What's the purpose for pecking order?

[RoseMarie1]

It's a fascinating study...as is most study of how God has designed all the creatures on this Earth. I find it endlessly fascinating. A lot of people just live on the Earth, not all live in the Earth..living close to nature and noticing what God has done all around them. I think that is why they find it so easy to discount the existence of intelligent design by a Creator..they simply are not looking very closely at the design. They use it, they enjoy it, they learn about it...but they don't actually take the time to LOOK at it with any type of discernment as to how complex each creature or system really is and so they find it easy to say it all happened by accident and with time.

I TOTALLY agree with you Bee.

 

[RoseMarie1]

It sure is! Maybe all those people who try to fit in are just trying to avoid getting pecked, ya figure? There is a Chinese proverb about the nail head that stands out gets hammered...not many can stand the hammering of standing out, so they just lay low, I'm thinking.

Same with chickens..to have a smooth and peaceful flock order, those who are low on the totem pole stay out of the way of those who rule the roost, but they are always watching for a change in the order so they can be ready to adjust. In a flock, you never know who is ruling the roost unless you keep a sharp eye out for the changes.

Me? I'm the loner chicken and always have been. I have the ability to blend with the flock when necessary but that's not where I live..I live on the fringe, often wander off alone and roost alone. Sometimes picked at but never missing any feathers from it and am able to stand up to it, with the Lord's help.

As a consequence, I find myself liking the loner birds who can hold their own in the flock but still prefer to be alone...have a soft spot for them and respect their solitude, as long as they don't grow cranky and crabby from it.

The loners who cannot hold their own and lack the strength to stand up for themselves are soon culled out of my flocks...there is usually a good reason the other chickens don't like them like poor health, low performance, lack of survival skills, etc.

LOL @ the getting pecked comment.

 

[RoseMarie1]

The purpose of the pecking order in a nutshell: survival. In the short term, survival of the individual, in the longer term, survival of the species via the individual passing on its genetics.

This starts with chicks; very quickly the fastest one will begin to achieve greater health and faster development than the others simply by virtue of it being able to steal their food and reach the best food before them. This is an advantage often experienced by the first-hatched, or more sprightly as compared to the chubbier babies.

In this way bantam chicks can outcompete larger chicks, because being lighter they tend to find their feet quicker and can outrun the larger ones, who will be smaller than the bantams in short order because their greater body fat ratio slowed them down and hindered their growth. This is not true of all larger chicks versus bantams, but rather those chicks from eggs with a lot of white as compared to those eggs with a lot of yolk compared to white. (Skinny vs fat). The same analogy holds true for low birth weight sheep or cattle; the tiny babies will outgrow and outperform the huge babies.

Any animals that cannot secure breeding space, resources, and a mate, will not pass on its genes. But if a species is genetically healthy many animals will make it to breeding age and have the ability to compete for resources; at this point differentiating behaviors sort out with the least waste of energy and life possible which animals get prime breeding opportunities. Lesser animals who failed to achieve dominance will still breed, being the middling best, not the worst and not the best, but this failure to secure top spot, whether caused by genetics or diet or whatever, will soon become genetic; they may have started off with identical genetic strength to the ones that achieved dominance, but having failed to secure the best resources, their offspring are now vastly more likely to fail to achieve prime breeding success.

So even if it wasn't their genetics that caused them to come second best, if they don't manage to achieve dominant status they will get the lesser feed, worse nesting spots, lesser mates, lesser opportunities for offspring, etc, and quickly this can translate into weaker genetics, since behavior, environment, nutrition etc all turn genes off or on. This is when harsher methods of attempting to achieve dominance start to show with some --- psychopathy or excessive, almost insane brutality being one method by which a sub par male or female takes a dominant position it could not earn otherwise. Other lesser animals will develop greater intelligence and cunning, which in a few generations can restore them to the top of the genetic competition and thus net them the resources they need to regain genetic strength.

Environmental influences activate and deactivate some behaviors. An overabundance of great nutrition can becalm even the most aggressive species. A lack of nutrition, or low levels of it present in the environment, can cause once peaceful animals to become savage, and kickstarts the 'depopulation' instinct. This can also occur in an animal in a rich environment, where the lack of nutrition is only within the animal, i.e. an inability to synthesize something crucial, or a weakened digestive system. Or a domestic animal fed an overprocessed diet, as another example.

In the wild, a flock/family group is often only comprised of one male and one female, sometimes more. They need a set area to survive, and a larger area than that to bring offspring to adulthood. Since the impetus behind any animal's life is to pass on its genes, the drive to procreate produces in most species some sort of behavior of environmental control, whether they're removing the unfit from their social group or protecting their territory from intruders who would consume the sources of nutrition they require to survive and succeed at reproducing. A rooster controls his territory from being invaded by other roosters, and a hen controls her territory from being invaded by other hens. She may tolerate a sister or other hen with which she gets along. She may not. A lot depends on personality there. The better the hen in terms of intelligence, genetic strength, and health, the less likely she is to tolerate another. She will want the very best possible chances for her offspring, and having another hen taking up resources for her own babies does not wash when there is not an overabundance. There's a certain 'arrogance' that comes with being genetically superior, among animals. Unlike us they are very aware of one another's genetic strengths and weaknesses, and therefore fitness to breed.

A sub par animal can become dominant through excess aggression, though. With males of many species there is a positive correlation between excessive aggression and low fertility. This has been proven with a few livestock species as well as wild ones, and I have always found it to hold true in my animals of various species. Abnormal aggression and harem keeping are the breeding tactics of the sub par male, and they reward him with offspring from only sub par females. Never the twain shall meet, it seems, with the best, middling, and worst genetic stock. There are many factors that keep them separate within the species, including vastly different breeding behavior; among many ruminants as well as felines and birds, the very best males often don't bother to hold territories or fight over a group of females as all the middling males do; rather, the best males continue life as normal and the best females seek them out, even if they were associating with a group thought to belong to some other male. Females will resort to very sneaky behavior to breed with the male of their choice, even while seeming to be the mate of another male. Many females will mate when not fertile with a sub par male, to appease him, but will seek out a better male when fertile. I've seen this behavior in various species. Many males and females who are conscious of their worth genetically will refuse to mate with a lower grade individual. Among red deer and many other animals a dominant female produces dominant sons, but a sub par female never produces dominant sons. There is some steep competition for the best females but the best females will never mate with sub par males... Unless some disaster or human intervention ensures it.

