Damages of domestication!
- Thread starter Dany12
- Start date
- Mar 20, 2013
- 550
- 181
- 221
I have a few thoughts.
First, remember that peafowl are native to warm lands, but were brought to colder Europe over the centuries. Those which managed to survive the change were the ones which continued to breed. Additionally, those which remained "close to home" were less likely to be killed by predators. There is an evolutionary tendency for individuals within species (or across closely related species) to be more rounded, or stockier, the further from the equator the population exists. This has to do with heat loss from the surface area to body mass ratio -- long and lean favors heat loss, while short and stubby favors heat retention, and thus "short and stubby" would be selectively favored in a colder climate. It's probably a reason why the more "Green" a Spaulding is, the less cold-hardy it is -- not because the wild Greens are less cold-hardy than the wild Blues, but because they are more long and lean. Spauldings from wild IB X Greens would probably be no more cold-hardy than a pure Green.
Secondly, there's the issue of inbreeding. I see over and over on this forum that "it's ok to inbreed for a generation or two". I think this is because many peafowl keepers come from a livestock (rather than zookeeper) background. Aviculturists keeping other species try to avoid any and all inbreeding. If an aviculturist seeks to reproduce a new mutation, some inbreeding occurs to increase numbers, but that's immediately followed by outcrossing. Livestock keepers, on the other hand, frequently use inbreeding to "fix" certain traits, eliminate others, and aim toward producing cookie-cutter animals (after lots of culling). That's fine if your parent stock has exceptional qualities you wish to reproduce. But often on this forum, I see people posting about inbreeding simply to avoid buying more birds (i.e. saving money).
OK, so inbreeding for one generation might not be terrible. But then you sell the inbred offspring, and people purchase inbred siblings from the same clutch. Then they come here and say "I know they're brother and sister, but would it be OK if I let them breed?" and people here say "it's OK to inbreed for one generation". Meanwhile, what isn't known is that the siblings were already produced from inbreeding (and for who knows how many generations). Then chicks from that pair are sold to someone else, who again asks "Is it OK if I let the brother and sister breed?" I think you see my point. Over time and generations of haphazard inbreeding, the birds in captivity will start looking different (beyond simple individual color mutations) from their wild cousins through genetic drift and bottle-necking (forms of evolutionary change), as well as the natural selection mentioned previously. Now, if your goal is to domesticate the peafowl (like how the chicken developed from wild jungle fowl), then so be it. But don't be surprised that while you're following that path, the domesticated peafowl will drift further away in appearance from the wild peafowl.
Aviculturists working with other species (parrots, toucans, barbets, corvids, etc.) will seek to set up their pairs by using birds from different sources to avoid inbreeding because they don't want the domestic populations to drift from their wild cousins. Their goal is to reproduce the wild species, changed as little as possible, in captivity. To avoid drift, pairs are put together by choosing birds as unrelated as possible. The goal is that even several generations down the road, a captive reared bird will look the same as those in the wild. Some aviculturists take this further and eschew color mutations. Most also are highly against hybridization (that certainly violates their goal of maintaining a pure captive sample of a wild species).
One isn't necessarily "more right" or "better" than the other -- each approach has different goals. But lamenting about the loss of beauty found among wild India Blue peafowl among domesticated examples would be like saying "why can't my chickens look like the wild jungle fowl?" In both cases, they weren't bred with that intention in mind.
First, remember that peafowl are native to warm lands, but were brought to colder Europe over the centuries. Those which managed to survive the change were the ones which continued to breed. Additionally, those which remained "close to home" were less likely to be killed by predators. There is an evolutionary tendency for individuals within species (or across closely related species) to be more rounded, or stockier, the further from the equator the population exists. This has to do with heat loss from the surface area to body mass ratio -- long and lean favors heat loss, while short and stubby favors heat retention, and thus "short and stubby" would be selectively favored in a colder climate. It's probably a reason why the more "Green" a Spaulding is, the less cold-hardy it is -- not because the wild Greens are less cold-hardy than the wild Blues, but because they are more long and lean. Spauldings from wild IB X Greens would probably be no more cold-hardy than a pure Green.
Secondly, there's the issue of inbreeding. I see over and over on this forum that "it's ok to inbreed for a generation or two". I think this is because many peafowl keepers come from a livestock (rather than zookeeper) background. Aviculturists keeping other species try to avoid any and all inbreeding. If an aviculturist seeks to reproduce a new mutation, some inbreeding occurs to increase numbers, but that's immediately followed by outcrossing. Livestock keepers, on the other hand, frequently use inbreeding to "fix" certain traits, eliminate others, and aim toward producing cookie-cutter animals (after lots of culling). That's fine if your parent stock has exceptional qualities you wish to reproduce. But often on this forum, I see people posting about inbreeding simply to avoid buying more birds (i.e. saving money).
