How new colors become standards

[Altair]

I was browsing the Wyandotte Breeders of America site and while looking at the blue-laced reds I wondered how a new variety comes accepted into the standard. Is it about popularity? Penning letters to local senators? Mass bribing?

[Hummer]

Getting a new breed or variety admitted into the APA or ABA Standards is a process by both organizations that is outlined in the APA and ABA Yearbooks for each organization. With either organization it is not an overnight process and requires the dedication of a number of interested breeders who are very serious about getting the new breed or variety accepted. The process for each organization is a little different but you are still providing both organization with all the information that the new breed or variety is a viable candidate and that it should be considered as a candidate for admission into the SOP. It does require some work AFTER the breed or variety has been worked on for several years. After breeders feel a breed or variety is ready for consideration they should be able to provide the appropriate documentation and the appropriate admission fees to each organization. One of the biggest challenges is getting all the breeders on the same page before they apply for admission to each organization .

Hummer

[Oregon Swedes]

I believe that the breeders of new varieties get together and have "supported entries" (what we call them at dog shows) to get enough numbers at shows to prove that there is enough interest. I suspect that is the culmination of some sort of process.

[dhw]

Supported entries is a gray area and very unethical. I believe they need a minimum of 5 breeders showing with a minimum of 50 birds competing. The initial paperwork requires signed affidavits from a number of breeders saying they have breed the variety for a minimum number of years and that it breeds true.

When I was a teen butterscotch call ducks were in process and as Hummer said the hardest part is to get all the breeders to agree on what the variety should be bred for ahead of time. Shades of colors, markings, ect. I remember the eye streak vs no eye streak debate. Then there was the black crested white polish... I got roped into that one by one of the people that developed them. What a headache! I backed out as I was far from impressed with the birds and wouldn't have signed anything saying they bred true at that time.

[Hummer]

I think what Oregon Swedes is referring to with 'supported entries' is what we would call the 'Show Certificates' (APA). This is when breeders show an unaccepted variety (or breed) and it is documented that a minimum of 2 old males, 2 old females, 2 young males and 2 young females were shown and it is signed by the Show Secretary and the Judge. That is documentation is kept and submitted when the acceptance part of the process begins. The 'Breeder's Affidatits' are signed by breeders that they have raised the variety for a minumum of 5 years and that the variety does breed true (genetically) 50% of the time. Example: Blue Andaulsians are the only accepted variety but breeding blue to blue you will get 25% black, 50% blue and 25% splash. Now, after the application documents and appropriate application fees are submitted it is referred to the standard committee (of the organization it was submitted to). From there a qualifying meet is scheduled around an APA Annual or ABA Annual (or Semi-Annual) for the organization it was submitted to. At the qualifying meet a judge is selected by the organization (APA or ABA) committee. For an APA qualifying meet a minimum of 50 birds (all classes represented) is required. For the ABA the minimum is 25 birds and if a new breed is involved there must be two consecutive qualifying meets (at an ABA Annual and Semi-Annual). That is why Indy will probably have several qualifying meets since it is both the APA and ABA Annual meets. It is much easier when you can do the APA and ABA application at the same time.

Yes Dustin, with the Butterscotch calls it was the issue of the eye streak or no eye streaks since the way the standard(s) is written since genetically a Butterscotch drake is different from a Butterscotch hen. (I had nothing to do with that one.) With the Chocolate calls the major anxieties were to have them with sheen or without sheen. Now we are trying to get our ducks in a row for the Blue Fawn calls and there are major anxiety attacks over the drakes head being Charcoal Blue or Dark Charcoal Blue. Oh My!!!!

Hummer

[Evy]

The major anxiety SHOULD be TYPE first, then worry about another pretty color. I was at the qualifying meet for the ''chocolates. What a bunch of junk! Out of the nearly 100 entries, only 2 were, IMO, good enough type to be considered a Call. They were great little birds. The rush to make new varieties has nearly destroyed the breed. Even some that were accepted many years ago, shouldn't be there. When was the last time anyone saw a row of good Buffs or Magpies ( or even 1) ??? As for ''Charcoal Blue", charcoal, by defination, is just dark gray.

