I think we now have a DIALOGUE!
This is why we keep breeding the Self Blue Orpingtons back to the Black Orpingtons. Building the barn!
Standard of Perfection
- Thread starter AllenWMiller
- Start date
I think we now have a DIALOGUE!
This is why we keep breeding the Self Blue Orpingtons back to the Black Orpingtons. Building the barn!
You asked for any SOP disagrements? There's a whole thread full of them, basically the polar oppostie of this thread -- not everything is against SOP, mostly the thread is a stressing warning of what will happen when an SOP is taken too seriously; it makes for about 30 minutes of an interesting read.https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/605124/bow-lake-rising-breed-stewards-thread/30
- Thread starter
- #23
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thanks Ducks and Bannys. Though I asked for differing view points regarding the interpretation of the SOP not an out and out disregard for it. However, I just read through the string and I've more than a few comments and concerns. In all honesty, I don't think the folks there are debating with a clear understanding of what the Standard of Perfection was actually established for in the first place. Nor did they clearly argue why they are so against standards in general.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I will agree that today the ABA is geared almost exclusively to the fancier and show person. But that hasn't always been the case. There was a time when the ABA encompassed the entire poultry world with breeders, fanciers, hobbyists and productionists. And while today the Standard of Perfection may be wielded as an end all answer to a specific breed of poultry, it most certainly is not how I view it. Particularly since my background is in poultry science, genetics, breeding and production generally and not as a fancier exclusively. And actually I've never shown a single one of my birds in 97 years and counting (though lets never say never just yet); though many have been shown by customers over the years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My purpose in discussing Standards of Perfection is in use as a guide toward breeding and maintaining genetic breeding material. When breeding one must have a base line standard to follow and with chickens I know not of a better base line than the Standard of Perfection.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now in the string mentioned there was little understanding of chicken breeds or breeding, generally and more than a few misleading comments about letting "chickens" revert back to their original state which is out and out silliness. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The domesticated chicken has little in common with their ancestors to be certain and letting them “revert” back to their wild ancestry is tantamount to saying let all dog breeds revert back to their ancestral wolf heritage. And let all human beings revert back as well?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Chickens of all the Aves, in general, are one of the four most domesticated animals known to man and I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that point. Further, a comment was made that breeding and culling should be left to "mother nature" and again this point seems folly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If poultry breeders, starting with the Chinese and Egyptians 4 or 5 thousand years ago, had not developed the wild game fowls into domesticated animals for productive purposes; modern man would be without one of the most vital food sources we have today. It can quite easily be argued that between beer and eggs, man was built and sustained for thousands of years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Poultry breeders, culminating in the early 19th century came to conclusion that standards should be developed to identify the characteristics of the various breeds of Gallus domesticus. This was largely in order to standardize what a breed should be; so that breeders could develop better strains and new breeds based on these standards. Granted that from 1875 onwards the standards developed into a set of rules for showing poultry in general. But this doesn't negate the importance of these standards even to breeders (and dare I say geneticists) today.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And I don't wish to offend anyone but the string touched upon issues of God that really had little to do with the topic at hand. And for those arguing that breeders are “playing with nature” this is difficult to grasp. For when referring to the Old Testament doesn't God Command to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply”? There are certainly passages in the Old Testament as well as archaeological archives clearly demonstrating that “God's People” were selectively breeding animals for thousands of years and references that this fact “Pleased God Greatly”. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now I don't want to start a theological debate here as it it isn't my purpose. My purpose is to clearly state that Standards are necessary in breeding and breeding is absolutely necessary to the survival of this thing we call humanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If it weren't for breeders and geneticists billions of people would be starving today far beyond the levels we currently have statistically.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]About two years ago now, I attended the funeral of an old colleague and friend (as an old man I do this a lot, going to funerals of old friends). He was a fella who most should know and worship as the hero he was, but unfortunately he is relatively unknown to most today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Norman Ernest Borlaug was my friend and probably the greatest savior of mankind of the 20th century onward. Now I know the word savior may rankle a few feathers here but what else do you call a man that dedicated his whole life to savings billions of people (yes this is a literal number of people this man has kept alive and counting) by single handedly developed high yield strains of wheat and corn that are still literally feeding the world and gave his life's work to the people. That's right he didn't collect a dime on his patents but gave them to humanity for the good of the world. (Yes this really REALLY ticked Monsanto off you have no idea!) What other human do we know of that can tout literally saving billions of lives?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now this has little to do with backyard poultry but my point is that geneticists, breeders and agricultural science all play a vital role in sustaining mankind. And through diversity we maintain this fragile balance between destruction and survival.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are six major corporations producing 90% of the worlds food today. Imagine the damage if they fail; if even one failed. Imagine something so simple as old breeds of chickens disappearing and the loss of diversity as a result and the mutant strains that are left develop a chronic genetic disease.