APA/ABA culture for Newcomers

[BGMatt]

My last post was probably out of line. It was not my business to tend to.

What I noticed about your post before was a number of debate points, softened at the end by a question. I have seen these discussions over and again, and they never get anywhere because the two sides are always deeply entrenched.
I also thought the OPs original intent was to educate interested newcomers on what membership had to offer. Not a forum to debate what was wrong with the system.

Look, concerning getting a breed recognized is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of meeting certain criteria. It is not up to the tastes of individuals, but whether the criteria can be met. The criteria is set up to be difficult. It would be awful for it to be otherwise. Then every backyard color project would be admitted, and it would be chaos. The Standard would be full of breeds and varieties that no one has any interest it, or any real commitment to. There is already many neglected breeds in the Standard. Why water it down?

There is nothing wrong with being most interested in a breed or variety that is not recognized. There is also nothing wrong with bringing them to a show, and giving the breed or variety exposure. It would certainly help if the bird(s) was a good example. First do no harm.

For any breed that newcomers (like myself) have decided to support, needs a long term commitment from people that are going to actually learn how to breed them. Not play pretend. Not talk about it, but actually commit themselves to learning the craft. That does not happen over night. Especially for those of us that did not grow up around it.

If the breed gaining admittance to the Standard would be an eventual goal, joining would be a good place to start. I would encourage everyone working with or learning to work with the breed to join the APA. A lot of people that want to see this or that breed recognized by the association are not even members of the association. That should give them no voice or relevance.

The next point would be patience, commitment, and time. How many newcomers to a breed will have the same level of enthusiasm and commitment five years from now? Time will tell. If the breed has the same or more commitment by qualified breeders over time, they stand a better chance of being successful. The breeders should have to prove themselves, and as a result the birds be proven.

It is not a matter of wishing, wanting, or what is ideal. It is a matter of sticking to it and getting it done. By members that support the association.

Being a member of the APA is going to be a part of the process for admitting new breeds and varieties. Maybe @fowlman01 will stop by and share specifics on that.

 

[gjensen]

Good to see you around Matt.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Stirring this back a bit, while also appreciating the discussion and George's clear points, it does seem to be quite clear that there is a need to reform and hone Standard admission requirements to ensure that new breeds are in sound keeping with the high standards that have made standard-bred poultry so excellent.

I am not against the admission of new breeds, but I do believe firmly that it should be an exacting process that is worthy of a Standard of Perfection.

Not only should all folks trying to gain admission for a breed or a variety be members, but I would add that it is a very good idea to be working with an already accepted breed or variety contemporaneously in order to get a feel for what standard-bred quality actually is. In this particular scenario, this "guiding" breed should be one currently in a strong, role-model quality state. A small breeding program in Australorps, White Wyandottes, White Rocks, White Leghorns, or Black Langshans would be a good basic place to begin. Selecting a self-colored, which means solid colored, variety of a popular breed will allow the beginner to focus on type.

Concerning rare breeds that are in a degraded state, anyone hoping to make strong strides with birds in sub-par condition need to be extremely reflective and honest with themselves. It is an uphill course that I, as a sucker for rare breeds, think in no way should be portrayed in a sugar coated fashion. We must not be naïve. I have made significant strides with two very rare breeds and varieties, and it has involved hatching by the hundreds for years. Please understand that--hatching by the hundreds for years. That is literally how any of our breeds ever got to be where they are--they were hatched by the hundred, if not thousands, for years and years. Does this mean that everyone has to do this? Absolutely not! Many breeds and varieties continue to possess that excellent quality that was won by our forbearers with enduring effort. We are now free to enjoy those excellent achievements and breed them in a more moderate fashion, provided of course that our selections maintain the quality that was achieved.

