[...]
Concerning acceptable weights, I have a hard time getting by the idea that the Standard requirements define a breed. It seams to me that getting away from those limitations, is changing the breed into something else altogether. Kind of a little here and a lot tomorrow kind of thing. I have grown to admire the breeders of birds that are an improvement over what they had in 1920, but is still true to the breeds accepted and recognized standard. I will use the breed Leghorn for example. The best are in great shape, better than before, but what it was before. That is not true for every breed, in my opinion.
Could the improvements be had in birds that still fall within the parameters of the accepted and recognized standard? Isn't that after all the standard?
Would the hens being pre disposed to fat because of size, be a limitation of variability similar to size being associated with a lack of fitness?
Excellent discussion. The Leghorn example is particularly interesting. The writers of the Leghorn standard got it right--the body size and shape described in the Standard still closely matches that of white egg layers that have been selected for decades for
function, with little regard for form. I know of at least one time that a commercial white egg layer was incorporated into exhibition white Leghorns with much success. One of the reasons for the drift in other breeds is that they no longer (or never did) have function as their guiding compass.
My phone is considerably different from Bell's original prototype. My automobile does not really resemble a Model T, but it does more so than it resembles a horse. I have bred and used Border Collies of all shapes and sizes all for the same purpose: to herd sheep. One quote that I've always enjoyed, attributed to Jay Lush, is that "breeds are whatever the breeders want them to be." Progress must allow for priorities to change, and for the ideal form to morph to accommodate evolving economies, production systems, and genetic composition from selection, mutation, etc. The written standard for Plymouth Rocks changed drastically for the first century of its being a "breed." The reason that it hasn't changed much for the last 100 years is not because it reached "perfection," but rather because the standard revision committee wouldn't allow it. Meanwhile, the "economic qualities" of Standard bred poultry have been completely eclipsed by the commercial breeders who have actually selected their birds for economically important traits.
As long as Economic Qualities remains the first section of the standard, profitability should be the first priority. In breeding 'heritage" birds, there are but 2 ways to accomplish this, 1) convince customers to pay accelerated prices for "heritage" birds and products to offset the cost of production inefficiency or 2) use modern genetics and selection tools to improve production efficiency.
The bird described in the Standard is not profitable when chicken feed is $12 per 50 lb bag, except with option 1. Good marketing does not make a good breeder.
My objective has always been to make efficient, profitable birds that look like Plymouth Rocks. I select them for their ability to perform on my farm, for the mix of fitness, egg and meat production traits that is economical here. I am still in the process of stabilizing the pieces that I've put together, but beyond color and basic breed type, function is more important than form. If the best bird to meet the economic function described in the standard ends up being 2 lbs over standard weight, so be it. I find it difficult to believe that the utilitarians who developed the breed wouldn't call that progress.
