Marans Thread - breed discussion & pictures are welcome!

[pinkchick]

Donna~

I'm glad she might be laying for you, but I can't say I am excited about egg color though....sorry. On my monitor the eggs look pretty dang light. Is there a way to trap nest her to verify if it is her? If it is her and her egg color doesn't improve I will send you more eggs as soon as the girls get serious.


I'm still not sure who is laid this egg I got yesterday, but I am positive it is a Splash egg as my blue gals are all still molting.

 

[Wynette]

Hey Don - I appreciate your reply regarding leg color...really would like to disucss on open forum, as this would be a good discussion for all to see. We need not be argumentative, but a discussion may help us all move forward. If there is a problem with the SOP, then it needs to be changed. I honestly do not know how to begin this process. I had a list of quesitons to ask a judge at the APA Nationals this past weekend, and forgot to ask this one question. I did overhear someone asking a judge about the white "underhackle" color but I will not post what I heard, as it was not my conversation and I did not hear the entire discussion.

 

[DMRippy]

Donna~

I'm glad she might be laying for you, but I can't say I am excited about egg color though....sorry. On my monitor the eggs look pretty dang light. Is there a way to trap nest her to verify if it is her? If it is her and her egg color doesn't improve I will send you more eggs as soon as the girls get serious.

I'm still not sure who is laid this egg I got yesterday, but I am positive it is a Splash egg as my blue gals are all still molting.

I know it came from her I saw it pop out of her. Maybe it will get a little better. She has not laid very many. Like I said it is the only one I get that color.

BTW that egg is about the color I am getting from another pullet.

 

[snowbird]

Hey Don - I appreciate your reply regarding leg color...really would like to disucss on open forum, as this would be a good discussion for all to see. We need not be argumentative, but a discussion may help us all move forward. If there is a problem with the SOP, then it needs to be changed. I honestly do not know how to begin this process. I had a list of quesitons to ask a judge at the APA Nationals this past weekend, and forgot to ask this one question. I did overhear someone asking a judge about the white "underhackle" color but I will not post what I heard, as it was not my conversation and I did not hear the entire discussion.

Wynette, We got a decision on the hackle undercolor, wing, tail , and tail coverts being white from the Standards Committee last winter. The hackle and tail coverts are a fault and the white in wing and tail is a DQ. A white feather anywhere else is also a DQ from the SOP.

I see where the other Forum is still debating whether the white feathers are a DQ. If you remember we had Walt take this by request to the full Committee at the semi-annual last winter.

Will pull out my notes on the white and real lite leg BC males. Just recently you posted an article from either TIM or HENK explaining some on the white leg BC and the faults related to their use.

To ask for a SOP change does not have to go through the Marans Club. Anyone or Group can ask for a change. Goes to the Standard Committee and if approved would have to go before the entire APA board I believe.

 

[Wynette]

Wynette, We got a decision on the hackle undercolor, wing, tail , and tail coverts being white from the Standards Committee last winter. The hackle and tail coverts are a fault and the white in wing and tail is a DQ. A white feather anywhere else is also a DQ from the SOP.

I see where the other Forum is still debating whether the white feathers are a DQ. If you remember we had Walt take this by request to the full Committee at the semi-annual last winter.

Will pull out my notes on the white and real lite leg BC males. Just recently you posted an article from either TIM or HENK explaining some on the white leg BC and the faults related to their use.

To ask for a SOP change does not have to go through the Marans Club. Anyone or Group can ask for a change. Goes to the Standard Committee and if approved would have to go before the entire APA board I believe.

HOLY CRAP - I just noticed that I wrote "we need to argumentative" I MEANT (and have changed it) to write "we need NOT be argumentative" - sorry for that!!

Don, there is much discussion of whether the white UNDERHACKLE - is different from a white feather. To me, they look completely different. The white underhackle is the underneath layer and the "top layer" if you will is "normally" colored. This, to me, seems different from the solid white in a feather, but what are your thoughts on this?

No, I don't recall the information coming from the Standards Committee last fall, so thanks for the reminder.

We should be breeding away from this, and I am very worried about it, as I am seeing more and more of the white underhackle, even in birds that did not have it in generations 1, 2, and even 3 - suddenly now showing up in generation 4. WHERE is this coming from in a closed flock when gens 1, 2, and 3 were fine? The fact that we are seeing it more & more really worries me.

The judge who had the conversation about it with someone at the Nationals stated, "You should be very worried about it." His exact words.

