Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[kathyinmo]

Quote:
WOOHOO! - He's baaaaaaaack!

 

[surnikis]

on the andalusians some breeders throw a black minorca in the mix , it will gain size and help the lacing , it may take 2 years to correct the the type change , depending on how good the minorca was , if a bird is pulled from a line of pure bred (ie) one clutch for color it is not an outcross , does nothing for vigor or production , another example is crossing an orpington with an austrolorp this is very common , again you have to know what u are doing or u will end up with poor orpingtons , but when don correctly and culled for the first generation then bred back to a pure austrolorp the results are good , you should always breed male color female type

 

[Lacy Blues]

on the andalusians some breeders throw a black minorca in the mix , it will gain size and help the lacing , it may take 2 years to correct the the type change , depending on how good the minorca was , if a bird is pulled from a line of pure bred (ie) one clutch for color it is not an outcross , does nothing for vigor or production , another example is crossing an orpington with an austrolorp this is very common , again you have to know what u are doing or u will end up with poor orpingtons , but when don correctly and culled for the first generation then bred back to a pure austrolorp the results are good , you should always breed male color female type

Could you please explain to me how using a bird which carries NO lacing can possibly help a breed that does?

 

[punk-a-doodle]

I am not a genetic expert or even intermediate. I can only share a bit of personal experience. I work with laboratory animals that are purpose bred. They need to be as genetically similar as possible. Time and again, at conferences, I have heard sneering remarks about how mice are not like people, and suffer no ill effects from constant line or inbreeding. Yet, the very genetically similar strains I work with have problems ranging from mental development issues, physical issues such as malocclusions, blindness that is not purposefully being bred for, huge fertility issues, undersized and slow growing pups, etc. We won't even go into the mice that are transgenic... It seems that I often read about these types of issues when looking at chicken breeds and lines that are handled in the same manner.

I am more of a landrace and working breed type person, because I value the vitality and hardiness I often find there that i do not always find in animals bred to be extremely similar. I do not doubt that there are extremely robust closed lines out there. It just seems like it is more difficult to achieve, thus making it the art that it is. I also do not doubt that producing solid lines with more genetic diversity is an art. I believe that despite a broader gene pool, throwing a bunch of random animals together can result in equally poorly animals as those that are bred, perhaps poorly, from a narrow pool (ie. pet store feeder mice and rats are sometimes a great example of this ...). Yet, I also do not doubt the concerns voiced about the health of some closely bred flocks/breeds, nor the concerns about outcrossing leading to undesirable traits that are hard to be rid of. Perhaps sharing what does and does to work with different types of breeding can be looked at more rather than just dismissing one side or another?

Some of the remarks here are really pretty off-putting to at least me. Ie. Someone who is here to learn. I imagine it may be fairly off-putting to others interested in just getting started with historic breeds.

 

[Kiniska]

I am not a genetic expert or even intermediate. I can only share a bit of personal experience. I work with laboratory animals that are purpose bred. They need to be as genetically similar as possible. Time and again, at conferences, I have heard sneering remarks about how mice are not like people, and suffer no ill effects from constant line or inbreeding. Yet, the very genetically similar strains I work with have problems ranging from mental development issues, physical issues such as malocclusions, blindness that is not purposefully being bred for, huge fertility issues, undersized and slow growing pups, etc. We won't even go into the mice that are transgenic... It seems that I often read about these types of issues when looking at chicken breeds and lines that are handled in the same manner.
I am more of a landrace and working breed type person, because I value the vitality and hardiness I often find there that i do not always find in animals bred to be extremely similar. I do not doubt that there are extremely robust closed lines out there. It just seems like it is more difficult to achieve, thus making it the art that it is. I also do not doubt that producing solid lines with more genetic diversity is an art. I believe that despite a broader gene pool, throwing a bunch of random animals together can result in equally poorly animals as those that are bred, perhaps poorly, from a narrow pool (ie. pet store feeder mice and rats are sometimes a great example of this ...). Yet, I also do not doubt the concerns voiced about the health of some closely bred flocks/breeds, nor the concerns about outcrossing leading to undesirable traits that are hard to be rid of. Perhaps sharing what does and does to work with different types of breeding can be looked at more rather than just dismissing one side or another?
Some of the remarks here are really pretty off-putting to at least me. Ie. Someone who is here to learn. I imagine it may be fairly off-putting to others interested in just getting started with historic breeds.

I work in research as well and you have pretty much nailed the main concerns on the head.
Animals of any stripe get too inbred and strange things start happening. Transgenics are super special.

Start breeding for knock outs and double knockout and wow does it get weird. Our biggest problem is epilepsy. There is also a long list of behavioral problems that crop up. I would worry about this with chickens as well. Still out crosses should be done very carefully I would imagine to preserve type. There is definitely a place for both schools of thought.

