APA/ABA culture for Newcomers

[gjensen]

Karen I agree with you. I would only like to add that there is more to the bird than the color of the feathers, and what you pointed out concerning color, is also true concerning everything else. Depending on what is behind the parents, there is any number of variables that pop up. Good and bad.
There seams to be a tendency to focus on color, concerning genetics and selections. Maybe because it is easier to understand, or it is more enjoyable to consider. I am not speaking to you, but the mindset that goes with many of the misc. projects that you referenced.

Pigsflyacres, what makes a quality bird stand out to a novice is balance. Balance is a goal in all animal breeding, building architecture, landscape architecture etc. Proportions are everything. A house is rarely attractive, regardless of color and features unless it has balance. It is interesting to compare the concepts of the Golden Mean and a well bred animal, or an architectural masterpiece.
It does not matter if I am interested in a breed or not. A well bred bird with good balance, and fine feather is hard to ignore. Then if you take them home, and they do what they are supposed to, they are special.

Your point about the auto sexing breeds and the reluctance to grow out the males as always been the point that I got stuck on. I see the trait as a partial advantage in a commercial setting, but not in a breeder's flock. To me it is kind of going back to where many want to get away from. At least wit sex linked birds, there is the added benefit of hybrid vigor.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with them or an interest in them. Only that I see the trait as having no benefit. No matter what I am raising, the males are getting grown out. Also when the influence of the male can be 50%, selecting from them is pretty important. A useless trait for a breeder, unless the breeder is supplying producers. If that is the case. give the customer the added benefit of hybrid vigor.
It was a good idea, but . . . .

Joseph, I read your well written post twice. I am on the same page. However, I think the concept works better in theory than it does as a matter of policy. There will always be interest in something new or different. To them, the birds value is not subjective. I agree with what you mentioned somewhere else. Let them do the work necessary to get the bird admitted, and then the birds have a more objective value. They would be backed by a recognized and respected organization. Similar to our paper money having objective value because of who backs it up.
As long as it is never easy to make the admissions. Otherwise what is admitted loses value. Kind of like a government printing money that it cannot back up. Suddenly the currency in circulation loses value. I would rather not see the value of what we have lost.
What is a shame is that what we have is not valued more. That is where the problem is. It isn't an interest in new things. It is a lack of interest in where we come from.

 

[pigsflyacres]

I was thinking about this some more. I think one of the battles with poultry is that they aren't used. They don't have a job. When they had a job at the height of their usefulness, the breeds were not in bad shape. No one 'needs' their chickens in the same way. If they do they have gone to commercial strains. For good reason. There is no place in our world for everyone to keep a few chickens. So they don't have to perform a function other than what pleases the breeder. Chickens have become an object of fancy. Sure there are those that pursue their traditional productive functions, but they are few and far between I think. Those that are new to poultry keeping often didn't grow up with poultry. they are drawn to them for other reasons. Maybe they choose to go deeper or maybe all they do is keep a few hens. There is room for both.

I find this parallel with horses and dogs. Currently we are breeding some of the nicest horse flesh that our world has seen. We are also breeding horses that shouldn't be bred and perpetuating them. There was a time when horses had jobs. They had to be able to perform that job. Those that knew how to bring a horse along to be good at their job and stay sound were valued. As we lose those that remember that there was a reason for certain training practices, training becomes a parody of what it once was. And horses are just a fancy for those that have the funds to enjoy them. Same with dogs. Fastest way to ruin a good breed is to take away its work. Chickens are subtly different, but I think the struggle is the same. The world that needed RIR, BR and Dorkings has moved on. Now they are just an amusement for those that are drawn to them. I think the big struggle is making them relevant and giving them a purpose. Some people are always going to be drawn to livestock and breeding. My son wants meat goats. You can bet my brain is spinning with possibilities. I just can't help myself. I find beauty in a well bred animal. Yes, it is about balance and looking at them and going 'boy i bet you are good at your job'. I like usefulness.

Getting the word out that a chicken is about more than just its color happens. Some people will never see past the color and it will give them great joy to always be creating a new color. They just enjoy it. Good for them. Other people will know that there is more and will look for more. You can show a person a door, but you can't just shove them thru it! They need to walk thru on their own. Boards like this one, introduce people to that otherness.