[Angela]

Take a look at the "Lavender" Orps......wink, wink, hisssssssss

[Evy]

Take a look at the "Lavender" Orps......wink, wink, hisssssssss

Then there's ''splash'' & ''partridge'' Silkies. How can you put a feather pattern on something that doesn't have feathers ? A good Silkie is a beautiful little bird. The size of these is edging toward lg. fowl in the new varieties. If that's not enough, there's the abomination called ''Showgirls''. There oughta' be a law!

[goosedragon]

Silkies don't have feathers? I had heard of featherless chickens developed for medical research were they bred from silky stock?

[jungle]

If that's not enough, there's the abomination called ''Showgirls''. There oughta' be a law!

Oh, come on, Evy. You're not that cranky, are you? I have to admit that I have a few of those in my flock. They barely have the sense to breathe but they are enjoyable to watch and make good broodies.

[Angela]

Jungle.....smack, smack, kick!!
You can't be serious. I'm with Evy when it comes to the "Showgirls". I quit drinking and doing chemicals a long time ago, but thought I was having a flashback the first time I saw one of those things. And people pay big money for them....I'm so amazed and amused.

[Evy]

Silkies don't have feathers? I had heard of featherless chickens developed for medical research were they bred from silky stock?
Okay, Bob, I was being facetious rather than entirely clear. Yes, they have ''feathers'', as such, just not ''hard feathers'' that show a pattern.

[jungle]

Jungle.....smack, smack, kick!!
You can't be serious.

I'm quite serious. I fail to see the logic behind the claim that a feather with "X" color lacing, or specific barring are somehow more acceptable than those with out hooks. Likewise, why is it that the lack of feathering on the neck of a bird is automatically wrong while breeding a type that makes a bird look like it is stretched out on stilts (moderns) is a reasonable endeavor? Every breed and pattern is developed purely for the enjoyment of the creator. The real foolishness comes in treating these birds as lap pets or "children" resulting in them missing out on being a chicken.

[Angela]

It's breeding toward a standard, not bastardizing it.
There is an established body type for standard gamebirds, like it or not. As there is for silkies. Instead of making up all these new varieties, don't you think it's more prudent to preserve the existing standard? There are precious few of them that actually hit the existing standard. Showgirls.....bah! Someone's idea of a bad joke.
I'm an old Orp girl myself, thus my example of the so called lavenders. Let's work on type before we play with color. Some of the crap that is trying to be passed as orpingtons, make me gag. We, as breeders, are off the mark. A good thing that birds are not weighed at shows....that would disqualify 80% of the birds out there....mine included. And since when are they so leggy? What happened to the fluff.....forget about the color, let's talk TYPE! The varieties that are already acknowledged are losing ground.
Personally, I'm beginning to believe that those who support all of these new varieties, do so because they can't get back to the standard. Smoke and mirrors.

But that's just one woman's opinion.... mine.

[Altair]

I'd say sorry for opening a small can of worms but I'm not. All in good fun! Type first, color second. Got it.

[Angela]

No worries.....It's all about personal preferrences. Everyone has his or hers own "thang"!

[jungle]

It's breeding toward a standard, not bastardizing it.
There is an established body type for standard gamebirds, like it or not. As there is for silkies. Instead of making up all these new varieties, don't you think it's more prudent to preserve the existing standard? There are precious few of them that actually hit the existing standard. Showgirls.....bah! Someone's idea of a bad joke.


But that's just it- this is not about prudency. It is about fancy. The people who originally created these breeds did so for fancy. They wanted to see a different color, a different shape, a different feather type. I am always intrigued, and confused, by this argument. So many people seem to feel that the only standards worth breeding to are those created by our great ancestors and that any notion of something new must be based on folly or nonsense. Let get real here, people. When our grandparents were picking out what color lacing this bird should have or how much depth of breast it should carry, they did so because that is what they liked to see. Why then, is it such a crime for someone today to do the same? It seems as if the mindset is that we should not have the same right to suggest new breeds for fear of "bastardizing" an existing one. Why is there this requirement to work on improving something that you may not be all that interested in. And, if we try to limit things which some see as foolish traits, what about all those who feel a squat body, short neck, squirrel tail, etc... are all abominations. It is a slippery slope. I am just very confused over the sense of awe given to past breeds but the repulsion given to new ones. If it is a matter of not caring for the appearance of something, well, that could be said about any breed currently in existence.

