Definition of Heritage Breeds

[WyandotteTX]

I think I want to agree with Rudy on this one. Does a bird growing un naturally slow rate automatically make it a Heritage breed? If a Minorca or other Mediterranean breed took that long to mature it would be against the nature of that breed to me...... Yes I do understand the points made about Hatchery birds but I dont think that is what Rudy had in mind when he wrote that either. It didnt seem to me like he was writing that to defend Hatchery stock and their growth rates...... Only that putting in stone that a bird HAS to grow slow isnt the exact proper way of trying to state the point that needs to be made.

I was reading several older articles about poultry raising from the beginning of the 20th Century and this mentality would seem to go against the breeds from the time we are calling "Heritage". From what I have read breeders then were not interested in the Standard as an ideal for image sake like we seem to take it now. They think of it as a means of establishing the production traits that would make that breed successful.

Also we spend so much time thinking about this or that breed of antiquity when in alot of what I read they were purporting trying to reduce the numbers of breeds so that only the strongest and best would be used in the future. Evidently this thinking was successful. I was reading about the comparison between Minorcas and Leghorns. The argument by the commentator was why have White Minorcas and White Leghorns when clearly the White Leghorn is the best breed. Had the same point with Black Leghorns and Black Minorcas with Minorcas being the better of the two. Which two breeds are very common today and which two breeds are almost non existant?....
I just thought it was very interesting reading to get a glimpse into the mindset of breeders of the age when the Standard was still being formed. In one article there is several references to breeds I have never heard of or varieties that have gone by the wayside. Most notable would be Peacomb Cochins and Pea Comb Rocks.

Ok, its late and I realize I most likely have rambled through most of this. Hopefully someone will understand what I am trying to say about it.

 

[Illia]

Quote:
A well sized run is one big enough to supply greenery that survives through most of the season and continues to grow the next year.

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.

I mean passing the SOP for the breed. I never said anything more than that, so go ahead and jump to your conclusions.

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?

Sounds like cockfighting and "care" of American Gamefowl to me. . . . I for one do not do that with mine, and I'll even admit that my climate is not what Gamefowl are used to, but I provide the heat necessary. Otherwise, I let the birds free range, and plan to keep only a max two cock(erel)s around. . . The rest will indeed be separated and later culled for food.


So really, it just sounds like you want to take everything literal, serious, and well - just argue. I'm really tired of all the arguments that have been going around lately, so, I'm going to leave some room for other people to chime in.

 

[spartacus_63]

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?

Well said.

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
I'm not trying to make you mad. Words mean things. If what you wrote isn't what you really meant, how is anyone supposed to figure that out unless they ask?
If you're just shooting from the hip, say so, and I'll tell myself "Oh, that's just Illia, you know they don't really mean it that way."

I think it's great you plan to keep some of your birds in a group rather than staked out. I've had a few gamecocks around here, and I just let them run with the rest of the flock. As they matured, they had their spats and very quickly figured out who could beat what and nobody died. We didn't even have serious injuries. They were quick to "take offense", and tended to consider any minor infractions from a lesser ranked bird as a personal challenge that must be seen to immediately. But once the pecking order was established, it was pretty quiet out there. (about a five acre area, so even the wimpiest bird could get away if it needed to) I know some people would claim that's because they weren't "real" games, but I think it's because they had never been exposed to the "normal" game cock upbringing. IOW, I expected them to act like chickens, certainly not something to gamble on, so they were raised like chickens. They did not disappoint.

But back to the question of what makes a "heritage" breed. I don't think it's a matter of purpose; eggs, meat, a combination of the two, even fighting were all considered valid reasons to keep fowls in their day. I don't think it's about how the birds are raised now, or in how big of a flock they came out of. McMurray's Barred Rocks are still Barred Rocks, even if they ain't so very pretty and couldn't win at a show. Yes, to some extent the hatchery birds are going to be "molly coddled"; they aren't someone's hobby, they're a business, and smart business people work to insure their investment. The extra care you give your own birds doesn't make them any less a breed than the birds tied out with just a bent over piece of tin for protection. (But IMHO, it DOES make you smarter)

In that sense, I wonder if people might be doing a bit of romanticizing about how birds were kept "in the good old days". Look at all the formulas given for poultry feed in old books; people weren't just letting their birds wander around begging from the neighbors.

Sure, poor folks have poor ways, but if they went to the trouble to build chicken houses, it's a safe bet they were feeding them. (my chicken coop dates pre1920, and the land was only allotted in 1907) Go through old seed catalogs and you'll be surprised at how many varieties were grown for livestock and poultry feed. There are definitions for "heritage" that include the phrase "Must breed true". But a real breed (or variety, in the case of turkeys) of domesticated poultry is never going to "breed true" unless a human puts the right birds together. Somebody had to decide what they wanted that bird for and what was going to look like, and they selected individuals that matched that ideal in their head. That, to me, is what makes a breed.

