In some cases, close breeding—and, occasionally, in-and-in—seems to be in accordance with the laws of Nature; as with the wild turkey, which, in its natural state, resorts to these modes of breeding; and yet the race does not change in appearance or degenerate. The reason is that the breed is pure. In comparing any number of these birds, not the least dissimilarity is discoverable; they all look alike, as they always have, and always will. They are changed, or deteriorated, only by crossing or confinement.
Most breeds of the hen kind degenerate rapidly from close, or in-and-in breeding, because they are not perfect of their kind; that is, the breed is not pure, but of mixed blood; and in such objectionable breeding, the race degenerates just in proportion as the breed is imperfect, or impure. The perfect Guelderland will admit of these modes of breeding, for a great length of time, without deterioration; but the impure or mixed will rapidly degenerate. This is also true of all breeds, wherein the characteristic marks are uniform and confirmed, showing perfection in the race.
As a general rule, however, close and in-and-in breeding should be carefully avoided where the race is not absolutely perfect, if it is desired to improve the breed; and as all the breeds of this kind of fowls are of mixed blood, the danger of such breeding is greater or less, in exact proportion as the distinctive characteristics are variant or fixed; and the danger still increases if the breed is composed of strains of blood greatly dissimilar, or of races widely differing in the conformation or general habits.
Preserving the distinctive breeds. As to the time when the different breeds of hens should be separated in the spring, in order to preserve the breed pure, the most ample experience indicates that if the eggs be preserved and set after a separation of two days, the breed will be perfect, the offspring having all the characteristics or distinctive marks.
When a valuable breed is produced, either by accident or design, it should be preserved, and the subsequent breeding should continue from that stock; otherwise, there is no certainty of the purity of the blood of the new breed, for it does not follow that a different parentage, though of the same name or original breed precisely, will produce the same new breed, or any thing resembling it. The Dorking fowl, for instance, was originally produced by crossing the Great Malay with the English Game, as an accident; but it by no means follows that Dorkings are the uniform, or even the common result of such a cross, for hundreds of similar experiments have proved unsuccessful. The breeding, therefore, to be pure-blooded, must continue from the stock originally produced by accident; and as such breeding produces the leading characteristics of the race with great uniformity, the genuineness of the breed cannot be doubted.
In order to produce a good cross, the parentage should be healthy, and from healthy races, not materially dissimilar in their general habits. The size of the leg should always be looked to, in order to judge accurately as to purity of blood. If the leg is large for the breed—that is, if larger than the generality of the same breed—the purity of the blood, the fineness of the flesh, and most of the other valuable qualities, can be relied on; but, if the legs are smaller than most others of the same breed, the fowl is spurious, and of deteriorated blood. The fifth toe and feathered legs of some breeds were originally the result of accident; but by long and careful breeding, they have become incorporated into the nature of certain races of general, though not universal or essential, requisites. When a fowl exhibits any special marks indicative of all the races or breeds from which the cross originated, it is a sure evidence of extraordinary purity of blood, and of the superior excellence of the race. The best fowls of the race should always be selected for crossing or general breeding; otherwise the breeds will degenerate.
The quality—that is, the fineness, juiciness, and richness of flavor—of the flesh of domestic fowls is of much more importance than their size. All coarse-meated fowls should, therefore, be rejected, no matter how large they may be. There is no difficulty in discriminating between coarse and fine fowls at any time. In the case of chickens, if the down is straight and stands out, and the body and limbs are loosely joined, the meat is coarse; but if the down is glossy, and lies close to the body, and the body and limbs are compactly formed, the meat is fine; and when grown, if the fowl is light in weight, in proportion to its size, the flesh is coarse; but if heavy, the flesh is fine.
There is also a fitness in the quality of the flesh; for, if the meat is fine, the bones are fine, and the feathers are fine; and the converse holds true. If the flesh is fine, it is juicy and richly flavored; if coarse, it is dry, fibrous, and insipid.
The color of the legs, too, is quite material in judging of the quality of fowls. All other things being equal, dark-legged fowls have the finest flesh, and are most hardy. Turkeys, which have the finest flesh of any fowl of their size, have black legs; the game-cock, likewise, which is universally acknowledged to be the finest-fleshed of any of the domestic fowls, except the Wild Indian fowl of Calcutta, has dark legs. It does not, however, of necessity follow that all dark-legged fowls are fine, or that all yellow or white-legged ones are coarse, since much depends upon the breed; but it is true that the darkest leg which pertains to the breed indicates the finest fowl.
The color of the feathers, also, has more or less to do with the quality of the fowl. Some breeds have a much more brilliant plumage than others; but when brilliancy of plumage is here spoken of, it is to be understood in comparison with others of the same breed. If, therefore, a fowl is selected of rich and glossy plumage, when compared with others of the same breed, the legs will be dark of the kind, and the quality of the bird will excel.