Uh Oh! I think SHE's a HE!
- Thread starter heybarb
- Start date
Didn't notice this before but will just address it now...
Quote: Many roosters can't reliably fertilize more than 5 hen's eggs. This is a generalization but nevertheless more true than not for many breeds. Two roosters is a better bet for so many hens. 3 could have been fine. Unless you've got a vicious rooster who decides for you how many roosters you can have. His aggression is not a sign of him being a healthier male, in fact it is proven to be a trait associated with males of low fertility. I've long suspected that, but it was proven a few years ago, and it applies to many species. Such aggression is the breeding strategy of the male who really isn't worth breeding.
The absolute minimum hen to rooster ratio is one hen per rooster. If your boys are tolerant no more is actually needed, though it's good to have more so if he's not got paternal instincts, he can be occupied with another hen while his ex girlfriend is on the eggs or rearing chicks. Males with paternal instinct are worth their weight in gold to me, I didn't think it'd make a difference but to the chicks there is a great difference in having two devoted parents. Socially, etc, it's very beneficial, too.
If your roosters are intolerant, even 100 hens to every 1 rooster will not make the difference when you introduce another. It's his mentality that is the issue, it has literally nothing to do with the females. It is not actually the number of hens that stops a rooster being intolerant or triggers intolerance. You can have an all-male flock, or a flock with more males than females, and there will be no issues unless you have violently inclined roosters. Even just one is a blight on the social landscape, and people tend to solve the problem by committing their whole flock to one violent dictator. Instead of keeping the tolerant boys, they keep the autocrat! He will breed little megalomaniacs in turn. This behavior is highly heritable and time/effort wasting. The same is true of human-aggressive roosters.
When you have multiple roosters who do not get along, there will still be no abuse of the hens, unless you also have roosters who are inclined to be abusive towards the females. These are two separate traits in and of themselves but are linked around half the time. A violent rooster is more likely to be abusive towards hens, and chicks, and anything and everything, really. Good roosters do not attempt to push a protesting hen to mate. They are very, very careful when mating. The good treatment of hens and chicks is also a very heritable trait.
I cull for violence and bullying (as differentiated between gentle hierarchy contesting which results in no injuries) and I also cull for abuse towards females, chicks, the ill, or the injured. These are all very heritable traits. I've not seen them in a long time, years and many generations, because instead of breeding any with those traits, I culled them. Problem solved! Such a wonderfully peaceful flock. The interesting part is that newcomers who weren't raised in this situation arrive as adults, watch, and just do their best to fit in with the social norm. Because I breed them for meat as well as eggs, sometimes I have more males than females, or a ratio of 50:50, all free ranging together. It is not an issue unless you breed abusive chickens, who make both yours and the flock's life harder.
At no point have I had a rooster kill or maim another. They sort out their dominance issues with kicks, but do not use their spurs, and don't disrespect the hen's rejection if they try to mate and she responds negatively. I believe this is a very important instinct. She knows when she's ready, and her instinct tells her which male is the best mate. If a male's not respecting her rejection then he lacks the instinct required to be legitimately worthy of being rewarded by passing on his genes. A clutch of 'lovematch' chicks are always better than any match I make and insist upon. I still breed according to data and my best understanding, but if any hen and rooster have eyes for eachother, I will let them breed even if I think it'll not produce the best chicks. I always seem to stand corrected. Even humans have instincts for their best match.
A male damaging a female through carelessness or callousness is vastly less likely to pass on his genes. I won't tolerate a male harming my females or mistreating them. To me, their lives are worth more than his, because she's the producer. A rooster with great genetics is worth eating and nothing else if he's damaging the hens he's mating with. (No hen, no chicks).
This used to be considered a soft point of view but the biggest commercial agricultural bosses in Australia are of the same opinion. A male's temperament will make or break him as a breeder, even if he cost over $300,000 like one recent bull did. He would be culled like dogmeat if he showed abusive or violent attitudes towards females, calves or other males, or humans. This is true across most livestock species, especially with the most successful commercial farmers. Bad attitudes cost us. Not breeding them is the best solution.
