Here is an article I wrote for Cagebirds Magazine a few years ago - which focuses on budgerigars and canaries - as both suffering from the impact of selective breeding and inbreeding for size above all other factors.

 

The Resurrection of the Border and the Budgerigar ?

 

Returning to the bird fancy after many years absence I was shocked to discover the loss of type, colour and finesse which Budgerigars and the Border canary have suffered through the 'bigger means better' mentality.

 

My father kept budgerigars in the late '50s and when I was about 6 years old I was taken to visit the bird-room of Lawrence Bibby, a budgerigar champion breeder in St. Helens, Lancashire. The glory of that morning remains etched in my mind; even after 50 years, I will never forget the glowing, colours and classic type of those birds: screaming-greens, foget-me-not blues, iridescent violets and grays as smart as guardsmen. Leaner than greyhounds, with plumage so smooth and tight it looked as if it were painted metal. The 'barring' on their heads was razor-sharp and their black facial-spots were sharp-edged as drill-holes. It is hard to believe these feathered jewels were the same species as the feather-duster 'champions' we see today, with their massive, shaggy heads, ragged face masks and giant 'blotches' in place of the original 'spots'. Those classic birds stood high on the perches – at an angle of about 40 degrees – there was always space between their bodies and the perches. They were tautly alert and seemed to bounce around on springs; they flew through the aviary all the time in a cloud of colours.

 

Today's exhibition birds appear to have lost the shining colours and skin-tight plumage I remember as a child. Obviously, when selectively bred for generations to produce bulk, feathers have become looser and less defined – the depth of colour and sharpness of line has faded. The colours are less intense, lines are blurred, features like eyes and spots are less distinct.

 

 

 

Judges and top breeders evidently value size above all else; heads are now so large that the bird's eyes are even hidden. A judge recently wrote that the new UK standard demanded 'a maximum size of head - with no suggestion of a neck'! But birds evolved flexible necks for obvious reasons, and to declare that birds don't need necks is simply absurd; the 'neckless' Danish 'ideal model' illustrated recently in the columns of Cage & Aviary Birds was, in my view, downright ugly.

 

 

 

Turning to the Border Canary – a similar decline is evident; it became the favourite breed in the UK because fanciers preserved in it the best qualities of the wild serin finch. Borders are twice the physical size they used to be in the 1960s; the cages actually shake when these birds jump from perch to perch! This 'giantism' has been achieved by selective breeding for bigger and bigger birds with bulky plumage; but the cost has been high. Increased size has been paid for with the loss of type, agility and fertility. Feathers are coarser, tails thick and drooping; smoothly rounded crowns have been replaced by square-heads and beetle-brows.

 

However, the results of forty generations of inbreeding and selection for massive heads and hollow backs has had a terrible effect on the health and longevity of both budgerigars and canaries alike. Today's champions are at least twice as heavy and twice as broad as their ancestors; they squat on their perches like puddings. The sparkling eyes of the original birds have disappeared behind the beetle-browed feather duster heads of the modern birds – and the slender necks are nowhere to be seen.

 

Fertility and longevity have both crashed – and the modern birds are plagued by a host of genetic ailments. The similarity to the pedigree dogs situation at Crufts is striking – both fancies have pursued artificial and exaggerated forms – for fashion and financial greed – for the last 50 years. The result in both cases is looming genetic disaster and the predictable extinction of many 'champion' varieties within a decade or so.

 

The Wild Stock is the Source

 

Any wild bird that deviates from the natural type, even fractionally, is invariably killed. Research on blue **** by the RSPB has shown that any bird that is over-weight by even one-percent is certain to be the first taken by a sparrowhawk.

 

Predators enforce the rule of survival: health, alertness and speed above all else. Consequently, even a tiny change in the wild form takes thousands of years of evolution. Most wild mutations are negative and invariably cause the death of the individual; the genes of such birds are simply wiped from the evolutionary record. But since domestic birds are sheltered from the remorseless pressure of natural selection, fanciers must accept full responsibility for preserving form, health and fertility.

