APA/ABA culture for Newcomers

[poltroon]

I am not trying to be argumentative. I've read most your posts and agree with your approach and what you say. Its just the whole breed=type that's throwing me. I'm new to chickens, other than the few chickens I had as a kid, but I've got a degree in biology so I'm not new to the concepts of genetics. Maybe that's what's throwing me for a loop. I'm applying a formal concept and equating breed with sub species. It just blows my mind that breed is essentially a collection of phenotypes regardless of genetic makeup and could possibly be arrived at through various cross breeds.

Breeds in all livestock are quite a bit different from subspecies. It's not a bad mental map but biologically they're not equivalent.

If you're familiar with horses, it's not unlike the european warmblood approach. Animals there are closely pedigreed but they are not managed to be "purebred" as many mammal livestock breeds are. They focus on phenotype as expressed in the shape of the animal and in its ability to perform certain tasks. The "breed" assigned is more about where the animal is born than about who its parents are.

You see something similar in the club lamb circuit also - mostly unregistered animals with some combination of Hampshire and Suffolk, bred and selected for a particular shape with no worries about how the animal got that way genetically. ("Club lambs" are typically shown by 4H/FFA and are raised for meat. But perversely, a good show lamb can cost thousands of dollars.)

In poultry, in part the culture is different because of the difficulty in tracking individual animals and the relatively low unit value of each one.

But, the notion of "purity" in breeds is perhaps overblown and harmful itself. The notion of the pedigree being more important than the type and functionality of the animal creates its own kind of harm. I think as we have more information about the genetic code, that perhaps it will create another shift in breeding, in all species of animals.

Just as an example: it is apparently now economic for meat sheep breeders to flush embryos from newborn lambs, run genetic tests, create embryos, and then implant embryos from the best baby ewes in recipient ewes. That is simply stunning to me. I suspect it will not be that long before genetic testing is an option in poultry as well, especially for something relatively simple like color pattern.

Kind of back to the topic: it's very much true that for example bantams and LF of the same breed are generally produced independently from totally different stock, and it can be true within varieties. But, once established, it's not common to do much outcrossing. If anything, poultry breeders tend to do very close inbreeding/linebreeding much more so than in mammals. When you want offspring that are essentially identical and you don't mind eating your mistakes, this approach can work pretty well.

An appeal of crosses to many people new to poultry is that they create more distinct individuals which can make it easier to have a relationship with particular birds. With production poultry, that's not an asset, especially not for animals that are intended to be eaten. (Both because of the emotional considerations and because it makes processing more challenging.) The standard breeds were mostly produced with that practical utility in mind.

 

[gjensen]

I am not trying to be argumentative. I've read most your posts and agree with your approach and what you say. Its just the whole breed=type that's throwing me. I'm new to chickens, other than the few chickens I had as a kid, but I've got a degree in biology so I'm not new to the concepts of genetics. Maybe that's what's throwing me for a loop. I'm applying a formal concept and equating breed with sub species. It just blows my mind that breed is essentially a collection of phenotypes regardless of genetic makeup and could possibly be arrived at through various cross breeds.

You do not sound argumentative.

Breeds of livestock, or any working animal, is defined by type. The type is what gives the capacity and ability to do what they do. It can be arrived at from different angles, because the type is what gives the ability. It is not were they come from, but where they have come to that matters.

On the other and every breed is known for, or has a reputation for certain things. Leghorns have active natures, prolific laying ability, white eggs, heat tolerance, etc. I like to continue adding that a breed is defined by it's type, but it is more than it's type. There are characteristics that we see and do not see. A phenotype, and genotype. To me, if it looks as it should and does as it should, then that that is what it is. Kind of looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. If it looked like a duck, but crowed like a cock bird, then I would have a hard time calling it anything.

If it looks as it should, and does as it should, then it is what it is.

I am thankful for the additional freedom that no registries bring. When the system is too rigid, it can be difficult to deal with health issues etc.

 

[QueenBubbles]

Subscribing. Thank you for the explanations!!

 

[FoxholeFarm]

I have read the whole thread and find the culture of the APA/ABA is really fascinating. I have only ever bred tropical freshwater fish which was very different, and it was really a hobby more than anything. When I got a bad fungal infection, my breeding tank and my entire stock died in a matter of days and I never had the heart to start up again. Recently, a friend who is a 20-year veteran of bantam breeding has encouraged me to play with chickens and have some fun with it.

I wanted to read this thread before ordering my SOP and membership to see if it was something I was really interested in participating in. Thanks for putting up such an informative thread for beginners like me!

 

[FoxholeFarm]

Here's a question: What is the etiquette for showing purchased bird bred by someone else? My breeder encouraged me to do so with those I bought from him, but I don't want to make a faux pas right off the bat if that isn't considered acceptable in the ABA community.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Many, many people show purchased birds. It's obviously not as admired as showing birds on has bred one's self, but everyone has to begin. Now, being one who never learns how to breed and is always showing purchased birds is often chided among the rank and file. Still, if your intention is to begin a breeding program, showing the birds you've purchased is fine because they will be followed up by examples of your subsequent progress.

Having said that, some breeders don't necessarily appreciate being "beaten" by their own birds; thus, if you intent to show purchased birds at a show where the breeder might be entering his/her own birds, I'd check with the breeder first. However, once you start breeding that stock, the progeny are your own, and you can show as you like.

 

[blackred]

As far as showing birds that you bought-
Once you have bought the birds they are yours and if you want to show them that is your decision. Only a few select breeders will tell you not to show them in their area, but most of that is just BS on their part to make it look like you are getting special birds.
The farther you buy your birds the more apt you are to get the better birds, I will sell the best birds far from me. My best customer is in Mexico.

