Bob Blosl's Heritage Large Fowl Thread

[Lacy Blues]

"It was really 12 years old."

 

[fowlman01]

I look at it like this, If the oldest documented breed of chicken is not considered a "heritage" breed then the term heritage really doesn't mean that much now does it.
Here is another that gets to me, It has been documented that Gamefowl "Breeding" in the States has been apart of American Heritage since before the first president but why aren't American, Spanish etc. Gamefowl breeds considered a "heritage" breed?

Makes no sense to me.

Chris

It makes no sense to me either.

I am just guessing here, but given who was involved in pushing this "Heritage" name and coming up with "The list" I believe it is all designed for commercial profit. The term does have some positive effects to the poultry fancy as well though. Hopefully when the APA finishes it's study the old breeds will be included. Personally I think some of the bantams and waterfowl should be included as well. Nankin bantams are a bantam breed that comes to mind.

Walt

 

[mschlumb]

It makes no sense to me either.

I am just guessing here, but given who was involved in pushing this "Heritage" name and coming up with "The list" I believe it is all designed for commercial profit. The term does have some positive effects to the poultry fancy as well though. Hopefully when the APA finishes it's study the old breeds will be included. Personally I think some of the bantams and waterfowl should be included as well. Nankin bantams are a bantam breed that comes to mind.

Walt

I agree, if the goal of the "heritage" label is to preserve biodiversity and these unique genes, then why exclude any standard breed? Especially the really old breeds such as Aseels and Shamos? Even the heritage turkey definition includes the Royal Palm which was admitted in 1977. I believe it also includes all non- standard varieties as well?

 

[Chris09]

It makes no sense to me either.

I am just guessing here, but given who was involved in pushing this "Heritage" name and coming up with "The list" I believe it is all designed for commercial profit. The term does have some positive effects to the poultry fancy as well though. Hopefully when the APA finishes it's study the old breeds will be included. Personally I think some of the bantams and waterfowl should be included as well. Nankin bantams are a bantam breed that comes to mind.

Walt

I agree there are a good number of bantam and waterfowl breeds that should be included and a Nankin comes to mind when I think of a old breed of bantam also.

Chris

 

[thedragonlady]

BO are one of those "fell in love" for no logical reason than the color makes me smile. THen I realized I can get a good layer and meat bird in a heritage line.

Last I heard Buff Orps are heritage birds !

 

[Narragansett]

ALBC has proven time and time again since it's inception that it doesn't fully understand the status or history of the breeds it champions. For a few it does it's homework, but for many others it does not. Basically it runs a flag up the pole and sees who salutes, who falls for the propaganda, then it caters to that group's wants and (mis)understandings. It has bastardized the term heritage breed so that it is now meaningless. APA has a term for heritage breeds. They call them breeds. With exceptions that may be counted on not much more than one hand, every breed in the Standard can be considered truly heritage, and there are plenty of people who make arguments that even these exceptions are so-called heritage, maybe rightly so, but certainly also just out of whishfull fantasy. Originally heritage meant both old and rare. I like that designation better than any other, but it's been lost. Classic is probably as close a term as we have in the English language, at least in my current vocabulary, to best describe what we are talking about, but it isn't catching on for some reason. SPPA and the APA have been chugging along, saving all of these breeds long before ALBC was even thought of, but they get far less credit. They also don't publish incorrect information (the current APA Standard with numerous errors excepted) that ALBC does. ALBC has done some good; Mulefoot hogs, Buckeyes, some great publications, but like any breeding program, a lot of what it produces needs to be culled through before you find the few keepers.

 

[mschlumb]

I know I'm being a bit contradictory here but I will defend the ALBC a little. They did what any good livestock organization does, and that is helping their members to market their products by offering tools like the "heritage" definition. This in turn is supposed to create awareness for rare breeds and create a demand for them.
To my knowledge, It was not the governing body of the ALBC itself who came up with the definition but rather they commissioned, for lack of a better term, several people to come up with the term for them. Walt had mentioned something like this earlier.
It's a great marketing tool but it does have its drawbacks and holes.
I do not think it is the most accurate term to use when describing the birds themselves. I feel the term standard-bred is much better. Because heritage is too exclusive. As we see with the Aseels and Shamos, both are very old breeds just not recognized by the cutoff date.

