Standard of Perfection

[babymakes6]

Here, I found it, from a post above:
And actually I've never shown a single one of my birds in 97 years and counting (though lets never say never just yet); though many have been shown by customers over the years.

 

[Ducks and Banny hens]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Thanks Ducks and Bannys. Though I asked for differing view points regarding the interpretation of the SOP not an out and out disregard for it. However, I just read through the string and I've more than a few comments and concerns. In all honesty, I don't think the folks there are debating with a clear understanding of what the Standard of Perfection was actually established for in the first place. Nor did they clearly argue why they are so against standards in general.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I will agree that today the ABA is geared almost exclusively to the fancier and show person. But that hasn't always been the case. There was a time when the ABA encompassed the entire poultry world with breeders, fanciers, hobbyists and productionists. And while today the Standard of Perfection may be wielded as an end all answer to a specific breed of poultry, it most certainly is not how I view it. Particularly since my background is in poultry science, genetics, breeding and production generally and not as a fancier exclusively. And actually I've never shown a single one of my birds in 97 years and counting (though lets never say never just yet); though many have been shown by customers over the years.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My purpose in discussing Standards of Perfection is in use as a guide toward breeding and maintaining genetic breeding material. When breeding one must have a base line standard to follow and with chickens I know not of a better base line than the Standard of Perfection.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now in the string mentioned there was little understanding of chicken breeds or breeding, generally and more than a few misleading comments about letting "chickens" revert back to their original state which is out and out silliness. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The domesticated chicken has little in common with their ancestors to be certain and letting them “revert” back to their wild ancestry is tantamount to saying let all dog breeds revert back to their ancestral wolf heritage. And let all human beings revert back as well?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Chickens of all the Aves, in general, are one of the four most domesticated animals known to man and I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that point. Further, a comment was made that breeding and culling should be left to "mother nature" and again this point seems folly.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If poultry breeders, starting with the Chinese and Egyptians 4 or 5 thousand years ago, had not developed the wild game fowls into domesticated animals for productive purposes; modern man would be without one of the most vital food sources we have today. It can quite easily be argued that between beer and eggs, man was built and sustained for thousands of years.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Poultry breeders, culminating in the early 19th century came to conclusion that standards should be developed to identify the characteristics of the various breeds of Gallus domesticus. This was largely in order to standardize what a breed should be; so that breeders could develop better strains and new breeds based on these standards. Granted that from 1875 onwards the standards developed into a set of rules for showing poultry in general. But this doesn't negate the importance of these standards even to breeders (and dare I say geneticists) today.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And I don't wish to offend anyone but the string touched upon issues of God that really had little to do with the topic at hand. And for those arguing that breeders are “playing with nature” this is difficult to grasp. For when referring to the Old Testament doesn't God Command to “go forth, be fruitful and multiply”? There are certainly passages in the Old Testament as well as archaeological archives clearly demonstrating that “God's People” were selectively breeding animals for thousands of years and references that this fact “Pleased God Greatly”. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now I don't want to start a theological debate here as it it isn't my purpose. My purpose is to clearly state that Standards are necessary in breeding and breeding is absolutely necessary to the survival of this thing we call humanity.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If it weren't for breeders and geneticists billions of people would be starving today far beyond the levels we currently have statistically.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]About two years ago now, I attended the funeral of an old colleague and friend (as an old man I do this a lot, going to funerals of old friends). He was a fella who most should know and worship as the hero he was, but unfortunately he is relatively unknown to most today. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Norman Ernest Borlaug was my friend and probably the greatest savior of mankind of the 20th century onward. Now I know the word savior may rankle a few feathers here but what else do you call a man that dedicated his whole life to savings billions of people (yes this is a literal number of people this man has kept alive and counting) by single handedly developed high yield strains of wheat and corn that are still literally feeding the world and gave his life's work to the people. That's right he didn't collect a dime on his patents but gave them to humanity for the good of the world. (Yes this really REALLY ticked Monsanto off you have no idea!) What other human do we know of that can tout literally saving billions of lives?[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now this has little to do with backyard poultry but my point is that geneticists, breeders and agricultural science all play a vital role in sustaining mankind. And through diversity we maintain this fragile balance between destruction and survival.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]There are six major corporations producing 90% of the worlds food today. Imagine the damage if they fail; if even one failed. Imagine something so simple as old breeds of chickens disappearing and the loss of diversity as a result and the mutant strains that are left develop a chronic genetic disease.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]How do we start over and could we? No heading “backwards” and regressing isn't the answer. Moving forward with clear purpose and understanding is the best and only logical way to proceed.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I apologize that this got off tangent a bit from what this string is suppose to be. I think all strings have their legitimacy but I had hope to keep this string breeding specific.[/FONT]

