Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[Bentley]

You can start with 2 birds and have as much genetic veration, as if you would have out crossed. You do not need to start with this large and vast amount of diversity. Sure the more you have the better! But that does not mean you can not get it with out only have two or three birds. The key is numbers! The more you breed the wider the selection will be! If you start with only two you will need to hatch out LOTS. (Thousands!) of chicks to get genetic diversity. And using just a few breeding techquines you can do this while increasing genetic diversity, while not increasing how in bred they are. This is not information i am making up. Conversations with a great breeder and friend (Also a Biologist). You know you could end up with duplicates, sure. But 99% of breeds are not to the point where we need to worry about it. Also i have taken note that only slight devation's in the same strain but bred by seperate breeders is enough. Coupled with correct breeding strategics it's better then outcrossing.
I am wondering if you have bred chickens for any length of time? Even though i have only breeding for six years, there are somethings you just find out. The first year of breeding i developed a new line of Blue Rosecombs. Never got the to SQ before i dispresed of them because i lost interest in the flighty little breed

Last comment on this. I guarantee, GUARANTEE that a trained geneticist wants genetic diversity which only come rom large numbers. I watched geneticist From large genetics genetics company that purchased a strain of birds and demand to acquire hatching eggs from as many birds in production as possible for MAXIMUM GENETIC diversity. Yes, commercial breeding programs are different but genetics is genetics. Two hens will not give you the same genetic diversity as 100 birds of the same breed. Fact, you will never get the same genetic diversity in two hens as 10, or 20, or 50 and so on.

A good breeder of exhibition poultry stock will then breed AGAINST genetic diversity because thy will want the maximum number of their offspring to be of good to great quality. I saw 45 Silver Sebrights brought to one show by the same breeder and the APA judge commented "this is like separating a bunch of peas from the same pod". This was quite a compliment to the breeder because it demonstrated his success, his line had become very homogeneous genetically, which is the goal of all quality breeders, for all offspring to be great!!!! So if that breeder discovers he lacks a specific trait, he will have to go outside of his line to get it. In cases where entire breeds or a persons access to that breed becomes limited in his type of line, crossing outside the breed MIGHT be necessary.

Your last comment, wondering if have I bred chickens at all or for any length of time. Uh, yes. I got my first chickens to breed 36 years ago and I haven't gone a single year of that time when I haven't bred chickens or other birds. Pulled a hatch two weeks ago with 200+ chicks, this is the minimum I hatch at least twice each month. I am not ONLY regurgitating from a book here.

Anyway, to each his own. I am all for the breeding and preservation of Fowl of any kind. Chickens, pheasants, jungle Fowl, Trogapons, the list could go on. Good luck everyone......

 

[Bentley]

And yes you are right. The eye in my avatar is from a 7 1/2 year old female Congo Africa Gray. I bred the parents and it became necessary for me to pull the chicks as they hatched so I hand fed her and her 3 other clutch mates from day one, 24 hours a day at the beginning until weaned at 7 weeks of age. Fortunately I had hand fed many brads before this so they all did very well. She is my 'Baby'

 

[Bentley]

And yes you are right. The eye in my avatar is from a 7 1/2 year old female Congo Africa Gray. I bred the parents and it became necessary for me to pull the chicks as they hatched so I hand fed her and her 3 other clutch mates from day one, 24 hours a day at the beginning until weaned at 7 weeks of age. Fortunately I had hand fed many brads before this so they all did very well. She is my 'Baby'

 

[Bentley]

And yes you are right. The eye in my avatar is from a 7 1/2 year old female Congo Africa Gray. I bred the parents and it became necessary for me to pull the chicks as they hatched so I hand fed her and her 3 other clutch mates from day one, 24 hours a day at the beginning until weaned at 7 weeks of age. Fortunately I had hand fed many brads before this so they all did very well. She is my 'Baby'

 

[mschlumb]

