APA/ABA culture for Newcomers

[3riverschick]

Ok, so I missed that point. The double mating isn't required. oops.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Ok, so I missed that point. The double mating isn't required. oops.

Different patterns, though, benefit from it more strongly than others, though. Penciled Hamburgs, for example, are notorious for being best bred with a double mated system.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Thoughts on Varieties

Well, above we discussed "breeds", that shape is the primary definer of breed, that, indeed, the terms "breed" and "shape" are quasi synonymous. The various "varieties" are manifestations of a breed. The SOP defines a variety as: "A sub-division of a breed. Differentiating characteristics include plumage color, comb type, or presence of beard and muff." Of the three, plumage color is by far the commonest mode of variety establishment.

The "breed" is the "shape", which is why, when you read your SOP, after the quick historical and economic descriptors, there is a description of shape--and only one description of shape, which is then followed by the various varieties that are built upon the foundation of that one shape. Therefore, there is a shape that is Leghorn, and any bird that is a standard-bred Leghorn will approximate that shape. Once the shape is established, the conversation can begin. Without the shape, there is no conversation. The next point of consideration is to determine which variety of the shape is represented. Leghorns, theoretically all of the same shape, come in a plethora of color, these are all the various varieties. So a Black Leghorn is: breed--Leghorn, variety--Black. A Barred Plymouth Rock is: breed--Plymouth Rock, variety--Barred, etc.

There was a trend in turn of the century poultry breeding to develop rose combed varieties for the benefit of all us poor folks who live in the frigid North; so there is a goodly number of breeds that contain both single combed and rose combed sub-varieties of the same color variety, e.g. SC Black Minorcas and RC Black Minorcas, SC White Minorcas and RC White Minorcas, SC Light Brown Leghorns and RC Light Brown Leghorns, SC White Leghorns and RC White Leghorns. So this might read: breed--Leghorn, variety--White, sub-variety--Rose Comb. Now, in actuality, there is no definition of "sub-variety" in the SOP, but this is a term you will hear commonly enough. For some breeds there are no color varieties, only comb varieties, e.g. RC Anconas and SC Anconas, RC RIRs and SC RIRs.

Now, something to consider is that varieties within a breed may be either minimally or even in no way genetically related to the other varieties of the same breed, and they might actually be more related to other varieties of other breeds; e.g. Black Orpington and Buff Orpingtons were developed from different parent stock; they were simply bred toward the same shape. The former were actually originally rose combed. Buff Wyandottes were genetically drawn from the Buff Rock pool, which was established out of early light-colored Rhode Island Reds. There are varieties that exist, or at least originally existed, in completely different lines that were developed using different crossing recipes, that led, however, to the same varietal designation. Remember, it always comes down to shape. An important example is the development of the Albertan, a would-be breed developed in Alberta, Canada. It was developed in the Partridge, i.e. Golden-penciled, variety. However, when it came time to seek APA Standard recognition, it was clear that the Albertan was, in truth, a Partridge Chantecler. It was developed genetically independently, in a different geographic location; however, it was, in shape, identical to the Chantecler, a pre-established breed, and thus could be naught but a Chantecler, a Partridge Chantecler, no doubt, but a Chantecler nonetheless.

So why develop new varieties? Well, varieties can be fun, let's face it. "Variety is the spice of life;" is it not? We humans love variety. Shake it up; rearrange it. Make it different. We love to do it. Historically speaking, most of the breeds and varieties in the Standard were either standardized or created and standardized during a time period where poultry actually had the potential to be a moneymaker, and let's face it, we also like moneymakers. Then, let's not downplay intellectual curiosity and the need of many for hands-on experience. Many want/wanted to know how it works, and following the progression of a new variety can/could be highly educational. Brian Reeder, a poultry breeder and geneticist whose works An Introduction to Form and Feathering of the Domestic Fowl and An Introduction to the Color Forms of the Domestic Fowl are de rigueur, actively promotes the development of new varieties in the spirit of stretching our understanding. We can develop a Mille Fleurs Dorking, a Spangled Plymouth Rock, a Barred Phoenix, a Naked Neck Orpington, a Mottled Langshan, a Silver Pencilled Cornish, a Pea combed Black Minorca, a V-combed RIR, a Tufted Silver Spangled Hamburg, and a Bearded Birchen Modern Game. This is one of the most riveting qualities of chickens; they are so very genetically manipulable, and to do so is fun.

