T or F? Any bird fitting APA SOP is SQ

[jmc]

Quote:
the bird would have to fit, not one's personal standards, but the standard of the APA; at least, that is my hunch.

But then again, how broadly can 'fitting the APA SOP' be interpreted? That is a real question, also.........

I do not show birds, nor will i ever. i attend poultry shows about once every 30 years...........!!!

 

[Oldhound]

Excuse me . There are standards of perfection for chickens, horses, goats cats, dogs etc. if you did exhibit animals , chickens, you would understand that there is variability within each standard. It depends how strict you are and what your opinion is of good. Strictly speaking any animal, bird that has no disqualifying faults is show quality , but they all have faults to a greater or lesser degree. One's personal Standards may be higher or lower than the next guy's, even though thay both have animals that have no disqualifying faults. It depends upon how many and which of the many non disqualifying faults ( if you are capable of recognizing them) a breeder is willing to put up with to call their animals Show Quality.
Some people are more strict and will not breed or show an animal with more faults than they consider safe to maintain the integrity of the breed.
Others will breed and show mediocre animals at dinky poorly attended shows, wave the ribbons and sell as much as they can.

If you do not exhibit , do you breed ?
If not, what is your purpose in posing the questions you have asked ?

Bill

 

[rodriguezpoultry]

Quote:

Because many, MANY people will show a bird as a pure bred, win at a show and quickly sell that animal in order to "make a buck". I have seen it happen to young beginners in the fancy. Just because a bird looks purebred does not mean it is and does not mean that those same attributes will be repeated when bred to a true bird.

 

[jmc]

Quote:
thanks, bill.

the most helpful answer yet, though all are appreciated.

i was hoping someone would confirm my hunch that there is indeed a certain 'breadth' to the interpretation of the SOP. Since I do not breed show birds I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be. Demanding a 'fit' to exact would be rather unrealistic.

I also see now what you mean by 'one's personal standards'. Helpful.

 

[jmc]

Quote:

Because many, MANY people will show a bird as a pure bred, win at a show and quickly sell that animal in order to "make a buck". I have seen it happen to young beginners in the fancy. Just because a bird looks purebred does not mean it is and does not mean that those same attributes will be repeated when bred to a true bird.

really?! that is a shame that people do that......and loads of people.

I am surprised that so many birds that are not pure-bred APA-recognized birds can be such good counterfeits. Very sad that something as nice as poultry showing can become a vehicle for..............'near-thievery'

thanks alot for your time

 

[Stumpfarmer]

Quote:

Because many, MANY people will show a bird as a pure bred, win at a show and quickly sell that animal in order to "make a buck". I have seen it happen to young beginners in the fancy. Just because a bird looks purebred does not mean it is and does not mean that those same attributes will be repeated when bred to a true bird.

This is a problem in all animal shows- in cattle it's gotten to be such a problem that the nationals require dna testing. There was, rather famously, an Aberdeen Angus bull about thirty years ago who cleaned up at all the fairs only to be exposed as 25% Holstein-Freisian.

The problem, of course, is that what impresses in the show ring is often exposed as a sham in the breeding pen. Breeding for phenotype only means that other characteristics of the breed- egg shape, color and production, growth rate (another show sham often involves entering animals in younger age classes), carcase quality, libido, temperament, and social behavior, for instance- get lost in the shuffle. I rather expect (or at least hope, a testimony to the persistance of optimism) that poultry showing is less insane than cattle, horses, and dogs and that there are not the problems with fertility, temperament, and genetic defects which are pervasive in some purebreds of those species.

Of course, it isn't just SQ animals which can be sailing under false flags. (An example from the cattle world, because that's where I live) The recent advertising value of "Black Angus" as a brand has led to black feeders bringing a premium at the sale barn. My BIL is adament that we breed to black bulls, so much that I was the one to come up with the cash for a Shorthorn bull this year. Last year, in the heavily inflated Angus Bull Market, he bought a solid black bull with a not-quite-Angus head to use on my Shorthorn cows: we ended up with three solid red, four red and white (one out of a solid red cow), five black and white (three of them out of solid red cows) and three solid black calves. In short: not an Angus genotype. In chickens, it's the equivalent of buying an allegedly SQ GLW flock that throw a high proportion of straight combed offspring, or "Cochins" with 75% clean or partially feathered legs.