The area of territory, and how rich it is in feed, determines to a large extent how much territory they need to hold to guarantee reproductive success, and it also determines how tolerant any female will be of another female. If there's not much area due to neighboring territories, and not much feed for whatever reason, then both genders will be extra fierce and intolerant and a single female will remain with the male, having driven off all others. If there is enough feed for all you can end up with many antisocial species coming to live in huge, peaceful groups, and sub-par animals are far more likely to breed since they no longer need to compete for resources with the better stock. This is a sort of genetic leveling ground, where genetic lines that had fallen behind the dominant ones can regain the ability to compete due to the environmental excess of resources.

Contrary to popular belief a male is not naturally dominant over females. That's an aberrant mentality we are responsible for breeding into them. The hen holds her own social status which is entirely independent from the male, and she only fights other females for her spot... It is, after all, the 'top hen spot'. The male also holds his own social status irrespective of the females, and only fights other males to retain 'top rooster spot'. The roles are complimentary, not competitive. There is no natural dominance of male over female; there is no natural fight between them. Neither is there any natural abuse of either gender by the other.

A roosterless flock wherein the hens retain instinctual understanding of natural chicken society will embrace a newly introduced male, or several, without any fighting. Because he does not take the dominant hen's position there is no challenge nor fight to sort out where he is in the pecking order. This is also why a hen and rooster meeting each other for the first time do not fight to sort out the pecking order between them --- their gender-determined social statuses are complementary, not conflicting. When you have a male and female meet with either one or both lacking proper instinct about the other gender's social place or their own, then you have a fight. In most cases the rooster will accede the fight as his instinct kicks in and he realizes he should not be fighting a female. A male who harms a female severely lessens his chances of reproducing, and thus such aberrant males tend to ensure they fail to pass on their genes.

Each gender has their own predetermined role, for which they have fought all the others of their own gender who could challenge them, and neither of them attempts to take the other gender's role and prerogatives from their mate. If they're mentally healthy, that is. Many chickens these days have warped and misdirected instincts due to their ancestors being raised for countless generations in artificial environments, in human-enforced social orders, and a psychopathic, neurotic or socially incompetent chicken would still be bred if it showed a desirable trait like extra production of flesh or eggs, so in thus usurping natural selection, we have developed and preserved many deranged mentalities among modern domestic poultry which bear no resemblance to natural wild ones.

In the wild a male does not harm or drive away hens, or interfere with their fights, or kill babies. These are all unnatural, unhealthy cull-worthy domestic-only traits. Now, instead of having males who only control other males, we have males who also take the top hen's position, and abuse females.

It is not natural for any animal to interfere with subordinate's social struggles. This does not resolve the problem nor sort out the pecking order between the two. In my experience, a dominant creature attacking two fighting subordinates causes the root of contention to worsen between them until it becomes likely that instead of sorting out the issue without bloodshed, they will in future maim or kill one another. If you watch wild animals, hierarchy disputes between subordinates are left to be sorted out by them with the dominant animals ignoring the fight. It is utterly unnatural for a male to harm a female, but it's considered normal by many. Normal is not the same thing as natural or healthy. Case in point: cancer is normal; carcinogens are normal; in a natural environment they are so scarce as to be a rare cause of problems, though in this increasingly polluted world they are now normal in 'pristine' areas too. In artificial environments, they are a constant and increased hazard.

People often confuse the establishment and maintenance of the pecking order with outright bullying and abuse. These latter behaviors are unnatural and we bred them into poultry via bad breeding selection and intensive environments. It is natural for animals to sort out the hierarchy as peacefully, non-harmfully, quickly, and quietly as possible. Anything else exposes both participants to a heightened risk of injury, death, falling victim to predation, etc. For the same reason it is, for most species, unnatural for a creature to spend its valuable resources of time and energy trying to harm or kill an already injured or ill family member, or other member of its social group. It is entirely natural to drive them away, but to try to destroy them predisposes them to catching its disease, or risking becoming injured, or falling to a predator while distracted, etc. The risks outweigh the vague potential benefits.

For the greater majority of the time the damaged animals are left to die, and indeed seek to separate themselves to die, whether attacked or not. It is rare that any species kills its weak or damaged members, despite what we were taught at school and see in many misinformation-laden documentaries. I've studied animals for decades now and what research teaches us compared to what pop-pseudoscience teaches us are two vastly different things. A lot of misinformation is still passed around, some of it serving an old outdated worldview whose proponents were willing to misrepresent facts to preserve their societies' norms (i.e.the many old 'facts' concerning the animal world which were skewed to cast the prevailing social arrangement of human society over animal society too; many of these old non-truths are still taught and believed despite much proof to the opposite. These include patriarchal interpretations of social structure, with researchers assuming rather than ascertaining at best and sometimes outright lying at worst; they imagined males were dominant in all species, as per their worldview, and taught it as fact despite much evidence that male and female roles are not antagonistic, and flocks/herds are always headed/led/dominated/disciplined by females, since males come and go but females remain). A male competes with males and a female with females. For obvious biological reasons males and females do not compete unless deranged. He has no need to compete with his mate for somewhere to lay his eggs, as an example.

If a chicken has determined that it is dominant over another, there will only be a challenge if the subordinate chicken makes one. Otherwise, having settled their places in the hierarchy, the dominant chicken will leave the subordinate alone, and it in turn will avoid the dominant chicken and show appeasing body language and deference whenever they meet, and there will be no daily squabbling. There may be no squabbling or fighting for their entire lives if the subordinate never challenges the dominant.

