A DISCUSSION OF BREEDING METHODS IN PLAIN LANGUAGE
FORWARD
In 1962 Harry Parr answered the long standing chal lenge of Curtis Blackwell to fight a main. It was billed as the main of the decade and fought in St. Augustine, Florida prior to the tournament. Harry was described in one of the publications as l a serious breeder from Maryl and". When he upset the odds with a 7-3 win people real ized just how serious he was.
Harry has been a member of the Claymore Club since 1957. This group holds a short heel stag tournament each spring. In 1966 Harry retired the prestigious chal lenge cup by wi nning it for the third time.
The Barnes Cup was inaugurated in 1979. This is the largest cock tournament in the country today and is open to the first twelve forfeits. It regularly attracts entries from eight or more different states and is fought in memory of J. Norris Barnes Or. The trophy was donated by his family. Harry has fought in that event since it's inception and retired a cup by winning it for the third time in 1983.
The reason I mention the foregoing is to demonstrate that Harry has not just come from nowhere to write his thoughts on breeding. He breeds what he fights and he has been successful at it over a period of time, His methods are proven.
This work is written in plain language by someone who knows the subject. It is something that has been needed for a long time. When Harry saw that his friend Hugh Norman, was not going to be able to produce it, he went. ahead to fill the need. If a breeder cannot get something out of this book, and indeed keep it for reference, I will be surprised.
PREFACE
This paper is being prepared in the hope that it will be useful to the breeder of game fowl who is not familiar with the subject of breeding. In no way should it be considered a treatise on the subject and may in fact be technically in error in some instances. This is because I have omitted all of the terms used in genetics and sometimes plain language is an insufficient substitute. It may be likened to translating a book from one language to another. I have undertaken this project at the urging of friends who insist it, is needed. I am sure there are many others more qulified to deal with the subject, but so far they have not come forward. If certain people is interests are provoked to research this subject in more depth i will be pleased, for there is much more out there and still much to be learned. However, is sufficient in answering some questions and provides some focus for the practical breeder, I will also be pleased.
INTRODUCTION
Over the years in discussions with people on the subject of breeding, I have been impressed that so few possess the knowledge of even the basic principles. It dawned on me that the probable reason was the lack of material that could be readi ly understood by the layman, Most books on the subject immedi ately confront the reader with words such as "heterozygous" and the like. It is not long before the person seeking practical breeding knowledge rather than a degree in genetics gives up in frustration. With this in mind, attempt to provide a base of information on which to build a breeding practice.
Webster's New World Dictionary defines a gamecock as 'E a specially bred rooster trained for cock fighting" When a chick is hatched it possesses an of the characteristics it will ever have. No amount of training can alter them. Certainly, man can make them scary and wild. He can turn some into man fighters. He can even teach them tricks, but he cahlt train them how to fight. The fighting characteristics are all inherited. At 'this point it might be well to say there are no breeding formulas for success. No pre-conceived steps that will ultimately produce superior individuals. It is fun to speculate and draw up a plan from which you anticipate producing the perfect fighting cocks; however, one must always guard against falling into a trap. Each mating must be evaluated before going on with your plan. As an example, I got a trio of Blue fowl which were supposedly wonderful cutters. They were very well made with beautiful plumage. I had a family of Clarets which were likewise well made, smart fighters and superior cutters, but when I got them they were small and highly inbred, (more on this subject later). Now, I thought if I breed these two together, through the larger blues and hybrid I will get nice sized pullets with bloodlines that can fight and cut. Then I will put a Hatch cock over them and not only get cocks that can fight and cut, but will have power and bottom, Logical? Why not? So, I went ahead with my plan and the results were a disaster.
The stags couldn't cut their way out of a paper bag. They were uniformally terrible. Where had I gone wrong? I went back and fought some offspring of the Blue-Claret cross and they couldn't cut at all. If I had done this before going on with the third step in my plan, the Hatch mating, I would have saved a lot of time, expense, and disappointment. So while the plan for the ultimate is important, it is equally as important to evaluate each mating to make sure you are on the right track, My theory was sound and has worked well past with different families. As I say there is no blueprint to success.
Recently a friend of mines who is a cattle broker, came to my place with the owner of a large herd of Holstein cattle. My friend has been in the cattle business all his life, as was his father. He probably knows the whereabouts of every top dairy cow and bull in the country, not to mention every top herd whether it be Holstein, Guernsey, Jersey or whatever. He ought to.
