The Heritage Rhode Island Red Site

[waddles99]

I am about to set up breeding pens, and I had a question. Should I select according to the standard of perfection, or according to what is winning? In particular, the tail angle seems lower in the birds that are winning than what the standard calls for. I know tail angles have come down in the standard of perfection over the years, so I did not know if that was anticipated to happen based on what is being shown and what is winning.

Now this is a good question. Luckily in reds most judges have a pretty good idea of the standard, and the birds that win usually are the ones that are the closest to the SOP. I know in some breeds, the standard is not well known and judges do not have a good idea of the standard, resulting in winning birds being very different from the standard. Fortunately in reds that is not really the case, but that being said, sometimes under different judges, birds that are further from the standard will beat birds that are closer to the standard. Does this mean you should not breed them to the standard, and breed them closer to what you think is winning? Absolutely not. What will win one day under one judge will lose under another. I know of birds doing really well and then the next weekend getting beaten by other birds. That doesn't mean anything except a reflection of the individual judge that day, and maybe perhaps lighting, how well the bird was prepped, and a variety of other factors. The SOP is the universal standard for show halls across the country, the individual preference of a judge isn't. And really, at most good shows, the ones that are the closest to the SOP are the ones that are winning. I just don't know how someone could really base their breeding program on following whatever trend seems to be winning shows.

This also brings up a certain ethical issue. Lets say that the birds winning were vastly different than those bred to the standard. Would you, in this particular situation, choose to just abandon the standard in pursuit of winning shows? I think there are a decent amount of people here who would rather continue the legacy of this breed by propagating real, true, bred to the standard Reds, regardless of what wins shows. Winning shows is kind of a byproduct of breeding these wonderful birds for those people. Nothing wrong with wanting to win of course, as it feels great to win. I personally love winning. But sacrificing the integrity of this breed just in order to win shows seems foolish. Preserving this breed should come first. As for a lot of people out there, I was interested in keeping and breeding reds even before I knew poultry shows existed. I just liked the look of the birds and thought keeping some would be fun. The show winning was just an added bonus. Remember, 50+ years from now, it won't matter who won what at what show, but rather how well we worked to preserve this breed for future generations to enjoy like we do today.

 

[gojira]

If the judges have a pretty good idea of the standard in reds, why do birds not have the correct tail angle? Are no birds being shown with the correct tail angle? Especially males. I am talking every show I see, not isolated instances. So I should breed to the standard, knowing my birds will never win a show, and possibly the standard will change to favor the birds that are currently winning. More than one judge is picking birds with a lower tail angle than the standard calls for. A lot of breeding programs are based on fads. That is why the Standard of Perfection for a breed changes over time. Sometimes fads change the look of the birds to a degree that there is no going back.

You said the look of the Rhode Island Red got you interested in the breed. Was it the look of the birds you see here, or the look of a bird that matches the standard? You talk about preserving things for 50+ years from now, but 50+ years ago Rhode Island Reds had a different standard than they do now, based on people wanting something different than the standard called for, or maybe they found it difficult to breed to the standard, and decided to change it. The type of the original Rhode Island Red according to the Standard of Perfection was similar to a modern New Hampshire. Maybe I am being picky looking at tail angle, but it seems that is an afterthought right now.

I guess to rephrase my question, is there a reason to not breed for the correct tail angle in a Rhode Island Red? Is it difficult to achieve?

 

[waddles99]

If the judges have a pretty good idea of the standard in reds, why do birds not have the correct tail angle? Are no birds being shown with the correct tail angle? Especially males. I am talking every show I see, not isolated instances. So I should breed to the standard, knowing my birds will never win a show, and possibly the standard will change to favor the birds that are currently winning. More than one judge is picking birds with a lower tail angle than the standard calls for. A lot of breeding programs are based on fads. That is why the Standard of Perfection for a breed changes over time. Sometimes fads change the look of the birds to a degree that there is no going back.

You said the look of the Rhode Island Red got you interested in the breed. Was it the look of the birds you see here, or the look of a bird that matches the standard? You talk about preserving things for 50+ years from now, but 50+ years ago Rhode Island Reds had a different standard than they do now, based on people wanting something different than the standard called for, or maybe they found it difficult to breed to the standard, and decided to change it. The type of the original Rhode Island Red according to the Standard of Perfection was similar to a modern New Hampshire. Maybe I am being picky looking at tail angle, but it seems that is an afterthought right now.