Yes being beat by birds that are bought is a funny feeling but my attitude is - I have to beat their birds anyway to have the best. I know people that show only bought birds, I am friendly and fro the most part just deal with it. I have no respect for them, but it doesn't make them evil.

And I agree- there is nothing wrong with buying birds and then showing them to see how they stack up with others. I have done it and most have.

Bob

 

[PineTopFarm]

Posting so I can follow this thread.

 

[blackraven]

I'll admit to skimming towards the end - roast beef was looking too good to hang on for.

Anyways, reading the posts from yellowhorse I get this:


1) color doesn't matter unless RIR.
2) there's no real need for bloodline documentation
3) breeds are defined by body shape rather than other factors

So what's keeping me or anyone else out of these shows with an X-mutt cross that looks like [shape wise] a Dominique for example? A X-mutt can be bred to be "pure" after all.



I see that later posts mention into loss of purpose. Well if you're judging a box without looking inside, it kind of goes hand & hand doesn't it. This is what has ruined most modern day dogs & threatening the lesser breeds. Fancy looks ahead of usefulness. [Modern GSDs with their award winning roach back stances would be considered subpar in the 50s].


So I'm curious.

Does the APA judge on some of the defining breed factors - egg color for example? If not than "mutts" can have that hands down for "standard" as people will want the pretty eggs and not the pretty useless bird.

Egg production - again if not, mutts rule the "roost".



Sorry it's interesting but having dealt with dog clubs for 8 years I'll stick with my useful mutts for the time being when I get them.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

I'll admit to skimming towards the end - roast beef was looking too good to hang on for.

Anyways, reading the posts from yellowhorse I get this:


1) color doesn't matter unless RIR.
2) there's no real need for bloodline documentation
3) breeds are defined by body shape rather than other factors

So what's keeping me or anyone else out of these shows with an X-mutt cross that looks like [shape wise] a Dominique for example? A X-mutt can be bred to be "pure" after all.



I see that later posts mention into loss of purpose. Well if you're judging a box without looking inside, it kind of goes hand & hand doesn't it. This is what has ruined most modern day dogs & threatening the lesser breeds. Fancy looks ahead of usefulness. [Modern GSDs with their award winning roach back stances would be considered subpar in the 50s].


So I'm curious.

Does the APA judge on some of the defining breed factors - egg color for example? If not than "mutts" can have that hands down for "standard" as people will want the pretty eggs and not the pretty useless bird.

Egg production - again if not, mutts rule the "roost".



Sorry it's interesting but having dealt with dog clubs for 8 years I'll stick with my useful mutts for the time being when I get them.

I wouldn't skim too fast.

1. Color doesn't matter in discussing breed designation, but it is very frequently the definer of variety. One shows a variety of a breed. In the ranking of considerations, "breed", i.e. type, is weightier than "variety", but that second place is not the same as last place, per se. Color is extremely important.

2. Nope, there's no need for bloodline documentation. However, if one plays with bloodlines in a haphazard way, one will create a mess from which return will be difficult.

3. Yes, type, and a few other factors, are considered breed trait, while color and, often, comb type are considered variety definers.

4. "So what's keeping me or anyone else out of these shows with an X-mutt cross that looks like [shape wise] a Dominique for example?" Nothing, and it has, on occasion, happened; although one would not call it a common or reliable occurrence, and breeding that bird forward will be a trip and a half.

5. Most varieties of most breeds were developed both (or either) for food production and exhibition. Most of the production lines have disappeared, because the vast majority of all farming has become dominated by commercial lines. The exhibition lines that exist are doing exactly what they were created to do. If one wants them to be more productive, one simply begins selecting for more production. "Fancy looks" are actually at the heart of the development of many, if not the majority of all varieties of chickens. Chicken shows, as we understand them, started in 1849, and most breeds extant today were developed after that point and found their fame in shows. The "usefulness" of anything is only useful as long as it is useful. This feeds into the expression ars gratia artis, art for the sake of art, the chicken for the sake of the chicken; it is they who breed chickens for the sake of the chickens, i.e. exhibition breeders, who are generally responsible for all of the old lines of poultry still in existence today. People who bred for usefulness depopulated as soon as the usefulness was outdated. Still, that neither means that many exhibition lines aren't productive, or even very productive, or that production in a standard-bred line cannot be improved relatively quickly in a more or less simple fashion.


6. Technically speaking, egg-color, like a muff, is absolutely useless, of the two, the muff is the more prevalent trait. When it comes down to it, I could care less about the color of most eggs.

7. Actually, pure-bred type mutts are often very productive, i.e. hatchery birds that lay well; line-bred commercial mutts are about the best around, i.e. industry; barnyard mutts are a dime a dozen and as random and variable as apple trees started from seed, some "yay", some "nay".


8. "Sorry it's interesting but having dealt with dog clubs for 8 years I'll stick with my useful mutts for the time being when I get them." Sure, but even 30 years in a dog club isn't going to get you all that far in the chicken coop. There's more to it than understanding the ebb and flow of dominants versus recessives. Understanding Chinese cuisine doesn't real make one a connoisseur of Italian cuisine, even if one still uses a frying pan.

Maybe skim less, maybe peruse more. I'm not on here to argue points for the sake of banter or to discuss Collies and AKC politics, all of which are fine. I come to this site to help folks who want to become APA/ABA breeders of poultry succeed in that endeavor.

Best wishes!