When is a breed not a breed?

[halo]

Quote:
I would hope that even though it is still a Dalmation. It would be spayed or neutered and placed as a pet.

Why is it more important to spay or neuter the spotless Dalmatian than it is to spay or neuter any other dog?

I agree that someone who breeds show dogs would not want to continue this line. But that doesn't mean that any offspring this dog has won't make wonderful pets.

If I have a Barred Plymouth Rock with the "wrong" color legs that is a good layer and I want more good layers, why not breed her? Even to a rooster from a different breed? If I want to produce show quality Barred Rocks, of course I would breed her.

In short: isn't your objective important?

I total agree that if you have a Barred Rock hen with the wrong color legs but it a good layer, by all means breed her. Chickens are livestock, they have a great purpose for use, with meat and egg capabilities. However, if you are breeding that particular hen for the purpose of propagating barred rocks, there is an issue there. I dont like the statement "breeding for show quality". I far prefer "breeding to standard". And breeding and offering barred rocks with white legs is breeding birds with a disqualifying trait. Why would you do that, especially when its so easy to get correct birds?

To go off on a bit of a tangent, this is why the statement "show quality" drives me so crazy (maybe thats crazier). Some people try to breed for "show quality", whatever that is. So then you see people selling birds and eggs that aren't show quality, but pet quality. What the heck does that mean? There is no show quality or pet quality, there is simply breeding to the standard. If you are breeding to compete in shows, you are trying to breed to the breed standard. If judges place birds that dont comply to breed standards, then shame on the judges; they are wrong.

 

[speckledhen]

halo wrote:

I total agree that if you have a Barred Rock hen with the wrong color legs but it a good layer, by all means breed her. Chickens are livestock, they have a great purpose for use, with meat and egg capabilities. However, if you are breeding that particular hen for the purpose of propagating barred rocks, there is an issue there. I dont like the statement "breeding for show quality". I far prefer "breeding to standard". And breeding and offering barred rocks with white legs is breeding birds with a disqualifying trait. Why would you do that, especially when its so easy to get correct birds?

Absolutely! I sometimes hatch eggs from my BR roo over Ameraucana hens to make barred EEs. In that instance, there is no leg color issue since the legs come out white anyway due to the dominance of the white skin of the Ameraucanas. However, as Kathy said, I wouldn't use a white legged BR for breeding more BRs, if I had one. I still can't really call it a pure BR in my mind. I've never encountered any white legs in my BRs other than the BR/Amerauacana crosses.​

 

[TimG]

Quote:
Why would you breed a bird that has the wrong color legs for a show quality bird?

Whoops, unfortunate typo now fixed.

 

[Wynette]

This is an EXCELLENT discussion! This is a perfect example of why I joined BYC!! You guys are great thinkers and bring SO much to the table.

This discussion reminds me of horses. I own registered Appaloosas. They are "supposed" to have spots, a blanket, or mottling (in a nutshell). But, the Apps of years ago were...well...ugly. Very stocky, short necked, not much to look at. So, again LSS, breeders began to breed out to Quarter Horses, Arabs...and others to improve the breed. In time, many foals were born that were solid in color. But, they still have the gene that is unique to Apps. For solid foals, they are blood typed and tattooed, showing they have been tested and do, in fact, have the App gene. Just because they are solid, does not mean they are not Appaloosas. I've had both in my barn. There's recently been a resurgance of getting the color back, which I think is great. Now, when I go to the futurities, I'm seeing more color each year.

I think with "young" breeds such as Marans and even Ameraucanas, they may go through a similar metamorphosis as they are developing. So, I don't thinks it's fair to say they should breed true 99.9% of the time, until they've been bred for many years. JMO!

 

[TimG]

Quote:
Millions of "wonderful pets" die in shelters every year. We don't need to be making more of them right now unless there is a VERY good reason for doing so.

The point is not that there are too few (or too many) pets out there. The point is that the vast majority of dogs in the US are raised as pets. For this purpose it does not matter whether the dog is a pure bred or whether the dog matches a breed standard. In fact, some crosses (mutts) will probably be healthier and make better companions than the a pure bred.

I agree 100% that anyone who is aiming to conform to standards and especially those who are selling their eggs/chicks as "show quality" or "heritage breed" or any other description that implies conformity to a standard should be diligent about eliminating faults. To do otherwise would be shady at best, unethical and amounting to fraud at the worst.

The tenor of the post to which I initially responded seemed to me to express a view that it would be ludicrous for anyone to breed a chicken containing a fault. I apologize if I read into the post the wrong sentiment. My point is really that most people who raise chickens, even those that breed them, are not doing it with the objective of conforming to a standard, but rather are breeding for utility. As such, the white legs on the Barred Rock shouldn't bother them much at all, if the chicken was otherwise good for the purpose intended.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I also like this thread. It is a good discussion. Since it is too wet to go out to the garden today, I'll throw in my two cents worth.