 

[Spangled]

Hi,
Wow, what a thread!
I think there are 4 things going on here in his thread. 1st and 2nd are different schools of thought needed to breed mammals and poultry. Tho both fields are husbandry, the rules for each are only generally similar. The specific sub-rules needed for success are different in each case. The sub-rules of breeding for success in mammals do not translate into the poultry world because of poultry's wider genetic base and plethora of sex-linked genes.
3rd and 4th is the subtle , but complete, dichotomy between classic animal breeding and the "biodiversity movement".
Let's look at 1 and 2 first and how they affect 3 and 4.
In the mammal world, there tend not to be as many sex-linked genes. In Mammals, the laws of inheritance produce creatures which appear with closer genetic rigidity to the forms of their parents. Because of this, the rules for maintaining genetic diversity are more closely adhered to. We see stronger admonitions to "breed 3 generations in, then out-cross"., etc. And other genetic rules based in science or tradition which help prevent " inbreeding depression" in the mammal world. We see strong admonitions to always be wary to maintain genetic diversity to a point which constantly avoids inbreeding depressions' effects.
Yet, because the laws of inheritance produce creatures which appear with closer genetic rigidity to the forms of their parents, we also see counsel to found strains from disparate sources so we have the genetic "maneuvering room" to select for the particular traits/type we wish to see in our new strain before the laws of inheritance restrict our biodiversity to the point we need to out-cross. The lack of a plethora of sex-linked genes makes this necessary.
Enter, the poultry world. Where sex-linked genes are king and color is an integral part of breed type. Because sex-linked genes exist not only in structural phenotype, but in the plumage as well, we see a creature which has much more aptitude for genetic variation than the mammal. Now the rules have changed. At least the sub-rules have changed. Variation is not longer sought as a friend in building type by setting type. Variation in poultry is managed as a detriment to proper breed type. Necessary and a threat at the same time. This is why we see counsel from veteran breeders to start out with birds from a vintage line-bred strain and work within that strain to create the bird which both adheres to the SOP and delights the singular vision of that breeder's artists' eye.
Unlike the mammal breeder, we are counseled not to strain-cross to found flocks because of the exponential increase in genetic variation which results. Sufficient unto the strain is the variation therein. If more variation is ever needed, strain-crossing should be done to a closely related stock of the same breed which was founded in the same gene pool as the flock needing the strain-cross. ( No, I am not addressing the rare case where a breed is in such critical need that a cross-breeding to another breed is needed. That situation is so rare, that it is not a viable argument on which to build general counsel. It is an aberration needing wisdom and guidance from veteran breeders. )
Ok so how do our 3d and 4th aspects of this discussion effect outcome in our breeding programs? For decades now, there has been a movement advocating biodiversity, based mainly (in my opinion) on a fear humans are impacting the lifeforms on this world faster than their natural ability to evolve and adapt to these changes( however the biodiversity advocates tend to describe "the changes"). The idea is that we should found our groups of breeding animals on as wide a genetic base as possible and keep in-breeding to minimum so the creatures will be as robust, healthy, and able to work as possible. All selection is done with robust health and ability to work as the premier goals. Breed type is unimportant except as regards the general appearance of the breed. Specific "points" of the breed are ignored , except as they are needed to produce robust health and ability to work. The creatures do meet the general phenotypes for their breed.
To the classic animal breeder, this is a beguiling movement. Especially if the breeder is engaged in wanting to preserve a threatened breed. Let's take a closer look at how biodiversity and classic animal breeding don't mix. Don't and never will. They are like oil and water to each other. On the surface they appear to work well together when one shakes the general ideas together. But in practice they stand apart from each other. Each of their central counsels so fundamentally different that the two cannot long coexist in a breeding program (especially in the poultry world).
Why? What are "biodiversity advocates breeding? They are breeding "Land-races". Groups of animals allied by general breed type only , robustness and ability to work, but not (this is all important) by specific points of the breed ( such as color).
What are classic animal breeders breeding? "Specialized animals" defined by the specialized points of their breeds for a specific purpose which includes selecting for health and utility.
If one approaches a biodiversity advocate about incorporating their ideas into a classic animal breeding program, it will not be long before the two parties come to an unconquerable divide over the need for special points in a breed. In the case of the classic animal breeder, these points of the breed are inexorably linked to the proper functioning of the creature (esp. in poultry). To the biodiversity advocate, these specialized points of the breed are an impediment to the successful creation of the creature because they are not strictly allied with health and ability to perform.
Ok, so how do we put all these ideas back together again in this conversation?
Yes, we must have genetic diversity for genetic progress. That statement has merit on its face. However, it stops being true when we move from classic animal breeding into the realm of the biodiversity movement because they and we have different goals. We cannot mix the two fields of thought and expect success.
Again, it is mentioned that out-crossing or cross-breeding is a viable option when diversity is needed. Yet we see in poultry, (as opposed to mammals) a wider genetic base and the plethora of sex-linked genes allows us to choose either a back-cross in our own strain or a loosely aligned relative who was line-bred from the same gene pool as our stock. In poultry, this could even be a bird from the same strain as ours, raised for over 7 years and at least 500 miles away.
In conclusion, we can make all kinds of statements about breeding programs, essentials of genetics, and biodiversity. Yes, we must never forget our basic parameters for breeding are classic animal breeding in the poultry world. When we begin to add in counsels from other realms and philosophies, we shift our basic parameters so they are out of sync with our goals and techniques. That bodes a sincere threat to our success.
Best Success,
Karen Tewart

