APA/ABA culture for Newcomers

[poltroon]

Yellow House Farm, I really appreciate your eloquent discussion of the danger of too many varieties.

My daughter and I are working with two large fowl breeds: Buckeyes and Wyandottes. The Buckeyes are supposed to be critically rare (and were) but with every breeder out there working the same variety, the breed has come back in a big way. You can feel the energy all going to the same purpose.

My daughter wanted golden laced or silver laced Wyandottes. These are the two original varieties of the breed. I was completely unable to locate a breeder of Silver Laced Wyandottes originally, despite Poultry Press and speaking with judges. (Yes, the hatcheries had them.) Blue Laced Red, however, were plentiful. It's a gorgeous color and I totally understand the attraction - but so are Silver Laced and Golden Laced. Silver Laced is seeing a comeback, but the Golden Laced are in my mind critically rare. If there is an experienced breeder anywhere in the country who is seriously breeding and exhibiting the Golden Laced Wyandottes, I have not found that person despite years of asking around. As far as I can tell, Duane Urch has the only reservoir of them; I think there are a handful of people (including us) who are trying to generate more out of his stock.

The first year we attended the PPBA show in Stockton IIRC there was only one lonely large fowl Wyandotte shown. Biggest show on the west coast.

The only non-hatchery Partridge, Silver Laced, or Golden Laced large fowl Wyandottes we have seen in person are the ones we own. (Which comes from living in California instead of Ohio, I suppose.) We are having to rely on photographs, videos, and other varieties to feel our way.

So every time I see someone excited about adding a new color variety to Wyandotte, I just want to shout, "Um, we are about to lose the varieties we already have." If even half the energy that is going into new varieties would go into the current ones, we would be way ahead.

I hope my daughter and I can do our part to make this old variety (1888!) just a wee bit better and more stabilized so it can have a future. And I appreciate all the master exhibitors who take the time to share their advice here at BYC. I know it's not the old traditional way to share information - but I've absorbed so much by reading and rereading threads like this to get more understanding. I want to help and I want to use the resources I have as effectively as possible to do so.

It seems to me there are a lot of people online who get excited about breeding poultry, and advertise themselves as 'breeders' right away before they really have much experience. And then it is hard and they drop out. I don't want to be that person. There is a lot to learn to cross the gap between "hatching a few chicks for yourself" and creating a viable breeding program, and I will keep working towards that. This is a great idea for a thread, to start the conversation about what it takes to be serious.

 

[poltroon]

There was a question about why people buy from hatcheries. In my experience, nearly everyone is excited about supporting a breeder rather than a hatchery. The deal is that hatcheries are easy to find and a low effort purchase. You pick the kind you want and the hatchery sends it, sexed no less. By contrast, it has taken years to build up a network of places I can find breeders of various breeds (I am a 4H leader, so this comes up a lot) and many breeds are hard to find if I am constrained to within a day's drive or someone who will ship chicks or birds. The logistics can be very difficult, even on what should be a "popular" breed.

Even Poultry Press isn't the greatest resource - names without phone numbers are pretty darned intimidating to a newcomer. (I live in hope that someday it will be available digitally, because newsprint is a terrible archival material, and I dig through my old ones for both articles and ads all the time.)

 

[BGMatt]

There was a question about why people buy from hatcheries. In my experience, nearly everyone is excited about supporting a breeder rather than a hatchery. The deal is that hatcheries are easy to find and a low effort purchase. You pick the kind you want and the hatchery sends it, sexed no less. By contrast, it has taken years to build up a network of places I can find breeders of various breeds (I am a 4H leader, so this comes up a lot) and many breeds are hard to find if I am constrained to within a day's drive or someone who will ship chicks or birds. The logistics can be very difficult, even on what should be a "popular" breed.

Even Poultry Press isn't the greatest resource - names without phone numbers are pretty darned intimidating to a newcomer. (I live in hope that someday it will be available digitally, because newsprint is a terrible archival material, and I dig through my old ones for both articles and ads all the time.)