So why not develop new varieties? Well, the reality is we do not live in the poultry climate of, say, 1850-1950, when chickens were everywhere, and I mean everywhere. There was a tremendous, absolutely huge, genetic pool in North America. Indeed, during that time period we developed one of the top poultry climates of all human history. Never--ever--has there ever been such a flourishing of distinct and controlled poultry genetics on such a shockingly broad spectrum. The American Standard of Perfection is one of the most elite standards on the planet, and is representative of one of the most elite poultry cultures on earth. At the end of the day: North America, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands are the jewels of poultry development. Nevertheless, things change.

Genetic pools are woefully--woefully--depleted. The phenomenon of depopulation through the 1970's through the 1990's literally squandered the agricultural genetic wealth of generations upon generations. Neither is this isolated to poultry, but rather is pertinent to every species of domestic animal in the industrial world. The literal seas of standard-bred Rhode Island Reds, Plymouth Rocks, Wyandottes, and Leghorns have been reduced to mere ponds. The lakes of Dorkings, Anconas, and Hamburgs have been reduced to puddles, and the streams of Crevecoeurs, Lakenvelders, La Fleche, and Redcaps, have all but dried up with the occasional emergence of a vernal pool that quickly disappears when the heat of genetic reality is on.

The more one actually breeds--not just hatches--but intentionally groups breeders in SOP-guided matings, in order to draw out specific genetic traits, the more one realizes that good poultry took a heck of a long time to develop. The Western Roman Empire disintegrated in a relatively short period of time, and it took us centuries upon centuries to rebound culturally, easily ten-times the amount of time to rebuild than it took to destroy. One can appropriately use this as an analogy for the loss of many forms of mastery or sophistication; these take time to develop, but can be so easily lost. Indeed, the very fact that I'm writing these paragraphs, and that they are apt, is a sign of lost consensus and of a need to rebuild.

How does this state of affairs interface with variety development? In a nutshell, varieties divide a breed. They divide and disperse the energies being directed to that breed in different directions; i.e. they drain the pool in lieu of increasing it.

A majority of varieties are not genetically reciprocal, which means that they are genetically discreet. Although phenotypically, which means "to the eye", they are identical, or should be, shape-wise, they are genetically different. Crossing two varieties can cause a spiraling of genetics that leads to an unsightly mess in a few generations, even immediately. So genetically speaking, every variety is ultimately its own gene pool. So, there is not an ocean of Plymouth Rocks or Wyandottes filled up with different colors; rather, each variety is its own sea. If it dries up, it dries up unto itself; if it thrives, it thrives unto itself. One sees then that one variety thriving, per se, is of no immediate benefit to the other varieties.

If, then, one considers that there may be, say, twenty-five hardcore breeders, as defined not by intellectual enthusiasm but by genetic output, are maintaining Plymouth Rocks around North America--and that number, randomly quoted, could be an exaggeration, and one then considers that there are seven varieties of standardized Plymouth Rock in the Standard, most of which are non-reciprocal, well one begins to realized that "a kingdom divided cannot stand." There are a few breeds that are safe from the nuisance of having multiple varieties: Australorps, White Faced Black Spanish, Blue Andalusians, Buckeyes, etc., and there are also those that have one color variety with only reciprocal comb sub-varieties: Rhode Island Reds and Anconas. Now, at least with these, if one has twenty-five breeders nationwide working on them, they are all working on the same thing. It cannot be denied that there is a real element of statistical probability in breeding poultry. The more breeders are focusing on one thing, meaning one variety of one breed, the greater the probability of tapping into a strong genetic combination that brings the breed forward in an important manner. Insofar as serious breeders of fowl tend to be very generous with stock in among themselves, there is a second probability that the genetic advancement will be spread out over the core gene pool. This web of genetic connection is the safety net of any variety sine qua non--without which, nothing. Thus, it becomes apparent that, in the current genetic climate, what is not needed is a diversification of varieties but rather the establishment of breeding communities around specific varieties whose attentions promote the standard-bred quality and genetic stability and advancement of the variety, because chances are the variety is discreet.