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How do we start over and could we? No heading “backwards” and regressing isn't the answer. Moving forward with clear purpose and understanding is the best and only logical way to proceed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I apologize that this got off tangent a bit from what this string is suppose to be. I think all strings have their legitimacy but I had hope to keep this string breeding specific.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I will agree that today the ABA is geared almost exclusively to the fancier and show person. But that hasn't always been the case. There was a time when the ABA encompassed the entire poultry world with breeders, fanciers, hobbyists and productionists. And while today the Standard of Perfection may be wielded as an end all answer to a specific breed of poultry, it most certainly is not how I view it. Particularly since my background is in poultry science, genetics, breeding and production generally and not as a fancier exclusively. And actually I've never shown a single one of my birds in 97 years and counting (though lets never say never just yet); though many have been shown by customers over the years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My purpose in discussing Standards of Perfection is in use as a guide toward breeding and maintaining genetic breeding material. When breeding one must have a base line standard to follow and with chickens I know not of a better base line than the Standard of Perfection.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now in the string mentioned there was little understanding of chicken breeds or breeding, generally and more than a few misleading comments about letting "chickens" revert back to their original state which is out and out silliness. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The domesticated chicken has little in common with their ancestors to be certain and letting them “revert” back to their wild ancestry is tantamount to saying let all dog breeds revert back to their ancestral wolf heritage. And let all human beings revert back as well?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Chickens of all the Aves, in general, are one of the four most domesticated animals known to man and I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that point. Further, a comment was made that breeding and culling should be left to "mother nature" and again this point seems folly.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If poultry breeders, starting with the Chinese and Egyptians 4 or 5 thousand years ago, had not developed the wild game fowls into domesticated animals for productive purposes; modern man would be without one of the most vital food sources we have today. It can quite easily be argued that between beer and eggs, man was built and sustained for thousands of years.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Poultry breeders, culminating in the early 19th century came to conclusion that standards should be developed to identify the characteristics of the various breeds of Gallus domesticus. This was largely in order to standardize what a breed should be; so that breeders could develop better strains and new breeds based on these standards. Granted that from 1875 onwards the standards developed into a set of rules for showing poultry in general. But this doesn't negate the importance of these standards even to breeders (and dare I say geneticists) today.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And I don't wish to offend anyone but the string touched upon issues of God that really had little to do with the topic at hand. And for those arguing that breeders are “playing with nature” this is difficult to grasp. For when referring to the Old Testament doesn't God Command to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply”? There are certainly passages in the Old Testament as well as archaeological archives clearly demonstrating that “God's People” were selectively breeding animals for thousands of years and references that this fact “Pleased God Greatly”. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now I don't want to start a theological debate here as it it isn't my purpose. My purpose is to clearly state that Standards are necessary in breeding and breeding is absolutely necessary to the survival of this thing we call humanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If it weren't for breeders and geneticists billions of people would be starving today far beyond the levels we currently have statistically.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]About two years ago now, I attended the funeral of an old colleague and friend (as an old man I do this a lot, going to funerals of old friends). He was a fella who most should know and worship as the hero he was, but unfortunately he is relatively unknown to most today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Norman Ernest Borlaug was my friend and probably the greatest savior of mankind of the 20th century onward. Now I know the word savior may rankle a few feathers here but what else do you call a man that dedicated his whole life to savings billions of people (yes this is a literal number of people this man has kept alive and counting) by single handedly developed high yield strains of wheat and corn that are still literally feeding the world and gave his life's work to the people. That's right he didn't collect a dime on his patents but gave them to humanity for the good of the world. (Yes this really REALLY ticked Monsanto off you have no idea!) What other human do we know of that can tout literally saving billions of lives?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now this has little to do with backyard poultry but my point is that geneticists, breeders and agricultural science all play a vital role in sustaining mankind. And through diversity we maintain this fragile balance between destruction and survival.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are six major corporations producing 90% of the worlds food today. Imagine the damage if they fail; if even one failed. Imagine something so simple as old breeds of chickens disappearing and the loss of diversity as a result and the mutant strains that are left develop a chronic genetic disease.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How do we start over and could we? No heading “backwards” and regressing isn't the answer. Moving forward with clear purpose and understanding is the best and only logical way to proceed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I apologize that this got off tangent a bit from what this string is suppose to be. I think all strings have their legitimacy but I had hope to keep this string breeding specific.[/FONT]
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #24
Spangled here is a view of the New Hampshire i just finished compiling:
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]New Hampshire general description:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Eye Color: Bay
Beak: Reddish horn
Comb, Wattles, Face Ear Lobes: All bright red. Male comb should be straight with 5 points. Female comb may lop to one side or be straight depending on strain.
