very abusive though, due to human mismanagement. It's not actually natural to their species. You see the same in any social species where we destroy their social bonds by separating mother from offspring, male from female, generation after generation. Some roosters have combined mating and fighting instincts, partly due to the husbandry mistake of keeping the genders segregated, so they will actually deliberately tear out feathers as they mate and otherwise abuse hens as though they were other males, which these sorts of males will also sometimes mate with. They've lost the definition line between male and female. The same happens with sheep, cattle, etc when we segregate them for generations, both genders become abusive and exhibit same-gender mating behaviors, and when reintroduced to the other gender, are quite often simply incapable of living normally with them.

I breed for eating as well as other purposes so I breed often, and pretty regularly I have a ratio of up to 50:50 males and females, and never an 'overmated' hen among them. 'Overmating' actually has nothing to do with legitimate mating at all; that's another excuse people use when they have abusive males or suffer under the misapprehension of it being 'just how it is'.

'Overmating' is due to at least one of a few things: poor diet causing weak feathering; featherpicking traits; social breakdown; and last but certainly not least, abusive males. If you've ever plucked a chicken you know it takes a lot of force to rip out healthy feathers. If a rooster removes feathers each time he grabs on, it's not an accident at all. If a rooster removes a feather once in a hundred, or several hundred times, it's closer to normal.

If your roosters are kind, you will never have an 'overmated' hen, even if you've got more males than females. Conversely, you can have 100 hens and only one rooster and if he's cruel, you will still have 'overmated' hens, even when he cannot even manage to mate with the vast majority of them.

'Overmating' has nothing to do with the percentage of males to females, and everything to do with the nature of the males. An abusive rooster will remain abusive no matter how many victims you give him; unfortunately many people believe male chickens are just abusive anyway, so when they see him abusing hens they simply provide more for him to abuse, hoping more victims can spread out the abuse so it doesn't kill his 'favorites' (which is almost always a vain hope as they simply continue to abuse their favorite victim).

You can easily, rapidly breed out cannibalism, chick-killing, hen-abuse, bullying, feather-picking, excessive noisiness, human-aggression, excessive aggression between chickens, etc; one thing that assists this, in fact is indispensable for it, is to raise inclusively, so allow a natural society as much as possible. Provided there are no vicious birds included in it, you're perfectly safe to allow hens to raise their chicks among the whole flock, and you can have as many roosters as you like. Segregating them, breaking up their natural social structure, directly causes problems like boredom, neuroses, intolerance of hens for chicks or males for other males, etc. Just like raising a dog isolated from the world then expecting it to cope like a socialized dog, it won't happen. When you raise them together and keep your alpha hens and alpha roosters present in the flock, they will both learn by watching one another (science has finally proven this fact, which many people have known for eons) and they will teach one another. Your adult males will school your juvenile males in how to be treat the hens, and the hens will school the pullets in turn. Quickly any juvenile males who are harsh to the hens will be retrained by both the hens themselves and the roosters, and will learn that treating hens well is the surest path to reproduction.

Some will tell you this is some 'utopian' or 'anthropomorphizing' sort of fantasy, those being the two most common words used by those who scorn this idea, but it's been rapidly and easily achievable in my flock and that's why I recommend it for both their sakes and yours, and it's completely realistic, it's even based on their species' natural social structure. Only under human management have they developed many of these negative traits. Why put up with behavioral faults that render their lives stressful or harmful, when it's not necessary?

Anyway, you can probably see I feel somewhat strongly about this, but that said, I respect whatever your beliefs on it are. You sound like you're already aware of social issues with chickens, rather than just turning a blind eye and accepting it as 'just the way it is', so there's a good chance you'll be the sort of breeder who selects for character as well. Many breeders unfortunately allow absolutely any sort of character to propagate itself as long as it's accompanied by enough eggs or meat production or a good enough 'type', it's actually exactly why we have such behaviorally deformed animals in the first place.

Best wishes.

 

[Achelois]

Quote:
I didn't know this - hence my surprise at getting a bird that looked like a thrush! I hope I do get more. She's more docile than the pure araucanas, more like a Sussex. The araucanas are the most wild of the chickens we have - even more so than the skittish orpingtons we adopted.


Quote:
Oh, the dad's big enough - I think they'll be okay eating. Not like supermarket chicken, but we're foodies anyway. Pity I'll only do fish.
It's the araucana X male I have - he's docile and he won't be very big, so I feel sorry for him somehow. I think the barred rock crosses will be the easiest to do in - barred rock boys are so angry after the first few weeks!

