Buckeye Breed Thread

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Like I said, I got really lucky to get these from ten chicks. I'm going to try to get some better pictures to put up on here. That pullet pictured (the darker one) has two crooked toes (incubator problem, still using her), I've got another one that looks very similar to her that has all her toes in place. I'm really lucky to have Bob Rhodes right down the street.
Mitch

 

[Chickielady]

Hackles on mine seem a bit more dark wine ( a good amount of what I would even call deep red-violet) colored (Mahogany is a good description) rather than what I (as an artist) would classify as "nut" colored.
I love this dark rich wine color.
I too have had connectivity issues, so slow it is driving me crazy!
My internet provider and BYC were both slow, so I have lost several items I posted.
Going to give it a rest today & get some work done.

I was going to upload a pic but there is no way I can...let alone post one with these connectivity issues.
Have to waite til another time
Sorry~
later guys..

 

[Tailfeathers]

Ariele, yes it was very frustrating. I don't get to spend near the time I'd like on BYC so when I do I often try to address several things at once. Which I did just that and then lost it all.

Ugh!

Bluface, you are a lucky man. I can honestly say that I've never taken a bird to a show that I ever thought was "perfect in every way". I hope to get there some day but for now I can always find something that is less than my liking. What I do like to do is to talk with a judge afterwards and have him critique my birds in front of me. Then I get to learn whether what I'm seeing is the same as what they see.

God Bless,

 

[Blueface]

Quote:
Of course, perfect in everyway refers to feather condition, health and for the most part; type. What I believe is the correct color patterns are completely subjective, reasons why we have judges. But I refuse to put a bird in a show pen that is busted plummage, is pale, or has "smuggy" feathers. Why put a bird there that you know is wrong and has no chance of moving forward. What I think is perfect is always subjective and I too seek the opinions of the the judge. That is how we "better" a breed through selection. I've had several birds throughout my life that have been on champion row and all of them I've thought were pretty much perfect representations of the breed. I've had many judges obviously agree. I've often found that a good bird will take care of himself and present himself as such.

Take care

 

[knittychickadee]

Thanks for the photo. I've had chickens since I was a kid, so i know well how ugly they can get in molt. I get that he isn't looking his best. I know the standard for Buckeyes weight. I was just curious to his weight in particular as he looked more like my 6 1/2-7 lb cockerels vs my 8 lb cockerels when your daughter was holding him. I know photos can be deceiving though. I just recently went through one of my groups of cockerels that were in the 8 lb range, and I was kneeling down like her, checking them over and putting them on the scale and that photo crossed my mind. I was hard pressed to hold them on my leg leg with the ease she shows, those 8 lbers are big boys.
Quote:
There is a picture of one on pg 337, Sydney is holding him. Another one is below. His legs look a little bit pink, but that is due to the veins in his legs. The cock bird is pretty healthy. All healthy light legged chickens should have that color in their legs. He is in the moult, so his feather condition isn't the best and obviously not in full feather, but you can see the color of his new feathers. Beautiful and buckeye nut colored. I generally don't like putting pictures of birds that are in the moult on the net. They can get pretty rough looking. Cocks weigh roughly 9 lbs and cockerels are roughly 8 lbs, give or take a couple ounces.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/uploads/108530_img_3410.jpg

Agreed, that pic was taken in an overcast. It is raining today, so this weekend I can get a picture of one in direct sunlight. The color doesn't change, but they look more glossy.

 

[knittychickadee]

I have researched anything Nettie Metcalf/Buckeyes quite thoroughly over the past few years, and the only mention of black that I can recall her saying is that black in the females was not objectionable to her so long as the males kept the dark red she admired. I would love to see anything you've found that elaborates on that if you have other information. From that one line we know she didn't mind black on them, but it doesn't say she specifically selected females with it. I've not seen any old papers or articles that mention black hackles or black in any place other than in tail or wings, and even then it is "may contain black" not should or must contain it. I've never read in old Buckeye articles that females with black should be kept in the breeding pens to keep the males dark.

I also keep in mind that when Nettie states dark red, what is her point of reference for 'dark red'. Was the darkest red chicken she ever saw on par with nowadays hatchery RIRs? When the old ads for Buckeyes say 'the darkest of all the reds' what red birds are they comparing them to, and what was the shade of that red AT THAT TIME in history.

Mahogany bay, when you look at it on another bird, say a Speckled Sussex, is a gloriously shiny red with depth but rather fiery looking on the females, and the males red can look quite dark when not in full sunlight. Buckeye males look even darker because they don't have that white pop. When Buckeyes are verging on the current RIR shade- that's just way too dark, IMHO. The standard also states that the red should bleed into the tail, so there is not a sharp contrast between the black and the red. If the red was to be so dark as the RIR today, why would that matter? There wouldn't be enough contrast between the 2 for that to even be brought up. All this is just my opinion, I am no expert.
Quote:
Phil Bartz, a very well respected judge told me that it was Ok to have black in the hackles of the females. It helps promote the deep color in the males. Mrs. Metcalf refered to it in her letters/papers years ago from what I have read/interperted. She selected those birds. Tim Bowles another well respected judge had no objections to it either. Mr. Brown openly admits that it is very important to have black in the hackles and in no place in literature does it ever state otherwise.

Mitch the pullet in the top picture looks great, IMO.

Just food for thought.

 

[cgmccary]

knitttychickadee: I have researched anything Nettie Metcalf/Buckeyes quite thoroughly over the past few years, and the only mention of black that I can recall her saying is that black in the females was not objectionable to her so long as the males kept the dark red she admired. I would love to see anything you've found that elaborates on that if you have other information. From that one line we know she didn't mind black on them, but it doesn't say she specifically selected females with it. I've not seen any old papers or articles that mention black hackles or black in any place other than in tail or wings, and even then it is "may contain black" not should or must contain it. I've never read in old Buckeye articles that females with black should be kept in the breeding pens to keep the males dark.

