|
The Original All Roller Talk Discussion Board Archive >
Hey! Wake up!
Hey! Wake up!
Page:
1
nicksiders
478 posts
Feb 20, 2006
9:52 AM
|
Make sure you read very carefully until you understand the post "1st Class Family" from Ken Billings quoting a discussion he had with last falls 20 bird NBRC champion. If you are serious about developing competitive birds you might want to carefully digest what is being said between two first class competitors. Break it all down, chew it up, then digest it. You may find the end result to be profound. You can decide what kind of breeder you really want to be.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
396 posts
Feb 20, 2006
11:29 AM
|
Nick, this is just one man's opinion, in which he is entitled to. I disagree with it as being novel and all-inclusive. Then again, I probably as just a crappy breeder with no goal to be profound at anything.
NO POINT OF VIEW IS ALL-INCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!
Brian.
|
nicksiders
479 posts
Feb 20, 2006
12:31 PM
|
Brian,
All ideas are novel; none are all-inclusive.
You have never been singled out as a crappy breeder and never will be. Like everybody else in the hobby I have the upmost respect for you and your opinions have been and still are important to me.
I often find that the simplest of ideas are the most profound. They sometimes uncover the fog that heaps of information place in our minds by pointing out the obvious that is being hid by the fog.
That is all I am saying in my previous observation. There is no way I meant that the rest of us are less of a breeder because our ideas or opinions are different.
Nick
Last Edited by nicksiders on Feb 21, 2006 10:19 PM
|
motherlodelofts
605 posts
Feb 20, 2006
2:32 PM
|
Roller heads with Kennys flying and breeding ability are far and few inbetween.
Scott
|
Velo99
229 posts
Feb 20, 2006
4:35 PM
|
Guys,
I have an idea, In similar fashion to the futurity I for one have a line of birds I would be willing to send a number of(8-10) to another fancier to fly out. I would be willing to reciprocate and fly an equal number from another loft. Then we could see just who has the birds and who has the skills.
YITS
Kenny H
|
Ballrollers
276 posts
Feb 20, 2006
5:55 PM
|
Nick, guys,
I don't put much stock in quoting Pensom anymore. I find that many men are able to twist, delete, take out of context, believe, disbelieve, do about anything they want with the writings of WHP to suit their agenda and make it appear that THEY have an inside track on the understanding that the man intended to impart; depending on what year's material they use of his. His philosphies evolved and changed with time, and were dimetrically opposed to prior years' beliefs sometimes. The thread that was being discussed (which we saw only a small portion of) considers whether strict in/line-breeding of one family, or outcrossing between families (when needed to produce hybrid vigor or improve a performance trait) is the superior method of consistently producing quality performance rollers. The jury is still out, by a long shot. Men have been linebreeding select families for years, yet they fare no better in consitency or in competitions than others who use the extreme opposite breeding philosophy, which they also happen to believe is also supported by Pensom, "best to best regardless of relationship." Guys like Danny Courtney, Clay Hoyle and Joe Bob Stuka have adopted the latter philosophy with tremendous success and consistency; much more so than they were able to produce the goods with line-breeding in one family. Many believe that Pensom did the same. He was known for pinching birds anyhere he could get them if he liked their performance and type, regardless of strain or family. This can hardly be construed to represent in-breeding a family, by any stretch of the imagination. I do believe that success with the latter philosophy depends on the knowledge and experience of the fancier, and is not the preferred method for those of us with less experience in the game. For many of us, in-breeding and line-breeding removes some of the genetic variables while we are learning the ropes. Just my humble opinion..YITS Cliff
|
Will Winsome
2 posts
Feb 20, 2006
6:13 PM
|
I am not convinced by anyone, anytime for any reason, whatsoever for any purpose or agenda regardless of motivation...now go be the best YOU can. Willie
|
motherlodelofts
606 posts
Feb 20, 2006
7:00 PM
|
Yes it's much better to just keep hunting "other" people's families and continualy crossing (not).
Track down the most consistant fliers in the world and you will find them breeding families of birds that they developed and wouldn't dream of crossing in somebody elses as there is no need.