We are all into raising chickens for different reasons. I'm into it for meat, eggs and fun, plus I want a closed flock. The traits I will try to improve on relate to meat and egg production and broodiness. Mutts are fine with me.

For those who are breeding show birds, they must conform to certain standards. Ethically, those who are breeding to continue the line of a certain breed should also conform to the same standards. It doesn't matter if they are breeding for show or breeding to standards. It's the same standards. This does not mean that a good breeder will not mix in a different breed to his (or her) flock to enhance a standard trait, especially if the outside breed is one of the parent breeds that went into the initial development of that breed. After all, which breeds were not ultimately developed from crosses? It is important to the breeder, not necessarily the breeder for show, that enough generations pass for the traits to again breed true to standard. The breeder to continue the line is trying to get it right every time. The breeder for show only has to get it perfect once a generation.

I imagine it varies by hatchery, but I think (purely my personal opinion as all this is) the quality of the breeds offered will vary as some hatcheries are breeding mostly for fertile, hatchable egg production that comes close to conforming to standard instead of strictly conforming to standard. That's why I would suggest if you are interested in continuing a breed or showing birds, the extra money you pay to a reputable breeder is money well spent. (You are welcome for the uncompensated commercial, breeders). However, (no thanks for this I'm sure) if you want better egg production the hatchery birds may be a better choice. I also believe some hatchery birds conform to standards better than others. I imagine the business model varies between hatcheries.

Although I am quite happy with mutts, I do appreciate the work the breeders do. By maintaining the different breeds, I think they make it better for all of us. Otherwise the only choice we would have is production-enhanced sex-linked chickens.

 

[Jennings Gamefowl]

i agree with everyone about even though it may have a DQ, its still a purebred.. i wouldnt breed a game roo to a game/jungle fowl hen even though i would get a pretty bird though, if that makes any sense,,,,.,..... kinda like beagles, if they are over 15' they are DQ from hunts, so if my male beagle is over 15' and my female i wouldnt breed them to run the risk of the pups being over 15'.... even though they are pure bred bealges and the sire and dam could both be darn good rabbit dogs.........

 

[cybercat]

Halo way to go great thread

Ok, I shall put my small 2 cents in here.

I have a background in breeding dog.cats and tropical fish. I am now getting into chickens. Where there are differances is the ones I have breed before were considiered pets not food. Cats and dogs are bred based on pedigrees and even some fish are like Koi. Chickens as we all know are not.

Now breeding for the SOP or not is a personal choice BUT... if you are selling chickens and saying they are a certain breed then they should be bred according to the SOP. In the case of Halo's barred rock with white legs that should not be sold as a barred rock as it is not accorrding to the SOP. Selling it as a pet is fine even calling it a barred rock throwback because of the legs. But do not sell it as pure bred stock as someone not knowing will think all barred rocks are supposed to have white legs and breed them thus.

It is up to the breeder to police themselves. A good breeder would not sell stock or breed stock with such defects. It does not matter if you are breeding toward showing or not. If you are breeding for heritage which is production it is even more important not to sell stock like that barred rock. It messes with the breeding genome of the breed. ( I think that the right word there).

When one is breeding one should always have a goal. Otherwise one is just producing birds not breeding. One can start their own pedigree chicken stock it is not hard. It is all about marking birds and keeping records and penning breeding stock in pairs or trios ect.

Now to address the production only flock. For some who do not care about SOP and breeds and just care about production it is fine to breed just on that. Again if you are working with production then say so. Halo's chicken again in a production flock would be marked as a Production Barred Rock not to SOP. The breeder at that point would point out fault of said bird if sold to a novice so they know why it is produtcion and not SOP breed stock.

Breeding a mixed flock and having a chicken coming up looking like a breed and sell it as such is a real bad thing. Many see the results of that from hatchery stock on the rare breeds. When one breed the same breed together or so they think and the result chicks come up something very different than the parents it can set back a breeder for another year for they have to find pure stock then.

I think mutts are great. Crossbreeding to make a new breed is what is done all the time. Grade breeding is fine if the breeder tells the seller they did that to improve thier stock. Again this is something hatcheries do to incease production. One expects this from hatcheries since they have to sell alot of chicks.

So it all comes down to if you are selling a bird or chicks and declaring it a breed you should be breeding toward the SOP. If you are breeding toward production you should tell that to new owners. Reveiling your breeding pratices is only good business. Good breeders have No problems discussing this. If ask if the lines are from pure, bred toward SOP stock answer should be yes or no. Not yes but they have white legs. Then it would Not be bred toward the SOP but more production and should Not be promoted as good breeding stock for SOP breeding. But can be promoted as good breeding stock for production only.

Ok, just to state something. These are my breeding ethics and my opions. I know for many it is the same and for some it is not.