I also keep in mind that when Nettie states dark red, what is her point of reference for 'dark red'. Was the darkest red chicken she ever saw on par with nowadays hatchery RIRs? When the old ads for Buckeyes say 'the darkest of all the reds' what red birds are they comparing them to, and what was the shade of that red AT THAT TIME in history.

Mahogany bay, when you look at it on another bird, say a Speckled Sussex, is a gloriously shiny red with depth but rather fiery looking on the females, and the males red can look quite dark when not in full sunlight. Buckeye males look even darker because they don't have that white pop. When Buckeyes are verging on the current RIR shade- that's just way too dark, IMHO. The standard also states that the red should bleed into the tail, so there is not a sharp contrast between the black and the red. If the red was to be so dark as the RIR today, why would that matter? There wouldn't be enough contrast between the 2 for that to even be brought up. All this is just my opinion, I am no expert.

All good points, and I agree with you.​

 

[Blueface]

Quote:
There is a picture of one on pg 337, Sydney is holding him. Another one is below. His legs look a little bit pink, but that is due to the veins in his legs. The cock bird is pretty healthy. All healthy light legged chickens should have that color in their legs. He is in the moult, so his feather condition isn't the best and obviously not in full feather, but you can see the color of his new feathers. Beautiful and buckeye nut colored. I generally don't like putting pictures of birds that are in the moult on the net. They can get pretty rough looking. Cocks weigh roughly 9 lbs and cockerels are roughly 8 lbs, give or take a couple ounces.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/uploads/108530_img_3410.jpg

Agreed, that pic was taken in an overcast. It is raining today, so this weekend I can get a picture of one in direct sunlight. The color doesn't change, but they look more glossy.


He is very dense in the body, he weighs right 8 lbs. Built like a cornish cross, really thick drums. Any cockerel that we get that weighs less, we cull. If the size and type isn't there, we don't need them. My daughter has been involved with these birds and poultry in general, for several years now. She knows how to get them comfortable so they won't struggle. That's one of this we love about the bird; they are very gentle and relaxed when you hold them. That bird in particular is special, he is one of the best natured birds I've seen. He maintains is dominance but at the same time is very good (not spooked, gentle, layed back) with pretty much everything. He keeps himself in great shape and he has never had a bad day. He is one of those birds that is perfect in everyway (by my standards).

 

[Blueface]

Quote:
That was the only black that was mentioned. It has been mentioned a couple articles. I've tried breeding the light females, the result in color is light in everything by my standards. The 2nd year females moult in spotchy with different shades of red, the undercolor is none existant. The wing colors are terribly spotchy in both the males and the females. I ended up culling everything. I bred a few light hens with all of the same results. I'm not the only one that has had that problem. With using the darker females, the colors are more consitant, even in the hens as they age. The males have a much sharper appearance. That is what works for us and that is the way we are breeding. I've never read anything about Mrs. Metcalf saying that buckeyes were or could get "too dark red". It's all about interpertation. That's ultimately what it comes down to. As long as I don't get black surface feathers in the males and they don't turn chocolate. I will continue maintaining the buckeye-nut color with sharp undercolor. I think, IMO, that is what makes a buckeye and the only contrast I've heard to this point has been the opinions of Chris. But in all fairness, that is what makes breeding so much fun and why judges are needed. Different people view breeds differently, the buckeye should be no different.

As noted before; the "garnet red" color......if you search anywhere online (basically gemstones are what I looked at), there is quite a bit of difference in color when thickness or light angle is taken into play. That in itself is open to anyones interperation. I could point at the darker, thicker example and someone else can look at the thinner sample in the same light and a sharp difference in color can be made. The picture I posted a page or so back; I see a velvet buckeye nut color, others could a chocolate bird.

I say as long as they are healthy...who gives a crap. Breed them how you want and enjoy the darn things.

 

[knittychickadee]

I dug around in my old Buckeye papers and I pulled a few Nettie quotes out of one paper where she talked of color quite a bit. Some as she compared them to the color of Rhode Island Reds of that time. Amazing, how much the RIR color has changed.



"There is plenty of difference in the make-up of the two breeds, so they do not antagonize one another. The R. I. Reds are a sorrel and the Buckeyes a bay red, comparing them as one would cattle or horses of the same shades. The red of the R. I. Red is brighter, lighter, and more uniform than that of the Buckeye, and admits of no slate undercolor. The Buckeye, as bred Ideally, is as much darker in shade than the R. I. Red, as the R. I. Red is deeper than buff, approaching maroon and garnet red, with lighter hackle, and having considerable slate undercolor as we have found where this is bred out. succeeding generations become faded into buff with white In wings and tails."

and then "A solid red surface is desired for Buckeyes, although black is permitbed in folded wing flights and main tall feathers. "

and on trading and her first impression on RIR color- Their shade of red was what I would call buff."

and here she mentions an old RIR hen she kept, and its color- "This Club made a standard so obviously copied after the R. I. Red Standard that I objected, and withdrew after which the Club went to pieces and only once in a great while can a peacomb R. I. Red be found. I still have one of the old hens conforming to their standard, a sorrel red, nearly buff with slight black ticking on her neck."

And here on coming up with the Buckeye Red name (later changed to just Buckeye)- "Buckeye Reds, a name I selected after many long nights, for I lay awake night after night planning each mating and each point until I often dreamed out the result I wanted. Many names suggested themselves: Golden Games, Yankee Doodle, Garnets, and others, but Buckeyes suited me best, for my hens had that brown red surface like a ripe buckeye and the males were mostly almost a maroon red."