Chicken Breeds vs Chicken Types.
- Thread starter Celtic Hill
- Start date
- Jul 21, 2010
- 3,788
- 15
- 181
You both know alot about your breeds not the other its that simple really they I am sure are both great breeds but standard bred buckeyes are also a slightly bigger birds and some lines are known to lay more eggs than standard bred RIR.
you both are great breeders of your breeds and know more history about them than others
you both are great breeders of your breeds and know more history about them than others
Last edited:
Not to get in a argument about the two breeds, but you may want to do a little more research on the Rhode Island Red.
A lot of your information on the R.I. Red is incorrect..
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
A lot of your information on the R.I. Red is incorrect..
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
Quote:
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
I am not disputing you knowledge of the Buckeye breed but there are more than one similarity in the two breeds.
As for the color of a R.I. Red. the SoP states that it should be: Lustrous, Rich Dark Red. If to talk to a Red breeder most will describe the color of a good R.I. Red as Mahogany or the color of a Bing Cherry.
The thing that I don't under is, where did the Buckeye get its Columbian pattern?
I believe this is a quote from a article that you wrought on the Buckeye -
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
I am not disputing you knowledge of the Buckeye breed but there are more than one similarity in the two breeds.
As for the color of a R.I. Red. the SoP states that it should be: Lustrous, Rich Dark Red. If to talk to a Red breeder most will describe the color of a good R.I. Red as Mahogany or the color of a Bing Cherry.
The thing that I don't under is, where did the Buckeye get its Columbian pattern?
I believe this is a quote from a article that you wrought on the Buckeye -
She began by first crossing a Buff Cochin male to Barred Plymouth Rock females. She then crossed the half Cochin pullets with a Black Breasted Red Game male she acquired the next year, probably of Oriental ancestry and genetically Wheaten or dark Wheaten in color. She took the red offspring of this mating to create the breed.
I can only guess that it may have came from the Buff Cochin but is you cross a Buff male with a Barred female the offspring will come sex-linked Black females (with some Buff/gold leakage) and Barred males.
If you then cross the Black hens with a BB Red rooster you will get Black, Buff and B.B. Red offspring.
To me it don't add up.. Maybe I am missing something.
Chris
I can only guess that it may have came from the Buff Cochin but is you cross a Buff male with a Barred female the offspring will come sex-linked Black females (with some Buff/gold leakage) and Barred males.
If you then cross the Black hens with a BB Red rooster you will get Black, Buff and B.B. Red offspring.
To me it don't add up.. Maybe I am missing something.
Chris
Last edited:
cgmccary wrote:
Not to get in a argument about the two breeds, but you may want to do a little more research on the Rhode Island Red.
A lot of your information on the R.I. Red is incorrect..
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
Chris09:
Your missing something.
First, I would point out that one of your basic premises is actually wrong. A Buckeye is not a true "Columbian Red" as you call it. Buckeyes are a form of Black-tailed Red - though as different to Black-tailed Red as what Light Brown Leghorns are to BB Red or Dark Brown Leghorns to Partridge. They are not Columbian in color, but a derivative.
Second, all the colors needed to produce red was in the original mix of Ms. Metcalf's crossings as quoted by me (i.e. the genes for red color were present in that original mix of colors). The buff and barred ancestors of Buckeyes can and did give red color to the birds. The simple explanation is that black mixed with buff produces red. Barred birds are black with a gene that causes the barring, this being lost within two generations of breeding. (Exactly what happened in the case of the Buckeye's development.) Dark Wheaten also contains many of the same genes as Black-tailed Red - but it did not help matters as it added yet more color variants, though it did not prevent the red birds from appearing.
There are other major differences in Buckeyes and RIRs that you cannot discern unless you have eaten both of them (showing different ancestry): Buckeyes have darker dark meat sections than RIRs. This they received from their Game ancestors and it also makes them the most active breed of the American class. They also grow faster - the RIR is a slow growing breed, but one that lays well. Speaking of lay well, Buckeyes have shorter lateral process bones than RIRs and wider thighs.
