Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[bnjrob]

Judges are required to use the latest version of the SOP for a reason. There is more than a slight difference in some cases. You are reading 100 year old documents. There are breeds now that are not even in those old SOP's.

Walt

Didn't answer my question. Pehaps I am not expressing myself well. I am well aware of how old those books are and that new breeds have been added over time.

Many of you discuss that today's birds are not what they were 50, 60, 70 + years ago. Yet as you noted Walt, some breeds have more than a slight difference in the SOP of years past and today's SOP.

If I am to breed to today's SOP (as if I were going to show the birds), then it seems that I would not be breeding birds that would come close to these supposedly magnificient birds in both form, function, and "prettiness" that many of you remember as children/young people or that you have seen old photos of.

My question is: are there opinions regarding breeding to an old SOP in order to yield these fantastic birds that many of you rave about as being the best examples of true Heritage birds that would be found on an old fashioned homestead?

Because many of you seem to find today's birds deplorable even though I am betting that today's birds are being judged by APA judges to the current standard and are being found perfectly acceptable.

Is this topic one that is too hot to touch for fear of alienating one's self from the APA and APA judges by saying that their current standards aren't the best? If it is, I understand, but I'm a bit frustrated to always be told to "breed to the standard" and then see that many of you think that today's birds are poor examples of Heritage fowl.

 

[kathyinmo]

the op was a newbie and just looking for some delawares. everyone is not able to buy from kathy. some of us just start with what we have and use several strains right from the begining to add vigor and diversity. we eventually pick the best birds and over time start linebreeding after we have bred the vigor, health, size and diversity in.

I understand what you are saying. As Ralph Sturgeon said, "Start Where You Are With What You Have." I would suggest, though, not to use the strain with the (td) dwarfing gene. It is autosomal recessive, which I explained in depth on post # 41 (with pictures) here: https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/463159/chick-sneezing-blood-6-week-old-delaware/30_30 In autosomal recessive diseases, both parents must be carriers (i.e., they are clinically normal but have one mutation of a particular gene), and both must pass the mutation to the offspring in order for that offspring to be affected.

 

[ashandvine]

My opinion is that if you were to breed heritage breeds to old standards that would be your right and how clever of you to want to use the old books! Why not? Great idea.

 

[fowlman01]

Didn't answer my question. Pehaps I am not expressing myself well. I am well aware of how old those books are and that new breeds have been added over time.

Many of you discuss that today's birds are not what they were 50, 60, 70 + years ago. Yet as you noted Walt, some breeds have more than a slight difference in the SOP of years past and today's SOP.

If I am to breed to today's SOP (as if I were going to show the birds), then it seems that I would not be breeding birds that would come close to these supposedly magnificient birds in both form, function, and "prettiness" that many of you remember as children/young people or that you have seen old photos of.

My question is: are there opinions regarding breeding to an old SOP in order to yield these fantastic birds that many of you rave about as being the best examples of true Heritage birds that would be found on an old fashioned homestead?

Because many of you seem to find today's birds deplorable even though I am betting that today's birds are being judged by APA judges to the current standard and are being found perfectly acceptable.

Is this topic one that is too hot to touch for fear of alienating one's self from the APA and APA judges by saying that their current standards aren't the best? If it is, I understand, but I'm a bit frustrated to always be told to "breed to the standard" and then see that many of you think that today's birds are poor examples of Heritage fowl.

OK I'm on track now. I don't know who is saying that the birds of yesteryear were better than today's birds, but I don't think that......with some exceptions. If you read that on this site, it is probably wrong, as there are not too many people posting here that know what the birds look like 50 years ago. I do.

As an example look at the pictures in the APA Plymouth Rock Standard published in 1915. It is over 400 pages with lots of pictures of just Rocks of the time and earlier. In this book you can see the progression of the breed....and while it is close to today's Standards for Rocks the birds still have unthrifty traits. I'm not talking about how they would do in a show, but talking about how they would perform their function as a dual purpose bird. The APA SOP has changed through the years to fine tune the description..but not at the expense of the birds utility. Many of the Rocks in the early days were shallow and had pinched tails all of those traits are generally accepted as indicators of a bird that will not produce well.

Some of the exceptions are: Houdans.....can't find any good ones now. Large fowl Cochins: ....many of the colors have bodies that are inferior to what was around even 30 years ago. As interest comes and goes, so does the quality of the birds, but the basic description remains the same after about 1920. The APA SOP changes to make the terminology easier to understand not to make changes that may be fads or changes that will lessen the birds original purpose.

