Silkie breeding, genetics & showing - Page 49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me & Jack 

The APA accepted weights for silkies are: 36 oz cocks, 32 oz hens and cockerels, 28 oz for pullets. So, your pullet is 28 oz. (or 28.8 oz depending on whether you're going by the pounds you stated or the ounces). Either way, she is not too heavy at all. :)

 

I should have asked how old she is: if she's 4 months old then she's larger for her age. If she's 8 months old then she's perfect! LOL

Janine,

Did you ever hear back from ASBC about split wing?  Weren't you checking on something else as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adoravachick 

Janine,

 

Did you ever hear back from ASBC about split wing?  Weren't you checking on something else as well?

She wrote a big long message a while back.  She did hear back, and I don't remember every single point she hit on.  But it's back there.  If I have more time later, I'll try to hunt it up and give you the page number.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwegg 

Lol... AOV not AVO...isn't that something you get to keep someone away from you by law... Doh! Stupid!...thanks...
Well I went and did it..I have entered my splash pullet, those two pullets as AOV...and my paint cokeral as AOV...this is next weekend so I am excited and a little nervous
What's the worst that can happen? Disqualified...but hopefully with some great critique and recommendations and meet some great people with experience...now that's not bad!
I guess I better go and pull them out of the pens and the mud and clean them up this weekend...
On weight how did you guys weigh your birds?
And again...thanks to everyone on here for all the chatter and passing on of experience to newbies..

Congrats to you!  I'm really glad you entered them.  You won't be DQ'd for showing AOV if that is what you're saying.  Most birds won't be DQ'd unless it's a serious problem like weight or like split wings.  My cockerel was DQ'd at the last show for weight.  So it does happen, but honestly, no biggie, you live and learn.  

I have a mail scale that I bought online for weighing packages for online postage.  I have also seen these scales at Walmart.  These scales are small enough and very accurate and will give you a read out in ounces.  They are sensitive enough that they will read your birds very accurately.  Since I still use mine for mail, I just put a paper towel on the scale before I set the bird on top to keep it clean.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adoravachick 

Janine,

 

Did you ever hear back from ASBC about split wing?  Weren't you checking on something else as well?

Here is what I know so far about the definition of split wing: it's complicated. LOL

On August 19th, I surveyed a large group of APA judges and asked them to confirm that the definition contained in the APA Standard of Perfection was accurate: that split wing is an obvious gap between primaries and secondaries caused by a permanently missing feather and its follicle (meaning a feather will never grow in that spot). The responses from the judges (19 of them) showed that many judges do, indeed, follow the SOP and will DQ a bird with the permanently missing feather/follicle only. Which means they won't DQ a bird with a gap caused by other reasons (weak wing muscles, joint issues, feather growth, deformities, etc) but that they will deduct points heavily for such an appearance in the wing. However, I also had a lot of judges inform me that they consider ANY gap in the wings "split wing" and would then DQ such a bird. (It should be noted that in the Ko Shamo breed, a split wing is actually desirable.) 

After the survey I was VERY confused. I contacted Walt Leonard, who is the Chairperson of the Standard Review Committee of the APA and he agreed that split wings should be defined and DQ'd based on what is contained in the SOP, that is, the permanently missing feather causing the obvious gap. However, he also agreed that if judges are basing their opinions and evaluations on multiple meanings of the term "split wing" then perhaps the definition as it currently reads needs to be reviewed. I believe that is where we are now: the Standards Committee and the president of the APA are reviewing the definition as it is written and considering if changes need to be made or if there needs to be a re-clarification to judges on what they should be looking for during judging.

Where does that leave us? Uh, I don't know. In my opinion, a "split wing" remains any wing which shows an obvious gap resulting from the permanently missing feather and its follicle between the primaries and secondaries. What do we call the wing that has no such missing feather, or in which a feather is only temporarily missing due to age or molt? I don't know. For now there is no sanctioned term to describe such a wing appearance in the SOP. Some judges referred to it as weak wing, some said it was slipped wing (which is actually a term that has it's own definition in the SOP and thus is not accurate to describe what we are talking about), and one judge even referred to is as "angel wing", which is a completely inaccurate term to use in chickens since the term only applies to waterfowl.

The conclusion I came to is this: APA judges are supposed to follow exactly what is laid out in the SOP; APA judges don't always follow what is exactly laid out in the SOP, and APA judges aren't always perfect.