[Angela]

There is a difference between new "breeds" and new "varieties".
I've no problem at all with new breeds. You can breed all the two headed, naked, three legged chickens that you want, as long as you don't call them a new variety of an old breed. A bird of another color is OK, as long as it exhibits the body type of the bird that it is named for. I mean really, what would you call a 12 lb silkie? How about a 5 lb Jersey Giant. Do they reflect the standard for the breed? Don't care about color....that's just a variety....but TYPE defines the breed.
One of my favorite examples are the Ameraucana. If they lay brown eggs, but have perfect plumage and type, are they true representatives of the breed? Now, that's a slippery slope.

Angela

[dhw]

I think what Oregon Swedes is referring to with 'supported entries' is what we would call the 'Show Certificates' (APA). This is when breeders show an unaccepted variety (or breed) and it is documented that a minimum of 2 old males, 2 old females, 2 young males and 2 young females were shown and it is signed by the Show Secretary and the Judge. That is documentation is kept and submitted when the acceptance part of the process begins. The 'Breeder's Affidatits' are signed by breeders that they have raised the variety for a minumum of 5 years and that the variety does breed true (genetically) 50% of the time. Example: Blue Andaulsians are the only accepted variety but breeding blue to blue you will get 25% black, 50% blue and 25% splash. Now, after the application documents and appropriate application fees are submitted it is referred to the standard committee (of the organization it was submitted to). From there a qualifying meet is scheduled around an APA Annual or ABA Annual (or Semi-Annual) for the organization it was submitted to. At the qualifying meet a judge is selected by the organization (APA or ABA) committee. For an APA qualifying meet a minimum of 50 birds (all classes represented) is required. For the ABA the minimum is 25 birds and if a new breed is involved there must be two consecutive qualifying meets (at an ABA Annual and Semi-Annual). That is why Indy will probably have several qualifying meets since it is both the APA and ABA Annual meets. It is much easier when you can do the APA and ABA application at the same time.

Yes Dustin, with the Butterscotch calls it was the issue of the eye streak or no eye streaks since the way the standard(s) is written since genetically a Butterscotch drake is different from a Butterscotch hen. (I had nothing to do with that one.) With the Chocolate calls the major anxieties were to have them with sheen or without sheen. Now we are trying to get our ducks in a row for the Blue Fawn calls and there are major anxiety attacks over the drakes head being Charcoal Blue or Dark Charcoal Blue. Oh My!!!!

Hummer

That definitely could be... When I read "supported entries" all I could think of was the "here show these 4 birds and sign this piece of paper that says you have been doing so for 5 years because you are my friend" crap that goes on from time to time.

[jungle]

There is a difference between new "breeds" and new "varieties".
I've no problem at all with new breeds. You can breed all the two headed, naked, three legged chickens that you want, as long as you don't call them a new variety of an old breed. A bird of another color is OK, as long as it exhibits the body type of the bird that it is named for. I mean really, what would you call a 12 lb silkie? How about a 5 lb Jersey Giant. Do they reflect the standard for the breed? Don't care about color....that's just a variety....but TYPE defines the breed.
One of my favorite examples are the Ameraucana. If they lay brown eggs, but have perfect plumage and type, are they true representatives of the breed? Now, that's a slippery slope.

Angela

I think we are now talking about different things. You will get no argument from me that many birds shown do not show good type. I also agree that there are many birds out there that do not fit a breed description. I think that has little to do with the existence of a showgirl, however. In my opinion, the main reason that many people do not produce excellent birds is because they lack the dedication and patience to do it properly. I think the reason that other varieties are sought is due to boredom and looking for something "new". That is human nature, perhaps exacerbated by today's culture. I see nothing wrong in the desire to create a new variety of a breed. If our ancestors saw this as a problem we would not have the varieties we do today. I also doubt that each variety of wyandotte, orpington, rock, leghorn etc...in existence back then had excellent type before someone created a new one. I'd bet that there was just as much poor type back then as there is now.