If it wasn't for such breeders these that continualy cross families wouldn't have nothing to cross families now would they , it is rare that patchwork birds pan out, sooner or later you have to hone in around something.
If you are color breeding mongrals then definetly inbreeding shouldn't done unless you want to see what breed was used for color LOL
Scott
Last Edited by motherlodelofts on Feb 20, 2006 7:44 PM
|
knaylor
64 posts
Feb 20, 2006
10:05 PM
|
Cliff, I disagree with you. Look at the Percentages that Kenny and Scott get, Plus the number they breed each year. i wonder how they get them????? Kevin
|
Opinionated Blowhard
12 posts
Feb 21, 2006
11:43 AM
|
I'll consider the recommendations of men like Billings, who has won many competitions, or a man like Pensom, whose advice has been proven by thousands of roller breeders, over that of a beginner.
|
MCCORMICKLOFTS
400 posts
Feb 21, 2006
12:13 PM
|
Of course you would Blowhard. But does that make that opinion the ONLY recourse? Does that make that opinion the only means of achieving success with your birds? Absolutely not.
Next time why don't put your name with your post so we can refer to you as something other than an opinionated blowhard.
Brian.
|
J_Star
255 posts
Feb 21, 2006
1:44 PM
|
There are many ways to breeding sound rollers. No doubt. Some might achieve their high percentages by breeding best to best and some by inbreeding and line breeding. It doesn't matter whose opinion you choose to follow or follow your own gut feeling as long as you achieve your required results and the goals you already have set to yourself.
Unlike Pensom, others from that time took on the inbreeding methods, which was highly regarded as bad method of breeding and achieved great success with their birds whether those fanciers were from Birmingham England or America.
Rick Mee’s article for those don’t know, it is about creating concert performers and the way to do it as he explains by inbreeding and creating a family of birds that are uniform in everyway from feeding habits to flying and performing. Uniformity in a loft creates family of similarity and equal performance. Where as mixing and matching and breeding best to best from so many birds from so many lofts tends to produce good and sound performance rollers but tent to be ‘not uniform’ in their behavior whether its feeding or flying. Although what appears to be is that the end result from both methods are similar or equally the same.
Best to best is the easiest way to breed since no need to keep allot of records and don’t need to know the birds’ ancestry and their background. It doesn’t mean it is a bad way of breeding but it is the safest and the easiest way to breed. On the other hand, inbreeding and line breeding is really for the expert breeders and not for beginners due to the time and the know-how involved behind those methods to develop a strain and family you can call your own. Bare in mind, always, it is just as possible to breed genetic dominance for defect into your strain as it is a quality and that were allot of novice breeders fall into when they attempt inbreeding.
For all those reasons, I agree with both parties and their breeding preferences as long as they are achieving their end results, which are superior birds in the air. People tend to become strong in their opinion because in a way they are defending the way they do things, which is the nature of our self beings. And that is OK, but it does not mean the other way or method is not as credible as theirs. What works for you and your birds does not mean it should work for me or my birds. But ideas gathered from all the participants’ becomes a depository of wealth of information that is more beneficial to the novice and the experienced alike.
Jay
Last Edited by J_Star on Feb 21, 2006 1:46 PM
|
Ballrollers
277 posts
Feb 21, 2006
3:07 PM
|
Jay,
Good post, but I disagree with your statement that the philosophy of outcrossing is safest and easiest, and that inbreeding is really for the expert and not for the beginner. In my humble opinion, the reality of the situation is just the opposite. Inbreeding reduces the gene pool that the breeder has to work with. Many type and performance characteristics have already been fixed in the family to some extent, increasing the odds that the desirable genes will be passed along to the progeny. Undesireable hidden recessives have usually been minimized over time, working with the family, to reduce the chance of them showing up in the progeny. These simple facts make it the method of choice for the less-experienced breeder. Outcrossing at will to incorporate various desired traits found in a bird from another family, requires the knowledge, skill, and experience to identify type, character, and performance traits that might NOT blend well with the existing family. This breeder, potentially, opens up a huge can of worms with an entirely new gene pool to deal with that may carry unknown recessives that might now become homozygous in the offspring when blended with the family of his original breeders. There is a greater risk that type, feather, performance quality will all continue to deteriorate in future generations, if these tendencies are not monitored and dealt with through proper selection of breeding stock by an astute and experienced roller man, as the program continues. That is why it is not recommended for those with less experience. Multiple family outcrosses is a philosophy that is increasing in popularity, but among master flyers and world cup winners and men with years of experience. YITS, Cliff
|
Mongrel Lofts
136 posts
Feb 21, 2006
4:17 PM
|
I hope everyone pays close attention to what Cliff is saying here.. Some times you learn by what to do,, Some times the best learning tool, is a great example of what NOT TO DO.. Pay attention and learn.. KGB
|
knaylor
65 posts
Feb 21, 2006
6:20 PM
|
Kenny, very true!!!! But we all know some will and some wont. LOL Kevin
|
nicksiders
482 posts
Feb 21, 2006
6:21 PM
|
I have always believed that the wider the gene pool the more difficult to control. If you keep adding more and more strains to your loft the less control you have over the gene pool; the more junk is produce; the less likelihood you will have in building stability in your family. To produce good teams year after year is a goal.
