Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[thedragonlady]

The APA does not discriminate against blacks from a blue mating. If it looks black and is entered that way it is not against the rules, but you won't win against a real black of the same breed. I can usually tell if it is a back from a blue...they just don't look right and they don't usually have the intensity of the real blacks.

Walt

Thank you Walt ! I have been trying to get the fact across that Silkies are loosing true blacks due to the interest in BBS breedings, along with assorted other unnamed colors. The same thing is happening in Orps ! I can always tell a blue bred black, and so can you . Please keep repeating this ! Permission to re-post on the show Silkie thread ? This needs to be read.

 

[BGMatt]

The APA does not discriminate against blacks from a blue mating. If it looks black and is entered that way it is not against the rules, but you won't win against a real black of the same breed. I can usually tell if it is a back from a blue...they just don't look right and they don't usually have the intensity of the real blacks.

Walt

I'm aware of that. Wasn't meaning to imply any discrimination either. I simply meant like in my example, that getting Large Fowl Black Plymouth Rocks admitted should be an easier and shorter process than a totally new variety because of them being a "by-product" of Blue yet a variety on their own as well. Rather than the whole 5 year, 5 breeder process. If this already exists (I'm at work and my APA yearbooks are at home) and its just a question of the fee and a qualifying meet then awesome and I stand corrected and need to seek out some Large Fowl Blacks, and start hatching.

Edit: In other words my example was about standard recognition, not judging.

 

[cluck-cluck]

Good post Yellow House.

agreed

Distilled down .......the APA SOP only requires the bird to "look" like the description. New breeds/varieties are only required to breed 50% true. IMO that is too lenient, but some of the very same people that have a "story" will whine about the APA being too strict. Some will be OK with that and some won't be. There is this weird kind of snobbery that goes on with the newbies that I don't quite understand. In some ways it is more demanding than the SOP itself. It took a while but I did realize that the "story" is more important to these folks than the birds themselves.

I think it's confusion, because other animals that are bred must be of "pure blood", such as dogs, and if people come from that direction, it may be to weird for them to comprehend?

From 2-5 times a year I get correspondence about admitting some breed to the SOP with a great story and they become annoyed when I tell them they have to put 50 in a show and that they all have to meet the breed descriptions AND color description. Every so often I become annoyed by these experts who don't want real Standards applied. If it can be this or it can be that and some guy said that is the way it should be, I'm supposed to say..OK.....ah...no. I guess that is why I don't have patience with these less than 10 year "experts". I have been doing this for 50 years and certainly don't think of myself as an "expert". It is just not that easy folks. We are always learning......and I have learned some things from newbies right here on BYC. I have a fellow now that it PMing me about a possible error in the Hamburg beak description and as of now I think he may be correct. As far as I know he has no story.
I'll ask.

Walt

So there can be errors in the sop? Cool! LOL

 

[fowlman01]

Walt, I agree. A lot of it boils down to the story.

If the story doesn't matter, then why has the APA bothered to acknowledge "heritage"?

For me, the history of these various breeds is half the fun. It allows me to apply some scholarship to my hobby aside from the genetics and husbandry knowledge I am always seeking. It is disheartening to hear such a learned poultryman discount the history of various breeds. Particularly since I have seen you share so many stories of this breed or that which account for fascinating and valuable histories in their own right.

The APA had no position on "Heritage". They have a committee studying it, but they have been doing that for 4-5 years.

I have no problem with poultry history and I have said many times that those people back in the old days were master breeders and there are not a lot of them in poultry today. The ones that were good were exceptional. None of them used a poultry calculator. What I do say all the time is: "just because it is old, does not mean it is good advice or even close to being accurate". I have a pretty good collection of old works, some of it is pretty crazy and a lot of it is dead on today..... many of the "stories" are things cobbled together online by people with good intentions, but not enough real searching for the truth. Karen on our thread here is passionate about poultry history and she spends the time going down all the dark alley's etc until she has a good idea of what is real and what is not. I would never discourage a person from reading poultry history, just be sure of which gospel you want to preach.....and maybe you have, if so stick to it. If I back something I want to be as close to positive as I can be, so I tend to discount online folks that are collecting the many thousands of gullible folks out here. If these people would say: "this is what I have read and here is where I read it and MY conclusion along with so and so leads me to believe........fill in the blanks." People with a story don't usually tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. They have one point of view and in most cases don't tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. Maybe if they had been in the hobby a bit longer I wouldn't be annoyed by these stories.

Seriously I believe that these dogma like announcements online are detrimental to any breed they are involved with. It usually creates at least two factions that fight each other long and hard until one club goes away. Anytime you see two or more clubs representing a breed there is something wrong and that is usually a difference of opinion...and it could well be the story that they don't agree on. I can think of a breed with two clubs right now that has a difference of what they should be and where they came from.

Let people know that there is more than one story.

w.