 

All varieties of canary are the same species and share identical genes; they can all interbreed to produce viable offspring. Regional varieties of canary were developed in the UK by selecting for certain aesthetic qualities over many generations: the Norwich was bred for size and bulk, the Yorkshire for length and grace. But the Border was bred to hold the middle ground of balance, poise and symmetry; closer to the type, feather quality and fertility of its wild ancestor. The Lancashire Plainhead, the Parisian Frill and the Scots Fancy are rather exaggerated 'fancies' and could no more survive in the wild than a goldfish could in a wild trout stream. But a green Border or Fife would not look much out of place in an English garden; however, the modern Border would not survive more than a day – while a Fife might survive for a good deal longer.

 

 

 

Since all varieties of canary spring from the same gene-pool, we could theoretically re-create any breed by selection from within just one type, given enough generations, effort and time. But the point, surely, is that we should try to keep clear watersheds between the varieties; or else why develop them in the first place?

 

 

 

Judges and national associations must bear responsibility for the decline of the Budgerigar and the Border. If they did not award prizes to German-helmeted canaries and dolphin-headed budgies, then the classic types would still exist.

 

 

This decline is catalogued in Cage and Aviary Birds every week, now often filled with articles on exotic species and British wild birds. We should ask why novices find these exotic species more attractive? And why are they leaving the canary and budgerigar fancies in droves to take up foreign birds? The answer is surely that such wild species have only recently come into captivity and breeders have not yet had time to distort the natural type. Parrots still retain the natural forms and beauty perfected by evolution over millennia; nobody has yet suggested we should breed Amazons with massive heads, or 'no necks'; or thrushes with humped backs and giant bodies. But give breeders 200 years and it is likely that the distortions imposed on our canaries and budgerigars may be visited upon these more recent captives.

 

 

 

The Solution ?

 

"All that is needed for evil to prosper is that men of good will should do nothing". If the Border Canary Associations and judges persist in awarding prizes to giant, beetle-browed feather dusters, then there seem to be only three logical options:

 

 

 

1. Do nothing, and allow the decline to continue;

 

2. Call for a national convention to return to the original ideal and insist that judges throw-out over-sized birds.

 

3. Finally, if judges and Associations cannot reform themselves, fanciers have the lifeboat-strategy of a break-away association of 'Classic Borders' conforming to the original standard. This option may also appeal to any budgerigar fanciers who can recall those stunningly beautiful birds illustrated by R.A. Vowles in Cyril Watmough's 'Cult of the Budgerigar', sadly eclipsed by the shaggy feather-dusters of today.

 

 

 

 

Borderglider

This article brings back memories of how show budgies looked when I was young. I totally agree that the tight feathered sleek birds we ued to have were much nicer than the loose feather big headed budgies that win prizes now

well written and wonderful article, thank you for sharing on our site :hi:

Very interesting article, but just out of interest aren't the blues, violets and greys also mutaions away from the wild stock, which from what I have seen are all green and yellow (correct me if I'm wrong), therefore would also be taken by the same sparrow hawke that took the larger ones?

 

I guess the good news though is here in Aus we have a huge number of wild budgies that are exactly as nature intended them to be. :hi:

The reality Hills is that even a standard pet type budgie wouldn't do all that well in the wild. I own a pair of true wild type budgies as well as pet types and show types and the wild types are a totally different kettle of fish to either of the other two

No that's my point. I guess its a matter of where do you draw the line. The article implies colours are fine to change but shape isn't.

