Definition of Heritage Breeds

[Chickielady]

Quote:

Exactly !
Organisms that exhibit fast growth are also organisms low on the food chain, in order to multiply and survive before something higher comes along and eats it.
In the case of poultry, fast growth was engineered by humans, for their sole use as food.
And at the expense of the health, and prosperity of the bird.

 

[Schweiger]

As some here have already mentioned, the chickens of yesteryear were borderline "wild" chickens. Out west on the farmstead there were no fences designed to keep a chicken in or a poultry predator out. They hunted food for themselves, found their own shelter and laid eggs where they hopped no one would find them. When we as owners confine or raise our birds in almost any way that differs from the olden days, I think we forfit the right to call it heritage, simply because they are not being maintained in a "heritage" type manor. If you want to raise heritage chickens you should treat them like guineas. A guy at my church has had guineas for 20 years free ranging on his 40 acres. He told me that some years he has scads of them and other years he has only 5-6, that it all depends on the predator population and the weather durring key parts of the year. I raise chickens in pens and I control their feed and I supply them with fresh water and give them calcium and grit, and so I forfit the right to label them heritage. Your chicken tractor Barred Rocks or your free ranging Barrede Rocks that live in your 2 acre backyard live a completely different life than the original heritage Rock all the years ago. I have tried cornish rocks just letting them run loose out in my sheep pen and let me tell you that none of them got 8 pounds in 12 weeks! Not even close! I think you all should rethink your definition of herritage...

 

[Pyncheon guy]

I always considered my breed a heritage breed....I raise Pyncheon Bantams...have for about 15 years.....They are a very old American breed with written history back to the early 1700's.....and described and admired in literature in the middle 1800's. The are NOT recognized by the APA...but they are by the ABA...have been for decades. They were raised by early settlers in New England who kept smaller birds probably because they took up less space and all in all were just a pretty economical little chicken for their situation. For their size...they can be meaty and lay very well.... They are medium growers....but I swear the little cockerels start crowing right out of the egg. So because the APA has never recognized them and because they are Bantams....they CAN'T be a heritage breed....? I think history kind of speaks for itself. Early American breeds.... whatever their color, size, comb type, leg color, were all used for pretty much the same things.....meat, eggs, and beauty.....everyone had their favorites and/or raised what best fit their situation. If mine aren't heritage...then what would they be?

 

[Schweiger]

My meaning is yes you have an old breed of bird, so do I , my dutch date bach to medievel times in Holland. My point is in olden times ( in america or anywhere else) chickens were not bred to a standard of looks but the standard of the fittest. If you had taken 100 barred rocks out west the prettiest wouldnt be the survivors but the ones who were smart enought to elude predators, the best ones at finding the bugs and seeds, and the ones that could find the best spots to lay and hatch a small clutch of eggs. These factors create a "heritage" bird. what you and I own are descendants of the true Heritage birds. I am saying that though your birds might look the spitting image of the orginals they are not quite built the same way.

 

[spartacus_63]

In the case of poultry, fast growth was engineered by humans, for their sole use as food.

This is true, but the same can be said about human manipulation or selective breeding to get chickens to lay more eggs even before the turn of the century. All of the American Breeds were developed with human manipulation to achieve a market based goal.The big difference between 19th century breeders and 21st century breeders is that the early breeders needed to develop breeds that could sustain themselves, breed true. Today's breeders need hybrid birds with high production numbers, vitality is not a concern since they are not needed for breeding and their life cycle is two years tops.​

 

[draye]

Heritage is what you define it as. Everything has a heritage, whether good or bad, pretty or ugly, it all has a heritage.

 

[Illia]

Quote:
That, umm, doesn't help this thread move anywhere.

I think the agree-able thing about the term heritage is for one, an old breed. Nothing created after 1950. Another is an original purpose (dual purpose) And another is self sustainability - A life that goes on long enough for the birds to reproduce, tend to the young, be able to survive in a free ranging environment.

