Cuckoo & friend
The Wyandotte Thread
- Thread starter roocrazy
- Start date
They look like all the birds at my house...cold. I am glad I dont have to put up with that Indiana weather in the winter anymore...
Quote:
ummmm.... there is still snow here too and it is cold. At least it warmed up a little today so I gave the ducks some swim water.
We need to move south!!! The Wyandottes won't mind warmer weather.
ummmm.... there is still snow here too and it is cold. At least it warmed up a little today so I gave the ducks some swim water.
We need to move south!!! The Wyandottes won't mind warmer weather.
Maybe I shouldn't do this. But I have to. I care too much about Wyandottes.
WHY THE HECK ARE FRIKKKING ROCKS THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR CROSSING NEEDS????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A rock/Wyandotte cross is not a Wyandotte. Not even after the back cross. Not even after the second back cross. With so many excellent SLW and Whites and more and more excellent Blacks, etc. there is less reason that ever to try a crossbreeding project.
Alternatively a SLW/Partridge Wyandotte cross is not a Crossbreeding project. That is a variety cross. You may lose some color but if a breeder knows what to do about colors and how they work, color is can be gotten back. The genetic makeup that makes a Wyandotte a Wyandotte and a rock a piece of volcanic ash cannot be crossed without harming the breed. When crossed, it ruins the genetic makeup for the entire future of that breed even if the color is prettier.
I'll stop before my FRIKKKKING HEAD explodes!
WHY THE HECK ARE FRIKKKING ROCKS THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR CROSSING NEEDS????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A rock/Wyandotte cross is not a Wyandotte. Not even after the back cross. Not even after the second back cross. With so many excellent SLW and Whites and more and more excellent Blacks, etc. there is less reason that ever to try a crossbreeding project.
Alternatively a SLW/Partridge Wyandotte cross is not a Crossbreeding project. That is a variety cross. You may lose some color but if a breeder knows what to do about colors and how they work, color is can be gotten back. The genetic makeup that makes a Wyandotte a Wyandotte and a rock a piece of volcanic ash cannot be crossed without harming the breed. When crossed, it ruins the genetic makeup for the entire future of that breed even if the color is prettier.
I'll stop before my FRIKKKKING HEAD explodes!
Last edited:
Quote:
Each year since I got into chickens it has gone under zero. lolol Maybe someone is telling e something. lolol
Each year since I got into chickens it has gone under zero. lolol Maybe someone is telling e something. lolol
Mrs. Turbo :
Quote:
ummmm.... there is still snow here too and it is cold. At least it warmed up a little today so I gave the ducks some swim water.
We need to move south!!! The Wyandottes won't mind warmer weather.
Southeast Arkansas is real pretty this time of year! It was about 50 today, but aCOLD front is coming in with rain. Be a very cold 42 Tuesday. Hoping my birds can stand the cold weather!
Quote:
ummmm.... there is still snow here too and it is cold. At least it warmed up a little today so I gave the ducks some swim water.
We need to move south!!! The Wyandottes won't mind warmer weather.
Southeast Arkansas is real pretty this time of year! It was about 50 today, but aCOLD front is coming in with rain. Be a very cold 42 Tuesday. Hoping my birds can stand the cold weather!
I enjoy a good discussion especially one that we may draw knowledge from. I have only been raising exhibition Wyandottes for eight years now so I am by no means an authority on the breed but we have raised thousands of them in that time so when I engage in this post I am basing my post mostly on my experiences and I am still learning every year. For us good rocks are the obvious choice for a Wyandotte cross. They are clean legged American birds that share the same skin color and other similar qualities. In your opinion is a Brahma better? Or how about a Cochin? Actually I believe the Brahma and Cochins where used in creating this breed. Could you imagine using a Cochin to improve a Wyandotte? A cross with a SL or white Wyandotte would take generations to fix whereas a rock cross can be completed in three to four generations with many offspring looking like Wyandottes the very first cross. I have used white Wyandottes in crosses and have had dismal results. I never could figure out why so many Wyandotte breeders always refer to poorly typed Wyandottes as looking rock like or saying they have a flat back like a rock almost as if Plymouth Rocks were relegated to societies poor, careless or undesirable poultry breeders. A good Plymouth Rock is something to behold with many Rocks having a tail set that a Wyandotte should aspire to. By the way
Plymouth Rock breeders have been known to use Wyandottes for their crosses. A well known and respected poultry judge told me once that there is not a white Wyandotte in the country that has not been crossed with a rock. When crossing a Rock to a Wyandotte you will theoretically have birds to show from that cross. Not so if you cross varieties. So please Rudy with the utmost respect and with the intent to educate could you tell us in what specific ways the genetic makeup would be ruined for the entire future of the breed?
