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.
