Definition of Heritage Breeds

[fowlman01]

Quote:
I would love to visit with you and have you show me your birds there.

Walt

 

[CharlieVoda]

Quote:
Have you created a Faverolle like this that meets the APA standard?

Good luck with the birds
Charlie

 

[punky rooster]

Just a thought but why don't we work on a heritage bantam definition?

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Quote:
Which again makes me ask the question: Why include the word "Slow" when we define how our "heritage" breed MUST grow? How do "slow" and "productive" not make an oxymoron? Kind of like a fast snail? or an efficient waster (I think I have some students who do this with their time)?

Wow this thread grew quickly! Catching up.....

I wonder if the word "slow" was used not so much to mean slow but to pitch them against the Cornish X. Is so, it creates a negative definition. The intent may have been to say something like "a natural or balanced rate of growth", which would read differently and seems both more pleasing and more desirable. The first juxtaposes the industrial hybrids and heritage fowl, but, if one doesn't even think about industrial hybrids, then one wouldn't talk about slow, one would talk about healthy.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Quote:
The APA is not determining this. Organizations like the ALBC, SPPA, and Heritage Poultry Conservancy are. And I'm not opposed to what they are doing, but we are debating their definitions.

Just as an aside, there is a lot of contention within the SPPA towards this definition. A lot of the more prominent members of the SPPA are not in agreement with the current idea of "heritage".

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Quote:
Hey Pyncheonguy, the ALBC, Heritage Poultry Conservancy and, I believe, Frank Reese, with perhaps an independent poultry PH or two, got together and put up this possibility for heritage poultry. You are correct in reading that APA-inclusion is stipulation #1, and by early 1950's. On the one hand, this encompassses almost every single breed of traditional fowl; on the other hand, it leaves a very few out in the lurch: Marans, Pyncheons, Ameraucanas, Orloffs, etc... It seems like it wouldn't be a hard think to tweek matters to include these worthy fowl, but some people get a bit militant about things. There is "the Spirit of the Law" versus "the letter of the Law".

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Quote:
Punky, I saw Buckeye bantams in the new Sand Hill catalogue that he seems to think are of nice quality. I thought of you. Good luck!

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Punky, I saw Buckeye bantams in the new Sand Hill catalogue that he seems to think are of nice quality. I thought of you. Good luck!

Thanks, I am going with Urch to start with then I will have to check them out! they may just be from urch tho

 

[Robert Blosl]

I see there is a new thread that wants to know what Heritage means.

When I started the Official Heritage Large Fowl Thread a few months ago I used this word to try to attrack some people to the thread that where rasing commerical poultry and just wanted to show them the difference between Standard Breed Poultry and the feed store breeds.

It worked but I saw few people more interested in what breeds should be on the list than worry about what condition the breed is in right now.

I had a person ask me today what breed they should add to thier line of large fowl. They had room for either Partridge or Barred Plymouth Rocks but would like to help a breed that is in danger to help breed up from the bottom of the list to a more poplular breed.

Also, I remeinded the person that there is a new Color Pattern in need of help and that is the Columbian Plymouth Rock large fowl.

With I know about this person being a excellent chicken raiser I would love to have her help out the Colubian Plymouth Rock Project from Cananda.

Of these two color patterns in Partridge and Columbian there are only about 75 birds alive that I would consider fit to breed from by only two or three breeders in the USA. There are I think about two breeders in Canada.

These are Heritage breeds I think of and are on no lists other than mine in my head and my friend Charlie Voda in Minn.

There are two breeds that was mentioned White Wyandottes and Anaconas. These two breeds are Heritage and rare as can be today. White Wyandottes use to be up there with the White Rocks at the shows but are not very popular anymore.

What is the defination. They are the birds that where raised in the 1920s to say 1950s by so many breeders. They dont have to be on any list.

I do think that the numbers of birds per breed are way off. Chickens from sources other than breeders dont count in my book. They may say there are 500 Partridge or Columbian Rocks in the USA today. When I know 400 of these birds could not score 88 points out of a hundered if we judged them using the old fashion scoring method. When people send me pictures of these birds it just makes me sick. They are out right culls. They are so washed out in color and so poor in type it looks like a poor dog at the pound that is part Lab and part Shepard. He is not one or the other.

Well thats my take.

I hope you just find a breed and try to breed it up get help from a good Poutlry Judge and others in the hobby. Become a student of the breed or color pattern like Kathy is dong and work towards improvement. The lists and the breeds on the list does not mean a thing to me anymore.

bob

 

[fowlman01]

RE: Bob's post

It worked but I saw few people more interested in what breeds should be on the list than worry about what condition the breed is in right now.


This is one of the things that comes from assigning a label to something. People will lose sight of the original intent and all of a sudden it becomes a competition to be sure their breed/variety is included. I think the "idea" of heritage poultry is an excellent one, as it has generated a lot of interest in poultry in general. The ALBC had to start somewhere and I can understand that. Bob's idea that it is more important to preserve the birds rather than to argue about what they should be named is something to think about. There are breeds I think should be included that are not, but I agree with Bob....don't lose sight of what is really important here. I am a big picture guy and not a detail guy, so maybe it is just the way I think. There is another thread on BYC that has already come up with alternatives to "heritage". The ALBC has their definition, so more than likely changing things might be an uphill battle. I have no investment in what the ALBC does and I don't even belong to that club. Not for any reason other than I have never got around to joining. Just making that clear.

Keep raising these rare and endangered birds and keep that as your priority.

Walt