"Why did the APA bother to include angle of back in their breed descriptions?"

[3riverschick]

Hi,
I cannot find out a reason why. I searched the Net and scientific articles. I am working on a research project to assemble traits which have a genetic correlation to each other. Esp. to production virtues. There seems to be no correlation between angle of back and any production virtues. No breed reasons I can find or maybe I am not using the right keywords to search. Please, no opinions, does anyone know for sure? Also I don't understand why cock' of different angles of back or level backs are all siring hens with level backs. Isn't there one angle ( or lack of angle) in the back which should be sire of level backed hens?
If the hen controls the structure and the male controls the color(basically) does this have something to do wit then hen being homozygous for level back and the cock heterozygous? It can't be that easy, sigh.
Thanks for your help!
Karen
( just another thought I had, is angle of back determined by the station of the bird?)
or
( is this too simplistic below?)
Does it have to do with the purpose of the breed
1. Meat breeds have level back in male and female. ( Dorking)
2. Dual purpose breeds have some angle of back in male and level backed females ( Sussex or Chantecler)
3. Egg laying breeds have angle in backs of male and females? ( Leghorn)

 

[3riverschick]

Is there a BYC Educator out there who would like to weigh in on this?
Hopefully,
Karen

 

[junebuggena]

It's all about conformation. It has no bearing on how many eggs a bird can lay, but it can be a defining breed trait. It helps set the breeds apart. Take, for example, the Rhode Island Red and the New Hampshire. They aren't the same bird, with different shades of red. They have very different, distinct builds. That's part of the purpose of a breed standard, to ensure that breed remains true to the standard.
An Orpington has a different shape/back than a Langshan has. All thanks to that very descriptive breed standard, detailing every aspect of the breeds, including the back.
Roosters have different conformation standards, because they hold themselves differently. Ever notice how roosters generally have thicker legs? It's not just the male specific feathering that sets males apart. The male testosterone affects things like overall build and carriage. It's not a matter of them having a different set of genetics. It's about how testosterone affects those genetics.

 

[Ravynscroft]

Actually, it is the majority of the committed breeders of any given breed that determines the defining points of a breed when it is accepted into the APA, not the APA itself...

Once a breed is accepted, then every variety up for consideration within that breed (if it has other varieties being worked on) must then conform to the basic standards of said breed as well...

 

[3riverschick]

Actually, it is the majority of the committed breeders of any given breed that determines the defining points of a breed when it is accepted into the APA, not the APA itself...

Once a breed is accepted, then every variety up for consideration within that breed (if it has other varieties being worked on) must then conform to the basic standards of said breed as well...

I get that. But why is there an angle of the back mentioned? I am trying to figure out why angle of back is a hallmark at all? Is it just a gentrification in the breeds? Or does it have some useful purpose like alluding to a proper dimension somewhere else in the bird? Or as a hallmark of some proper production virtue?
Best,
Karen

 

[junebuggena]

Because angle of the back is critical to the overall shape of the bird. Change the angle of the back, and you change the overall shape of the bird. If you don't breed with angle of the back in mind, you end up with what the hatcheries have done. All their birds look the same. The Orpingtons look like Buff colored Barred Rocks. There is no distinction between Rhode Island Reds and New Hapmshires other than the shade of red. That angle of the back may seem trivial to you, but without it being selected for, you end up with a complete mess. That angle of the back is needed for the correct build and shape. You can look at a show quality Rhode Island Red and know at a glance, it's breed. Same with an Orpington, or a Rock. It also helps set show quality birds apart from hatchery stock.

 

[Fred's Hens]

It is a distinctive aspect of the breed's type. I wouldn't over think this. Each breed has to be identifiable when looking at a black or pure white silhouette. Color doesn't make a breed, type does. The breeds have to be distinct, downhill, swoop, sharp break, no sharp break, long and flat, etc, etc.

If I see the backline (and the underline) I see a hallmark of the breed. If I don't see that backline called for in the standard, I don't see the breed. I see a wanna-be.

Breeding fancy fowl is much more an art than a science. Those who are epic in breeding birds in the history of this fancy are more akin to Michelangelo who "see" the living art of the bird than they are like a geologist who can tell you every minute aspect of the mineral and chemical composition of the marble from which the art piece was hewn.

Geologists have their purpose, but give them a hammer and chisel and they could never make a David or a Pieta.

Same can be said for those who read incessantly, can quote pages and pages of source material and talk the reading material of chickens to death but somehow never are found at exhibitions showing us they know how to actually make proper and gorgeous birds.

 

[Weehopper]

It also has to do with how well the bird can move.

 

[Ravynscroft]

It is a distinctive aspect of the breed's type. I wouldn't over think this.  Each breed has to be identifiable when looking at a black or pure white silhouette.  Color doesn't make a breed, type does.  The breeds have to be distinct, downhill, swoop, sharp break, no sharp break, long and flat, etc, etc.  

If I see the backline (and the underline) I see a hallmark of the breed.  If I don't see that backline called for in the standard, I don't see the breed.  I see a wanna-be.

Breeding fancy fowl is much more an art than a science.  Those who are epic in breeding birds in the history of this fancy are more akin to Michelangelo who "see" the living art of the bird than they are like a geologist who can tell you every minute aspect of the mineral and chemical composition of the marble from which the art piece was hewn.

Geologists have their purpose, but give them a hammer and chisel and they could never make a David or a Pieta.   

Same can be said for those who read incessantly, can quote pages and pages of source material and talk the reading material of chickens to death but somehow never are found at exhibitions showing us they know how to actually make proper and gorgeous birds. 

Very well said!!

 

[3riverschick]

Thank you all for weighing in. These are the answers whichI needed to clear up the ignorance on my part.
I love this website. there are so much many people with quality knowledge here, willing to share.
Happy New Year,
Karen