I do not think that any person should be required to perfect an existing variety just to have permission to create a new variety. To expect perfect type out of a new variety is also ridiculous. Considering that an outcross to a different breed (or breeds) was likely, how could you have good type until it is worked with for many, many generations. You seem to feel that the creation of new varieties is what is leading to poor type in existing ones. I disagree. I think that poor breeding, in either new or old varietes, is what causes bad type. You will always have poor breeders and breeders who produce magnificent birds. No matter how many varieties exist, the quality of the birds will depend on the breeder. If poor type birds are winning at shows then you have an issue with the judges, not the existence of poor type birds.

To get back to the main point I commented on:


Showgirls.....bah! Someone's idea of a bad joke.

I think that determining the value of any breed based on visual appeal is a bad idea. There are several breeds I can think of that, even when near perfect in type, would never find a place in my pens. Does that mean that I feel they have no value? Hell no. If the people keeping them enjoy them then that is all that matters. Whether they are show quality or fit a standard is something different entirely.

Now, to be clear, I am not a showgirl breeder, nor do I champion the breed to try to get it accepted by anyone. I have a couple running around in my 'fun-flock'. It is a group of birds that I keep for no reason other than to watch and enjoy. I need only worry about their safety and health. No worries about show condition, selective breeding, hatch rates etc... Having these birds around does nothing to diminish my appreciation for an incredibly well bred bird showing excellent type and color. I can still work with my Dutch that I do show competitively and the fact that there are a couple naked necked, silkie feathered birds running around has not had an effect on them yet. I'm glad I didn't mention the silkie feathered cochins I have! Believe it or not- they do have very good type for cochins, except for the barbless feathers...

[Angela]

I think that basically we agree....not that it matters.
I do believe that a breed suffers when people just want something new just for kicks and giggles. Or because they have given up on reaching good type in the breeds that they have. I do believe that maintaining the standard (as it is) is important.

Angela

[Oregon Swedes]

[[[......all I could think of was the "here show these 4 birds and sign this piece of paper that says you have been doing so for 5 years .....]]]]]

Aha, that explains it. I couldn't for the life of me think of any reason why a supported entry would be unethical.

In dogs, an official supported entry is declared by the parent club of the breed, and it goes in the show premium, a special prize is usually offered, and everybody shows that breed because they know there will be a large entry, so major points will be available at that show.

Unofficially, a supported entry is where you call all your friends and all agree to show at a show in order to generate more points, and incidentally have a meet-up and maybe a potluck.

When I showed Scottish Deerhounds, we had to get dogs from Washington, Oregon, Utah, and sometimes California all at the same show at the same time in order to get a "major" in points, necessary to finish a champion. That had to be coordinated in order to make it happen.

I can't see how that would be unethical, to put out a call to all your friends and all agree to take lots of birds to the same show to prove there was interest in the new breed. Isn't that a requirement, that a certain number of birds be show at a certain number of shows?

As for Showgirls, if they appeal to their owners, it does no harm to me, so there is no reason for me to care. I really like fancy goldfish, and some of those are quite distorted, so even though I don't care for showgirls, I can understand why some people like them.

[dhw]

With that definition it is perfectly ethical and required for acceptance to the standard. The requirements are pretty high considering all the breeders of a variety are rarely clustered. That is why they try to hold qualifying meets at club nationals or better yet apa/aba nationals. Those are the shows people travel long distances for and the chances of getting enough exhibitors and birds is much higher.

[REDSnMOREREDS]

Some of the disdain for new varieties comes from the fact that many of them seem to be colour creations with little or no resemblance to the breed. A clear example that comes to mind is the Blue Laced Red Wyandotte. I have yet to see one with even fair Wyandotte type not to mention the fact that there seems to be infinate variability in the colour of these birds. Even though these birds are poor examples of the Wyandotte breed they demand premium prices among people obsessed with having something new.
Showgirls are another matter entirely, they're just hideous.

[Altair]

Some of the disdain for new varieties comes from the fact that many of them seem to be colour creations with little or no resemblance to the breed. A clear example that comes to mind is the Blue Laced Red Wyandotte. I have yet to see one with even fair Wyandotte type not to mention the fact that there seems to be infinate variability in the colour of these birds. Even though these birds are poor examples of the Wyandotte breed they demand premium prices among people obsessed with having something new.
Showgirls are another matter entirely, they're just hideous.