 

[Arielle]

Quote: Exactly!!!!

I just need to trade up from my mostly hatchery stock to your lovelies!! OR Jim's.

 

[gjensen]

I know I'm being a bit contradictory here but I will defend the ALBC a little. They did what any good livestock organization does, and that is helping their members to market their products by offering tools like the "heritage" definition. This in turn is supposed to create awareness for rare breeds and create a demand for them.
To my knowledge, It was not the governing body of the ALBC itself who came up with the definition but rather they commissioned, for lack of a better term, several people to come up with the term for them. Walt had mentioned something like this earlier.
It's a great marketing tool but it does have its drawbacks and holes.
I do not think it is the most accurate term to use when describing the birds themselves. I feel the term standard-bred is much better. Because heritage is too exclusive. As we see with the Aseels and Shamos, both are very old breeds just not recognized by the cutoff date.

This is correct. It is a label for poultry related products. It does not work as well for the poultry enthusiasts themselves.

The term has drawn some attention to, and has helped some individuals draw attention to, true pure breed poultry. That is a positive.

Personally, I would like to see more Buckeyes, Rocks, and Reds put back to work. I wonder how well the idea will work down the road. I imagine that there will be a portion of our population that prefers these products, and will spend more to have it. When you are supporting the ALBC, you are supporting a philisophical ideal. I do support this ideal. Rarely are ideals and reality in the same place though.

I feel when I support the SPPA, I am supporting the support of old and rare breeds. Not an ideal. The birds themselves. The breeds that need it most. The breeds the average person doesn't have on their list of wants, but still includes the more popular breeds.

After saying all of this, we should let Bob have his thread back. It has done a lot of good things, and we shouldn't mess with that. I will retire back to lurking like I used to.

One more thing for Bob. Catalanas are considered a Heritage Breed.

 

[Narragansett]

mschlumb, you are right, ALBC does help their members by helping to market their products. Problem is, a lot of that marketing is in the same form as any other marketing today; full of inaccurate, misleading and untruthful claims. They FINALLY, after years of promoting the hatchery propaganda of seperating the African into two typs, have gotten it right and eliminated the "Dewlap" vs "regular'" African BS. They still cling to it with the Toulouse though, coming up with a third type to confuse the situation even more. Dutch Hookbills have been ignored for years, finally being placed on the watch list. As soon as they become popular, or someone figures out how to hatch and sell them in large numbers, just watch them alll of a sudden jump to the critical list. Ancona ducks are a joke. There is no documentation that they existed prior to 1980. None. None of the British exhibitors have ever heard of them. One man who hatches and sells many proclaims them a breed, and ALBC bends over and agrees. Same with Cotton Patch geese. The chicken lists are all over the place. Moderns, OEG, Sebrights, Cochins, New Hampshires and many others are exhibited by the hundreds and even thousands all across the country every year, to say nothing about how many are in hatcheries. They and several others on the lists don't need to be conserved by any means at this time. Their numbers are more than stable. Do we really need to worry about so many "strains" of mustangs that are not even remotely different from each other visibly? Yes, if your family has kept a herd going and by listing with ALBC you can continue to sell stock because of that rare designtion. Otherwise, not at all. Most of the Standard bred turkey varieties on the list are available by the thousands, from several different hatcheries alone, but because "heritage" turkeys are in vogue, listing continues to make them seem more valuable than they are. ALBC's turkey books wouldn't sell well without many turkeys on the list would they? There are dozens more examples of breeds which don't need to be on the list which are, those which have incorrect information making them seem more valuable or interesting than they are, and many which do need to be on it which aren't. Those don't sell well, so they don't get promoted. In the end it's not so much about saving rare breeds, it's about creating hype around breeds which they can, to get them to sell well.