The breeds do not need to be diluted by the development of varieties. There is no need for Spangled Orpingtons; there is a need for more Buff, White, and Black Orpingtons, which already may be too many varieties to maintain with current trends, and there is an acute need for more Speckled Sussex breeders. There is no need for Silver Laced Orpingtons, there is a need for more Silver Laced Wyandotte breeders. There is no need for Blue Australorps--at all--in any way, shape, or form, especially considering that there are already Blue Orpingtons, Wyandottes, and Rocks. Nevertheless, the true blue fowl is the Blue Andalusian, it's quality is in no way matched by the former varieties, and it is in acute need of breeders. It is the only true blue fowl. We have auto-sexing breeds already in the form of barred varieties and duckwing patterns. We don't need others; we need those that we have to be stronger.

In a word, we have, from a time when expansion was the rule of the game, breadth galore in our Standard of Perfection. We have 13 breeds of American fowl in 29 varieties, 3 breeds of Asiatic fowl in 15 different varieties, 6 breeds of English fowl in 17 different varieties; we have 7 breeds of Mediterranean fowl in 25 different varieties; we have 11 breeds of Continental fowl in 27 different varieties, and we have 13 breeds of AOSB fowl in 65 varieties. We have a whopping 178 (!!!!) large fowl gene pools--178! There is practically nothing worth having that we do not already have. Said again, if it is worth having, chances are it is already in the Standard.

What varieties need, and what poultry culture in general needs, is for new-comers to spend the fifty dollars on the book before they drop money on their chicks, firstly, to discover that there is no organization that even comes close to offering the extreme variety that is offered by the APA. Indeed, the greatest frustration of the SOP is probably that it is the biggest poultry tease out there. It sits on your shelf to mock your ego, which always wants you to reach for what you shouldn't take. You will never be able to have all of the breeds and varieties in the Standard--never, and that is it's greatest surprise and frustration. The second lesson it offers is that, there really is no place like home. None of the empty promises and mendaciously exaggerate tales of current importers with their ersatz exotic delights will ever offer the kind of stable variety, community, and deep history that the American Poultry Association offers for the easy price of a $20 yearly membership and $50 dollar book that never expires...not too shabby.

Try finding one--one--confirmed APA/ABA breeder of standard-bred poultry that sells chicks for $100.00 a piece or started pairs for $999.00, or more. If you're ready to start having real chicken fun, learning more about chickens then you ever actually imagined there was to learn, and meet the folks that knew the folks who knew the folks, start coming to APA/ABA shows. Join the parent organizations. Buy your Standard(s), and subscribe to the Poultry Press. Find your APA/ABA shows nearest you, and put the date on your calendar.

See you there!

 

[BGMatt]

Thoughts on Varieties

Well, above we discussed "breeds", that shape is the primary definer of breed, that, indeed, the terms "breed" and "shape" are quasi synonymous. The various "varieties" are manifestations of a breed. The SOP defines a variety as: "A sub-division of a breed. Differentiating characteristics include plumage color, comb type, or presence of beard and muff." Of the three, plumage color is by far the commonest mode of variety establishment.

The "breed" is the "shape", which is why, when you read your SOP, after the quick historical and economic descriptors, there is a description of shape--and only one description of shape, which is then followed by the various varieties that are built upon the foundation of that one shape. Therefore, there is a shape that is Leghorn, and any bird that is a standard-bred Leghorn will approximate that shape. Once the shape is established, the conversation can begin. Without the shape, there is no conversation. The next point of consideration is to determine which variety of the shape is represented. Leghorns, theoretically all of the same shape, come in a plethora of color, these are all the various varieties. So a Black Leghorn is: breed--Leghorn, variety--Black. A Barred Plymouth Rock is: breed--Plymouth Rock, variety--Barred, etc.

