Self Blue (Lavender) Orpington Proposed Standard Comment Thread

The Self Blue (Lavender) Orpington Proposed Standard Comment Thread is intended for comments concerning the proposed Self Blue (Lavender) Orpington Standard, as drawn up by the American Orpington Poultry Fanciers.

Please abide by all BYC rules.

Debate on some points is expected. However, the Standard of Perfection (SOP) is firm on most points. An Orpington is an Orpington. A Self Blue is a Self Blue. There is a slight possibliity the term Lavender may be accepted, but at present it is most doubtful. Several breeds have already been accepted with the term "Self Blue".

I have spoken with several. Most agree to bow to the hinkjc folks on beak, eye and shank color, as they seem to be hatching more than the rest of us. Also, a few years ahead of us.

The Self Blue is found in OE, both large fowl (1965) and bantam(1965); Belgian Bearded d'Anvers (1981); Belgian Beared d'Uccle (1996); Booted (1996); and now Silkie (2010). In each, the beak, eye and shank colors vary sligtly as to breed. In each plumage color is referred back to the OEG large fowl on page 184. Plumage does not vary, but eye, beak and shank can.

Have not heard back from the SOP Standards Committee on their thoughts about this. Nor have I heard back from the APA Secretary for permission to post portions of the SOP. Since we are only posting for educational purposes and for discussion as to a standard for a new variety, it should be fine. I also posted on a thread on another board. Sam Brush responded, in part:

Lets start over. Up for discussion is:

What color is your Lav/Self Blue Orpingtons....eyes?

Beak?

Shanks?

Bottom of feet?

Jim, I'm not sure what you're asking for as far as people voting on a standard since one already exists for orps as well as the self blue coloration.

No one has orps close to being ready to petition. Quoting your own passage:

Then APA judge Brian Decker added this comment about photos from hinkjc:

Hi Jim I would say that according to the standard the eyes are a little light and the beak too dark for Self blue. Both are small cuts and the birds in the pictures need a lot of work on Orpington type before you worry about eye and beak color. As always with all large fowl breed to the written APA standards.
Brian Decker
APA/ABA Judge
" What you'll tolerate is what you'll have"

It seems to me if all serious breeders of the orpington who are working on the lavender/self-blue color just use the already in place guidelines for evaluating and breed, then there isn't any thing to debate.

If there is any person(s) to "bow" to it would be the governing bodies of the APA/ABA and their representatives in the field, ie judges like Brian Decker, whom you have already consulted and who has already expressed his "expert" opinion on the matter.

These birds are all projects. No one yet has bred a line of birds consistently to SOP to meet the already set requirements needed to get this coloration approved. But it's not this complicated. Just read and breed to the already set standards.

Quote:

The quote from Brian Decker is the most important part of this.

There is an SOP for Orps. There is an SOP for self blue coloring in other breeds. You have the basics there, aim for those. But right now, as per Brian Decker, the self blue Orp project needs a lot more work on type, then work on coloring. And you do not need an self blue SOP to have an SOP for what any Orp should be.

In the current four recognised varieties of Orpingtons the eye, beak and shank colors vary. As does the various recognised breeds of Self Blue. As each breed is different so are each Self Blue variety, depending on the breed. There are some who are getting very close to type. The lav gene is modifying the colors of the eye, beak and shanks. We can not expect this to be the same as other breeds.

With all due respect to any and all poultry judges, few are actually working with the lav gene. Even fewer breeders have worked with the lav gene as long as the hincjc folks. Though I do not breed games, I know enough that an OE Game breeds a bit different than an Orpington. Most of the Self Blue Orps have Ameraucana genes in their background. That adds other genetic issues to consider. Our Self Blue male is closer to Orpington type than any hatchery Buff Orpington I have ever seen. (Though that ain't saying much).

Quote:
To answer you question here:
Eyes - med brown - not light or yellowish, but lighter than the blacks
Beak - dark
Shanks - slate
bottom of feet - never even looked.

Legs and feet are dark like in my blacks. Any light color is culled.

Quote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but why even bother to consult a judge if you put no stock in his, or any of their opinions?

It seems to me, that the issue of body type is far more imperative to "fix" currently than any other issue. The color is easy to maintain once it's there. Type is so much harder to get consistently.

I see plenty of people breeding lavs together with mediocre results. So much misinformation floating around on what an american orpington should even look like. So many people haven't got a clue what they are being sold. The battle here is on educating on what a proper orp should look like first and foremost.

I see the battle as being able to PROVE that generation after generation they LOOK like orpingtons. Until the body style is correct, the APA won't take ANYONE seriously on the matter of including the color variety.