It is his business, and he is very good at it. He will put together a herd for you, help you upgrade your present one, advise you in general, or get top dollar for your herd if you wish to di spose of it. Yet he brought this man to my place and asked me to discuss breeding plans with him. Now there are Certain truisms with breeding that apply to chickens, sheep, cattle, etc., but what I know about breeding cattle you could put into a thimble. Although we had a nice visit, I am sure the Holstein man didn't come out with much. The point is there is just no formula for reaching your desired goals.
Breeding game fowl may be the most challenging of all breeding endeavors. After all we are trying to breed a complete athlete. A fighting cock must be a) quick b) smart c) durable d) game and possess e) cutting ability f) good conformation g) sound plumage h) power i) good eyesight. All of these qualities are, of course, comparative. Some people believe a good cock will win in any length heel or even knife, a belief I cannot subscribe to. The priorities of this list of talent should be dictated by the type heel with which you want to specialize. Therefore we get down to the type fowl you want to select to begin with and how to go from there.
Everyone is familiar with the terms a) cross bred fowl b) strains c) pure bred families d) battle cocks. To be Sure the reader is with me when these terms I':are I would like to set forth my definition of each.
a. Cross Bred Fowl. Chickens produced by breeders which are constantly changing with the introduction of new blood. This is by far the most popular method used to produce game fowl. I liken it to a chef creating a new dish. It goes something like this. Mr. Cross Bred Breeder has just cleaned house for whatever reason (chickens started to quit, dogs killed most of the brood yard, etc.). He keeps one old Whitehackle hen, and has some stags out on walks. Mr. C.B. B. has been reading in the journals that a certain breeder has been doing well with his Atomic Greys. This breeder also has an ad stating he will part with a few Trios for X number of dollars. if you can't quite afford these super chickens, he al so has half dozen other breeds for sale. Mr. C.B. B. decides to shoot the whole nickel and is soon in possession of a trio of Atomic Greys. Now keep in mind the Atomic Greys are themselves crosses, being the unlikely mating of an ace brown red cock purchased at a brush fight, over Some fairly closely bred grey hens. The cock of the trio is a four year old winner of five fights. The hens being out of the same mating are sisters to the cock. Mr. C.B. B. breeds this trio and also breeds the Whitehackle hen he kept. One of the stags he had on a walk (now a cock) was a flashy winner of three fights, so he breeds him to the pul lets produced from his Atomic Grey Trio. The old Whitehackle hen, which has since died produced six pretty good stags. He is sentimental about the old hen and wanting to keep the blood, he breeds the best one, which is now a cock, and of course half Atomic Grey, to the produce of the three time winner stag he had kept and the pullets from the Atomic Grey Trio. Along the way he has bought out of the pit a cock which won a long uphill battle. The owner said he was a pure Allen Roundhead. Mr. C. B. B. thinks he could use a little more bottom, so he breeds him to some pullets and hens of hi s various matings to see which works out the best. And so it goes, year after year adding this, trying that, in a rather hap-hazard manner.
The problem with this kind of breeding is lack of consistency. Occasionally, you may find a breeding together of a cock and hen(s) which produces superior fowl. When one or the other dies, though, the offspring will not carry on.
Cross-bred fowl are hybrids, and hybrids cannot be bred together with any expectations of consistency. I liken it to a kaleidoscope. When you turn a kaleidoscope you get a different pattern every time. When you breed hybrid to hybrid, the genes mix in a different combination, so that you get aces, duds, and everything in between.
b. Strains The name given to fowl by the person or persons who developed and fought them. Usually produced by the breeding of two or more families which are then inbred enough to set uniformity, not uncommonly containing new blood of similar type fowl from time to time.
I think a good example would be what are widely known today as Kelso's. These were originated in Texas by Walter Kelso from largely Madigin type fowl, and fought by him under the banner of Oleander Club. While not sensational, they more than held their own over a period of years, and were quite uniform in both appearance and fighting style.
