My White Leghorn - What to improve?

[3riverschick]

Sometimes what we think of as a minor Hallmark is really a major Hallmark and vice versa when it comes to functionality and purpose.
for instance in the collie dog it says they need to have feet like a cat. that sounds silly, but it's already important when they're traveling rough terrain. it says they should have dew claws on the front. that sounds silly too, except if you watch a collie scramble up a bank, you'll see he uses those front dewclaws for balance .
believe it or not, the tipped ears everybody says are so important ...but they're just a gentrification of the breed by the Victorians. it's much more important that the ears move quickly back and forth on the top of the head to catch sounds then that they be tipped . and so it is with chickens . I try to figure out what's really important and what's not . right now my Bugaboo is the tail. what importance is the tail on the Chantecler ? I don't know. from the Leghorns it seems to be just a Perfection of the profile
...a bird a general ovals .
but I have yet to figure out how it fits into the chantecler because the creator of the breed added Leghorn in after the breed was finished and that is where the longer tail comes from . The early chantecler don't show that sweeping tail at all . I know that some of the Breeders have told me they breed the longer tail because the longer tail makes the body look longer . so what is the truth in there ? it's a conundrum. thank you.
Thank you for sharing. it's so exciting to have somebody with wisdom knowledge to talk to . you remind me so much of my good friend Hellbender who is now gone . he could be gruff and he could be (what some folk who held their own opinions too close to the chest ) would say was rude but he always had a good heart, shot from the hip and he knew he was talking about. I really appreciated that . thank you so much for sharing.

 

[3riverschick]

_+-------
My apologies I missed this reply.
_------+++++
So True North has sold birds that have done well in shows?
That is what I was given to understand.
_---------

Or they sold birds to people who have done well in shows several generations later? I got the impression it was the latter from reading the website.
I'll go back and read her website again . I don't think I was wrong but I could be mistaken . I'll check.
---------

Also, the birds shown in the website do not look like they would place well in a show.
I thought they looked show quality. Not all of course. . in Sussex , the production virtues are so closely aligned with the show points it's possible to get a utility bird who will win at the shows unlike some other breeds. I don't think one could do this with Chantecler.
----+++
What is the egg production in the Light Sussex? Should be over 200 eggs a year. 225 ..if I had a great hen 250. The Light Sussex was created to be a meat bird who was also a great layer.

_-------
How long does it take to get what weight of a carcass?
The only place I really see that discussed is TruNorth website . I'm working on getting that info . right now I'm just working with commercial Broiler info and it's some help but not a lot.
-------+-
What is their feed conversion for eggs and meat?
I wish I knew. if you know please share . right now I only have commercial Broiler info and the Light Sussex is not commercial broiler. I am studying some new research in the commercial Broiler industry to make a better feed conversion ratio .
and I think I will apply it to the Sussex and the Chanteclers to see if I can help out there.




-----+++
Just because a breed was created from three breeds does not mean it has a wide gene pool. That was very long ago. There has been a bottleneck since that time, and I would guess the gene pool is not so large.

This was very true until Greenfire Farms did the Australian import years ago 2009 ? Unfortunately, the birds were monster size
lots of bone not so much meat . so now we have four families of Light Sussex in America. the pure English, which are very rare; the American ;the Australian; and people who have combined them together into a new American strain. so there's variety there . that there wasn't the biggest problem. The problem is that a lot of people have decided they like the huge size from the Australian import . those birds Walt Leonard told me are DQ'd strictly on size at APA shows. So there are a lot of Sussex out there that can't be shown . and some others who can ,but people just don't.

--+++++
The silhouette profile, back, tail, etc. do not have much to do with production.

Ok that's great to know then they are just in the standard for Aesthetics two give the bird a pleasing silhouette?
---------
Adding depth is simple genetic selection.

Okay that makes things easier . I'm not looking for any complicated formulas then. just to select when I'm breeding .thank you.
±+++_--------
I thought you said True North was doing a great job at this, and she was very willing to discuss her methods? .