I like the Blue Laced Reds simply for their colors: blue and red in the same bird that I think is flat out pretty. Albeit the colors swing from pale to dark which may be what you're insinuating. I don't have a good visual "eye" for show stock but hope to cure that eventually. I can see your point though.

Right now I see an auction on BYC with a starting bid of $30 and $15 for shipping for a dozen hatching eggs. They ended up selling for $76.

[REDSnMOREREDS]

It's that "simply for their colour" that's the problem. People enamored of these new varieties concentrate on the colour w/o any attention to type. A Wyandotte that doesn't look like a Wyandotte isn't worth much no mater what the colour [IMO]. If you like blue & red birds there's always Blue Red Old English in both large fowl & bantams. Beautiful birds & you can even find some that have good breed type. The game breeders seem to understand the importance of type. The people breeding Blue Laced Red Wyandottes, not so much.

[katschicks]

To me a variety without it`s breeds type is just a mutt. Nothing more , nothing less. How can you have a variety without the breed type ? Yes you can breed a new variety but until that " NEW " variety breeds true to type all you have is a crossbred mutt. If all you are interested in is color than mutts are the way to go. There are some very pretty ones out there. Just don`t call them a breed with out the type to go with it. Just me. Rog

[Patrick]

I agree with Rog and Reds. When I think of a new variety, I automatically assume that it means that it will be of proper breed type. The problem is, many of the breeders of the new creation often do not operate under the same assumption, or, worse, they don't even know what proper breed type is. I like the idea of new breeds and varieties, but I also understand the criticism that we have many breeds and varieties already in the standard which are seldom or never worked with. I hate the Sally come lately outlook, common among those with the BYC mentality, which wants to combine traits of several breeds, just because they think it'll be cute, without having the slightest concept of what it takes to truly create a new breed or variety. I like Naked Neck chickens. Silkies, not so much, but what I really hate about these Showgirls is the name. Could they have chosen a better name to attract ridicule? Plus, there is more to creating a breed than simply combining dominant or incomplete dominant traits. That is simple, and I suggest that the types of people who first did it, and coined the name, would have not even had the wherewithall to create the breed if it were a recessive trait, not that it would have been all that difficult either. Simply adding a trait to a breed, such as coat length in rabbits, and claiming it to be a new breed has been all the rage in rabbits in the last 15 years or so, to the point where it was stopped as being an acceptable form of breed creation. I agree about putting a pattern on a feather which can't possibly display it, such as partridge silkies or laced frizzles. What is the point? The result may be attractive to the beholder, but whatever it is, it will not be partridge or laced, according to the standards. And speaking of Frizzles, I hate how they were incorported into the standard. If a different feather structure is good enough to be linked with one certain type, such as in Silkies, then why couldn't Frizzle breeders be required to choose one type for their breed as well? I know, we'll never get them to agree if they want Polish, Cochin or Rock type, but then why not at least require them to go through the qualifying process for each breed and variety that they want to be recognized in Frizzle, just like everyone else has to? The way it is now, every future recognized breed and variety will also automatically be recognized in Frizzle, without going through the process.

[Patrick]

Re: breeding true, IMO, breeding true means that the results will always be predictable. Blue does not breed true in the sense that blue X blue always = blue, but the results are always predictable, as are thos of breeding all of the offspring. Same with broken, variegated or pied, whatever you want to call the pattern. Broken X broken always = broken, even if the pattern is variable.

[Oregon Swedes]

I'm just speculating here.

In both horses and dogs, the newbies usually can't see structure, but they can see color. So when they start, they very often make their selections based on color. And consequently, often make poor selections.

Is it that the people starting in poultry don't see structure, but they can certainly see color and feathers?

