The Buckeye Thread

[Blueface]

From a utility perspective, what does this mean for laying ability? Is it related to the Hogan method? In other words, if a hen is three fingers across the pubic bones, will she have a broad back to support the hips or are they unrelated?
 
And this leads to the relationship between the SOP and utility. Is the SOP written to support a sturdy, dependable production bird in both meat and eggs or is it written just because that is an arbitrary beauty standard?

"capacity" for laying is best measured from the keel bone to the pelvic bone. Plus the distance between the two pelvic bones is important for determining egg production in hens. This is the Walter Hogan method. Ideally you would imagine that to be true in regards to a broad back but I've noticed leghorns that aren't that wide have amazing pelvic widths.

As for how the SOP is written, IMO; I feel that it was written with what you mentioned "to support, dependable production bird" but I also feel there is some contribution to a strong appearance.....but then again it is the standard so that should be the guidelines followed. For people depending on the birds dual purpose contributions and not exhibiting the fowl; what does it matter what the appearance is as long as they don't try to sell them as "show" fowl.

 

[Blueface]

Joe,

I would highly recommend contacting the poultry committee for the Morrow Co. Fair. I got our 2013 catalog and we have a broiler class with hatch dates as follows:
Cornish Cross: 7/8-7/22
Red Bros: 6/3-3/10
All other varieties: 4/8-5/6

So they judge all the meaties as a single class, but allow different hatch dates for different varieties. This is one way to handle it without adding a new class. Underweight and Overweight broilers can be shown and graded in special classes, but are not eligible for competition or sale. 

The person to talk to on that is Mary Neviska as she is heavily involved in promoting Traditional breeds in our county. I sold her my Self buff turkey poults last spring and am hoping to get some eggs from her birds to hatch for next year. If I'm not mistaken, her girls showed at the state fair and finished well. Not sure if they went to the ON or not, since they are in a different school from our kids and we don't see them outside of 4H.

At our county fair; we already have an egg production project of which Sydney's buckeyes have dominated for the past 3-4 years. I'd like to try to marry that project to a meat project centered around about dual purpose breeds judged like that of meat production projects. Based on a point system; a dual purpose class can be judged and project honored.

 

[Marengoite]

As for how the SOP is written, IMO; I feel that it was written with what you mentioned "to support, dependable production bird" but I also feel there is some contribution to a strong appearance.....but then again it is the standard so that should be the guidelines followed. For people depending on the birds dual purpose contributions and not exhibiting the fowl; what does it matter what the appearance is as long as they don't try to sell them as "show" fowl.

Well, I'm an advocate of "form follows function" and if one is wanting good production birds, then that is tied to good looks as well. Maybe not feather color or comb type so much (which is why my hatchery Hamburg had a single comb - not breeding to SOP, probably), but if one wants a robust carcass and good layers, I would think body type would be an important characteristic. I read a hunting dog breeder say that a high tail in a pointing do was not just a stylistic goal, bur also reflected better musculature in the hips leading to a harder driving dog with more stamina than the low tailed dogs. Don't know whether that is accurate or not, but it points out the relationship between looks and function that he believed was important. I'm wondering if a high yield bird is also going to be a good looking bird.

 

[Blueface]

Is your book on Buckeyes in particular or the influence of game chickens on modern breeds? IMO, and FWIW, I would LOVE to see a book that traces the important influence game birds have had on the chicken fancy and why they need to be preserved. It seems the preservationists are all about saving fluffy butts and barnyard fowl, but not game fowl.

I think animal rights kooks and the press have given game fowl a bad rep and we run the risk of losing genetic diversity with the loss of these historically important breeds. 

Boy; you hit the nail right on the head. I plan on having a strong influence of games especially how they were utilized in the late 1800s and early 1900s including their role in today's American class. The book will also include a bunch on the buckeyes.
It is a shame how the animal loons have chastised gamefowl! It is truely unfortunate. It'll be nice placing this class of fowl in a good light!

 

[buffalogal]

Hi Buffalogal- we just call those Morning Glories...kind of like weeds, they cover over the back fence and I have to keeping pulling them out.. I just liked the way the sun was shining through them when I took the picture.

Grandpa Ott, Early Call and SoY are all kinds of Morning Glory (Ipomoea purpurea), in the same way Buckeye, Dominique and Ancona are kinds of chickens.The Seed Saver Exchange was started with the Grandpa Ott. I've grown almost a dozen varieties of Morning Glory (including the three I mentioned) and just wondered which one this was.

 

[Marengoite]

Quote:
Okay, now you have ME intrigued. Let me know how it goes. I may be giving Mary a call and seeing if we can have a Dual Purpose judging class added. This would be fun. Birds get judged in meat AND production and highest combined score wins Dual title? I really, really like this concept.

 

[Blueface]

I'm wondering if a high yield bird is also going to be a good looking bird.

I suppose it's possible but not likely if you are referring to "good looking" as being for exhibition purposes. The highest yield birds I've observed are usually hybrid crosses or production strains which aren't noted for anything other than production. I'd be interested in others' opinions.

 

[buffalogal]

Their heads aren't or weren't as small as you suggested. They still had a pretty good sized head on them but they had that bigger body. They were also medium to medium high stationed. The legs weren't overly long because balance and even proportional distribution were very important for the breed. I have plenty of pics of Nettie's old birds; I found a really amazing catalog from the early breed club and Jeff Lay come across a second one as well. These pics will be published in the book that I'm writing.

From what I've seen, that catalog was amazing from a historical standpoint. I do have a few rather old pictures of Buckeyes on my computer, dated i think 1915 or thereabout, perhaps scanned from that catalog. Wish I'd taken advantage of all those spaces available when naming a file to put down where it came from.

I realize it's a whole 10 years later, but other than the comb, I'm just not seeing such a strong resemblance to that almost freakish Transformer style Cornish, especially not in the hen. They do have stout legs and a nice rounded chest.

I'll go through my files and see if I might have others. I'm always saving screen shots of things that interest me.

edited by staff

 

[Marengoite]

Walt,

I noticed your name on the Hamburg Breeder's Directory as having Black LF Hamburgs. Are you still in the Hamburg business? If so, do you know of any good LF Silver Spangled Hamburg breeders? I had some hatchery birds I really liked and would like to get some better quality birds, but LF breeders seem as scarce as hen's teeth.

 

[fowlman01]

From a utility perspective, what does this mean for laying ability? Is it related to the Hogan method? In other words, if a hen is three fingers across the pubic bones, will she have a broad back to support the hips or are they unrelated?

 
And this leads to the relationship between the SOP and utility. Is the SOP written to support a sturdy, dependable production bird in both meat and eggs or is it written just because that is an arbitrary beauty standard?

look at page 21 and 22 of the Standard. The Standard supports utility.

W