show quality speckled sussex ??

[Arielle]

Ace et all--have you found better SQ SS ?? Or at least photos to gage the current quality? I'm still reading back on page 4 ish.

Reading the SOP on page 1 leads me to think with 10 points for the breast, and 10 for the back, wide and big is a priority.

I bought hatchery because I liked them. THen added a trio that is supposed to not be hatchery. NOw that quarintine is over I can put my hands on them a little more and try to evaluate heritage v. hatchery. I did like the idea of hatchery for the increase in egg production and a small bird is effiecient, BUT I like the idea of being true to the breed. A medium egg, 3 a week, leads me to think with the points for back and breast that this is also a good meat bird.

How do they compare to BUckeyes?

 

[3riverschick]

Reading the SOP on page 1 leads me to think with 10 points for the breast, and 10 for the back, wide and big is a priority.

Yes, deep and wide is a critical virtue in the breed. It is one of the defining hallmarks of the Sussex fowl.

... I did like the idea of hatchery for the increase in egg production and a small bird is effiecient,....
Right again. Broomhead says in his classic dissertation on the breed that 7 lbs. is right for a good layer. That he had not seen top layers which much exceeded that weight.

A medium egg, 3 a week, leads me to think with the points for back and breast that this is also a good meat bird.
More than 3 eggs a week, the Sussex is a fine layer, esp. in the winter (if it is March hatched). Try giving them some sprouted oats at least 4 days old for "green feed" . That will help bring them into lay.
Yes, the Sussex is a superb meat bird. That is the genius of the breed. That it is a top market fowl plus being a fine laying fowl. It's quite the phenotypical balancing act. To keep the male structure so it is a fine market fowl for fattening, yet keep the female structure so she can be a fine layimg fowl. Breeding Sussex is much more about structure than color.
Best,
Karen

 

[Arielle]

Hi Karen, thanks for your input.

I will put my hands on my trio tomorrow.

I struggle with understanding meatiness. I've been eating cornishX all my life and that is my point of reference. My 12 month marans boys are not even close. I see them as a poor example of what I was thinking was dual purpose and meaty. MY goal is : worth the effort to butcher.

 

[3riverschick]

Hi Karen, thanks for your input.

I will put my hands on my trio tomorrow.

I struggle with understanding meatiness.

------------------------------------------------
Yeah, me too. Talking to Emily Robertson has been revealing. I'm beginning to understand the interplay between bodily dimensions and how it affects meatiness. But the knowledge comes in bits and pieces, sigh. I think it's very much a "hip bone is connected to the thigh bone" "The thigh bone is connected to the (insert name) bone", etc.as the old song says. I just can't find the info in the modern books and have to use the old classic books instead. Part of the problem is I don't know which keyword phrases to use when hunting.
And so it goes,
Karen

I've figured out that close-feathering on a soft-feathered bird is associated with good egg laying.
2. That while the keel should be long, it's more important to have length of back.
3. Texture of comb, wattles and scales of the shanks should be fine because this is an indicator of fine flesh in the bird.
4. fine flesh expands when the organs swell when egg laying starts, so the bird can be a better egg layer. coarse skin is more inflexible and tends to have a layer of inflexible fat associated with it. inflexible skin and a layer of fat restrict the expansion of the skin, needed when laying season begins.
5. breeding and culling by head points is a proven technique and helps improve number of eggs laid.
6. increase egg laying by 25 eggs a year per bird and loose-feathered birds will become closer feathered.
7. There are many more hints and tips on how to breed better layer than there are how to breed a better meat bird.
8. Somehow the dimensions Broomhead gives for the super-layer in his Light Sussex booklet get combined with the correct depth of body and width of back to create birds where the males are right for fattening and the females are right for good layers.
9. Part of this seems to have to do with early maturity...for the males so they can be fattened at the proper time...for the females so they will layer early and for a long time. I am just not sure what time parameters I need to be looking for, sigh.
10. I wonder if the tail set had anything to do with making the males good meat birds? Why is the tail set at 45 degrees and does it matter for utility's sake, or is it just "fancy" for Fancy's sake.

 

[Arielle]

Karen, thanks for sharing--I know youread a number of wonderful old books.

I tracked down an old genetics book from college and decided to refresh my knowledge. I specifically looked for info on chickens, nada, only horses, cattle sheep and hogs.

IT did give a history of when purebred breeding became the vogue. Apparently up til the 1800's the local stock was non-descript. ( I would probably argue with this point; I suspect each locatin had it's breed which survived well and had adapted to the local conditions; and nature being nature, the individuals showed some genetic variability to allow for further adaptations and survival).So the breeds started to become more uniform to fit SOP created by the newly created breed associations. THe purpose was to better consolidate the gene pool, makeing each breed that much more unique. THen came the realization that cross breeding led to faster gaining stock for the meat market.That led to selecting which purebred line crossed with another line made the best production cross breeds--this led to altering the the original breed by line to meet this need.

Basically, the food industry has created livestock that mature faster, and need less feed per pound of gain to reach market weight.