Nick
|
motherlodelofts
609 posts
Feb 21, 2006
6:33 PM
|
Nick I have always found that birds with large gene pools are very hard to get percentages out of no matter how good they are in the air.
With inbreeding line breeding progrms "lines" developed within the family can themselfs become the needed outcross when fresh blood is needed , Kennys family is a good example of this.
Scott
|
J_Star
257 posts
Feb 21, 2006
6:55 PM
|
Cliff,
Very good response. But I think you are mixing the terms outbreeding with outcrossing. They are two different and distinct concepts. Outbreeding is when a fancier bring good rollers from different fanciers and mix and match best to best and continues with that method of breeding. Outcrossing, on the other hand, is to bring a bird or couple from outside to cross them into your very well inbred family of rollers to bring in missing trait or enhance something in your rollers. That can be deadly dangerous to any fancier who don't know what he is doing. Sometimes they tend to breed toward the outcross and dismantle many years of hard work.
To you as an established fanciers you think inbreeding is easy but believe me it is not to a new roller man. Bear in mind, no one should ever become involved in any form of close inbreeding, unless: (copied those from the Inbreeding Made Simple article)
1) The stock of rollers used is of the best quality, in character features and performance, type and viogour; otherwise, the outcome can be disastrous.
2) The breeder must keep detailed stock records and refer to them frequently to enable the breeder to become totally aware of the background of all his birds in the stud which is intended to be used for breeding (most people don’t have time and becomes like a job).
3) Remember that each roller does not inherit factors solely from its parents. Rather, each is more an aggregate of its ancestry. Therefore, if the breeder wants to have proper control of his inbreeding program, he must be able to check back at least three years or more into each bird’s past.
4) With an inbreeding system it is essential to be able to know the complete history of all birds used for breeding. Details of any health failings should be recorded. By doing so, the breeder can keep a check on and trance any recurring health or type weaknesses.
5) Inbreeding brings the recessive type and performance features to the surface much quicker than would occur in outbreeding. Therefore, in the early years, the breeder must be prepared to cull a fair number of the progeny each year.
The breeder success will depend upon selecting the most suitable foundation cock from the onset. The foundation cock must possess all the required features and be devoid of major faults. Never expect instant success in inbreeding program and be willing to start over again if you screw up. In inbreeding, count on to take you five years minimum to say I have established a strain. It is very time consuming and allot of us fanciers want instant success and well performing kit(s) when they start in the roller hobby and don’t have that dedication and persistence.
On the other hand, outbreeding, which most breeders begin in the roller hobby by outcross breeding utilizing the selection of unrelated stock possessing many of the desired features as far as visual form is concerned because of the lack of knowledge of the family history of their rollers other than what were told by the seller. This method of breeding can produce a small number of good spinning rollers, providing the pairing clicks, and the genes responsible for influencing the desirable qualities gain dominance.
In mating unrelated birds, the breeder has no way of knowing from past experience or records if the good type features will prove dominant and be expressed, or if the weaker features of the mating or ancestry will gain dominance. Therefore, it is easy to understand that this variety of ancestry is an obstacle to those who wish on producing uniformity in type.
