Wheaten and Blue wheaten Marans Discussion Thread

[Cowgirlgrace]

Quote:
Yes, I understand perfectly the APA has their SOP. Just wanted to know how they come about deciding what is or is not accepted on their SOP. Personal preference or are they actually understanding the genetics behind their decision? But, seems we will never know.

Grace, do you have a copy of the APA SOP if you do go to page starting with#28 and it explains all the breakdown with the Faults. They will never change the SOP to accommodate just the Marans. The MCCUSA has total say on what is in the Proposed Standard and if you are not a member that is in the click you will have no say ther either. I realize it isn't right but what would you like to see happen. You have more pull than myself. Don

It was just a question. I was only wondering because I was curious. I do not plan on breeding or showing Wheaton marans. I don't even own any.

 

[pinkchick]

Congratulations Cheryl!!!!!!!!! Sorry for the late response.

 

[blackdotte]

Most Standards were written before genetics were known, never mind understood.
The Standard is a description of what the original breeders considered the idea bird.
As a result of the conflict between these two statements many Standards are impossible to achieve.
This has, in some cases, resulted in double pen breeding, basically two different varieties within the same breed.
The proposed US Standard is similar to the Common European (French) Standard but does have differences.
I understand when the Marans Club de France attempted to discuss these differences with the APA they were rebuffed.
Short outer toes is a genetic defect caused by the dominant Brachydactyly gene. In most Countries this is a general disqualification for all breeds, but I am informed not the case in the USA & Canada.

 

[Cowgirlgrace]

Quote:
The problem with creating unattainable standards is breeders quit showing or just a couple of people enter shows which doesn't do much for one's pride if they are the only contestant.

Joe

Let me state my opinion here. To me the cottonball should be a fault and the white wing and tail feathers should be a DQ. I sure do not think the SOP should be watered down to make all our fowl acceptable. Don

OK, so since no one can seem to answer the question of how they come about deciding what is a fault or not can you tell me why you think it is a fault? I know it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the APA rules but is it simply because of the proposed APA SOP or do you have another reason why you think it is a fault?

The way it sounds to me is since almost every Wheaton Marans roo has it then it's possibly linked to a desirable trait and in order to have that desirable trait you also have to have the tail fluff so is it possible it's not as bad as the APA may think? But, I know we can't change the APA and I don't really care to, just a question for possible discussion.

 

[Cowgirlgrace]

Quote:
Ok, so now that there is a greater understanding of genetics why aren't they changing the way they decide things, taking all into consideration? I am someone on the outside looking in as far as showing chickens so I apologize for the uneducated way I'm seeing things as I don't want to offend anyone but I realize the logic behind double pen breeding for show purposes but it just seems that if we take a breed of animal or even a species for that matter and put them all together they should breed true and if they don't then something is wrong. We aren't doing the breed any favors by breeding this way and whats the use of doing it just to show when they will never breed true (according to the SOP)on their own? When I was a keeper at the San Diego Wild Animal Park one thing I observed was that every species and/or sub species always bred true. There was very little variation between each animal in the herd and each baby born from those animals. The only way to tell them apart was their ear notches and males and females or a Rhino that had half his ear torn off in a fight. I know purebred animal breeding and showing has gone on for years and actually I am getting into something that could get very in debth so I'm just going to say sometimes I think there is a little bit too much human manipulation. Just let nature take care of some of this stuff and let her tell you what to do. But as far as showing, the APA rules, so goes it.

 

[Cowgirlgrace]

Oh, and I forgot, the Cheetahs and Tigers and all the animals with a coat pattern were different from each other as their patterns were like their fingerprint, no two had the same pattern, but other than that, mostly identical.

 

[knjinnm]

Quote:
Hi,
As I stated earlier, when a trait is inserted into the standards it's because someone in the decision process decided it was a good trait or their critter carried it, "short outer toes" is an excellent example.
I believe we would all agree "short outer toes" would be a defect no one would want to perpetuate.

Joe

 

[knjinnm]

Quote:
Hi Grace,
As Blackdotte wrote:
"The Standard is a description of what the original breeders considered the idea bird." I presume hobbyist in the U.S. and Canada were well along breeding their birds before someone from Europe came along and asked "What type of chicken is this"?

At that point breeders in North America realized they had a lot of catching up to do and some of it would require starting over so they changed their standards to agree with what they were breeding. "Short outer toes" if it's not a DQ is a perfect example.
IMO the APA should accept French Marans standards.
Joe

 

[Debbi]

Quote:
Ok, so now that there is a greater understanding of genetics why aren't they changing the way they decide things, taking all into consideration? I am someone on the outside looking in as far as showing chickens so I apologize for the uneducated way I'm seeing things as I don't want to offend anyone but I realize the logic behind double pen breeding for show purposes but it just seems that if we take a breed of animal or even a species for that matter and put them all together they should breed true and if they don't then something is wrong. We aren't doing the breed any favors by breeding this way and whats the use of doing it just to show when they will never breed true (according to the SOP)on their own? When I was a keeper at the San Diego Wild Animal Park one thing I observed was that every species and/or sub species always bred true. There was very little variation between each animal in the herd and each baby born from those animals. The only way to tell them apart was their ear notches and males and females or a Rhino that had half his ear torn off in a fight. I know purebred animal breeding and showing has gone on for years and actually I am getting into something that could get very in debth so I'm just going to say sometimes I think there is a little bit too much human manipulation. Just let nature take care of some of this stuff and let her tell you what to do. But as far as showing, the APA rules, so goes it.

Grace,

I agree with a lot of what you just said there. New eyes do see things differently for sure. The problem is here that this breed has had a short span of years, especially in this country. Here in the USA, there is a limited gene pool as well, so the problems we are encountering at this time, are probably going to go on for a period of time until someone gets (and releases) a new set, or sets, of genes. The animals you speak of have been in existence for many years. Until we can breed Marans as typically as Beagles, which look like a stamped version of each previous generation, there will be problems and faults. It can be done, but it takes time. While I hope the Marans does get APA approval, in the back of my mind I keep thinking, it may be too soon.

I don't have experience with chicken show breeding, but I do know it took many years for breeds of other animals to be recognized by their respective club authorities, as a "consistently" produced breed or variety. Just saying....

 

[Katy]

Quote:

This March he'll be 3. I need to get some pictures of the cockeral who's only about 5 months.