The Plymouth Rock Breeders thread

[racertomtom]

As far as size goes, I don’t like to go any below standard because rocks should be good table fowls and no one wants extra room in a skillet. I also like bigger birds. That’s one of my peeves with the hatchery birds. The standard calls for a disqualification for a fowl, other than turkeys, that are 20% above or below standard. That’s a pretty big range. I know there are no scales in the show room, but my experience is that a 9lb hen is a poor, sometimes non layer and that isn’t true to the breed either. Standard weight is safe and a pound over standard on a male won’t hurt as long as rate of lay on the pullets is still pretty good. I won’t go to 20% on females ever again. The large birds are impressive but if you can’t set eggs for a specific show because you don’t have any, it’s all in vain.

 

[emenheiser]

Joe, I've got K's that blew right through the standard weight. Here's my concern, and I am wide open to your thoughts. I've grown to dislike the lack of athletic ability I see in the males that go over 11 pounds. I've got some over 12 pounds, to be honest.

I've only recently began to consider nimble, athleticism as a trait that pleases me. I've personally decided that I do not care for the rather gangly, gawky, nazi walking males that far too many of our males exhibit, males we've bred. Just a personal bias, but I do have to enjoy them.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Your remark about being nimble as bantams is what cued this thought up in my mind.

The antagonisms among traits are the result of the variation in the breed to begin with, coupled with the selection pressures placed on it. I feel the problems with the large exhibition Rocks of today are mostly a reflection of our failure to emphasize vigor and fleshing ability while striving to make them larger framed. Too many years of selection for only one of two negatively correlated traits, and the result is a population that practically lacks the ability to exceed a certain weight without issues. However, commercial broiler breeders were selected for 60+ years on comprehensive indexes (including many antagonistic traits, properly weighted by their economic importance), and, lo and behold, they have produced big birds that don't exhibit vigor problems. (I'm talking about the grandparent and parent lines, not the 4-way cross end products). So I don't disagree about the lack of utility in birds over 11 lbs in most Rock strains. What I do disagree with are 100-yr-old blanket statements that all birds exceeding a certain weight are not active or productive, and the standard weights as currently written are such a blanket statement.

Instead of striving for the birds of 100 years ago, let's make something even better. The genetic pieces to do so are available. Unlike livestock, poultry breed associations do not record pedigrees. The genetic boundaries are limitless, so long as the breed retains a designated form and function. "Purity" is nothing more than a marketing ploy if the bird breeds true to form. Capitalizing on the decades of selection by the commercial industry results in Plymouth Rocks that are heavier than the 100-yr-old standard weights. But the efficiency of the offspring is unrivaled, and beyond the savings in feed costs, the ability to produce usable culls at younger ages alone is all the justification I need.

My biggest challenges with weight are that heavy males are hard on the hens, and the hens are predisposed to fat, which hampers laying. Both reasons why the commercial industry practices limit feeding.

 

[gjensen]

Like Fred, I have a lack of affection for gawky clumsy birds. I cannot see them as well bred birds, or birds fit for any purpose.

I get Joe's assertion that size does not have to necessarily limit physical fitness. Anyone that has watched any football in person, has seen that the big guy sometimes moves awfully well and fast. Watching a major college football team in practice, is something to see. Generally the big guy does not move very well, but occasionally the genetic pieces are there for him to move exceptionally well.
It is my experience with Rocks that the oversized birds lack physical fitness, and it was a turn off for me. Not just as matter of enjoyment, like Fred mentioned, but a matter of conscience. I like to see birds with good fitness. If that makes any sense. I never put the two opposing observations together.

The comments on making something better interested me, and it is a challenge to conventional thinking. I have often wondered why there was a lack of interest in the genetics that were never available before today. I suspect if they were available in 1930 everyone would have jumped on the bandwagon. That is an interesting thought.

Concerning acceptable weights, I have a hard time getting by the idea that the Standard requirements define a breed. It seams to me that getting away from those limitations, is changing the breed into something else altogether. Kind of a little here and a lot tomorrow kind of thing. I have grown to admire the breeders of birds that are an improvement over what they had in 1920, but is still true to the breeds accepted and recognized standard. I will use the breed Leghorn for example. The best are in great shape, better than before, but what it was before. That is not true for every breed, in my opinion.

Could the improvements be had in birds that still fall within the parameters of the accepted and recognized standard? Isn't that after all the standard?

Would the hens being pre disposed to fat because of size, be a limitation of variability similar to size being associated with a lack of fitness?

 

[Egghead_Jr]

Let’s just use this as an example. That breeder didn’t put those tails on barred rocks, the previous breeder did, yet you call them his birds. He got them from eggs hatched from a Bob Blosl arrangement. Those long nice tails are very, very difficult to maintain and the current breeder has had 6 years to loose those tails but hasn’t. I might add he’s made some nice color improvements along the way as well. The previous breeder has not had a say in that line in 6 years yet the line is very good, perhaps better than the previous line. So yes, this is the current breeders line.

