CSU - Chicken State University- Large Fowl SOP

[Happy Chooks]

I do not think they should be easy to change!! If they were too easy to change, breeders would change the standard to fit their birds, not the other way around. I am trying to wrap my brain around this shafting on the breast though. Sometimes I wish it were easier to see the pictures and information the standard was based on. All I have to go on is what I can find on the internet and from speaking with as many breeders as I can. I'm very glad this was brought up, because honestly, it was not something I was even looking at in the birds. Now I can add that to my list of breeding criteria. I'd still love to see and example of what it should look like!

I agree.

 

[Dr Bjorn Netland]

Quote:
Walt, The Dutch do not want shafting on the back of the hen (whereas the Germans, British, and the APA SOPs require). The "rotpatrijs" color (red partridge, though partridge is often a fluid concept) of the Welsummer is described as totally unique to the Welsummer in Dutch literature. Pictures will show that top Dutch representatives show very little shafting on the back and shoulders of the hens (and they are lighter than the German variety), but all show obvious shafting in the breast, as do all pictures (and live birds) from Germany, the UK, and Denmark -- as well as the US. It is one of the color features that are inherently associated with the Welsummer. It would seem to me that the APA's SOP does need to be changed to reflect this reality, and judges should not argue against such an adjustment unless they have solid experience with the breed (as breeders over many years, and thorough background knowledge of the origins and development of the breed). To insist on characteristics that are alien to the breed just because it was omitted in the original standard submission would not do much service to this wonderful breed. Indeed, I feel that this issue needs to be taken to the standard revision committee as soon as possible, for otherwise one would risk seeing a superior specimen not being competitive for class or show champion, which would be tragic. Breast shafting should be part of the color description for the hen, as well as a better description of the stippling feature (we do not want the fine "peppering" of the light brown Leghorn, nor do we want it so coarse that we end up with large black blotches). In essence, here the judges need to take the cues from long-term breeders rather than impose standard requirements that have come about by oversight and not the other way around.

 

[LittleSongBird]

Here are the two roosters my daughter has for her FFA 4-H birds she will chose 1 to show at the fair. There are also some of the hens in this picture to. They are 4 months old in this photo.


Here is one of her hens.


Here are some more pictures of her hens.

This is the rooster she is thinking of picking for fair.

She will have to pick 1 rooster and 2 hens to show. The hens are going to be the hardest to pick. This is her first year raising and showing Welsummers. I will try and get some other photos over the weekend.
Any comments are welcome.
Thank you!

 

[faykokoWV]

Walt,The Dutch do not want shafting on the back of the hen (whereas the Germans, British, and the APA SOPs require). The "rotpatrijs" color (red partridge, though partridge is often a fluid concept) of the Welsummer is described as totally unique to the Welsummer in Dutch literature. Pictures will show that top Dutch representatives show very little shafting on the back and shoulders of the hens (and they are lighter than the German variety), but all show obvious shafting in the breast, as do all pictures (and live birds) from Germany, the UK, and Denmark -- as well as the US. It is one of the color features that are inherently associated with the Welsummer. It would seem to me that the APA's SOP does need to be changed to reflect this reality, and judges should not argue against such an adjustment unless they have solid experience with the breed (as breeders over many years, and thorough background knowledge of the origins and development of the breed). To insist on characteristics that are alien to the breed just because it was omitted in the original standard submission would not do much service to this wonderful breed. Indeed, I feel that this issue needs to be taken to the standard revision committee as soon as possible, for otherwise one would risk seeing a superior specimen not being competitive for class or show champion, which would be tragic. Breast shafting should be part of the color description for the hen, as well as a better description of the stippling feature (we do not want the fine "peppering" of the light brown Leghorn, nor do we want it so coarse that we end up with large black blotches). In essence, here the judges need to take the cues from long-term breeders rather than impose standard requirements that have come about by oversight and not the other way around.

I have to chuckle having watched the Barnevelder debate that recently took place, hope this situation is a little different! I hope the CLB standard committee takes a look at this as well. I know my CLB hens also have some shafting in the chest - since they are writing their standards, I hope they make it clear whether or not shafting is permissible by mentioning it specifically as either a fault or part of the description.

 

[fowlman01]

Why is there so many problems with the Barnies and Wellies? 22 years ago there was no problem. If someone wants to petition the APA to make a change pm me and I will give you my email address. Be prepared to have compelling reasons for the changes.

Walt

 

[faykokoWV]

Why is there so many problems with the Barnies and Wellies? 22 years ago there was no problem. If someone wants to petition the APA to make a change pm me and I will give you my email address. Be prepared to have compelling reasons for the changes.

Walt

troublesome birds!!! Weren't a lot of the original breeders that got them admitted to the SOP/APA breeders of both breeds?

I believe we are going to take up the topic in the WCNA facebook group and see if we can get a consensus. Ewesheep, do we need to have a club meeting to officially discuss this?

 

[fowlman01]

troublesome birds!!! Weren't a lot of the original breeders that got them admitted to the SOP/APA breeders of both breeds?

I believe we are going to take up the topic in the WCNA facebook group and see if we can get a consensus.  Ewesheep, do we need to have a club meeting to officially discuss this?

Okay we can talk about other sections.

Walt

 

[EweSheep]

troublesome birds!!! Weren't a lot of the original breeders that got them admitted to the SOP/APA breeders of both breeds?

I believe we are going to take up the topic in the WCNA facebook group and see if we can get a consensus. Ewesheep, do we need to have a club meeting to officially discuss this?

Yes!

If I remember correctly, there were Mr Barber, Mr Grecizmel, Mr Netland, Mr Weihs, and one unnamed breeder were the FIVE breeders that was working on the SOP. Some had German birds and some had Dutch birds and from what I do know, that Mr Barber got his hatching eggs from a show in Wales, which the parentage could have been Dutch. Mr Grisham got his from a breeder and well reknown judge, Frank Clark, so Grisham birds are British/UK origin.
So there may have been some discussion when originality of their birds they imported may have been corporated into one melting pot and really not hashing out unforseenable problems like we do today.

Presently I am reading Joseph Batty's book and see if there is any insight of the British Welsummers or any stories about the Dutch Welsummers. H. Snowden was popping up from time to time throughout the book.

 

[3riverschick]

Quote: They should be extremely difficult to change and only with solid, historical evidence
from a large portion of the breeders/fancy in that breed This prevents folk from changing the SOP to suit the traits of a strain
or line or cadre of breeders.
Best,
Karen

 

[FlashPointFarm]

Robin, here are the photos you asked me to upload for you.