Slight twist on rooster being mean to certain hens

[huntersmoon]

The previous owner responded that he was born January 31 of this year, so he is almost 7 months old.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

put your dominant hen in a pen along with the male chicken in question. He should establish his dominance over her quickly. (you may want to look away) If he doesn't he is either immature or has some other hormone imbalance. Any rooster worth his salt will not tolerate his hens fighting among themselves, at least he won't if he is the dominant bird in the flock. As stated before the exception is the hen or hens who refuses the rooster's advances. For better or for worst those hens are on their on.

As said elsewhere the faint at heart were never intended to watch chicken society.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

My recommendation is to give him a few more months to mature. It sounds like he is attempting to become the cock-of-the-walk but he is unsure about how to go about it. Please private message me in 3-5 months and tell me how it goes.

 

[huntersmoon]

He does mate with the dominant hen, I have not seen him mate with the others but have not watched them all of the time. Sounds good - I will just watch to make sure he does not harm these barred rocks.

And the barred rocks do not look like roosters, despite one of them donkey-braying?

Thanks
Shannon

 

[chooks4life]

Quote: The black marks don't indicate spurs growing nor potential for spurs. Spur buds exist in both genders and can grow into proper spurs in even a laying hen. Crowing is also something some hens do. It's a fallacy that only a hormonally imbalanced hen crows. It occurs for several reasons. Spur buds are pale on pale legs, and on dark legs they're darker but still pale compared to the leg. In the photo you showed, the black mark is on the outside of the leg; the leg behind it shows the spur bud clearly, sticking out... But not in a developing/male way. I would theorize the black mark is damage, or pigmentation which could suggest she's not purebred.

Neither look like roosters to me. It is possible one is unwell; or maybe not hormonally correct but she is developed normally for a hen so I doubt that's it. Roosters go more by physical sexual characteristics than anything else, but what he interprets as such depends on what he was raised with to some degree.

Quote: He's picking on hens who aren't tackling him. Otherwise, your suggestion should work, and it would be identical to what I'd suggest, if that were the case. But he's tackling hens who aren't offering him trouble.

About him having a hormone imbalance for not beating up on hens, my roosters don't, and they're more fertile than normal. No imbalances there.

With all the bad roosters which I've culled, I've seen a direct correlation between roosters who are violent to hens and low or imbalanced hormones and poor fertility. (When I say poor I mean average or below. I expect better than average from mine due to the extra nutrition I feed them). My worst roosters have always, without exception, been low fertility. They know they're sub-par too, and it contributes to them being so aggressive. In other species too, studies have proven that aggression in males is often a direct indication of low fertility. This has been found in bulls, rams, etc. There have been articles published in Australia about the correlation. Interesting stuff.

Aggressive harem keeping is the breeding strategy of the sub-par male. Top-grade males have females come to them, they don't need to try to isolate a group of females from all other males in order to pass on their genes. In the wild this is observed in everything from wrens to tortoises to deer to horses. Some males never try to keep a group of females isolated and dominated, rather they just mate with the females that come to them. If given a choice, females will select the best male. Quite often it's the one who isn't fighting over her.

Any male that harms females is not worth his feed bill. There is nothing natural about a male harming his mate, nor is it a sign of virility, intelligence, instinct, or breed-worthiness.

A male chicken naturally feeds and protects one or two hens, usually, and does not attack them whether or not they have a fight. He also helps find and make nests for them and when chicks arrive he will help raise them too. At no point is violence towards a hen something natural to the species. It's something we've bred in, but some folks like it and view it as normal, because they think males dominate females normally. In the wild, this is not the case. I've studied animals and their behavior for years. Old info on them is mostly bunk; for example, now we accept that a matriarch leads the elephant herd, whereas not long ago we were being taught that a bull does.

I've raised hundreds of roosters from many genetic lines and have not found a single one that is mentally sound and yet dominates hens. He is naturally only dominant over males, not females. Normal hens do not challenge roosters and normal roosters do not challenge hens. Their roles are separate and complimentary and neither can take the other's place, so neither tries --- IF they're in their right mind with healthy instincts.