OK, so inbreeding for one generation might not be terrible. But then you sell the inbred offspring, and people purchase inbred siblings from the same clutch. Then they come here and say "I know they're brother and sister, but would it be OK if I let them breed?" and people here say "it's OK to inbreed for one generation". Meanwhile, what isn't known is that the siblings were already produced from inbreeding (and for who knows how many generations). Then chicks from that pair are sold to someone else, who again asks "Is it OK if I let the brother and sister breed?" I think you see my point. Over time and generations of haphazard inbreeding, the birds in captivity will start looking different (beyond simple individual color mutations) from their wild cousins through genetic drift and bottle-necking (forms of evolutionary change), as well as the natural selection mentioned previously. Now, if your goal is to domesticate the peafowl (like how the chicken developed from wild jungle fowl), then so be it. But don't be surprised that while you're following that path, the domesticated peafowl will drift further away in appearance from the wild peafowl.
Aviculturists working with other species (parrots, toucans, barbets, corvids, etc.) will seek to set up their pairs by using birds from different sources to avoid inbreeding because they don't want the domestic populations to drift from their wild cousins. Their goal is to reproduce the wild species, changed as little as possible, in captivity. To avoid drift, pairs are put together by choosing birds as unrelated as possible. The goal is that even several generations down the road, a captive reared bird will look the same as those in the wild. Some aviculturists take this further and eschew color mutations. Most also are highly against hybridization (that certainly violates their goal of maintaining a pure captive sample of a wild species).
One isn't necessarily "more right" or "better" than the other -- each approach has different goals. But lamenting about the loss of beauty found among wild India Blue peafowl among domesticated examples would be like saying "why can't my chickens look like the wild jungle fowl?" In both cases, they weren't bred with that intention in mind.
Last edited:
The first munchkin cat was found in my neck of the woods and it was a natural mutation and then it was breed for that particular trait. I once saw one at the pound and it was so cute, but not very friendly. I can not get over how the domestic peafowl looks so squatty compared to its wild counterparts!
But why don't people just get wild India Blue stock? That is what I don't understand. Even breeders overseas that are closer to India don't seem to have the wild looking India Blues.
Why do people spend money to import green peafowl - of which are far less common for peafowl people to own, than spend that money on importing wild type India Blues, which there is a larger market for? One reason some people breed spaldings is to give some height to India blue varieties, but I always thought that they could just get wild type India Blues for that, unless if they also want the scaled feathers look or other things that you couldn't get with even the wild type India Blues.
I have always liked the wild version better. I love how tall and thin they look. Their necks are longer looking too and the white on their face is larger.
What about the peafowl at old zoos that have been free-ranging for several generations? Are they taller? Part of the issue I think is when you take a bird and don't let it choose its mate, and the other part is in the wild they have to be tall to see in tall grass, to see predators, etc. Domestic peafowl don't have to be tall so maybe after years of domestication they lost their height. Also inbreeding could be another factor.
Why do people spend money to import green peafowl - of which are far less common for peafowl people to own, than spend that money on importing wild type India Blues, which there is a larger market for? One reason some people breed spaldings is to give some height to India blue varieties, but I always thought that they could just get wild type India Blues for that, unless if they also want the scaled feathers look or other things that you couldn't get with even the wild type India Blues.
I have always liked the wild version better. I love how tall and thin they look. Their necks are longer looking too and the white on their face is larger.
What about the peafowl at old zoos that have been free-ranging for several generations? Are they taller? Part of the issue I think is when you take a bird and don't let it choose its mate, and the other part is in the wild they have to be tall to see in tall grass, to see predators, etc. Domestic peafowl don't have to be tall so maybe after years of domestication they lost their height. Also inbreeding could be another factor.
Is it me or does the wild hen in the last photo have a throat latch? Is she plit to pied?
- Thread starter
- #8
On 90% of wild peacocks pictures you don't see the 10 red feathers on the wing .
On almost all domestic peacocks pics we see the red feathers .... the wing muscles of the domestic peacocks are flabby, relaxed.
They are not anymore use for flying .... the function creates the organ !
perch in nature :
Flying zone !
On almost all domestic peacocks pics we see the red feathers .... the wing muscles of the domestic peacocks are flabby, relaxed.
They are not anymore use for flying .... the function creates the organ !
perch in nature :
Flying zone !
I know nothing of Peacocks but that first picture of the 'stunted' male looks so funny.
I suppose I have only really seen wild ones on the nature programs so can really see the difference. I don't like it either
.
Also, diet has been changed dramatically as well. I mean wild Peacocks eat live snakes for goodness sake, how many snakes has a caged peacocks eaten.lol. Probably never even seen one.
I suppose I have only really seen wild ones on the nature programs so can really see the difference. I don't like it either
Also, diet has been changed dramatically as well. I mean wild Peacocks eat live snakes for goodness sake, how many snakes has a caged peacocks eaten.lol. Probably never even seen one.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Open Contest May Madness, a Random Funny Posting Contest- Latest: triciayoung
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
Checking-In On Peeps - Post Here To Say Hello!- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 2K
-
What’s the deal with you chicken people??- Started by z3lda3
- Replies: 347
-
-
Open Contest May Madness, a Random Funny Posting Contest- Started by casportpony
- Replies: 224
-
-