The breeder of the 75s is going to leave it up to you to do your own culling and pick out the pens of the next generation while he works on the 87.5s. So guess what? The 75s just became yours.

This is old news but just want to say: Racer! I like your swager.,

 

[emenheiser]

[...]

Concerning acceptable weights, I have a hard time getting by the idea that the Standard requirements define a breed. It seams to me that getting away from those limitations, is changing the breed into something else altogether. Kind of a little here and a lot tomorrow kind of thing. I have grown to admire the breeders of birds that are an improvement over what they had in 1920, but is still true to the breeds accepted and recognized standard. I will use the breed Leghorn for example. The best are in great shape, better than before, but what it was before. That is not true for every breed, in my opinion.

Could the improvements be had in birds that still fall within the parameters of the accepted and recognized standard? Isn't that after all the standard?

Would the hens being pre disposed to fat because of size, be a limitation of variability similar to size being associated with a lack of fitness?

Excellent discussion. The Leghorn example is particularly interesting. The writers of the Leghorn standard got it right--the body size and shape described in the Standard still closely matches that of white egg layers that have been selected for decades for function, with little regard for form. I know of at least one time that a commercial white egg layer was incorporated into exhibition white Leghorns with much success. One of the reasons for the drift in other breeds is that they no longer (or never did) have function as their guiding compass.

My phone is considerably different from Bell's original prototype. My automobile does not really resemble a Model T, but it does more so than it resembles a horse. I have bred and used Border Collies of all shapes and sizes all for the same purpose: to herd sheep. One quote that I've always enjoyed, attributed to Jay Lush, is that "breeds are whatever the breeders want them to be." Progress must allow for priorities to change, and for the ideal form to morph to accommodate evolving economies, production systems, and genetic composition from selection, mutation, etc. The written standard for Plymouth Rocks changed drastically for the first century of its being a "breed." The reason that it hasn't changed much for the last 100 years is not because it reached "perfection," but rather because the standard revision committee wouldn't allow it. Meanwhile, the "economic qualities" of Standard bred poultry have been completely eclipsed by the commercial breeders who have actually selected their birds for economically important traits.

As long as Economic Qualities remains the first section of the standard, profitability should be the first priority. In breeding 'heritage" birds, there are but 2 ways to accomplish this, 1) convince customers to pay accelerated prices for "heritage" birds and products to offset the cost of production inefficiency or 2) use modern genetics and selection tools to improve production efficiency.

The bird described in the Standard is not profitable when chicken feed is $12 per 50 lb bag, except with option 1. Good marketing does not make a good breeder.

My objective has always been to make efficient, profitable birds that look like Plymouth Rocks. I select them for their ability to perform on my farm, for the mix of fitness, egg and meat production traits that is economical here. I am still in the process of stabilizing the pieces that I've put together, but beyond color and basic breed type, function is more important than form. If the best bird to meet the economic function described in the standard ends up being 2 lbs over standard weight, so be it. I find it difficult to believe that the utilitarians who developed the breed wouldn't call that progress.

 

[Kinmera]

Ok so in the process of breeding for function as well as to work with the SoP I'm curious..

For someone starting out - given the characteristics of the rock - where do you suggest I focus first?

I am getting a set of scales this weekend so I can start weighing my birds.

I know Rocks are supposed to have a certain structure and look and weight. I do have a copy of the SOP to use as a reference. I also want a bird that lays well and looks well on my table.

Are certain characteristics easier to breed into the flock than others? Or does it simply depend on the quality of the birds you have.

I have several that should be culled because their combs aren't correct - and Last year I culled 2 hens who had legs that were too pale. So far my leg color seems to be decent.

If anyone has pictures (not drawings) of examples of white rocks that they consider to be excellent I would love to see them.

I have been luckier this year in hatching white rock chicks - last year I had 3 total hatch. This year I have had 20. I am watching them develop and marking ones to keep and cull.

Thanks

 

[trailchick]

Alana, You will be SO HAPPY with your XW chicks!!!!!

I got some a month ago. Super Excellent customer service, too.
I switched my order from eggs to chicks, because of such dismal
results from shipping eggs, & they were so accommodating!

I also had some unexpected hatches, while the XW chicks were still small-
I had no other place to put those new chicks so they went in with the rocks.
Those chicks were so gentle with the new ones -I was very surprised at that.

Hope they make the trip OK!

 

[aoxa]

I see the term XW in here a lot. Can someone please explain what XW chicks are? I realize it's a strain. Who's strain is it?

 

[Do What]

Jeremy Weopel's XW Poultry Ranch

 

[aoxa]

Jeremy Weopel's XW Poultry Ranch

Thank you.