Sorry I should have made myself clearer. I wasn't necessarily implying that we had changed colours from the original. The pet type budgies we keep in the fancy are a long way removed from the original in shape as well as colour as seen below:

 

Show type(a poor one admitedly), pet type, wild type

 

Wild type budgies are like mosquitos, they are absolutely tiny

Edited November 21, 200816 yr by melbournebudgies

That's a great photo for comparison!! Sorry its me that's being unclear not you

 

The article states negative things about current show budgies for reasons that they wouldn't survive in the wild (ie the large ones get caught by sparrow hawkes). My point was simply that the budgies of the 50's wouldn't survive in the wild either due to their mutation away from the wild ones, ie colour. To me that point seemed to negate the argument.

 

Its an argument that could be applied to absolutely every domesticated animal or bird. So my question is where do we stop. Leave them all exactly as nature intended them to be (therefore kill the wool and meat industry and we only keep wolves and dingo's as pets) or change them to where they are now, or somewhere in between.

 

Not wanting to get into budgie showing I'm not really fussed about the answer, but being a keen bull terrier owner, this argument means that breed shouldn't exist either.

 

Just food for thought :hi:

Edited November 21, 200816 yr by Hills

I Agree with you Hills, It was a good article but the point you make is very true. There is a very good reason why you don't find lacewings in the wild... lol. They may look pretty but they aren't going to live long... I think it was Dave that posted photos of bottlebrush in his aviary and the blue's and other birds stand right out... only the greens stand any chance of camouflage. Blue's do occur naturally in the wild but again they don't lastlong... I read an article on the net once about wild budgerigar in Florida... (pets that had escaped but survived) they are all now green because the others couldn't survive...

Edited November 22, 200816 yr by maesie
Spelling of Camouflage :-)

The standard show budgie of earlier times was beautifully proportioned, sleek and tight feathered. These were the type that won prizes on the show bench, but even these wouldn't have survived in the wild. Because todays judges favour big headed, loose feathered ungainly birds that have difficulty seeing and have to get their vents trimmed before they are even able to breed we are loosing the beautiful type that we used to have

Is it also the trend for the bigger type birds overseas? Maybe the older style needs to be sought out and preserved in a way? I would love to contribute to doing this, it would give me more purpose in my breeding, just as a personal interest. I would love to see photo's of the older type birds if anyone would care to post example pictures? I had never come accross the birds that are classed as showbirds until I came accross this forum and got into things further, I had only been involved with pet types.

I don't think whether or not they would be able to survive in the wild should be the requirement for whether or not they are worth breeding. Just think of all the dog breeds we have that are pretty and healthy, but wouldn't survive in the wild, not to mention all the species of aquarium fish which have been changed both in shape and colour.

 

You have the fanatics who won't keep any fish which doesn't exist in the wild, and then you have the ones who just want the fish to be pretty and colourful.

 

For me the requirement for breeding is that the animals being bred are healthy and happy and can have normal lives without disabilities, not whether or not they can survive in the wild.

I think you would find Trish that the older style simply doesn't exist anymore. Itr would involve selective breeding for the traits which formed the tandard back then and maybe even breeding back to some large pet types to get there. The reality is that what we call pet types now aren't that far removed from what was considered a show bird back then.

 

I have this pair which I consider pet type but as pet types go they are fairly large and well proportioned and they'd be the sort of birds you'd want to include I think.

 

Edited November 22, 200816 yr by melbournebudgies

I have this pair which I consider pet type but as pet types go they are fairly large and well proportioned and they'd be the sort of birds you'd want to include I think.

 

 

The one closest is just lovely isn't it!

He's a gorgeous boy, I got him at a bird sale a while back and I just love him, they are the parents of the little violet chick in the for sale section, he has a much rounder head than you see on a regular pet type. I had trouble getting a good shot of the hen, she refused to sit still and when she did she crouched and fluffed herself up I suppose I can't blame her, it's about 10 degrees outside today

 

 

Edited November 22, 200816 yr by melbournebudgies

I think there was a topic in the past about the difference in the size of show birds in the past and now there size... I can't seem to find it anywhere but I know I read it... I think Daz wrote the thread, I know he commented... It was really interesting reading. They have gotten alot bigger...