Another good example would be the late Tom Murphy who bred his strain on a large estate in New York. Over the years Mr. Murphy compiled a respectable record in the toughest pits in the Northeast fighting in inch-and-a-quarter heels. Most of the fighting then was mains and tournaments. In the late thirties he and Mr. Hatch branched out to fight in the long heel tournments in Florida. His cocks too were uniform in looks and style in the case of the latter, he began exchanging fowl with Mr. Kelso, in an effort to add some speed. Mr. Murphy was extremely secretive about his breeding, and I doubt that anyone but he really knew what they were. He was not above asking for, and generally getting a cock he liked, but aside from Frank Shy, and later Walter very few people got any of his fowl. When questioned about the breeding, Mr. Murphy would maintain his chickens were just the same as always. They certainly always looked the same, because he would not fight a cock as his, unless it was a black breasted red with a single comb and yellow legs. In part, this was accomplished by him roaming his estate and disposing of any exceptions with a 22 rifle. The thinking here is that over the years many crosses wre tried and those which showed to advantage were kept and those that didn't were destroyed. Also, the tried and true family was probably kept pure so as to have something to fall back on if trouble cropped up.
c . Pure Bred Families. A family of fowl, usually the refinement of a strain, which has been in-bred by an individual long enough so that they are reproducing uniformly in all characteristics. A friend of mine, now deceased, for years family of Whitehackles. They all came stright combed, spangled, yellow and white legged. They were all well built and typically ranged in weight from 4:06 to 5:06. Having been bred for inch and a quarter heel- fighting, were heads up, single stroke cocks and very good cutters. Although they were extremely game, they did lack power and constitiution, and could not win a majority in first class competition. He kept them pure however, until the day he died, and used them to cross with other fowl in order to produce battle cocks. The lesson here is he knew what he had and he kept it. He was in a positon then to concentrate his efforts in the direction of trying to fortify their weak points.
d. Battle fowl, Battle cocks. Fowl produced by crossing pure bred families for the purpose of producing cocks for the pit. I suppose the most famous examples were bred by Mr. E.W. Law and Mr. C.C. Cooke being the Law Greys (Claret cock over Regul ar Grey hens ), Clippers (Albany cock over Claret hens), and Hatch Clarets (Hatch cock over Claret hens). The cross can be taken further by breeding to a third family, and another step further by taking that offspring and going back- to one of the original three families. Anything over that will put us in the category of Cross Bred Fowl and will result in the loss of consistency.
PART 1
INBREEDING
Some people have an incredible horror of inbreeding and I admit that if one does not have a purpose in mind and exercise sound judgement it is a practice to be avoided. Inbreeding of animals by an individual, makes that individual responsible for what mature would take care of almost flawlessly. Chickens in the wild, indeed the foundation of of todays game fowl were inbred naturally. The theme of course was survival of the fittest. A cock crows to stake out his territory, the same as a dog urinates on plants to make claim to its territory. In the wild, a cock within ear shot of another cock's crow, would not invade that territory unless he wanted to challenge for its ownership. To re-create a scenario that happened thousands of times centuries ago, let' s say we put a two year old cock and six two year old hens in the wild with woods, fields arid streams affording shelter, grain, fruit, insects, Seeds etc. The first year each hen raises with one brooding, three stags and three pullets (remember this -is ih' the In the Fall of the year we now have eighteen stags and eighteen pullets. As the stags come to themselves a pecking order will be established under the cock, then the more mature stags will move off with the instinct to establish a territory of their own. Some pullets will go with them, but not many, because at this time of the year, although the stags are becoming sexually active, the pullets want no part of it, and will tend to stay with the cock and hens. Let us assume six of the stags are successful in going off to find their own territory and each has lured two pullets to accompany him. Let us also assume that six pullets have survived and have stayed with 'the cock and hens. Now, come Spring, we have two breeding situations. Cock will mate with the original hens and al so his daughters. 2) The stags will mate with their sisters. If the same secenario is repeated through the following year, we have 1) the old cock mating with a) original b) daughters c) grand-daughters 2) the stags mating with a) sisters b) pullets out of sisters. Come the original cock is now four years old and showing some age. He is successful though, off all of the stags. However, when Spring arrives he is met with a challenge. A strapping two year old cock has survived somewhere out there by himself. He is the produce of one of the first of the six stags and one of his daughters (keep in mind that her mother was the stag's sister) Although he can hear the old cock crow, he is determined to go in and challenge for the territory. The old cock puts up a desperate fight, but is no match for the two year old who now inherits his harem. What will he breed to this Spring? surviving original hens (his grandmother or her sisters) 2) sisters to his sire 3) hens out of them by his grand sire 4) pullets produced by #3 hens also by his grand
As previously stated the key to this natural breeding is survival of the fittest. Only the smartest, stTongest and most aggressive fowl lived for long in this most competitve environment, If a mating produced anything less, they were quickly eliminated.