If there are INDEED 5+ serious breeders out there with birds within the 5 year parameter of consistency, then I challenge those 5 breeders to come and get a game plan together for petitioning the APA. If those breeders are truely so close to completion of the APA's requirements, then THEY and they alone should be the ones to decide which eye color etc should be used. But then, if they were that close to completion, then eyes and such would already be set, wouldn't it? Changing any trait when you're supposedly that far along would mean that you are already breeding true for those traits and not NOW deciding which direction to go in.

It seems a moot point for those of us who KNOW we are nowhere near close to even be discussing beak and eye color when the vast majority of these birds still look nothing like an SOP Orpington. Those of us who are well invested into the improvement of this variety, when we are being intellectually honest, know we still have years and years of breeding before this is project is able to be brought to the APA for serious consideration.

Concerning oneself with beak color when there is so much bad body type out there is putting the cart before the horse. And while I appreciate your desire to bring a meeting of the minds on the subject, you have a bigger hurdle to jump than what color features should be agreed upon. Your biggest challenge is the lack of cooperation and honesty amongst breeders.

If the "big players" (of which I most certainly don't include myself in any way) refuse to work together then you're beating a dead horse. I know for a fact not all serious lav breeders are on this forum. I know for a fact there is bad blood between the folks who can be considered the "originators" of Lav orps in the US. I know that unless these different individuals can get over their issues and egos, neither you or I or anyone will be able to organize a forum where minute issues like beak and eye color can be discussed and decided.

What I've come to learn in my few brief years is that poultry breeders are no different than any other group of specialized hobbyists, they are insane! They are no different than the horse or dog or cat people. Crazy crazy crazy! I mean that in jest(sort of), but there is still a ton of truth to it.

I love my orps. I'm glad I got into the lav project. I try to help anyone I can. I think we should ALL be working towards the betterment of the variety. However, I have quickly found that I am in the minority on that opinion.

Very few people here or anywhere else are working solely for the breed. Most are working for their own narrowly set goals. And you should know this, with your level of involvement over the years. Very few people have the spirit of transparency for the good of the project. And, since the in it for me attitude is so prevalent, back-biting, lying, cheating are perpetuated until there is no community left in the community.

It would be nice if we could all just "get along" for the advancement of this project, but that will no more happen than congress will actually balance the budget.

I would agree there is a lot of misinformation being spread around and that is mostly by folks who have yet to work with breeding these birds. I would like to know how anyone can judge a bird by a picture of a bird that is not even mature, let alone the effects flash and position have on overall perspective of what the bird actually is. Any knowledgeable person knows that you need to hold a bird and view it in person to know what it looks like and feels like, to make a valid assumption on how "good" it is. Since none of you have been to my farm to know what my birds look like in person, I can only assume you have no idea what you're talking about or have nothing better to do than put people down for no reason at all. These are the reasons I regret ever sharing my work with people who have never seriously worked with orps.

Everyone here is speaking regarding the project as a whole, not about you, not about your specific birds. The only person who made a comment about specific birds was the judge that Jim consulted by sending pictures of your birds and then quoted the response email from said judge. If you think you are being judged unfairly then maybe you should ask Jim to refrain from sending pics of your birds to people, especially APA judges, and asking them to voice an opinion..

As a whole the birds need to be worked on more to get type and consistently produce the type required by the APA.

The very simple truth is that even if your birds are currently 100% type 100% of the time, you and you alone can not make the APA adopt the color variety into the standard. It takes, as previously stated, a minimum of 5 people with a minimum of 5 years of consistent type production and a minimum of 50 birds to be even looked at by the APA.

This project is now bigger than one person, one breeder. It's no longer about you sharing or not sharing. You've spent the last several years putting your lines out there and now plenty of other people are vested into the project and the direction it is heading - good or bad. Hard as it may be to deal with, the market is no longer cornered. It's now every lavender owner's project too.

And, believe it or not many of us do care and have taken the time to learn and have done our homework. Some of us actually have a clue about the breed and the variety. Many, many of us have put a lot of time money and effort into seeing these birds evolve to the point of acceptance by the APA. For some of us, that is our primary focus, hence this discussion.

If we can stay on topic, per the byc rules, this thread is about the standard. Since there are a ton of birds out there, I believe what Jim is seeking is the consistencies in beak, eye, shank and skin color that people are seeing. This would help set the goal of what to work towards or continue working on. Obviously, I am not in this alone, which is why I shared my stock and why he is seeking input from others. Hopefully there are at least 5 people who have been working as hard as we have over the years and we can get together to get the standard description started.

On a side note, maybe a standard is not all that important. The UK still doesn't have a standard for them, since they can still be shown as AOV.