 

[Maggiesdad]

I was thinking about this some more. I think one of the battles with poultry is that they aren't used. They don't have a job. When they had a job at the height of their usefulness, the breeds were not in bad shape. No one 'needs' their chickens in the same way. If they do they have gone to commercial strains. For good reason. There is no place in our world for everyone to keep a few chickens. So they don't have to perform a function other than what pleases the breeder. Chickens have become an object of fancy. Sure there are those that pursue their traditional productive functions, but they are few and far between I think. Those that are new to poultry keeping often didn't grow up with poultry. they are drawn to them for other reasons. Maybe they choose to go deeper or maybe all they do is keep a few hens. There is room for both.

I find this parallel with horses and dogs. Currently we are breeding some of the nicest horse flesh that our world has seen. We are also breeding horses that shouldn't be bred and perpetuating them. There was a time when horses had jobs. They had to be able to perform that job. Those that knew how to bring a horse along to be good at their job and stay sound were valued. As we lose those that remember that there was a reason for certain training practices, training becomes a parody of what it once was. And horses are just a fancy for those that have the funds to enjoy them. Same with dogs. Fastest way to ruin a good breed is to take away its work. Chickens are subtly different, but I think the struggle is the same. The world that needed RIR, BR and Dorkings has moved on. Now they are just an amusement for those that are drawn to them. I think the big struggle is making them relevant and giving them a purpose. Some people are always going to be drawn to livestock and breeding. My son wants meat goats. You can bet my brain is spinning with possibilities. I just can't help myself. I find beauty in a well bred animal. Yes, it is about balance and looking at them and going 'boy i bet you are good at your job'. I like usefulness.

Getting the word out that a chicken is about more than just its color happens. Some people will never see past the color and it will give them great joy to always be creating a new color. They just enjoy it. Good for them. Other people will know that there is more and will look for more. You can show a person a door, but you can't just shove them thru it! They need to walk thru on their own. Boards like this one, introduce people to that otherness.

Very well said and so true! I know its difficult for a family that's had 4 -6 hens in the back yard for the past 3 years, all of them named and handfed by the children, to take one of those hens to the block on a Wednesday and prep the carcass for a weekend stew. But those folks still can serve an important part of maintaining a breed and it's purpose, if they delve a little deeper into the world of poultry and source their layer flock from breeders instead of hatcheries and feed stores. There again, it's will involve letting go of the instant gratification expectations and a little more work and coordination on their part.

 

[3riverschick]

I was thinking about this some more. I

I find beauty in a well bred animal. Yes, it is about balance and looking at them and going 'boy i bet you are good at your job'. I like usefulness.

Getting the word out that a chicken is about more than just its color happens.

Boards like this one, introduce people to that otherness.

Such good points. So much to address here. It hits right on the mark for my basic passions in animal breeding.
I think the bottom line is that purebred animals which will fare best in this modern world are those which have a
function, a usefulness to the general public. That usefulness must be well proven in the public eye to prevent that
animal from becoming a victim of the AR movement. In dogs, breeds which prove themselves well able as service,
assistance, therapy, working herding.... i.e. "functional" jobs.,
In poultry... Those which are "easy keepers", with simple colors, which lay well, have calm , quiet personalities,
don't go broody, lay well, and can make a nice meal in a disaster scenario.
I am a "bottom line" person. I believe the best way to approach or repair a situation is to find the bottom line and
proceed from there, otherwise one's efforts don't fix the situation, they merely repair it. To that end, I subscribe to
the concepts in Daniel Pink's book, "A Whole New Mind". That, since 2002 we have moved from the Information Age
( which we exported for various reasons) to a Design Age. We see that need for "more than just functionality"
everywhere. From home decocrating choices to the often ill-informed color breeding in poultry and designer extremes
in dog breeding.
In our modern age, "design" is ill understood and with a crowd mentality. If the crowd likes the look, if it is
"different", they don't care "how" it is made, they just want to have or create something different that what other
people have. They want to "stand out" in the crowd. No matter if the house is built on sand, the balance incomplete,
the bling unhealthy at its core, as long as it functions while they need it, that's ok. Longevity isn't needed because
they will soon be moving on to "the next big thing". Which is interesting because the dictionary definition of
"The next big thing" is something which is widely hyped and then fails to deliver.
In the face of all this superficiality, how do we promote our fowl? Regardless of what else they are, we use the needs
of the public. How do we prioritize them? A surf thru BYC tells us how. In order of importance:
1. Easy to be around, esp. with children.
2. Easy keepers in diet and climate and disease resistance.
3. Reliable layers.
4. Make a good meal in a disaster scenario.
5.. Simple colors to replicate.
In other words, they are "useful" without being a bother.
Best,
Karen