Following this process, ultimately a less related cock or some adventurous pullet would come into the picture, but this new blood would soon be watered down in this breeding process or completely eliminated if the progency were not competitive.
Hopefully this illustration will demonstrate the fact that inbreeding is a perfectly natural practice and allow some critics to open there minds to its Use.
First let us examine what inbreeding does and why it establishes uniformity. The dictionary defines inbreeding as "to breed by continual mating of individuals of the same or closly related stocks". It defines inbred as "1) innate or deeply instilled 2) bred from closly rel ated parents; resulting from bheeding U. The dictionary defines gene as". any of the units occur ing at specific points on the chromosomes by which heredity characters are transmitted and determined: To over-simplify when we inbreed we cut down on the number of genes available to produce inherited characteristics. The more we inbreed, the more we intensify and therefore limit the chances for variance.
There are mahy protests regarding inbreeding and through the years I think I have heard most of them. Let us examine some of the more popular ones to see if inbreeding was really to blame. "Inbreeding causes high strung, nervous. even crazy individuals." If you have an individual which tends to be comparatively nervous and high strung and you inbreed to that individual, you will produce more highly nervous and high strung individuals. The fault is not inbreeding perse, it is the breeder. This is a common complaint heard in the world of pure bred dogs. Again it is not inbreeding that is the culprit, it is the breeder. It can happen something like this. Breeder A has become enamoured with showing Cocker Spaniels, and for the first time has made champion with one of his homebreds. The dog is a nervous, high strung individual, and always has been, but with the aid of a little tranquilizer he acts fine in the ring. Breeder A is very proud of his dog and he sees the oppurtunity of sel ting some puppies. Someone has told him he ought to "keep that line" so he breeds his champion to his half sister. By the time the registration papers get to the new owners of five Cocker Spaniel puppies, the puppies have already established themselves as crazies. They are not very happy with their new aquisitions, but when they at the papers they think they know the answer why. Inbreeding! Certainly they were right, but it was the fault of the breeder, not inbreeding.
How many times have we heard that a strain, more significantly a family of a strain, has been inbred for years and has retained good qualities, but are now coming small and delicate. I believe there is a logical answer. When selecting individuals to breed most people gravitate to "breedy" or "refined" or "neat” looking specimens. These tend to be on the small side. If one continues to select on this basis, he will set the “breedy” looking type characteristic, and at the same time the reduction of size. Once that is establfished; it is next to impossible to get the size back up again. The way to avoid this pit-fall is to be ever-mindful of it and keep some large, robust individuals in the breeding program.
As an example, Suppose you rai se an execptional suppose you raised an expectional individual from your inbred family – one that embodies all the good things you perceive in this family. You want to perpetuate this individual, so you detide to line breed. Let’s say this is a three year old Cock, and on the smal side. All things being equal, you should select one of his largest sisters for first mating. One of his largest daughters would be bred back to him for the next. One of his largest daughters out of that mating would be used for the next, -etc.
So that I am not misunderstood as the world size, I do not mean to deliberately keep Coarse, turkey-Iike individuals. Some breeders say they 100k for good bone in a specimen. I am really not quite sure what they mean. The skeletal structure of a Clydesdale horse is great for pulling beer trucks around, but a thoroughbred needs to have light, porous, strong bones to a be a good race horse. I think: the same thing applies to a gamecock.
PART TWO
Gregor Johann Mendel was an Austrian monk and botanist. He lived in the 1800’s and is accepted as the founder of genetics. It is said his interest was first aroused when he crossed dwarf, peas with tall peas expecting to get medium size peas. When instead, he got short, tall and everything in between, he began to investigate.
Webster' s New World Dictionary defines Mendels laws as "the four principles of hereditary phenomena discovered and formulated by Gregor Mendel 1) The laws of independent unit characters, which states that characters such as height, color etc. are inherited separately as units 2) The law of segregation which states that body cells and primordial germ cells contain pairs of such unit characters, and that when gamets are produced, each gamete receives only one member of each such pair 3) The law of dominance, which states that in every individual there is a pair of determining factors (see gene) for each unit character, one from each parent; if these factors are different (heterozygous) the one character (the dominant), appears organism, the other (the recessive) being latent; the recessive character can appear in the organism only when the dominant is absent. Hence in all cross bred generations, unit charaters are shown in varying combinations, each appearing in a definite proportion of the total number of offspring. 4) the law of independent assortment, which states that any one pair of characters is inherited independently, notwithstanding the simultaneous transmittion of other traits; this principal has been modified by the discovery linkage and pleiotrophy.