Outbeeding does not give the breeder the chance to stamp a personal interpretation of the Ideal and uniformity throughout the stud of rollers. It is a more carefree method of breeding and it does not involve the breeder in keeping very detailed records. The decisions which have to be taken are simpler in that they are confined to the performance and character of each bird only. There is no need to constantantly refer to ancestry or family traits. A task which many fanciers find very tedious and not in their nature to do. In addition, the outbreeder would not have to face problems of loss of stamina, low fertility among others, which the more intense forms of breeding can reveal.
By the way, I copied verses from the articles in the Rollers Matrix to support my discussion.
Jay
|
Opinionated Blowhard
13 posts
Feb 21, 2006
11:30 PM
|
I've never heard that there is a distinction between outbreeding and outcrossing. The following definetions are from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Outbreeding-
The breeding of distantly related or unrelated individuals, often producing a hybrid of superior quality.
Outcrossing-
To cross animals or plants by breeding individuals of different strains but usually of the same breed.
Its ok to draw a distinction between outbreeding and outcrossing, but it would be easier if youd follow accepted breeding definetions.
I think beginners should do as I am doing: start with one family from one breeder and breed them without outcrosses or very close matings until I understand the families unique qualitys better.
Kevin
Last Edited by Opinionated Blowhard on Feb 21, 2006 11:32 PM
|
J_Star
260 posts
Feb 22, 2006
7:46 AM
|
Kevin,
Well said, there are articles about inbreeding, outbreeding and outcrossing in the Roller Matrix. Take some time and read them and hope they will give you a clearer prospective about the outbreeding and the outcrossing. Allot of us don't separate the two terms when discussing breeding methods and that leads to a number of misunderstanding and confusion. I, for one, like to separate those methods for clearer explanations.
I agree with you that for a beginner to do just that, while others would like to start with three or four different family of birds and hone in on one or two families after flying them an breeding them and down the road might to select one family. Either case is ok, it depends on the fancier preference. Remember the old adger 'all roads lead to Rome.'
Jay
Last Edited by J_Star on Feb 22, 2006 7:47 AM
|
Ballrollers
278 posts
Feb 22, 2006
8:42 AM
|
Jay, Guys,
I guess we are dealing with an issue of semantics here, to some extent, so I will try to get beyond that to a basic understanding. Conceptually, the issue is, basically, whether to breed from one family of birds or from multiple families of birds. I have chosen , as has been recommended by men with many years of experience, to concentrate my efforts on one family, using the pretzel method, which is considered inbreeding or line breeding (I'm not clear on the difference between these two, and don't think it matters, for my use). The concept that is also being employed by some more-experienced fanciers, is this same pretzel inbreeding of a base family, but being willing to occaisionally bring in an outcross from any other family that brings something to the table that they believe may be lacking in type or performance, and incorporating it into the base family through similar pretzel inbreeding. I am not talking about willy-nilly mating of any two rollers from any family that happens to perform to one's ideal standard, without regard to relationship or family. It is my impression that Ken Billings and Scott Campbell, as well as myself, are examples of those employing the first model of breeding. Joe Bob, Clay and Dany, I used as examples of the second model. I know of no one, personally, that actively competes, who has had consistant success with the later model. Maybe that speaks for itself. YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 22, 2006 8:46 AM
|
Ballrollers
279 posts
Feb 22, 2006
9:17 AM
|
knaylor,
I wanted to address your comment to me where you said you disagreed with me, though I am not sure on exactly which point. You referred to Scott and Kenny's breeding programs and the consistent results they achieve, as evidence that they are using the better method. I use the same method as they, but let me be play the devil's advocate for a moment. I'd like to use Scott as an example, only because he happens to be the one who has posted some figures for us to use. It is by no means casting anything negative on Scott or his breeding program. Scott is a very good flyer, and as we all know, he knows what he is doing. Scott posted, on another thread started by George Ruiz, regarding the numbers that need to be bred to each year to get a solid kit of performers, that he (Scott) breeds about 90 birds each year with a proven stock loft, and that it takes about 2-3 years to field an A-team that can compete on the top. Let's do a little math.