That was a really interesting article thank you.

I definitely don't agree with the current trend of awarding animals that are unhealthy, or clearly disabled, best in show, because they fit the criteria for looks. This happens a lot in the dog world. Watch "pedigree dogs exposed" on Youtube. It is very eye opening and exposes the blindness that many judges and breeders have in breeding and showing dogs and creating deformed animals that fit a cosmetic criteria without considering their health.

Edited November 22, 200816 yr by Sailorwolf

I agree SW, back in the days when I was working as a vet nurse I was lucky enough to be asked to assist in a ceaserean. The b1tch was a british bulldog and sadly it turned out that the pups had died quite a few days earlier. The vet reckons she may have been in labour for days but the breeder hadn't picked up on it as they are a breed that always looks like they are 'struggling', they were very lucky not to loose the b1tch as well.

 

I also always 'wonder' at the show type kelpies who are so far different from the working type kelpie which is actually used for the purpose the breed was created, as different as pet and show type budgies!

 

This thread has made me think very seriously about what it is that I want to develop in my lines and I think trying to bring back some of that tight feather will be right up there, even if it means I don't win over as many judgies

Edited November 22, 200816 yr by melbournebudgies

This thread has made me think very seriously about what it is that I want to develop in my lines and I think trying to bring back some of that tight feather will be right up there, even if it means I don't win over as many judgies

 

 

Me too MB! Its kinda like the Supermodel debate of waif and then plus sized models isnt it! Lets go for it I say!

Thanks for all the comments - and glad you all find this worthy of discussion. The issue about 'survival in the wild' is a bit of a red-hrring. What I was trying to point out is that Nature has a thousand ways of enforcing health and fitness in the wild populations of birds, animals, fish - in all of the living world. When mutations do occur - 99.9% of them negatively affect a wild bird's survival chances: albino blackbirds fall to predators in a matter of days; a bird that was too large or slow to escape the hawk would be killed first etc. etc

 

My point was that - when you take Nature and natural selection out of the equation - which is what we do when we domesticate birds and animals - the RESPONSIBILITY for maintaining the health, fertility and basic form of the species lies with the human aviculturalist - who takes over where Nature left-off.

 

So - in the wild - any budgerigar that could not fly really fast would be weeded out of the population very quickly - its genes would die with it.

Any bird that had a low fertility rate, or was a poor parent - would be wiped from the slate within a generation

Any budgerigar whose feathers were so thick around its eyes that its vision was obscured - woudl be the first to be eaten by a hawk

 

The problems come when human beings start to impose genetic changes on the captive stock by selective breeding - for purely aesthetic or 'fashionable' reasons. A judge decides that he prefers budgies with bigger and bigger heads - and starts to award prizes to them. Breeders respond by selecting birds with more and more feather on the head - or longer and bulkier feathers - and they reinforce these traits by strong in-breeding (the classic technique). This is all done purely for 'show' - and along the way the judges decide that physically bigger birds should be rewarded - and ones with concave backs - and all of this rapid change is brought about regardless of the effect these changes have on the bird's health, its fertility, its ability to mate, it's ability to even 'see' though a helmet of feathers.

 

To recap - Nature ruthlessly weeds out ANY genetic feature that impairs the bird's survival in any way - in terms of speed, form, agility, intelligence, fertility, resistance to disease, parenting ability - and so on. Human fanciers - in direct contrast - choose some random characteristic which they 'like' and then selectively breed to enhance it at all costs: bigger heads, longer tails, heavier bodies - and they do this regardless of the loss of other charactes like fertility, health, disease resistance, parenting ability etc.

 

The result - in Border Canaries - which I had 40 years experience of - was massively oversized birds with appalling loss of fertility, terrible parenting ability and much-reduced longevity. Which is why many canary fanciers in the UK opted to return to the Fife Canary - which is the 'original' Border Canary, unmodified, half the size and 6 times the fertility.

Many, many 'big men' in the Border Canary world resorted to taking all their eggs from their Borders and giving them to Fife hens to incubate and rear - but even with this strategy - they still can't get fertile eggs from many pairs of champion Borders.

 

When I started keepign budgerigars with my dad back in the 1950s the birds -as displayed in Vowles paintings above - had already come a long way from the original wild stock - they had after all been selectively bred for colour and shape for at least a hundred years in captivity. However, they were still very healthy, very fertile ( 8 - 12 young in one nest was quite common) and their colours were just brilliant. Having said that, you could have put a green exhibition budgie alongside a wild one in the 1950s and it would not have looked THAT different; it would have flown almost as well in the aviary and its lifespan would have been similar. The same cannot be said of an 'exhibition' budgerigar today.

 

These problems are not confined to aviculture. There has just been a massive blow-up in the dog world after the RSPCA said it would no longer attend the Crufts dog show because almost all the pedigree breeds are now afflicted with so many health problems (deafness, blindness, hip dysplasia, arthritis etc) that the RSPCA can no longer support the dog-breeding industry in the UK until it reforms itself. The crunch came because one particular breed has been bred with a skull that is too small for its brain and the dogs are in pain throughout their lives. Despite this - the breeders continue to select for dogs with smaller and smaller skulls. Another variety can only ever be bord by caesarean section. Dalmations are widely affected by genetic deafness.

 

The factors in common with the bird world are that breed judges decide to start rewarding exaggerated characteristics of a particular breed - and breeders select to enhance that aspect by in-breeding.

 

in the case of budgies - my view is purely selfish - I just love the colours and form of the classic birds and feel that the modern birds are less shapely, less colourful and less agile than their ancestors. And from what I read, the issues of fertility, longevity and health are all at risk.

Can I ask then whether you feel it woud be of benefit to breeders to include some of the larger pet type stock (such as the pied bloke shown above) in breeding to try and bring back some of the features that have been lost? I recognise that this risks a loss of size but maybe that is a sacrifice worth taking to breed better birds in the long run? I had thought of outcrossing a few show birds every year to good pet types and then holding onto the best chicks from those clutches.

Can I ask then whether you feel it woud be of benefit to breeders to include some of the larger pet type stock (such as the pied bloke shown above) in breeding to try and bring back some of the features that have been lost? I recognise that this risks a loss of size but maybe that is a sacrifice worth taking to breed better birds in the long run? I had thought of outcrossing a few show birds every year to good pet types and then holding onto the best chicks from those clutches.

 

 

Great idea!

Nature is always evolving. Mutations happen all the time. If the mutation is lethal, you won't know about it because the organism will die usually as an embryo, or in youth.

 

If an environment changes - a change is a stimulus - then the species must adapt to the new conditions, or perish.

 

Adaptation can be behavioural or genetic, and the two are linked.

 

A changing stimulus may be that a food source runs low. The ones who survive will be those who can either survive on less food, or are more capable of accessing/finding or getting food for themselves, mates and offspring, outcompeting rivals (same or different species) and evading predators. Sometimes this is at the expense of others of the same species, or other species. The same applies to humans as with any other species, although we seem to be particularly good at switching our behaviour and adapting to changing conditions.

 

Genetic mutations often occur spontaneously in response to changing conditions that require adaptation to a new environment in order for the species to survive.

 

Example - a moth that has white wings and camouflages itself on a white tree is less likely to be seen by a predator. However, if the soot from a nearby factory deposits on the tree trunks turning them grey, the white moth will stand out and be eaten. If however, amongst the colony of moths there are some that have a genetic mutation that makes them darker, they will less likely be eaten and will survive to reproduce in the new environment of the grey trees. If the environment changes with time to promote the camouflage and survival of the darker moths of the species, so the constitution of the moth colony changes with it, simply by selection.

 

There is no selection for what happens to a species after the age of reproduction. The requirement to pass on genetics is to survive in order to reproduce viable offspring.

 

If a mutation confers a disadvantage to the animal to hinder survival in whatever environment it lives... it will most likely perish before reproducing, or be unacceptable to other members of the species to reproduce with, and therefore will not pass on the mutation.

 

If on the other hand a mutation confers an advantage for survival in whatever environment it lives, or makes it more attractive to the opposite gender... it will be prefered to reproduce and pass on the mutation in whatever manner the inheritance pattern is for that particular mutation eg sex-linked recessive, autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive etc.

 

They might not have to out fly predators in an aviary, but they still have to do everything else in order to reproduce. If they don't reproduce, the line dies out.

 

Whether or not they would or would not survive in the wild is irrelevant, because they are not living in the wild, they are living in aviary conditions. The condition of aviaries varies from one to another. A bird in one aviary, might not survive in another because they are different environments. A wild bird might not survive in an aviary either.

 

We have captive budgies because we enjoy them, and some of them enjoy interacting with us too. As long as they retain the fertility and ability to reproduce, their needs are met and given the conditions and environment to do so, they will reproduce, no matter what colour or feather type they are. Beauty is in the eye of the bird fancier. My idea of beauty may be totally the opposite to someone else. Health is a different matter, but health and beauty are often linked, and confer survival advantage.

 

I have a preference for violets and blues, so being that colour confers a survival advantage in the environment I create to evolve my budgies. Because I select violets and blues preferentially and most greens are sold as pets, the greens don't get to reproduce so much in my aviary. A shaggy budgie might survive better in the UK weather than the wild type of outback Australia. Similarly, pale skinned humans survive better in low light conditions like scandinavia, and dark skinned in bright light conditions of equatorial countries. The environment is the set of whatever ambient conditions the individual must survive and reproduce in.

 

Predators could be likened to an invading army advancing through a country killing off any person they catch who is sick, lame, lazy, unlucky, or stands out as different. They may have been perfectly capable of reproducing if not for the predator. Just like my green budgies that are removed from my aviary to the pet shop. (Although, these pet shop budgies may end up as refugees in a foreign aviary where they may be allowed to reproduce there.)

 

Inbreeding is common in wild flocks, but not of such concern because there is a gene pool of thousands of individuals all mutating, evolving and intermingling with each successive generation. In an aviary, the gene pool is relatively limited to much smaller numbers of birds. If inbreeding or selective breeding is conducted to such an extent that fertility is reduced, then they simply won't reproduce. End of stud, end of story. The answer is to outcross to widen the gene pool for improved fertility.

 

So the bottom line is that mutations are common, normal and necessary for the evolution of a species to adapt to whatever environment is created for it. Our selection to breed with particular birds is part of the environment that determines the evolution of the birds in our aviaries.

 

Like begets like. If you breed budgies with no tails, you will get budgies with no tails - not always, but it will pop up in subsequent generations of inbreeding.

 

If you want shaggy birds, breed shaggy birds. If you want blues, breed blues. If you want a healthy fertile stud, breed healthy fertile birds. If you like all of the above in the one shaggy, blue, healthy fertile bird - then breed them that way. Simple.

 

 

Incidentally, a bird I sold to a pet shop escaped from it's new owner. Despite being blue, she survived long enough in the wild to find some new humans to fly to to escape the danger of predator birds. This is an example of a behavioural adaptation to improve survival in an urban jungle, confered by learned behaviour and experience in my aviary for that bird that "humans are safe for me to fly to" (not always true of course). Perhaps that bird evolved through breeding, education and experience, to be smart enough to realise this. She may never have had the opportunity if not for captive breeding of "mutant" blue budgies.

 

We are supposed to be stewards of the planet, protecting, nuturing, educating and evolving all life on it.

Enjoy the freedom and also the responsibility to evolve your birds, think for yourselves and act according to your beliefs.

If it works, keep doing it. If there are signs that it no longer works, then change or start again.