There was a trend in turn of the century poultry breeding to develop rose combed varieties for the benefit of all us poor folks who live in the frigid North; so there is a goodly number of breeds that contain both single combed and rose combed sub-varieties of the same color variety, e.g. SC Black Minorcas and RC Black Minorcas, SC White Minorcas and RC White Minorcas, SC Light Brown Leghorns and RC Light Brown Leghorns, SC White Leghorns and RC White Leghorns. So this might read: breed--Leghorn, variety--White, sub-variety--Rose Comb. Now, in actuality, there is no definition of "sub-variety" in the SOP, but this is a term you will hear commonly enough. For some breeds there are no color varieties, only comb varieties, e.g. RC Anconas and SC Anconas, RC RIRs and SC RIRs.

Now, something to consider is that varieties within a breed may be either minimally or even in no way genetically related to the other varieties of the same breed, and they might actually be more related to other varieties of other breeds; e.g. Black Orpington and Buff Orpingtons were developed from different parent stock; they were simply bred toward the same shape. The former were actually originally rose combed. Buff Wyandottes were genetically drawn from the Buff Rock pool, which was established out of early light-colored Rhode Island Reds. There are varieties that exist, or at least originally existed, in completely different lines that were developed using different crossing recipes, that led, however, to the same varietal designation. Remember, it always comes down to shape. An important example is the development of the Albertan, a would-be breed developed in Alberta, Canada. It was developed in the Partridge, i.e. Golden-penciled, variety. However, when it came time to seek APA Standard recognition, it was clear that the Albertan was, in truth, a Partridge Chantecler. It was developed genetically independently, in a different geographic location; however, it was, in shape, identical to the Chantecler, a pre-established breed, and thus could be naught but a Chantecler, a Partridge Chantecler, no doubt, but a Chantecler nonetheless.

So why develop new varieties? Well, varieties can be fun, let's face it. "Variety is the spice of life;" is it not? We humans love variety. Shake it up; rearrange it. Make it different. We love to do it. Historically speaking, most of the breeds and varieties in the Standard were either standardized or created and standardized during a time period where poultry actually had the potential to be a moneymaker, and let's face it, we also like moneymakers. Then, let's not downplay intellectual curiosity and the need of many for hands-on experience. Many want/wanted to know how it works, and following the progression of a new variety can/could be highly educational. Brian Reeder, a poultry breeder and geneticist whose works An Introduction to Form and Feathering of the Domestic Fowl and An Introduction to the Color Forms of the Domestic Fowl are de rigueur, actively promotes the development of new varieties in the spirit of stretching our understanding. We can develop a Mille Fleurs Dorking, a Spangled Plymouth Rock, a Barred Phoenix, a Naked Neck Orpington, a Mottled Langshan, a Silver Pencilled Cornish, a Pea combed Black Minorca, a V-combed RIR, a Tufted Silver Spangled Hamburg, and a Bearded Birchen Modern Game. This is one of the most riveting qualities of chickens; they are so very genetically manipulable, and to do so is fun.

So why not develop new varieties? Well, the reality is we do not live in the poultry climate of, say, 1850-1950, when chickens were everywhere, and I mean everywhere. There was a tremendous, absolutely huge, genetic pool in North America. Indeed, during that time period we developed one of the top poultry climates of all human history. Never--ever--has there ever been such a flourishing of distinct and controlled poultry genetics on such a shockingly broad spectrum. The American Standard of Perfection is one of the most elite standards on the planet, and is representative of one of the most elite poultry cultures on earth. At the end of the day: North America, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands are the jewels of poultry development. Nevertheless, things change.

Genetic pools are woefully--woefully--depleted. The phenomenon of depopulation through the 1970's through the 1990's literally squandered the agricultural genetic wealth of generations upon generations. Neither is this isolated to poultry, but rather is pertinent to every species of domestic animal in the industrial world. The literal seas of standard-bred Rhode Island Reds, Plymouth Rocks, Wyandottes, and Leghorns have been reduced to mere ponds. The lakes of Dorkings, Anconas, and Hamburgs have been reduced to puddles, and the streams of Crevecoeurs, Lakenvelders, La Fleche, and Redcaps, have all but dried up with the occasional emergence of a vernal pool that quickly disappears when the heat of genetic reality is on.