Between socially healthy chickens, peace will prevail.

The same is true of basically every livestock species. Some families are more aggressive than others, but it is never the fault of the gender, nor the breed, nor the species. It is the fault of the breeder for breeding on with intolerant or outright violent animals. There are various body language modes/gestures a chicken will adopt to show its non-confrontational status to a dominant chicken. Different behaviors exist between males and females but the end result is the same. The dominant one is shown respect and has no need to reinforce its dominance. A good chook will be satisfied with that; a bad chook will continue to attack when not challenged.

In a socially healthy environment, a hen never shows subordinate behavior to a rooster, because she is not subordinate to him. When trying to woo a new mate, a rooster will adopt very unoffensive body language; not subordinate but very non-offensive and clearly peaceful. But it is not natural for either gender to show submissive body language to one another. People often confuse a female's invitation to mate with submission, but this is merely another outdated worldview lens that persists.

There is no need for the dominant one to regularly harm or abuse the subordinate. A little scuffle is normal but constant abuse of the subordinate is not. The real challenge for many chicken owners is to separate natural and health instincts from unnatural and unhealthy. Some people think anything they do is 'natural', unfortunately. Some domestic instincts are bad, others good/productive, like chickens peacefully sorting out the pecking order and coexisting in peace. Some wild instincts are good, others 'bad'/counterproductive, like fear of humans and the unhelpful desire to have a minimum of birds per a set amount of acres. It is not healthy nor natural for birds to be vicious with one another under any circumstance other than intensive caging of a large flock, but even then, domestic chickens have endured that and been bred and selected for coping without violence under such circumstances for uncounted generations, so bully birds represent another extreme that requires culling rather than breeding on.

If you want a peaceful flock, the solution is not to remove the bullied, but to remove the bullies. For some reason people always seem to remove the bullied and keep the bullies!

We have been taught that if it's bullied, it was for good cause; surely it's weak or unfit to breed. Often though the bully is the one that's unfit to breed, and is mentally aberrant which shows in it being abnormally vicious, and thus it gains a dominant place for being the equivalent of a psychopath. This will often breed true if allowed. And it is. Aaaaaanyway, long story, hope something in there is of use. Best wishes.

Chooks4 life.....you said..... The same is true of basically every livestock species. Some families are more aggressive than others, but it is never the fault of the gender, nor the breed, nor the species. It is the fault of the breeder for breeding on with intolerant or outright violent animals. There are various body language modes/gestures a chicken will adopt to show its non-confrontational status to a dominant chicken. Different behaviors exist between males and females but the end result is the same. The dominant one is shown respect and has no need to reinforce its dominance. A good chook will be satisfied with that; a bad chook will continue to attack when not challenged.


Since I am new at raising chickens I wonder what you would consider intolerant or violent? I have seen some folks ask about roos that are being too rough on the hens or one hen being mounted more and causing her all sorts of problems with no feathers etc. Just wondering if that would be a roo to cull? I have seen some of my cockerels peak the heads of some of the pullets and I mean it was hard enough they'd go off shaking their heads for awhile from them trying to eat and the cockerels wanted the food. Those are gone now though but wondering about all of this as abuse? Seems like a GOOD cockerel would take care of his pullets even though he is still a cockerel but I'm new to this so I have no clue.
Thank you for taking the time to tell us all this info!!!

 

[Beekissed]

That pecking at the feed trough and even the roughness during mating is pretty normal...it looks rough to us but if you notice, it doesn't leave a mark on the bird. Some hens that are frequently mated may lose a few feathers on the back of the head but I've never seen one with a bald spot there if the hen to roo ratio is correct. Young cocks are usually a little rough in their eagerness to mate and in their inexperience, but that should go away with time and experience.

How I determine a mean temperament is ongoing, unprovoked attacks on other birds. If you notice one hen that will just attack a bird walking by out on range and even pursue her a ways to attack again...I'd watch that bird. No food involved, no roosts in question...just one bird walking by another. It could be a temporary situation and never occur again but if you see it happening again, this is one that I cull no matter how good or bad a layer.

Come to think of it, though, I've never had a good layer be a cranky bird or a chronically unthrifty bird, so I've never had to cull a good layer for temperament or health reasons. All my good layers are also, coincidentally...or not, socially well-adjusted birds with exceptional health.

I've seen roosters peck subordinate birds at the feeders and rightly so. I've also seen the same cockbird call hens and chicks to him out on forage and offer them food from his own beak. It varies and you have to watch closely...but I've never seen a bad flock master in my flocks. Many different breeds and ages, different flock matrix, etc. I've found that all the roosters of standard breed birds I've owned are not overly aggressive to humans or other birds.

 

[RoseMarie1]

That pecking at the feed trough and even the roughness during mating is pretty normal...it looks rough to us but if you notice, it doesn't leave a mark on the bird. Some hens that are frequently mated may lose a few feathers on the back of the head but I've never seen one with a bald spot there if the hen to roo ratio is correct. Young cocks are usually a little rough in their eagerness to mate and in their inexperience, but that should go away with time and experience.

How I determine a mean temperament is ongoing, unprovoked attacks on other birds. If you notice one hen that will just attack a bird walking by out on range and even pursue her a ways to attack again...I'd watch that bird. No food involved, no roosts in question...just one bird walking by another. It could be a temporary situation and never occur again but if you see it happening again, this is one that I cull no matter how good or bad a layer.

Come to think of it, though, I've never had a good layer be a cranky bird or a chronically unthrifty bird, so I've never had to cull a good layer for temperament or health reasons. All my good layers are also, coincidentally...or not, socially well-adjusted birds with exceptional health.

I've seen roosters peck subordinate birds at the feeders and rightly so. I've also seen the same cockbird call hens and chicks to him out on forage and offer them food from his own beak. It varies and you have to watch closely...but I've never seen a bad flock master in my flocks. Many different breeds and ages, different flock matrix, etc. I've found that all the roosters of standard breed birds I've owned are not overly aggressive to humans or other birds.