2-3 yrs. @ 90 birds per yr.=20 bird A-team
2yrs. x 90 birds=180 birds raised. 20 A-team birds out of 180 raised is 1 quality bird out of every 9 raised.
3yrs. x 90 birds=270 birds raised. 20 A-team birds out of 270 is 1 quality bird out of every 13 raised.
Averaging the two comes out to around 1 out of 11, which looks like we are real close to the national average of 1 out of 10 quality birds raised in an average breeding program. Now we all know how high Scott's standards are and that he could improve his numbers by lowering his standards, but let's not go there and assume every breeder is looking for top quality in his A-kit, though it may vary slightly from loft to loft. Scott also brought up a good point that these numbers may not reflect his true average because of his losses. But I think we can safely assume that this hold true for everyone.
So in trying to evaluate the efficiency of the inbreeding of a tight family as a breeding philosophy, it appears that it may not acieve much more than the national average in quality spinners. Help me out here, Scott. Where is my logic flawed?
Again, this is not to be taken as a slam or indictment of any individuals, nor as a credit to anyone in particular. I'm just trying to put some numbers to the production figures reported by guys using the different breeding philosophies to see which is more efficient in producing kit birds for competition. There may be other reasons a fancier chooses one method over the other. Make sense? Maybe Kenny or some others can share some numbers with us o shed more light on this discussion. YITS Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 22, 2006 2:35 PM
|
motherlodelofts
610 posts
Feb 22, 2006
3:59 PM
|
Cliff I look at it this way and I have mentioned it many time's, I don't call a youngbird nothing but potential no matter how good it is when under a year old, what is still holding it's own into the second season tells what a bird is made of.
As for national "average" I don't know , but I do know that good teams are far and few inbetween on a "national" average,and I have stood under many in several parts of this country and Canada.
As for my loft , it is still work in progress and what I need is allready here , I just have to make more of the good one's.
And the fact is the finest breeders in this country are working tight families and not a bunch of hodgepode , the truth be known I do more linebreeding than in breeding , the reason being is the family is allready tight through inbreeding , but one the same hand if it looks right I'll inbreed it hard also as long as it works.
I also think that you have to check your motives on inbreeding , some do it as a badge of honor or to jam up some bird that was great in the air but not in the stock loft and in the end can't fly sqaut, breeding tight requires a plan,and that plan of coarse evolving strictly around performance,but I think it was Jay that brought up a good point also about other factors of also being just a good pigeon as far as health,fertility ect.
Breeding qaulity birds that can hold up through the years and not through one season is the key to a qaulity family , and no I don't think anyone is doing it in large numbers.
I might also add that all birds that I breed roll to some degree , but not all have the qaulity and or the depth that I breed towards.
To many just don't have a clue what a good bird truely is and think just because it rolls it's a good one.
the whole mechanics of the roll that has to be looked at, plus they need the heart to handle it , the better the qaulity , the more heart they need.
Scott
PS Cliff, I have been in the top ten for the past five years in the national fly finals , won the Calif state fly in 03, came in second in 05 in Calif State (flying against some of the best in the country).
What I'm getting at is maybe my percentages of good birds might just be a little better than your "national" average, or your perception of national average is unrealistic,I don't know.
Give it a few years and you'll understand breeding truely good birds aint easy and is more like plucking gold nuggets out of a stream and they don't really come in high percentages, by the way Monty Nieble made the same claim as three years, the fact is many just don't have the birds to ever to it.
Last Edited by motherlodelofts on Feb 22, 2006 7:03 PM
|
knaylor
66 posts
Feb 22, 2006
5:18 PM
|
Cliff, I do not think that you use the same breeding practices and Kenny or Scott. I have never heard of them bringing in any different blood or have they EVER put any empasis on color when they mate their birds. As for thr pecentages that they get look at their record. I know what it takes for a bird to make it to their "A" team. I also know that they could win alot of comps in the country with their "B" team. They have qualified for the finals with theur "B" team before. I also know that when they give kit birds away to make room for the new breeding season alot of those birds ends up in other peoples "A" team. Ant those birds were not in the A or B team. They both have one solid family and only breed from that family and that is why they get the %%%%%% of good birds... Kevin
|
J_Star
262 posts
Feb 23, 2006
5:32 AM
|
Knayler,
I don’t believe the term never is really appropriate. The reason is things in many lofts happen in the background (that you and I don’t know about) as a test project to see if the outcross is successful first. To bring in an outcross and it is successful and pretzel it into your family takes around three seasons at least. Sometimes outcrossing is unavoidable and needed to move what is already good another notch up and refining the family. For a strong breeder to make claims that will never bringing an outcross, in my opinion, is inappropriate due to not scratch their pride when that time comes. Always must be willing to bring the family one notch higher every time and in stages even, if required, with introducing the highest of quality qualifiers from other lofts. Some people are discrete about it while others are not.
