Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[bnjrob]

Steven and I had the same exact discussion about the NH and the Reds. I was disappointed that my second choice pullet took BV when my first choice was much nicer. I discovered the first choice laid an egg, literally as the judge picked her up. Needless to say she did not show well. I teased that she should have gotten extra points for production. LOL

When I told Gary Underwood about it later that day we got into a deep discussion about form vs function and isn't it a shame the two don't meet more often. Learned a ton in that discussion - wish I'd had a tape recorder. That guy is a wealth of information. We need to keep listening to the guys who have been doing it for generations - their tidbits of wisdom are priceless.

It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of disconnect between utility and appearance, when I don't think that it was originally intended to be that way.

Looked on the APA page the other day, and there was a pdf about breeding to the Standard, and it says "Many show birds lay fewer eggs than we would like...". But in the 2010 SOP on pg 28 it says "All breeds, whether bred chiefly for economic purposes or for beauty of color and form, must be healthy and vigorous and of good productive qualities to insure full propagation, as well as popular acceptance of the breed."

They must be healthy and vigorous and of GOOD PRODUCTIVE QUALITIES....says it right there in the SOP. I don't know when that statement was first put into the SOP, but somewhere along the line, things have gotten lost and the disconnect between pretty birds and useful birds occurred.

 

[Fred's Hens]

It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of disconnect between utility and appearance, when I don't think that it was originally intended to be that way.

Looked on the APA page the other day, and there was a pdf about breeding to the Standard, and it says "Many show birds lay fewer eggs than we would like...". But in the 2010 SOP on pg 28 it says "All breeds, whether bred chiefly for economic purposes or for beauty of color and form, must be healthy and vigorous and of good productive qualities to insure full propagation, as well as popular acceptance of the breed."

They must be healthy and vigorous and of GOOD PRODUCTIVE QUALITIES....says it right there in the SOP. I don't know when that statement was first put into the SOP, but somewhere along the line, things have gotten lost and the disconnect between pretty birds and useful birds occurred.

Great post. A HUGE, HUGE portion of the folks at Knoxville are deeply concerned about productivity. It is a growing and influential portion of the APA membership. Walt Leonard, aka fowlman01 and Sam Brush were kind enough to take the time to discuss this with me. The economic and production focus is indeed coming back into the Standard's perview. There will be increasing emphasis on these factors, especially as it impacts the venerable large fowl breeds.

On this farm, that emphasis was never lost.

 

[RedRidge]

Steven and I had the same exact discussion about the NH and the Reds. I was disappointed that my second choice pullet took BV when my first choice was much nicer. I discovered the first choice laid an egg, literally as the judge picked her up. Needless to say she did not show well. I teased that she should have gotten extra points for production. LOL


When I told Gary Underwood about it later that day we got into a deep discussion about form vs function and isn't it a shame the two don't meet more often. Learned a ton in that discussion - wish I'd had a tape recorder. That guy is a wealth of information. We need to keep listening to the guys who have been doing it for generations - their tidbits of wisdom are priceless.

It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of disconnect  between utility and appearance, when I don't think that it was originally intended to be that way. 

Looked on the APA page the other day, and there was a pdf about breeding to the Standard, and it says "Many show birds lay fewer eggs than we would like...".  But in the 2010 SOP on pg 28 it says "All breeds, whether bred chiefly for economic purposes or for beauty of color and form, must be healthy and vigorous and of good productive qualities to insure full propagation, as well as popular acceptance of the breed."

They must be healthy and vigorous and of GOOD PRODUCTIVE QUALITIES....says it right there in the SOP.  I don't know when that statement was first put into the SOP,  but somewhere along the line, things have gotten lost and the disconnect between pretty birds and useful birds occurred. 

A shame isn't it. It's because what wins isn't always productive. Several top breeders have flat out told me that what they breed and what they show are frequently not the same. I'm stubborn... if they don't lay well they never make it to the show cages. I may not have Best in Show but hopefully they'll be competitive and by golly they'll produce or they won't make it to a show OR the breeding pens.
But it's the judges who are determining this. Some breeds, as pointed out above, can be correct and productive. But it should be all breeds across the board. This divergence of form vs function is a problem in all breeds of livestock unfortunately.

 

[capayvalleychick]

Great post. A HUGE, HUGE portion of the folks at Knoxville are deeply concerned about productivity. It is a growing and influential portion of the APA membership. Walt Leonard, aka fowlman01 and Sam Brush were kind enough to take the time to discuss this with me. The economic and production focus is indeed coming back into the Standard's perview. There will be increasing emphasis on these factors, especially as it impacts the venerable large fowl breeds.