I've got a BA pullet that does this but I've noticed it's only at feeding time and she will chase the other pullets off the food. I need to get leg bands on all my chickens now that I have a lot of extra's getting rid of all those cockerels. That way I will know what # to watch when they do something.

 

[chooks4life]

Quote:
You're right, the males you speak of are not being kind or gentle as good males are. If you find a truly good rooster, the hens will flock to him. In my experience a rooster who treats hens with all due consideration and respect is wildly popular as compared to any other rooster.

A good male will not peck a female for trying to eat something he wants. Good roosters, in fact, will starve to death rather than take food a female or chick wants. This has happened to many people, it's not an old wives' tale; my roosters would never eat the feed I make unless I put out enough for them as well as the hens. They can tell if it's enough just by looking at it. They're far smarter than often given credit for.

A male driving females away from food would never pass on his genes in the wild, since like many other species of birds a male who does not prove he can provide for his mate simply does not get a mate. In captivity many birds refuse to breed if the male lacks the instinct to bring the female a gift to prove his worth as a mate. The same is true of chickens in the wild and is the entire purpose of the feed-finding and sharing behavior being displayed by males; he is proving he is a capable 'husband'/mate and father. The original meaning of 'husband' covers what a rooster ought to be doing --- tending those in his care, not just using them. He does not require a fraction of the food a hen does, and a male taking the 'lion's share' basically marks him as unfit to breed.

A rooster's help ensures a better fed and therefore healthier hen, which in turn ensures healthier eggs, in turn becoming healthier chicks, in turn becoming adults which are more likely to dominate due to health, thus his legacy which will dominate other male's legacies if they were not as great a father and husband as he was. His help with feeding, nesting, and rearing chicks will also ensure greater numbers survive. Or at least it does in the wild. It can in captivity/domesticity too, but humans tend to take over his duties for him and often put him back to breeding with other hens if he was attempting to be a father.

Most chicken males lack this complete spectrum of rooster behavior though and don't help with chicks at all. This is a byproduct of forcing upon a rooster more hens than he could tend to. This would have been distressing when people first began the practice, since the rooster's instincts would have told him in no uncertain terms that this was overpopulation and dangerous to the future of the species.

The hens would have suffered the same warnings. This stress would have begun to introduce the beginnings of the vicious flock behavior so many people think is 'just the way it is in the wild as well as in captivity' --- normal. Unnatural but indeed normal.

Over generations of that animal husbandry, the males lose the instincts of a father and husband, and merely become sperm donors. Geese, of many breeds, are still in the process that chickens have been through, of being moved by mankind from the natural pair based family units to larger male-plus-multiple-female quick-production breeding groups. There's still a lot of pair-instinct in many geese breeds and the extra females put with each male suffer for lack of their own mate, as do any offspring they get, but they have no choice. Over time, as with chickens, the male will become no more than a sperm donor, and the females will lose almost all their instinct for having a mate of their own.

About the so-called 'overmating', this in my experience is due entirely to the either one or both of the following: a nasty rooster, and/or insufficient nutrition. Many feeds which are marketed as 'complete nutrition' are in fact better classified as survival rations. Malnutrition takes years to kill in its average form. Health is more expensive in the short term but disease is cripplingly expensive in the long term. I spend a little more than usual to ensure health. You can't put in later what never went in when they were growing, is one issue. Nutrition is a big topic though, best discussed some other time. Anyway, I give mine kelp, granulated or powdered. It's a thyroid medicine, endocrine regulator, very powerful in both those respects, great for all livestock and humans as well, and because of this my hens have shiny, soft, strong feathers which never leave them bare during moulting.

Also I run a ratio that frequently peaks at one hen per every rooster (50:50 male to female ratio) without any 'overmating' or feather loss. (All birds free range together as a rule). It's not because they're mating less than normal, if anything they're very amorous.

I believe this thing they call 'overmating' is something that only occurs when weaker feathers are grown or very nasty roosters are kept. After all, 'over mated' hens don't want to mate anymore but he keeps jumping on them... Not a good mentality. I highly recommend you use kelp with your animals. It gives them vibrant health and fertility and strong production of eggs and flesh, even with non layers which with kelp often start laying again. As the generations of kelp fed birds progress you will be able to sex them at hatching due to the strong development. It brings out locked away instincts, it increases the intelligence as complete nutrition does, and promotes peace and friendliness; and it also curbs the depopulation instinct I mentioned in the previous post. Remember what I said about extra nutrition causing antisocial animals to come together in great hordes yet remain peaceful.

My roosters are very careful with the hens and will stop all attempts to mate if the female reacts in a rejecting manner. This is an important instinct which I rate highly: males must respect females. This is one of the fundamental rules in pretty much every species, and for good reason. A male who harms females not only decreases his chances of passing on his genes and therefore that negative female-aggressive behavior, but he also harms his species through damaging a female without which there are less offspring. Females are equipped with the mechanisms to both identify their best matches. If all your females don't like a certain rooster, I'd cull him, because they can't all be wrong about his genes. If he's a match for even one, maybe he's ok to breed with her, but I wouldn't breed him with hens who show no interest in him.

If a hen is not currently fertile, or instinctively knows she is not a good match with the male propositioning her, or is unwilling to mate with him for any reason including injury or illness, it is vital that he cease attempts to mount. If my roosters were not so respectful I would have lost some of my best hens, as many other folks experience because they view harsh behaviors as normal. Again, normal is not natural, it's what we've bred into them.

I have had issues with some males, chicken and turkey, who would not respect a female's rejection of their advances which they kept making every time she crouched to snuggle her babies. This is a lack of instinct on the male's part which endangers the female and all the offspring. I culled for that trait, as well as males pushing suit on females who were complaining and trying to get away. This is not normal and can lead to injuries; in particular it increases the chances of her getting accidentally spurred.