Cliff, I believe you are on the right track. You aligned your self with some of the best in this country and you are picking up allot of good breeding practices and tips. What appears to be that JoeBob, Jay, Clyde and Danny have reached the peak of inbreeding and line breeding their family and have been in the process of refining it by bringing in other birds from some of the best lofts in the country to bring their family to the next level up. Outcrossing is not easy and my hats are off to them for their excellent work.
Excellent work Scott, and as long as the bar is set high in your breeding loft and the Standard of Excellence is set high for your A-team, you will always be on top.
Last Edited by J_Star on Feb 23, 2006 6:21 AM
|
Ballrollers
281 posts
Feb 23, 2006
9:07 AM
|
Jay, Clyde? LOL! Otherwise-solid post....For the record, Jay Yandle inbreeds and keps his family very tight, unlike Joe bob, Clay and Danny who outcross at will, onto a base family of inbred birds.
Kevin Naylor,
I see that you support KGB and Scott as I do, as breeders and flyers of quality rollers. However this discussion is about two different breeding philosophies used in order to max out the potential of breding the highest number of good kit birds. Let's try not to make it personal with the men involved.
Regarding MY breeding program, it would be helpful in our discussions if you would ask first, rather than make assumptions and then pass judgement on assumptions that have no basis in reality. Just so you know; I, too, breed from one solid family; the same family used by Jay Yandle and Joe Bob as a base, both of whom have won in national and/or World Cup comps, as you know. I have never brought in "different blood" or EVER put any emphasis on color, as you suggested. My birds are tightly inbred and linebred as I said, based strictly on performance; some based on Jay's and Joe Bob's recommendations, some based on what I see in the air and on the perch. Many men breeed the Turner family of rollers in a very similar manner. Having rollers with a few color factors has no impact on my breeding practices any more than it does Scott or Kenny or you.
The national average of 10% quality birds does NOT take into account which of the two breeding methods is used. No question about it, KGB and Scott have set the bar very high for their birds and for their breeding programs. But do you honestly believe that their standards are any different or any higher than those of Clay and Joe Bob, the NBRC 20-bird champ and the World Champ? I think we can safely assume, based on their track records (all four), that they all have similar standards for performance, though with different breeding philosophies. And I reiterate, this is not about comparing the men, but about looking at the two philosophies objectively. I thought this information might interest the posters here on Tony's site. Scott's post about how long it takes him to produce a competitive kit, happened to fall in line with the information available on the subject. Good luck with your birds this year, Kevin.
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 23, 2006 10:29 AM
|
Ballrollers
282 posts
Feb 23, 2006
9:54 AM
|
Scott, Good post. You made some excellent points and I agree with you in many areas. And for the record, I think you are doing a helluva job. I think we may differ on some things about my family of birds,though. From the pedigrees I have on my birds, they are as tight as I have seen, though they may not be the tightest ever in the sport. Most all the best birds directly revolve around a 007 cock. Some are off of full brother sister matings off 007. Most all the good ones have 007 somewhere in the line, usually several times. Hen offspring off 007 are generally used as mates. I am perfectly aware that somewhere in the distant past, a breed outcross was made, but that does not in any way diminish the performance of these birds or how I breed them. Until you can stand under a kit, I guess you'll have to take my word for that...as well as Jay's Fall Fly win, and Joe Bob's.(Hey, if we land the '07 NBRC convention, maybe you'll get to come see some for yourself!)