Plumage: Soft, heavily feathered chestnut red.
Body: Should be round, fully bodied with broad chest, a flattish head, following down a continuous hollow sweep leading to the tail.
Hen: Neck should display distinct black markings with black feathering in wings and tail.
Cock: Should posses three distinct colorations being: neck hackles should be a light golden bay, leading into a medium chestnut bay in the saddle hackles, and dark golden bay in the saddle. Along with black flight and tail feathering.
Under Feathering: Should display distinct light salmon coloration with gray to smoke tinge when main plumage is pulled back to reveal down.
Legs: Yellow with reddish horn hue. Males may display lines distinct line of red coloration down the shank. Female leg coloration will fade during laying.
Skin: yellow
Egg Coloration: light brown to dark brown depending on strain.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Weight: Cocks 8.5lbs Hens 7.5lbs Cockerels 7.5 Pounds Pullets 5.5lbs
Egg Production: 120+ (Should be noted here that the original New Hampshires were recorded as high as 325 eggs per annum. Today's hens are poor comparisons to their ancestors.)
Chicks: Sandy to Salmon red to red yellow. Much lighter than their ancestor the Rhode Island Red Chick.
Broodiness: Hens make good brood hens and mothers. Medium broodiness in nature.
Temperament: A relatively calm and docile breed highly recommended for the hobbyist and backyard poultry enthusiast. They can be aggressive with other breeds and at feeding time with each other.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Origins: For more than 30 years poultry-men selected only the strongest and biggest chicks and line bred them again selecting only chicks from the strongest layers sired by the biggest, broadest Cocks available. There was little circle breeding done here and by this we mean returning to the originator being the Rhode Island Red. Once the strain was started line and selective breeding were done for generation up generation successively culling and keeping only those most desirable cockerels and pullets and then recrossing mother to son and Father to daughter for decades. The result of this “closed” breeding was the establishment of what we know today as the New Hampshire.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Many folks know the basics of the New Hampshire chicken. It was this selective and line breeding program started around 1915 between poultry-men in Massachusetts and New Hampshire who were line breeding and selectively breeding Rhode Island Reds in an effort to develop a more productive and larger broiler meat bird. Officially recognized as a standard breed by the APA in 1935 it has always been listed as a "dual purpose" bird though today I have yet to understand why?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What folks may not know is that the New Hampshire never gained broad popularity in the United States and was nearly lost by the late 50's. Further, while the New Hampshire was never really popular here, in Great Britain during the 50's and 60's it was all the rage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Today The Netherlands and Germany still have a strong fancier and breeding community of New Hampshires and have developed two additional colorations in addition to the standard Chestnut Red , the Chestnut Red Blue Marked and the White New Hampshire are also recognized. These two additional colors are not recognized by the APA due to little interest in the Original New Hampshire today. Like the Rhode Island White the New Hampshire White is a true sport.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]When the New hampshire was being developed in the early 20's it was as much a race to get a bird named a “New Hampshire” to compete for bragging rights against Rhode Island's “Red”. But there was a serious side to the line breeding and selective breeding that went on too.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It was a much a desire to develop a meaty, quick developing cockerel as it was to improve the laying quality of the hens. Records indicate that by 1930 breeders had seen a high of 325 eggs per year and an average of 275 eggs per year. But because the selective line breeding for egg production didn't take precedent over the selective breeding for meat quality these egg production levels were lost.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This race to produce new breeds of chickens was a true race when I was a young man. A poultry-man/woman wasn't worth their salt if they didn't attempt to develop a stronger, healthy more productive chicken. And then it was the small holders that were doing most of this creative work; since the industrial farm complex didn't yet exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The New Hampshire like so many other breeds during this time were a means to a more productive and profitable farm life for poultry productionists as well as the average backyard producer of meat and eggs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I have to say as a poultry-man it was a magical and spirited time to live in for those interested in poultry generally. I have lived long enough to see poultry enthusiasm rise to it's highest only to fall miserably in the late 60's onward. I am glad as an old man to see the Nation as a whole taking a second look at poultry again. Poultry and farming generally made this Country great and it made the people great because they cared about one another on a level that today most people don't get or understand. We were there for each other then.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Perhaps one does live too long to see what they would prefer not to see?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But I am heartened that poultry still has the magical charm on people that it always has had. I don't know if it is a chicken's comical nature or their curiosity or their whimsical nature and how they can bond to humans. Maybe it's the fact that chickens are willing to take us into their flock on our terms rather than the other way around? And I know nothing beats the magic of a chick pushing out of its shell, drying off and looking to us totally dependent on us for everything even as they grow up![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]New Hampshire general description:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Eye Color: Bay
Beak: Reddish horn
Comb, Wattles, Face Ear Lobes: All bright red. Male comb should be straight with 5 points. Female comb may lop to one side or be straight depending on strain.
