Definition of Heritage Breeds

[saladin]

Quote:
Let me give a couple of examples using my own questions.
We'll take 2 different breeds as examples: Games and Asil.

Asil
1. Accepted into the Standard in the 1980s.
2. Oldest documented breed in the world: over 3,500 years old.
3. First appeared in the United States no later than 1820; thus, it was in America and used by Americans before any American breed except perhaps the Dominique.
4. The breed was created for one purpose: to fight.

The Asil is the forerunner of the Cornish and other meat birds. Thus, the entire poultry industry as it exist today (meat that is) owes it's existence to this breed.

Game
1. Accepted by the APA as the Old English Game.
2. After the Spanish White face and the Dorking is the oldest documented breed in America.
3. First appeared with English and Spanish colonists. (Various names: English, Irish, Spanish)
4. The breed was created for one purpose: to fight.

It is believed that all the Mediteranean breeds are derived from the Game and were selected for egg laying instead of fighting.

Neither of these Ancient breeds of fowl meets the criteria of Heritage as given by the ALBC because they were not farm breeds and thus are not applicable to the ALBC.

How can birds that existed in America before the American class not be 'Heritage?' That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Let me give a couple of examples using my own questions.
We'll take 2 different breeds as examples: Games and Asil.

Asil
1. Accepted into the Standard in the 1980s.
2. Oldest documented breed in the world: over 3,500 years old.
3. First appeared in the United States no later than 1820; thus, it was in America and used by Americans before any American breed except perhaps the Dominique.
4. The breed was created for one purpose: to fight.

The Asil is the forerunner of the Cornish and other meat birds. Thus, the entire poultry industry as it exist today (meat that is) owes it's existence to this breed.

Game
1. Accepted by the APA as the Old English Game.
2. After the Spanish White face and the Dorking is the oldest documented breed in America.
3. First appeared with English and Spanish colonists. (Various names: English, Irish, Spanish)
4. The breed was created for one purpose: to fight.

It is believed that all the Mediteranean breeds are derived from the Game and were selected for egg laying instead of fighting.

Neither of these Ancient breeds of fowl meets the criteria of Heritage as given by the ALBC because they were not farm breeds and thus are not applicable to the ALBC.

How can birds that existed in America before the American class not be 'Heritage?' That doesn't make sense to me.

You bring great points and you are correct. That is the purpose of the American breeds to be all purpose farm breeds. Thats how they define heritage in a way. Maybe a division on heritage breeds?

 

[punky rooster]

Maybe heritage poultry should have Divisions? like football for example but by history and purpose

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
That about sums it up for me too, except that I would leave out the words "in America"maybe change that to something like "breeds that existed before America".

 

[spartacus_63]

I am going to go out on a limb here. The disagreements over the term Heritage all converge on the purpose or intent of the term. I agree that had their been more consultation between poultry groups, there would have been a better definition that more would support. That, in my opinion, is what is happening in this thread and is probably why it didn't happen in reality. There seems to be a turf war over the use of the term when the term has no real meaning in raising or marketing poultry outside of any group. The APA regulates nothing outside of the show ring, the ALBC regulates nothing outside of it's membership and the SPPA regulates nothing.

Some want a moniker to mean something, to add value to their favorite breed or to garner attention to so called endangered breeds or even to poultry as a whole. Some want it to mean something to their specific accomplishments. To me these are all irrelevant to poultry or the genetic preservation of poultry. For Heritage as a sub division of poultry to mean anything, it must have a purpose. If as Punky has repeatedly posted, it is to be the SPPA or ALBC's purpose, then their application must conform to their purpose. If it is to attract attention and encourage enthusiasts to raise and improve old breeds then these lists need to be all inclusive for genetic purposes. Education and standardization of terms would clear up a lot of confusion, ie; does Standard Bred mean Pure Bred as it once did or does it now mean breeding according to a club standard. As long as we have different groups working independent of each other towards differing goals, the term will continue to mean nothing or at a minimum different things to different groups, and the debate will continue ad nauseum.