On this farm, that emphasis was never lost.

I hope that what you say is true! When I read other forums that are dedicated to Show Birds, the majority of breeders and judges seem to be scoffing at the idea that exhibition poultry can be productive. So much, that they say the "dual purpose" descriptions need to be removed.

I get that the old breeds are never going to be as productive as the modern production birds. But, I still think it's important to work to improve the productive qualities of the older dual purpose breeds.
Utility is my #1 concern with my birds and the reason that I chose the breeds that I did. If winning shows or just having pretty birds was a priority, I would have different breeds.

Several top breeders have flat out told me that what they breed and what they show are frequently not the same.

There may be a couple other reasons for this. I've heard that it's often necessary to breed extremes to get the results closer to Standard. I also heard from a fancier that she keeps her best birds sheltered from the others to keep them looking good.

 

[bnjrob]

Great post. A HUGE, HUGE portion of the folks at Knoxville are deeply concerned about productivity. It is a growing and influential portion of the APA membership. Walt Leonard, aka fowlman01 and Sam Brush were kind enough to take the time to discuss this with me. The economic and production focus is indeed coming back into the Standard's perview. There will be increasing emphasis on these factors, especially as it impacts the venerable large fowl breeds.

On this farm, that emphasis was never lost.

I've chatted online with Walt and he's great. Have learned so much from him.

A shame isn't it. It's because what wins isn't always productive. Several top breeders have flat out told me that what they breed and what they show are frequently not the same. I'm stubborn... if they don't lay well they never make it to the show cages. I may not have Best in Show but hopefully they'll be competitive and by golly they'll produce or they won't make it to a show OR the breeding pens.
But it's the judges who are determining this. Some breeds, as pointed out above, can be correct and productive. But it should be all breeds across the board. This divergence of form vs function is a problem in all breeds of livestock unfortunately.

I'm a newbie to the serious breeding things, have only been doing it a few years. And of course I wanted birds that hadn't been kept very well, or by many folks, through the 20th century. So it's a big challenge to get our birds to where we want them to be. We finally have enough birds that I am not so worried if a predator gets one, that we can start doing more with our breeding. For these first few years, it has just been trying to get enough birds on the ground to have backups in case something happened, since I can't just run to the feed store and get more if some of them become part of a coyote buffet. We have seen some improvements in the pinched tail issues already. Still need to work on some other things and bring up production more both in egg laying and more meat on the breast. We have more eggs than we can use ourselves already, but we know that the birds can do better since we've seen the differences in the groups we have that came from different breeders.

Think you're right - the judges, and probably politics have played a large part in this problem of non-thrifty show birds. I was shocked to see that the APA put up a resource that said that show birds didn't lay as well. To even mention it means this is obviously a problem that is fairly well known and wide spread - yet it goes against what the SOP even says about having productive birds. Which does seem to indicate that the judges are not reading their SOP and they are placing pretty birds that aren't as productive, and so the breeders are breeding to win the judge's favor and not to have a well rounded, pretty yet utilitarian bird.

I found a reference in old literature regarding a change to the SOP for Mottled Javas that sounds like perhaps it was more about politics and making pretty birds that wrought the change in the SOP. And if that one small color change happened because of politics and personal views, it is more than likely that other changes in SOPs and in how judges evaluate the birds have also occurred for reasons not related to utility production.

I have no desire to show, but I know I need to because Javas need to be seen and they aren't shown much at all. And it would be interesting to have someone else lay eyes on our birds to see if they can offer any fresh insights to us. But I don't care for the showing that seems to be mostly about pretty birds and not a well rounded bird that looks nice but is also productive. I want my Javas to be what Javas used to be, back when the poultry literature talked about how wonderful they were as layers and as good eating, and being pretty birds that were also great for having on a farm.

 

[bnjrob]

There may be a couple other reasons for this. I've heard that it's often necessary to breed extremes to get the results closer to Standard. I also heard from a fancier that she keeps her best birds sheltered from the others to keep them looking good.

Well most of my birds always look like hell with their tail feathers crumpled and such. They're chickens and I think they deserve to be chickens, including being with their friends and family, rolling around in the dirt in the garden, and wading in the pond when there is water in it.

 

[LindaB220]

Thanks Ron and Linda. I had hope that they would be laying by now. Come spring I will cull for laying late though.

You know, I think that the upcoming climate change or whatever is going to do a number on our birds. It could become the norm for all new layers to be late. I think that I'll wait it out for a year or so to tell what is what. Mine are so late now and they are too good to cull.

