Silver Laced Wyandottes

[CuteBantams]

Hello,

We got 10 SLW chicks this spring, and my brother and I will be showing some at our county fair this summer. Here's the scoop: Some of them have rose combs, and some have small single combs. Are the ones with single combs showable? Thanks!

 

[LilJoe]

Please dont show the ones with single combs... they are a veey bad representation of the breed

 

[PotatoHead]

I have also heard that a single comb SLW is not desirable and birds with the single comb should not be bred.

One of my prettiest SLW’s has a single comb.

 

[The Moonshiner]

I wouldn't breed them and wouldn't try to show them. They should be DQd at any show.
There's a link to lower fertility in rose comb breeds so many breeds had single combs bred in or continuously bred to improve fertility. Wyandottes being the most well know for it.
IMO its the dumbest idea. Why increase fertility to increase chicks produced when a significant amount of them will show and carry on a disqualifying trait?

 

[nicalandia]

There's a link to lower fertility in rose comb breeds so many breeds had single combs bred in or continuously bred to improve fertility. Wyandottes being the most well know for it.
IMO its the dumbest idea. Why increase fertility to increase chicks produced when a significant amount of them will show and carry on a disqualifying trait?

Here is the link to the study: http://www.rosecombs.com/documents/low_fertility.pdf?page_id=116

As to why sensible breeders do it and have been doing it for the past 100 years, is that most people don't keep Wyandottes to show them in the show ring, they keep them because of their productive traits, and even the people that only show them know that only a percentage of their stock will be showable, you can argue the same for the Black,Blue,Splash breeders knowing they can't show many of their birds.

 

[Dona Worry]

My little Billi chick has a single comb, I actually thought she was a roo at first, but now I am 87% sure she is a hen.
I didn't know about the fertility difference, that's really interesting!

 

[The Moonshiner]

Here is the link to the study: http://www.rosecombs.com/documents/low_fertility.pdf?page_id=116

As to why sensible breeders do it and have been doing it for the past 100 years, is that most people don't keep Wyandottes to show them in the show ring, they keep them because of their productive traits, and even the people that only show them know that only a percentage of their stock will be showable, you can argue the same for the Black,Blue,Splash breeders knowing they can't show many of their birds.

Just my opinion but can't agree.
Most all breeds are keep more often for outside of the ring purposes especially now days. Not a valid excuse for me.
BBS is the nature of the beast. Totally different then bringing in or continuing to breed a gene that is a DQ on purpose.
I just don't believe you'd be better off producing them. % wise of showable birds IMO would be worse by doing so then by dealing with the fertility issue.

 

[Dona Worry]

IMO its the dumbest idea. Why increase fertility to increase chicks produced when a significant amount of them will show and carry on a disqualifying trait?

This right here sums up my annoyance in breeding animals for show. From dogs to cows to horses, people get so caught up in breeding for specific (and often extreme) traits, they toss health, longevity, fertility, and functionality to the side.
If a specific comb is linked to higher productivity, why ISN'T that the desired breed standard?
Sorry, it's just a huge pet peeve of mine. The Guernsey breed of cows was destroyed because people wanted a more extreme appearance.

 

[LilJoe]

Kind of like Araucana.. they have the lethal tuft gene and are rumpless.Rumpless roos can't balance on a hen very well without a tail, so fertility % is low. Then you had in the lethal gene and that drops the hatch rate even lower.
It's just how the breed is and what the standard calls for. Different breeds are unique.

This right here sums up my annoyance in breeding animals for show. From dogs to cows to horses, people get so caught up in breeding for specific (and often extreme) traits, they toss health, longevity, fertility, and functionality to the side.
If a specific comb is linked to higher productivity, why ISN'T that the desired breed standard?
Sorry, it's just a huge pet peeve of mine. The Guernsey breed of cows was destroyed because people wanted a more extreme appearance.

 

[Dona Worry]

Kind of like Araucana.. they have the lethal tuft gene and are rumpless.Rumpless roos can't balance on a hen very well without a tail, so fertility % is low. Then you had in the lethal gene and that drops the hatch rate even lower.
It's just how the breed is and what the standard calls for. Different breeds are unique.

Yes!!! Why on EARTH breed a chicken where half of them die in their eggs, and the other half have backs so short they can't breed naturally?!
Different breed standards are all fine and well, but I think neglecting health and viability traits in favor of appearance is irresponsible breeding, REGARDLESS of pedigree or breed characteristics.