I just removed my last hatch of, say, a hundred seventy-five chicks (+/-) from the hatcher. I'm done hatching for the season. This late hatch is aimed at having stock in good form for the Congress. Rome was not built in a day, neither were the high standards of standard-bred poultry.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

A quick addendum:

It would not be correct to think the APA hostile to new entries, but the analogy of thinking of them like mutts at an AKC show is actually fairly fitting. It's going to take a long time, and the APA will not be rushed. Thus, join the group and have some fun with that "guiding" breed while you maintain your project efforts. As George pointed out, many breeders have "projects", but projects take a long, sometimes, extremely long time. You might as well have fun along the way with a "guiding"breed, besides it is that that will make a poultry breeder out of you.

Also, don't be surprised if in the first decade folks don't seem impressed. What is not impressive, is not impressive, and one's being subjectively excited about something does not make it objectively impressive. You'll know you're starting to hit the radar when multiple folks start to honestly tell you that "you have something to work with". That's APA code for, "well, it's not absolutely hopeless."

Enjoy the "guiding" breed in the interim.

 

[3riverschick]

Hi,
And there is the encouragement which placing with the guiding breed brings. It's much
easer to be patient with a breeding project if one has the encouragement of praise in an
associated area. Like winning with thguiding breed or at egg shows or?
Best,
Karen

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Hi,
And there is the encouragement which placing with the guiding breed brings. It's much
easer to be patient with a breeding project if one has the encouragement of praise in an
associated area. Like winning with thguiding breed or at egg shows or?
Best,
Karen

Precisely. One is not waiting and waiting, hoping and hoping, in what feels like a stand still. Thinks are moving ahead well, and there's a fun project on the side.

 

[dretd]

Yellow House Farm, I have another question for you.

How does the APA culture view (or what are the general thoughts) of double mating? Is it frowned upon or seen as a means to an end? How common is the practice and does the acceptance of it vary by breed at all?

 

[3riverschick]

Yellow House Farm, I have another question for you.

How does the APA culture view (or what are the general thoughts) of double mating? Is it frowned upon or seen as a means to an end? How common is the practice and does the acceptance of it vary by breed at all?

How does the APA culture view (or what are the general thoughts) of double mating?
I don't think they care as long as the birds meet the Standard of Perfection.
Is it frowned upon or seen as a means to an end? Not frowned upon, just a means to an end.
How common is the practice Not many breeds require it any more. Some of the breeds which did
were tweaked by their fancy to eliminate it in their respective breeds.
and does the acceptance of it vary by breed at all? There are usually those within a breed
which requires double mating who wish the bred changed soonly single mating is required.
Least this is what I learned from my studying.

If you want to read more about the how double mating is a fight against the normal laws
of breeding to feather, this is a pithy little book by a respected veteran breeder :

Laws governing the breeding of standard fowls; a book covering outbreeding ,
inbreeding and line breeding of all recognized breeds of domestic fowls, with chart,
1912 (1912) By Wid Card
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.087299559;view=1up;seq=5
Best Regards,
Karen
Just a thought, No need to include the word "culture", it is implied by using APA, smile.

 

[gjensen]

Double mating is never required in any breed. Double mating is a choice that an individual breeder makes to accomplish what he/she desires to accomplish. It is not a position taken by the Association, but a choice made by a breeder or breeders.

This is common practice in some breeds, but it is not practiced in most breeds.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

For a quick answer, I'd say that double mating is what it is. There are some color patterns that reliably reproduce from any given mating per se. There are other patterns were one gender comes out lighter or darker, more finely patterned more coarsely patterned, than it's opposite gender sibling. In these patterns one will hatch more chicks closer to standard form if one "rigs" the mating in favor of the darker or lighter outcome, however the case may be.

I think as a whole, the APA doesn't have "feelings" about a great many things. It has a book that outlines the general parameters of standard-bred poultry, and it gathers some of the most practically experienced breeders of poultry in the world. It emphasizes what works, deemphasizes what does not, and generally does not take notice of much else until the entity prove itself of its own merit.