The leg color - there, too, I am concerned. Are we breeding for something that is just not natural? I read an older pamphlet regarding breeding and was paying specific attention to the section on the silver penciled pattern genetic. The writer was talking of a breeder who was trying to get the silver penciled pattern in the breast of a male (I am unsure what breed), and tried to do this unsuccessfully for 6 generations. The conclusion drawn was basically - this is just going agianst all that these genetics carry. In that line of thinking, maybe this whole leg color issue is in that same vein? Just rambling here, but it has me wondering.

 

[snowbird]

HOLY CRAP - I just noticed that I wrote "we need to argumentative" I MEANT (and have changed it) to write "we need NOT be argumentative" - sorry for that!!

Don, there is much discussion of whether the white UNDERHACKLE - is different from a white feather. To me, they look completely different. The white underhackle is the underneath layer and the "top layer" if you will is "normally" colored. This, to me, seems different from the solid white in a feather, but what are your thoughts on this?

No, I don't recall the information coming from the Standards Committee last fall, so thanks for the reminder.

We should be breeding away from this, and I am very worried about it, as I am seeing more and more of the white underhackle, even in birds that did not have it in generations 1, 2, and even 3 - suddenly now showing up in generation 4. WHERE is this coming from in a closed flock when gens 1, 2, and 3 were fine? The fact that we are seeing it more & more really worries me.

The judge who had the conversation about it with someone at the Nationals stated, "You should be very worried about it." His exact words.

The leg color - there, too, I am concerned. Are we breeding for something that is just not natural? I read an older pamphlet regarding breeding and was paying specific attention to the section on the silver penciled pattern genetic. The writer was talking of a breeder who was trying to get the silver penciled pattern in the breast of a male (I am unsure what breed), and tried to do this unsuccessfully for 6 generations. The conclusion drawn was basically - this is just going agianst all that these genetics carry. In that line of thinking, maybe this whole leg color issue is in that same vein? Just rambling here, but it has me wondering.

Wynette, I have been harpening on the white undercolor for 3-4 years on other forums. The hardest thing to accomplish is change. The reason I have always raised large numbers of young fowl, there is no short cut way to find where the faults are coming from. We absolutely must keep records and do some single matings until we find out who is not producing the good fowl.

The reason some of the white undercolor is showing up 3-4-5-6 generations is because no one involved keep record of what was going on with the Marans breed. Breeding for egg color is great but we also have to remember what lays the egg and do some work and keep the breed healthy.

To start with stock that is not very good is a loosing battle and destined to failure from the start. To start with unthrifty, narrow back and chest fowl is basically destined for failure. If need be we should just buy a good pair from someone and work with them. It is a must to get the Type, width, depth and length from day one or it will be a losing battle.
Two year before my last hatch I culled all the white undercolor and white from other sections from my BC Marans. Last summer out of over three hundred young BC males had less then 20 with white after the Juve molt.

Something on the light leg problem in a little bit as I need to look over the notes I made. All this is posted as my observations and nothing else. It it helps anyone that is fine.

 

[snowbird]

Wynette, was Danielle there with her Wheaten Marans ?

 

[Wynette]

No, she was not.

I have always said and agree with starting with the very best you can find, and preferably, stock rather than hatching eggs. In fact, most old-time breeders will not even sell hatching eggs. Only stock.

The problem is, if the person you got your stock from didn't keep real good records, you are starting from scratch in that regard, so to speak. I still ask, why is this cropping up so many generations later? Is there any way to know, or do you just cull the defects you don't want? That's easy enough for any of us - I'm much more cuious in where it is coming from so that I can learn how to avoid if I see it, BEFORE it appears - know what I mean?

Look forward to your legs post!

 

[snowbird]

No, she was not.

I have always said and agree with starting with the very best you can find, and preferably, stock rather than hatching eggs. In fact, most old-time breeders will not even sell hatching eggs. Only stock.

The problem is, if the person you got your stock from didn't keep real good records, you are starting from scratch in that regard, so to speak. I still ask, why is this cropping up so many generations later? Is there any way to know, or do you just cull the defects you don't want? That's easy enough for any of us - I'm much more cuious in where it is coming from so that I can learn how to avoid if I see it, BEFORE it appears - know what I mean?

Look forward to your legs post!

Wynette, Danielle, will most likely show at Columbus, she usually does.
I just do not believe we know what is going to happen with future generations of young fowl unless we know what is hidden in the Genes. What I have always done with any breed I am working with is just cull anything that I do not like and I don't mean pawn it off on someone else to worry with it either.
The hardest thing for any of us to get used to doing is culling our own birds, the sooner we learn this the easier breeding fowl becomes.

Leg post a little later.

 

[Wynette]

I agree on culling.

Are you going to the Columbus show, Don?