 

[3riverschick]

How to tout our fowl.
Western PA and southern Calif. are interesting in their different approaches to retail sales.
Go to a flea market in western PA and the vendors sit quietly in their booths awaiting your
interest in their wares. Go to a SoCal flea market and the vendors are calling out, gesturing,
touting their wares excellences. We need to be more SoCal in touting our purebred poultry.
For instance :

Looking for poultry with both beauty and purpose???

Light Sussex!
The breed of yesterday is the breed of tomorrow!
Historically bred to meet the needs of the modern family!!
Lovely to look at ! Family friendly! Reliable egg layers! Easy keepers!
Excellent choice for preppers who want to secure local food in hard times!

 

[3riverschick]

Hi,
I'm not talking about being crass. I just think we could do more to extoll our chosen breeds.
If we could just get 1 % of the folks who buy from hatcheries to switch to our chosen breeds
what a difference that could make! I don't mean departing from the dignity that is the APA.
I just think that within that framework we could be a bit more engaging with the general public
that thinks a breed is a breed regardless of where they get the chicks.
I am tired of reading reviews of people who buy poultry breeds from hatcheries and then
post online reviews of the skittish, and/or aggressive temperaments of their birds. Giving the
heritage breed a bad name that needs defended when we all have well mannered heritage versions
of our chosen breeds on our own land. The public needs to understand that if they want the
classic characteristics of a breed they read about and fell in love with, they need to get the heritage version.
How do we educate without offending? I don't know. I am only one person. Maybe if we post
comparisons on our own websites and explain that heritage characteristics need to be maintained
in a careful linebreeding program without outcrossing to other breeds?
It's the breeding done with the birds that maintains a breed. Not just the replicating of chickens.
That's where the APA comes in. They are the keepers of the flame. The bellwether of purebred poultry.
Bellwether: a standard against which excellence can be measured. The APA not only houses
the bellwethers for each breed, the APA itself is a bellwether for how poultry should be done right.
My Dad, a noted efficiency expert, raised us to, "Make a plan and do it right the first time.". That
basic advice holds well in most all areas of life. We go to the bellwether APA for the blueprint and
and the knowledge to make our plan. And to it and its members for the help to do it right the first time.
A bellwether does not waver or bend with every whim of popular culture. It is by definition a "standard".
It remains firm and immutable amidst the wavering of opinion and cultural whims. That is its nature and
substance. It is also the immovable object newcomers see when they enter its realm of influence.
This is not a bad thing, or an old boys club. It is not an impediment to progress or a tightening noose
around the neck of free expression. It is instead, a safe haven. A place where excellence dwells.
Where symmetry and balance reign to create beauty and greatness. Where purity is honored and
its descendants appreciated. Once we understand this we see the structure of the APA as a friend
and mentor. Its members as adherrants to a beauty we wish to create in our own flocks. Their
sometimes stern encouragements and opinions as a way to safeguard and promote that beauty.
The APA is an organization and also a state of mind. A culture, if you will, celebrating beauty and
functionality in poultry.
Best Regards,
Karen

 

[LindaB220]

How to tout our fowl.
Western PA and southern Calif. are interesting in their different approaches to retail sales.
Go to a flea market in western PA and the vendors sit quietly in their booths awaiting your
interest in their wares. Go to a SoCal flea market and the vendors are calling out, gesturing,
touting their wares excellences. We need to be more SoCal in touting our purebred poultry.
For instance :

Looking for poultry with both beauty and purpose???

Light Sussex!
The breed of yesterday is the breed of tomorrow!
Historically bred to meet the needs of the modern family!!
Lovely to look at ! Family friendly! Reliable egg layers! Easy keepers!
Excellent choice for preppers who want to secure local food in hard times!

I love this idea! Even selling off Cragslist, people just put Chickens. And the price. I'll do better. Getting some more Basque eggs in Sept to make up for the scrambled ones. Tom in Pa very nicely offered. Not his fault. But appreciated. Thanks timotzkus

 

[Chestnut]

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.

.........<SNIP>........