 

[spartacus_63]

It depends on who you listen to but the purpose (as I understand it) for salvaging the old breeds is to ensure genetic diversity and avoid an Irish Potato Famine type catastrophe in poultry. American Breed "Heritage" poultry has a special place in our country's history. Chickens helped sustain many families around the turn of the century. Much thought and work went into developing breeds that could produce eggs and or meat and survive in the climates and conditions required.

Hybrid production or industrial poultry would have a hard time surviving outside the chicken house and they would not breed true and thus diminish without humane intervention. Although there are some hybrid layers that do well on the free range, they do not maintain the laying prowess from generation to generation.

So, as I see it, a "Heritage" chicken should be one that is of a breed that can maintain it's purpose and production, is hardy and breeds true. I do not think it need be an APA recognized Breed. That would exclude a number of recognized breeds that were not in the SOP soon enough, but meet all other criteria.
Mandating absolute conformity to a rigid APA standard would disqualify many birds even though they were of Standard Bred stock. This to me is a attempt to carve a niche in a commodity market with no measurable market value enhancement.

The SOP was written to describe breeds recognized as such by the APA. The working breeds were bred for specific traits and those traits were reflected in the SOP. Today it seems the reverse is the norm.

 

[draye]

Quote:
That, umm, doesn't help this thread move anywhere.

I think the agree-able thing about the term heritage is for one, an old breed. Nothing created after 1950. Another is an original purpose (dual purpose) And another is self sustainability - A life that goes on long enough for the birds to reproduce, tend to the young, be able to survive in a free ranging environment.

Never Mind.

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
There's a difference between "Heritage style poultry production" and a "heritage breed." FWIW, old style poultry production did not always involve loose birds running around the farm. Not all breeds older than 50 years were developed as all purpose fowl to provide meat and eggs; several hundred years ago, there was already a market for breeds that were more narrowly focused on one trait or the other. Personally, I think it's best to to be able to let any bird free range, but it's not absolutely necessary for it to be called a "breed", much less a "heritage breed". Fortunately, you can maintain a breed without exactly duplicating it's original surroundings, otherwise, we'd all need to keep horses so our birds could scratch in the manure for an authentic diet. (Actually, I do keep horses, and my birds are out there everyday looking for goodies, so I guess I'm good on that count) But does that mean if you don't have horse biscuits for your birds to go through that they aren't aren't "heritage", or that if you don't have a "dung hill" handy that you can't possibly have real Dominiques or Dorkings? What is a "well sized run"? 10 by 20? 20 by 50? 50 by 100? If your run was only 8 by 20, does that mean your birds no longer a heritage breed? Of course not. That's why I don't think "heritage" should be about how the breed is raised now. It should describe a breed that is historically important, whether it's down to the last 15 birds or as common as dandelions. It's always a good idea to preserve rare breeds for the sake of genetic diversity, but it's the age of the breed that makes them"heritage", not their numbers.

Quote:
20%? Wow, you must know some mighty lousy hatcheries. I can't imagine anyone staying in business if only 20% of the birds they sold as XYZ breed actually looked anything like XYZ breed. You might order chicks and find 20% have a disqualifying fault according to the SoP, and I wouldn't expect any of them would win any prizes in an APA show, but that doesn't make them *not* the breed they were sold as. It only makes them poorly bred.

Quote:
What natural environment are gamefowl used to in your area? Around here in Oklahoma (though from what I've seen, I could easily expand that and say most of Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, Tennessee, and Louisiana) the "natural environment" for gamefowl mainly consists of having ALL the cocks and cockerels tied by their leg with barrel for shelter, just far enough apart that they can't reach each other, but close enough that they can waste their energy uselessly challenging and posturing at the next bird. I can't think of an environment less natural, with the exception of battery cages or the commercial version of "free range" birds that are crammed shoulder to shoulder into a barn. But I admit I'm not well versed on the care of gamefowl; maybe they do it differently where you are and gamebirds really are "set loose" to free range and hang together in social groups that include one dominant cock, his "second in command", and several hens, with perhaps a few younger birds of both sexes hanging around for good measure. Is that what you mean?