Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[gojira]

I gave no notion of anyone going out of there way. I assumed the effort would be made from the steward, but effort is needed to find a steward.

We will have to agree to disagree on the line dying out. I do not find it better to have it die out.

I could explain why I don't like the New Hamp, and I might, later. I at least now understand where you are coming from. I doubt the APA is going to change the SOP. But they sure will go outside the sop to place a ribbon for some reason.

I am only going off of big time breeders as those guys bringing breeds back and showing them. Winning with nice looking fowl. I can't know Farmer Bob who lives by that big oak down your road. I can't know all of the old cockers who have passed or are not online. I also take nothing away from them either. I'm not asking someone to go out of their way to educate me.

I'm sure what you say is true of many people. I make things too hard sometimes because I overthink things. It's a fault of mine because I want it to be right. Regardless of that, Experts come in all flavors. Following anything blindly is lame. Some still do have common sense. It just gets drowned out by the Backyard crowd wanting to snuggle. It also gets lost within breed clubs, breeders, and chicken folk. Legends are what they are. Seems to me only Hatcheries promote the legends and standards. Maybe labeling laws should apply to hatcheries and they should list the weights of their birds and not the standard?

You seem to lump a lot into a little we can't control. I'm wanting and asking for help for not just me, but others like me. Where is one to go?

You are the one that said:

So maybe some time should be spent on finding a good steward instead of letting them go.

If one really wants to be a steward, they should study, research, learn, prove themselves.

If you came from the background I have as far as animals are concerned, you might understand that it is better for no one to be involved, than for the wrong person to screw things up for everyone else. I have seen examples of that in multiple species. I am talking more function and temperament more than aeshetics.

Why wouldn't the APA change the SOP? That is not unusual. Maybe you need to study history. People say they want to breed to the standard to preserve a breed, yet the current standard of that breed has been changed a few times based on fads.

I am not sure those things make someone a "big time breeder". A backyard breeder can win with good looking fowl. I can find good looking fowl at the local livestock auction. I think people talk big, and people make assumptions. People don't want to be educated, the want a ribbon for participation.

I am saying people don't think enough, making things more difficult. People miss the forest for the trees. Remember, I am saying "experts" sarcastically. The APA wants people to follow things blindly. So do many here on BYC. The APA wants people to blindly follow legends, not hatcheries. There are many misconceptions about hatcheries, and they are spread on BYC and by people involved with the APA. Maybe breeders should be held accountable, instead of making things up, or perpetuating old wive's tales. Many birds in shows are not the proper weight either. Many times a bird that is the proper weight will lose out to an oversized bird that the standard says should be disqualified.

We can control a lot, but many chose not to. There was a time when knowledge and honesty were valued. Now people want notoriety at any cost. If breeders, and the APA, were held accountable, the poultry fancy might be very different.

 

[Rye]

Yes, and that statement was clarified. I was not saying it as you worded it, nor was that my intention.

One should study and learn. That's a good way to go about life in general.

The APA has revised some SOP's over the years, but it's been nothing drastic thatI am aware of. There is also no indication of changing the New Hampshire SOP to mimic that bird.

As for the rest, we agree on most of it. I though still believe in what the APA is doing, as well as a lot of the breeders who consistently breed good fowl. The inconsistencies in the judging can be frustrating and there is a trend to place large birds. I would like to see some changes made there. Maybe weigh in of birds and judges get hands on with the birds. But there are so many birds at some of the shows that it might be an impossible task.

Not sure what misconceptions about hatcheries are being parroted. Maybe you could enlighten me. I've dealt with hatchery birds in one way or another most of my life, so...

I still value honesty, knowledge, integrity, hard work, etc. The fame seeking crowd are hurting a lot of breeds in the pursuit of getting a new color variety into the SOP instead of working on the varieties that need saved. Other than that, I'm not sure what other fame seekers there are or why the APA should be held accountable.

 

[gojira]

Yes, and that statement was clarified. I was not saying it as you worded it, nor was that my intention.

One should study and learn. That's a good way to go about life in general.

