Breeding for true to type Or just for fighting performance?
Game fowls are bred for performance. Traits like plumage color, leg color, comb type and head shape have nothing to do with winning or losing. It is traits like cutting ability, gameness, smarts, speed and power that do the trick.
That is why breeding the game fowl is much much more difficult than breeding for meat. We are talking here of “real breeding,” not just “mating.”
Let’s back track a bit. By real breeding we mean the breeder has a clear cut objective of what roosters to produce, genetically and practically speaking. He has in mind the fighting traits, the looks, and other phenotypes and he knows the sources of genes that possibly constitute the genotype of his roosters. He has to understand a bit about genetics to do this.
On the other hand “mater” is a word coined by Zamboanga breeder Ben Dimaano for those who just acquire breeding materials and mate them based on sheer imagination to produce chickens that they may want.
Back to the point of this article. Do we have to breed true to type in all aspects including looks or just breed for fighting performance?
A practical breeder just breed for performance. He forgets looks. That is the best way to do it in this game. Looks, like bloodline names, don’t kill.
We at RB Sugbo breed for performance. We call it “Perfogenetics.” But in setting our bloodlines we also make attempts at standardization of the looks. But it is not our top priority. It is just that we are aware that a bloodline is supposed to breed true to type, including in looks.
Actually breeding is hard for poor men like us. We have to be fairly good to succeed. For rich kids it is simple. They just buy dozens of materials, breed hundreds or thousands of chickens, then show the few that are good and cull or get rid of the rest.
The rich kid can afford to produce say 2,000 roosters. Even if only 10% are good, he has 200 good roosters to show. In the eyes of the public, who didn’t see the 90%, he is a good breeder.
A poor breeder who can afford to raise only 200 stags, cannot survive with just 10% good ones. He has to be good enough to produce 60 or 70% good ones.
Poor breeders cannot afford not to breed for performance alone. We have to be practical. However, we at RB Sugbo, small as we are, after fighting performance we also try to breed for uniform looks in our bloodlines, because we know that blood lines have to breed true to type. But again, it is not our priority. Fighting performance is.
Our point here is forget bloodline names, likewise popular plumage color. Everybody can call his chickens by any bloodline name. Plumage color or other phenotypes can be bred into a line in a season. But, barring lucky nicks, genuine positive traits are bred in over years of intelligent selection and decisions. This is what we are after. Genuine positive traits that dictate fighting performance.
How do we do it? By repeatedly breeding these desired traits year in and year out into our gene pool. We select the individual that possesses the qualities we are looking for in a brood cock or hen. We choose our fowl based on the accepted parameters of selection—physical attributes and looks, fighting traits and ability, family track record—and our breeding goals.
Then, if possible we ascertain how this particular brood fowl was bred by the owner— the concentration of traits, what traits he put on it, what are the characteristics of the family—and see if its actual looks and fighting ability fit the owners’ description and narration. This is not a problem if we bred the rooster ourselves since we would know.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