 

[fowlman01]

I'm aware of that. Wasn't meaning to imply any discrimination either. I simply meant like in my example, that getting Large Fowl Black Plymouth Rocks admitted should be an easier and shorter process than a totally new variety because of them being a "by-product" of Blue yet a variety on their own as well. Rather than the whole 5 year, 5 breeder process. If this already exists (I'm at work and my APA yearbooks are at home) and its just a question of the fee and a qualifying meet then awesome and I stand corrected and need to seek out some Large Fowl Blacks, and start hatching.

Edit: In other words my example was about standard recognition, not judging.

When you check out the yearbook let me know when you want to start. Send me a PM.

Walt

 

[fowlman01]

Thank you Walt ! I have been trying to get the fact across that Silkies are loosing true blacks due to the interest in BBS breedings, along with assorted other unnamed colors. The same thing is happening in Orps ! I can always tell a blue bred black, and so can you . Please keep repeating this ! Permission to re-post on the show Silkie thread ? This needs to be read.

It is fine with me.....post it. The color the Silkie folks are calling "Paint" is really "Exchequer" and that color is already a recognized ABA color. paint might not fly.

w.

 

[aveca]

well said walt...the old books and info are great for understanding what the creators of a breed were thinking..but you wouldnt want to use some of the treatments such as arsnic ect..that was all they had at that time..
and ive noticed the several club for one breed ..i would like to add to that how very rough that is on new people that are interested in learning about a breed or buying stock to walk into a hornet nest of people fighting and a new person is thrown to a side because they bought a few birds from somone the a faction is either mad at or doesnt agree with..so your automatically thrown to that side of their arguments that you know nothing about..say one thing that you think is innocent and the whole hornet nest is on you..learned that first hand..had 2 freinds just get out of it because of it..

The APA had no position on "Heritage". They have a committee studying it, but they have been doing that for 4-5 years.

I have no problem with poultry history and I have said many times that those people back in the old days were master breeders and there are not a lot of them in poultry today. The ones that were good were exceptional. None of them used a poultry calculator. What I do say all the time is: "just because it is old, does not mean it is good advice or even close to being accurate". I have a pretty good collection of old works, some of it is pretty crazy and a lot of it is dead on today..... many of the "stories" are things cobbled together online by people with good intentions, but not enough real searching for the truth. Karen on our thread here is passionate about poultry history and she spends the time going down all the dark alley's etc until she has a good idea of what is real and what is not. I would never discourage a person from reading poultry history, just be sure of which gospel you want to preach.....and maybe you have, if so stick to it. If I back something I want to be as close to positive as I can be, so I tend to discount online folks that are collecting the many thousands of gullible folks out here. If these people would say: "this is what I have read and here is where I read it and MY conclusion along with so and so leads me to believe........fill in the blanks." People with a story don't usually tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. They have one point of view and in most cases don't tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. Maybe if they had been in the hobby a bit longer I wouldn't be annoyed by these stories.

Seriously I believe that these dogma like announcements online are detrimental to any breed they are involved with. It usually creates at least two factions that fight each other long and hard until one club goes away. Anytime you see two or more clubs representing a breed there is something wrong and that is usually a difference of opinion...and it could well be the story that they don't agree on. I can think of a breed with two clubs right now that has a difference of what they should be and where they came from.

Let people know that there is more than one story.

w.

 

[Lacy Blues]

The APA does not discriminate against blacks from a blue mating. If it looks black and is entered that way it is not against the rules, but you won't win against a real black of the same breed. I can usually tell if it is a back from a blue...they just don't look right and they don't usually have the intensity of the real blacks.

Walt

This is absolutely true. A blue-bred black cannot compete with a black. That green sheen is just not there. I wouldn't say they don't look right, they're just not green. I do have one cockerel from last year, I guess he's a cock now, but he is a black. His parents were both black (I was trying to get some black stock to help a friend out) and both had blue in their back ground. Anyway, this black Andalusian actually shines green. When he grew up and I saw this, I couldn't believe it! Normally, a blue-bred black will shine white... not that he has white in his feathers any more than he has green feathers, but the shine is generally white. Maybe they cannot compete with other blacks but is this the reason they are not accepted? That should not be. There are plenty of other breeds out there that have identical varieties that are accepted. Does the APA decide that a blue-bred black cannot compete with a regular black and therefore it is not an accepted variety? How about Pencilled rocks? They can't compete with say a pencilled hamburg... yet they are recognized. Sumatras... blue, black and splash are all recognized. Orpingtons... Jersey Giants... not sure on the giants, if they come in a splash variety. Anyway, there are plenty of breeds that do. Why can an Andalusian not be recognized if it is splashed? I have some of the most beautiful splashes and I would LOVE to take them to a show. I won't do it though as I'm not willing to stress my birds for "Best of Variety" or worse yet, "Foreign Color"

I've said it before and there are probably several people who disagree, but in my opinion, the APA's non-recognition of black and splash varieties in Andalusian fowl is a strong contributor to their decline in numbers as it takes all three varieties to get the color right. You have to raise 3 times as many birds to get one variety to show. Interest has come up for the Andalusian but I'm afraid it is too late as x amount of exhibitors have to have raised them for x number of years before you can submit them for approval. I don't believe these guidelines are a bad thing at all. However, there have been birds (at least one) admitted to the standard which have never existed... the bantam rose combed rhode island white.

