Definition of Heritage Breeds

[punky rooster]

I think everyone should read this agian:

Purpose:

Chickens have been a part of the American diet since the arrival of the Spanish explorers. Since that time, different breeds have been developed to provide meat, eggs, and pleasure.

The American Poultry Association began defining breeds in 1873 and publishing the definitions in the Standard of Perfection. These Standard breeds were well adapted to outdoor production in various climatic regions. They were hearty, long-lived, and reproductively vital birds that provided an important source of protein to the growing population of the country until the mid-20th century. With the industrialization of chickens many breeds were sidelined in preference for a few rapidly growing hybrids. The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy now lists over three-dozen breeds of chickens in danger of extinction. Extinction of a breed would mean the irrevocable loss of the genetic resources and options it embodies.

Therefore, to draw attention to these endangered breeds, to support their long-term conservation, to support efforts to recover these breeds to historic levels of productivity, and to re-introduce these culinary and cultural treasures to the marketplace, the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is defining Heritage Chicken. Chickens must meet all of the following criteria to be marketed as Heritage

http://www.albc-usa.org/heritagechicken/definition.html​

 

[fowlman01]

Yellowhouse
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.


A Orloff was in the APA SOP for a brief time......one edition to be exact. I can't find anyone that knows why it was taken out, so I don't know why people say it is because of lack of interest.....I can't find anyone who knows. And..... it was not a while back, it was a long time ago. In addition the Orloff that was in the SOP was not the Orloff people have today, it even had a different comb than what we see in Orloffs today. It is easy to get on a computer and make off the wall statements, but with that you need to do some research to make sure that what is said is in fact true..not something you read on BYC.

The SOP has some faults, but this is not one of them.

Walt Leonard
Chairman of the APA Standard Committee.

 

[mame1616]

Quote:
Amen!

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Hi Walt!

I think it wuld be safe to say that several breeds have changed over the years. By saying that the Orloffs are "different" one need to state how different they were. Your statement is very quick, it quickly passes over the fact that that they were accepted and were then withdrawn, whcih does not change that they were "in", and, if they were held up to the Standard requirements for entry in order to be entered, they had exhibited a fairly respectible modicum of breed stability at the point of entry.

Your statement, "it was not a while back, it was a long time ago" is one of opinion or rather the way one thinks historically.Insofar as I am trained in medieval literature, "a long time ago" may have different meaning for me.

You state, "I can't find anyone that knows why it was taken out, so I don't know why people say it is because of lack of interest.....I can't find anyone who knows" Well, there is the very real possibility that people say that it was because of lack of interest, because it was for lack of interest. Now, I have never read anything on the matter. I am, indeed, repeating here-say that I have heard from several poultry breeders who like to talk chicken history and try to understand why things came to be. Perhaps, they are wrong, perhaps I am wrong to listen to them, but the statement of your not know does not add or take away from their conjecture. I do not disrespect your conjecture; neither do I disrespect their conjecture.

Interestingly you write, "It is easy to get on a computer and make off the wall statements, but with that you need to do some research to make sure that what is said is in fact true..not something you read on BYC" This is an excellent use of a rhetorical tool called "Reductio ad absurdum", which more or less means making a quick and flippant comment to try to reduce one's interlocutor's statement to seem absurd. The only difficulty is that you have absolutely no idea how I research, you don't really know much about my abilities to use various research methodologies or much about my skills to read for meaning. Perhaps there is something that I have said that makes you think that I rely on BYC for the bulk of my information, but I politely suggest that you rethink that.

Apparently, you have different ideas about Orloffs than I do. It would be more interesting for us to try to crack the mystery than to play banter games. Nothing I said in the above statement was "off the wall." You may have different opinion, but difference of opinion does not reduce the other.

Thank you for you dedication to the APA by volunteering to serve on the Standards committee. As a member of the APA, and as one who serves, and who has served, on committees in many domains, I understand the dedication and sacrifice that entails. Serving on a committee, though, is a statement of service, not of rank.

Your opinion are lovely, and I thank you for them.

 

[Chris09]

Hi Yellow House Farm,
Are you referring to the Russian Orloff that was interned in the SoP under the breed name "Russians" or the true Orloff that was bred in Persia (Iran)?

Although they carry Orloff in there name and the Russian Orloff ("Russians") was bred from the Orloff they two very different breeds.
I would say as different as the Rhode Island Red and the New Hampshire.

Chris

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
Sorry Yellowhouse.

Edited to remove part that someone reminded me I would regret later. I'll still send you pictures.

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
Obviously not Yellowhouse, but I believe they're referring to whichever version was in the SoP.

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
Obviously not Yellowhouse, but I believe they're referring to whichever version was in the SoP.

LOL,
That was the Russian Orloff ("Russians") then and not the Orloff.
It was a Rose Comb fowl that was smaller and less "Malay like" than the Orloff breed from Persia (Iran).

Chris

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
Obviously not Yellowhouse, but I believe they're referring to whichever version was in the SoP.

The one that was in the Standard does not exist anymore as far as I know. Correct me yellowhouse if this is incorrect.

Walt

 

[WyandotteTX]

Walt,
I am going to say thank you for all of your input on this and other threads. I have been around long enough to know who you are and I respect a great deal of what you have to say.
How long have you been associated with the APA as a member, director, President, committee member? I am only going to guess and say that its probably approaching or has surpassed 40 years.....
Thank you for all of your hard work with the organization and I look forward to your posts to learn as much as possible from such a well respected member of the poultry world.
John