Small Farm Canada

Did anyone read this month's Small Farm Canada where a letter to the editor (I think), says that the partridge Chanticler is notrelated to the typical white Canadian developed breed we usually think of when we hear the name Chanticler?

Does anyone have any light to shed on this?

Coopslave has been working with this breed and maybe she knows what the deal is? I know nothing about Chanticlers, partridge, polka dot or otherwise. I thought that was a pretty interesting statement and wondered what the chicken community has to say about it.

This surprised me too, when I heard it. It was discussed here. I will see if I can find it.

Do a bit of a google search Uno. The Partridge was actually the Albertan. Developed later than the Whites, in Alberta with different breeds as a foundation. They are actually a different bird because of it. That is why they look a bit different in type to the Whites, they actually have a different origin.

I am not totally brushed up on it and just know the basics, but the powers that be in that time said they were so close in type and function, that instead of letting the 'Albertan' stand on its own as a breed, they said it would be forever more known as a Partridge Chantecler.

Many people oppose and struggle with this and some still call them Albertans.

Very rough answer to a complex question Uno.

Here you go, Uno...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well. There you go. Thank you Sue for posting this for me.

So, if I understand, He Who Names Things was on a god trip on this particular day and decided to smother the unique individuality of this genetic development by covering it with the distinguished name of another bird.

I must disagree with Fowler, since he is so often disagreeable, that I think this is a bad idea. To me this is false advertising.

We associate the name Chantecler with the Quebec developed bird. Period. If Mr. Fowler, backyard breeder, wants to create a bird using colours and magic potions, then the NAME of his bird should reflect and give some hint to its heritage.

Example. American breeders crossed Chianina cattle with Black Angus and over time created a 'breed' they call the Chiangus (stupid name!). But as stupid as it is, it's an HONEST name and it gives the buyer a glimpse into the genetic history of the breed. To call a bird that is in no way a Chantecler a Chantecler is a grievous slap in the face to people who did develop the true Chantecler and a slap in the face to the person who developed the Albertan. NO overseeing body should ever be able to befuddle the truth for the sake of their damn, pointless book! (yes, that was a kick to the standard!)

Had I not read that little letter to the magazine, I would have believed that I had a bird that was related to the Quebec birds. If this happened in cars, there would be lawsuits involved! You don't call an Oldsmobile a Caddymobile just because it has big fins and lots of chrome. No, no, no! We go to court now. This should never be allowed in the chicken world for ANY reason!

This also explains why my chickens do not respond to me when I parlais en Francais at them.  

Being disagreeable again.  

He applied to the Standard knowing that they have a system for keeping the breeds organized. In applying, he agreed to their rules.

I salute his work in creating a beautiful bird (and I'd like to have some someday) but he did use Brother Wilfred's combinations as a template (just used different colours) and so produce a bird that was meant to be identical to the Chantecler but for colour. If he wanted his work to be recognized under a different name, then he should have used some imagination and given it a unique look (size, build, comb, what-have-you).

But that's just my own thinking.

Okay Fowler, let me get this straight.

The person who invented the Partridge Chantecler is the person who decided it was okay to designate it the Chantecler? Was he trying to make a Chanticler or was he trying to make something else? Was this a choice that was offered to him, put forth by him or imposed on him from an outside source?

If he chose this name for his own reasons (maybe hitching a ride on the famous Chantecler name, free advertising) then I misspoke and he is not the victim of the standard, or of He Who Names Things.

Are you also saying that the Part. Chant is made of the same basic ingredients as the White Chant, but that no actual White Chants went into the mixing bowl? (hope that makes sense). In other words, they came from the same basic roots, but ended up with different colours, colour being the only difference? Yes? No? I'm kind of confused.

.

Thanks Tara, knew we could depend on you. Much better than my Coles Notes version!

uno wrote:Okay Fowler, let me get this straight.

The person who invented the Partridge Chantecler is the person who decided it was okay to designate it the Chantecler? Was he trying to make a Chanticler or was he trying to make something else? Was this a choice that was offered to him, put forth by him or imposed on him from an outside source?

If he chose this name for his own reasons (maybe hitching a ride on the famous Chantecler name, free advertising) then I misspoke and he is not the victim of the standard, or of He Who Names Things.

I believe the name was picked by the APA. My point is just that, by applying, he accepts their ruling. (and I'm not saying I think all their rulings are proper coughdominiquecough).

uno wrote:
Are you also saying that the Part. Chant is made of the same basic ingredients as the White Chant, but that no actual White Chants went into the mixing bowl? (hope that makes sense). In other words, they came from the same basic roots, but ended up with different colours, colour being the only difference? Yes? No? I'm kind of confused.

Yes (although Tara says that the mix of breeds was not the same) in the long run, I see it as making little difference if you are selecting for the same traits. I'll have to check my chantecler book if I can remember it long enough.

Thank you. My head is going to explode now. SOrry about the spelling Higgins, I struggle with that. It's an Italian thing. Spaghetti, ravioli, Maserati, I like to toss that Italian 'i' into things. Chanticler...it sings O Sole Mio every morning.

.

Lovely hens Tara. You are getting some great heads on your buffs, I really like them.
Dana is the ground colour I am getting, just one more thing that needs to be worked on. The nice thing about that ground colour is it shows the pencilling off better!    

Chantecler! Albertan!

Tastes great! Less filling!

.

You have just answered my email in this post!     Thanks!

See what you started Uno!  

Sorry. And this was one of my more plain-Jane posts! Just a simple question. I thought.  

Note for Coopslave, of interest.

I have been hatching chicks, obviously some of them are out of your Chant hens. Other than wild and wonderful colour variations, the Surprise Pack of chickens, I have noticed the biggest change in the head shape of the chicks.

At hatch they have a very different head shape than past birds. The skull seems very round, neat and small with a short beak. Past birds had longer, flatter skulls with longer, thinner beaks.

It's the only change I've noticed and I like the look. As for colour and pencilling...ha ha ha, it's a party out there!

Glad you are liking the changes, also glad some of them have survived.