The American Cemani Breeders Club...open forum

[WalnutHill]

Point taken, CJ. But when I started out with my first Ameraucanas, I was also a novice and ended up with EEs. Those eventually died off and I bought hatchery Ameraucanas. And of course, those were EEs as well. Some even laid brown eggs.

Over time, through selection, I was able to whittle out many undesirable characteristics and select for desirable per Ameraucana SOP. My birds had beautiful muffs and beards, most had slate legs, proper shape and feathers, lovely aqua eggs, good in every way except color. The fact that they were not one of the accepted colors was enough to make them mutts, Easter Eggers, undesirables that could never ever be called Ameraucanas.

So why is it when a breed is scarce, that major flaws not accepted in any variant of the SOP are considered okay because the breed is under development? Why couldn't I call my EEs "project Ameraucanas" and they get the same respect as "pedigreed" birds that trace back to one individual's flock?

 

[cjwaldon]

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean "because it's rare anything goes". I didn't say don't do your homework. My whole point was the continuing inclination to judge and sully rather than educate and support. When I see a post along the lines of, "here's yet another example of buyer beware", that says scammer, thief, liar, dishonest, mixed breed, poor quality, etc, etc. etc. Do you think something else when you see a post "buyer beware"?

And don't get me started on the whole Ameraucana Easter Egger debate. I came to the conclusion years ago that an Easter Egger was a mixed breed that displays some Ameraucana traits, such as muffs and colored eggs, but doesn't breed true. Just because a flock or line of Ameraucanas is an unrecognized color, lavender for example, doesn't make them mutts or undesirable. And just because a line got a start from poor quality doesn't mean they are forever poor quality. Conversely, even the best lines can be ruined rather quickly by poor breeding choices.

A judge once posted in one of the Cream Legbar threads, "The APA does not care what genes they are carrying as long as they reproduce 50% correct....with the normal variations that any color pattern would have." and "At the qualifying meet the birds entered only need to look like the description given to the APA". i.e., if it looks like a duck . . . Now this was posted within the context of Cream Legbars working towards APA recognition, so take it for what it's worth. If you have a flock of birds that meet SOP and reproduces 50% true, what difference does it make what the original source of that flock was or how long ago the flock diverged from the breed standard? Why are people stuck on the idea that if you originally sourced your birds from a hatchery then your birds are mutts and undesirable no matter how long you've been working on them? What matters is what you have now, and what they are producing.

 

[WalnutHill]

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean "because it's rare anything goes". I didn't say don't do your homework. My whole point was the continuing inclination to judge and sully rather than educate and support. When I see a post along the lines of, "here's yet another example of buyer beware", that says scammer, thief, liar, dishonest, mixed breed, poor quality, etc, etc. etc. Do you think something else when you see a post "buyer beware"?

And don't get me started on the whole Ameraucana Easter Egger debate. I came to the conclusion years ago that an Easter Egger was a mixed breed that displays some Ameraucana traits, such as muffs and colored eggs, but doesn't breed true. Just because a flock or line of Ameraucanas is an unrecognized color, lavender for example, doesn't make them mutts or undesirable. And just because a line got a start from poor quality doesn't mean they are forever poor quality. Conversely, even the best lines can be ruined rather quickly by poor breeding choices.

A judge once posted in one of the Cream Legbar threads, "The APA does not care what genes they are carrying as long as they reproduce 50% correct....with the normal variations that any color pattern would have." and "At the qualifying meet the birds entered only need to look like the description given to the APA". i.e., if it looks like a duck . . . Now this was posted within the context of Cream Legbars working towards APA recognition, so take it for what it's worth. If you have a flock of birds that meet SOP and reproduces 50% true, what difference does it make what the original source of that flock was or how long ago the flock diverged from the breed standard? Why are people stuck on the idea that if you originally sourced your birds from a hatchery then your birds are mutts and undesirable no matter how long you've been working on them? What matters is what you have now, and what they are producing.

The last paragraph gives me mixed feelings. I would like to see them reproduce 100% true in order to be a named variety. But when a bird is shown, who can prove that the bird you see can actually produce replicas? Until all stray genetics are bred out, there will be leakage and other regressions popping up.

I think Ravyn's comment was helpful in the context that what you read is not always what you get. There is a BYC on Facebook thread right now where a member bought three Ayam Cemani chicks and they have excellent fibro expression. They also have five toes and silky down with single combs. The seller showed photos of the purported parents and asserted that five toes was an Ayam Cemani trait. So yes, buyer beware. Whatever the seller may think, those chicks will never grow up to be Ayam Cemani. As a buyer, DO your homework. I did...and I now have one pair of your Ayam Cemani and another pair from a different breeder and can't wait to see what hatches when they start laying!

 

[miss heny]

TBH I would look at that flock and if white earlobes are the only issue with the hens I would buy them, cull the rooster and then acquire a high quality rooster. I have a good market for black meat chickens here so for me all the culling would be worth it

 

[birdman55]

So the picture with the single egg is infact the first fibro bird to hatch. The second picture is one game chick n non fibro no dots the other egg is fibro n with dots
.....hmmmm maybe foot in mouth
Also these were hatched early and didn't even make it to hatcher so this rules out my hatcher is dirty.

 

[FridayYet]

Great pics!

 

[WalnutHill]

So the picture with the single egg is infact the first fibro bird to hatch. The second picture is one game chick n non fibro no dots the other egg is fibro n with dots
.....hmmmm maybe foot in mouth
Also these were hatched early and didn't even make it to hatcher so this rules out my hatcher is dirty.

They are great pics.

Now it would be interesting to see if black non-fibro chicks do the same thing, like black Ameraucana.

 

[Ravynscroft]

They are great pics.  

Now it would be interesting to see if black non-fibro chicks do the same thing, like black Ameraucana.

Doubtful... my test hatch was fibro and non fibro (black Araucana) and had same results... dots in the fibro egg shells and none in the non fibro shells...

 

[WalnutHill]

Doubtful... my test hatch was fibro and non fibro (black Araucana) and had same results... dots in the fibro egg shells and none in the non fibro shells...

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[Ravynscroft]

Interesting.  Very interesting.

Yep... 'tis curious... that's why I want to experiment with different fibro hatches...