I think she's doing a good job
unfortunately Emily is not a fan of any breeding plans. she believes in breeding strictly for utility and not worrying about a breed standard . so I have to separate how to breed for utility from her methods and still breed to a standard . it's interesting
one does not say the words "line breeding ", "inbreeding ,,", '
"formal breeding plan " when discussing things with Emily . she's very knowledgeable and knows what she's doing but one must approach the conversation with strict utility in mind . fortunately that works for the Sussex. I don't think it would work for the chanteclers.
----++++

Now you say the birds lack depth and no one wants to talk about how to correct it.
That's been my experience
they tell me what it is and what it should be... but not how to get from one place to the other.
_---------
Egg laying dimensions are antiquated. That is why i already suggested you read more current literature. I have Cochins with great capacity, but they may lay well under 100 eggs a year. A commercial Leghorn has much less capacity, and lays more than 300 eggs per year.

I think you rely too much on the older literature that was written before people really looked at what really goes on. Just because Judge Card titled his book Breeding Laws does not mean they were truly laws. Much has been learned since then.

Okay that's a valid point.
-++++++------

I remember you refused to give me references to the sources you were using when I was trying to see what perspective you were coming from.

I remember that but not the discussion . I can give you references now but I forget what the prospective was. if you can help me out with that I can give you references.
--+----++

But, I will be nice since you asked. P. B. Siegel did a lot of work with White Plymouth Rocks beginning in the early 60s, if not late 50s. Dunnington was a co-author on some of that. Granted, this was for production, not to the standard.

Where can I find the writings? or they in a book or do I need to find some poultry magazines ? thank you very much I appreciate it.

 

[3riverschick]

Okay I found dunnington and Seigel's 1996 paper on selection for body weight online. 38 Generations this is great !! thank you so much ! so far I just have the abstract I have to find the article itself . So much to digest here. thank you ! thank you !
Lots of good info here but I am going to need a genetics dictionary to understand it. it is going to take time
thank you so much for mentioning it

 

[Sydney Acres]

Wow, this thread has really turned nasty in the last few days!!
Unsubscribing.

 

[3riverschick]

It's not nasty. What do you mean ?nobody is nasty. we're having a lively discussion but nobody is nasty .come on back.

 

[gojira]

Just so I am clear, what are you considering hallmarks? I was assuming you were meaning type in general, the things that make a bird a particular breed. Breeds seem to have been created for a few reasons. Some combined birds with traits they liked, both productive and aesthetic, and refined what they got out of those crosses. If one wanted egg production, Leghorn or Minorca was used. If one wanted size, Asiatics such as Cochins were used. If you want production, you select for those characteristics. If the aesthetics are not selected for, the type changes quickly. I come from a broad poultry background. I look at all sides. My son and I show birds, although it is mainly my son, as I let him choose the birds he wants to show, and I might take a few if I think they should be shown. With that said, I am breeding towards the standard of perfection, as that is what they are judged on. If I wanted a productive bird, I would not care about tail angles, angle of back, lacing, etc. Unfortunately, many exhibition breeders did not put any selection pressure on production, and many birds only look the part now. If breeding to the standard meant breeding for production, some show lines would be much more productive.

 

[gojira]

I have a background in dogs also. I see similar mindsets in dog people and poultry people. Many hallmarks in dog breeds are so because someone needed justification for those traits being present in that breed. Especially the exaggerated features that have come over a breed's history. I have even heard of a justification for the sloping rear end in modern show German Shepherds. I also like history, but I like to weed out fact and fiction. I know several rare dog breeds that have completely made up and false histories, yet people have those breeds because they like the history they were told. Honestly, some chicken breeds have murky histories, but I am not sure any are completely made up.

 

[gojira]

Siegel and Dunnington published scientific papers on poultry genetics for decades. Imo, Siegel could be to quantitative poultry genetics what Punnett was to Mendelian poultry genetics. Pearl and Hutt were great also, and came before Siegel.

 

[gojira]

When I was asking for production data, I was talking about the True North birds specifically. One can say they are breeding for utility just to explain why they are not breeding for another aspect. Plus, everyone has different standards for utility or production characteristics. In my case, I do want to breed for utility while also breeding to the standard. In some birds, that will be tough, as they are more show than go. I just hope the genes are there, and just need to be lined up.

 

[3riverschick]

When I was asking for production data, I was talking about the True North birds specifically. One can say they are breeding for utility just to explain why they are not breeding for another aspect. Plus, everyone has different standards for utility or production characteristics. In my case, I do want to breed for utility while also breeding to the standard. In some birds, that will be tough, as they are more show than go. I just hope the genes are there, and just need to be lined up.

----------
It's going to take time for me to get those statistics out
I only have my phone and it's all on my computer which is down . I can look around the net but it's going to take me a day or two to get them all together . I hope you understand . thanks.