I appreciate getting your analysis on the big picture. Standing back and looking at the big picture can often be beneficial ... at least that's what I think you shared above.

So, I'd like to get your take on a few things. Where does Glenn Drowns's Sand Hill Preservation Center fit into your framework? What about ALBC? (American Livestock Breed Conservancy for those reading along) What do you think about the show vs. utility aspects (if there is such a thing)? As in ... wouldn't those who are breeding specifically for egg production (utility) also use linebreeding as in the initial work done by what'shisname with White Leghorns. Also, what about utility strains of standard APA breeds? Can you please analyze all these things and give us a quick rundown of where these things fit into your previously described framework? Well ... if you have time, inclination, etc. And have you written any articles here at BYC? I don't know if I agree with your way of organizing it all because I don't know enough to make a decision, but it makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading. So, thanks.

Edited: apostrophe with Drowns

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:
I asked a professional genetics man on another thread whether he advocates line breeding and his answer was spot on, I think. Absolutely, line breed if SQ fowl is whatever you are after. However, he went on to explain that genetic diversity interests him so his choice is to out-cross so he can learn more about genes. Seemed like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. (He also had some pretty interesting stuff to say about why it is so important to study genetics .... ) https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/444381/black-copper-marans-discussion-thread/5170#post_10023113

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:
Because the lacing gene needs black to work with in Andalusians. The lacing gene pushes colour to the edge of the feather. That colour has to be there to be pushed. The Andalusian is already carrying the lacing gene.

 

[Yard full o' rocks]

Karen

First let me say thanks for a well written (and somewhat understandable, even for a genetics dunce like me) explanation of your take on animal breeding versus genetic biodiversity.

For fear of hurting anyones feelings(if I do, I apologize in advance as that is NOT my intention), I have a casual observation and a request if I might. I think recent conversations have come a bit far from the original party's spirit of conversation regarding Heritage breeds. Bob's initial post is below

I just got an email from a person who needs Barred Rock Large Fowl females who has large fowl Cockerels. She also wants the old fashion Rhode Island Red Large Fowl and wants me to help her find a good true to breed line. It made me think how many people out there have or breed old fashion Heritage Large Fowl Chickens?

When I was a little boy growing up in South West Washington State my dad use to take us on drives every Sunday in the country. As we drove by these old farms there were signs outside these farmers fences that would show Registered Polled Herefords, Black Angus, Brown Swiss, Jersey, Holstein and Shorthorn Cattle to just name a few. When I would go to the sale barns I never saw these kinds of cattle just the normal mix match type of cattle or half Guernsey half Herford type caves.

What do you think is a Heritage Style of Poultry like the above cattle breeds I mentioned?

Do any of you have any of these rare breeds?

How many Heat age Large Fowl do you think are left in the Country during the winter months in the breeding Pens? 100 -200- 300 birds per old rare breed?

What has happen to the folks like Grand Ma who use to have a flock of nice Heritage Chickens in the 1950s?

Do you think many want to preserve these old rare breeds?

These are just a few ideas I had today as I was feeding my chickens and after I got this email from one of the members of this board. Look forward to your replies and pictures of old birds. One breed that has made major strides in the past ten years is the Buckeye folks. It proves what they have done in the past five years can be done with any old rare breed.

Since the thread is designed around Heritage Breeds, should perhaps a new thread be started regarding "Genetics" or "Bio-diversity in breeding" or something like that? A link could be established between this thread and the new one for those wishing to join in that new conversation

From reading all the recent posts, I don't believe the "two sides" will ever agree on acceptable or proper breeding techniques as each group has a difference set of objectives and/or criteria

Selfishly, I raise an "old time/heritage/whatever you want to call it breed" and I value the conversations surrounding how I might better achieve the standards that are set forth by the APA in regards to what I raise.

Again, I apologize to anyone that I might have offended....this is simply an opinion on my part

 

[kathyinmo]

Thank you Scott! I agree.