I have also culled some cockerels who would try to mate with hens who were in the middle of laying. Incomplete instinct or misdirected instincts lend themselves to dead or damaged chickens and in my experience breed true the majority of the time. All my most recent generations of males are very respectful, even as cockerels in the throes of teenage hormones, and all my hens are let be if a male tries to mate and she makes a little noise of rejection, or just moves a step away. He'll let go instantly. As part of this more natural instinctual communication between the genders, now the hens employ their ancestral mating invitations, like crouching before the male gets there, fluttering the wings in invitation, etc. Many of the males don't even hold on with their beaks anymore.

It is natural for a male to be very gentle and take every possible care with his mate. This is highly heritable.

There is no need for a male to be any less than careful, but some males like to mix aggression and violence with mating. I cull those. Pecking a female on the head is not natural either. Both of these traits I believe were bred into them by the human practice of keeping male-only and female-only flocks, with some individuals being allowed to breed later on, but at no point allowed a normal flock life and family life. Repeat this for a good few generations and it alters instincts.

Such individuals tend to be far more aggressive than usual and the males can come to view all hens as males too; after all, it's common that males kept with only males often develop homosexual tendencies, just as females only kept with females often do. This is another thing that happens with many livestock and pet species thanks to unnatural husbandry practices on our part. It causes health issues with cattle, sheep, cats, dogs, etc, for various obvious biological reasons. With sheep it spreads an STI which renders the males permanently infertile. So just because your male is mating with a hen does not mean he does not think it's a male; if he's pecking her on the head or being rough it's a fair bet he also thinks she's just a juvenile male or some other subordinate male. His instinct regarding males and females is likely confused or mixed.

The ingrained automatic assumption of mating position hens display when mounted is also a trait males possess. They may display it when mounted by a male, or even if mounted by a female. I have had one hen, one of my best layers, who would fight roosters until she'd beaten them, then mount them and mate like she was the male. They would complain like many hens automatically do (lacking complete instinct about mating, or complaining about not being respected) but like the hens the roosters automatically crouched, spread their tails and mated. It's a rather simple 'body memory' reaction, and fairly automatic, and not gender specific even though each gender is more likely to stick to their own stereotyped trait/role.

Negative social traits often show up while the chicks are only a few weeks old. This can be altered sometimes, though our influence on changing a bird's inherited mentality in its lifetime is often weak, but often bad behavior in youth is a warning sign of the aberrant mentality that will bloom in adulthood. It's easiest to modify behavior through culling or not breeding bad traits whether learned or already present. If I see a bad trait in a chick like bullying, I mark it on my 'probable cull' mental list. If it's a mild once off, then it's a mark against the bird but not a guarantee I won't breed it as an adult. If it happens twice, or badly enough the first time, that's a cull. Human aggression is a one-strike-guaranteed-cull fault.

There's only about two degrees of severity and I cull for anything 'enthusiastic' --- a single peck on the head is not enthusiastic, but several hard pecks, or biting on and hanging on, or trying to remove a piece, is severe and 'enthusiastic' enough for me to cull that bird. If it tries to do harm, I cull.

Here's a general rule of thumb for what I cull for:

1. Bullying. If two birds are fighting, settling a disputed hierarchy order, that's fine within reason. When one gives up, it should be left to go unmolested by the victor, since the issue has now been sorted. Chasing a bird that's already been established as subordinate and is offering no challenge is not acceptable. Note: there's a difference between a mock charge to let a bird know it's not wanted in the group, and outright chasing it, or refusing to let it use communal resources. Harassing is not tolerated. Subordinates try not to eat or drink in the same area as a dominant bird, so it's important to have several sources of feed and drink so peace can be maintained by allowing the subordinates to eat and drink without offending or seemingly challenging a dominant bird.
2. Using damage to establish dominance. Chickens have a sense of fair play in a natural state, and no mentally/instinctually healthy bird wants to kill or injure its opponent. Their inherited behaviors (in good birds) enable them to spar without doing harm, and the sparring is all they need to do to sort out the hierarchy. Two strange roosters who have a sense of fair play can fight for hours and hours and hours without harm being done to either. They will not use their spurs and won't remove or peck at eyes. When one rooster is down, too exhausted to get up, the standing rooster won't attack, but will stand nearby waiting for his opponent to catch his breath. Then he has the choice to walk away, or continue the fight. Note: most fights are resolved in seconds. This is an extreme example, a rare one too, to show the fair play instinct in action. If the loser will not accept his lower social status, I will rehome or cull. In the majority of cases dominance battles are settled without bloodshed, since they can tell quickly from a few shoves and pecks whether or not they are matched.
3. Attacking babies or injured or ill birds. Never acceptable to me. It is my choice, not the flock's, whether an ill or injured bird is treated or culled. It's natural for them to drive away a sick bird, but to attack or bully it is not healthy. My birds could not be less interested in an injured or ill bird. This makes treating easy and stress free, since I don't have to separate a bird or find it's been attacked. But it did take the non breeding of any bully I saw to achieve that. As for attacking babies... That's never excusable.
4. Males abusing females. Mating should be a careful affair, without the rooster removing feathers, or pecking her, or hanging on if she tries to move away. There should be no chasing of hens. Hens are often willing, there's no need for roosters to insist and be rough when the hens are disinclined. Female animals are very aware of their state and their receptivity, and males should respect that. Pushing the issue when it's not a good time leads to damage and stressed females. Any rooster who consistently spurs hens I will cull even if it was an accident every time... In this case 'culling' may just mean cutting his spurs and selling him on to someone who tolerates that, if his spurs were angled wrong (as they are with many breeds). If he's callous or careless, not just clumsy, I cull. A healthy bird might be clumsy the first few times they mate, but continual clumsiness implies his brain's not working at peak; he should have corrected that repeated mistake he's making even if his spurs are angled incorrectly. No male is dominant to a female, and I don't tolerate a male who attacks females.
5. Human aggressive birds, or chickens that are sexually attracted to humans. Obviously, never acceptable. Something abnormal must be occurring in a chicken's brain for it to even look at a human as an opponent or mate. Even if it viewed us as a predator (taking the eggs, seizing another chicken, etc) its natural response would be to flee from something as large as us. Attacking shows a lot of contempt and is usually bred into them or bred on by owners who think it's acceptable. Sexual attraction to humans is a direct effect of keeping males and females separated in commercial breeding facilities where reproduction is accomplished through artificial insemination. Hens who squat for a human's approach, and roosters who try to bite onto hands, feet, arms and legs, etc are prime examples of the end results of replacing their instinct for the opposite sex with the instinct to view humans as sexual partners. I have had to cull roosters for sexual attraction to humans before. Some breeders use AI as a rule, not as the exception to the rule, and this is wrong in many ways. Now we have many livestock and pet species that have confused instincts and view humans as sexual partners. I won't go into details but the results can be fatal. Suffice it to say I am against AI unless it is vitally necessary for the preservation of the species.
6. Aberrant behaviors or traits. This is a catch-all term and includes the inconvenient traits, bad genetics, etc, as well as things like the following. Cannibalism. Excessive noisiness (which is linked to hysteria). Maternal incapacity. Sexual attraction to underage birds. Low intelligence, whether social or general. Refusal to tame/human averse nature. Obsessive behaviors. Excessive dependence on human provision. Incapacity to learn from negative experiences. Etc. Long list, and depends on many mitigating factors.