I guess to rephrase my question, is there a reason to not breed for the correct tail angle in a Rhode Island Red? Is it difficult to achieve?

There is no such thing as the perfect bird. Most of the birds you saw had tail angles 10 degrees, sure, maybe even 0 degrees. Was the tail angle the only thing you were paying attention to? If it wasn't, you would have probably noticed other aspects that set the birds apart. The bird with the lower tail may win against a correct tailed bird because it is a better overall bird. If you take 2 birds that are equal in every single aspect except the angle of the tail, I assure you that under most judges, the bird with the correct tail angle would win. You have to also understand that in some cases, when you have a bird with a higher tail angle, it sacrifices that "teepee" shape, and the overall fullness of the tail, and makes the tail pinched. I know most people would rather have a bird with a lower tail angle than have a bird with a pinched tail with really no volume to it. That would be way worse in the eyes of a judge, too. Yet another thing to keep in mind is when you are talking about the tail angle, it can look different each minute depending on how the bird is holding this. At shows, birds are obviously quite stressed, and will hold their tails down. Only the judge has the ability to play around with the bird and get it to pose naturally. So you really can't tell the whole story from just looking at a bird in a cage without even handling it or anything. I know when I am exhibiting, my birds always hold their tails down in the show cages. The judge will usually poke the bird on the breast to get it to perk up, or I have even seen some people tap on the top of the cage to get it positioned for a photo.

But lets say, just for the sake of making a point, at some farm, all the best breeder birds had tail angles close to 0 and the breeder wanted to get those tail angles up to what the standard says. This would be a task that would be capable in maybe 2-3 generations of culling and selecting those with higher tails. And lets say 2-3 years later, that breeder compares what he started out with 2-3 years ago with the birds he has now. He sees that when he was selecting for a higher tail angle, the other aspects of his birds lowered significantly to the point where he has a worse overall bird than he started off with. That wasn't his intention, but in breeding up one quality, he unintentionally bred down other qualities. This is a prime reason why breeders may not want to start breeding up their tail angles. If they do that, they might sacrifice some other aspects of the bird to some degree and end up with a worse overall bird than they started with. Not to mention my previous example of how sometimes when tail angle goes up, the tail will appear pinched, and fan shaped, and lose the teepee look. There is no such thing as the perfect bird. If you are picky and try to make the tail angle slightly higher, than you could end up making your birds worse.

And, for the record, choosing the best overall bird is not a "fad". A bird with good tail angle will be not triumph over another bird if that bird is better overall.

Here is a winning red k from 1929, nearly 100 years ago. You said that 50+ years ago, reds had a different standard. Sure they did. That is fact. You have to understand that when the standard was changed the breed was still young. The standard did change in the early days of the breed, and changes were made early on to revise the standard. That is typical, because the breed was still young. Now that the breed has a strong foothold in American breeding pens, we can have a clear image of what we want to achieve. There is no reason for the breed standard to change any more, and I assure you it won't change for a reason such as conforming to what is winning. But back to this cockerel here, referred to as Mohawk V. My point with him is, although the standard has changed, the breed hasn't that much. Mohawk V is a perfect example. He doesn't look too different from winning birds these days, does he? He has similar type and tail angle to most winning k's these days. Yet he was shown almost 100 years ago. The vision of the perfect red hasn't changed much since then, and likely won't. It's hard to understand that just looking at what is winning, but believe me. There are no fads in the minds of good breeders.

 

[cmom]

Here is a bird that Matt had entered in a show several years ago, that won. The tail angle can be a bit deceiving depending on how the bird is standing. At the shows with everything going on you can see different ones. Many years ago when I first started showing my birds I did it to see how well they would place and studied the birds that went on to champion row. In my opinion the SOP hasn't changed that much. For years I was using a 1921 SOP. I think most of the changes are for the new breeds that the APA admits.

 

[cmom]

Bob (the thread starter) was a good mentor and I have learned a lot reading his website.
http://bloslspoutlryfarm.tripod.com/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Blosl

Remember no chicken has been raised that is perfect but you hope you can raise your birds up to a level that when used in a breeding pen they will score around 92 points or more. A 95 point scored R I Red is about best of breed or Champion large Red material. You want to line breed your birds like the article I have written on my web site called the Secrets in the Dam. Also, remember the pictures on Red Square that Schilling did are adult cocks and hens age about 18 months of age. Allow a little leggy-ness on your birds as they will settle down as cocks and hens also watch the elevation when it says 20 degrees lift in the male’s tail and 10 degrees in the Hens tail that is at 18 months of age. I have found that if you have this on your Cockerels and Pullets they will go higher on your hens and cock birds when they go through their first molt. Now I am about to tell you what the standard calls for in all areas of the Rhode Island Red.

Shape Male

Comb: Single, moderately large, set firmly on head, straight and upright, with five even and well defined points, those in front and rear smaller than those in the Center: blade smooth inclining slightly downward following contour of the skull.

Comb: Rose , moderately large, firm on head ; oval, free from hollow center, surface covered with small rounded points, terminating in a spike at the rear, the spike drooping slightly but not conforming too closely to the shape of head.

Bead: Medium length, slightly curved.

Face: Clean cut, skin fine and soft in texture, free from wrinkles.

Eyes: large, full and prominent.

Wattles: Medium size, uniform, free from folds or wrinkles.

Ear Lobes: Oblong, well defined, smooth.

Head: Medium in length, fairly deep, inclined to be flat on the top rather than round.

Neck: Medium length.

Hackle: Abundant, flowing over shoulders, not too closely feathered.

Back: Long, moderately broad its entire length, carried horizontally. Saddle: moderately broad, feathers of medium length, moderately abundant, blending into tail.

Tail: Medium length, well spread carried at an angle of twenty degrees above horizontal.

Main Tail: broad and overlapping.

Main Sickles: medium length, broad, extending slightly beyond mail tail feathers.

Lesser Sickles: medium length, broad, extending slightly beyond main tail feathers. Lesser Sickles and Tail Coverts medium length , broad and overlapping.

Wings: Good size, well folded, carried horizontally.

Shape Female

Comb: Single; medium in size, set firmly on head, straight and upright with five even and well defined points, those in front and rear smaller than those in center.

Comb: Rose low free from hollow center, set firmly on head, much smaller than that of the male and in proportion to its length, narrower covered with small points and terminating in a small, short spike at the rear.

Beak: Medium length slightly curved.

Face: Clean cut, skin,, fine and soft in texture, free from wrinkles.

Eyes: large, full, and prominent.

Wattles: Medium size, regularly curved.

Ear Lobes: Oblong, well defined, smooth.

Head: Medium in length, fairly deep, inclined to be flat on top rather round.

Neck: Medium length, moderately full feathered.

Back: Long, moderately broad its entire length, carried horizontally, blending into tail.

Tail: Medium length well spread, carried at an angle of ten degrees above horizontal.

Wings: Rather large, well folded. Fronts well covered by breast feathers Flights carried nearly horizontally. Primaries and Secondary’s broad and overlapping in natural order when wing is folded.

Breast: Moderately, deep, full, well rounded.

Body and Fluff: Body long, moderately broad, moderately deep, straight, extending well forward, giving the body an OBLONG appearance feathers, carried close to body. Fluff moderately full.

Legs and toes: Legs set well apart, straight when viewed and front. Lower Thighs medium length, well feathered, smooth. Shanks; medium length, smooth. Toes four on each foot, medium length, and straight, well spread.

Note for this article the legs and toes for the females and males are the same. Breast and body and fluff are about the same. Also, the standard states on the back area moderately broad its entire length which is what gives the brick shape. Today to many red bantams have short backs in fact it looks like some of the birds have their back breed off of them as we see in the hen classes. Also, the standard calls for a back that is carried horizontally not with a lift like a rock or Wyandotte. Also the tail is 10 degrees on a female many females we see a lift of 20 to 35 degrees in this area. These are undesirable defects which you will learn when you read the front of the standard. If any thing comes from this article PLEASE remember this part.

