Old and Rare Breeds

[fowlman01]

Y'all think my typing is bad. LOL.

If I typed the way I talked then only a very limited number of you would be able to understand me at all.

Just ask Walt. LOL.

I could understand you.

w.

 

[fowlman01]

JMHO, but I think that chickens in general and rare breeds in particular, would be better off if there was no double mating. I know it is a fact of life for doing well in exhibition, but look at what happened to the brown leghorn. They were double mated until the male and female lines diverged so much that they were no longer seen as a single variety, and were split off into the light brown and dark brown we have today. So my rhetorical question is: If the males and the females have to be bred from separate lines, do you really have one variety, or two? I think the very concept of what a variety is becomes blurred.

Keep in mind that not all breeders double mate. It is just a faster, easier way to get to the same place. The barred Plymouth Rock used to be two varieties (light and dark) now it is one. Things evolved since the SOP was first introduced. I don't double mate.

Walt

 

[Chris09]

I know it is a fact of life for doing well in exhibition, but look at what happened to the brown leghorn. They were double mated until the male and female lines diverged so much that they were no longer seen as a single variety, and were split off into the light brown and dark brown we have today.

Where did you get this information from?

Light Brown Leghorns are e+ based birds like a Black Breasted Red fowl (black breasted red old english) where the Dark Brown Leghorns are e^b based like a Partridge Fowl (partridge plymouth rock)

Chris

 

[Ivagrove]

Where did you get this information from?

Light Brown Leghorns are e+ based birds like a Black Breasted Red fowl (black breasted red old english) where the Dark Brown Leghorns are e^b based like a Partridge Fowl (partridge plymouth rock)

Chris

APA SOP, page 114, the breed description for the Leghorn: "Single Comb Brown Leghorns divided into Light and Dark in 1923 and Rose Comb Leghorns divided into Light and Dark in 1933."

Edited to add: The Mating and Breeding of Poultry, Lamon and Slocum, 1920, page 163. They discuss this in 1920, talking about a proposal to divide the variety as I described.

 

[Chris09]

APA SOP, page 114, the breed description for the Leghorn: "Single Comb Brown Leghorns divided into Light and Dark in 1923 and Rose Comb Leghorns divided into Light and Dark in 1933."

All that states is that Light Brown Leghorns were bred from the Brown (Dark Brown) Leghorn, it doe's not state anything about double breed, or that the result of double breeding made two different varieties like you stated in your post here.


Quote:


Chris

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Historically the ideal for the female and the ideal for the male in Brown Leghorns were such that double mating was necessary to achieve the ideal in both sexes. The reason is that there is a natural variance, a spectrum of possibilities between Light Brown Leghorns and Dark Brown Leghorns. I believe it was that the male they wanted to be lighter, but the female darker (admittedly it could be the other way around. I can't remember off hand). With these requirements one was using non-Standard colored males in breeding to get Standard females and vice versa. Eventually, though, the decision was made, and breeding was perfected such that it was more sensical and more beneficial to the varities to separate them. Light Brown and Dark Brown Leghorns are both basic BBR/Duckwing patterns but they vary in hue. It should be noted that it was necessary to go through this phase, however. Brown Leghorns did not emerge from Italay with the polished smoothness we expect today. Darks and Lights were pulled out of Brown Leghorns which when considered one variety were always fluctuating between the extremes of light and dark. There was no stability in the pattern, which made it very difficult to judge. By dividing this variable color pattern into the two varieties, it was possible to stabilize the pattern and perfect, achieving uniformity of color on excellent, productive type.

Partridge fowl have the same range of variability; however, historically they were not divided into two varieties; the darker phase was simply preferred. In England the lighter phase is preferred. Here we get the dark females, which leads to the dark males; in Britain they get the lighter, brighter males, which leads to the lighter females. Nevertheless, the basic pattern is the same. We could have Dark and Light Partridge varieties just as we have Light and Dark Brown varieties.

I think, perhaps, more is being made out of the double-mating question than is needful. It's good also to remember that the poultry world has been an ever developing organism. Traits need to be worked out. Double-breeding certain patterns helps one avoid an overage of culls without surer results. Without double mating, several patterns have a natural natural tendency to head towards a smutty middle ground, and it becomes more difficult to pull well-marked birds.

To note, though, none of this in any way should have a negative effect on vigor and productivity. A male line of Silver-pencilled Hamburgs need be no less productive than a female line.

I personally am not drawn to double-breeding. The three breeds of fowl we breed are had with single mating: sel-white, self-black, mottled. However, I am glad that there are those who are willing to double mate, because it supports those breed that are best had by doing so.