You put alot of thought into your answer. And I do appreciate all the information. My thread, although it did accomplish it, wasn't meant as a mindless rant against a standard, but was more meant, like I said, as a warning to have priorities when breeding. Far too often I have seen breeders crossing unreversable boundaries to get a perfect blue ribbon bird fast, instead of taking the necessary steps in maintaining inner quality, and then focusing on outer quality. Breeders do insane things like backcrosses (a damaging amount of them), and choosing birds that are closer to the Standard, when those birds may very well be aggressive, poor breeders, inbred, and stupid. I do understand the standard's original purpose, and I respect thaat, but there are people who are detrimentally misinterpretating it, to points where there is no return -- genetic dead-ends, individuals being weak and useless. People have to remember the Standard was made to protect good quality poultry, and yet, some are using it to destroy quality poultry. And as for reverting -- I don't want my birds to become wild critters, but between birds that I have to feed year round and birds I have to feed in the winter, or birds I have to constantly protect, or birds I can rely on to protect themselves, which would you choose. In writing the breed stewards thread, I didn't want to start a world war between the SOP followers and stewards. In fact these are the same people. Yes, we did write some scathing things against SOP, but really, I suppose it wasn't the SOP's fault. A gun doesn't kill people. And so the SOP can't help or harm poultry, being a book, an inanimate object -- all of that lies on the breeders' shoulders.

 

[fowlman01]

Many people who knock the APA SOP have never read it. When I say read it, I mean all of it. Pages 3-38 are the most important part of the document and hardly anyone reads that part. If they did we would not have these kinds of discussions. It clearly explains how a chicken should be constructed and it doesn't say they should be a "bag of feathers" as some show birds are called.
If you don't you don't care to show fine....if you don't care to follow the Standard....fine...just don't knock something unless you have a good argument. That means one you can sustain during a discussion. It is easy to say negative things that you don't have to back up. Most people that are negative about the SOP know nothing about it.

There are a lot of people who red these threads and think that if a person sounds like an authority....they are and that is just not the truth.

Walt

 

[AllenWMiller]

Hello Rosie and glad to hear the incubator and hatcher are balanced now and I hope you move forward with great success. I have never been referred to as "Dr." as I never thought a PhD outside of the medical and veterinarian professions warranted being called by such an august title. When I lectured and taught most of my colleagues and students just referred to me as JA (Jay). Some of my less enthralling and unadroit students used to referred to me as the JAM (my initials of course) but was not a reference of devotion but more referred to me "jamming" them with research and homework. Please just call me JA because like all of you I am still learning myself here at 97 years. No I'm not 97 years young nor old just 97 years if that matters.

Ducks and Banny Hens thank you for your distinguished remarks and correct remarks. My comment about a "rant" while harsh was justified since the majority of the string was not related to the topic nor was the topic clearly defined. Yes I did tease out the meaning of string and its points. But anything is a 'rant' that doesn't allow the average reader or viewer to come into the conversation and be able to immediately upon reading, get a basic grasp about the topic of discussion. When we start injecting personal feelings, emotions and out and out attacks on things the discussion at hand breaks down into "ranting" putting the average reader and seeker of knowledge "off" and this is not what conversation or debate for that matter should accomplish.

Debate by its very nature is at once healthy, constructive and beneficial to all involved because it allows everyone, whether actively or passively, participating to walk away from the conversation with a clear thought pattern of all sides concerned. Debate, in truest Socratic form, never has a winner or a loser but rather has all victors; since an active debate should bring forward all possible answers as we are doing here regarding Standards of Perfection.

As I said earlier, religion and political beliefs and the like, should never enter a healthy debate; especially during these polarized, troubled times. When these sub topics enter, much is said about nothing and little gets answered. People are here to learn about poultry and gain enjoyment from the marvelous endeavor. We are all at different levels some higher and some lower but we all have relevance to the topic of poultry. When a string degrades into what I referred to as a "rant" it puts the average knowledge seeker and true enthusiast "off" and often chases them away. This should not happen in any discussion or debate. Folks here and anywhere should always feel free to join in and express their thoughts or raise questions. But when the string turns dark these people go silent and this is a great loss to us all as there is diversity and knowledge in a multitude of minds and voices.

"Breeders do insane things like backcrosses (a damaging amount of them), and choosing birds that are closer to the Standard, when those birds may very well be aggressive, poor breeders, inbred, and stupid. I do understand the standard's original purpose, and I respect that, but there are people who are detrimentally misinterpreting it"

I take up the point in this statement that "breeders" would never do what is described here. No breeder in their right mind will pursue a line of breeding that will lead to the weakening of the genetic lineage of their stock. Will a fancier or show person do this? Perhaps. But NEVER a breeder for in the very definition of a breeder you have a person dedicated to "improving" the strains they are working with not diminishing them. It would be like a banker investing more and more poorly all the while expecting more and more returns and we know where this has led American and the World right?

Are there morally bankrupt people who call themselves a "breeder"? Yes. Are they breeders? No. Because as stated it flies in the face of the definition of a breeder in the first place.

And that you want your birds to be more robust and independent is laudable and a good endeavor to pursue. But I assure you all chickens are capable of foraging and protecting their young, etc and most birds, whether free range or pen kept do maintain a level of foraging and protectionary skills. Though I agree there are "pampered" chickens just like there are "pampered" people. But here again I assure you that Gallus domesticus will survive and continue to thrive.