I'm aware of that. Wasn't meaning to imply any discrimination either. I simply meant like in my example, that getting Large Fowl Black Plymouth Rocks admitted should be an easier and shorter process than a totally new variety because of them being a "by-product" of Blue yet a variety on their own as well. Rather than the whole 5 year, 5 breeder process. If this already exists (I'm at work and my APA yearbooks are at home) and its just a question of the fee and a qualifying meet then awesome and I stand corrected and need to seek out some Large Fowl Blacks, and start hatching.

Edit: In other words my example was about standard recognition, not judging.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think that black is a by-product of blue. I'm pretty sure its the other way around. Non-dominant black combines with splash (non-dominant white?) to make blue.

I'm sure the genetics gurus on here will point out my error if I'm wrong. My hat is off to you guys so let's hear it. Is black a by-product or is blue the by-product?

 

[BGMatt]

I don't think it is either, but not sure and was trying to explain my point. I apparently have the brain works today and having a hard time putting my thoughts to words. Sounds like you got the point I what I was trying to get across.

 

[aveca]

The APA had no position on "Heritage". They have a committee studying it, but they have been doing that for 4-5 years.

I have no problem with poultry history and I have said many times that those people back in the old days were master breeders and there are not a lot of them in poultry today. The ones that were good were exceptional. None of them used a poultry calculator. What I do say all the time is: "just because it is old, does not mean it is good advice or even close to being accurate". I have a pretty good collection of old works, some of it is pretty crazy and a lot of it is dead on today..... many of the "stories" are things cobbled together online by people with good intentions, but not enough real searching for the truth. Karen on our thread here is passionate about poultry history and she spends the time going down all the dark alley's etc until she has a good idea of what is real and what is not. I would never discourage a person from reading poultry history, just be sure of which gospel you want to preach.....and maybe you have, if so stick to it. If I back something I want to be as close to positive as I can be, so I tend to discount online folks that are collecting the many thousands of gullible folks out here. If these people would say: "this is what I have read and here is where I read it and MY conclusion along with so and so leads me to believe........fill in the blanks." People with a story don't usually tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. They have one point of view and in most cases don't tell you about the other stories concerning the breed. Maybe if they had been in the hobby a bit longer I wouldn't be annoyed by these stories.

Seriously I believe that these dogma like announcements online are detrimental to any breed they are involved with. It usually creates at least two factions that fight each other long and hard until one club goes away. Anytime you see two or more clubs representing a breed there is something wrong and that is usually a difference of opinion...and it could well be the story that they don't agree on. I can think of a breed with two clubs right now that has a difference of what they should be and where they came from.

Let people know that there is more than one story.

w.

So well said Walt..

The old books are wonderful, gives insight into what the early foundation breeders were thinking, their early creations, what directions they were going..in my opinion a worthwhile read...but you wouldnt want to use some of the remedies of the day such as arsinic and other extreamly toxic treatments of the day..

I would like to add to that when clubs devide into warring factions, it is extreamly rough on new people trying to get involved in a breed..if they buy a bird unknowingly from a person then try to join a club for help and advise , suddenly thrown into a tornado of bickering and petty disputes it gets discouraging real quick..I have had 3 people get in and right back out due to the imaginary line drawn in the sand and people being assigned a side in these sad disputes...its not good for the breed..some of the breeds are already in a state of disrepair to the point where breeds are being added that shouldnt be ...but people get so lost in this bickering that they cant see what they are doing, and blinded to the point that if you try to tell them they cant hear you..Its OK and I stress OK to have a difference of opinion..it should never degrade into these sham wars..somone needs to be the grown up in the group and moderator..sadly that seldom happens.

What I would like to see is top breeders of today do updated poultry and breeding books with insight of today ..people turn to those old books because sometimes experts close down and wont help and the ones who do it gets lost in the blizzard of info on the internet.. especially APA and ABA..maybe they could corner a few top people to write ..when you go to book store or even tractor supply, there are pultry books avail..sadly they are not well written,you leave with more questions than answers...one of those books thou written just a few years ago also gives bad advise..it says to cut the feathers around the comb to give the neat appearance befor a show..I always thought you were to not cut a feather ..but because that book said so people swear by it....a few top breeders have written like Ray connor..experts and beginners alike can take away from his book..but you felt like you wanted even more...we have lost the art of poultry keeping and trying to re learn everything that was common knowlege at the turn of the century.