The APA has revised some SOP's over the years, but it's been nothing drastic thatI am aware of. There is also no indication of changing the New Hampshire SOP to mimic that bird.

As for the rest, we agree on most of it. I though still believe in what the APA is doing, as well as a lot of the breeders who consistently breed good fowl. The inconsistencies in the judging can be frustrating and there is a trend to place large birds. I would like to see some changes made there. Maybe weigh in of birds and judges get hands on with the birds. But there are so many birds at some of the shows that it might be an impossible task.

Not sure what misconceptions about hatcheries are being parroted. Maybe you could enlighten me. I've dealt with hatchery birds in one way or another most of my life, so...

I still value honesty, knowledge, integrity, hard work, etc. The fame seeking crowd are hurting a lot of breeds in the pursuit of getting a new color variety into the SOP instead of working on the varieties that need saved. Other than that, I'm not sure what other fame seekers there are or why the APA should be held accountable.

That is how you worded it. That was a direct quote.

The APA discourages people from studying and learning outside of a small area. I have been told that, so I am not just making assumptions.

The APA has "revised" standards many times over the years, usually because of fads. One example is the Rhode Island Red standard.

The APA sanctions poultry shows. When they say anything, they contradict themselves. The SOP contains contradictions and misinformation. If you look at the educational articles on the APA website, they are not very educational, and many are incorrect. One can consistently breed good fowl and not be a part of the APA. Most people probably think they have to join the APA to show birds, and that is not true. There are not many reasons to join the APA. Judges are supposed to handle every bird, and they do at the shows I have attended. Some judges know the SOP, and others compare what is present. Weighing birds at a show would not be difficult. There could be a scale at registration, and birds could be weighed as they are brought in. Just common sense.

People claim hatchery birds are crosses, while many exhibition birds are crosses. That is the main misconception. Alao, people claim that hatchery birds can't do well in shows, but some can and do. Not every bird produced by a breeder would do well at a show. There is a bell shaped curve for both groups, and there is overlap.

The fame seeking crowd are hurting existing breeds and varieties, and hurting the fancy as a whole. The fame seeking crowd are misleading others and making things more difficult than they need to be, and the quality of the birds is not where it could be. The APA should be accountable for what they say and publish. The APA should provide accurate information to people. The APA should encourage education. The SOP really should be corrected, particularly the first 40 pages, and the economic qualities.

 

[Rye]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the APA.

Yes, lots of good fowl are produced by people who are not a part of the APA.

All composite breeds were a crossbreed. Whether or not some hatchery stock has been crossed is debatable. I tend to believe that some of it has been. Also outcrossing show strains happens. But the show strain fits the bill for the breed and therefore is. Hatchery stock normally doesn't fit the breed standard.

You know a "Breed" of chicken has everything to do with Type and not the genes.

I agree with you on most of the rest. We seem to mostly be on the same page. Have a good day.

 

[gojira]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the APA.

Yes, lots of good fowl are produced by people who are not a part of the APA.

All composite breeds were a crossbreed. Whether or not some hatchery stock has been crossed is debatable. I tend to believe that some of it has been. Also outcrossing show strains happens. But the show strain fits the bill for the breed and therefore is. Hatchery stock normally doesn't fit the breed standard.

You know a "Breed" of chicken has everything to do with Type and not the genes.

I agree with you on most of the rest. We seem to mostly be on the same page. Have a good day.

Maybe one day you will have more experience with poultry and the APA, and you will have the same opinion I do.

Many of what you call "big name breeders" do not know the history of their breeds. Most people do not know enough about poultry to know why there is a difference between hatchery and exhibition birds. So, they just make things up, and spread that around, and it becomes "fact". Except for production birds, hatcheries tend to sell pure birds. To believe othetwise is just blindly believing what people tell you. A cross takes a while before it can be a strain. You should look at old SOPs and study poultry history, and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

I know the APA says a breed has to do with type and not genes. They are the only animal organization in the world to say that. It fits what they want, but does not make it correct. There are some strains and families of birds that are pure, but not usually in the APA. According to the APA, i can cross breeds in my backyard, and whatever the result looks like, that is the breed it is, even if it does not contain any foundation breeds used in the actual breed. Yet, if I take a pure bird from an old line that fits a previous version of the SOP, it is a mutt, and in some cases, birds that fit the current SOP would be called mutts. The APA tends to say what fits what they have going on.