Finally. I agree with points made by you Fowlman that many folks have not had the opportunity to read the Standards of Perfection. And this is often to a lack of access. It isn't exactly on every library shelf in American anymore (though it pretty much used to be). And it isn't a cheap purchase anymore either whether a new or used copy. So many folks don't have access. And many folks without access come to sites like this to learn and try to grasp SOP and breeding generally. And often through on-line or in person discussions they get misleading information or see "bad" SOP practices happening at shows and deduce that this is right and proper. And who is to blame for this then?

Like you Fowlman, I agree that the beginning of the SOP is the cornerstone on which it's philosophy of standards are built. But I ask you how many fanciers and show folks have read it, really understood it and applied to their flocks what they have read? These are those at fault for leading the rest astray and creating this "cloud" over the SOP that it is in some way a bad thing to the health and welfare of poultry flocks everywhere. And this was the purpose in me writing this string, a little attempt to help knowledge seeks come to understand the root of the SOP. It is not a fire and brimstone standard written in stone, unalterable be even time. Rather it was and is a treatise on the root of poultry breed qualities generally.

If there is one major fault that I have found with the ABA and the SOP over the last century and a half is their short sightedness in not including lineage requirements and pure breed standard recognition generally. We have this with dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc but not with poultry. Why?

Along this fault, a more egregious fault has occurred and that was that when the ABA set up it's criteria for admission into the SOP, it neglected to set a requirement for listing the breeding stock and records used to achieve and perfect a new breed. Wouldn't it be wonderful today if you only had to open up the SOP to see exactly how a Barred Rock or a Rhode Island Red was achieved? This would have been a great service to Heritage Breeds and Preservationists today. But it was a short sighted oversight and today we are left with a less than perfect record in the SOP. Nonetheless, that this standard has existed as a breed record for 150 plus years is an outstanding achievement isn't it?

Finally I want to thank everyone here for responding in positive and constructive manners without heading toward personal attacks. This kind of debate and discussion, at least for me, is the highest form of achievement any group of people can hope to accomplish.

 

[AllenWMiller]

One thought to remember here for future posts, All knowledge is neither good nor bad but neutral, it is what one does with this knowledge that determines whether it is for the good or for the bad. All knowledge can be misused but likewise it can be used properly. Let's attempt to make proper and good use of all knowledge herein and without.

 

[Ducks and Banny hens]

Many people who knock the APA SOP have never read it. When I say read it, I mean all of it. Pages 3-38 are the most important part of the document and hardly anyone reads that part. If they did we would not have these kinds of discussions. It clearly explains how a chicken should be constructed and it doesn't say they should be a "bag of feathers" as some show birds are called.
If you don't you don't care to show fine....if you don't care to follow the Standard....fine...just don't knock something unless you have a good argument. That means one you can sustain during a discussion. It is easy to say negative things that you don't have to back up. Most people that are negative about the SOP know nothing about it.

There are a lot of people who red these threads and think that if a person sounds like an authority....they are and that is just not the truth.

Walt

I'm sorry to have come off rather short; I don't mean to 'knock' the SOP, but there are certain traits -- hardiness, intellegence, for example -- that don't have a relative type, and can not be achieved by following a standard alone. There is just more to it than that. This is achieved by how you raise birds - not by a certain type.

Dr. Miller -
I aggree, I should have used a slightly different syntax; a person that degrades fowls is not worthy of the title breeder. Perhaps 'Genetic Criminal' is a bit of a better term... However, it is not uncommon. At least not near where I am. Those who do well at our shows don't have repeat business - they are those whom have crossed the 'lines' I mentioned; there are fellows who are quite pathetic - Araucans with tails and feathered legs, Bantam geese that quack, and pretty much any random barnyard cross is a 'rare, exotic breed from the orient' or something; then there are breeders. Stewards. Us.

And finally, yes, I also agree with you in your positivity statements - I certainly don't want to have instigated a civil war. I have made those kinds of mistakes on threads before. Locked threads. I would much rather - like you - walk away having benefitted from this debate.



'It would be like a banker investing more and more poorly all the while expecting more and more returns and we know where this has led American and the World right?'
I'm glad I'm in Canada...

 

[Robert Blosl]

Mr. Miller when I was a young boy teenager in the 1960s I corresponded with one of the last string men in show poultry. His name was Henry K. Miller. He was from Pennsylvania.

Are you related to Henry K. Miller? Bob

 

[Maggiesdad]

... because like all of you I am still learning myself here at 97 years. No I'm not 97 years young nor old just 97 years if that matters....




Oh yes indeed, it matters! It would seem you've done something right! And for me, that alone warrants rapt attention on my part when you hold forth on chickens...

 

[crankster76]

I am one that feels like im in the dark as far as SOP goes. I have never read it. I would like too. I have looked on line for it with no prevail. does anyone know how I could geta copy of this to read? how is one to apply this to there flock if ya cant get it?

 

[Ducks and Banny hens]

I am one that feels like im in the dark as far as SOP goes. I have never read it. I would like too. I have looked on line for it with no prevail. does anyone know how I could geta copy of this to read? how is one to apply this to there flock if ya cant get it?

The ABA (american Bantam association) sells SOPs on their website.

The SOP is applied to flocks through very selective breeding.