In the breeding of fowl, there are some truisms, which in and of themselves might not seem significance, but which nonetheless can be helpful. They are based on Mendel’s law, inheritance of dominant and recesscive genes. Fowl that are pure in a given dominant characteristic when bred toghether will always reproduce in kind that dominant characteristic. For instance pea comb is dominant over single comb. Therefore if you have a “roundhead” family that is pure for the pea comb characteristic, that family when bred toghether will always produce pea comb offspring.
White leg is dominant over yellow and dark leg (slate or green). It follow that if you have white legged offspring it is obvious that the cocks or hens or legged fowl that are pure (dominant) for this characteristic when bred toghether they will always produce white legged offspring. Grey colored feathering is dominant over red and white. Red is dominant over white with the exception of white leghores however I dout the reader will find this exceptionpractical use. So we see that fowl which are pure for an inheritable characteristic when bred toghether will always produce this same characteristic. This holds true for pure bred as well as cross bred fowl.
Now that not mean that if we breed together two white legged individuals, that all of their offspring will come white legged, because if one possesses the recessive gene for yellow some will come yellow legged. If we breed two rounhead and one (or both) have in them the recessive gene for straitght comb, we can expect some to come straitght comb.
Now, let us look at what happens when we breed fowl with recessive characteristics. Chickens possessing the same to breed it. On the other hand I have made no attempt to does perpetuate the white color or to eliminate it. If, when individuals, that all of their offspring breeding two red fowl of this family together, for possess the recessive white gene I am apt to get a white yellow some -will come yellow legged. If we breed two one. Years ago Hugh Norman showed me some white fowl which had been produced in this manner, and which he had intentionally bred together (white to white) so that he had a family all coming white. He said he did it because at the time he had a lot of customers requesting. white fowl. Although they contained plenty of red blood they all bred true to their recessive (white) feathering.
A friend of mine had for some thirty years a family of Hatch fowl which were very uniform and all came straight combed and yellow legged. I asked him if they had ever shown the roundhead and green legs and he said yes, but that he had observed the single combed yellow legged cocks seemed to be higher headed, smarter fighters. As a result, individuals with these physical traits were invariably picked for the brood yard. Since straight comb is recessive to pea comb, it is obvious that when his last roundhead died, he would never produce another roundhead within the family. On the other hand we know that yel low legs are dominant over green legs. Since after years of breeding yellow leg to yellow leg my friend ceased to produce any green legged specimens, the only explanation is that over the years the yellow legged fovn selected for his matings ceased to contain the recessive gene , for green legs. Yellow legs are dominant over green and when bred together if both parents are pure in the same dominant character, all of the offspring will inherit that dominant character. Interestingly, I have seen two chickens come with one yellow leg and one largely green. I have also seen some yellow legged individuals where the shade was so light as to almost appear white. Some white legged chickens will have tinges of slate color, but: db not be deceived because the laws of inheritance" do not allow for exceptions. In some breeds of fowl, there are incomplete dominant genes, which may mask- inherited characteristics. However, if the breeder is 'critical enough in his observations he should be at) lè to see through the masquerade.
The discovery of sex linkage was Of monumental economic importance to the poultry industry. OriginalIy it was necessary to breed hybrid crosses to obtain the desired results, but I understand that now some strains have been established so that sex- determination is readily apparent. There are many truisms avai1able to the commercial breeder, some of Which would be of practical use to the breeder of game fowl. I have not intentionally experimented in this area, but through observation have discovered a fact which may be Worth passing on. If a red cock, and I think he should be pure in this characteristic, is bred to a pure grey hen, all of the stags will be grey and all of the pullets will be red.
Will is Holding once gave me some of his Bruner Roundheads. I bred these for quite a few years and they came quite uniformly black breasted red roundheads with white legs. Every once in a while one would come and invariably it would be a male With yellow legs and straight combed. Willis confitmed that this also occurred ' in his chickens.