 

[RedRidge]

 

Great post. A HUGE, HUGE portion of the folks at Knoxville are deeply concerned about productivity.  It is a growing and influential portion of the APA membership.  Walt Leonard, aka fowlman01 and Sam Brush were kind enough to take the time to discuss this with me.  The economic and production focus is indeed coming back into the Standard's perview.  There will be increasing emphasis on these factors, especially as it impacts the venerable large fowl breeds.  

On this farm, that emphasis was never lost.

I've chatted online with Walt and he's great.  Have learned so much from him. 

A shame isn't it. It's because what wins isn't always productive. Several top breeders have flat out told me that what they breed and what they show are frequently not the same. I'm stubborn... if they don't lay well they never make it to the show cages. I may not have Best in Show but hopefully they'll be competitive and by golly they'll produce or they won't make it to a show OR the breeding pens.

But it's the judges who are determining this. Some breeds, as pointed out above, can be correct and productive. But it should be all breeds across the board. This divergence of form vs function is a problem in all breeds of livestock unfortunately.

I'm a newbie to the serious breeding things, have only been doing it a few years.  And of course I wanted birds that hadn't been kept very well, or by many folks,  through the 20th century.  So it's a big challenge to get our birds to where we want them to be.  We finally have enough birds that I am not so worried if a predator gets one, that we can start doing more with our breeding.  For these first few years, it has just been trying to get enough birds on the ground to have backups in case something happened, since I can't just run to the feed store and get more if some of them become part of a coyote buffet.  We have seen some improvements in the pinched tail issues already.  Still need to work on some other things and bring up production more both in egg laying and more meat on the breast.  We have more eggs than we can use ourselves already, but we know that the birds can do better since we've seen the differences in the groups we have that came from different breeders. 

Think you're right - the judges, and probably politics have played a large part in this problem of non-thrifty show birds.  I was shocked to see that the APA put up a resource that said that show birds didn't lay as well.  To even mention it means this is obviously a problem that is fairly well known and wide spread - yet it goes against what the SOP even says about having productive birds.  Which does seem to indicate that the judges are not reading their SOP and they are placing pretty birds that aren't as productive, and so the breeders are breeding to win the judge's favor and not to have a well rounded, pretty yet utilitarian bird. 

I found a reference in old literature regarding a change to the SOP for Mottled Javas that sounds like perhaps it was more about politics and making pretty birds that wrought the change in the SOP.  And if that one small color change happened because of politics and personal views, it is more than likely that other changes in SOPs and in how judges evaluate the birds have also occurred for reasons not related to utility production.

I have no desire to show, but I  know I need to because Javas need to be seen and they aren't shown much at all.  And it would be interesting to have someone else lay eyes on our birds to see if they can offer any fresh insights to us.  But I don't care for the showing that seems to be mostly about pretty birds and not a well rounded bird that looks nice but is also productive.  I want my Javas to be what Javas used to be, back when the poultry literature talked about how wonderful they were as layers and as good eating, and being pretty birds that were also great for having on a farm. 

Your last sentence is interesting as it reflects my reasoning as well. That said, I learn a lot more at shows from the other more experienced breeders than I do from simply getting 30 second feedback from one person (the judge). Peers who physically examined my birds with a critical eye are far more helpful than a number or a few letters on a card. And once those folks realize you really want feedback and they don't have to worry about hurting your feelings, their honesty in their evaluations is much more helpful than anything else. ;-)

 

[Zanna]

Well most of my birds always look like hell with their tail feathers crumpled and such. They're chickens and I think they deserve to be chickens, including being with their friends and family, rolling around in the dirt in the garden, and wading in the pond when there is water in it.

My favorite part of taking birds to my first and only show to date a couple of months ago was bringing them home and putting them back out on the green grass again, just admiring them running around being chickens. My NH and Marans are very calm and adaptable so I only did cage training with them a week before the show and it all worked out well. The show was an invaluable learning experience and I hope to do more in the future for that reason.

 

[bnjrob]

My favorite part of taking birds to my first and only show to date a couple of months ago was bringing them home and putting them back out on the green grass again, just admiring them running around being chickens. My NH and Marans are very calm and adaptable so I only did cage training with them a week before the show and it all worked out well. The show was an invaluable learning experience and I hope to do more in the future for that reason.

Isn't there just that "something" about seeing them run around? I love to see them roaming the pasture doing chicken stuff. They do fine being penned, but they enjoy running around.

Glad you had a good experience doing a show. I'll suck it up eventually and take some, we have a couple shows that are near enough to us that I could go to.