The Buckeye Thread

[buffalogal]

Well fizzle. I have no idea why this is not working for me this evening, but oh well. Guess I can reply in "long hand"

"Sure sounds good on paper doesn't it. IMHO that is simply not the case."
I don't see why not. Breeding any breed will result in some DQ and faults, but over time, if you have a good idea what you are selecting for and against, those faults will be less an less obvious.

"You can still have a utility buckeye just as you can have a utility RIR. They can still be "pure" bred but don't share the same traits as exhibition birds. With how broad the SOP is and can interpreted; they can still fall under the general guidelines."
Well of course, who said otherwise? It should go without saying that it's not difficult to start with a line of purebred birds and without ever adding anything else, breed them into the ground until all you have are "utility birds". Nothing hard about that at all, hatcheries do it all the time. But the ideal is to have ALL of your birds meet the Sop. They might not all have a picture perfect comb, or some otherwise minor defect as far as production is concerned, but there should be no doubt as to the breed. That's why, to me, it's the overall quality of the flock that counts, not whether they have a few big winning "show birds". I would rather purchase stock from a breeder whose birds (Both sexes, all ages) place in every class they are entered in.

"Utility buckeyes are often lighter in overall color and darkness of mahogany."
Is there an echo in here? I just wrote that.

"You can see the difference that I speak of in the color contrast of the red and black in the tail. IMO, with a properly colored buckeye the difference between the red and black in the tail won't be as obvious to the naked eye."
I have no problem discerning the difference between black and mahogany in even the darkest birds, but then, I used to work as a negative and print retoucher decades before photoshop, so detcteing one color from another is easy for me. Still, as I pointed out, color is the one thing that is going to have the least effect on a birds productivity. Physical traits like crow headed, narrow bodies, pinched tails, and short backs are going to effect the egglaying and vitality, so if you are selecting your stock based on the SoP, you'll be eliminating those traits no matter what breed you have.

I will say I've never seen a white legged Buckeye, or even one whose shanks came close to being white, but it is normal for the yellow coloring of the shanks and beak on a good laying hen to fade the longer she is in production. In fact, it's a good way to pick out the productive vs non laying and marginally productive birds in a group that for whatever reason you can't handle to check for conformation provided they aren't molting. That's not saying it's not possible to select for a rich deep yellow, only that I would not cull a bird with lighter yellow legs until i'd confirmed whether or not she was laying. I've found that when the hens and pullets are laying, the most reliable indicator of the real color of the shanks of a line is found in the male birds, but, as always, YMMV.

 

[slfarms]

Fascinating conversation today everyone. IMOP a utility buckeye aka barnyard buck is a buckeye who didn't meet all or most of the qualifications of the SOP and wouldn't be entered into the show arena.

If the bird has to light of feathers, fluff instead of tight feathers, improper feather width, narrow head I deem that utility bird. Use it
for eggs or meat.

 

[slfarms]

Fascinating conversation today everyone. IMOP a utility buckeye aka barnyard buck is a buckeye who didn't meet all or most of the qualifications of the SOP and wouldn't be entered into the show arena.

If the bird has to light of feathers, fluff instead of tight feathers, improper feather width, narrow head I deem that utility bird. Use it
for eggs or meat.

I have noticed in birds I have seen at shows have the wrong tail carriage, pinched tails, narrow feathers. There also seemed to be fluff where there wings were as they were to high.

Any birds that meet the above description that show up on my farm are termed utility birds.

 

[Blueface]

I have noticed in birds I have seen at shows have the wrong tail carriage, pinched tails, narrow feathers. There also seemed to be fluff where there wings were as they were to high.

You mention pinched tails. I believe this to be a result of the back narrowing to the base of the tail. The standard states that the breed should be of even width throughout the length of the carcass; from my observations a narrow tail is often a result of a back that narrows to the tail from the top view, as well as the side profile

 

[buffalogal]

The breed has a strong Cornish resemblance

I've heard of people crossing Buckeye and dark Cornish for meat birds, (and from experience, I can tell you a Dominique/Buckeye cross creates a bird of impressive substance), but otherwise I have not noticed that Buckeye particularly resemble Cornish. The standard doesn't describe them the same, the illustrations certainly don't resemble each other. I don't know exactly what Cornish looked like in Mrs Metcalf's day, but to my eye, the modern Cornish resemble a poultry version of an English Bulldog while the Buckeye more resembles a Rottweiler. Do you have any photos of the old "Indian Game" (Cornish) as she would have known them, and how do they compare with the breed she finally developed?

 

[buffalogal]

Completely off topic, but, that's a nice flower Happy Buckeye. Is that a Grandpa Ott, Early Call or Star of Yelta?

 

[slfarms]

You mention pinched tails. I believe this to be a result of the back narrowing to the base of the tail. The standard states that the breed should be of even width throughout the length of the carcass; from my observations a narrow tail is often a result of a back that narrows to the tail from the top view, as well as the side profile

What I've noticed on the pinched tails is when you look down on the bird at their back they look like a reverse triangle. Wide towards the neck and taper to a point at the popes nose. ;-)

 

[Blueface]

The standard doesn't describe them the same, the illustrations certainly don't resemble each other.

Do you have any photos of the old "Indian Game" (Cornish) as she would have known them, and how do they compare with the breed she finally developed?

The standard does to mention the resemblance of the Cornish in the introduction to the breed: "...in body shape, as well as comb, they resemble the early Cornish of the 1905 period with stout muscular thighs, broad and well rounded breast ........" I have plenty of photos of the older Cornish or Indian game fowl. What strikes me is the resemblance in the head and facial features between the two breeds.

 

[Blueface]

Here is a nice pic I took out of one of my old books I've collect on orientals and the actual Indian game/Cornish of that time period. This memoir was conducted by Mr. Herbert Atkinson who was world famous for his studies on poultry around the turn of the century, The Cornish/Indian game of that time period closely resembled that of its foundation blood; the aseel.

 

[buffalogal]

The standard does to mention the resemblance of the Cornish in the introduction to the breed: "...in body shape, as well as comb, they resemble the early Cornish of the 1905 period with stout muscular thighs, broad and well rounded breast ........" I have plenty of photos of the older Cornish or Indian game fowl. What strikes me is the resemblance in the head and facial features between the two breeds.

(Just saw you had posted a picture; thanks.

)

So the Cornish of 1905 was basically all legs, with an exaggerated, wide body and, well, a teeny, tiny shrunken head? (no wonder the standard says "without the breadth of shoulder") Do you have more pictures of early Cornish and Buckeyes as bred by Nettie that you can post so we can compare?