To me, it's the length of time that humans have been "putting the right birds together" to create and maintain a breed that determines it's status as "heritage". I can certainly understand including non APA breeds under that title. I'm not so xenophobic that I can't acknowledge the unique history behind breed like the Pyncheon even if they couldn't get enough people to join a club and become officially recognized. The art and science of breeding poultry doesn't belong to any one nation, it is literally a world heritage. the genetics of an American breed are no more or less important that French or German or Japanese or Chilean breed. So I guess that for me, "heritage" would be a domesticated breed (or variety) of poultry that was in existence before the middle of the last century, when agricultural "modernization" began to favor nationwide conformity over the quaint regional deviations of the "old fashioned" breeds.

If you want to know the truth, I became interested in raising "heritage" breeds before the term was popular simply because Tysons and Purdue and Rose Acre didn't.

 

[TimG]

Quote:
What if the more efficient and quicker truck had a life expectancy of 15,000 miles and the other had a life expectancy of 200,000 miles?

 

[Schweiger]

Every Breed of chicken is "heritage" then, that isnt a commercial breed. Every last bantam and every breed of Large Fowl. I am parts German, Czech, english and Irish so breeds orginating from these countries are my personal heritage. Those of you that are part French, Marans might be part of your heritage. Some asian class poultry might be the heritage birds to some Oriental owners. I have dutch bantams but Iam not Dutch, therefore they arent my heritage but someone elses. If all non-comercial birds no matter how you want to define their pen set up or breeding methods or if they conform to the standard or not, if they are all heritage than all you are trying to do is add a label to help sell your bird. I guess a better way to put this discussion in perspective is I think instead of labeling your heritage breed "heritage" you should just say I raise "true american barred Rocks" or "true French marans". I think by advertiseing this it tells the buyer that your birds are breed to any recognised standard and is not bred tward any commercial goals. It would also imply that your birds are a higher quality of bird than others. So I guess what I am saying is I would push to drop the "heritage" label and promote the "true ....... ........." .

 

[fowlman01]

This thread has some interesting ideas about naming "heritage" breeds.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=437570&p=1

Walt

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Ayoille! In Greek there is a great word: polyskeptomai, which means, I think too much. Perhaps, this is symptomatic of the season. We're obviously outdoors folk, and this snow is keeping our minds inside, when out bodies need to be outside.

Comments on ideas put forth thus far:

1. Orloffs are, indeed, heritage American fowl. They were in the Standard. They were removed from the Standard a while back because of a perceived loss of interest in them at the shows. If today we were to put our current breeds in the Standard up to the Orloff test, we would have to axe half of our SOP. The Orloffs should never have been taken out. It was poor policy and more that a bit hubristic. The APA does some fairly screwy things at times.

2. Heritage raising systems? No-way-Jose! There were so many different methods used in the past that suited the individual environment and some which were regionally common. Some of the older, say turn of the century, texts actually refer to various styles of housing and runs in terms of location: the Connecticut coop, the California coop, etc.... In reality, we're going to find that there were as many different ways of raising poultry as there were farms and homesteads. Any attempt to state that such and such were the one and only way would be an act od myth-making. At the very least, it would be historically mendacious.

3. Hatchery-hatred. All of this banter against hatcheries is misguided and actually hurts heritage breeds. Hatcheries were never the problem, nor are they currently the problem. Hatcheries were founded on heritage stock back when heritage stock was ubiquitously available. They, from a certain point of view, could be praised by making and maintaining the availability of most breeds to a wider audience than any breeder ever could. Duane Urch stock is alright, depending on the breed. But I have received seriously sub-standard stock from him with major defects that speak of neglect and serious in-breeding. Why? Because he keeps (+/-) 100 varieties of fowl. Duane Urch is a hatchery. One cannot keep that many varieties of fowl up to the Standard--talk about spreading the butter thin. He does, however, have some nice stock in several varieties. Moreover, by making so many varieties available to those who would work on a smaller, more focused scale, he does a geat service both to the breeders and, more importantly, to the heritage breeds he maintains. The same could be said for several other hatcheries.

To the point, MMCM Dorkings are quite good, all things considered. Ideal Dorkings are a bit poo. MMCM refreshes it Dorking bloodlines with DUANE URCH stock, and it shows. How many breeders do they tap, in order to maintain their stock? Who knows. I have received good stock and poor stock from both of these two major hatcheries.

Moreover, hatcheries are in no way all the same. There are small hatcheries; there are large hatcheries. There are hatcheries with birds that are close to the standard in type; there are hatcheries with stock that is far from the standard. Sand Hill Preservation Center is a hatchery. They are probably doing more to preserve heritage breeds than any other single entity in the country. There are several hatcheries that are small, family based, multi-generational, and worthy of patronage.

I know of at least one master breeder, who commonly comments on these pages, whose prize-winning stock was pulled from hatchery stock. Our white Dorkings are based in hatchery stock, and if "heritage", which is a statement of history, is the question, there's not a single "American" breed that even approaches the Dorking or Old English Game in "heritage." Centuries upon centuries before America was even a dream, these fowl were feeding the children of our ancestors. Being safeguarded at a particular hatchery is just one more blip upon the radar screen of a heritage that pre-dates the birth of Christianity.