Wish I could offer a more conclusive answer to the question: what is split wing? As this question works it's way through the APA review committee and I get more information or a more definitive answer I will let you all know. And let me know if you need any clarification of my explanation above -- I have been knee-deep in this subject for the past three or four weeks and probably abbreviated my explanation more than I should have. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me & Jack 

Here is what I know so far about the definition of split wing: it's complicated. LOL

 

On August 19th, I surveyed a large group of APA judges and asked them to confirm that the definition contained in the APA Standard of Perfection was accurate: that split wing is an obvious gap between primaries and secondaries caused by a permanently missing feather and its follicle (meaning a feather will never grow in that spot). The responses from the judges (19 of them) showed that many judges do, indeed, follow the SOP and will DQ a bird with the permanently missing feather/follicle only. Which means they won't DQ a bird with a gap caused by other reasons (weak wing muscles, joint issues, feather growth, deformities, etc) but that they will deduct points heavily for such an appearance in the wing. However, I also had a lot of judges inform me that they consider ANY gap in the wings "split wing" and would then DQ such a bird. (It should be noted that in the Ko Shamo breed, a split wing is actually desirable.) 

 

After the survey I was VERY confused. I contacted Walt Leonard, who is the Chairperson of the Standard Review Committee of the APA and he agreed that split wings should be defined and DQ'd based on what is contained in the SOP, that is, the permanently missing feather causing the obvious gap. However, he also agreed that if judges are basing their opinions and evaluations on multiple meanings of the term "split wing" then perhaps the definition as it currently reads needs to be reviewed. I believe that is where we are now: the Standards Committee and the president of the APA are reviewing the definition as it is written and considering if changes need to be made or if there needs to be a re-clarification to judges on what they should be looking for during judging.

 

Where does that leave us? Uh, I don't know. In my opinion, a "split wing" remains any wing which shows an obvious gap resulting from the permanently missing feather and its follicle between the primaries and secondaries. What do we call the wing that has no such missing feather, or in which a feather is only temporarily missing due to age or molt? I don't know. For now there is no sanctioned term to describe such a wing appearance in the SOP. Some judges referred to it as weak wing, some said it was slipped wing (which is actually a term that has it's own definition in the SOP and thus is not accurate to describe what we are talking about), and one judge even referred to is as "angel wing", which is a completely inaccurate term to use in chickens since the term only applies to waterfowl.

 

The conclusion I came to is this: APA judges are supposed to follow exactly what is laid out in the SOP; APA judges don't always follow what is exactly laid out in the SOP, and APA judges aren't always perfect.

 

Wish I could offer a more conclusive answer to the question: what is split wing? As this question works it's way through the APA review committee and I get more information or a more definitive answer I will let you all know. And let me know if you need any clarification of my explanation above -- I have been knee-deep in this subject for the past three or four weeks and probably abbreviated my explanation more than I should have. LOL

Can't thank you enough for going to all this trouble!! Really great information and hopefully this fault will be fully clarified soon!

MINIATURE SILKIE

Has anyone ever heard of a miniature Silkie?  Is there such a thing or is it someone who has standard size Silkies but is promoting them as "miniatures" to make more money from unsuspecting people?

This happens in Poms all the time.  There is no such thing as a "teacup" Pom.  The Poms should range between 3 lbs to 7 lbs but people with the 3 - 5 lbs Poms are advertising them as "rare teacups" to fleece some poor person into paying a ridiculous amount of money for a normal size, pet quality, Pom.

Sheila :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWGirl 

MINIATURE SILKIE

 

Has anyone ever heard of a miniature Silkie?  Is there such a thing or is it someone who has standard size Silkies but is promoting them as "miniatures" to make more money from unsuspecting people?

 

This happens in Poms all the time.  There is no such thing as a "teacup" Pom.  The Poms should range between 3 lbs to 7 lbs but people with the 3 - 5 lbs Poms are advertising them as "rare teacups" to fleece some poor person into paying a ridiculous amount of money for a normal size, pet quality, Pom.

 

Sheila :)

no sounds like someone pulling a fast one or someone extremely inexperienced. 

Silkies in the US are supposed to be just slightly bigger than a bantam at most. though I have seen some huge silkies that look standard sized.

there are genetic mutations that create dwarfs, which are small stunted birds that usually are sterile and lay tiny, abnormal eggs or none at all in my experience. and also just small birds in general - but 'true dwarfs' are undesirable as they typically have reproductive issues. 