Plumage: Soft, heavily feathered chestnut red.
Body: Should be round, fully bodied with broad chest, a flattish head, following down a continuous hollow sweep leading to the tail.
Hen: Neck should display distinct black markings with black feathering in wings and tail.
Cock: Should posses three distinct colorations being: neck hackles should be a light golden bay, leading into a medium chestnut bay in the saddle hackles, and dark golden bay in the saddle. Along with black flight and tail feathering.
Under Feathering: Should display distinct light salmon coloration with gray to smoke tinge when main plumage is pulled back to reveal down.
Legs: Yellow with reddish horn hue. Males may display lines distinct line of red coloration down the shank. Female leg coloration will fade during laying.
Skin: yellow
Egg Coloration: light brown to dark brown depending on strain.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Weight: Cocks 8.5lbs Hens 7.5lbs Cockerels 7.5 Pounds Pullets 5.5lbs
Egg Production: 120+ (Should be noted here that the original New Hampshires were recorded as high as 325 eggs per annum. Today's hens are poor comparisons to their ancestors.)
Chicks: Sandy to Salmon red to red yellow. Much lighter than their ancestor the Rhode Island Red Chick.
Broodiness: Hens make good brood hens and mothers. Medium broodiness in nature.
Temperament: A relatively calm and docile breed highly recommended for the hobbyist and backyard poultry enthusiast. They can be aggressive with other breeds and at feeding time with each other.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Origins: For more than 30 years poultry-men selected only the strongest and biggest chicks and line bred them again selecting only chicks from the strongest layers sired by the biggest, broadest Cocks available. There was little circle breeding done here and by this we mean returning to the originator being the Rhode Island Red. Once the strain was started line and selective breeding were done for generation up generation successively culling and keeping only those most desirable cockerels and pullets and then recrossing mother to son and Father to daughter for decades. The result of this “closed” breeding was the establishment of what we know today as the New Hampshire.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Many folks know the basics of the New Hampshire chicken. It was this selective and line breeding program started around 1915 between poultry-men in Massachusetts and New Hampshire who were line breeding and selectively breeding Rhode Island Reds in an effort to develop a more productive and larger broiler meat bird. Officially recognized as a standard breed by the APA in 1935 it has always been listed as a "dual purpose" bird though today I have yet to understand why?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What folks may not know is that the New Hampshire never gained broad popularity in the United States and was nearly lost by the late 50's. Further, while the New Hampshire was never really popular here, in Great Britain during the 50's and 60's it was all the rage.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Today The Netherlands and Germany still have a strong fancier and breeding community of New Hampshires and have developed two additional colorations in addition to the standard Chestnut Red , the Chestnut Red Blue Marked and the White New Hampshire are also recognized. These two additional colors are not recognized by the APA due to little interest in the Original New Hampshire today. Like the Rhode Island White the New Hampshire White is a true sport.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]When the New hampshire was being developed in the early 20's it was as much a race to get a bird named a “New Hampshire” to compete for bragging rights against Rhode Island's “Red”. But there was a serious side to the line breeding and selective breeding that went on too.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It was a much a desire to develop a meaty, quick developing cockerel as it was to improve the laying quality of the hens. Records indicate that by 1930 breeders had seen a high of 325 eggs per year and an average of 275 eggs per year. But because the selective line breeding for egg production didn't take precedent over the selective breeding for meat quality these egg production levels were lost.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This race to produce new breeds of chickens was a true race when I was a young man. A poultry-man/woman wasn't worth their salt if they didn't attempt to develop a stronger, healthy more productive chicken. And then it was the small holders that were doing most of this creative work; since the industrial farm complex didn't yet exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The New Hampshire like so many other breeds during this time were a means to a more productive and profitable farm life for poultry productionists as well as the average backyard producer of meat and eggs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I have to say as a poultry-man it was a magical and spirited time to live in for those interested in poultry generally. I have lived long enough to see poultry enthusiasm rise to it's highest only to fall miserably in the late 60's onward. I am glad as an old man to see the Nation as a whole taking a second look at poultry again. Poultry and farming generally made this Country great and it made the people great because they cared about one another on a level that today most people don't get or understand. We were there for each other then.