In many cases several genes are responsible for black brass-back inherited characteristics. These characteristics are mostly comparative, i.e. body size, cutting ability, power and constitution. It is important that we have this variation for without it we would have no selection, and if we have no selection improvement is impossible. We have already talked about size and how if we allow ourselves to breed down a family it is impossible to breed them up again without introducing outside blood. The same would hold true if you breed large to large within a family. After a period of time if you run out of smaller individuals to select from they will all come large. The key is selection. wise not to over do on any one characteristic.
I have a friend who likes plenty of leg under his chickens. In his words I want them "so that they can eat off the table'l. Fortunately for him he is cross-breeder so things never get out of hand. Were he to be forced to breed within a family it would not be long before he had a flock of storks.
Cutting ability is something needed in abundance. Again it is comparative, but breeding superior cutters is absolutely necessary. The one thing the breeder must do is be careful not to give up too many other good qualities in a concentrated effort to produce cutters.
Power and constitution normally go hand in hand. It is rare to find a hard hitting cock that does not also possess endurance. We know it is a characteristic inherited through several genes and is comparative, but can definitely be produced through the brood pen.
Many years ago a cocker friend of mine had a family of chickens that were pretty decent fighters and cutters, but short on power and constitution. They were game enough and more than held their own in local competition. We fought a couple of mains and met in local derbies. At the time Ted McLean and I were fighting together and we were using Hatch or Hatch crosses exclusively. The strong point of our fowl were power and constitution, so that when we met, if we were in the running after a few pittings, our cocks general ly won. My friend would invariably come up to Ted or myself afterward to comment on our excel lent conditioning. I don 't know how many times we thanked him, but explained that it was not our conditioning, that the power was bred in them. No matter, he would not accept that explanation and insisted it was our conditioning. I felt sorry for his chicken man as he would berate him for his inability to get their chickens in "condition". He became so obsessed he would supervise their work, insisting they be given more work and another round when sparring. As a result, this did no good and in fact the cocks were worse for it. It was like trying to stretch a Quarter horse out to run a mi le and a half. Training can only sharpen the strong points and cannot be expected to correct the weak ones. The point here is, the brood pen is where features, both good and bad, are established.
I think it is obvious that good dispositions are most desirable in game fowl. This too is a comparative but one that can also be dealt with through inheritance. If chickens cannot easily be handled and conditioned, it makes the job of the breeder much more difficult and indeed impossible to realize the full potential of the fowl. If fowl cannot be readily tamed to become manageable, they will never attain their potential. Through mis-treatment, teasing, lack of knowledge of animals, poor environment, and a host of other reqsons, gamefowl which through inheritance are otherwise normal, can be made to become rogues. Since this is being written on the subject of breeding we will not get into these man-made problems in depth. Suffice it to say the breeder must always be aware that di spositions in animals are inherited, and tolerance of poorly tempered fowl will surely rear its head down the line, especially if any inbreeding takes place. Going back to our thirst for cutting ability, if we have a wonderful cutting cock that is also a borderl ine man fighter it would be a gamble to breed him to his mother, sistep, or any other closely rel ated fowl.
We once had a cock from Henry Bradford whose fowl were much like our family of Hatch. The cock was tame as a kitten ahd we bped him to some Hatch hens. In the Fall we penned some thirty stags. The fol lowing Spring, they were brought into the cock house to be prepared to Every one was a man fighter. Instead of responding to gentle handling, they got worse. After a week we gave up and put them back in their pen walks. We brought them back i n the fol lowing year to be fought as cocks and if anything, they were worse. When bred to other cocks, the hens, (mothers of these cocks) did not produce man fighters, and I repeat the Bradford cock was very tractable. What caused each of the progeny to be mean? To this day I do not know. Maybe Mother Nature was trying to tell us something.
PART THREE
Basically there are four ways of breeding game fowl. One, by cross-breeding. Two by keeping a strain or strains. Three by breeding two or more closely bred families and four, which goes hand in hand with three, by the crossing of families to produce battle cocks.
