Farming and Homesteading Heritage Poultry

[Rye]

I have thought about this over the years. While I don't know much about pigeons, other than they are fantastic for dog training, bird genetics are much different than mammals.

To me the problem stems from the word Breed. What is a "Breed" technically when looking at birds? A Robin is a Robin, Cardinal is a Cardinal, etc. Chickens? Well a chicken is a chicken when you get down to it.

The APA only recognizes 1 breed of Turkey and that breed is Turkey, while they recognize multiple varieties of Turkey. I think it's the same with chickens. The Breed is Chicken, while a RIR would be a variety. So it would not make much sense to pedigree "Chicken" but pedigree a strain of a variety might make sense. I'm not sure why chickens are separated into breeds, other than back in the 1800's, chicken genetics were much more diverse. Games, China Fowl, Mediterraneans, were all very different and distinct. So maybe the Classes are actually the breed of chicken? I would leave that up to people with more time and are more familiar with chicken genetics than I am.

It seems that it's all semantics and may not do much of anything.

 

[gojira]

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?

You don't have to answer, but where are you from, and how old is your daughter? I am from Georgia, and I gave a son that t is 13 and shows. I am willing to help.

Have you really read up on history, or the APA version? The APA version leaves out a lot of information.

It is an APA myth that hatchery birds are selected for egg production. Some are, such as Red Sex Links, Black Sex Links, Production Reds, etc. But, traditional breeds have not. You said you knew history, and have seen old SOPs. Did you read any if those old SOPs? You seem to be going along with what the APA has told you, not what common sense and experience would teach you. An SOP does not help you know if a bird is pure. It only tells you what a few people in an organization say a bird shoukd look like to be called a particular name. It tells you zero about ancestry or purity. If you had done research, you would know. That goes back to the stewardship discussion. Few want to gain experience and knowledge, so who are supposed to be the stewards?

What do you mean go back to dunghills? There are more dunghills today than ever before. I think we have already gone back to them.

 

[gojira]

I have thought about this over the years. While I don't know much about pigeons, other than they are fantastic for dog training, bird genetics are much different than mammals.

To me the problem stems from the word Breed. What is a "Breed" technically when looking at birds? A Robin is a Robin, Cardinal is a Cardinal, etc. Chickens? Well a chicken is a chicken when you get down to it.

The APA only recognizes 1 breed of Turkey and that breed is Turkey, while they recognize multiple varieties of Turkey. I think it's the same with chickens. The Breed is Chicken, while a RIR would be a variety. So it would not make much sense to pedigree "Chicken" but pedigree a strain of a variety might make sense. I'm not sure why chickens are separated into breeds, other than back in the 1800's, chicken genetics were much more diverse. Games, China Fowl, Mediterraneans, were all very different and distinct. So maybe the Classes are actually the breed of chicken? I would leave that up to people with more time and are more familiar with chicken genetics than I am.

It seems that it's all semantics and may not do much of anything.

Bird genetics is not that much different than mammals, until you get to details.

You are confusing species and breeds. Robin is a specie. Cardinal us a specie. Chicken is a species. Within that, there are breeds, and varieties within breeds. Rhode island Red is a breed. Varieties in that breed vary by comb type. New Hampshire is a breed with one variety. Chicken breeds, and even varieties, strains, and families have been around longer than the 1800s. Actually, the APA does not want people to understand genetics. I have been told that personally.

 

[Rye]

You don't have to answer, but where are you from, and how old is your daughter? I am from Georgia, and I gave a son that t is 13 and shows. I am willing to help.

Have you really read up on history, or the APA version? The APA version leaves out a lot of information.

It is an APA myth that hatchery birds are selected for egg production. Some are, such as Red Sex Links, Black Sex Links, Production Reds, etc. But, traditional breeds have not. You said you knew history, and have seen old SOPs. Did you read any if those old SOPs? You seem to be going along with what the APA has told you, not what common sense and experience would teach you. An SOP does not help you know if a bird is pure. It only tells you what a few people in an organization say a bird shoukd look like to be called a particular name. It tells you zero about ancestry or purity. If you had done research, you would know. That goes back to the stewardship discussion. Few want to gain experience and knowledge, so who are supposed to be the stewards?