The more one actually breeds--not just hatches--but intentionally groups breeders in SOP-guided matings, in order to draw out specific genetic traits, the more one realizes that good poultry took a heck of a long time to develop. The Western Roman Empire disintegrated in a relatively short period of time, and it took us centuries upon centuries to rebound culturally, easily ten-times the amount of time to rebuild than it took to destroy. One can appropriately use this as an analogy for the loss of many forms of mastery or sophistication; these take time to develop, but can be so easily lost. Indeed, the very fact that I'm writing these paragraphs, and that they are apt, is a sign of lost consensus and of a need to rebuild.

How does this state of affairs interface with variety development? In a nutshell, varieties divide a breed. They divide and disperse the energies being directed to that breed in different directions; i.e. they drain the pool in lieu of increasing it.

A majority of varieties are not genetically reciprocal, which means that they are genetically discreet. Although phenotypically, which means "to the eye", they are identical, or should be, shape-wise, they are genetically different. Crossing two varieties can cause a spiraling of genetics that leads to an unsightly mess in a few generations, even immediately. So genetically speaking, every variety is ultimately its own gene pool. So, there is not an ocean of Plymouth Rocks or Wyandottes filled up with different colors; rather, each variety is its own sea. If it dries up, it dries up unto itself; if it thrives, it thrives unto itself. One sees then that one variety thriving, per se, is of no immediate benefit to the other varieties.

If, then, one considers that there may be, say, twenty-five hardcore breeders, as defined not by intellectual enthusiasm but by genetic output, are maintaining Plymouth Rocks around North America--and that number, randomly quoted, could be an exaggeration, and one then considers that there are seven varieties of standardized Plymouth Rock in the Standard, most of which are non-reciprocal, well one begins to realized that "a kingdom divided cannot stand." There are a few breeds that are safe from the nuisance of having multiple varieties: Australorps, White Faced Black Spanish, Blue Andalusians, Buckeyes, etc., and there are also those that have one color variety with only reciprocal comb sub-varieties: Rhode Island Reds and Anconas. Now, at least with these, if one has twenty-five breeders nationwide working on them, they are all working on the same thing. It cannot be denied that there is a real element of statistical probability in breeding poultry. The more breeders are focusing on one thing, meaning one variety of one breed, the greater the probability of tapping into a strong genetic combination that brings the breed forward in an important manner. Insofar as serious breeders of fowl tend to be very generous with stock in among themselves, there is a second probability that the genetic advancement will be spread out over the core gene pool. This web of genetic connection is the safety net of any variety sine qua non--without which, nothing. Thus, it becomes apparent that, in the current genetic climate, what is not needed is a diversification of varieties but rather the establishment of breeding communities around specific varieties whose attentions promote the standard-bred quality and genetic stability and advancement of the variety, because chances are the variety is discreet.

The breeds do not need to be diluted by the development of varieties. There is no need for Spangled Orpingtons; there is a need for more Buff, White, and Black Orpingtons, which already may be too many varieties to maintain with current trends, and there is an acute need for more Speckled Sussex breeders. There is no need for Silver Laced Orpingtons, there is a need for more Silver Laced Wyandotte breeders. There is no need for Blue Australorps--at all--in any way, shape, or form, especially considering that there are already Blue Orpingtons, Wyandottes, and Rocks. Nevertheless, the true blue fowl is the Blue Andalusian, it's quality is in no way matched by the former varieties, and it is in acute need of breeders. It is the only true blue fowl. We have auto-sexing breeds already in the form of barred varieties and duckwing patterns. We don't need others; we need those that we have to be stronger.

In a word, we have, from a time when expansion was the rule of the game, breadth galore in our Standard of Perfection. We have 13 breeds of American fowl in 29 varieties, 3 breeds of Asiatic fowl in 15 different varieties, 6 breeds of English fowl in 17 different varieties; we have 7 breeds of Mediterranean fowl in 25 different varieties; we have 11 breeds of Continental fowl in 27 different varieties, and we have 13 breeds of AOSB fowl in 65 varieties. We have a whopping 178 (!!!!) large fowl gene pools--178! There is practically nothing worth having that we do not already have. Said again, if it is worth having, chances are it is already in the Standard.