The cross-breeder we have defined, is one whose fowl are ever changing. He has good years and bad years. If he admires a cock that he sees fight and the cock is available, he will breed him. If someones chickens are doing well, he will try to get them. He has no real plan or direction. Like the breeder of thoroughbred horses, his motto is “breed the best to the best and hope for
the best". Thoroughbred horses are hybrids, combining the blood of English, Chinese, Turkish and Arabian horses. They will not tolerate inbreeding so that no strains or families can be established. Predictably then there is no uniformity. There are hundreds of cases where a mare and stallion have produced an outstanding individual, but when the mating was repeated even a number of times, the get was no where near as good. The thoroughbred breeder is stuck. All he can do is breed the best horses he can afford and hope that when the genes get together they will combine in a pattern that will produce a superior individual. In a recent publication an article focused on the performance of yearlings sold through public auction for one million dollars or more. There are many ways you can juggle the figures, but the bottom line is that of those that raced, only approximately thirty percent won a stakes race. This figure is credible too, since we are talking about over 100 individuals. This is certainly higher than the 2.7 percent stakes winners from foals which is the national average, and supports the theory of breeding the best to the best, but it is still a depressingly low success rate.
The cross-bred breeder of game fowl is doing the same thing, breeding hybrid to hybrid. He cannot hope to build uniformity, but unlike the thoroughbred breeder he has alternatives.
Through the years breeders have created strains. They have been established by combining bloodlines to produce what that individual sought most in his effort to create the perfect gamecock. They had to be inbred to "set" the desirable characteristics and continue to be inbred to maintain continuity. When inbreeding is practiced it sets both the good and the bad qualities. Depending on the skill of the breeder, the good qualities will be intensifed while the bad are kept to a minimum or hopefully bred out. Strains can be perpetuated without the addition of outside blood for a great many generations, provided the fowl are well cared for and healthy, and that a sufficent number are kept to provide a good selection. Unless it is absolutely necessary to correct a serious fault, no new blood should be added. I have heard of people adding new blood to "freshen" a strain when it had become "too inbred". This is not at all necessary, and every time you add new blood you add a whole new set of genes with which to contend.
Breeders have their own ideas as to what they want in a gamecock. I won't say there are no two alike, but there is plenty of variance. If you could go back twenty years and give six breeders an old time strain of say Wisconsin Red Shufflers, and have them breed them pure, then go visit their yards today you would probably not believe they were related. Each breeder would have their own "family" of Winconsin Red Shufflers. This could be most beneficical because in addition to not being alike in appearance, they would most certainly not fight alike, having been selectively bred according to each of the breeders differing ideas. Although the fountain head of each of the six families was the original strain of Wisconsin Red Shufflers, because they had been segregated and each bred pure, each would have their own set of differing genes. We can assume each of these families have redeeming features and also some faults. Let us say that breeder number one had fallen into the trap of breeding "breedy" looking chickens. They are good cutters and quick, smart fighters. They are coming rather small in size though, and do not have much bottom or constitution. Breed number two has always like rugged hard hitting cocks, and his family of Shufflers reflects his preferance. Say we cross these two families, and get terrific battle cocks inheriting the good points of both families. Now these terrific battle cocks will also be hybrids. How are we going to be able to keep producing them? By continuing to breed both families pure and crossing them in the same manner. We cannot breed the crosses together as we know they are hybrids.
A cheap, quick illustration of what happens when we breed hybrid to hybrid can be done as follows. Buy some hybrid seed corn such as Silver Queen which is a white table corn. Plant it and enjoy eating it in the Summer, but keep enough seed to plant the next Spring. The resulting variations will be most apparent. You can do the same with any number of hybrid tomatoes available. Start your plants from seed’held over from the original hybrids and your production will be anything but uniform.
Ted McLean no longer has chickens but he is an avid gardener. He lives close by and we see a lot of each other. Three Summers ago he brought over some tomatoes he thought were great and we concurred, but when asked what they were he said he had no idea. Someone had given him the plant, and they did not know the variety. Anyway, he saved some seeds and grew some the next Summer and the next and all have bred true. They are firm yellowish 1n color and medium in size. He still has not bothered to find out what they are, but they are obviously a pure breed and not a hybrid.
When we crossed Shuffler family number one with Shuffler family number two and got terrific battle cocks we were indeed fortunate. The thought was sound, power and durability with quick smart fighters, but it by no means always works. Sometimes using the cocks of one family over the hens of another produces nothing, but when the sexes are reversed, the offspring is entirely different. Then too, when we crossed family number one and family number two, we might have got chickens we saw had merit, but were not exactly everything we wanted. Maybe we then crossed a cock from family number four over the number one by number two hens and did get great cocks. My point is that one must experiment to find the cross or blend that produces what is desired. I believe an excellent battle cross will produce after culling, eighty percent superior cocks and twenty percent above average. To expect more is probably unrealistic. I have to back off from the man who advertises ninety percent winners.
