The Buckeye Thread

[chickensnew2me]

buckeye girls 14 weeks

more pics

 

[Pathfinders]

buckeye girls 14 weeksmore pics

Looking good!

 

[Pathfinders]

A great chart for line breeding from Judge Card's book "Laws Governing the Breeding of Standard Fowls" which can be found at this link: http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924003158312#page/n1/mode/2up (with thanks to

Karen Tewart for the source!)​

 

[cgmccary]

Notice the backs in these two illustrations as well........Both the buckeye hen and cock have backs that go uphill. Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks for posting this as well, Laura. I love the old poultry books and this is the first that I have not seen before, on a certain web page.

If you look at the SOP illustrations (2010 edition and prior), the backs are always sloping slightly downward to the base of the tail like they are supposed to be -- this diagram presented by Laura simply shows orientation and carriage of the bird comparing RIR to Buckeyes, nothing more. This is why it is important when evaluating your flock to IGNORE the outline created by the feathers and instead, one must feel (hands-on) the body underneath the feathers to get a true picture of type and shape. It is also why one can only discern so much from a picture. What is most important to me is type. Type matters most for those of us who breed our birds to put meat on the table.

You will also note that this illustration, like the SOP illustrations, are correct in wing carriage. The wings are well folded with the fronts of the wings covered by the breast feathers and the wing points by the bird's saddle feathers (per SOP). IMHO, the birds who are carrying their wings pointed downward (i.e. their wing points not covered by the saddle feathers) are doing so because the bird itself is lacking a broad back (i.e. there is not enough thickness of body there for the wings to sit up -- much the same as is going on with my La Fleche).

 

[DarkRedBird]

It was simply an observation but thank you so much for the lesson. The folks here are always so helpful and such experts.

 

[cgmccary]

It was simply an observation but thank you so much for the lesson. The folks here are always so helpful and such experts.

You're very welcome. Good Luck with your birds!

 

[Pathfinders]

If you look at the SOP illustrations (2010 edition and prior), the backs are always sloping slightly downward to the base of the tail like they are supposed to be -- this diagram presented by Laura simply shows orientation and carriage of the bird comparing RIR to Buckeyes, nothing more. This is why it is important when evaluating your flock to IGNORE the outline created by the feathers and instead, one must feel (hands-on) the body underneath the feathers to get a true picture of type and shape. It is also why one can only discern so much from a picture. What is most important to me is type. Type matters most for those of us who breed our birds to put meat on the table.

You will also note that this illustration, like the SOP illustrations, are correct in wing carriage. The wings are well folded with the fronts of the wings covered by the breast feathers and the wing points by the bird's saddle feathers (per SOP). IMHO, the birds who are carrying their wings pointed downward (i.e. their wing points not covered by the saddle feathers) are doing so because the bird itself is lacking a broad back (i.e. there is not enough thickness of body there for the wings to sit up -- much the same as is going on with my La Fleche).

I agree, it's also why it's so hard to really tell much about a bird from a photo. Photos don't show the underlying structure of a bird, but when you pick one up you can feel if it's broad and deep, or slender and rangy. Feathers can hide a lot, which is why judges take birds out of the cages at shows.

 

[007medic]

In mentioning feather, outline of the bird, type and structure, the conversation here seems to have turned to something I've been mulling over for some time now. Pictures I've seen of Buckeyes of the past almost always looked lanky and rangy to my eye....then I got to thinking of the SOP and the description of our beloved breed. Since the description of the breed hasn't really changed since the days of old, I'm thinking that the birds have changed along with our ideals of what we believe they should look like. It would seem to me that if photos of old were of what were considered 'excellent' specimens of the day, they must have been much more tightly feathered than the birds I see at shows today. The outline of the birds appear to have been much more telling of the body underneath due to the tighter feathering. The SOP, I've noticed doesn't specify a 'tightly feathered' bird but I'm interested to see what selection toward that end will produce

Currently I'm watching my birds for what I consider to be too much fluff in the back and sides. This year is promising in the hatching from the spring with some of these goals in mind. 20 weeks out and I've got a fair idea of who's staying to develop further and who's going to freezer camp. I'm interested to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this...

 

[stvnschnell]

9 week old Buckeye (cockerel?) I love the way my birds are starting to look!

 

[JoAnn_WI_4-H_Mom]

We brought the Buckeyes to a local historical farm site for their annual Family Farm Fun Day.

The intimidating-looking rooster Banner was extremely well-mannered and was a favorite lap chicken. The pullet Rose followed children who stopped petting her. My sons enjoyed explaining the origin of the breed.

So these birds are not supposed to become pets, right?

I am not seeing the slate bar on my birds. I am really pleased with them in every other way.