4. Production breeding IS Standard breeding. Perfect barring is not MORE standard than strong laying capacity, indeed, certainly not, if "heritage" is in question. The "heritage" of the Barred Rock lies in that, in its hayday at least, it was the single most depended upon breed of fowl to fill the larder of the American homestead. That is its crown. Nice barring is the frosting on the cake. Nice barring without powerful laying capacity and fleshing AT ALL AGES is what exactly? The plymouth rock is historically praised for being worth eating at any age.

PRODUCTION is the heritage of all APA large fowl, save the very few whose origins are based in ornament and/or game. This is the reason for which "ECONOMIC QUALITIES" are stated before type in the SOP. Given, it seems like a quick or minor mention in comparison to the length given to type/shape, but to those who read the SOP back when it was still a fairly new publication--and a publication that served and was the center of the poultry industry, there was no need to either emphasize or expound upon these EQ's--they went without saying. A hatchery breeding an Australorp for egg-production is doing much more for the heritage of said breed than a breeder who culls not for egg-production but who is most concerned with a fluffy abdomen.

5. Cross-breeding. It never ceases to amaze me how many "breeders" of Standard fowl have out-crossed, ergo crossbred, their stock. Sometimes this is necessary because the breed is so very rare that there is simply no genetic recourse remaining, but, most of the time, the reasons to justify out-crossing, which I have heard, have to do with wining a show as quickly as possible. Productive qualities such as laying and flesh quality are based in the linebreeding that goes into the heritage of the given breed. It is shattered in outcrossing. Egg-production qualities are particularly vulnerable.

6. The downfall of heritage poultry is in no way wrapped up in some sort of fictive rivalry between fanciers and hatcheries but rather in the rise of mega-chicken factories whose product is based in cross-breeding, rendering the vast majority of heritage SOP breeds anathema to the daily existence of the basic consumer. If ever these fowl were called upon again to fill the niche of their heritage, in most breeds it would probably be based in a marriage between breeder stock and hatchery stock, reunited on small-scale farms, each farm or region working on one breed, retracing the steps of their heritage back to their rightful home of PRODUCTIVE Elegance.

7. If one reads the texts put forth by the many breeders/farmers who wrote during the hayday of the APA and the SOP, their greatest gripe was against fanciers, i.e. breeders who would destroy the productivity or constitution of a breed in the name of fad; e.g. breeders who destroyed the productive potential of the White-faced Black Spanish by emphasizing exaggerated faces in lieu of egg-production and hardiness; breeders who bred for the newest shnazzy color as opposed to maintaining the productive heritage and gene-pool of the already existing varieties; breeders who would work to increase or decrease size in accord with fads to please judges; breeders who would reserve less than thrifty individuals as breeders because of feather pattern, color, or tail conformation. Before the rise of industry, these were the perceived enemies of Standard-bred heritage fowl.

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
...that isn't a (modern) commercial breed. Well, yeah, why wouldn't it? Since the point of designating any breed as "heritage" is to encourage people to start breeding them to continue their unique genetic contribution, can you name one breed that wouldn't count? One breed that wouldn't be worth preserving? The personal heritage of the breeder has no bearing on the status of a breed; an Ancona is going to be every bit as old as it is whether I'm Italian, Irish or Indonesian. My personal "heritage" might influence my choice of breeds, but it has no effect whatsoever on the breed itself.

Quote:
If you restrict the designation to "non commercial", you eliminate breeds like the Delaware, which were specifically developed by one hatchery for the commercial broiler market in the 1940s, just before the mad push to eliminate variety took over agriculture. And I didn't say it didn't matter if a breed or a an individual bird conforms to the standard or not, I pointed out that just because a Barred Rock comes from a hatchery doesn't mean it's not a Barred Rock. It might not be a *good* specimen, but it's still a BPR. While the APA is a wonderful organization, I can't help but have my doubts about how effective they would be at determining the "heritage" status of a breed when they only require that 50% of the offspring to breed true before they're accepted.

It's a thought, but more than likely all you would accomplish by switching terms would be future heated debates over the meaning of the word "true".

Quote:
I've found that people buying eggs aren't as interested in how old the breed is, or how rare, as much as how they are being raised by me, today. They want to know if it was raised cage free, free range, or pastured for the sake of the Omega 3 and added nutrition. (They'd probably really like it if I went organic, but that's not happening anytime soon) As I said, those things have nothing to do with the age (heritage) of a breed, so I don't use that term at all when marketing eggs. I tell people my birds are "traditional farm breeds that were developed to thrive and produce well in a free range, pastured operation" because that's what they are.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Buffalogal, I'd take you final statement and say that the consuming masses are "interested" to the extent of their education in the subject. Much of our marketing success has been in the re-education of consimers and farmers in our region to the various realities, or lenses through which one care regard heritage poultry. The more we who sell heritage poultry products educate our customers, the more they take these points into consideration at the point of purchase.