Standard of Perfection

[fowlman01]

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22American+Poultry+Association%22
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=wyandottes
Here is a link to many standard of perfections available for you to read on line. They are basically the same verb age as the latter issues sold today. One standard that is the best buy of standards is sold by the American Poultry Association and many poultry supply sites and that is the Black and White issue of the standard. I prefer looking at the black and white pictures as they were done by A O Schilling. Also I am short on time Matt here are the books on Wyandotte’s for you to look at and there was a Standard book made for Plymouth Rocks and Wyandotte’s. Maybe you can find it in all these books. These where special standards written by the leaders of the APA years ago and also wrote how to breed for some of the colors. You can take many of these chapters and use them to day to breed for color. You all ask me if there are any old articles or books out there on the subject well here they are. This should keep you busy for a while. Remember to read the pages that Walt talked about first before looking and going crazy over the pictures.
The black and white standard is cheap about $25. I think bob

The APA was selling the black and white version for $10., but I think they are out of them now. The APA 2010 version is $59.00 shipped. I am a retired university administrator and I can tell you that a hard bound 400 page full color technical document like the SOP is a buy. Something similar at a bookstore would be $200-250. The main differences between the 2001 version and the 2010 is that the latter has a lot more color illustrations and those illustrations are of a higher quality than the ones done by the previous artists.
It also includes new breeds/varieties that are not in the 2001 edition. Three varieties of Guinea fowl are also included in the 2010 edition.

Most of the people who say the the APA is about showing have not read the first 37 pages of the SOP. Kim had a great post earlier giving her experience with the SOP and poultry shows. Most have never looked at the SOP or been to a real show. Most fairs do not have real poultry shows and many times use unlicensed judges and this is the only experience with shows that most people have.

My wife who is also an APA Master Exhibitor has raised and shown Corgi's for many years (30) and from my perspective dog shows/breeding and poultry shows or breeding have nothing in common with with each other.

Black Copper and Wheaten Marans LF are now recognized along with several bantam breeds.

Walt

 

[checoukan]

The APA was selling the black and white version for $10., but I think they are out of them now. The APA 2010 version is $59.00 shipped. I am a retired university administrator and I can tell you that a hard bound 400 page full color technical document like the SOP is a buy. Something similar at a bookstore would be $200-250. The main differences between the 2001 version and the 2010 is that the latter has a lot more color illustrations and those illustrations are of a higher quality than the ones done by the previous artists.
It also includes new breeds/varieties that are not in the 2001 edition. Three varieties of Guinea fowl are also included in the 2010 edition.

Most of the people who say the the APA is about showing have not read the first 37 pages of the SOP. Kim had a great post earlier giving her experience with the SOP and poultry shows. Most have never looked at the SOP or been to a real show. Most fairs do not have real poultry shows and many times use unlicensed judges and this is the only experience with shows that most people have.

My wife who is also an APA Master Exhibitor has raised and shown Corgi's for many years (30) and from my perspective dog shows/breeding and poultry shows or breeding have nothing in common with with each other.

Black Copper and Wheaten Marans LF are now recognized along with several bantam breeds.

Walt

Until I took over the rains here for the county 4H fair, they did use different people to judge the poultry. For the last 5 years we have hired only licensed APA, or ABA judges. Has made a big difference on the amount of kids in the poultry projects.
Last year we had either 85, or 90 kids enrolled. This year we are going to get some eggs from the U of A. I am going to hatch the chicks, and then the children will come pick out the chicks for free. I am always trying to get the children in to better chickens.

 

[fowlman01]

Until I took over the rains here for the county 4H fair, they did use different people to judge the poultry. For the last 5 years we have hired only licensed APA, or ABA judges. Has made a big difference on the amount of kids in the poultry projects.
Last year we had either 85, or 90 kids enrolled. This year we are going to get some eggs from the U of A. I am going to hatch the chicks, and then the children will come pick out the chicks for free. I am always trying to get the children in to better chickens.

Good job! If we don't keep the kids interested this hobby will die.

Walt

 

[Ducks and Banny hens]

Dr. Miller -
In a previous post, you listed the inbreeding coeffecients; I was just wondering, how fast does the coeffecient rise when you continue inbreeding i.e. if you breed together inbred siblings, how high would the coefficient be in the offspring, and, how fast does the coefficient dissipate, i.e., if you breed an inbred bird to an unrelated bird, what is the inbreeding coeffecient of the offspring then?
Thank you very much for your response and your helpful posts!

 

[fowlman01]

Yes, I sometime refer to these days as the 'Second Hen Fever'; everybody seems to be interested in poultry, which is great. Agriculture is on the rise again. Like you, I don't know what to make of it. Sometimes people take to farming etc. to 'get back to the land' in advent of some apocalyptic event, some take to poultry raising 'because it's cool', or because 'everyone else has chickens'. Some beging poultry keeping because they were simply drawn to for one reason or another. Whatever the reason, it's been about 70 years since the world saw agriculture climbing this high. For that matter, I hope it continues to rise. It's good for people. There are people (myself included) who aren't even using currency in regards to buying and selling to other farmers. It's great!


I also had an idea. You mentioned in a previous post that the SOP lacked pedigree requirements, thereby letting stringmen take their trade. What if we were to all write in to the APA and suggest them put pedigree requirements in the next SOP?

If you can explain how to do this I will be happy to suggest it to the APA. It would require that all show poultry have a permanent marking of some kind. I tattoo my waterfowl, but wing bands and seamless bands are not foolproof. Who would oversee this program? The ABA/APA officers are overworked as it is. I don't really see much benefit in pedegreeing since most judges can spot a hybrid chicken.....although not always. This is a massive undertaking to catch the very few who would try to show a X breed as a purebred. That is why it has never been done.

What the stringman did back in the day really has nothing to do with the way poultry are shown today. They made a living showing poultry, so they bent some rules. It is impossible to make a living showing birds now. The fairs don't pay what they used to pay etc.

Walt

 

[fowlman01]

Not to take anthing away from Wilber who was a great chicken man but there's another, still living Stringman out there. John Hayes of Mt Upton, NY. John is listed in "The Stringman's Scrapbook". He's well into his 80s & while he doesn't show much anymore he does still have a few birds. He developed argueably the best strain of Blue Andalusians in the country.

Sorry....forgot about John Hayes. I sure wish he was still raising Andalusians. I just don't see them the way he made them these days.

Walt

 

[AllenWMiller]

If you can explain how to do this I will be happy to suggest it to the APA. It would require that all show poultry have a permanent marking of some kind. I tattoo my waterfowl, but wing bands and seamless bands are not foolproof. Who would oversee this program? The ABA/APA officers are overworked as it is. I don't really see much benefit in pedegreeing since most judges can spot a hybrid chicken.....although not always. This is a massive undertaking to catch the very few who would try to show a X breed as a purebred. That is why it has never been done.
Oh I think folks have missed the mark of what my issue with the APA/ABA was with regard to SOP requiring breeding records and history. I by no means was speaking of a pedigree program. As Walt mentions this would be extremely difficult to manage generally. My point also wasn't so much about identifying "trick chickens" in the show.
As Walt says there isn't enough money is showing today to have any reason for a pedigree program.

No my point was breed history and breed creation records. I suggested that early on, had the ABA required new breeds being admitted into the SOP, to be fully documented as to how the breed was created. That record would have proved invaluable to securing heritage breeds for the future. I wasn't necessarily suggesting either that these records would have been included in the SOP; rather I would have liked to have seen early on the APA/ABA maintain a breed record library for access to breeders and geneticists.

 

[AllenWMiller]

In a previous post, you listed the inbreeding coeffecients; I was just wondering, how fast does the coeffecient rise when you continue inbreeding i.e. if you breed together inbred siblings, how high would the coefficient be in the offspring, and, how fast does the coefficient dissipate, i.e., if you breed an inbred bird to an unrelated bird, what is the inbreeding coeffecient of the offspring then?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ducks and Banny Hens you raise an advanced breeding question and I wondered how I should answer you questions. I could answer by expressing Sewell Wright's coefficient mathematical formulas written out or I could answer to the laymen breeder. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Since most breeders are not relatively interested in advanced genetics I will just express the equations and then give a more simplistic answer. If, later, folks would like a more in depth review of the higher genetic mathematical workings of breeding and in depth explanations; then I will advance this line further.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]pAO= 2-n⋅((1+fA)/(1+fO))½[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]rBC = Σ pAB⋅pAC.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]rBC = Σp 2-L(p)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]r = 2n⋅2-2n = 2-n = 3%[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Through these four equations, in 1922, Wright established himself as the founder of the Coefficient of Relationships and advanced modern genetics; thereby solidifying Mendelism. Needless to say, the average breeder has no need to understand the math since Wright's Coefficient Chart is so much easier to comprehend. I studied under Sewell in the 50's and I still don't understand the entire thing![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now to be less complicated I would explain that the coefficient doesn't climb with regard to inbreeding it remains statistically constant as stated in the chart. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]With regard to outbreeding simply stated you reverse the effects of inbreeding in one generation based on the level of inbreeding by 100% providing you are dealing with true unrelated stock. To this end if a hen resulting from a father/daughter cross is then bred to an unrelated cock the coefficient of the offspring is 12.5% and if that offspring is crossed to an unrelated partner then that offspring's coefficient is 6.25%.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Now geneticists will argue I am oversimplifying here and they would be correct. But for average breeding purposes this is an acceptable formula. So simply stated the effects of a father/daughter cross on future offspring would be negated in 3 generations.[/FONT]

 

[fowlman01]

If you can explain how to do this I will be happy to suggest it to the APA. It would require that all show poultry have a permanent marking of some kind. I tattoo my waterfowl, but wing bands and seamless bands are not foolproof. Who would oversee this program? The ABA/APA officers are overworked as it is. I don't really see much benefit in pedegreeing since most judges can spot a hybrid chicken.....although not always. This is a massive undertaking to catch the very few who would try to show a X breed as a purebred. That is why it has never been done.
Oh I think folks have missed the mark of what my issue with the APA/ABA was with regard to SOP requiring breeding records and history. I by no means was speaking of a pedigree program. As Walt mentions this would be extremely difficult to manage generally. My point also wasn't so much about identifying "trick chickens" in the show.
As Walt says there isn't enough money is showing today to have any reason for a pedigree program.