I have my beliefs and they are mine, derived from my experience in breeding and raising animals. My application of the term Heritage would revolve around the purpose of genetic preservation and diversity. In my line of thinking, anytime you breed within a breed and you select for a purpose original to the breed, you are potentially improving the breed. You are definitely improving the gene pool. I also believe that breeding to artificial standards that have little to do with the purpose of the breed does not improve the breed nor the gene pool and IMO reduces the diversity of the gene pool when culled specifically for a non purpose trait.

It would be nice if we could come to a consensus, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:

 

[spartacus_63]

It holds them to what they were made to look like and production depends on how you breed them

Everything depends on how you breed them. You are exactly right, in my opinion when you say:

It holds them to what they were made to look like

But what they look like does not necessarily "improve" or even maintain the breed other than for aesthetics. Also if you are breeding for color, you could be reducing the genetic pool which could ultimately affect production. This is a common belief, that breeding for the show ring has hurt production potential in some breeds.

I guess if you want to maintain the genetics for admiring poultry, that would be a good thing. If you want to preserve the genetic heritage of a breed to continue it's original purpose you must consider what effects your breeding program has on the breed as a whole, not just a specific purpose. For example, if the purpose of a breed was to be a dual purpose, hardy, vigorous breed, and your breeding program affected it's vigor or hardiness, it could (should) be said that you are diminishing the breed for purpose.

The New Hampshire came to be through a change of purpose from a dual purpose with emphasis on egg production to a dual purpose with emphasis on meat. Both breeds are decent egg layers and decent meat producers with both having an edge in their emphasis.

There are still similarities between NH & RIR but neither could compete in the other's class in the show ring and both have the same origin. This example shows the power of selective breeding when concentrated on one trait in the overall purpose.​

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Everything depends on how you breed them. You are exactly right, in my opinion when you say:

It holds them to what they were made to look like

But what they look like does not necessarily "improve" or even maintain the breed other than for aesthetics. Also if you are breeding for color, you could be reducing the genetic pool which could ultimately affect production. This is a common belief, that breeding for the show ring has hurt production potential in some breeds.

I guess if you want to maintain the genetics for admiring poultry, that would be a good thing. If you want to preserve the genetic heritage of a breed to continue it's original purpose you must consider what effects your breeding program has on the breed as a whole, not just a specific purpose. For example, if the purpose of a breed was to be a dual purpose, hardy, vigorous breed, and your breeding program affected it's vigor or hardiness, it could (should) be said that you are diminishing the breed for purpose.

The New Hampshire came to be through a change of purpose from a dual purpose with emphasis on egg production to a dual purpose with emphasis on meat. Both breeds are decent egg layers and decent meat producers with both having an edge in their emphasis.

There are still similarities between NH & RIR but neither could compete in the other's class in the show ring and both have the same origin. This example shows the power of selective breeding when concentrated on one trait in the overall purpose.​

do not breed from anything sicky looking a rule of breeding
to change the look would also change the breed correct?

 

[saladin]

Quote:
It's not about breath-holding. It's about being willing to enter the conversation with the intent of being helpful, as I see it.

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
Everything depends on how you breed them. You are exactly right, in my opinion when you say:

It holds them to what they were made to look like

But what they look like does not necessarily "improve" or even maintain the breed other than for aesthetics. Also if you are breeding for color, you could be reducing the genetic pool which could ultimately affect production. This is a common belief, that breeding for the show ring has hurt production potential in some breeds.

I guess if you want to maintain the genetics for admiring poultry, that would be a good thing. If you want to preserve the genetic heritage of a breed to continue it's original purpose you must consider what effects your breeding program has on the breed as a whole, not just a specific purpose. For example, if the purpose of a breed was to be a dual purpose, hardy, vigorous breed, and your breeding program affected it's vigor or hardiness, it could (should) be said that you are diminishing the breed for purpose.

The New Hampshire came to be through a change of purpose from a dual purpose with emphasis on egg production to a dual purpose with emphasis on meat. Both breeds are decent egg layers and decent meat producers with both having an edge in their emphasis.

There are still similarities between NH & RIR but neither could compete in the other's class in the show ring and both have the same origin. This example shows the power of selective breeding when concentrated on one trait in the overall purpose.​

do not breed from anything sicky looking a rule of breeding
to change the look would also change the breed correct?

??? is there something missing from your post?