[Patrick]

Good point, but it seems to me that in horses and dogs, those with that outlook who stick with it eventually usually learn to see it. Poultry are so easy, quick and relatively inexpensive to breed, that often those who don't get it still linger on for quite a while, continuing to focus on pretty colors and fluffy feathers. Part of it is also in what we allow. Few in dogs and horses can tolerate a fool for very long without correcting him. In poultry, they'll run into someone blunt like me who will tell them like it is, they won't like it, will run away crying, but will then also find no shortage of like minded dopes to comfort and enable them, encourgaing them to continue on in their ignorance. Look at BYC. It happens there every day.

[Angela]

Good point, but it seems to me that in horses and dogs, those with that outlook who stick with it eventually usually learn to see it. Poultry are so easy, quick and relatively inexpensive to breed, that often those who don't get it still linger on for quite a while, continuing to focus on pretty colors and fluffy feathers. Part of it is also in what we allow. Few in dogs and horses can tolerate a fool for very long without correcting him. In poultry, they'll run into someone blunt like me who will tell them like it is, they won't like it, will run away crying, but will then also find no shortage of like minded dopes to comfort and enable them, encourgaing them to continue on in their ignorance. Look at BYC. It happens there every day.

Thank you Patrick for expressing my thoughts in a cohesive fashion. Are we related?

[Patrick]

Heaven help you if we are!

[Evy]

I can't see how that would be unethical, to put out a call to all your friends and all agree to take lots of birds to the same show to prove there was interest in the new breed. Isn't that a requirement, that a certain number of birds be show at a certain number of shows?

This was regarding SOP acceptance meet. No that's fine, PROVIDED those friends have been working with the variety. What Dustin, or someone, refered to is one or 2 breeders raising a boatload of these things & handing them out for other people to enter them in their names to meet the numbers requirement. Those people likely never saw them before that morning.

[dhw]

I can't see how that would be unethical, to put out a call to all your friends and all agree to take lots of birds to the same show to prove there was interest in the new breed. Isn't that a requirement, that a certain number of birds be show at a certain number of shows?

This was regarding SOP acceptance meet. No that's fine, PROVIDED those friends have been working with the variety. What Dustin, or someone, refered to is one or 2 breeders raising a boatload of these things & handing them out for other people to enter them in their names to meet the numbers requirement. Those people likely never saw them before that morning.

Bingo! and that does happen.

[Patrick]

It does. I've seen it tried.

[Oregon Swedes]

[[[.....and that does happen.....]]]]

And of course, that can't happen in dogs because the dogs are all registered and both pedigrees and the breeder's name is recorded. So you can't just walk up claiming you've been breeding for 10 years when you have no litters registered in your name.

Not advocating that show birds be registered like dogs, and not saying that there isn't at least some fraud in the registries.

[turbo]

It's that "simply for their colour" that's the problem. People enamored of these new varieties concentrate on the colour w/o any attention to type. A Wyandotte that doesn't look like a Wyandotte isn't worth much no mater what the colour [IMO]. If you like blue & red birds there's always Blue Red Old English in both large fowl & bantams. Beautiful birds & you can even find some that have good breed type. The game breeders seem to understand the importance of type. The people breeding Blue Laced Red Wyandottes, not so much.

Ok, I guess I will come on here and take some heat about BLRW. I have been working with the BLRW for over 5 years now, when I started with them I basically had blue laced brassy yellow barn fowl to work with. I have honestly almost given up on them a few times...

I do work on type first and color second, but here is the problem, if you dont keep an eye on the mahogany red along with the type, the color just goes to hell. So I try to work on one major fault a year..and it is very slow going when you are trying to improve type and not completely throw your mahogany color out the window. This year it is tails....I make very slow progress...but they are getting better every year. I think they at least look like wyandottes this year...which is a big step. I dont claim they are anywhere close to being ready, but I also dont think any variety of wyandotte became show worthy in just a few years...I really dont know of any other variety of wyandotte that I can cross on them to improve type without ruining the color (I have tried the BLRW cock bird on a SLW hen, it ruins the color). I think you could probably compare them to the Partridge Wyandottes Large Fowl in difficult color patterns to work with...and trust me I havent seen a SQ LF Partridge Wyandotte in the last 5 years at the shows.

I guess my point is I dont claim they are SQ, but I do try and share them with other people in the hopes that they will work to improve them too. Also this color pattern is really difficult to work with..I wish I could just breed for great type and then put the good red mahohany on them...but in this case it doesnt work...I tried, all I had was horrible colored wyandottes that I could never cross back in and get the red back. I have had some limited success with using my large fowl blues...but that is still a few generations away.