I don't know much about breeding RIRs but a little of their history I do. Yesterday's RIRs were lighter in color than Buckeyes. It was not until about the 1930s or 40s that RIRs were bred darker than Buckeye color. Today's RIRs are much darker than a Buckeye should be. (Also note, Buckeyes should have a red glow to their color and not a dead brown.) It is not unlikely that Buckeyes contributed to darker red for some lines of RIRs... Buckeyes may be the source of the darker color for top lines of RIRs of the past.
A lot of your information on the R.I. Red is incorrect..
I admit I do not know RIR, have never bred them & do not have my SOP here with me, but I know that body shape & color are not like my Buckeyes, at least what I see at the shows. They are two distinct, discernible breeds with different looks. The RIR at the shows look rectangular to me. Its legs look thin to me. Its color looks different. Perhaps, my description of deep, lustrous red is wrong (again no SOP here), but the RIR is not a mahogany bay color (not to my eye) -- if the SOP says it is a mahogany bay, then apologies to the RIR breeders.
I am not disputing you knowledge of the Buckeye breed but there are more than one similarity in the two breeds.
As for the color of a R.I. Red. the SoP states that it should be: Lustrous, Rich Dark Red. If to talk to a Red breeder most will describe the color of a good R.I. Red as Mahogany or the color of a Bing Cherry.
The thing that I don't under is, where did the Buckeye get its Columbian pattern?
I believe this is a quote from a article that you wrought on the Buckeye -
She began by first crossing a Buff Cochin male to Barred Plymouth Rock females. She then crossed the half Cochin pullets with a Black Breasted Red Game male she acquired the next year, probably of Oriental ancestry and genetically Wheaten or dark Wheaten in color. She took the red offspring of this mating to create the breed.
I can only guess that it may have came from the Buff Cochin but is you cross a Buff male with a Barred female the offspring will come sex-linked Black females (with some Buff/gold leakage) and Barred males.
If you then cross the Black hens with a BB Red rooster you will get Black, Buff and B.B. Red offspring.
To me it don't add up.. Maybe I am missing something.
Chris
As for the color of a R.I. Red. the SoP states that it should be: Lustrous, Rich Dark Red. If to talk to a Red breeder most will describe the color of a good R.I. Red as Mahogany or the color of a Bing Cherry.
The thing that I don't under is, where did the Buckeye get its Columbian pattern?
I believe this is a quote from a article that you wrought on the Buckeye -
She began by first crossing a Buff Cochin male to Barred Plymouth Rock females. She then crossed the half Cochin pullets with a Black Breasted Red Game male she acquired the next year, probably of Oriental ancestry and genetically Wheaten or dark Wheaten in color. She took the red offspring of this mating to create the breed.
I can only guess that it may have came from the Buff Cochin but is you cross a Buff male with a Barred female the offspring will come sex-linked Black females (with some Buff/gold leakage) and Barred males.
If you then cross the Black hens with a BB Red rooster you will get Black, Buff and B.B. Red offspring.
To me it don't add up.. Maybe I am missing something.
Chris
Chris09:
Your missing something.
First, I would point out that one of your basic premises is actually wrong. A Buckeye is not a true "Columbian Red" as you call it. Buckeyes are a form of Black-tailed Red - though as different to Black-tailed Red as what Light Brown Leghorns are to BB Red or Dark Brown Leghorns to Partridge. They are not Columbian in color, but a derivative.
Second, all the colors needed to produce red was in the original mix of Ms. Metcalf's crossings as quoted by me (i.e. the genes for red color were present in that original mix of colors). The buff and barred ancestors of Buckeyes can and did give red color to the birds. The simple explanation is that black mixed with buff produces red. Barred birds are black with a gene that causes the barring, this being lost within two generations of breeding. (Exactly what happened in the case of the Buckeye's development.) Dark Wheaten also contains many of the same genes as Black-tailed Red - but it did not help matters as it added yet more color variants, though it did not prevent the red birds from appearing.
There are other major differences in Buckeyes and RIRs that you cannot discern unless you have eaten both of them (showing different ancestry): Buckeyes have darker dark meat sections than RIRs. This they received from their Game ancestors and it also makes them the most active breed of the American class. They also grow faster - the RIR is a slow growing breed, but one that lays well. Speaking of lay well, Buckeyes have shorter lateral process bones than RIRs and wider thighs.