What do you mean go back to dunghills? There are more dunghills today than ever before. I think we have already gone back to them.

I read a lot of the old books like Call of the Hen, some old books on games and dominiques, and some of Mark Fields stuff. Right now I'm reading Poultry Science and Practice.

Been around hatchery chickens most of my life. That's all my old man would buy from the local feed mill. Eggs and cleanup the leftovers from the cattle were what was important. The APA isn't telling me anything. I have formed my own opinion from what I see. And i'm not sure what purity means with chickens. They've all been created by man through genetic manipulation through selective breeding. The Ancestry doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Dorkings 2000 years ago probably looked much different than they did in the 1500's and those birds probably look different than today.

I know Dunghills is used to describe junk fowl, but I was using as what a lot of the fowl were called back in the 1700's. The Dunghills or Barndoor fowls were non game and like a landrace basically. American Dominique most likely at that time period.

My Oldest is 9 and my second daughter is just 6 months old. We live in PA. My daughter is involved with 4H with poultry and sheep right now. She might join the beef club in a couple years, but she doesn't care for our cattle that much.

 

[Rye]

Bird genetics is not that much different than mammals, until you get to details.

You are confusing species and breeds. Robin is a specie. Cardinal us a specie. Chicken is a species. Within that, there are breeds, and varieties within breeds. Rhode island Red is a breed. Varieties in that breed vary by comb type. New Hampshire is a breed with one variety. Chicken breeds, and even varieties, strains, and families have been around longer than the 1800s. Actually, the APA does not want people to understand genetics. I have been told that personally.

Yeah, your right about the species thing. That was a bad example of trying to get my thoughts across.

I know how the breed/varieties are setup now, I was just trying to think of a different way that might work to pedigree chickens. I just don't see them being the same as registered cattle or a stud book.

 

[gojira]

I read a lot of the old books like Call of the Hen, some old books on games and dominiques, and some of Mark Fields stuff. Right now I'm reading Poultry Science and Practice.

Been around hatchery chickens most of my life. That's all my old man would buy from the local feed mill. Eggs and cleanup the leftovers from the cattle were what was important. The APA isn't telling me anything. I have formed my own opinion from what I see. And i'm not sure what purity means with chickens. They've all been created by man through genetic manipulation through selective breeding. The Ancestry doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Dorkings 2000 years ago probably looked much different than they did in the 1500's and those birds probably look different than today.

I know Dunghills is used to describe junk fowl, but I was using as what a lot of the fowl were called back in the 1700's. The Dunghills or Barndoor fowls were non game and like a landrace basically. American Dominique most likely at that time period.

My Oldest is 9 and my second daughter is just 6 months old. We live in PA. My daughter is involved with 4H with poultry and sheep right now. She might join the beef club in a couple years, but she doesn't care for our cattle that much.

I am not sure which would be the right direction to go. In a way, it might be better to start with new information a and work your way back. Much has been learned since The Call of the Hen was written. I have two copies. Which old books on Games? Mark Fields is good, but limited to exhibition Dominiques.

The things you say sound a lot like what people in the APA tell people.

To the people that care about purity, purity in chickens is no different than anything else. Families are typically linebred, and kept tight. The APA decided they wanted to be different I suppose, or maybe they don't understand linebreeding. Ancestry means everything. If the ancestor did not have a trait, a descendant won't have it either.

99+% of the birds at APA/ABA shows are dunghills. A lot of fowl are called dunghills today, at least by people who understand the term. Dunghills were not a landrace.

 

[gojira]

Yeah, your right about the species thing. That was a bad example of trying to get my thoughts across.

I know how the breed/varieties are setup now, I was just trying to think of a different way that might work to pedigree chickens. I just don't see them being the same as registered cattle or a stud book.

Why not? Every chick has one mother and one father, the same as every calf. Sire and dam can be recorded by wing band or leg band numbers. It would be quite easy. You would just have more individuals born every generation, but you cull more in poultry relative to cattle. You could remove the culls from the database, so it is not that complex

 

[BantyChooks]

People do not use common sense anymore. If it is in a book, or on the internet, it is true.

There seem to be very few people who are serious and really want to learn.

You say that we are the idiots for being taken in by information printed, yet you bemoan that we do not wish to learn. How are we supposed to know the 'one true way' from the garbage when researching or asking questions? We are not born with everything in our heads.... common sense can take you far but it can't recreate generations of knowledge and experience in one lifespan, as you said before, leaving only the fact that we must learn from somewhere. You have simultaneously bashed those that are prominent in the poultry world, books, forums, AND the APA, leaving practically nowhere to gain said information and verify its truth from.

Would you please give us a statement instead of a complaint? Tell us WHERE the reliable information comes from. Tell us WHY you think we're being taken by elaborate showmen. Give us reasons.

 

[gojira]

You say that we are the idiots for being taken in by information printed, yet you bemoan that we do not wish to learn. How are we supposed to know the 'one true way' from the garbage when researching or asking questions? We are not born with everything in our heads.... common sense can take you far but it can't recreate generations of knowledge and experience in one lifespan, as you said before, leaving only the fact that we must learn from somewhere. You have simultaneously bashed those that are prominent in the poultry world, books, forums, AND the APA, leaving practically nowhere to gain said information and verify its truth from.

Would you please give us a statement instead of a complaint? Tell us WHERE the reliable information comes from. Tell us WHY you think we're being taken by elaborate showmen. Give us reasons.

Show me where I have used that term? I have said the same things over and over and over.... common sense, knowledge, and experience. I am not saying anyone us born with everything in their heads, but if someone is interested in something, they should be willing to seek out information, and they should be willing to verify if that holds up. I have not bashed anyone that is prominent in the poultry world. Not on here anyway, and if I have, it was due to personal experiences with them. I have not bashed books really. There are quite a few good books and journals. The APA seems to frown on anything discovered after 1950. I would suggest reading current publications, snd not fluff pieces. I have spoken the truth about the APA and some of its members, so take that however you want. Again, I am speaking from personal experience. I have made many statements. I have given many examples. Why should I keep repeating myself? Plus, I have been told I am not welcome here, so why would I want to help where I am not wanted? I only help those who want help, and will actually use it.

 

[BantyChooks]

Show me where I have used that term? I have said the same things over and over and over.... common sense, knowledge, and experience. I am not saying anyone us born with everything in their heads, but if someone is interested in something, they should be willing to seek out information, and they should be willing to verify if that holds up. I have not bashed anyone that is prominent in the poultry world. Not on here anyway, and if I have, it was due to personal experiences with them. I have not bashed books really. There are quite a few good books and journals. The APA seems to frown on anything discovered after 1950. I would suggest reading current publications, snd not fluff pieces. I have spoken the truth about the APA and some of its members, so take that however you want. Again, I am speaking from personal experience. I have made many statements. I have given many examples. Why should I keep repeating myself? Plus, I have been told I am not welcome here, so why would I want to help where I am not wanted? I only help those who want help, and will actually use it.

I realise I probably came on a bit strongly in the last post. My apologies—someone should take my keyboard away when I am a crank like today.

Show me where I have used that term?

Which term?

I am not saying anyone us born with everything in their heads, but if someone is interested in something, they should be willing to seek out information, and they should be willing to verify if that holds up.

That much I agree with for sure. I am not asking for a handout; only for how not to be those you look down on for not following the already trodden paths. What would you suggest as a thorough means of verification? Some things are difficult to prove through breeding in one's own birds. Since the APA is behind the times, are there particular sources that have stood out among the "various books and journals" you mentioned as having up-to-date information? The Poultry Press? I am relying on articles from my chosen breed club's newsletters along with some books that have been passed around as educational. Some things such as the aforementioned The Call of the Hen aren't feasible to test on the scale that the average person raises and breeds birds on... which, by the way, I am most interested in newer information on that topic [egg production] but have yet to find any in my searches.