But a lot of bad attitudes are still accepted among poultry. We bred these bad traits in, too, none of them is actually natural to wild chickens. Roosters will fight, so will hens, but to-the-death fights are rare. Chick killing is not necessary in the vast majority of cases because the afflicted chick will die anyway, and soon. Sick or hurt babies don't last long. They get left behind. Attacking ill or injured chickens is a waste of energy resources which renders the bully more likely to catch any disease present in them, or fall to a predator. Chickens in the wild are far more civil than domesticated ones, and it's humanity's fault. Cannibalism is utterly unnatural but we have even bred it into chicks.
Anyway, I don't know the full situation you have, but it sounded like you might be removing roosters to appease an aggressive one... If that is the case, then you have my reasons for not doing the same stated above, which may or may not be useful to you. Best wishes to you and your flock.
Quote: Many roosters can't reliably fertilize more than 5 hen's eggs. This is a generalization but nevertheless more true than not for many breeds. Two roosters is a better bet for so many hens. 3 could have been fine. Unless you've got a vicious rooster who decides for you how many roosters you can have. His aggression is not a sign of him being a healthier male, in fact it is proven to be a trait associated with males of low fertility. I've long suspected that, but it was proven a few years ago, and it applies to many species. Such aggression is the breeding strategy of the male who really isn't worth breeding.
The absolute minimum hen to rooster ratio is one hen per rooster. If your boys are tolerant no more is actually needed, though it's good to have more so if he's not got paternal instincts, he can be occupied with another hen while his ex girlfriend is on the eggs or rearing chicks. Males with paternal instinct are worth their weight in gold to me, I didn't think it'd make a difference but to the chicks there is a great difference in having two devoted parents. Socially, etc, it's very beneficial, too.
If your roosters are intolerant, even 100 hens to every 1 rooster will not make the difference when you introduce another. It's his mentality that is the issue, it has literally nothing to do with the females. It is not actually the number of hens that stops a rooster being intolerant or triggers intolerance. You can have an all-male flock, or a flock with more males than females, and there will be no issues unless you have violently inclined roosters. Even just one is a blight on the social landscape, and people tend to solve the problem by committing their whole flock to one violent dictator. Instead of keeping the tolerant boys, they keep the autocrat! He will breed little megalomaniacs in turn. This behavior is highly heritable and time/effort wasting. The same is true of human-aggressive roosters.
When you have multiple roosters who do not get along, there will still be no abuse of the hens, unless you also have roosters who are inclined to be abusive towards the females. These are two separate traits in and of themselves but are linked around half the time. A violent rooster is more likely to be abusive towards hens, and chicks, and anything and everything, really. Good roosters do not attempt to push a protesting hen to mate. They are very, very careful when mating. The good treatment of hens and chicks is also a very heritable trait.
I cull for violence and bullying (as differentiated between gentle hierarchy contesting which results in no injuries) and I also cull for abuse towards females, chicks, the ill, or the injured. These are all very heritable traits. I've not seen them in a long time, years and many generations, because instead of breeding any with those traits, I culled them. Problem solved! Such a wonderfully peaceful flock. The interesting part is that newcomers who weren't raised in this situation arrive as adults, watch, and just do their best to fit in with the social norm. Because I breed them for meat as well as eggs, sometimes I have more males than females, or a ratio of 50:50, all free ranging together. It is not an issue unless you breed abusive chickens, who make both yours and the flock's life harder.
At no point have I had a rooster kill or maim another. They sort out their dominance issues with kicks, but do not use their spurs, and don't disrespect the hen's rejection if they try to mate and she responds negatively. I believe this is a very important instinct. She knows when she's ready, and her instinct tells her which male is the best mate. If a male's not respecting her rejection then he lacks the instinct required to be legitimately worthy of being rewarded by passing on his genes. A clutch of 'lovematch' chicks are always better than any match I make and insist upon. I still breed according to data and my best understanding, but if any hen and rooster have eyes for eachother, I will let them breed even if I think it'll not produce the best chicks. I always seem to stand corrected. Even humans have instincts for their best match.
A male damaging a female through carelessness or callousness is vastly less likely to pass on his genes. I won't tolerate a male harming my females or mistreating them. To me, their lives are worth more than his, because she's the producer. A rooster with great genetics is worth eating and nothing else if he's damaging the hens he's mating with. (No hen, no chicks).