HOnestly, with the 40% anticipated decrease in corn production this year, this kind of production has great value.

It brings me back to the rather light muscling on the old breeds. I would like a birds that can forage on grasses etc, and mature to fatten stage before late fall. I suspect that none of the heritage breeds can do that. ANd probably none of the cornishX can do it without lots of grain.

My other observation from sheep is this. I could build a large frame, but heavy muscling is another selection process. I suspect chickens are the same.

 

[TexasLady]

Just a thought brought over from other livestock. When the "tail" set is incorrect (too high), a mama has a problem delivering. I would suggest that a higher tail set would cause the hens to have more issues with production--maybe they would have difficulties and difficulties may cause fewer eggs.

 

[3riverschick]

Just a thought brought over from other livestock. When the "tail" set is incorrect (too high), a mama has a problem delivering. I would suggest that a higher tail set would cause the hens to have more issues with production--maybe they would have difficulties and difficulties may cause fewer eggs.

Really!?! Ok, I never thought of that. Thanks, this is useful info which I should check out further!
I know tail set is important in dogs because an improperly set tail can interfere with the length of stride in the rear assembly.
Karen

 

[3riverschick]

Karen, thanks for sharing--I know you read a number of wonderful old books.

I tracked down an old genetics book from college and decided to refresh my knowledge. I specifically looked for info on chickens, nada, only horses, cattle sheep and hogs.

IT did give a history of when purebred breeding became the vogue. Apparently up til the 1800's the local stock was non-descript. ( I would probably argue with this point; I suspect each location had it's breed which survived well and had adapted to the local conditions; and nature being nature, the individuals showed some genetic variability to allow for further adaptations and survival).So the breeds started to become more uniform to fit SOP created by the newly created breed associations. The purpose was to better consolidate the gene pool, making each breed that much more unique. Then came the realization that cross breeding led to faster gaining stock for the meat market.That led to selecting which purebred line crossed with another line made the best production cross breeds--this led to altering the the original breed by line to meet this need.

Basically, the food industry has created livestock that mature faster, and need less feed per pound of gain to reach market weight.

Honestly, with the 40% anticipated decrease in corn production this year, this kind of production has great value.

It brings me back to the rather light muscling on the old breeds. I would like a birds that can forage on grasses etc, and mature to fatten stage before late fall. I suspect that none of the heritage breeds can do that. And probably none of the cornishX can do it without lots of grain.

My other observation from sheep is this. I could build a large frame, but heavy muscling is another selection process. I suspect chickens are the same.
-------------------
Hi Arielle,
I agree. In the new books, they teach me how to scramble chromosomes to reach my ideal. In the old books, they teach me the same thing with the "art" of breeding, which is learned by experience. the difference is, the new books instruct with numbers. The old books instruct with words. I'm a very visual learner and have trouble with the new books, but I "get" the old books.
That said, there is another variable here which I think needs further exploring. The food folks feed Sussex. More than some other breeds I have studied, the Sussex was built to eat a very specific diet. Especially for fattening. I can't help but think we would see dramatic increase in rapid growth and fattening success if we went back to those old diets. They were all developed by experience. What works and what didn't. I wonder how many of us try to fatten our Sussex with a corn based diet, instead of the oat, tallow and milk diet which was used in various ratios and values by the old timers.
I wonder how much of the lack of historical success we see with the modern Sussex is due to a departure from the historic way to raise the breed. There is a farm in Britain which has gone back to the old ways of raising and fattening Sussex. They're having great success in the market place and have won an award of excellence for their products. Their Sussex are not some historic version they time traveled into the present. They're using the same modern gene pool we are. In that I mean, a Sussex gene pool long corrupted for meat values by folk breeding for eggs and exhibition. Yet they succeed. Why?.... It's generally known in Britain that in England at least the meat values in the Sussex breed are severely challenged and in danger of extinction. I think there is great robustness hidden in this breed which is being withheld by other than genetic reasons.

 

[Arielle]

Karen, I love how you bring new-old ideas to the table!!

THat long ago FAT livestock was a necessity for a number of reasons. People ate huge amounts of calories compared to now. Oil as a fuel did not exists. For example, the old style pig, the lard pig was very important; the modern pig has been slimmed down and the muscle increased.

Back to chickens. I'm interested in more muscling than I suspect the old varieties had. Or perhaps they needed more time (12-18m) to develop the maturity to put on the muscling; more muscling than a 4 month old.

So, while the sussex is not quite the bird it used to be, it is the most likely breed to be raised in the traditional manner for the sussex. I do suspect that the English Sussex is more likely to succeed as it seems during the importation period in the US lines could be mixed with other breeds, as well as the purpose altered in more recent years, like becoming a layer rather than holding on to the meat qualities.

Changing within a breed is the hardest. Baby steps.It is always easier to mix in a line that has the genes desired for a particular trait.

 

[Arielle]

Ran out of time today to check the trio for muscling. WIll try tomorrow.

Is anyone handling their birds?

Are we supposed to put the cocks on a scale to weigh them?