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Perhaps one does live too long to see what they would prefer not to see?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]But I am heartened that poultry still has the magical charm on people that it always has had. I don't know if it is a chicken's comical nature or their curiosity or their whimsical nature and how they can bond to humans. Maybe it's the fact that chickens are willing to take us into their flock on our terms rather than the other way around? And I know nothing beats the magic of a chick pushing out of its shell, drying off and looking to us totally dependent on us for everything even as they grow up![/FONT]
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #25
For your Maran question Spangle:
As for your Marans laying "lighter" colored eggs; as I stated earlier egg color is recessive and as a hen gets older her egg color tends to get lighter. As genes divide at the cellular level they tend to "wear down" (yes I'm attempting to keep the technical talk to a minimum here) and as the recessive gene "ages" it becomes even less a factor. Thus as your hen ages her eggs tend to get lighter because the genes influencing color are getting weaker. However, if she is under say 6 years old and she represents a good "Maran"; then I highly recommend you continue to hatch her eggs as she will continue to produce good offspring as she has done in the past. Though I always recommend against using a hen past 6 years of age for reproduction.
As for your Marans laying "lighter" colored eggs; as I stated earlier egg color is recessive and as a hen gets older her egg color tends to get lighter. As genes divide at the cellular level they tend to "wear down" (yes I'm attempting to keep the technical talk to a minimum here) and as the recessive gene "ages" it becomes even less a factor. Thus as your hen ages her eggs tend to get lighter because the genes influencing color are getting weaker. However, if she is under say 6 years old and she represents a good "Maran"; then I highly recommend you continue to hatch her eggs as she will continue to produce good offspring as she has done in the past. Though I always recommend against using a hen past 6 years of age for reproduction.
Where was I last night? For my very first time, I was out in the coop trying to get a feel for what a solid sternum or a broad rib cage should feel like. I felt a Buckeye and a Chantecler and ignored my favorite Marans male because he is in a breeding pen. I don't show chickens, so I don't usually handle them very much preferring to let them live their chicken lives without a whole lot of handling by me, especially the roosters. So thanks for inspiring me to get to know my chickens better. However, I couldn't tell if they were hiding a multitude or sin or just a tiny bit of sin.
I am enthralled by your posts. You have my rapt attention. I would love to hear your views on a multitude of topics, but I don't want to monopolize your time with my questions. I thoroughly appreciate your responses and took notes. Wow! Great information! Thanks.
But wait, one quick question, you mention that you used hens for up to six years for breeding. Which breeds (and strains)? (I'm wondering about which old breeds were capable of that.) And also, how late did they start laying again in the spring? Or did you use supplementary light to keep them laying? What did your grandfather have to say on that topic? Any other comments about breeding are welcome, too, though I realize that gets us off the topic of Standard of Perfection a little bit.
She's a young one. This is her first winter. I am tempted to use her--not just because she is a great looking girl (I lucked out and bought hatching eggs from a decent breeder)--but because she lays so many eggs for a Black Copper Marans. I would be interesting to find out if her eggs of about 4 1/2 or 5 on the Marans egg scale will make daughters that lay darker eggs. The Black Copper Marans breeding experts claim that it's not possible for that to happen. So maybe next summer I'll find out because I've already got this hatching season planned.
Good Morning, Just a quick note my incubator and hatcher are both reading 99.9 and 99.7. Humdity is from 62 to 65% on both machine's. I have one more question, I was wondering if we the general public should be refering to you as"Dr. Miller"? I also would like to know how many years young you really are? Rosie
I believe one of his posts said he is 97, but I could be wrong.
I am really enjoying the information you have to pass along, Mr. Miller. Thank you for sharing with us!
I am really enjoying the information you have to pass along, Mr. Miller. Thank you for sharing with us!
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Alabama No Rooster County getting NPIP possible?
- Started by AlabamaChicklover
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
-
Over researched and made myself anxious about coccidiosis- Started by Echelontheory101
- Replies: 53
-