Color Male
Comb, face, wattles and ear lobes: Bright red.
Beak: Redish horn.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Head: Plumage, lustrous rich dark red.
Neck: Hackle lustrous, rich dark red.
Front of neck rich dark red.
Note today we are seeing many males with green stripes or lacing in their neck feathers. This is a major defect and should be cut 3 to 5 points for this fault by the judges. You want the neck feathers clean from black or beatle green and to only be lustrous rich dark red.

Back and Saddle: lustrous, rich, dark red.

Tail: Main Tail black
Sickles lustrous, greenish black. Beattler Green.
Coverts maily lustrous, greenish black, rich red as they approach the saddle.

Wings: Fronts, Bows and Coverts lustrous, rich dark red.
Primaries upper webs, lustrous , rich dark redl lower webs, black with narrow edging of red.
Secondaries lower webs, lustrous, rich, dark red, the red extending around end of feathers sufficient to secoure a red wing bay and lacing the upper portion of the upper web, this color growing wider in shorter secondariesl remaidnder of each secondary blackl feathers next to the body being red on surface so that the wing when folded in natural position shall show one harmononious lustrous, rich, dark red color.

Breast: lustrous, rich, dark red.

Body and Fluff: body lustrous , rich dark red.
Fluff rich dark red.

Legs and toes: Lower thighs rich, dark red. Shanks and toes rich yellow tinged with reddish horn. A line of red pigment down the sides of shanks, extending to tips of toes, is desirable.

Undercolor of all sections: Rich intense Red.
Plumage: General surface color, lustrous, rich dark red, except where black is specified and free from and shafting or mealiness. No contrast in color between any of the sections, the harmonious blending in all sections desired. The specimen should carry a high sheen in all outer sections so as to give a glossed appearance.

Color of Female

Comb, Face, Wattles and ear lobes: bright Red.
Beak: Reddish horn.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Head: Plumage lustrous rich dark red.
Neck; Lustrous, rich dark red with slight ticking of black, confined to tips of lower neck feathers. Front of neck rich dark red.

Note today many females have striping or lacking in their neck feathers. This is how it gets into the males. It is like cancer and very hard to ever breed out. You want ticking or no ticking at all and when you look at a ideal female it looks like a necklace of black ticking going around her neck feathers. Any female that has excess black striping should be cut 3 to 5 points by the judge and should never be awarded a high prize such as Champion SCCL or large fowl She is a cull and should NEVER BE USED in the breeding pen.
Back and Saddle: Lustrous, rich dark red.
Tail: Main tail Black.
Sickles lustrous, greenish black Coverts mainly lustrous, greenish black, rich red as they approach the saddle.

Wings: Fronts, Bows and Coverts lustrous, rich, dark red. Primaries upper webs, lustrous, rich dark redl lower webs, black with narrow edging of red.
Secondaries lower webs, lustrous, rich, dark red, the red extending around end of feathers suffient to secure a red wing bay and lacing the upper portion of the upper web, this color growing wider in shorter secondariesl remainder of each secondary blackl feathers next tobody being red on surface so the wing when folded in natural position shall show on harmonious lustrous, rich dark red color.

Breast: lustrous, rich dark red.

Body and Fluff: body lustrous, rich, dark red. Fluff rich dark red.

Legs and toes: Lower thighs rich dark red. Shanks and toes rich yellow tinged with reddish horn.

Under color of all sections: Rich intense red.

Plumage General surface color, lustrous, rich dark red, except where black is specified, even in all sections and free from shafting or mealiness.

Weights: Cock 8 ½ Lbs Hens 6 ½ pounds Cockerels 7 ½ pounds Pullets 5 ½ pounds

Note: When I breed my large fowl I breed them one pound over standard weight this was so my females would lay a 2 ½ oz eggs or a 24 ounce per dozen of eggs. You get better type or your large fowl by doing this and there are no point cuts for going over one pound. Many large fowl if weighed today can go over the weights desired by the standard and should be disqualified.

Weight Bantams: Cocks 34oz Hens 30 oz Cockerels 30 oz Pullets 26 oz.

Note: If you breed Red Bantams it is paramount that you buy yourself a small digital scale and weigh your bantams. You can exceed about two 0z over standard size, but 4 oz over you Red Bantams should be disqualified. . A secret is to hatch your bantams on March lst and end on about April 15th of each year and this secret will give you the smallest bantams of the year. Bantams hatched in December and January will be huge. Remember, the judges do not weigh bantams at the shows. However, you still want to keep them at standard weight as possible to maintain the oblong brick shape that I am talking about.

Shape and color descriptions the same as for large Rhode Island Reds and Bantams .

Disqualifications: One or more entirely white feathers showing in outer plumage. More disqualifications such as stubs or feathers between the toes ect. You can learn about that when you by your APA Standard. Thanks to the APA for letting us post this on our web site. Please join the APA and support their cause which is for us the breeders.

 

[gojira]

Waddles,

You must not have seen the birds I have seen if you think most had tail angles of 10 degrees. You tend to make a lot of assumptions. The tail was not the only thing I was paying attention to. Why would you suggest it was? I was focusing my question on tail angles because it seems prevalent in the breed. In any endeavor, if anything is lagging, it throws everything else off. No, I did not see anything that set these birds apart. Where are the correct tailed birds? If birds are not being shown with correct tail angles, the bird that wins will not have a correct tail angle. How does a bird with a higher tail angle sacrifice that "teepee" shape, and the overall fullness of the tail, and makes the tail pinched? Have you ever studied poultry anatomy? A pinched tail is no more incorrect than an incorrect tail angle. One thing you need to keep in mind is that if you look at the same bird over the course of a day, and the tail angle is never correct, it may never hold its tail at the correct angle.

First, a breeder that puts selection pressure on only one trait has no clue what he or she is doing. If all of a breeder's best birds have a major defect (from the aspect of showing, as tail angle has no effect on the performance of health of a bird), maybe that breeder needs to start over with better birds. Also, it may not be possible to increase tail angle in 2 or 3 generations without the addition of another bloodline or breed. Why do you say this would be capable in 2 to 3 generations? Do you have an understanding of poultry genetics? Do you realize that is why I am asking this question before I reach a point of no return genetically? If you can't get your birds close to the standard, why claim you breed according to the standard?

What was the Rhode Island Red standard for 1929? The tail angle of that bird could be low for today's standard, and was most likely low for the standard of his day. There are many stories about the pitfalls of breeding heavily on a particular animal in many species. You might want to look up some of those stories.

Mohawk V has a higher tail angle than the birds being shown today, and his type differs. Again, the standard was different in 1929, and what matters is did he fit the standard for his day? Also, when was the last modification to the Rhode Island Red standard? Why does it change, if not to match the birds that are available and/or winning at the time? Why do you feel it will remain the same from now on? You seem to have much to learn about poultry. You have a lot of enthusiasm, but you really do need to find reliable, accurate information.

 

[waddles99]

Waddles,

You must not have seen the birds I have seen if you think most had tail angles of 10 degrees. You tend to make a lot of assumptions. The tail was not the only thing I was paying attention to. Why would you suggest it was? I was focusing my question on tail angles because it seems prevalent in the breed. In any endeavor, if anything is lagging, it throws everything else off. No, I did not see anything that set these birds apart. Where are the correct tailed birds? If birds are not being shown with correct tail angles, the bird that wins will not have a correct tail angle. How does a bird with a higher tail angle sacrifice that "teepee" shape, and the overall fullness of the tail, and makes the tail pinched? Have you ever studied poultry anatomy? A pinched tail is no more incorrect than an incorrect tail angle. One thing you need to keep in mind is that if you look at the same bird over the course of a day, and the tail angle is never correct, it may never hold its tail at the correct angle.

First, a breeder that puts selection pressure on only one trait has no clue what he or she is doing. If all of a breeder's best birds have a major defect (from the aspect of showing, as tail angle has no effect on the performance of health of a bird), maybe that breeder needs to start over with better birds. Also, it may not be possible to increase tail angle in 2 or 3 generations without the addition of another bloodline or breed. Why do you say this would be capable in 2 to 3 generations? Do you have an understanding of poultry genetics? Do you realize that is why I am asking this question before I reach a point of no return genetically? If you can't get your birds close to the standard, why claim you breed according to the standard?

What was the Rhode Island Red standard for 1929? The tail angle of that bird could be low for today's standard, and was most likely low for the standard of his day. There are many stories about the pitfalls of breeding heavily on a particular animal in many species. You might want to look up some of those stories.

Mohawk V has a higher tail angle than the birds being shown today, and his type differs. Again, the standard was different in 1929, and what matters is did he fit the standard for his day? Also, when was the last modification to the Rhode Island Red standard? Why does it change, if not to match the birds that are available and/or winning at the time? Why do you feel it will remain the same from now on? You seem to have much to learn about poultry. You have a lot of enthusiasm, but you really do need to find reliable, accurate information.

It is obvious that you missed my point entirely while telling me I am clueless, and I don't see a point in continuing this conversation any further if you refuse to accept any other bit of information other than what you believe. Maybe this is why this thread is so desolate these days....good night.

 

[3riverschick]

Hi,
I have been doing some studying on how the colors in the underfluff effect the top colors in Red birds. Specifically the Red Sussex. I understand that to get that deep Rhode Island Red color in the Red Sussex we must incorporate the recessive black factors. What else needs changing?
Ok back to history. It seems that 1922 was a watershed for the the Rhode Island Red breed. When they changed the Standard to allow for different hues in the underfluff to make the correct top color. There was dispute among several of the Red breeds at this time about which hue of Red was proper for their breed and which colors of underfluff were necessary to achieve this. Three of the breeds involved were the Rhode Island Red, the American Red ,and the Red Sussex. . My question is about the American Red . It seems this breed was developed and accepted by the APA Standard. Then there was a dispute with the Rhode Island Red folk. Eventually, the American Red was taken off the Standard...everyone subsequently joined the Rhode Island Red Club and everything was copacetic. Was the American Red the same as the Rosecomb Rhode Island Red? One article intimated that.
Also, does anyone have cites on other articles about how the hues of the undercolor effect the top colors in a Red bird? I am trying to figure out what needs to be done to change the present awful color of the Red Sussex into the magnificent color of the present day show Rhode Island Red. Back then in 1922, after the color change in the Rhode Island Red Standard, the Red Sussex wasn't as washed out as it is today. In fact, many said its color should be almost identical to the show Rhode Island Red of that day. So I figure the best place to start is here on the Heritage thread. The Red Sussex should simply be a Speckled Sussex without the mottling. So if we can fix the coloring in the Red Sussex, we can use them to deepen the color in the Speckled Sussex.
I just read Blosl's description above. I had thought the Rhode Island Red was a red bird. But its not. It's a Black Tailed Red. Hum. That's interesting. The Red Sussex is also a Black-Tailed Red. Ok things are starting to clear up a bit. Does recessive black do anything else besides darken the red on the body? How does one get the black out of the hackles in a Black-Tailed Red bird?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Best Regards,
Karen.

 

[gojira]

Waddles,

What was your point? I read your post, but you missed my point. You also mentioned things that are not accurate. You once said you were learning, and would listen. I tend to teach by asking questions. I asked a few things in my post to see what your understanding was. You are a junior exhibitor, correct? My son is also. I did not say you were clueless. I did say you needed reliable, accurate information. There is a lot of information out there, but much of it will take you on the wrong direction.

You have responded to posts I have made in the past. You have assumed I am new to poultry. If someone tries to point out something you have not thought of before, you assume they are wrong.

I was not ignoring the rest of the bird. I understand type, color, etc. My question was about what I was seeing as far as tail angle, and what the standard calls for. I was simply wanting to know if there was a reason for the tail angle I am seeing so that I could make my selections accordingly. I am not neglecting the rest of the bird. I am putting selection pressure on many traits, not just tail angle. Like I said, once I start selecting in a particular direction, and once I start eliminating genes, I may not be able to go back. Once genes are eliminated from a gene pool, they can't be brought back without bringing in an individual or individuals from outside the gene pool. I want to keep a pure strain, and do not want to have to bring in outside birds later. Tail angle is a quantitative trait, meaning it requires genes at many loci to make what we see. If you remove/replace an allele at one of those loci (which is what you are doing when you select for or against a quantitative trait), you change things, and you can't get it back.

 

[gojira]

...

Bob (the thread starter) was a good mentor and I have learned a lot reading his website.
http://bloslspoutlryfarm.tripod.com/

Thank you for posting this. That may answer my question. I had read this before, but it has been a while. Since I am selecting at a year of age, maybe I need to select for a lower tail angle than the standard calls for.