Old and Rare Breeds

[Chris09]

buffalogal,

The term Dominique describes a group of patterns like Cuckoo, Crele and Barred. Just like Barring describes a group of patterns like Cuckoo, Crele and Penciling.
The Dominique Leghorn is/was simply a Barred, Cuckoo or Crele pattered Leghorn it didn't matter witch pattern it may be it's "group" pattern was/is a Dominique.
I don't know if you have read “Dominique” or “American Dominique” by Roger Voter but he some information about the word “Dominique" and how there where show results in a number of magazines from the 1800s where there are Dominique Leghorns, Dominique Spanish, Dominique Italians and American Dominiques listed in a number of places. With the exception of the American Dominique, the word “Dominique” always precedes a breed inferring it is a variety.
Now he also states that in most, if not all cases the variety “Dominique” has long since been replaced with “Cuckoo” or “Barred”.

There is some good information in there an well worth reading.

Chris

 

[draye]

Quote:
What size does the current SoP say they should be Chris? Do you think it has ALWAYS been that weight? Think again.

Quote:
Oh dear. The admonition that I need to "do the research". It's like telling someone to "read a book", or "get a clue." Funny how you most often see that kind of uncalled for condescension when someone is asked about a statement they have made and are unable to back up. You are the person who wrote "Dominique Leghorns", and successfully dug around until you unearthed one decades old article written for the British Leghorn club that said that in America, they were called "Dominique Leghorns". But you already know they are not called that in the country, as you were telling someone they are "Barred leghorns" according to the SoP.
Quote:
I wouldn't doubt that a bit. At one time, someone was selling some variety of fluffy chicken and calling them a"Kiwi"; people say all kinds of things. What does conjecture about the origin of the birds used in the creation of the Dominique have to do with anything? I could tell you some people think they owe their hardy and self sufficient natures to having originated in the slaves' quarters in Virginia, and were called Dominique because of the state's nickname: "Old Dominion". That's an equally interesting theory, but just like telling me about Puritans, it means nothing beyond pleasant, idle speculation.

Quote:
I have to tell you, nothing gamefowl breeders do surprises me, certainly not what they name their birds.

BTW, I'm glad you reminded me; I'm still waiting to see pictures of those Dominique Spanish and Dominique Italians you mentioned.

buffalogal,

The term Dominique describes a group of patterns like Cuckoo, Crele and Barred. Just like Barring describes a group of patterns like Cuckoo, Crele and Penciling.
The Dominique Leghorn is/was simply a Barred, Cuckoo or Crele pattered Leghorn it didn't matter witch pattern it may be it's "group" pattern was/is a Dominique.
I don't know if you have read “Dominique” or “American Dominique” by Roger Voter but he some information about the word “Dominique" and how there where show results in a number of magazines from the 1800s where there are Dominique Leghorns, Dominique Spanish, Dominique Italians and American Dominiques listed in a number of places. With the exception of the American Dominique, the word “Dominique” always precedes a breed inferring it is a variety.
Now he also states that in most, if not all cases the variety “Dominique” has long since been replaced with “Cuckoo” or “Barred”.

There is some good information in there an well worth reading.

Chris

Really, this argument has been going on way too long and is not anyway helpful to the thread.​

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
This is quite the bold statement. Assuming that a majority think as you do about purity. I for one do not consider a pure bred bird less of a breed. You may say it is not Standard Bred and I would not argue, but a breed is a breed.

In my humble opinion there are two reasons the "Heritage" breeds are rare; first being the market. Breeding birds not at the top of the production chain was less than optimally profitable. Second, the standards folks were shooting for were Perfection vs. utility.

When breeding for the show, it appears to me that the number of culled birds per hatch is very high. If it is so hard to breed to the standard, maybe it is a poor standard for the breed.

I am a believer and practitioner of selective breeding, but I place performance before beauty. I want happy birds not necessarily beauty queens.

In the days of old a Cock Fighter wouldn't breed from the losers.

I believe that birds that meet the SOP descriptions will produce at a higher level than those that don't. See page 21 and 22 of the APA SOP. An APA judge is supposed to use that guide along with the "pretty" part to select the best birds. I say supposed because there good judges and not so good judges....it is the same with doctors. 50% of them were at the bottom of their class.

When you say it "appears" that the culled bird per hatch is very high, it leads me to believe you don't really know. Is there people who breed a lot and cull a lot....sure, but that is on an individual basis and in most cases rare breeds because they have been so messed up for so many years, it takes that kind of program. Or someone who can't fix the color and type and needs to turn out as many as they can hoping to have one winner.

Heritage birds have been driven by the market and in later years by poultry breeders interest. This whole heritage thing is very good for the chicken hobby.

A show line of any breed better perform or it is a dead end street. You will be finished before you start.

I agree with your last sentence.

Walt

 

[cgmccary]

Chris09:I don't know if you have read “Dominique” or “American Dominique” by Roger Voter

Actually, the book, "The American Dominique, A Treatise For the Fancier," is by Mark Fields (Columbia, Mo. -- great memories of the place -- one of my alma mater's town), and I think there are no more copies, & it is no longer in print. I got one of the last copies Mark mailed to me. Roger and Carol Voter, before they passed, along with David Hyman, did a very detailed outline of a book on the Dominique, they planned to publish. The Voters's children sent the research materials belonging to their parents to Mark Fields. With the help of Hyman and other Dom. enthusiasts, Mark Fields put together the book and published it in 1997. Carol Voter passed away in February, 1993 and Roger Voter died in December, 1994. I don't believe there are any other books on the American Dominique.

It is a great read.

Chris McCary​

 

[saladin]

Quote:
This is quite the bold statement. Assuming that a majority think as you do about purity. I for one do not consider a pure bred bird less of a breed. You may say it is not Standard Bred and I would not argue, but a breed is a breed.

