Breeding Q&A

I enjoyed rereading this thread too. Though it wasn't my first time.

Gee -- I've been missing out on a really great thread! I can't resist wading in with my 2 cents.

IMO there is a lot of confusion about 'good' breeding vs. 'bad' breeding that is caused by not being clear on what the real goal is. There are 2 very different goals that one can choose, and they require VERY different breeding methods.

Most of the discussion I've seen on this thread is focused on breeding better quality birds, with quality being defined by APA standard. This involves starting with a small number of the best birds one can buy, breeding in trios or pairs or single pen matings, pedigree records and intense tracking of appearance traits. This suits small hobby breeders, especially those who want to keep several (or dozens!) of breeds, but if everyone raising Breed X does this, IT IS DEATH TO THE BREED. It is an example of "Buy the barn and paint it right away."

The reason so many heritage breeds have been reduced to endangered status is because small flock holders breed this way (or they breed unconsciously... I'm not sure which is worse) and no one is maintaining the whole genepool. No one is "building the barn". This is why so many beautiful show birds are several pounds under the target weight for the breed, and fertility of the 'best' birds is often low. If everyone you know breeds this way, and everyone at the show breeds this way, the decline of our birds is hard to see...

The other method of breeding is to fill the genepool and keep topping it up, and maybe even enlarge it by introducing some birds of breeds that were used in the original development of your breed. This is a numbers game: many chicks must be produced -- enough chicks each year that the 2% to 5% of scookum chicks, vital and true to the breed, are in good supply -- with lots of good birds to sell to others, because the more people keeping and using the breed, the better off that breed is. If you breed this way, you will keep lots of roosters to rotate thru your pens; and you will always be looking for more. It actually doesn't take expensive facilities to rear hundreds of chicks up to first cull. You'll be glad you did.

All of the 'natural' breeds -- the breeds that arose in a geographic area -- were shaped and molded by the use their humans put them to. Not by their feathers. Strong selection for vital characteristics, such as growth rate, disease resistance, winter laying, fertility, egg laying and egg quality was imposed by the poor and isolated people who raised them and used them and depended on them. People noticed that unrelated birds, perhaps brought to the village by a wandering pedlar, were almost always a good addition -- even if the feathers were totally different! -- and so outside blood was always being added. These birds were not especially consistent in appearance, but they performed.

The idea of defining a 'breed', as if it were a species (a closed breeding population), was an egotistical conceit of the Victorian age, and has IMO done a lot of harm. There are amusing stories of Brits going to exotic lands to get a few more 'genuine' birds of a breed they had defined, and then scolding the 'natives' for not breeding according to their standard! Breeding for physical 'perfection', as defined by a committee of old men, is about playing a tiny game with a small dip from the genepool. FlickerChick, your chances of getting a robust dual-purpose bird by show breeding methods are dim. First, build your bird....

Sorry this is so long! I'll hop off the soap box now.

Hmmm.....not sure you have been reading the posts. Maybe you have come in with preconceived ideas about what some of us think about breeding. Just what I get from your post.

A great discussion has been taking place in this thread. Your different opinion is sure to spark a few new thoughts and comments, Tru North.
Thanks for adding your 2 cents!

Edited, because I couldn't resist adding my opinion here. I really believe that it will be the small breeders/hobbiests who strive for perfection that will ultimately keep these breeds true, and keep them available for future generations. Small hobby breeders will go to great lengths to find the best breeding stock available to complement their flock. We are constantly working towards "building that barn" - working towards the type and weights that were originally intended for the breed, as well as keeping in mind that these birds must stay vigorous and productive. No matter which breeding method you choose, that should always be the goal.

There are two distinct types of breeding objectives (and thus distinct methods to enhance). These are:
a) the human-defined ones of adherence to “standard”, which are largely appearance-based; and
b) the traits on which natural selection operates, i.e. the “fitness” ones, of fertility, fecundity, size, vigour, and disease resistance.
Often, these two sets of goals work against each other, especially with small populations. When you lose the second set, you’re in trouble, no matter how beautiful your bird is.

Build the barn before you paint it. I really like that. And I do understand what you’re saying TruNorth…

Coopslave’s link to Daniel Powell’s article “Breeding for Vitality: Become a Steward of the Breed” talks about some of the same concerns you have expressed.

A few things he wrote that really struck a cord with me.

I quote:

“It is true that our birds weigh in very heavily on the "fancy scale," but as we place so much emphasis on traits like disease resistance, longevity, fecundity, utility and temperament, our birds are just as famous for their productivity and hardiness as they are for being pretty.”