I would make use of APA Judges and the APA District Rep as resources, they're listed on the website and should have a pretty good idea of what goes on and who is who in the district.

 

[poltroon]

I would make use of APA Judges and the APA District Rep as resources, they're listed on the website and should have a pretty good idea of what goes on and who is who in the district.

I have made friends with a couple and they have been tremendous resources. I really appreciate their time and willingness to answer my questions and to help guide us to the next steps. I especially appreciate the time to talk out the qualities of the bird we bring when it is the only example of the breed at the show, and we are wondering if it is worth working with.

 

[3riverschick]

I am hoping Joseph (Yellow House Farm) will weigh in
on Chestnut's (

) Post # 58. That should be epic.
Happy 4th of July!
Best,
Karen

 

[Chestnut]

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...

I know what you're saying but YHF seemed to imply with his Chantecler example that there's more than one way to a breed that would breed true to form but not have the same genetic makeup. So is it possible to take, say, an Asiatic based set of chickens and mix them so that I can have a breed of chicken true to type of a breed that is generally considered a Mediterranean based bird? I know one path may be more difficult than the other but if the result is "the same" then have you truly recreated the breed?

Even more interesting: If you took the "new" breed and crossed it with the existing breed would those breed true? If the Chantecler in his example would not breed true with the already existing lines wouldn't that seem to indicate that in fact it is a separate breed? The Galápagos finches come to mind.

 

[gjensen]

I know what you're saying but YHF seemed to imply with his Chantecler example that there's more than one way to a breed that would breed true to form but not have the same genetic makeup. So is it possible to take, say, an Asiatic based set of chickens and mix them so that I can have a breed of chicken true to type of a breed that is generally considered a Mediterranean based bird? I know one path may be more difficult than the other but if the result is "the same" then have you truly recreated the breed?

Even more interesting: If you took the "new" breed and crossed it with the existing breed would those breed true? If the Chantecler in his example would not breed true with the already existing lines wouldn't that seem to indicate that in fact it is a separate breed? The Galápagos finches come to mind.

Yes it is possible to take anything and turn it into something else, "so to speak". If you took a variety of Asiatic breeds and let them breed willy nilly eventually they would start looking more like Jungle Fowl. Of course this would take a very long time, and there could be limitations. Selection is what makes them what they are, and selection is what keeps them what they are.

On the second question, generally yes. The initial cross would be relatively consistent and be a lot like the parents. In the generations following, the pot being stirred, selection will be required to keep them what they are.

On the point concerning finches . . It is helpful to differentiate species, sub species, and breeds.

On the original point, it is my opinion(that is all it is) that a breed should look as they should and do as they should. An example would be that a Leghorn that was a poor layer of small blue eggs, or a game that was not a game at all. That, to me, would make them look a likes. I would have a hard time calling a chicken a gamecock, if it was not game.

I agree that type defines the breed, but would add that there is more to a breed than type.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

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? It is not all that matters, but it is the beginning of what matters. Type is the beginning of the conversation. Breed is defined and qualified by type.

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. No, bloodlines have nothing to do with it, but, of course, bloodlines have everything to do with it. Flukes do happen; it is possible to cross two birds and end up with a bird whose, because of the genetic pressures from the two parents, recombine to produce a random chick with a shape that quasi-exactly approximates a given standard for a breed. This has happened, and it does happen. However, it is a random occurrence that cannot be depended on, if so we'd just through a Cochin, a Dorking, an Ancona, and a Polish into the barn and then come sort through the show birds in the fall. Bloodlines have everything to do with it because the flocks that consistently, year in and year out, turn out standard-bred quality specimens are carefully, even obsessively, maintained flocks that receive specific and meticulous care over a period of years and years. Some of those flocks are maintained through pairings without pedigrees, but the system continues to function because multiple cock are used; some of them are simply toe punched and tracked by clan; some of them are wingbanded and tracked by individual birds. Some of the very bet show birds I know have been pedigreed for decades--literally decades worth of outstandingly impressive records. Our bird are tracked by maternal clan and singular cocks, toe-punch and wingband. You can pick up any one of our pullets, take down her wingband number, and then we can go to the books and pull up her lineage for multiple generations. However, does this make the bird what it is? No. It is the shape of the bird that makes it what it is. These records tell you the path that line has walked to get to that shape.