I don't think that there should be any fear of questioning the SOP.......just be sure that you are asking a person that actually owns a current edition and has some knowledge of what it really says. I am 74 and I have been doing this a long time. I think most of the breeds being raised right now by real breeders are as good or better (for the most part) than birds 50+ years ago. The problem with poultry info is that lots of people think they know what they are talking about...but they don't. There are 100K+ experts on this site. I don't consider myself an expert and I am still eagerly learning......but I do know about the APA Standard.

Walt

 

[fowlman01]

My opinion is that if you were to breed heritage breeds to old standards that would be your right and how clever of you to want to use the old books! Why not? Great idea.

If the SOP is after 1920 there should be only terminology differences in most cases.

Walt

 

[tigercreek]

I wonder if the poster was not referring to back yard chickens and not to show birds? Today's backyard chickens are not near what Granny had. The hatchery stock most folks get their birds from are, IMO very inferior to what we call hertiage birds. Depends on your version of inferior too I guess. If you just want birds for eggs, maybe today's would be considered better. ......stan

 

[fowlman01]

I wonder if the poster was not referring to back yard chickens and not to show birds? Today's backyard chickens are not near what Granny had. The hatchery stock most folks get their birds from are, IMO very inferior to what we call hertiage birds. Depends on your version of inferior too I guess. If you just want birds for eggs, maybe today's would be considered better. ......stan

Good point. That could to be the case. The backyard chickens of the day were better utility birds in some ways. As an example they used Leghorns for fryers back then and today most folks are not going to cook a skinny egg machine. The backyard birds today seem to be bred more for eggs than anything else.....or if they are meat birds they don't lay well. In the old days they really were dual purpose birds.

Walt

 

[bnjrob]

OK I'm on track now. I don't know who is saying that the birds of yesteryear were better than today's birds, but I don't think that......with some exceptions. If you read that on this site, it is probably wrong, as there are not too many people posting here that know what the birds look like 50 years ago. I do.

As an example look at the pictures in the APA Plymouth Rock Standard published in 1915. It is over 400 pages with lots of pictures of just Rocks of the time and earlier. In this book you can see the progression of the breed....and while it is close to today's Standards for Rocks the birds still have unthrifty traits. I'm not talking about how they would do in a show, but talking about how they would perform their function as a dual purpose bird. The APA SOP has changed through the years to fine tune the description..but not at the expense of the birds utility. Many of the Rocks in the early days were shallow and had pinched tails all of those traits are generally accepted as indicators of a bird that will not produce well.

Some of the exceptions are: Houdans.....can't find any good ones now. Large fowl Cochins: ....many of the colors have bodies that are inferior to what was around even 30 years ago. As interest comes and goes, so does the quality of the birds, but the basic description remains the same after about 1920. The APA SOP changes to make the terminology easier to understand not to make changes that may be fads or changes that will lessen the birds original purpose.

I don't think that there should be any fear of questioning the SOP.......just be sure that you are asking a person that actually owns a current edition and has some knowledge of what it really says. I am 74 and I have been doing this a long time. I think most of the breeds being raised right now by real breeders are as good or better (for the most part) than birds 50+ years ago. The problem with poultry info is that lots of people think they know what they are talking about...but they don't. There are 100K+ experts on this site. I don't consider myself an expert and I am still eagerly learning......but I do know about the APA Standard.

Walt

Thanks Walt! That's exactly the type of opinions I'm looking for as I delve into chicken genetics and breeding.

You are so right about the "experts". As I am researching things from "then" and now, even the poultry people from the 1800s and early 1900s all had differing opinions. Since my chosen breed - Javas - hails back that far, I am finding all kinds of information that is quite fascinating as well as contradictory even back then.

 

[bnjrob]

My opinion is that if you were to breed heritage breeds to old standards that would be your right and how clever of you to want to use the old books! Why not? Great idea.

I'm considering going several routes which is going to be a lot of work. I'm seeing characteristics coming up in my chicks that resemble some of the characteristics that I have found documented in some of these old books and I kinda would like to have a group that actually resembles those old descriptions even if they aren't the standard for today's birds.

 

[fowlman01]

Thanks Walt! That's exactly the type of opinions I'm looking for as I delve into chicken genetics and breeding.

You are so right about the "experts". As I am researching things from "then" and now, even the poultry people from the 1800s and early 1900s all had differing opinions. Since my chosen breed - Javas - hails back that far, I am finding all kinds of information that is quite fascinating as well as contradictory even back then.

I think there should always be disageements or we will never think outside of the box. It's all good info, but we are people and people are always looking to prove their way is right.......maybe all ways of doing it is right. One of my important lessons to myself was discovering that just because it works here with my managment, feed, etc, doesn't mean that it would be successful where you are. Some of the "experts" don't understand that.

By and large the old info is pretty valid.

Walt