“I love chickens: beautiful, friendly, tasty chickens. It is always my goal as a breeder to impart characteristics that will draw other people to the industry, to the fancy, to the breed, and to the variety. Breeds are not cut in stone, but rather are fluid, elastic, ever-changing populations upon which we breeders hone our craft. As such I urge other breeders to not discount their role as stewards of their breed, and to remember the importance of disease resistance, longevity, fecundity, utility and temperament when they set up their breeding pens.”

Being inexperienced and new to breeding, I admit it’s easy for me to get fixated on the paint. Especially while the foundation is still in the process of being poured. But I do realize that paint isn’t everything. It will eventually chip and peel away if the building hasn't been property built or well maintained. That I definitely don't want.

What I do want are birds that meet the SOP.
I also want them to be healthy and vigorous, disease resistant, have good fertility, productivity, temperament and caress size.

I don’t just want pretty. I want purpose too. And I believe it’s possible to have both. Or am I deluding myself? (ok, don't answer that, haha)

I hope you’ll continue to swim with us TruNorth.


eta: link to article link
https://wcps.canadian-forum.com/t1492-another-interesting-read

Before I become any more involved in this discussion, I will provide my small disclaimer: I've been raising poultry for a lot of years, but only during the past few years actually "breeding". So I fully admit to being quite new to all this. My opinions are largely based on reading and learning from others, as opposed to the kind of experience a long-term breeder aquires. Ok, thanks for reading the fine print and feel free to correct my assumptions!!

Well,first of all I'm not quite clear on which are the "Natural breeds", Tru North. Could you give some examples of which breeds arose this way, as opposed to the ones that were manipulated and bred by humans for a specific trait or purpose. And are these the only breeds you are referring to in your post?

Also, as Flicker mentioned, the paint isn't everything...but I do feel it is very important. In fact, I often get the feeling that breeders striving for perfect color or lacing are often judged as frivolous. Well, where would the Sebrights or Silver laced Wyandottes be without their lovely lacing? In fact, lets take the SL Wyandottes as an example. This breed was first accepted into the APA in 1883. They were bred to be a "plump-bodied table bird that would be suitable for a country gentlemen's estate." (Poultry Breeds and Management, David Scrivener)
The original group that created this breed placed a great emphasis on proper feather pattern - beauty was deemed just as important as their size. I don't believe we should discount appearance as a trivial or secondary trait in our poultry. It is what makes a breed recognizable and desirable to others, thus ensuring the survival of that breed.
Trying to achieve fitness and vigor in a breed, as well as keeping all the proper characteristics is a big challenge. In some breeds it is a long road, and the SOP is the roadmap to help us get there.

I don't get why there must be division here, when breeding purebred stock one should be striving to meet the standard in weight etc. If all I was worried about was carcass weight then we should all just get the Cornish meat birds.
My point is that you should have it all if I take for example my Leghorns which is esentinally a closed flock so to speak for 20+, with the only introduction of 1 outside male in the last aprox 10 years ago. My young and old birds are right on standard size and have kept all of the egg laying properties for which they were bred orginally and yes they have pretty feathers. I bred from 3-4 yr old females who layed consistly for me this year. and the cock bird I used on one group is 5 years old and I had 100% fertility on his eggs and he was rotated over 7 females. My birds all breeds are extemely healthy and thou I have antibotics on hand I havn't used them for years. So I must disagree that having a flock that you are always introducing out cross males or females into is somehow more desirable than one that have a controlled real bloodline and the idea that somehow these birds( from the more controlled pedigree flock) have to be underweight,non-producing representions of their breeds.

I know many, many breeders who do just like me and are looking for the whole package and maybe some of you have not had that opperunity to really interact with people truly invested in their chosen breeds or may be you have have pre-concieved ideas on what exhibition breeders are truly doing out there. I personally think that people who are just throwing birds together without no thought to what their good and bad qualities are, are more of a threat to all breeds not just "heritage" fowl. Just my thoughts

Excellent post Kathys

Heather

Thanks, IPF -- much more clearly stated than my rambling post.

About 'natural breeds' -- what I meant was distinct chicken populations that have evolved under human selection to fill the needs of a local population. As humans spread around the globe they took chickens with them, and each settled area slowly developed birds that could thrive and be most productive in that climate. Prior to ~1700 each hamlet, valley and city had its own utility poultry. As travel and trade became easier, people became interested in trying the poultry from other places -- AND THEN, for marketing, it became important for each area to 'brand mark' its birds with a distinctive appearance, etc. What we focus on today to tell one breed from another is essentially the packaging, not the bird. Examples of natural breeds: Leghorns, Brahmas, Scots Dumpies, Old English Game, Welsummers. Created as a project breeds: New Hampshires, Delawares, Chanteclers.

