Quote: Ok, so its becoming a little more clear.
The answer to your question about my Faverolles is that she is obviously a Faverolles if you look at her type or silhouette as you say is necessary to determine if the chicken is more than just a chicken. I never said she was excellent, just I could identify her typi-ness (is that even a word?) on a lineup of different chicken types--since I am not supposed to use the word breed, but boy this is cumbersome! Maybe I am just more lenient or accepting when I read and interpret the SOPs than an APA person?
I am beginning to see this nugget of differences between the APA view and perhaps the modern view of the 'new' chicken keepers. There certainly seems to be a huge backyard chicken movement (just look at how popular BYC is) and sustainability focus over the last decade--I do think many people grow weary of factory farming and want to know where their food comes from and feel more in touch. I think I am one of these. I have a trophy my Grand Dad and Great Grand Dad won at the Stock Show back in the early part of the 20th century for best Barred Rock, but I myself have only been raising chickens for about 5 years. I am curious about the APA and have a huge amount of respect for breeders--its a lot of work! I also see the APA as the caretakers of the breeds (or is that type?) as they keep the standard for all to refer to. That is really important. I am not convinced however, that my Grand Dad, who was very practical, would have disregarded production and focused only on type--I would bet anything that he was in to the sustainability at least as much as the type if not more. I will try to sum it up, forgive me if I get it wrong.
-The APA sees the chickens as a type most importantly, and the individual chicken will be viewed as belonging to a type like this is a good example of a Faverolles type...or not. It does not matter if my girl only lays medium 50 eggs a year so long as she has the proper type and amount of feathering and looks good, So productivity is not really a factor in how well the 'breeds' place at show or how successful the breeder is at their job. If I remember right, a breeder put a ....Rhode Island White... into a show as a White Rock and won ( I could have the breeds mixed up). So if a bird is inferior in one type it could be a very good outcross for another type. The original breed doesn't mean anything, just what the individual looks like.
-The new 'breeds' that you are warning people to stay away from if folks want to be a part of the APA culture appear to have a few traits and a focus that is different than the standard type and conformity to type focus of the APA. I see 3 distinct groupings within the 'bad' breeds and perhaps your biggest warning against them is that they so not have as clearly a defined type as the APA accepted breeds and that is not their main focus or attraction. Here is how I see them grouped:
1-Chickens from a country that a person may have an interest, love or heritage in and thus the breed is attractive to the new chicken owner becasue of this connection
a) Landrace breeds: may be quite old from other countries and could be considered Heritage breeds in that land--most specifically I am looking at the Icelandic and Swedish Flower Hen. These breeds were selected by nature to be tough and hardy as their most important feature and look generally the same but may have a lot of type variability within the breed--its whatever survived and thrived.
b) Country of Origin Breeds: breeds that hail from a specific region or country and have specific unique traits examples are Sulmtaler (Medieval German regional bird noted for its flesh), Bresse (the flesh is supposed to be the best for French cooking), Appenzellers-Spitzhaubens (the crest mimics the ceremonial hats from that region on Switzerland) etc
2-Chickens that are autosexing--all of the x-bars--these are very attractive to the new chicken breeder who doesn't have room to grow out lots of chickens and wants a productive line that will allow them to reliably cull their flock early (like at hatch) and be sustainable. The only APA accepted breed that is somewhat autosexing that I am aware of is the Welsummer though there may be others--the barring layers a second autosexing trait on top to make it more reliable.
3-eye candy: pretty new colorations of traditional 'breeds'/varieties : Gold/buff laced black, blue laced red, 'legbar' (which is ironic because legbar is not a color) etc- these are colors that are pretty to the small flock owners and allows them to keep a variety of chickens in their backyards with the reliability of them being similar but different--like 6 different color combos of Brahma for instance. Sort of the opposite of breeding for type--this person wants controlled variety.
I am confused about your placing of the Iowa Blues in the 'bad' group since I seem to recall that they are a Heritage breed of sorts just not accepted into the APA. Perhaps its because they never got into the SOP and only are recently regaining popularity and this are more rare and consequently expensive?
Looking at the groupings, these birds may appeal to the non-APA person becasue they may have a cultural/historical value (they are Heritage in their own Country, just not of American derivation), they are pretty to look at and not as conformist, or they are production/sustainability based (at least for the autosexing and landrace ones). None of these traits which are features of the 'bad' breeds are important in the APA culture.
What do you think? Did I get any of it right?
Last edited:
