Old and Rare Breeds

[Jared77]

Add one more to the lurker list.....

 

[mississippifarmboy]

Quote:
Me

 

[heritagehabitatfarms]

Quote:
Me

i try to keep my big mouth shut most of the time around here... just lurking and learning

 

[Schweiger]

My favorite breed that is an old breed ( but I dont believe is a rare breed) is the Dutch bantam. they come in a multitude of colors and have no standard counterpart. I love their personality and their tiny stature. I believe that they are the second smallest bantam ( first being the Serama). I love watching them run around during playtime. They originated in medieval Holland because with their small stature they produced a tiny egg that the lord of the manor could not tax, as well as then need very little feed and if free ranged almost none.

 

[chicken_boy_Kurt]

Quote:
I was forgotten in a sea of lurkers!
So yeah. Sumatras are my favorite breed and I'd love to see more enthusiast out there whose aim is to better the breed.

 

[Chris09]

I have a funny felling that there are a lot of people that lurk this thread. I only wish that this form had a Viewed Counter on the threads.

Chris

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
I was forgotten in a sea of lurkers!
So yeah. Sumatras are my favorite breed and I'd love to see more enthusiast out there whose aim is to better the breed.

I would say they are a rare breed and it is getting harder to find ones that are bred to the standard.

Chris

 

[spartacus_63]

In further answer to your question, which is a very good one I might add, with terms such as 'heritage' or 'heirloom' being tossed about so loosely today as to include such new breeds as Delawares, I thought it was time to either define the terms more specifically or to drop the terms and introduce a very simple historically accurate class system.

I do disagree with you concerning Game as a function. Historically the first chickens utilized by humanity were Games. Beyond that, a chicken is either Game or it isn't. Like it or not, it is a function. That does not mean you have to utilize the bird for it's function, but it is a function. For example, an English Pointer is a Working Breed of dog (quail hunting to be exact). You might think hunting is barbaric (of course, I don't). That is yours or anyone elses right. So, you buy an English Pointer and turn it into a pet: well and good ( I guess). That does not stop it from being a Working Breed with a function; even though you do not use it for that function. So, it is the same with Games.

A denial of the historic function of Games by yourself or anyone else does not change that historic function.

I am not a fan of the heritage or heirloom tags either. They serve little purpose and much confusion. One of the reasons I believe this is so, is that the purpose for the classification does not fit the definition of the title.

I am not a show bird person. I believe that breeds exists for a purpose. To lay a lot of eggs, produce a well developed breast, provide entertainment (ornamental) or kick the snot out of another bird. It is my belief that if we understand why birds were bred for certain traits and what traits work best we as keepers of livestock can continue to breed healthy productive flocks.

Your dog analogy would fit IF hunting quail were outlawed. Great Danes were originally bred to hunt large animals. They are not used for that currently and their breeding no longer takes that into consideration. The Great Dane is still considered a "Working" class breed, but there is no field trial for the breed. It no longer is even consider a hunting dog, but a guard or security breed.
A gun was designed for a purpose. If all guns were outlawed (God forbid), it would still be a gun and it would still function. Unfortunately the gun would be reduced to a collectors item, not as originally designed. Consequently a gun would no longer have a function in it's original design. It would still serve as a historical artifact, but not as a weapon.
Although the history of the "Game" breeds is significant for many reasons, it still is not a functional purpose. I personally like Game breeds. I only own bantam games. They have great personalities, are very hardy and great foragers. If I were to ever attempt to create a new strain of chicken, I would look to the Game breeds for vitality. That being said, I do not believe that games need a separate category. This is not to say that I think they should not be bred true. Quite the opposite. They can be prolific layers and their genetics are wonderful and diverse.​

 

[DaveK]

Quote:
This is something that can generate a lot of discussion. I have been called a purist but I am on that side of the fence that doesn't feel that certain things can actually be done over and recreated. Cubalayas? Sure as they are a "recent" (in terms of chicken history) amalgamation of several breeds/types. If you've got enough base to work with you can make that work. Dorkings? Spanish? Nope, no siree. It's not just a matter of basic body type and style but all those other subtle details and often intangibles that don't exist in an exhibition hall but are known to the caretaker living with the birds. Even something as easily found in reasonable quality as a SS Hamburg. Let's see someone recreate that.

 

[DaveK]

In reply to Spatacus stating that they are not a "show" person. I understand the argument but want to toss out the idea that if a breed has or once had a purpose or function then the breed Standard should and will usually ask for a bird capable of performing that function. A lot of the Game breeds might be thought to be collector's items but if bred properly are still game and could still function within that framework. Same with a good Leghorn. Nothing about their present day beauty need negate the idea and reality of lots of eggs. The list could go on and on. It does help tremendously to know something about a breed's original purpose and history that led up to seeing them in the show halls of today.