Jerry

[Patrick]

"And of course, that can't happen in dogs because the dogs are all registered and both pedigrees and the breeder's name is recorded. So you can't just walk up claiming you've been breeding for 10 years when you have no litters registered in your name.

Not advocating that show birds be registered like dogs, and not saying that there isn't at least some fraud in the registries. "




Good point. I've said many times that there are things which we could adopt from the dog fancy that would benefit us greatly, but I was involved with those hypocrits for many years, and a lot of their practices I wouldn't wish on even cat breeders. I'm a big advocate of purebred animal registration, but as much as I love it, I just don't think that it's practical in poultry. It could be done if we really wanted to put in the effort, but we have a hard enough time now trying to get poultry breeders to think on a professional level, like many dog and horse breeders do.

[Oregon Swedes]

A registry for poultry would be difficult to do.

I'd like to see both poultry breeders and backyard pet owners have some sort of inkling of how much money it costs to raise a bird. As long as 5 people down the road are selling chicks for $1 each and eggs for a dollar a dozen, there will never be the money in poultry to pay for a registry. I can only assume that too many people don't know how to add up their feed store receipts.

The way that poultry is raised would have to be completely changed. Right now, poultry is raised on the flock system. You can't put eggs from a dozen different hens into the same incubator if you must know for certain which bird is the parent of each individual chick.

Many of the registries have gone to DNA identification to eliminate fraudulent pedigrees. It's difficult to add $25 to the cost of registering your bird that you hope to get $25 for when it is 8 months old.

The rabbit people have managed to maintain a registry. It's a lot easier to keep track of parentage with rabbits, and it's my understanding that they are registered by type, not by verified pedigree (disclaimer, I don't have rabbits, so I am just repeating what I've heard ). Perhaps registration by inspection for type would work better for poultry?

[Angela]

And then we can micro-chip them, register with Dept of Ag and Homeland Securtity, Keep hours worth of detailed records to be up-loaded to someone's server....at our expense....blah, blah, blah.

Enough already, don't you think?

[Patrick]

A registry for poultry would be difficult to do.

I'd like to see both poultry breeders and backyard pet owners have some sort of inkling of how much money it costs to raise a bird. As long as 5 people down the road are selling chicks for $1 each and eggs for a dollar a dozen, there will never be the money in poultry to pay for a registry. I can only assume that too many people don't know how to add up their feed store receipts.

The way that poultry is raised would have to be completely changed. Right now, poultry is raised on the flock system. You can't put eggs from a dozen different hens into the same incubator if you must know for certain which bird is the parent of each individual chick.

Many of the registries have gone to DNA identification to eliminate fraudulent pedigrees. It's difficult to add $25 to the cost of registering your bird that you hope to get $25 for when it is 8 months old.

The rabbit people have managed to maintain a registry. It's a lot easier to keep track of parentage with rabbits, and it's my understanding that they are registered by type, not by verified pedigree (disclaimer, I don't have rabbits, so I am just repeating what I've heard ). Perhaps registration by inspection for type would work better for poultry?

One thing that dog people have done right, or I should say, they claim to, is that you are not going to make money in the hobby, if you do it "right". Despite that, I have no doubt that some astute national winning breeders with reputations do make money off of the dogs which they charge many thousands of dollars for, but that is a side issue. I'm tired of hearing people whine that they can't afford to participate in the poultry hobby if they don't make money off of sales. I do hate the flea market atmosphere which often comes with selling poultry, especially at shows. I wish that there were a way to require that only show quality birds, or breeder quality, those which will produce show quality birds, would be allowed to be sold at shows. Those shows which prohibit sales in the parking lot, and which charge a fee for a sale cage are taking a step in the right direction, but even at the Ohio National one sees birds being sold which are a disgrace to the fancy, sometimes even by national club officers or their associates, or by those with so called "reputations".