I don't know much about breeding RIRs but a little of their history I do. Yesterday's RIRs were lighter in color than Buckeyes. It was not until about the 1930s or 40s that RIRs were bred darker than Buckeye color. Today's RIRs are much darker than a Buckeye should be. (Also note, Buckeyes should have a red glow to their color and not a dead brown.) It is not unlikely that Buckeyes contributed to darker red for some lines of RIRs... Buckeyes may be the source of the darker color for top lines of RIRs of the past.
Quote:
Ian, where did you get your definition of "breed"?
Merriam-Webster says: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters."
Wikipedia says: "A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species. When bred together, animals of the same breed pass on these uniform traits to their offspring, and this abilityknown as 'breeding true'is a definitive requirement for a breed." As is typical with wikipedia, there is no reference for that "definitive requirement".
Biology-online: "A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."
Breed really has no scientific meaning, but rather is defined by some organization. In the US, that body is the APA for chickens. The APA may define breed differently than does whatever the governing body for swine, dogs, or cattle is. I seem to think there have been a couple of recent discussions of this sort of thing here recently, though I could be remembering a discussion from a mailing list too.
"Species", on the other hand, is "the lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification." Species is a scientific (taxonomic) classification.
Anyway, I think you are right that where the APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard. Lineage is not critical, that is discovery that a show chicken is not purebred would not disqualify it. Since that is the approach of the APA, that is also the general approach taken by chicken fanciers and enthusiasts in the US. It does seem strange to someone who is familiar with the lineage definition of breed used to classify most mammalian livestock. But, I don't think it is "wrong".
Tim
Ian, where did you get your definition of "breed"?
Merriam-Webster says: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters."
Wikipedia says: "A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species. When bred together, animals of the same breed pass on these uniform traits to their offspring, and this abilityknown as 'breeding true'is a definitive requirement for a breed." As is typical with wikipedia, there is no reference for that "definitive requirement".
Biology-online: "A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."
Breed really has no scientific meaning, but rather is defined by some organization. In the US, that body is the APA for chickens. The APA may define breed differently than does whatever the governing body for swine, dogs, or cattle is. I seem to think there have been a couple of recent discussions of this sort of thing here recently, though I could be remembering a discussion from a mailing list too.
"Species", on the other hand, is "the lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification." Species is a scientific (taxonomic) classification.
Anyway, I think you are right that where the APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard. Lineage is not critical, that is discovery that a show chicken is not purebred would not disqualify it. Since that is the approach of the APA, that is also the general approach taken by chicken fanciers and enthusiasts in the US. It does seem strange to someone who is familiar with the lineage definition of breed used to classify most mammalian livestock. But, I don't think it is "wrong".
Tim
- Thread starter
- #27
Quote:
Ian, where did you get your definition of "breed"?
Merriam-Webster says: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters."
Wikipedia says: "A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species. When bred together, animals of the same breed pass on these uniform traits to their offspring, and this abilityknown as 'breeding true'is a definitive requirement for a breed." As is typical with wikipedia, there is no reference for that "definitive requirement".
Biology-online: "A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."
Breed really has no scientific meaning, but rather is defined by some organization. In the US, that body is the APA for chickens. The APA may define breed differently than does whatever the governing body for swine, dogs, or cattle is. I seem to think there have been a couple of recent discussions of this sort of thing here recently, though I could be remembering a discussion from a mailing list too.
"Species", on the other hand, is "the lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification." Species is a scientific (taxonomic) classification.
Anyway, I think you are right that where the APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard. Lineage is not critical, that is discovery that a show chicken is not purebred would not disqualify it. Since that is the approach of the APA, that is also the general approach taken by chicken fanciers and enthusiasts in the US. It does seem strange to someone who is familiar with the lineage definition of breed used to classify most mammalian livestock. But, I don't think it is "wrong".
Tim
I got it from dictonary.com
Any ways, bouncing off your last paragraph. Since "APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard" Does that make it a breed?
Ian, where did you get your definition of "breed"?
Merriam-Webster says: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters."
Wikipedia says: "A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species. When bred together, animals of the same breed pass on these uniform traits to their offspring, and this abilityknown as 'breeding true'is a definitive requirement for a breed." As is typical with wikipedia, there is no reference for that "definitive requirement".