In my humble opinion there are two reasons the "Heritage" breeds are rare; first being the market. Breeding birds not at the top of the production chain was less than optimally profitable. Second, the standards folks were shooting for were Perfection vs. utility.

When breeding for the show, it appears to me that the number of culled birds per hatch is very high. If it is so hard to breed to the standard, maybe it is a poor standard for the breed.

I am a believer and practitioner of selective breeding, but I place performance before beauty. I want happy birds not necessarily beauty queens.

In the days of old a Cock Fighter wouldn't breed from the losers.

I believe that birds that meet the SOP descriptions will produce at a higher level than those that don't. See page 21 and 22 of the APA SOP. An APA judge is supposed to use that guide along with the "pretty" part to select the best birds. I say supposed because there good judges and not so good judges....it is the same with doctors. 50% of them were at the bottom of their class.

When you say it "appears" that the culled bird per hatch is very high, it leads me to believe you don't really know. Is there people who breed a lot and cull a lot....sure, but that is on an individual basis and in most cases rare breeds because they have been so messed up for so many years, it takes that kind of program. Or someone who can't fix the color and type and needs to turn out as many as they can hoping to have one winner.

Heritage birds have been driven by the market and in later years by poultry breeders interest. This whole heritage thing is very good for the chicken hobby.

A show line of any breed better perform or it is a dead end street. You will be finished before you start.

I agree with your last sentence.

Walt

I'll chime in because I hatch alot and cull severly. I'm not ashamed to say that I do. As Walt has stated, many old and rare breeds have not been kept-up as they should have through the years. So, with the one of my main breeds, the Cubalaya, I began collecting all the known strains. After doing this I began doing my best to breed them up to size as type has never been an issue (excepting weight). Mine and Walt's good friend, Sam Brush, sent me and excellent cockbird several years ago that has truly helped in this matter. However, by combining so many different genes I have bred alot of junk: but those birds eat just fine! I am in hopes that after more than a decade of breeding these birds I am finally beginning to get somewhere. It has been a long journey.

My Asil, on the other hand, were some of the best in the country and still are. Yet, I still hatch alot and cull heavily. I would dare say that my culls are better than most peoples good birds! I don't mean that arrogantly. It is just the truth.

With fowl there is no such thing as maintaining. You are either improving a breed or they are degenerating. That takes a good number of birds to accomplish. It is the same in the commerical business. I have a good friend that works for one of the main breeders (British) out of Crossville, TN. He tells me they cull to less than 20% for their broodstock. That means 80% of the birds don't make the cut! The 20% that do, however, provided over 40% of the layers in this country. I'd say they know how to run a program.

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
1888 & 1905. But you don't have to take my word for it: http://www.dominiquechicken.com/The_Dominique_Standard.html

Quote:
1997. Now honestly, what difference do you think that could that possibly make to this discussion?

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
Perhaps it's not helpful to you, but I am enjoying this chance for give and take with a fellow Dominique enthusiast and have always considered clarification to be usefull in discussions among adults. While I have noticed that even the most serious discussions on BYC tend to stray off topic a bit (a brief discussion about call ducks on the heritage large fowl thread, for example), but in this case, as Dominiques most certainly are both old and rare, it does fit here.

 

[Chris09]

“Dominique” or “American Dominique” by Roger Voter

http://www.dominiquechicken.com/The_Dominique_Name.html

Dominique Games

http://www.dominiquechicken.com/Dominique_Games.html

Chris

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
Oooo! I like that. I'm telling you right now I'm going to have to steal that line sometime.

Quote:
I remember (hearing?reading?) about a breeder of a relatively rare variety(*) who asked a Judge well respected in his breed to come by and help him make selections as to which birds to cull. Well, they sat in the pen and the Judge rejected this one and that one for defects the owners hadn't thought twice about. Over and over, bird after bird, was found wanting and consigned to the culls. At the end of the day, after starting with a large pen of birds, the breeder had fewer than 5 birds left (maybe only a trio?) that the Judge decided were worth breeding from.

While he was shocked at how few remained, he didn't pick back through the culls to "make numbers", he set up his breeding pen with the very best that he had, and bred from that. He eventually built up his numbers again, and the quality of his entire flock was elevated, so much so that he became a top breeder of whatever that variety was.

(*) Geeze guys, I know that looks flakey, but I can't remember the details. Actualy, the details aren't as important as the point of the story, that culling hard means a reduction in numbers now, but if done correctly, an overall increase in quality later. At least, that's what I get out of it.

 

[centrarchid]

The followings statement must be taken in the context of many generations. "With fowl there is no such thing as maintaining. You are either improving a breed or they are degenerating."

If this is reality, then a breed / line / population will change from its starting point into something it was not before and over time will have to accumulated enough differences requiring it to be defined as a different breed. Selection in that case is directional.

If the selection on the breed / line / population consistently removes extremes (i.e. too large, too small, posture too low or high etc.), then selection is stabilizing in respect to traits selection is operating on. This is the "maintaining" I think of.

If no net selection, then genetic variation will accumulate (assuming population size is large enough) causing population to become more variable with culls more prevelant as extremes. This seldom a reality as such large populations seldom encountered with rare breeds. This requires hundreds if not thousands of breeders.

Reality here is that too few breeders (breeding birds) constantly removes genes (genetic bottlenecks / genetic drift), some of which are required for quality individuals. To fix, frequent re-introductions of quality blood required. To make long story short, if population small, you are always selecting in one direction or another to stay on top of that middle ground that repressents the breed. It is kind of like riding a unicycle on bumpy ground, staying in one place not possible if you want to stay up.