What it all comes down to is that some human beings are actually weasels under the skin, and will lie through their teeth if it makes them a dime. This is not a problem with chickens, it's a problem with humans, and one that complicates every aspect of life.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
thanks, bill.

the most helpful answer yet, though all are appreciated.

i was hoping someone would confirm my hunch that there is indeed a certain 'breadth' to the interpretation of the SOP. Since I do not breed show birds I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be. Demanding a 'fit' to exact would be rather unrealistic.

I also see now what you mean by 'one's personal standards'. Helpful.

Some of the standards are written very specifically, for example, requiring the tail at a 45 degree angle; others are written much more loosly, calling for a "moderate" crest. One judge's definition of moderate can vary widely from another's.

 

[jmc]

Quote:
Because many, MANY people will show a bird as a pure bred, win at a show and quickly sell that animal in order to "make a buck". I have seen it happen to young beginners in the fancy. Just because a bird looks purebred does not mean it is and does not mean that those same attributes will be repeated when bred to a true bird.

This is a problem in all animal shows- in cattle it's gotten to be such a problem that the nationals require dna testing. There was, rather famously, an Aberdeen Angus bull about thirty years ago who cleaned up at all the fairs only to be exposed as 25% Holstein-Freisian.

The problem, of course, is that what impresses in the show ring is often exposed as a sham in the breeding pen. Breeding for phenotype only means that other characteristics of the breed- egg shape, color and production, growth rate (another show sham often involves entering animals in younger age classes), carcase quality, libido, temperament, and social behavior, for instance- get lost in the shuffle. I rather expect (or at least hope, a testimony to the persistance of optimism) that poultry showing is less insane than cattle, horses, and dogs and that there are not the problems with fertility, temperament, and genetic defects which are pervasive in some purebreds of those species.

Of course, it isn't just SQ animals which can be sailing under false flags. (An example from the cattle world, because that's where I live) The recent advertising value of "Black Angus" as a brand has led to black feeders bringing a premium at the sale barn. My BIL is adament that we breed to black bulls, so much that I was the one to come up with the cash for a Shorthorn bull this year. Last year, in the heavily inflated Angus Bull Market, he bought a solid black bull with a not-quite-Angus head to use on my Shorthorn cows: we ended up with three solid red, four red and white (one out of a solid red cow), five black and white (three of them out of solid red cows) and three solid black calves. In short: not an Angus genotype. In chickens, it's the equivalent of buying an allegedly SQ GLW flock that throw a high proportion of straight combed offspring, or "Cochins" with 75% clean or partially feathered legs.

What it all comes down to is that some human beings are actually weasels under the skin, and will lie through their teeth if it makes them a dime. This is not a problem with chickens, it's a problem with humans, and one that complicates every aspect of life.

Thanks alot, again, Stump.

Yeah, sad; we humans can be a pretty sad lot--and we're supposed to the the 'rational' ones!

 

[jmc]

Quote:
thanks, bill.

the most helpful answer yet, though all are appreciated.

i was hoping someone would confirm my hunch that there is indeed a certain 'breadth' to the interpretation of the SOP. Since I do not breed show birds I couldn't imagine there wouldn't be. Demanding a 'fit' to exact would be rather unrealistic.

I also see now what you mean by 'one's personal standards'. Helpful.

Some of the standards are written very specifically, for example, requiring the tail at a 45 degree angle; others are written much more loosly, calling for a "moderate" crest. One judge's definition of moderate can vary widely from another's.

that is an interesting addition.

I know from my time with K. Campbell ducks and an acquaintance who tried showing some NON SOP birds, that a drake lacking the proper angle to body carriage (20 - 30 degrees) had not a chance in the show...........

thank you!

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Some of the standards are written very specifically, for example, requiring the tail at a 45 degree angle; others are written much more loosly, calling for a "moderate" crest. One judge's definition of moderate can vary widely from another's.

that is an interesting addition.

I know from my time with K. Campbell ducks and an acquaintance who tried showing some NON SOP birds, that a drake lacking the proper angle to body carriage (20 - 30 degrees) had not a chance in the show...........

thank you!

I'd be much happier if the standard was alwasy as specific as possible; it would be nice to see tail angle included for every breed, and words that are not specific replaced by ones that are. For example, it would make sense to give proportions for the size of the head/crest to the body and tail rather tha simply say "moderate."