This used to be considered a soft point of view but the biggest commercial agricultural bosses in Australia are of the same opinion. A male's temperament will make or break him as a breeder, even if he cost over $300,000 like one recent bull did. He would be culled like dogmeat if he showed abusive or violent attitudes towards females, calves or other males, or humans. This is true across most livestock species, especially with the most successful commercial farmers. Bad attitudes cost us. Not breeding them is the best solution.
But a lot of bad attitudes are still accepted among poultry. We bred these bad traits in, too, none of them is actually natural to wild chickens. Roosters will fight, so will hens, but to-the-death fights are rare. Chick killing is not necessary in the vast majority of cases because the afflicted chick will die anyway, and soon. Sick or hurt babies don't last long. They get left behind. Attacking ill or injured chickens is a waste of energy resources which renders the bully more likely to catch any disease present in them, or fall to a predator. Chickens in the wild are far more civil than domesticated ones, and it's humanity's fault. Cannibalism is utterly unnatural but we have even bred it into chicks.
Anyway, I don't know the full situation you have, but it sounded like you might be removing roosters to appease an aggressive one... If that is the case, then you have my reasons for not doing the same stated above, which may or may not be useful to you. Best wishes to you and your flock.
I disagree with this. I've had one rooster and a dozen hens and had a hundred percent fertility. To my understanding industry standard for large scale breeding operations is 1 to 10, and those folks have a lot riding on fertility.
Plus, most folks here need to be more concerned about hens getting overmated than having 100% fertility rates. Folks get those rooster chicks and don't want to get rid of them, ever.
Quote: Healthy roosters have higher fertility but most folks don't have such supremely healthy birds.
The figures I quoted are from industry standard info and guide books.
'Overmating' only occurs with one or both of the following: overly rough roosters, and hens on a bad diet that doesn't allow them to grow good feathers.
I've had a running ratio for years that is up to 50:50 and never once had an overmated hen.
Compare that to many folks with a high hen to low rooster ratio who still have 'overmated' hens.... I don't believe 'overmating' is a real diagnosis of the problem it represents, because in my experience it never, ever occurs with hens on very healthy diet. (Kelp is a great differentiator between sub par health and great health).
I don't understand what your last line is supposed to mean.
The figures I quoted are from industry standard info and guide books.
'Overmating' only occurs with one or both of the following: overly rough roosters, and hens on a bad diet that doesn't allow them to grow good feathers.
I've had a running ratio for years that is up to 50:50 and never once had an overmated hen.
Compare that to many folks with a high hen to low rooster ratio who still have 'overmated' hens.... I don't believe 'overmating' is a real diagnosis of the problem it represents, because in my experience it never, ever occurs with hens on very healthy diet. (Kelp is a great differentiator between sub par health and great health).
I don't understand what your last line is supposed to mean.
Quote:
I agree, Donrae. I especially think the 'minimum per roo being 1 hen' is extremely bad husbandry. You do not keep them on a one to one ratio unless you want that hen to potentially die, and definitely stop producing eggs because she is so harrassed and stressed she can do nothing but plaster herself against the fence and wait for the next attack.
I agree, Donrae. I especially think the 'minimum per roo being 1 hen' is extremely bad husbandry. You do not keep them on a one to one ratio unless you want that hen to potentially die, and definitely stop producing eggs because she is so harrassed and stressed she can do nothing but plaster herself against the fence and wait for the next attack.
Quote: I've done that ratio of hens to roosters for years. No dead hens. No 'overmated' hens. No lack of eggs. No stress. No harassment. No plastering herself against the fence awaiting another attack. Certainly nothing you mentioned. Just healthy, happy, productive, calm hens.
Do you honestly think I'd recommend others try what I've done if it wasn't a great success?
Sounds to me like your 'extremely bad husbandry' was a personal experience, and you've got bad roosters to boot. Which is also bad husbandry.
Do you honestly think I'd recommend others try what I've done if it wasn't a great success?
Sounds to me like your 'extremely bad husbandry' was a personal experience, and you've got bad roosters to boot. Which is also bad husbandry.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Open Contest May Madness, a Random Funny Posting Contest- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 2K
-
What’s the deal with you chicken people??- Started by z3lda3
- Replies: 794
-
-
-
Open Contest 2025 BYC Calendar Photo Contest—We Need Your Pictures!
- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 151
-