I agree with Beekissed's quote here:
Quote:I do the same, taking note of the aggressive ones.

A normal confrontation is one thing, and I grade birds by how peacefully, quickly and permanently they sort out their respective places in the pecking order, giving a little leeway if necessary based on influencing factors like one or both birds being in the middle of brooding (if female), or the two are strangers to each other, and other such criteria.

If I note an aggressor or a particularly determined loser who keeps starting fights they can't win, that bird goes on my cull list. When it is a good weight, or it's a good time for me, I'll process them. Until then, unless they're presenting a danger to me, my family, or my animals, they will continue to free range with the flock, up until their last day. I have only had to separate a few birds out of hundreds so far.

Best wishes with your flock and I hope you find what works for you.

 

[RoseMarie1]

You're right, the males you speak of are not being kind or gentle as good males are. If you find a truly good rooster, the hens will flock to him. In my experience a rooster who treats hens with all due consideration and respect is wildly popular as compared to any other rooster.

A good male will not peck a female for trying to eat something he wants. Good roosters, in fact, will starve to death rather than take food a female or chick wants. This has happened to many people, it's not an old wives' tale; my roosters would never eat the feed I make unless I put out enough for them as well as the hens. They can tell if it's enough just by looking at it. They're far smarter than often given credit for.

A male driving females away from food would never pass on his genes in the wild, since like many other species of birds a male who does not prove he can provide for his mate simply does not get a mate. In captivity many birds refuse to breed if the male lacks the instinct to bring the female a gift to prove his worth as a mate. The same is true of chickens in the wild and is the entire purpose of the feed-finding and sharing behavior being displayed by males; he is proving he is a capable 'husband'/mate and father. The original meaning of 'husband' covers what a rooster ought to be doing --- tending those in his care, not just using them. He does not require a fraction of the food a hen does, and a male taking the 'lion's share' basically marks him as unfit to breed.

A rooster's help ensures a better fed and therefore healthier hen, which in turn ensures healthier eggs, in turn becoming healthier chicks, in turn becoming adults which are more likely to dominate due to health, thus his legacy which will dominate other male's legacies if they were not as great a father and husband as he was. His help with feeding, nesting, and rearing chicks will also ensure greater numbers survive. Or at least it does in the wild. It can in captivity/domesticity too, but humans tend to take over his duties for him and often put him back to breeding with other hens if he was attempting to be a father.

Most chicken males lack this complete spectrum of rooster behavior though and don't help with chicks at all. This is a byproduct of forcing upon a rooster more hens than he could tend to. This would have been distressing when people first began the practice, since the rooster's instincts would have told him in no uncertain terms that this was overpopulation and dangerous to the future of the species.

The hens would have suffered the same warnings. This stress would have begun to introduce the beginnings of the vicious flock behavior so many people think is 'just the way it is in the wild as well as in captivity' --- normal. Unnatural but indeed normal.

Over generations of that animal husbandry, the males lose the instincts of a father and husband, and merely become sperm donors. Geese, of many breeds, are still in the process that chickens have been through, of being moved by mankind from the natural pair based family units to larger male-plus-multiple-female quick-production breeding groups. There's still a lot of pair-instinct in many geese breeds and the extra females put with each male suffer for lack of their own mate, as do any offspring they get, but they have no choice. Over time, as with chickens, the male will become no more than a sperm donor, and the females will lose almost all their instinct for having a mate of their own.

About the so-called 'overmating', this in my experience is due entirely to the either one or both of the following: a nasty rooster, and/or insufficient nutrition. Many feeds which are marketed as 'complete nutrition' are in fact better classified as survival rations. Malnutrition takes years to kill in its average form. Health is more expensive in the short term but disease is cripplingly expensive in the long term. I spend a little more than usual to ensure health. You can't put in later what never went in when they were growing, is one issue. Nutrition is a big topic though, best discussed some other time. Anyway, I give mine kelp, granulated or powdered. It's a thyroid medicine, endocrine regulator, very powerful in both those respects, great for all livestock and humans as well, and because of this my hens have shiny, soft, strong feathers which never leave them bare during moulting.

Also I run a ratio that frequently peaks at one hen per every rooster (50:50 male to female ratio) without any 'overmating' or feather loss. (All birds free range together as a rule). It's not because they're mating less than normal, if anything they're very amorous.

I believe this thing they call 'overmating' is something that only occurs when weaker feathers are grown or very nasty roosters are kept. After all, 'over mated' hens don't want to mate anymore but he keeps jumping on them... Not a good mentality. I highly recommend you use kelp with your animals. It gives them vibrant health and fertility and strong production of eggs and flesh, even with non layers which with kelp often start laying again. As the generations of kelp fed birds progress you will be able to sex them at hatching due to the strong development. It brings out locked away instincts, it increases the intelligence as complete nutrition does, and promotes peace and friendliness; and it also curbs the depopulation instinct I mentioned in the previous post. Remember what I said about extra nutrition causing antisocial animals to come together in great hordes yet remain peaceful.