What varieties need, and what poultry culture in general needs, is for new-comers to spend the fifty dollars on the book before they drop money on their chicks, firstly, to discover that there is no organization that even comes close to offering the extreme variety that is offered by the APA. Indeed, the greatest frustration of the SOP is probably that it is the biggest poultry tease out there. It sits on your shelf to mock your ego, which always wants you to reach for what you shouldn't take. You will never be able to have all of the breeds and varieties in the Standard--never, and that is it's greatest surprise and frustration. The second lesson it offers is that, there really is no place like home. None of the empty promises and mendaciously exaggerate tales of current importers with their ersatz exotic delights will ever offer the kind of stable variety, community, and deep history that the American Poultry Association offers for the easy price of a $20 yearly membership and $50 dollar book that never expires...not too shabby.

Try finding one--one--confirmed APA/ABA breeder of standard-bred poultry that sells chicks for $100.00 a piece or started pairs for $999.00, or more. If you're ready to start having real chicken fun, learning more about chickens then you ever actually imagined there was to learn, and meet the folks that knew the folks who knew the folks, start coming to APA/ABA shows. Join the parent organizations. Buy your Standard(s), and subscribe to the Poultry Press. Find your APA/ABA shows nearest you, and put the date on your calendar.

See you there!

May I borrow this for a discussion group I'm part of? Full credit given of course.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

May I borrow this for a discussion group I'm part of? Full credit given of course.

Borrow away!

 

[3riverschick]

Superbly stated by Yellow House Farm :
"A majority of varieties are not genetically reciprocal, which means that they are genetically discreet. Although phenotypically, which means "to the eye", they are identical, or should be, shape-wise, they are genetically different. Crossing two varieties can cause a spiraling of genetics that leads to an unsightly mess in a few generations, even immediately. So genetically speaking, every variety is ultimately its own gene pool. "
This is why we need to know the genetic equations for the breeds with which we are dealing. Color genes and modifiers express differently depending on which locus they are being laid. For instance...the Silver Sussex is a black bird with silver accents and Light Sussex is a silver bird with black accents.
So why not combine them to get better hues of whichever ratio of back and silver one desires? Because Silver Sussex is based on the ER locus and the Light Sussex is based on the eWh locus. Now the breeder not only has color variation in the birds ...he/she has heterozygous locuses to deal with. Color breeding without knowing the genotypes behind the birds is just a recipe for a kaleidoscope of mish mash colors which can take generations to fix. Meanwhile the mixed up colors often get sold as "project " or "rare" color birds. It can really mess up the color scheme of a breed. Take the Golden Salmon (e+); Black Tail Buff (eWh), and Wheaten ( eWh) Marans. They are all "gold" birds and people breed them back and forth trying to improve their chosen color. What a mess. It can be really tough to tell e+/eWh from eWh/eWh. .
Well, Joseph, if you want to rewrite this, it's ok with me. You are quite eloquent that way. However, I think it's an important point in breeding poultry.
Best,
Karen

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Well, Karen, I think you got it straight on. The subtleties of understanding the various ebonies and how they work is very important. It is fantastic to think of all of these different colors stemming from these very different bases. I remember when I thought that crossing something just made it 1/2 this and 1/2 that; little did I know. Moreover, the more one knows, the more one has greater respect for established, stable gene pools, and the more one realizes what a treat they are, and how, in the scope of history, how rare they are.

Our perceptions are often faulty. I often think on how we believe that if the glass levitates from the table that that must be magic, but we forget that, considering the trends of the universe, that the fact the glass neither levitate not goes crashing towards the center of the earth, but just sits there, seamlessly, gently, is the actual magic. Likewise, the fact that out of three millennia of domestic poultry mumbo-jumbo, our country and just a few others discovered, consolidated and stabilized into a dizzying variety of forms the most outstanding breeds of poultry that could ever be imagined. So many of us grow up seeing hatchery slop that we don't realize the pheasant-like, sophisticated beauty that focused, informed breeding has been able to tease out of the Jungle Fowl.