No my point was breed history and breed creation records. I suggested that early on, had the ABA required new breeds being admitted into the SOP, to be fully documented as to how the breed was created. That record would have proved invaluable to securing heritage breeds for the future. I wasn't necessarily suggesting either that these records would have been included in the SOP; rather I would have liked to have seen early on the APA/ABA maintain a breed record library for access to breeders and geneticists.

That would have been a good idea and should be considered today. Most of what the ABA/APA is seeing now is variety additions to existing breeds. The APA describes how each recognized breed was made originally, but some of these have been recreated because of extinction. They are not always recreated in the same manner as the original.
In any event the APA does list how breeds were made originally in most breeds. It is now a requirement for the breed before it is admitted to the APA. I am not sure what they did prior to 1974. There were 9 qualifying meets at Indy in Oct. They all had to submit a description of how the breed came about, some history and uses of the breed. This is used for the intro to the breed.

Walt

The APA now recognizes a new goose in the medium class. The Steinbacher goose.

 

[AllenWMiller]

​

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Allen, it is indeed a pleasure to find this thread and enjoy the articulation and knowledge that you are contributing. I have a question regarding your thoughts on inbreeding as a tool to advance desired physical, mental and production characteristics in poultry. On another thread it has been stated that most recessive genes cause adverse results in fowl. It has been my thinking that in some cases that may be true, but certainly not all or most even.
How would you suggest to use inbreeding in an effective breeding program, or would you advise against it ?[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Now to answer your question regarding inbreeding and my advise on it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Inbreeding is a time tested method of fixing and maintaining desirable characteristics in any breeding program; whether it be cattle or pigs or dogs or chickens or humans for that matter (Why else would the Windsors all look so much alike? Those ears are homogenous heredity afterall.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But inbreeding for the average flock owner has little value and for the poultry productionist this is also generally true. If the desire is to maintain uniformity and consistency among the stock; then selective breeding alone or a modified selective line breeding program will work most effectively. This will limit establishing any unwanted traits within the stock.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]My immediate response to any breeder who wants to start an inbreeding program is how much time and experience do you have breeding? How well do you know the stock you are working with? What is your purpose for the program?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I don't recommend an inbreeding program for the novice or even intermediate breeder. There are too many variables that can go terribly wrong and usually do (even with the advanced breeder!).[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The statement you make that “most recessive genes cause adverse results in fowls” is 100% correct. This is the biggest secret to a successful inbreeding program that many overlook. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Before you even begin contemplating a complex Selective Inbreeding program you must know the stock you will be working with intimately. In order to prevent disasters like loss of fertility, Marek's Disease, twisted toes, aggressiveness, loss of hatchability, etc., you must have and maintain clean, healthy, genetically sound stock to begin with in any inbreeding program.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If you know your stock is sound, without issue, since you have hatched several runs of chicks and the offspring are sound and you know the stock of origin; then you are ready perhaps to take the next step to creating a Selective Inbreeding program.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Note here that I keep emphasizing Selective Inbreeding; rather than just an inbreeding program because you must be rigorous in your generational culling and selection with each hatch. (Note: a direct inbreeding program is extremely complicated and requires almost religious attention to detail to maintain.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]So here is a basic program of Selective Inbreeding:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Your prime concern is first selecting the absolute finest one year but not more than two year old Cock. This is where knowledge of the SOP comes into play for any breeding program. The SOP provides a breeder the blueprint when selecting breeding stock.[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Your second objective is to select 5 hens that excel; again using the SOP as a blueprint.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Creating the first generation results in breeding your cock to your 5 hens.[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Upon maturity of the first generation, select the finest pullets available from the hatches of the first generation. Allow these pullets to mature to one year old.[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Cross ten first generation daughters back to their father resulting in the second generation.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Select the finest pullets from the second generation and allow them to mature to one year old.[/FONT]
7. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Cross the second generation hens back to their father resulting in the third generation.[/FONT]
8. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]At the third generation, these offspring will possess about 95% of their father's genetic make up.[/FONT]
9. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]From the 3rd generation on you can either cross back into the father up to 4 to 5 more years depending on his vigor or you can start a brother/sister cross selecting the finest from the third generation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Here are several cautionary notes on this program:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If hatchability starts to decrease then the line is genetically recessive and you should stop the program and outbreed for at least one generation.[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If infertility should start to occur during hatches follow the advise in #1.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If an increase in mortality happens to offspring (chick or adult) refer to #1.[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Slower growth rate, later maturity, decreased egg production, malformation, etc refer to #1.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If you suspect that inbreeding is causing defects then a one generation careful outcross could easily prove if inbreeding was responsible for the issues listed in 1 through 4. Just be careful to select an unrelated cock that is of known quality and history so that you don't introduce unwanted traits.[/FONT]