SO do not be fooled by 'miniature' - in fact be EXTREMELY wary, this person is most likely inexperienced - in chickens a small chicken is a bantam as you know. To find out more about this person you can always ask "what do your birds weigh, why are they miniature? do you have anything to compare the size of your adults to in a picture?"  - an adult rooster should be about 2 lbs at most with hens, pullets, and cockerels slightly less. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PNWGirl 

MINIATURE SILKIE

 

Has anyone ever heard of a miniature Silkie?  Is there such a thing or is it someone who has standard size Silkies but is promoting them as "miniatures" to make more money from unsuspecting people?

 

This happens in Poms all the time.  There is no such thing as a "teacup" Pom.  The Poms should range between 3 lbs to 7 lbs but people with the 3 - 5 lbs Poms are advertising them as "rare teacups" to fleece some poor person into paying a ridiculous amount of money for a normal size, pet quality, Pom.

 

Sheila :)

I have 2 silkies that I'm calling "runts".  They are teeny tiny!!  I had talked to Sonoran about it and she said that she sometimes ends up with really smaller than usual birds, too.  So it does happen, but it's not ideal.  I'm probably going to keep my tiny duo since they are shockingly smaller than the others.  Just for fun.  I think it's the same concept as what you just mentioned about the teacup Pom's.  I have a 5lb pom (on a good day!) and I think either this person is using a sales ploy or like SOS said-- inexperienced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredOfShadows 

 

no sounds like someone pulling a fast one or someone extremely inexperienced. 

 

Silkies in the US are supposed to be just slightly bigger than a bantam at most. though I have seen some huge silkies that look standard sized.

there are genetic mutations that create dwarfs, which are small stunted birds that usually are sterile and lay tiny, abnormal eggs or none at all in my experience. and also just small birds in general - but 'true dwarfs' are undesirable as they typically have reproductive issues. 

SO do not be fooled by 'miniature' - in fact be EXTREMELY wary, this person is most likely inexperienced - in chickens a small chicken is a bantam as you know. To find out more about this person you can always ask "what do your birds weigh, why are they miniature? do you have anything to compare the size of your adults to in a picture?"  - an adult rooster should be about 2 lbs at most with hens, pullets, and cockerels slightly less. 
 

Great answer.  But I hadn't heard about them having reproductive issues!  One of my tiny birds-- I was going to (just for the heck of it) use her with one of my large typey boys and see if that might give me the right sized bird!  LOL  I don't know that genetics work like that, but figured I'd give it a try.  I was going to cull him for size, but he's so darned pretty.  Maybe she won't be able to reproduce.  Ah well.  But still-- my goal wasn't to make more tinys, but to aim for the correct size.  I bet my thinking is all backwards on that, but I'm so curious.

Thank you both!!  I hadn't heard of "miniature" Silkies but wanted to be sure.

It is an ad I saw elsewhere.  They were saying that they would have miniature Silkies to sell soon as the eggs were in the 'bator. 

I think that one of my silkies is going to end up way smaller than normal.  It is about half the size that it should be but it is so cute!  I'm not going to breed her (well, REALLY hope it ends up a her).  She is SO great with my Serama's!  They just cuddle up to her, in this big pile. 

Sheila :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye95 

I have 2 silkies that I'm calling "runts".  They are teeny tiny!!  I had talked to Sonoran about it and she said that she sometimes ends up with really smaller than usual birds, too.  So it does happen, but it's not ideal.  I'm probably going to keep my tiny duo since they are shockingly smaller than the others.  Just for fun.  I think it's the same concept as what you just mentioned about the teacup Pom's.  I have a 5lb pom (on a good day!) and I think either this person is using a sales ploy or like SOS said-- inexperienced.

 

 

 

Great answer.  But I hadn't heard about them having reproductive issues!  One of my tiny birds-- I was going to (just for the heck of it) use her with one of my large typey boys and see if that might give me the right sized bird!  LOL  I don't know that genetics work like that, but figured I'd give it a try.  I was going to cull him for size, but he's so darned pretty.  Maybe she won't be able to reproduce.  Ah well.  But still-- my goal wasn't to make more tinys, but to aim for the correct size.  I bet my thinking is all backwards on that, but I'm so curious.

Friend of mine had one once, she laid tiny 'fart' type eggs her entire life and sporatically (like 2 eggs one week, 4 the next week, none for 3 weeks, etc) and talking to another breeder (after my friend's girl had passed, and I heard mention of another person's dwarf laying small eggs with only whites, no yolks) I found out about it seems to be a common issue with the silkie dwarfs. Dunno where it comes from or just how common it is.