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.

..............

Ok. This topic interested me enough to get me to register. What you are saying YHF is that phenotype is all that matters to SOP? So as long as it looks like a specific "breed" in type than it is that breed? Bloodlines have nothing to do with it? Each chicken is genetically equal in potential? I understand for judging purposes this must be so since you can't do gene mapping and I'm not sure registered pedigrees can be retroactively established. But what somewhat suprises me is that it would seem that disregarding bloodlines would mean you are doing the same thing hatcheries are doing, as far as hanging a name on a bird just because it resembles that bird, but on a higher level. Instead of just basing it on a similar color you are doing it on a similar color and type. I find it hard to accept that the type is the breed. It may be a large part of it but it can't be the whole. If a certain breed is originally the result of the cross two (or more) distinct different breeds and then selected for traits until a uniform result is accomplished I would think for any bird to be considered of that breed they should be of that stock, either descended from the original cross or from a recreated cross post the original. I would think the original breeds would have traits and characteristics, unique to their genetics, that the original breeder was trying to mingle. If the same type and color could be accomplished by mixing two (or more) distinctly different breeds, through intense breeding, the result may look similar and be type but genetically speaking its a distinctly different breed. I would think from a production point of view the two could possibly have vastly different characteristics. One may lay more and longer, have a different texture of meat, etc. Just because you have a horse that is the shape of a thoroughbred, the color of a thoroughbred, the size of a thoroughbred doesn't mean he'll run like a thoroughbred. What if it was bred from trotter stock? In other animals breed often shows true. Am I wrong?


Another question anyone else can answer. I have the ebook version of the 1915 SOP. Is there anything in the newer version that I would need if I have the SOP for the breed of chicken I'm raising? Do the standards for a breed change? I know new breeds are added but is the 1915 description of a breed the same as the 2010?

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Not necessarily; I know that the standard for silkies have changed over the years.

Yes type makes breed and colour/pattern makes variety, but the birds are also supposed to breed predictably. A random cross that LOOKS like a recognized breed and variety is unlikely to produce offspring that reliably look the same. For example, I have a few barred rock X langshan birds. They look rather like cuckoo marans, but in reality have absolutely no marans blood in them, and would not reliably produce marans characteristics. For one thing (that you would never see at a show), they do not lay dark eggs...

 

[LindaB220]

Ok. This topic interested me enough to get me to register. What you are saying YHF is that phenotype is all that matters to SOP? So as long as it looks like a specific "breed" in type than it is that breed? Bloodlines have nothing to do with it? Each chicken is genetically equal in potential? I understand for judging purposes this must be so since you can't do gene mapping and I'm not sure registered pedigrees can be retroactively established. But what somewhat suprises me is that it would seem that disregarding bloodlines would mean you are doing the same thing hatcheries are doing, as far as hanging a name on a bird just because it resembles that bird, but on a higher level. Instead of just basing it on a similar color you are doing it on a similar color and type. I find it hard to accept that the type is the breed. It may be a large part of it but it can't be the whole. If a certain breed is originally the result of the cross two (or more) distinct different breeds and then selected for traits until a uniform result is accomplished I would think for any bird to be considered of that breed they should be of that stock, either descended from the original cross or from a recreated cross post the original. I would think the original breeds would have traits and characteristics, unique to their genetics, that the original breeder was trying to mingle. If the same type and color could be accomplished by mixing two (or more) distinctly different breeds, through intense breeding, the result may look similar and be type but genetically speaking its a distinctly different breed. I would think from a production point of view the two could possibly have vastly different characteristics. One may lay more and longer, have a different texture of meat, etc. Just because you have a horse that is the shape of a thoroughbred, the color of a thoroughbred, the size of a thoroughbred doesn't mean he'll run like a thoroughbred. What if it was bred from trotter stock? In other animals breed often shows true. Am I wrong?


Another question anyone else can answer. I have the ebook version of the 1915 SOP. Is there anything in the newer version that I would need if I have the SOP for the breed of chicken I'm raising? Do the standards for a breed change? I know new breeds are added but is the 1915 description of a breed the same as the 2010?

Glad to have you with us. I have the 1915 SOP and it has a lot of info. I'm sure it's changed some, but if that's what you have right now, it's sufficient to start. The old saying, "Build the barn before painting it" means that you start with the body shape first. Get good birds and start.