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. That "higher level" is what makes all the difference. It is very layered, very involved, and more than a little esoteric, meaning it can be difficult to understand from the outside looking in.

I find it hard to accept that the type is the breed. That is because, like most people , you are understandably bringing preconceived notions to the dialogue. I did the same; maybe it's safe to say that most of us do, but the more you work with the APA the more it starts to make sense.

It may be a large part of it but it can't be the whole. Yes, it is the whole of the breed, but part of your confusion is imposing on "breed" ideas that belong to "strain", which is something that most people do.

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. This sounds like something, but it's actually not a reality. There simply is no such thing as "pure" blooded chickens, and the closest you will find are those pedigreed lines of APA/ABA stock.

I would think the original breeds would have traits and characteristics, unique to their genetics, that the original breeder was trying to mingle. Perhaps rarely, randomly, and accidentally, but most breeds were developed before many of the current givens were even understood. Moreover, this is getting back to the notion of breed versus strain.

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. This is the reality of many, if not all, of the breeds that come in multiple varieties. Those varieties are had by outcrossing to stock with a desired trait and then steering future generation back to the original, desired type. There are a few varieties that spring a what appear to be "pure blooded" sports, but there is a high probability that the sport is itself caused by a distant out-cross that is making itself known in the manifestation of the sport.

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? Now we are arriving at the core of your conundrum--many, many people's conundrum--now you are talking about strain, what is strain, and what makes strain what it is.


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?
Some Standards have changed. What is the breed with which you are working. Also, many a bird has been added since 1915.

It would seem that the next article to write is one that explains at least the basics of strain, and those traits that, if present as a reality, are only present because of the current, real-time administration of a breeder.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

A
I hope my daughter and I can do our part to make this old variety (1888!)


It seems to me there are a lot of people online who get excited about breeding poultry, and advertise themselves as 'breeders' right away before they really have much experience. And then it is hard and they drop out. I don't want to be that person. There is a lot to learn to cross the gap between "hatching a few chicks for yourself" and creating a viable breeding program, and I will keep working towards that. This is a great idea for a thread, to start the conversation about what it takes to be serious.

With which variety of Wyandotte did you decide to work?

I am glad that you like the idea, and I hope that it reaches many folks. It's not really that I intend to "convert" people. Rather, there are folks with good intentions, who really want to move forward in a powerful way, and it is easy around these parts to receive misinformation. This space is specifically and uniquely for the working out of APA/ABA based information. It may not be what so and so wants to hear, but the effort will be to distill it as closely as possible to the APA/ABA ideal.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

I know what you're saying but YHF seemed to imply with his Chantecler example that there's more than one way to a breed that would breed true to form but not have the same genetic makeup. So is it possible to take, say, an Asiatic based set of chickens and mix them so that I can have a breed of chicken true to type of a breed that is generally considered a Mediterranean based bird? I know one path may be more difficult than the other but if the result is "the same" then have you truly recreated the breed? This, in a less outlandish, more probable form, would be a question of "variety" not "breed" and it has happened many times.

Even more interesting: If you took the "new" breed and crossed it with the existing breed would those breed true? No, they wouldn't. There is nothing--nothing--saying that crossing varieties results in "true" stock, indeed, onece one understands genetics more thoroughly, one knows that it will not. Now, random crosses will nick more than others, but these are always "crap shoots".
If the Chantecler in his example would not breed true with the already existing lines wouldn't that seem to indicate that in fact it is a separate breed? Nope, but this goes back to the notion of preconceived ideas that we ALL have to debunk as we come to understand breeding more thoroughly.

The Galápagos finches come to mind.