Anyway, here are the basic standards that I am working on:
1. A good kit bird is 20 ft. minimum, kits like glue, high "X" to "H" style, and goes on every break. This bird may be a yearling or older, but if it is a yearling, it must show me real consistency to allow it in a competition team. Most of my A-kit are yearlings or less at this point. My biggest disqualifier, now, is deep birds that can't keep up with the kit, or stiff birds, of course.
2. Breeders must produce at least 20% A-kit birds,or better on a consistent basis. I have several pair that did this last year. My dilemma, now, is whether to risk splitting them up to see whether the cock or the hen, or both, was the producer, or keep breeding them as is.
3.Then there are the intangibles at this point that I have to learn. Will the yearlings improve or detiorate in performance quality? Will the good kit birds produce? (Don't I wish?!) Should I keep any of the poor performers around, that have good performers in the blood line, on the chance that they may be good producers? (Like a bird that is too frequent or too deep)
I agree with you 100% on your statement that our birds are a "work in progress", and might I add "always will be."
As I have said before, I support you, your breeding program, and your birds, as your loft has proved itself in the air, time and time again, and in a very competitive region. I have no stones to throw at our birds or your management style.....never have. We are all learning our birds. We are all perfecting our management philosophies and skills. And we are all interested in performance more than colors.
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 23, 2006 10:34 AM
|
knaylor
67 posts
Feb 23, 2006
9:21 PM
|
Cliff, I do not recall saying anything personal about you or your birds. You said that you practice the same breeding practices as Scott and Kenny. I disagree. Here is my point in case. They would never ask for a Kite cock bird to use, and they would never breed a yellow to a qualmond. I am not bashing you or the birds, just stating the facts about the differences in the breeding programs.
Jstar, I know never is a powereful word but I know that Scott and Kenny will never bring an out cross family into their family to improve them. I know that Kenny has crossed some Monty birds with his and has made some darn good kit birds but those will not go into his breeding program to be put into his family.
Once again this is nothing personal against anyone. Kevin
|
Mongrel Lofts
139 posts
Feb 24, 2006
5:14 AM
|
Hey Cliff,
I just want to say I respect what you pointed out here.. I think like Kevin points out, we have our difference but we sure share some of the same struggles..
Like alway Cliff, my points on this topic are about what is being done to the breed as a whole by crossing breeds.. Not about what you are doing in your loft.. Good post.. Mongrel Lofts
|
Ballrollers
283 posts
Feb 24, 2006
9:08 PM
|
Kenny,
You and I are on the same page when it comes to 99.9% of this backyard breed crossing. I don't do it, I don't know of anybody doing it now; I know of a great roller man who tried it and it was a failure and he culled all the birds.
The men who fly rollers, and compete, are on the whole, not in the least bit interested in messing up their families of birds. I think if we look at the top 500 or so men that are either master flyers now, or slowly gaining points towrds one day achieving master flyer status, none are crossing in breeds. Yes, I agree......breed crossing done by uneducated men in a haphazard way could be detrimental to the breed, but I believe, personally, that a much larger threat is the unscrupulous pedigree breeders who sell birds that will never perform as Birmingham Rollers. Neither is good for our hobby or for our birds. I suppose our strong feelings about these issues is based on our rather unpleasant personal experiences with these issues in the sport. Good luck with your breeding season, Ken. Kick some ass. YITS, Cliff
|
Ballrollers
284 posts
Feb 27, 2006
9:40 AM
|
Kevin N,
Once again, you missed the point, and you don't have your facts straight. We are discussing breeding philosophies, not colors. Why do you insist on talking about colors that KGB or Scott do not even have in their birds, when we are discussing methods and experience that could potentially improve the percentages of good kit birds that we raise?
For one thing, you said that Kenny would never ask for a kite cock. Actually, he already has them. He posted them on Earl's List a couple months back. I will also share this information with you; a "kite" is merely a plain dark T-pattern blue check showing bronze in the flights and sometimes in the wing shield. They were in the foundation breeds used in the early formation of the Birmingham Roller and widely accepted as a roller phenotype. Gosh Kevin; you may have a few yourslef! LOL
Dilute (yellow)is another gene peresent in the Birmingham Roller since the beginning, that produces a reduction in the size and number of pigment granules to about 1/3 normal color intensity. It is an easily-removed factor, if one so desires, which has been done frequently in some families, primaily due to color prejudice and peer-pressure.