It's hard to describe the jewel-like visual effect of a flock of well-bred Silver Laced Wyandottes, or the stateliness of a flock of regally-bred Black Minorcas on range, or a harem of White Dorkings on grass.

However, I wax poetic; to your point, the poetry of standardized poultry is fleshed out with a strong understanding of the genetic facts that make it all possible. Your message also reemphasizes why it is very valuable that one first work with, or maintain simultaneously, a breeding project of standard-bred fowl; so that one concretize one's understanding of what standard-bred poultry is.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

PS: It really is beautiful how you have become so fluent in poultry genetics.

 

[LindaB220]

Superbly stated by Yellow House Farm :
"A majority of varieties are not genetically reciprocal, which means that they are genetically discreet. Although phenotypically, which means "to the eye", they are identical, or should be, shape-wise, they are genetically different. Crossing two varieties can cause a spiraling of genetics that leads to an unsightly mess in a few generations, even immediately. So genetically speaking, every variety is ultimately its own gene pool. "
This is why we need to know the genetic equations for the breeds with which we are dealing. Color genes and modifiers express differently depending on which locus they are being laid. For instance...the Silver Sussex is a black bird with silver accents and Light Sussex is a silver bird with black accents.
So why not combine them to get better hues of whichever ratio of back and silver one desires? Because Silver Sussex is based on the ER locus and the Light Sussex is based on the eWh locus. Now the breeder not only has color variation in the birds ...he/she has heterozygous locuses to deal with. Color breeding without knowing the genotypes behind the birds is just a recipe for a kaleidoscope of mish mash colors which can take generations to fix. Meanwhile the mixed up colors often get sold as "project " or "rare" color birds. It can really mess up the color scheme of a breed. Take the Golden Salmon (e+); Black Tail Buff (eWh), and Wheaten ( eWh) Marans. They are all "gold" birds and people breed them back and forth trying to improve their chosen color. What a mess. It can be really tough to tell e+/eWh from eWh/eWh. .
Well, Joseph, if you want to rewrite this, it's ok with me. You are quite eloquent that way. However, I think it's an important point in breeding poultry.
Best,
Karen

 

[pigsflyacres]

This is a very interesting discussion. I think one of the things that is hard for newcomers to wrap their head around is that breeding is for the patient. Our culture no longer values those things which require patience. Now its about moving on to the next interesting thing. Breeding chickens you see results much faster than if you were breeding dogs or horses. So you don't have to be that patient! And I think its why few stick with it. The attrition rate is high. I see the same thing with horses. I ride better now and train better now than I did when I was 17. Because I've figured out that the fastest way to get to my destination is on the horses time, not mine. I can't muscle my way thru anything. Animals have a lot to teach. I will work with my birds simply because I find a well bred specimen of any animal pleasing to my eye. It takes time and education to understand the nuance of quality. However, I find that animals of quality do have a spark that is there to be seen even if you can't see why it is a quality specimen.

I've got some of those Legbar 'mutts'. The eggs were given to me. I wouldn't even call them a side project. I see how much work they require and its more than I want to bite off. But I suspect they will maintain the interest of those who are more casual breeders. They have a crest, they lay blue eggs and they are auto sexing. Its a chicken trifecta! The only thing missing is being frizzled too. Its the auto sexing part that will keep them from becoming a better bird. There is this tendency to cull a bunch of extra cockerels at hatch because they 'only want one or two roosters'. There is a reason why its really hard to get good Legbar cockerels. And you can't make progress if you cull just because its male. There are individuals that really want this project to succeed and they are working hard at it. I wish them luck. I'd rather they put the same effort into one of the Dorking varieties (not colored!). I look at the young Legbars I have (only two of them appear to have the cream gene) and I know it will be 10 years before they have the same quality as the Red Dorking chicks that I got 6 weeks ago. Which need work! They really scrambled the genetics when they brought them over.