The natural breeds were able to develop much larger genepools before people started to narrow things down to a single phenotype, and so they have been very resilient in the face of inbreeding.

Also note that chickens have many microchromosomes which apparently carry redundant copies of the genes that control fetal development, growth and metabolism -- these little chromosomes continue to sort randomly even in the face of strong selection for the appearance traits, and so delay telltale signs of inbreeding depression. But you've only got about 30 generations maximum before reaching a point of no return.

I think it is interesting that chickens do give us a 20 to 30 year window in which we can inbreed without seeing obvious problems. Few people work with a breed that long. And so it is very hard to persuade people that there is any harm in it.

Viscoe -- I don't discount that many breeders are keeping an eye on body size and egg laying ability, etc. The problem is that they are doing it in small, closed flocks. No matter what you do in small, closed flocks you are going to lose genetic variability of the growth and vitality genes -- the invisible genes. It's a slippery slope, and the only way you can go genetically is down.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that breeding to the standard or breeding for exhibition is a fine thing to do with chickens, and gives hundreds of thousands of chickens a reason to exist, which is all good. But someone somewhere has to keep building the barn, in order for a breed to last.

It's not so much that you should worry about carcass weight as an end in itself, but rather as an indicator of fitness (and possibly excessive inbreeding). I'm not saying you should be trying to increase carcass weight (as you suggest, that's what those cornish crosses are for), but you should be trying to guard against losses, which would likely be accompanied by losses in other fitness traits.

Good food for thought guys. The wheels are a spinning.

But you've only got about 30 generations maximum before reaching a point of no return.

I think it is interesting that chickens do give us a 20 to 30 year window in which we can inbreed without seeing obvious problems. Few people work with a breed that long. And so it is very hard to persuade people that there is any harm in it.

^ Call me curious, is there documenation to support this?

But say it is fact...isn't this why breeders will "outcross" to the original breed used in the making of their chosen breed? To deepen the gene pool they're playing in?

Hmmm. Not sure I'm getting it. Too early, must go drink more coffee.

Flicker Chick wrote:Good food for thought guys. The wheels are a spinning.

But you've only got about 30 generations maximum before reaching a point of no return.

I think it is interesting that chickens do give us a 20 to 30 year window in which we can inbreed without seeing obvious problems. Few people work with a breed that long. And so it is very hard to persuade people that there is any harm in it.

^ Call me curious, is there documenation to support this?

But say it is fact...isn't this why breeders will "outcross" to the original breed used in the making of their chosen breed? To deepen the gene pool they're playing in?

Hmmm. Not sure I'm getting it. Too early, must go drink more coffee.

Hi Flicker Chick,

If and I mean if there are sure signs of inbreeding depression one out cross will resolve the problem right away. And it does not have to be a total out-cross, meaning it could still be a half relative. But don't take my word for it, I am just 30 yrs old and have not yet run in to any such problems and am still in the preliminary stages of my breeding of Flemish Giants and a couple breeds of chickens. I always try to talk to older and more experienced breeders and soak up such info like a sponge. Books are great, but really those successful old mentors are the ones to talk to, who have been breeding for 30 plus years and have seen all the good, bad and ugly.

Piet

Piet I agree with you that one outcross to a half relative is the way to go, which is what I do with my birds when and if I see a reduction in "vigor". I have placed key birds with breeders who know what they are doing, that I talk with all the time to see what is going on with their birds and if I need to source a bird that is where I go. I think that it is very important that you put careful consideration into any new bird you introduce into your breeding line and that you always test mate first by mating that bird singlely and observing the offspring before going further. Far too many people will just get a new cock for instance and then flock mate the bird and that's when if you have aproblem it is impossible to trace what happened and a breeding season may be lost. So I say source outcrosses from a trusted source and single mate only to help avoid the bad and the ugly.

Also as you said talking to and picking the brains of seasoned breeders can save a person light years in their breeding programs by avoiding some of the pitfalls and learning some of the points that may help you advance quicker.

Heather

Hi Piet,

You are correct. Reading all the books in the world can’t replace hands on experience. Though I don’t think you should discount your own breeding experiences so lightly. Be it a few years or 30 years+, everyone has something to share AND to learn. Thanks for the sound advice.


Heather, I think that is ingenious. By placing your birds in other capable breeders hands you’re not only gifting them with good foundation stock, but keeping plenty of your own genetic material out there not to far from home. Bravo!

I’m beginning to see why test mating is so important. Mixing in unknown (baaad) genes can be a major setback to any breeding program.