You can start with 2 birds and have as much genetic veration, as if you would have out crossed. You do not need to start with this large and vast amount of diversity. Sure the more you have the better! But that does not mean you can not get it with out only have two or three birds. The key is numbers! The more you breed the wider the selection will be! If you start with only two you will need to hatch out LOTS. (Thousands!) of chicks to get genetic diversity. And using just a few breeding techquines you can do this while increasing genetic diversity, while not increasing how in bred they are. This is not information i am making up. Conversations with a great breeder and friend (Also a Biologist). You know you could end up with duplicates, sure. But 99% of breeds are not to the point where we need to worry about it. Also i have taken note that only slight devation's in the same strain but bred by seperate breeders is enough. Coupled with correct breeding strategics it's better then outcrossing.
I am wondering if you have bred chickens for any length of time? Even though i have only breeding for six years, there are somethings you just find out. The first year of breeding i developed a new line of Blue Rosecombs. Never got the to SQ before i dispresed of them because i lost interest in the flighty little breed

So how does this genetic diversity develop? Especially with the same parents or at least one shared parent?

And after a while wouldn't the birds eventually get inbred since they are out the same original parent stock?

 

[NYREDS]

So how does this genetic diversity develop? Especially with the same parents or at least one shared parent?

And after a while wouldn't the birds eventually get inbred since they are out the same original parent stock?

What do you mean by "get inbred"?

 

[mschlumb]

What do you mean by "get inbred"?

I mean over time would the individuals become too closely related to each other? If the birds were kept in complete genetic isolation with no outside influences.

 

[cgmccary]

Quote:
I am not a geneticist (and I only have minor in biology), but I agree with your assessment and insight. Your reasoning is why I keep the best Buckeyes from my three different groups even though the best cockerel in one group would not stack up against 2 or 3 I culled in the other group. It is to keep genetic diversity in my flock. I will sometimes bring two or three different enough looking Buckeyes to a show -- & you wouldn't know they all belonged to me necessarily. Each group though will show some uniformity. Each group seems to be improving year by year, and it gets more difficult for me to choose my keepers. I have to decide what characteristic is most important for each group.

 

[cgmccary]

Quote:
I agree with you Melody. I think if one decides to outcross to another breed, then they need to know what they are doing and do it for a real, genuine purpose (and that is not going to be very often). A well known Buckeye breeder (whom I will not name) told me face-to face that he had first acquired Buckeyes from a source who told him that Chantecler had been bred in at some distant past. He further told me that he had bred in Dark Cornish into his line. This was face-to face with me not prompting. He also told me his reasons for his outcross. Later, he reneged telling others he had not done that, nor said that to me. Only, I have a couple of witnesses (as I had him repeat it). He also told another breeder he had crossed in RIR and later said "not." So I think it is important to be honest if you have outcrossed to another breed. This breeder does know what he is doing so I do not know why later, he decided to change his story. I believe he told me the truth but did not want to tell it to others (for whatever reason). I do see evidence of Chantecler in that line-- primarily, in some specimens, some evidence of the Chantecler down under the feathers and in some specimens, spots of partridge in the tail feathers. I also see direct evidence of Dark Cornish: shorter legs (which was one of his goals or so he told me); I try to avoid the short legs at all costs. I have also seen the occasional recessive SC on birds in pictures from that line (showing in a pea comb but making it stand up) that would indicate the RIR. I have not had a SC Buckeye show up in my flock and generally, I do not have any problem with my combs.

So when I acquired the La Fleche from Duane Urch, I asked if he had ever crossed Minorca or anything into them. I just wanted to know, like to know these things so if I see something I am not supposed to, I will know what it is. I would have bought them anyway. After all, he has had them since the late 1960s. I was told directly he had never crossed Minorca or anything else into them (and Mr. Urch, a man of his word, I believe him). I can certainly see why someone would cross Minorca into them as they need size. I am not experienced enough to do that so will try to work with what I have. My point being that, only very experienced, seasoned breeders should outcross to another breed to improve something or else risk messing up the breed.

 

[3riverschick]

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