There will always be an alpha hen who is dominant over the other hens. I've had a few less intelligent roosters who always made a fight between hens a three-way fight. Never made peace, only harmed my hens. Never stopped them either. I culled them. I won't tolerate a rooster harming hens. It's not natural, not in the wild, nor in captivity. The pecking order between hens exists whether or not there is a rooster present. Him attacking both participants does not solve their dispute. Any rooster who does that is occupying both the top male and top female roles simultaneously. I'd only accept that if he was some kind of miraculous bi-fertile hermaphrodite!

I bet the reason people think they need a rooster to beat their fighting hens is because they've never let their hens settle their pecking order, by keeping a rooster with confused instincts who joins in any fight he sees. In my experience with many species a third party interfering with a status fight makes it far more likely to result in fatalities when the two antagonists are able to sort it out later. My roosters don't attack fighting hens and my hens rarely fight, and never seriously. Aggressive hens are not fixed by keeping a female-bashing male. At least that's not my definition of a healthy flock. The best breedings are naturally between males and females who gravitate to each other due to genetic compatibility. A male who forcibly passes on his genes is not worth breeding.

There's another suggestion for the thread starter --- you may have a rooster descended from people who breed that kind of male, since they view it as normal. But that doesn't explain him lashing out at hens who are minding their own business. I don't think he's doing that as a symptom of his healthy masculinity, either...
Quote: Only breeding those that are not vicious is not faint-hearted. It's commonsense and commercially necessary. It is also true to the natural social structure and behaviors of the species.

We don't consider dogs used in dog fighting to be the norm for the species' social interaction, and neither should we consider abusive males or females as being the standard --- because they're not. Healthy birds, with healthy instinct, and a healthy diet and environment, are peaceful. It's not because they're faint-hearted, either. It is actually the way is is meant to be, and becomes, if you stop breeding the bullies. But negative mentalities are strong. The desire or predisposition to harm others will dominate even a bird that is never challenged by others.

In the wild, a male who attacks females or chicks, and a female who attacks males or young, both fail to pass on their genes. THAT is natural. Humans have bred a whole new chicken society though, and still call it 'nature's way' and suchlike. Each to their own. I prefer a non-self-harming flock, personally. And it is easy to achieve, and once achieved, easy to maintain, and breeds true. Best wishes to all and their flocks.

 

[chooks4life]

I put a red circle around her spur bud. Hope this helps.

Sorry about the long post above... It's sad that people take great genetic lines and then eradicate the truly great males from it because they think he's not as manly as the male who does violence to females. Only the males who harm females are normal and healthy, apparently? And everyone who thinks otherwise is faint hearted. Takes a brave farmer to keep the male who harms females. Faint-hearted farmers keep weak males, who probably have low/imbalanced hormones, and don't forcibly dominate females.

It's just bizarre and perhaps reflects on our society more than we know. Ingrained and dangerous fallacies about what a male is. Testicles do not equal violence, nor do they equal retardation. But many people select stud males of their livestock like those two non-facts are some sort of universal laws. It's tragic. Such a continual waste of great males. It really says a lot about what society thinks of all males, humans included. But with all breeds of livestock, the most successful commercial farmers do not tolerate abusive males. If he harms females or young, he will not be allowed to pass on his genes. No exceptions.

It doesn't matter how much he cost. Every male of every species has his value degraded steeply by a violent attitude. So degraded he is killed for it since it renders him only worth the price of his meat. It's only sensible. Temperament is vitally important because his attitude will make or break their bottom line. Your female's the money-maker; if he harms her, his value as a stud decreases or utterly vanishes, especially when you consider his sons will likely be the same. The biggest commercial farmers cull abusive males, so it's not just me who is 'faint hearted' about the idea of keeping flocks and herds with males who damage females. It's just not done. We bred that in and we can breed it out. Very quickly, in fact.