The Plymouth Rock Breeders thread

[Yard full o' rocks]

As summer gets long in the tooth and thoughts begin to consider the return of autumn, how did everyone's spring hatch turn out? What birds are now old enough to show here and describe what you accomplished this year? Any progress? Disappointments?

If you're like me, you see what you really need to work on this winter. The question in my mind is do I have what I need in the present flock to make the progress I want to make.

Is anyone going to hatch out what you consider to be large numbers next go around? If so, why and what are you looking for?

Hello all

In response to Fred's questions

This was a GREAT year for me, especially for type in my females. I double mated for the first time EVER and results were quite good. Good length of back, improved front/underline, MUCH improved tail spread and mostly lost the cushions. Color has also come a long way too toward the standard. I do see a few females shorter in the leg than I'd like. I might hold 1 back just because she has EXCELLENT features otherwise, but the other short legged females are going to be sold.

As for disappointments.....my Males are still a mess. Unlike with the females, double mating did nothing to help me with my males. Front end/underlines are slightly better and weights are still at or above standard, but DANG I can't get a tail to save my life and color in the males is in need of serious improvement....and I'm still fighting brassiness in the hackle, back and saddle areas.

SOOOOOO,

My plans are a focus on my male Columbian Rocks for next season. Will probably hatch about as many as I did this year, somewhere around 100. I am going to take my best two females with longest backs and smutty "black" leaking thru their back feathers (from this breeding season) and breed them back to their sire.

And while I'm not sure how most breeders feel about this, but I think I'm going to breed my two best typed females from 2014 hatch, closest to the color standard as possible, and breed them to my best male from my "male" pen for 2014 hatch. It is "possible" that this could be a cousin mating, but I cannot be 100% positive.

Finally, I have some offspring from a Columbian Rock male over a Col Rock/Barred Rock female. One male is "Columbian looking" and one is "Birchen looking". I am going to mate each back to their dame. These two males should each be carrying 1 copy of the Aph gene necessary to cover the brassiness in male columbian. IF we're right, resulting MALE offspring from this breeding should then carry 2 copies of Aph, and "should not" express any brassiness. Brian Reeder has graciously been guiding me with this project and he seems to be the expert on this issue. I am extremely grateful for the time and expertise he has shared in helping me to overcome this problem.

So, what are the rest of you doing??!!

 

[Fred's Hens]

Since we know we have folks who read here, lurkers Bob Blosl calls them, and perhaps you're wondering if utility is a major focus of any of us. It may appear that the SOP stands in the way of utility, vigor or good temperament. This takes some time to think about. Let's leave aside showing at this point. Let's just leave taking birds to Poultry judging shows on side so we can focus on the history of the Plymouth Rock, it's utility and why the bird(s) were bred in the first place.

The first Rock was the Barred Rock, of course. Those original breeders who mixed this bird from Cochin, Dominique, Black Java and perhaps other birds wanted a true dual purpose bird. In today's world, 90% of all chickens in the world are not dual purpose. We have in the modern age, the CX type, quick maturing broiler. On the other hand, we see millions and millions of industrial egg layers, both in white and or brown egg varieties, depending on the cultural preference. 90% of all chickens alive are not any breed, but specialized mixes-hybrids meeting the task of industrial/commercial agricultural goals in marketing meat and eggs for a hungry world while remaining economical for the producers, retailers and consumers.

The Rock was widely popular in more rural days of America. This American breed was also popular around the world and they were crated up and shipped almost around the globe.

The Rock had a stout reputation for being a solid layer, even laying better in winter than other breed offerings. It had to produce a decent meat carcass. It would often be broody, but not overly so. Frontier folks needed the hens to sit, but not so much as to hinder egg laying. The Rock needed to be a busy bird, seeking out much of its own food during times of availability. The SOP reflected these traits. This is something often misunderstood.

Why does the Rock have the deep body? Why does the SOP describe a wide head? A wide tented tail? Why does the SOP describe a wide set leg balance as being preferred? Was all this for shows? No.

The wide tail tent, as opposed to a pinched tail set often seen on non-SOP posers simply shows a body type of a good layer. Pinched tails was to the SOP writers as early as 1905 or 1911 a sign of a bird that would have difficulty in passing good sized eggs. From the earliest days, the SOP shows a Rock with a nice, gravy bowl shape, with nice rounded front line. Is this vanity? No. The breast meat must be supported with structure.

Much more later, but this is why we breed the Rock faithfully.

The SOP is a written and pictorial intent of the originators of the breed. Those men and women had a true vision for a bird they were creating during the post War Between the States era. They weren't making a Leghorn. They knew what those were. They weren't making a Dorking or a Sussex, as they knew those as well. They wanted a bird right for the new world.