If you feel we are on the same page, either you are not saying how you really think, or you don't understand what I am saying.

 

[The Moonshiner]

I know the APA says a breed has to do with type and not genes. They are the only animal organization in the world to say that. It fits what they want, but does not make it correct.

What would an alternative or correct way be?

 

[gojira]

What would an alternative or correct way be?

Again, common sense and knowledge, and using information given to find out for yourself. I mentioned the APA approach differed from every other animal organization I am aware of. Many have closed books, where no new animals can be added. Some have appendix registries of some sort, where animals can be bred up. In those cases, animals with no outside influence are fullblooded, and females at least 7/8 and males at least 15/16 are purebred. There are many poultry people that disagree with the mindset of the APA, and purity means more than just what a bird looks like. Even the APA is not consistent on this. Many of the New Hampshires shown do not have proper type. Many Dominiques shown do not have proper type. What should these be known as, since the APA says breed is based on type, and they don't have the type of the breed people claim they are?

 

[The Moonshiner]

Just the part about going off of type.
Is there an alternative way?
Should chickens be registered? DNA? permanent ID?
I'm not sure there's a different way to go with poultry.

 

[gojira]

Just the part about going off of type.
Is there an alternative way?
Should chickens be registered? DNA? permanent ID?
I'm not sure there's a different way to go with poultry.

We could do it the old fashioned way where people were honest, and a man was as good as his word. People used to take meticulous records, and some still do, but mostly outside of the APA. Really, the APA way is the alternative way. I am sure they came up eith their way to allow someone to market birds as something more than they really were. It seems the APA has taken poultry backwards. And don't dare mention anything about poultry past 1950.

If you look at pigeons, people use pedigrees for them. It is not that novel of an idea. But, you would need people to be honest for that to work. And you couldn't flock breed, you would need to make more careful breeding decisions. Exhibition poultry people like to make things more difficult than they really are.

 

[Rye]

Maybe one day you will have more experience with poultry and the APA, and you will have the same opinion I do.

Many of what you call "big name breeders" do not know the history of their breeds. Most people do not know enough about poultry to know why there is a difference between hatchery and exhibition birds. So, they just make things up, and spread that around, and it becomes "fact". Except for production birds, hatcheries tend to sell pure birds. To believe othetwise is just blindly believing what people tell you. A cross takes a while before it can be a strain. You should look at old SOPs and study poultry history, and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

I know the APA says a breed has to do with type and not genes. They are the only animal organization in the world to say that. It fits what they want, but does not make it correct. There are some strains and families of birds that are pure, but not usually in the APA. According to the APA, i can cross breeds in my backyard, and whatever the result looks like, that is the breed it is, even if it does not contain any foundation breeds used in the actual breed. Yet, if I take a pure bird from an old line that fits a previous version of the SOP, it is a mutt, and in some cases, birds that fit the current SOP would be called mutts. The APA tends to say what fits what they have going on.

If you feel we are on the same page, either you are not saying how you really think, or you don't understand what I am saying.

Maybe one day my opinions will change about the APA, maybe they won't. Either way, I hope I can breed good chickens through the years with my family. Learn a thing or two and see my daughter smile if she were to win a ribbon at a show. And maybe pass something on to others along the way or when I'm done. Cause that's what it's all about for me.

I'm not going to debate about what breeders know or do not know. I do read up on the history and have seen old SOP books.

Hatcheries have selectively bred fowl for egg production. I also believe that many of the birds they sell have had a cross in their past. RIR, NH, Production Red, just as an example. You don't know what your getting other than a red chicken that lays eggs. That's where a standard helps. Are those hatchery birds genetically different and a match to a "Breed"? I just don't know. I do know that the birds you get are different from the standard. How far does one need to go back to? Back to dunghills?