Quote:

No, I don't think so, but they are light birds. I only put half a dozen eggs under those girls. They are the most like wild birds of all the ones I have, really built for flight. That's one of them as a chick in my avatar. They flew up into trees at four weeks and were nearly impossible to get back. Learned my lesson then...

I like having a range of breeds not just for looks, but I know exactly who is laying what. Really hope this new girl will be some kind of olive-egger.
Quote:
Good to know! I don't know if there is a single brahma in NZ though. Buff orps more likely. I really want to get Welsummers from down South before that line is gone forever here...nice dark egg layers. It's the problem with having only an average urban section. We're not even supposed to keep a roo, but he was our first hatched and we fell in love...you know how charming roo chicks can be. He's an angel with the girls; climbs in the nest box to show them where to lay and clucks to sort out any disputes until they share the favourite box. And he's well-trained, never aggressive and wouldn't run at or threaten the toddlers.

Quote:
I think it was more pronounced when they were younger. I was dismayed at their ugliness. They're pretty enough now, but to me, a bird should have a proper defined beak. It's from the mum's side though...the other babies don't have those beaks, just the ones from the gingernuts. Those girls are funny looking too though, and they must be our healthiest birds and do all the right chicken things, so who knows? The behaviour is definitely important to me. We're going for free-ranging, pretty, happy birds that know how to be chickens. Egg-laying, yes, but then all the breeds are dual-purpose or egg-layers - if all people want is peak production units, there are hilines and shavers for that, but I'd get bored looking at a dozen of those - the kids like to name and identify the ones we keep

Gutted that they'd destroy all those birds for salmonella! I'm a conservationist at heart and I really do get the need to protect our wild birds...but salmonella? Geez :/
Quote:

The alpha rooster is a bully. He runs at the owner when she enters the pen. I told her to cook him and she was horrified. Some of the other males should have been culled outright as they are strange deformed things with curved spines and they can't run properly. They were rehomed from a farm elsewhere and the owner is well-intentioned but really just not at all knowledgeable when it comes to chicken care, and I really am a relative newbie myself. They are not well-nourished at all, infested with mites...I chicken-sat and tried to improve things, gave them a nipple waterer I made, put up a perch (they weren't aware that chickens roosted, thought they were supposed to sit on the ground at night, city people I think). It's interesting what you say...perhaps the ratio is not as big a part of the problem as I thought, which makes sense in light of the many, many other problems with that flock. My first instinct on meeting them was that they were very sad and discontented. Whichever way you look at it though, the roo is a bad roo, but unfortunately he's pretty and she's had him a long time so she won't part with him.
Quote:
This is why I love my guy! I just adore the conversations he has with the girls. He really spends time with them, not just for mating but for foraging and egg-laying and sorting out disputes - he's a gem. He hates me because I have to pick him up every evening, fuss over him then shove him in a box in the garage so he doesn't annoy the neighbours. But the girls love him. My latest broody gave up at 6 weeks and she's gone 8 before - I think she really just missed him.

I really wish I could run them all together. I'd love to see him father chicks as I have complete faith that he'd do it. Unfortunately, we live very close to bush and last season I lost a week old chick and an egg in an enclosure that wasn't sufficiently rat-proof, plus we have some badly behaved cats including our own (seriously, if this cat doesn't stop chasing chicks and start chasing rats SHE is going in the pot!). It's just not feasible to rat-proof our entire section and I'm not sure The Colonel is man enough to kill a rat. The rest of the chickens need to be able to graze the entire section so we're between a rock and a hard place. We have so many wanting to play mother this time around that we had a clutch hatch in our upstairs shower. Fortunately, my husband's very tolerant of this sort of thing!

 

[chooks4life]

Sounds like your rooster is a decent one, he has all the hallmarks of a good father. I've not seen a rooster who treats hens well but attacks chicks. Doubtless some exist, but it's generally a good bet that if he's kind to the hens he will also have the instincts to be kind to the chicks. Many newbies cop a terrible rooster to start with and either give up on the idea of a good one or just give up on them entirely, which is a bit sad.

Funny that your chooks didn't kill the rats, mine would hunt down and eat rodents if they saw them in the daytime, lol. If you get some young mice, as in furred but still not full adults, and let your chooks have at them, they may learn to chase/kill rodents. Not necessarily a very humane method though... But sometimes one comes across nests in the house they have to dispose of. Well, we do, because we don't use rodenticides due to the threat to natives as well as our pets.

Shame about that woman keeping a vicious rooster and a bunch of sorry hens producing deformed messes... But that is the way it goes sometimes. That's exactly the sort of 'breeder'/propagator I got my very worst genetics from, lol.

Best wishes.