Here is what the typical crossing of the two breeds will yield.
Rock/Wyandotte (F1) cross 50% Wyandotte- F2cross back to Wyandotte 75% Wyandotte- F3 95%
A picture of a Rock/Wyandotte F1 cross
Here is what the typical crossing of the two breeds will yield.
Rock/Wyandotte (F1) cross 50% Wyandotte- F2cross back to Wyandotte 75% Wyandotte- F3 95%
A picture of a Rock/Wyandotte F1 cross
I only have one Wyandotte (BLR) in my little flock, but i love her. I'm new to all this and don't really know yet what to look for in a quality bird, so she is still perfect in my eyes.
You all will have to forgive me at times. I'm a purist and I'm also pretty emotional (yeah, I cried for Titanic! But I never gave up!!). Occasionally, I step over a line or two. So, as Jesse said, lets look at this from the point of view of learning not making dumb comments like I just did about rocks (which, if you couldn't tell, I detest).
As a purist, I'm also very interested in the welfare of poultry and its genetic base as a whole. History is repeated by those who don't learn from it. Events like the small pox epidemic, potato famine and, more recently, the wide-spread panic over such diseases as swine flu, avian influenza, Exotic Newcastle, etc. are greatly exacerbated by genetic bases that are unable to deal with stress because of lack of genetic diversity. The commercial poultry industry is distinctly prone to such a problem. The reason is because the birds are so closely related and closely housed that a serious threat can be posed by almost any pathogen. If it can attack one birds' systems, the next bird is probably a cousin.
A breed is not just an outward appearance, even if that appearance matches the Standard of Perfection. The SOP can't measure the purity of a breed's blood and it has never tried. A breed is developed over time, usually in a certain region, and develops genetic characteristics based on the environmental stress in that region. So, as an example, game fowl such as the Asil or Shamo generally don't do well in Northern climates. That isn't where they were developed. (Thankfully for those of us who like chicken, their crosses developed into Cornish, which when crossed with Stones, errrr....rocks, became the basis for all commercial meat flocks.) The Wyandotte was developed in Northern climates as well. The outward colors of a chicken do not determine very many of its overall characteristics. Some that would be important are: disease and parasite resistance, growth rate, feed conversion, ability to digest certain insects or resist certain semi-harmful plants, even a certain quality or flavor of meat, etc.
As breeders, part of our responsibility is to preserve the genetic make-up in the breeds we raise. We can crossbreed and have quicker results. Those results might even win more prizes or look better. But when we do so, we are not maintaining that genetic make-up and we are likely losing a large portion of genetic diversity with each cross. Occasionally, an out-cross might be a necessity (I would say that this is the case in near extinct breeds that have few varieties). Unfortunately, most people who show, myself included, are very likely to lose sight of this because we are focusing on a selfish goal: winning a show. At all costs, we want to win and this causes us to take short-cuts. A rock is the most likely culprit today. Probably because rocks win and judges pick birds that look like rocks. Give a Wyandotte some fluff, put a little leg under her, add a nice, fat rock tail and walk right to the front of the class.
(on an aside: Jesse, you mentioned that rocks have great tails. Fine. They have huge tails, enormous tails. Agreed. Have you ever read what the SOP says a rock tail should look like? I quote "moderately well-spread." Show me a champion rock that you couldn't put your whole head under the tail and I would be surprised. rocks of today are a far cry from what they should be and what they were. Feather quality? I haven't looked at this recently in my SOP, but I'm pretty sure it says hard or moderately hard feathered. There are rocks with more fluff and stuff than lots of Cochins. Something to behold, agreed. A huge chicken that has almost no semblance to its predecessors. I hope they at least still taste good.)
While a variety cross takes more time and effort, it does a much better job of holding together the framework beneath the framework that makes a Wyandotte a Wyandotte and a rock little more than a pile of volcanic ash.
You also mentioned that a color cross will take so long. A cross of a Partridge male and Silver Pencilled females should give Silver hens in the first generation. They are very showable (at least as much as any other Partridge or Silver Pencilled) and they are all Wyandotte. When I show a Wyandotte and put my name on the coop tag, I prefer to put a Wyandotte in the coop, not half a Wyandotte with yellow skin, yellow legs, and carrying a gene for single comb and half the genes of something very un-Wyandotte. Also, the third generation is 87.5% and fourth generation is only 93.75% Wyandotte, of course that is assuming you go back to pure Wyandottes and don't decide the F2 or F3s are better, which is what almost always happens.
As a purist, I'm also very interested in the welfare of poultry and its genetic base as a whole. History is repeated by those who don't learn from it. Events like the small pox epidemic, potato famine and, more recently, the wide-spread panic over such diseases as swine flu, avian influenza, Exotic Newcastle, etc. are greatly exacerbated by genetic bases that are unable to deal with stress because of lack of genetic diversity. The commercial poultry industry is distinctly prone to such a problem. The reason is because the birds are so closely related and closely housed that a serious threat can be posed by almost any pathogen. If it can attack one birds' systems, the next bird is probably a cousin.
A breed is not just an outward appearance, even if that appearance matches the Standard of Perfection. The SOP can't measure the purity of a breed's blood and it has never tried. A breed is developed over time, usually in a certain region, and develops genetic characteristics based on the environmental stress in that region. So, as an example, game fowl such as the Asil or Shamo generally don't do well in Northern climates. That isn't where they were developed. (Thankfully for those of us who like chicken, their crosses developed into Cornish, which when crossed with Stones, errrr....rocks, became the basis for all commercial meat flocks.) The Wyandotte was developed in Northern climates as well. The outward colors of a chicken do not determine very many of its overall characteristics. Some that would be important are: disease and parasite resistance, growth rate, feed conversion, ability to digest certain insects or resist certain semi-harmful plants, even a certain quality or flavor of meat, etc.
As breeders, part of our responsibility is to preserve the genetic make-up in the breeds we raise. We can crossbreed and have quicker results. Those results might even win more prizes or look better. But when we do so, we are not maintaining that genetic make-up and we are likely losing a large portion of genetic diversity with each cross. Occasionally, an out-cross might be a necessity (I would say that this is the case in near extinct breeds that have few varieties). Unfortunately, most people who show, myself included, are very likely to lose sight of this because we are focusing on a selfish goal: winning a show. At all costs, we want to win and this causes us to take short-cuts. A rock is the most likely culprit today. Probably because rocks win and judges pick birds that look like rocks. Give a Wyandotte some fluff, put a little leg under her, add a nice, fat rock tail and walk right to the front of the class.
(on an aside: Jesse, you mentioned that rocks have great tails. Fine. They have huge tails, enormous tails. Agreed. Have you ever read what the SOP says a rock tail should look like? I quote "moderately well-spread." Show me a champion rock that you couldn't put your whole head under the tail and I would be surprised. rocks of today are a far cry from what they should be and what they were. Feather quality? I haven't looked at this recently in my SOP, but I'm pretty sure it says hard or moderately hard feathered. There are rocks with more fluff and stuff than lots of Cochins. Something to behold, agreed. A huge chicken that has almost no semblance to its predecessors. I hope they at least still taste good.)
While a variety cross takes more time and effort, it does a much better job of holding together the framework beneath the framework that makes a Wyandotte a Wyandotte and a rock little more than a pile of volcanic ash.
You also mentioned that a color cross will take so long. A cross of a Partridge male and Silver Pencilled females should give Silver hens in the first generation. They are very showable (at least as much as any other Partridge or Silver Pencilled) and they are all Wyandotte. When I show a Wyandotte and put my name on the coop tag, I prefer to put a Wyandotte in the coop, not half a Wyandotte with yellow skin, yellow legs, and carrying a gene for single comb and half the genes of something very un-Wyandotte. Also, the third generation is 87.5% and fourth generation is only 93.75% Wyandotte, of course that is assuming you go back to pure Wyandottes and don't decide the F2 or F3s are better, which is what almost always happens.
Wonder if rtroxel will get stoned...I mean rocked, at the next show?
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
Suddenly Dead Chicken
- Started by Garden Wench
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
I culled my first cockerel, now what?- Started by redinator
- Replies: 119
-
*Answer These Questions The Best You Can Please *- Started by N3mesis_IceWing_NightWing
- Replies: 85
-
-