My roosters are very careful with the hens and will stop all attempts to mate if the female reacts in a rejecting manner. This is an important instinct which I rate highly: males must respect females. This is one of the fundamental rules in pretty much every species, and for good reason. A male who harms females not only decreases his chances of passing on his genes and therefore that negative female-aggressive behavior, but he also harms his species through damaging a female without which there are less offspring. Females are equipped with the mechanisms to both identify their best matches. If all your females don't like a certain rooster, I'd cull him, because they can't all be wrong about his genes. If he's a match for even one, maybe he's ok to breed with her, but I wouldn't breed him with hens who show no interest in him.

If a hen is not currently fertile, or instinctively knows she is not a good match with the male propositioning her, or is unwilling to mate with him for any reason including injury or illness, it is vital that he cease attempts to mount. If my roosters were not so respectful I would have lost some of my best hens, as many other folks experience because they view harsh behaviors as normal. Again, normal is not natural, it's what we've bred into them.

I have had issues with some males, chicken and turkey, who would not respect a female's rejection of their advances which they kept making every time she crouched to snuggle her babies. This is a lack of instinct on the male's part which endangers the female and all the offspring. I culled for that trait, as well as males pushing suit on females who were complaining and trying to get away. This is not normal and can lead to injuries; in particular it increases the chances of her getting accidentally spurred.

I have also culled some cockerels who would try to mate with hens who were in the middle of laying. Incomplete instinct or misdirected instincts lend themselves to dead or damaged chickens and in my experience breed true the majority of the time. All my most recent generations of males are very respectful, even as cockerels in the throes of teenage hormones, and all my hens are let be if a male tries to mate and she makes a little noise of rejection, or just moves a step away. He'll let go instantly. As part of this more natural instinctual communication between the genders, now the hens employ their ancestral mating invitations, like crouching before the male gets there, fluttering the wings in invitation, etc. Many of the males don't even hold on with their beaks anymore.

It is natural for a male to be very gentle and take every possible care with his mate. This is highly heritable.

There is no need for a male to be any less than careful, but some males like to mix aggression and violence with mating. I cull those. Pecking a female on the head is not natural either. Both of these traits I believe were bred into them by the human practice of keeping male-only and female-only flocks, with some individuals being allowed to breed later on, but at no point allowed a normal flock life and family life. Repeat this for a good few generations and it alters instincts.

Such individuals tend to be far more aggressive than usual and the males can come to view all hens as males too; after all, it's common that males kept with only males often develop homosexual tendencies, just as females only kept with females often do. This is another thing that happens with many livestock and pet species thanks to unnatural husbandry practices on our part. It causes health issues with cattle, sheep, cats, dogs, etc, for various obvious biological reasons. With sheep it spreads an STI which renders the males permanently infertile. So just because your male is mating with a hen does not mean he does not think it's a male; if he's pecking her on the head or being rough it's a fair bet he also thinks she's just a juvenile male or some other subordinate male. His instinct regarding males and females is likely confused or mixed.

The ingrained automatic assumption of mating position hens display when mounted is also a trait males possess. They may display it when mounted by a male, or even if mounted by a female. I have had one hen, one of my best layers, who would fight roosters until she'd beaten them, then mount them and mate like she was the male. They would complain like many hens automatically do (lacking complete instinct about mating, or complaining about not being respected) but like the hens the roosters automatically crouched, spread their tails and mated. It's a rather simple 'body memory' reaction, and fairly automatic, and not gender specific even though each gender is more likely to stick to their own stereotyped trait/role.

Negative social traits often show up while the chicks are only a few weeks old. This can be altered sometimes, though our influence on changing a bird's inherited mentality in its lifetime is often weak, but often bad behavior in youth is a warning sign of the aberrant mentality that will bloom in adulthood. It's easiest to modify behavior through culling or not breeding bad traits whether learned or already present. If I see a bad trait in a chick like bullying, I mark it on my 'probable cull' mental list. If it's a mild once off, then it's a mark against the bird but not a guarantee I won't breed it as an adult. If it happens twice, or badly enough the first time, that's a cull. Human aggression is a one-strike-guaranteed-cull fault.

There's only about two degrees of severity and I cull for anything 'enthusiastic' --- a single peck on the head is not enthusiastic, but several hard pecks, or biting on and hanging on, or trying to remove a piece, is severe and 'enthusiastic' enough for me to cull that bird. If it tries to do harm, I cull.

Here's a general rule of thumb for what I cull for:

1. Bullying. If two birds are fighting, settling a disputed hierarchy order, that's fine within reason. When one gives up, it should be left to go unmolested by the victor, since the issue has now been sorted. Chasing a bird that's already been established as subordinate and is offering no challenge is not acceptable. Note: there's a difference between a mock charge to let a bird know it's not wanted in the group, and outright chasing it, or refusing to let it use communal resources. Harassing is not tolerated. Subordinates try not to eat or drink in the same area as a dominant bird, so it's important to have several sources of feed and drink so peace can be maintained by allowing the subordinates to eat and drink without offending or seemingly challenging a dominant bird.
2. Using damage to establish dominance. Chickens have a sense of fair play in a natural state, and no mentally/instinctually healthy bird wants to kill or injure its opponent. Their inherited behaviors (in good birds) enable them to spar without doing harm, and the sparring is all they need to do to sort out the hierarchy. Two strange roosters who have a sense of fair play can fight for hours and hours and hours without harm being done to either. They will not use their spurs and won't remove or peck at eyes. When one rooster is down, too exhausted to get up, the standing rooster won't attack, but will stand nearby waiting for his opponent to catch his breath. Then he has the choice to walk away, or continue the fight. Note: most fights are resolved in seconds. This is an extreme example, a rare one too, to show the fair play instinct in action. If the loser will not accept his lower social status, I will rehome or cull. In the majority of cases dominance battles are settled without bloodshed, since they can tell quickly from a few shoves and pecks whether or not they are matched.
3. Attacking babies or injured or ill birds. Never acceptable to me. It is my choice, not the flock's, whether an ill or injured bird is treated or culled. It's natural for them to drive away a sick bird, but to attack or bully it is not healthy. My birds could not be less interested in an injured or ill bird. This makes treating easy and stress free, since I don't have to separate a bird or find it's been attacked. But it did take the non breeding of any bully I saw to achieve that. As for attacking babies... That's never excusable.
4. Males abusing females. Mating should be a careful affair, without the rooster removing feathers, or pecking her, or hanging on if she tries to move away. There should be no chasing of hens. Hens are often willing, there's no need for roosters to insist and be rough when the hens are disinclined. Female animals are very aware of their state and their receptivity, and males should respect that. Pushing the issue when it's not a good time leads to damage and stressed females. Any rooster who consistently spurs hens I will cull even if it was an accident every time... In this case 'culling' may just mean cutting his spurs and selling him on to someone who tolerates that, if his spurs were angled wrong (as they are with many breeds). If he's callous or careless, not just clumsy, I cull. A healthy bird might be clumsy the first few times they mate, but continual clumsiness implies his brain's not working at peak; he should have corrected that repeated mistake he's making even if his spurs are angled incorrectly. No male is dominant to a female, and I don't tolerate a male who attacks females.
5. Human aggressive birds, or chickens that are sexually attracted to humans. Obviously, never acceptable. Something abnormal must be occurring in a chicken's brain for it to even look at a human as an opponent or mate. Even if it viewed us as a predator (taking the eggs, seizing another chicken, etc) its natural response would be to flee from something as large as us. Attacking shows a lot of contempt and is usually bred into them or bred on by owners who think it's acceptable. Sexual attraction to humans is a direct effect of keeping males and females separated in commercial breeding facilities where reproduction is accomplished through artificial insemination. Hens who squat for a human's approach, and roosters who try to bite onto hands, feet, arms and legs, etc are prime examples of the end results of replacing their instinct for the opposite sex with the instinct to view humans as sexual partners. I have had to cull roosters for sexual attraction to humans before. Some breeders use AI as a rule, not as the exception to the rule, and this is wrong in many ways. Now we have many livestock and pet species that have confused instincts and view humans as sexual partners. I won't go into details but the results can be fatal. Suffice it to say I am against AI unless it is vitally necessary for the preservation of the species.
6. Aberrant behaviors or traits. This is a catch-all term and includes the inconvenient traits, bad genetics, etc, as well as things like the following. Cannibalism. Excessive noisiness (which is linked to hysteria). Maternal incapacity. Sexual attraction to underage birds. Low intelligence, whether social or general. Refusal to tame/human averse nature. Obsessive behaviors. Excessive dependence on human provision. Incapacity to learn from negative experiences. Etc. Long list, and depends on many mitigating factors.

I agree with Beekissed's quote here:

Thank you C3life!!! Going to cut and paste so I can remember as I need it.

 

[chooks4life]

Lol, good idea, there's a few threads on here I copy info from so I can reread it later. Some stuff needs reading a few times to soak in.

Each person has different beliefs and aims with their flocks, and concerning animals in general, so feel free to do whatever you feel is right, of course. You'll find your own rules of conduct you believe chickens must adhere to in order to epitomize decent stock. I'm not an expert, and my views on animals, etc are often somewhat controversial.

Many people believe for example that males are inherently violent female-bashing rapists and infant-killers by virtue of possessing exterior gonads as opposed to the female's interior gonads. This has never, ever been my experience with males. To be totally honest I have had worse experiences with aggressive females than aggressive males of many different species, and I respect the females more, if 'respect' means 'take an attack more seriously'. lol. It's a strange world and the human propensity to view it through a fantasist lens is also strange.

Best wishes.

 

[goodb]

This post was timely. THANK YOU!

I have an EE Rooster that was causing chaos through my flock of younger birds. Chasing them off and stealing what they were eating. then he went so far as to start grabbing and pulling feathers. I determined enough was enough and have him separated. At only 16 weeks he's still a bit small for butchering so I hope to hold onto him for another month.

 

[RoseMarie1]

Lol, good idea, there's a few threads on here I copy info from so I can reread it later. Some stuff needs reading a few times to soak in.

Each person has different beliefs and aims with their flocks, and concerning animals in general, so feel free to do whatever you feel is right, of course. You'll find your own rules of conduct you believe chickens must adhere to in order to epitomize decent stock. I'm not an expert, and my views on animals, etc are often somewhat controversial.

Many people believe for example that males are inherently violent female-bashing rapists and infant-killers by virtue of possessing exterior gonads as opposed to the female's interior gonads. This has never, ever been my experience with males. To be totally honest I have had worse experiences with aggressive females than aggressive males of many different species, and I respect the females more, if 'respect' means 'take an attack more seriously'. lol. It's a strange world and the human propensity to view it through a fantasist lens is also strange.

Best wishes.

Oh yeah with this memory of mine I have to copy and paste so I can refer back to it and remember it. Yep that's what makes the world so interesting everyone is different and likes different things. I just like peace and harmony in my pen and right now just some eggs coming out of it would be nice to.

We're getting close! 4 months old so we're getting there.
When I had my ducks I had some mean drakes but I had wayyy too many of them and finally learned that and took a bunch to our water parks in the area so they could be free and enjoy all the water. I didn't want to sale them and someone kill them so I called the water parks and they said sure bring em on. You should have seen those ducks when they hit that open water as far as the eye could see was water. It was a sight to behold! SOOOO cool! They immediately went to the shore lines rooting around and I was so glad I thought about the parks because I knew they would be content living there.

Thank you again for your time and info!!!