Biology-online: "A race or variety of men or other animals (or of plants), perpetuating its special or distinctive characteristics by inheritance."
Breed really has no scientific meaning, but rather is defined by some organization. In the US, that body is the APA for chickens. The APA may define breed differently than does whatever the governing body for swine, dogs, or cattle is. I seem to think there have been a couple of recent discussions of this sort of thing here recently, though I could be remembering a discussion from a mailing list too.
"Species", on the other hand, is "the lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification." Species is a scientific (taxonomic) classification.
Anyway, I think you are right that where the APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard. Lineage is not critical, that is discovery that a show chicken is not purebred would not disqualify it. Since that is the approach of the APA, that is also the general approach taken by chicken fanciers and enthusiasts in the US. It does seem strange to someone who is familiar with the lineage definition of breed used to classify most mammalian livestock. But, I don't think it is "wrong".
Tim
I got it from dictonary.com
Any ways, bouncing off your last paragraph. Since "APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard" Does that make it a breed?
CelticHill: Since "APA is concerned breed is really nothing more than a set of characteristics and that it doesn't really matter how you get your end result so long as it conforms to the standard" Does that make it a breed?
No, incorrect. It's lineage makes it a breed, and a breed MUST breed true so your bird, if newly re-created to an APA standard "Breed A" must be able to produce offspring like itself that meet the APA's SOP. I guarantee you that you might get something to pop out that looked something like a so & so (or what you thought looked like a so-so) but bred to another so-so, it wouldn't make other so-so(s) -- understand?
No, incorrect. It's lineage makes it a breed, and a breed MUST breed true so your bird, if newly re-created to an APA standard "Breed A" must be able to produce offspring like itself that meet the APA's SOP. I guarantee you that you might get something to pop out that looked something like a so & so (or what you thought looked like a so-so) but bred to another so-so, it wouldn't make other so-so(s) -- understand?
- Thread starter
- #29
Quote:
No, incorrect. It's lineage makes it a breed, and a breed MUST breed true so your bird, if newly re-created to an APA standard "Breed A" must be able to produce offspring like itself that meet the APA's SOP. I guarantee you that you might get something to pop out that looked something like a so & so (or what you thought looked like a so-so) but bred to another so-so, it wouldn't make other so-so(s) -- understand?
I think i do, BUT if this So-So bird LOOKed like like something, then it could be shown as that something, no one would ever know. <-- My Point.
No, incorrect. It's lineage makes it a breed, and a breed MUST breed true so your bird, if newly re-created to an APA standard "Breed A" must be able to produce offspring like itself that meet the APA's SOP. I guarantee you that you might get something to pop out that looked something like a so & so (or what you thought looked like a so-so) but bred to another so-so, it wouldn't make other so-so(s) -- understand?
I think i do, BUT if this So-So bird LOOKed like like something, then it could be shown as that something, no one would ever know. <-- My Point.
Celtic Hill: I think i do, BUT if this So-So bird LOOKed like like something, then it could be shown as that something, no one would ever know.
Oh no, you are wrong. There are a few folks on here that would not be fooled. You might fool most people on here, but a real expert in that breed would recognize your forgery.
Another point I have sometimes made is that if you lost one of the foundation breeds, you could not regain it (nobody surely would argue with this point). If you lost one of the composite heritage breeds, you could recreate it from the foundation breeds but I have always argued that what you would end up with WOULD NOT be the same. It might look the same and breed true but because the original (actual) strains of the foundation (or other composite breeds that went into create the breed no longer exist, it wouldn't be the same. This is another reason to preserve heritage breeds.
Oh no, you are wrong. There are a few folks on here that would not be fooled. You might fool most people on here, but a real expert in that breed would recognize your forgery.
Another point I have sometimes made is that if you lost one of the foundation breeds, you could not regain it (nobody surely would argue with this point). If you lost one of the composite heritage breeds, you could recreate it from the foundation breeds but I have always argued that what you would end up with WOULD NOT be the same. It might look the same and breed true but because the original (actual) strains of the foundation (or other composite breeds that went into create the breed no longer exist, it wouldn't be the same. This is another reason to preserve heritage breeds.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest posts
-
Bad molt and fowl pox at the same time- Latest: charlie1051
-
-
-
-
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
