*POLL* Should a strain of chickens carry the breeder's name?

*POLL* Should a strain of chickens carry it's breeder's name?

  • Total voters
    75
Pics
Date sort Score sort
Miami Leghorn said:
@roosterhavoc

I looked around and found this person.
IDK maybe they can add some more insight on strains being given names and such.
Also, if and how Gamefowl are different than Domestic meat and egg laying chickens.

Maybe he will join for a bit.
Click to expand...
I think the breeders name gets attached to certain strains of birds by other people because they’re outstanding in one way or another and quality speaks for itself. Healthy, colors, size, shape etc… attaching your own name to birds you’ve bred seems a little pompous to me kinda like giving yourself a nickname especially if you have only been breeding for a few years or less.
 
roosterhavoc said:
I think the breeders name gets attached to certain strains of birds by other people because they’re outstanding in one way or another and quality speaks for itself. Healthy, colors, size, shape etc… attaching your own name to birds you’ve bred seems a little pompous to me kinda like giving yourself a nickname especially if you have only been breeding for a few years or less.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough.
How about someone breeding strains for 10-15 yrs. plus, consistently producing quality birds that become sought after and admired?
What are your thoughts on that?
 
roosterhavoc said:
I think the breeders name gets attached to certain strains of birds by other people because they’re outstanding in one way or another and quality speaks for itself. Healthy, colors, size, shape etc… attaching your own name to birds you’ve bred seems a little pompous to me kinda like giving yourself a nickname especially if you have only been breeding for a few years or less.
Click to expand...
That'sa decent way to look at it
 
MysteryChicken said:
Although ancient Jerusalem(If I remembered location correctly)were the first to use chickens for sport, meat, & Eggs.
Click to expand...

Historians and Archeologists generally agree there is solid evidence for domestication in the Indus valley about 2,000 BCE, with disputed evidence pushing the date back as far as maybe 5,400 BCE in Southeast Asia - "where" in SE Asia is largely a matter of what evidence you accept, and what you reject, as conclusive (or at least, more likely than not). Surprising no one, of course China claims it has the best evidence in that date range. They may be right.

Cockfighting records come to us by way of Ancient Greece, are believed to have been introduced by the Persians, and they are believed to have learned it from unnamed others - likely the people of the Indus valley.

Ancient Jerusalem is a modern name for what was then viewed as barbarian tribes on the edge of Babylonian civilization.

In any event, Man - of whatever affiliation - has been raising chickens for various purposes for a LONG time.

I've nothing to add on naming lines/strains/breeds of birds beyond my original comment in this thread. Just pleased I found something worthy of comment to which I could offer opinion after the last handfull of pages...
 
Miami Leghorn said:
@sdm111 ?
Click to expand...
As far as both being domesticated fowl yes. The difference is in thier testosterone which makes them extremely territorial. That's why people are wrong when they say people "teach" a cock to fight. You're not "teaching" them to fight they already do that. Trainers are simply honing skills more or less. Like mystery said the instinct is there. Gamefowl simply have a high testosterone level through selective breeding (I read somewhere to put it in humans terms it would be the equivalent to a male human having 40 times the test level of a regular human male) trainers are capitalizing on something already there.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom