This is a topic that has rattled around my brain for decades, but beyond passing comment, I've never really discussed it, although for some time now it's been something I wanted to talk about, or at least present a stance on something that most in bird circles seem to show little concern over, which puzzles me, but either way, let's have a try here and see.
Anyone familiar with me will know that in general I have a dislike for colour mutations, on an aesthetic level I have never understood why someone would aspire to take a bird like a Gouldian finch, and selectively inbreed endlessly for it to be pure white. I just cant grasp what it means to have achieved this, but I too accept that if the birds are healthy, and there is no impact on the conservation of the wild species, then what someone does in their shed is no business of mine. It's just not something I can see serious aviculturists doing and amongst the best I have met in pro welfare circles, there seems to be a uniting factor that mutations are generally frowned upon and the wild form is the real jewel to treasure.
But this is not what I want to run through today, because in spite of the often seen conflict over colour mutations, there is a far darker genetic practice lurking in various corners of aviculture; anyone who has even a basic grasp of animal welfare science will be able to identify that there is actually potential for suffering amongst a select handful of what I jokingly call “Dark breeds” of domestic bird that in some cases the production of such defies logic, and it is some of those that I'd like to draw your attention to today.
 |
| These Are Gibber Italicus canaries - more on those later. I wonder where these birds are now? |
I'd like to point out before we head in, that my observations come from a viewpoint of biology and welfare, and although I have never kept any of these breeds (and would not) there are consistent “rules” at play both biologically and welfare wise that certainly warrant if not outrightly justify an increased focus on welfare in some bird breeds.
The term “Suffering” has always been a contentious one when used casually, but used in a welfare context we can define it loosely as a state of subjective discomfort either physically, psychologically or otherwise. A momentary blip of acute suffering such as a minor injury which will heal and in turn conclude the suffering felt, Vs a permanent, chronic suffrage such as losing a limb are useful to consider here also. It is the later I will focus on as in most cases with genetically imposed suffering the issue is chronic without surgical intervention or euthanasia. In many of the cases put forward there would be no surgical option anyway.
Lets start with some pigeons. Domestic pigeons are one of the most diverse and popular groups of birds kept and the breeds that exist are staggering in number and also in most cases stunningly beautiful. They are all of course a product of selective breeding, much like dogs and chickens, but more often than not they are well adjusted, healthy and behaviourally functioning birds. There are a few exceptions however that cross the line from aesthetic beauty into something else entirely, and in those cases these rules no longer apply.
Tumblers and Rollers – When I was young, I encountered tumbler pigeons and saw their wonderful backflipping behaviours and innocently enough assumed that it was either some sort of trained behaviour or a quirky flight anomaly. Years went by before another keeper told me why tumbler and roller pigeons fly like this. As it turns out, they too have been selectively bred to have mid flight mini “seizures” which disrupt their flight patterns and cause them to fall out of the sky in a downward cascade. If they recover quickly they will realign themselves and continue flight, and if not, they will hit the ground, which is presumably a hazard of the trade. When I discovered this, it suddenly shifted my perspective on what it meant to be a bird keeper and what it meant to selectively breed beyond colour and shape, and as the years went on I encountered more and more of these strange breeds. The idea of the poor Tumbler having a distressing seizure mid flight for the keepers amusement really stuck in my brain.
 |
A (more or less) wild Rock dove, ancestor of modern domestic pigeons.
|
 |
A Budapest short faced tumbler - Note the eyes and smaller beak/skull. |
Another breed of pigeon worth a mention here is the Budapest short faced tumbler. Initially you might think that this breed would fall with the above, but the extremity here is in fact the selection for extreme brachycephaly, much like a pug dog. The beak and skull of this breed has been selected for so intensely that it causes the bird's eyes to bulge out in a quite alarming manner, which puts great stress on the eyes themselves and it is not unknown for them to rupture in some situations. Another side effect of the beak now being so small is not only do they struggle to raise their own young naturally, the young themselves sometimes struggle to hatch as their beak is too weak to break out and they require assistance. For me this is a bird that if natural selection had it's say, would not last five minutes, and it depends entirely on human support to exist at even a basic level.
There are a few other pigeon breeds in a similar camp, Such as the Fantail with a spine constantly crunched into a tight S shape, or the particularly tragic Parlor roller which loses it's ability to fly at 4 months and then spends the rest of it's life seizuring and spinning wildly any time the flight response is triggered (vid link at the end) but the aim here is to highlight a few and then encourage readers to research more if they wish. The bigger question is how are these birds subjectivley perceiving their own experiences.
Shifting on to the passerines, the most famous domestic passerine being the Canary, a popular, usually yellow bird that sings beautifully. Chris? How could anyone do anything too wild with a simple canary? I hear you cry. Well let me introduce you to the Gibber Italicus Canary. There are many types of selectively bred “Bent” canaries that have as suggested, bent spines and hunch over in awkward postures, founded in Italy in the 1800's the Gibber Italicus is bred with the goal of having a spine bent like the number 7. Personally I can't grasp the concept or motivation, but on a very real level, I have a hard time justifying how such a thing could not have some health and chronic welfare impact on these birds knowing how canaries and most passerines function. Indeed breeders of this bird admit that they are very highly strung and fragile to keep.
 |
A wild Canary - Dainty, compact and build for flight and survival. Below - Gibber Italicus - note the deformed spine, vertical legs and permanent hunched posture. This individual is not even an extreme example - I'll let you google them later if your feeling ghoulish. |
There are many types of canaries, like Glosters for example where you can assume there may be some compromise in vision, but the “Bent” canaries like Gibber Italicus really sit badly with me.
This last one strays more into general genetic anomalies than a specific breed, but I think it worth including here as the consequences are considered desirable by some, so the same basic issue still applies. The mutation here often presents itself in ducks and geese and is known as “crested” which, if you're into fancy things, looks and sounds fun, but the dark truth behind it is that these crests are in fact produced as a result of a lethal gene which stops the birds skull forming properly, and in turn creates a hole in the back of the skull, allowing fatty tissue to squeeze in and put pressure on the brain. The by-products of this pressure predictably include seizures, motor and nerve issues, deafness and even blindness. Breeding two of these birds together increases chances of lethality as the skull will likely not fuse cohesively at all or the chick will die before it hatches, which might explain why it has never been established fully in a breed as such. With this one I can't help but feel that if nature says “don't” twice... just stop.
 |
Wild Greylag goose - Ancestor of most domestic breeds - note smooth aerodynamic skull. Below - The familair wild mallard - Ancestor of most breeds of domestic duck. A domestic example of the "Crested" mutation, the gene in wild mallards occurs at 0.0001%–0.001%. |
My personal position is that I cannot understand how anybody can be pro subjective welfare AND keeping breeds that likely suffer a great deal as a result of their genetics. There could be an argument that these genetics were locked in generations ago, but then there is still no reason to perpetuate any suffering by breeding more.
Long story short, It's a rather gloomy topic if you are welfare inclined, and not one that is easily discussed with those who choose to keep and breed these bird breeds/mutations still, as there is a lot of entrenched thinking involved and in the same way that we see folklore husbandry persist, we too see folklore welfare persist... Folklore welfare.... there's a new term... I claim dibs when you see it in a paper somewhere years from now. Nice.
I hope you've enjoyed this little trip into the darker side of bird keeping, I wouldn't include it under the science of aviculture, but it exists, and where avian welfare issues may be present, to some degree we have a duty to explore those topics, even if we are powerless to change them immediately. In the mean time those aware can spread that awareness in the hopes that one day people will move on from this sort of attitude.
I promise my next will be a real upbeat article. I Promise!
Till next time, stay birdy kids.
C.
As a gruesome extra, here's a link to a video that demonstrates the sad lot of the Parlor roller pigeon breed... it may blow your mind. Sorry.
Parlor Roller via Youtube