Also, an argument could be made that double mating could support a breed. If one keeps both a male and a female line of a double-mated variety, let's think again of Golden-pencilled Hamburgs, one very well might keep a strong enough line for each such that there is no need to add more blood. If both the male line and the female line are developed from related stock, the rare need to cross the two lines would be done so seldomly that it would give the needed jolt of heterosis needed to envigorate while not bringing in the negative traits associated with a distant out-cross. In a few seasons the color would be tamed again. In all of this the same eye would be selecting for type and productivity such that the two lines should be more or less identical in conformation and productivity. Thus one would stand to possess a respectable reserve of biodiversity within a framework or rare uniformity.

 

[BKPUCKETT]

Point #1... I beg to differ. I think the comments you are responding to were directed toward Walt who is a Poultry Judge. I think your statement of "they either don't know the answer or they don't want you to know" is pretty off the wall. Walt knows his stuff and he is also very very helpful in helping people understand his answers to the questions they ask him. If he seemed a bit short in his reply its probably because he's had a long day or he's had to deal with a lot of people thinking they know what they're talking about. This tends to make a person a bit snippy at times.

Point #2... You are so very wrong here. Of course you need color but there is an old quote: "First you have to build the barn and then you can paint it." Of course while choosing birds to breed together, you need to consider color... for instance, if you're trying to breed a speckled bird and you have birds that are laced instead, you don't use such a thing. If you are trying to fix someone's screw ups in just putting two birds together no matter what they look like or what color they are, if you're building your bird, you need to work on type first. If you add new blood to your line, you need to consider type first... unless OF COURSE there is some terribly foreign color on the thing... then you don't use it.

Remember too, you need type AND color. You can't win the Mediterranean class with a perfectly colored Light Brown Leghorn that looks like an Orpington!

Don't be ridiculous.

First of all I meant to disrespect to Walt I didn't even he was involved I didn't know he was a judge I'm sure he is a good one I done some judging (mules) judging a chicken show would be harder there is so many breeds and verity's anyway my post was not about Walt. i was addressing the person that felt ridiculed. About double mating you cant blame the judge he judges by the standard. You cant blame the breeder He there to win a ribbon. I can under stand why a breeder that has his double mating in place would want it fixed now .Double Mating anyone in there right mind would agree it would be better if it had been fixed in the beginning. It will never be fixed because the people in power have it the way they want it. If we wamt to play we have to play there way.


PS I have shown Horses, Mules,Mini Donkeys and Rabbit Dogs it is the same in everything.

 

[NYREDS]

So many people misunderstand: The trouble is not at all with the Standard.

The trouble is actually 4-fold (imo):

1. Judging is done today by comparison instead of scoring as mentioned in the Standard. (Of course, this is because we the exhibitors prefer one day shows and like to be finished by 3pm).

2. Fad breeding instead of breeding to the Standard.

3. Exhibitors are attached emotionally to their birds and often fail to see faults.

4. Judges are human and will be drawn to breeds they prefer or will turn the show into a mere feather show instead of following the Standard themselves.


With this stated, I think it always best to breed to the Standard. You might not always win, but you can feel proud of the results you achieve and the birds you present.

Some people have a romantic fascination with scorecard judging but they fail to realize that those points were awarded by judges just as human as judges today. All the same prejudices & subjective interpretations applied. Judgeing poultry isn't like grading a math test, it is subjective, not objective. Yes, there is a Standard but it has to be interpreted by the judge & this interpretation is in part subjective. This is clearly illustrated by the two day shows that are popular in some parts of the country. If judging was purely objective the same birds would win both shows but they don't. If placemant was byy points rather than comparrison the outcome would be the same as the same judges would be awarding th points based on their subjective interpretation of the Standard.
As to point 4 it's a little insulting. Admitting the subjective nature of the judging process I believe that most judges make every effort to folow the standard. Awarding points wouldn't affect this process at all.

 

[NYREDS]

First of all I meant to disrespect to Walt I didn't even he was involved I didn't know he was a judge I'm sure he is a good one I done some judging (mules) judging a chicken show would be harder there is so many breeds and verity's anyway my post was not about Walt. i was addressing the person that felt ridiculed. About double mating you cant blame the judge he judges by the standard. You cant blame the breeder He there to win a ribbon. I can under stand why a breeder that has his double mating in place would want it fixed now .Double Mating anyone in there right mind would agree it would be better if it had been fixed in the beginning. It will never be fixed because the people in power have it the way they want it. If we wamt to play we have to play there way.


PS I have shown Horses, Mules,Mini Donkeys and Rabbit Dogs it is the same in everything.

I've read your comment several times & I just can't make sense of it.

 

[BKPUCKETT]

I've read your comment several times & I just can't make sense of it.

I guess I'm not good at expressing myself. I cant type or spell very well. I was trying to tell Hallerlake I agree(if you have to double mate to get show birds) that is wrong but you cant fix it