 

[Chickens Naturally]

Since we know we have folks who read here, lurkers Bob Blosl calls them, and perhaps you're wondering if utility is a major focus of any of us. It may appear that the SOP stands in the way of utility, vigor or good temperament. This takes some time to think about. Let's leave aside showing at this point. Let's just leave taking birds to Poultry judging shows on side so we can focus on the history of the Plymouth Rock, it's utility and why the bird(s) were bred in the first place.

The first Rock was the Barred Rock, of course. Those original breeders who mixed this bird from Cochin, Dominique and other birds wanted a true dual purpose bird. In today's world, 90% of all chickens in the world are not dual purpose. We have in the modern age, the CX type, quick maturing broiler. On the other hand, we see millions and millions of industrial egg layers, both in white and or brown egg varieties, depending on the cultural preference. 90% of all chickens alive are not any breed, but specialized mixes-hybrids meeting the task of industrial/commercial agricultural goals in marketing meat and eggs for a hungry world while remaining economical for the producers, retailers and consumers.

The Rock was widely popular in more rural days of America. This American breed was also popular around the world and they were crated up and shipped almost around the globe.

The Rock had a stout reputation for being a solid layer, even laying better in winter than other breed offerings. It had to produce a decent meat carcass. It would often be broody, but not overly so. Frontier folks needed the hens to sit, but not so much as to hinder egg laying. The Rock needed to be a busy bird, seeking out much of its own food during times of availability. The SOP reflected these traits. This is something often misunderstood.

Why does the Rock have the deep body? Why does the SOP describe a wide head? A wide tented tail? Why does the SOP describe a wide set leg balance as being preferred? Was all this for shows? No.

The wide tail tent, as opposed to a pinched tail set often seen on non-SOP posers simply shows a body type of a good layer. Pinched tails was to the SOP writers as early as 1905 or 1911 a sign of a bird that would have difficulty in passing good sized eggs. From the earliest days, the SOP shows a Rock with a nice, gravy bowl shape, with nice rounded front line. Is this vanity? No. The breast meat must be supported with structure.

Much more later, but this is why we breed the Rock faithfully.

The SOP is a written and pictorial intent of the originators of the breed. Those men and women had a true vision for a bird they were creating during the post War Between the States era. They weren't making a Leghorn. They knew what those were. They weren't making a Dorking or a Sussex, as they knew those as well. They wanted a bird right for the new world.

Hey Fred! Are you ready for my straight forward personality? Lol. First, I understand the need and purpose of the SOP and as a potential breeder would always have that in my mind’s eye with the photos hung everywhere etc. I am in no way opposed to the SOP, but would shift focus FIRST (or possibly more correctly, simultaneously) to utility traits with utility traits possibly be given more weight at first (after considering TYPE in original breeding stock). I know I’m oversimplifying a lot here, but I’m thinking some good old fashioned ‘horse sense’ could go a long way to breeding Rocks to perform as they were intended while also working toward the SOP? I have bred chickens that know full well aren’t recognized and inevitably have people say something like, “There is no such thing as a Black Maran” and I’m thinking, “You mean that chicken standing there in front of you?”, but I guess that’s just the Zen in me. No problem at all with a SOP, but if it ‘looks like its built to be a self sustainging heritage egg layer of a good number of eggs” BUT it lays two eggs a week and you’d be lucky to get one to hatch, then what’s the point? Looks like it should. Heck, you can eat it.

 

[BGMatt]

The best way to answer that last post there is "form ALLOWS function". As Fred mentioned all the traits described by the SOP are there for a reason. That does not guarantee that a bird that closely fits the SOP will be an excellent producer if that bird's breeder has not been paying attention to it.

What it DOES guarantee is that if a bird closely matches the Standard is that it is capable of producing as that breeds originators intended. If you start with birds that are close to the SOP, it's much easier to breed for increased production than it is to breed for both at the same time, or to breed "good laying" hatchery birds for instance into respectable meat birds, or proper type and size enabling better health and longer productivity.

Edit: For more clarification. If you take birds that are very close to the Standard they will have good meat qualities simply because of the frame. The body will also support good egg production even if it's not there. With small matings you can quickly increase egg laying (by using small matings and tracking which hens are most productive and hatching only from them) and grade for faster growth if needed by culling the top percentile of birds as they're growing up. (I do this starting at 8 weeks with most breeds so I can be totally and completely sure of cockerels and pullets, and there's enough distinction between quicker developing and slower developing birds.

 

[catdaddyfro]

The best way to answer that last post there is "form ALLOWS function". As Fred mentioned all the traits described by the SOP are there for a reason. That does not guarantee that a bird that closely fits the SOP will be an excellent producer if that bird's breeder has not been paying attention to it.

What it DOES guarantee is that if a bird closely matches the Standard is that it is capable of producing as that breeds originators intended. If you start with birds that are close to the SOP, it's much easier to breed for increased production than it is to breed for both at the same time, or to breed "good laying" hatchery birds for instance into respectable meat birds, or proper type and size enabling better health and longer productivity.