Qualomond is and allele of Almond (also present in Birmingham Rollers and described as a color variation by many from the beginning of the breed). Qualmond was discovered by Quinn...Quinn's almond....Qualmond. I don't remember all the details, but as I recall this factor was first seen in rollers. You are welcome to make your own determination.
This information will not convince a color-phobic or a color-biased roller man. The information is out there, but much of it is still under study and investigation. It boils down to the fact that some families have more color modifiers than others. Some have been around longer than others. Some were cross bred in and some mutated. Some have been there from the original breeds crossed to make rollers, but the final determination is in the air.
YITS, Cliff
|
knaylor
68 posts
Feb 27, 2006
5:06 PM
|
Cliff, you said that you use the same breeding method as both Kenny and Scott. I disagreed do to the FACT that they do not consider color when putting together their pairs. I do believe that you do do this. To me that is the difference. This is not a slam on colored birds or anyone just pointing out the difference in my opinion. Now if you say that you breed the same way that they do then you do. End of story. Kevin
|
J_Star
272 posts
Feb 28, 2006
6:22 AM
|
Beleive it or not, we all breed for color. Maybe not the fancy and rare colors but color balancing in our rollers. And I am sure top flyers do as well.
Jay
|
Ballrollers
286 posts
Feb 28, 2006
12:18 PM
|
Kevin Naylor,
I have told you that I put my pairs together based on performance, not what colors will be produced, yet you insist that you believe that I do. That inability or unwillingness to confront the truth and deal with reality puts you at a severe disadvantage, my friend. Why on earth would you think that way? Calling others in the sport a liar to their face, so to speak, is not the way to win friends and influence others. I AM interested, though. Why do you "believe" that I consider color any differently than Kenny or Scott or any other flyer? Is it based, strictly, on the family of birds I fly, or on some impression you have gotten of me, personally, over time? I fly my birds for the judge just like you do. I look for style and speed first, just like you do. The family I am breeding from is built around a few key birds and it is performance-tested in the air with a record of an NBRC 11-bird win and a World Cup win. I don't breed for color and I fly my birds in competition. End of story. You might as well GET OVER IT!
Persist in your fantasy world, Kevin. It will only make you less effective as an individual. With you at the helm in charge of accounting for RD's on the World Cup comittee, and with this handicap, some of the problems last year with the omission of several regions from participating in the discussions and votes begins to get a little clearer for us. Perhaps you peristed in some fantasy regarding those men, as well, that made you less effective; like they were not interested, or didn't care etc. I don't want to squabble with you, Kevin. Consider my words. We will be working together on the World Cup comittee this summer. Open your mind, buddy, and say Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! LOL!
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 28, 2006 12:32 PM
|
J_Star
278 posts
Feb 28, 2006
12:54 PM
|
Please Kevin and Cliff take this offline. I can see where it is going and I don't think anybody here at this site want to read the response going back and forth. So please handle it through other means. Thanks for your understanding.
Jay
|
Ballrollers
287 posts
Feb 28, 2006
2:59 PM
|
Jay,
I understand. You are right....'nuff said.
YITS, Cliff
Last Edited by Ballrollers on Feb 28, 2006 3:00 PM
|
motherlodelofts
624 posts
Mar 04, 2006
4:07 PM
|
"For one thing, you said that Kenny would never ask for a kite cock. Actually, he already has them"
Not to hip on color terms Cliff but don't think that is considered "kite" what we will get is rec. red. showing through the blue , they loose it after the first moult.
Most of the rec reds that we get are dull red with blue showing through also.
Scott
|
Ballrollers
292 posts
Mar 04, 2006
4:40 PM
|
Scott,
You might be right, I'm no geneticist either, but as I recall in the discussion between Kenny and Gregg Sales, where the pictures were posted, the pictures were of mature birds and breeders, I believe. And the consensus of opinion was that they were kites. Kenny was about to cull the lot, LOL! That is until he was reassured that this was not a rare color modifier, but inhereent in rollers. Those of you with more genetics background may want to weigh in here. YITS, Cliff
|
Post a Message
|
|
|