One of the benefits of poultry breeding is that in some breeds you may actually cross in another breed for various legitimate reasons, and still obtain show quality offspring in a few or sometimes even one generation. There is a well documented case in Dalmations where another breed was crossed in experimentally to eliminate a potentially detrimental gene common to all purebred Dals today. Many generations later due to careful breeding, that line looks as pure as any other, and does not carry the gene, but due to the registration rules, the AKC will still not allow them to be registered. Rabbits are registered by inspection of type, but pedigrees are still only the breeder's word in most cases, so I don't really see what the benefit is. Plus, it is nice to flock breed poultry when desired, especially with the bigger birds. Even so, we could use DNA, but remember, poultry breeders still won't pay their parent clubs dues which even cover the cost of their membership, nor will they pay entry fees which cover the cost of holding their shows at decent venues. This is partly because they have never been required to, but that too is another discussion.

[Patrick]

And then we can micro-chip them, register with Dept of Ag and Homeland Securtity, Keep hours worth of detailed records to be up-loaded to someone's server....at our expense....blah, blah, blah.

Enough already, don't you think?

One of the most successful breeders I know is a fanatical record keeper. Last I knew, microchipping of dogs hasn't fallen into the government's hands, nor has AKC turned over any of it's registration records. I'm not in favor of government regulated ID either, but some of these practices are very useful, even necessary for one to be a good breeder.

[Angela]

OK Patrick.....
Record keeping is a must.....but the rest of it reeks of NAIS. And, I'm talking birds...not dogs.

Angela

[Evy]

From Or. Swedes: " You can't put eggs from a dozen different hens into the same incubator if you must know for certain which bird is the parent of each individual chick. ''

Sure you can. We all write on them, separate by tray or wire basket within a tray, toe punch at hatch. Not for a registry, but for one's own line records.

[goosedragon]

Patrick Where I live now if your dog should fall into the hands of government you must microchip it to get it back. What has really upset the breeders, upon second offence the dog must be nutered and if you don't agree they will put it down rather than return it to you.

[Oregon Swedes]

I hadn't thought of isolating the eggs in individual baskets.

So, you keep every female all by herself in her own cage and is each female with her own male, or do you move the male from cage to cage?

The cost of an individual pen for each female would be too much for me. I'd have to be out of the poultry game.

[Angela]

I hadn't thought of isolating the eggs in individual baskets.

So, you keep every female all by herself in her own cage and is each female with her own male, or do you move the male from cage to cage?

The cost of an individual pen for each female would be too much for me. I'd have to be out of the poultry game.

Most of us set up breeding groups. I'll have a number of hens in with a specific rooster. Pens or groupings are numbered separately. I don't track each mating, just each grouping. If I like what I get, it sets the tone for the next breeding session. If I'm not satisfied for whatever reason, changes are made.
If you are familiar enough with your birds, you'll know who lays what egg. I don't breed all of my birds, just the best ones.

[dhw]

With the big ducks your best bet is to do trio or quad matings. Toe punch the young from each pen and line breed treating the hens as a single bird. Over time they will get very consistent and uniform in what they produce. You could use smaller pens and move a drake between a couple of them switching his pen every day but you would want to use the same drake for each hen all season unless there was a good reason to change it up. When this time of year hits make sure you have your records straight as far as what band numbers produced which toe punched babies and you can then put them in a community pen. The breeding pens don't need to be huge or elaborate. One pekin breeder back years ago had 5-6 large fowl show coops in his garage and put a hen in each to breed from each year. I can only assume the drakes were in a larger cage and the hens brought to them but I am not 100% on that.

[Angela]

Make sure that you have a source of water.....a small kiddie pool or something. Ducks, and particularly geese, breed better on water. It's easier on their legs.

I hate toe punching......

[Evy]

Someone mentioned moving birds from pen to pen for mating. Once the ducks ( females ) are settled in a breeding pen, don't move them. It can upset laying for days. Move the drakes about once a week. They'll be VERY excited to see new partners then ;-).

[dhw]

And by excited she means border line disturbing LOL

[Angela]

I do not think so that getting a new variety means a popularity or some thing,Its quit rational and no one should criticize on this.


One has the right to disaggree with anything. That's one of our rights under the constitution. Also makes for lively chatter. You are expressing your right to disaggree right now, are you not? Would you be censured for disaggreeing?