My interpretation of this is "the potential is there" or should be for the described bird for that particular Standard(s). IMO

Jeff

 

[BGMatt]

My interpretation of this is "the potential is there" or should be for the described bird for that particular Standard(s). IMO

Jeff

That's the point I was trying to make. The old saying is "form follows function" but you can have a well formed bird that has not been selected for production. Which is what I was getting at.

 

[Chickens Naturally]

The best way to answer that last post there is "form ALLOWS function". As Fred mentioned all the traits described by the SOP are there for a reason. That does not guarantee that a bird that closely fits the SOP will be an excellent producer if that bird's breeder has not been paying attention to it.

What it DOES guarantee is that if a bird closely matches the Standard is that it is capable of producing as that breeds originators intended. If you start with birds that are close to the SOP, it's much easier to breed for increased production than it is to breed for both at the same time, or to breed "good laying" hatchery birds for instance into respectable meat birds, or proper type and size enabling better health and longer productivity.

Edit: For more clarification. If you take birds that are very close to the Standard they will have good meat qualities simply because of the frame. The body will also support good egg production even if it's not there. With small matings you can quickly increase egg laying (by using small matings and tracking which hens are most productive and hatching only from them) and grade for faster growth if needed by culling the top percentile of birds as they're growing up. (I do this starting at 8 weeks with most breeds so I can be totally and completely sure of cockerels and pullets, and there's enough distinction between quicker developing and slower developing birds.

Sorry, thought I was posting on the other Plymouth Rock thread. Good point. Hope to learn a lot from you all. Right now I have to go feed some chickens!

 

[Chickens Naturally]

Came across this in reading through the CSU - Chicken State University- Large Fowl SOP - Page 123 thread, thought it worthwhile to re-post here (originally posted by Yellow House Farm):
“...quote from a more current work, the late Dr. Carefoot's book Creative Poultry Breeding , published in 1985, which I'll abridge for the interests of brevity. In way of biography, Dr. Carefoot was a poultry geneticist and past president of the Poultry Club of Great Britain (the APA of the UK), ergo he was a writer who was specialist, breeder, and judge":

In common with many civilized societies the poultry fancy is in danger of becoming obsessed with a longing for "former glories". The current, almost paranoiac, desire is to preserve rarity irrespective of quality. Without intending any disrespect to the fancier who wishes to preserve breeds which do not appear ever to have been firmly established, when one looks at many of the rare breeds one can immediately see why they are rare [...] The breeder wishes to improve, not to preserve [...] the striving for perfection provides the interest which fuels our incentive [...] History is only important where it provides clear examples of where one can improve one's stock[...] What is gone is over. The future of quality stock is to breed aggressively with the intention of improvement. If every breed had but a handful of breeders competing fiercely, quality would almost certainly improve dramatically. Consequently the urge to collect breeds of poultry the way some collect postage stamps, does little to improve the breeds kept [...] the fancier wishing to keep rare breeds alive would be more effective if he concentrated mainly on one or two such breeds, hatched and reared plenty [...] if a breeder only breeds a handful of chickens, by in large his strain deteriorates [...] Rarity is not a virtue in itself; indeed when one sees an outstanding bird one realizes that rarity is indeed a vice[...] the production by a skillful breeder of high quality birds of a particular variety will attract sufficient interest to ensure preservation and, one hopes, improvement [...] if the conservationists attained a sufficiently high standard of stock within a particular breed it would take care of itself. In practice, high quality stock is the rarest poultry of all.

 

[Fred's Hens]

Why We Must Continue To Selectively Breed Part II The Issue of Entropy






The drawings, associated with the Standard of Perfection, show an idealized Rock bird. That ideal, that "perfect" bird is yet to be hatched. There is no perfect bird and never will be. But the ideal remains, always just out of reach. This is a good thing. How close can we as breeders come to that ideal which is framed within our mind's eye. This is what keeps one going. Without this ideal, this Standard of Perfection, be it ever unattainable, yet, we strive toward the goal, pressing ever toward the mark.

There is no such thing as treading water with birds. Left unattended or ignored, the birds will go backward. It is a law of nature that things move from order toward disorder and disarray. The entire idea of a "Breed" is a human invention. These aren't species like Robins or Sparrows, or Hummingbirds. The breed was mixed by mankind, achieving a minimum standard or reflection that which was hoped for, but entropy awaits each generation. Left without selection, careful, purposeful and skillful selection, a flock will slope backward, at an incredible pace, to blah mediocrity. This is the very nature of the deep gene pool of the composite breeds.

The Plymouth Rock is such a composite breed. The pieces, parts and bits that are selected and joined into a Rock are but a wee slice of what is in them. Left alone, the pieces, parts and bits re-assemble themselves carelessly and randomly into an entirely different composite, something which is a far cry from the Rock originally intended by its creators.

 

[catdaddyfro]

I love getting to read posts like this its sorta like going to church and hearing the good book read to you to help you keep/or get you back on track. A booster so to say,

LOL

Jeff