PART FOUR
By now it must be apparent to the reader my preference for producing cocks for the pit is the crossing and blending of pure bred families. This method is extremely popular with breeders of vegetables, fruits and domestic animals, and their wealth of experience must be respected. The research, experinfents and record keeping on domestic fowl are extensive to say the least. Although we know the breeding of game fowl may very well be the most difficult of all, we cannot ignore reviewing that material available to us. Since this is the only paper I know of which attempts to deal with the subject of breeding, by using common language only, one will have to become familiar with the terminology used by genetecists. If a breeder is serious in his endeavors, I think it is well worth the effort. The similarity of breeding for egg production, and breeding for body cutters may seem remote, but it may also prove to be quite helpful, and certainly thought provoking.
Further research and review of experimental breeding plans will also be helpful in maintaining strains and families. The average game fowl breeder may not at first be interested in what happens when Silver Seabright Bantams are bred brother to sister for ten generations, or what was produced from the third generation cross of Rhode Island Reds and Brown Leghorns. Experiments such as these have been made, indeed were necessary in order to understand some of the laws of inheritance.
I at one time got a trio of Grey fowl from E.W. Law. When I bred them together some came red, so they obviously had in them red blood. After one of the red stags molted, he grew out brown hen feathered plumage. Hen feathering is dominant over cock feathering, was at a loss to know what had happened. If hen feathering was recessive to cock feathering I would have assumed that at some time a "Hennie" had been bred into the Law Greys. But how would that account for the fact that the now Hen-Cock was as a stag cock feathered? After researching my books I found the answer. It has to do with a rare change in a sex hormone. Interestingly. the following year my Hen-Cock grew in cock plumage. Some readers may think 'I so what, all i am interested in is winners". To those I say, the more you know about breeding, the better off you will be in producing winners.
There are inherited characteristics which any carefull breeder can identify i.e. combformation, color of eyes, plumage, and body conformation. These are referred to as "Phenotypes • Equally there are inherited characteristics which are invisible, i.e. cutting ability, power, and fighting style. These are referred to as "Genotypes' Although the latter are comparative, and probably influenced by several sets of genes, the understanding of the "Phenotypes" may at least provide some clues as to the behavior of the 'l Genotypes". Furthur research in this area cannot possibly hurt the ambitious breeder.
Although we have not mentioned the term "prepotency" it is commonly used among breeders and refers to the ability of a strain or an individual to pass on their characteristics. Prepotency is usually connected with inbred specimens. Those are individuals with a concentration of genes which will 'stamp their get Il as is often heard. Although thi s general ly may be the rule, there are numerous instances of hens producing top chickens no matter what they where bred to, and they themselves were not truly inbred. If a breeder is fortunate enough to come up with such an individual he should line breed to it in the hope of retaining that blood. Line breeding is simply inbreeding individual. In this case, the best son would be bred back to the outstanding hen. Then the best son of that mating bred back to her. Then the best son of that mating bred back to her etc. Simultaneausly, the pullets from those matings should be bred and the offspring evaluated.
Today's American gamecock can pretty will be placed in one of two categories. The head and neck cutter, and the body cutter. The former is best in short inch and a quarter heels and the latter in long heels. I know very little about knife fighting, but I would think the body cutters would also be best using that weapon. I think inch and a half heels are really a kind of a noman s Ìand and that both types are able to handle them. No matter, the breeder should take into consideration what type heel he will be using for the most part, and set his sights on the type fowl he wants to breed. The selection of a strain or strains, and the creation of one' s own family within that strain is the route to go. The selection of the breeding stock from generation to generation is the key. Some of the most promising matings turn out to be failures. It is important to recognize them as such, and go back and try something else. When refining a strain into the breeder's own family through inbreeding obscured traits crop up. These can be good and bad. The skill of the breeder is tested by the selections he makes. The goal is to intensify the good qualities and breed out the bad ones, Seldom is this fully attained. If a breeder is successful in establishing within a family three or four really good qual ities while holding their weaknesses to a minimum, he should be satisfied, If then he is able to establish a family with strength in the departments where the other is weak, he may very well, by crossing the two fami lies, produce sol id battle cocks. If he does, the chal lenge then will be to maintain the high level of each family, so that he continues to produce sol id battle cocks generation after generation. I hope the reader is soon confronted with this problem.
