Definition of Heritage Breeds

[spartacus_63]

to change the look would also change the breed correct?

Since "Breed" is determined by man and is only conformed by man, that would be up to which ever group you ascribe to. In some circumstances a change such as the NH is considered a new breed, in others it would be simply a different variety, or maybe even poor breeding, such as in "Production" Reds. This is true even if standard bred stock is used exclusively.​

 

[spartacus_63]

It is true that each group has it's own purposes. However, there can be and should be agreement where the three meet. The APA officers and SPPA officers have been working tirelessly for years to promote poultry with no profit in it for themselves.

You will get no argument from me in this regard although if they could agree, they would.

Standard Bred means what it always has meant: Breeding to the Standard.

Again, I will agree, although to whose Standard. I do not believe that the APA owns the Standard on breeding poultry. So if the group I belong to has it's own standard, and I breed accordingly, I would be accurate when saying my birds are Standard Bred. Although you belong to a different club with different standards and hence would be mislead by my statement.

The APA Standard was originally written by folks who new what the breed(s) were supposed to be. I see nothing artifical about that. Of course, someone can major on feathers if they like, but then they are not following the Standard. In the Standard, Type always comes before color and these actually follow vigour and vitality!

No arguments here either. Originally the APA took production into consideration when judging fowl. Now there won't even be a scale found at a show and egg production does not come into play. Since most show birds are coddled and primped, their vigor nor vitality can only be judge by temperament at the show. Enough on this rant. My opinions regarding show priorities is for another day.

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.

This is an open end vague statement. I'm uncertain if you are addressing me, or explaining your comments.​

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Since "Breed" is determined by man and is only conformed by man, that would be up to which ever group you ascribe to. In some circumstances a change such as the NH is considered a new breed, in others it would be simply a different variety, or maybe even poor breeding, such as in "Production" Reds. This is true even if standard bred stock is used exclusively.

The NH is a now a much different breed then the RIR to be a new variety they must have the same shape and weight and/or comb

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
Again, I will agree, although to whose Standard. I do not believe that the APA owns the Standard on breeding poultry.ONLY IF YOU WANT TO RAISE TRUE TO TYPE PURE BRED POULTRY THEN THEY DO So if the group I belong to has it's own standard, and I breed accordingly, I would be accurate when saying my birds are Standard Bred. Although you belong to a different club with different standards and hence would be mislead by my statement.

If you want to save a breed then I believe you must breed them to the SoP

 

[spartacus_63]

The NH is a now a much different breed then the RIR to be a new variety they must have the same shape and weight and/or comb wink

You have missed the point.

ONLY IF YOU WANT TO RAISE TRUE TO TYPE PURE BRED POULTRY THEN THEY DO

First, the SOP has no impact on pure bred. Second, type is only one characteristic, although IMO it has more influence on longevity than say color. Chickens can be and are bred true to type without being pure bred. Finally, flocks are bred and are productive and profitable by breeders/poultrymen that have never so much as lifted an SOP. An SOP is crucial if your intent is to show your birds at an APA show. If you are aware of the characteristic which are essential for the development of your flock with your goals, an SOP is no more than a reference.

This thread is getting WAY off the OP. I will try to limit my responses to the original question hence forth.​

 

[fowlman01]

Quote:
Since "Breed" is determined by man and is only conformed by man, that would be up to which ever group you ascribe to. In some circumstances a change such as the NH is considered a new breed, in others it would be simply a different variety, or maybe even poor breeding, such as in "Production" Reds. This is true even if standard bred stock is used exclusively.

The NH is a now a much different breed then the RIR to be a new variety they must have the same shape and weight and/or comb

RIR and NH's have very different shapes and colors.

Walt

 

[punky rooster]

Quote:
The NH is a now a much different breed then the RIR to be a new variety they must have the same shape and weight and/or comb

RIR and NH's have very different shapes and colors.

Walt

Yes I know that was my point.

This will be my final statement about this:
You do not have to sacrifice production to breed to the standard, breeding to the standard helps the breed a lot. Hatchery birds are let's face it bred mostly for egg laying ( exept Cornish X ) and that's about it. Thats fine but how does that help the breed from extinction? The hatchery birds most of them at least don't look like the pictures from the 20s and 30s what does hmm Maybe breeders birds that have been bred to the same standard from then and they still are now. These are the real old time birds. And do you really think that many people would breed these birds if they did not produce?
Good luck with your production type reds Sparticus!
Punky
I am done with this argument

“The best way to save these historic breeds is to return
them to our dinner tables” – Frank Reese

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Sparticus, some nice comments. Have you ever read Wendell Berry?

Speaking of Wendell Berry, my mind goes to his discourse on breeding farm animals in accord with one's land, environment, purpose, etc... In short, Mr. Berry recognizes the practices that lead to land-race breeding. More than a small argument could be made that a farmer's true Standard should be that of his/her land, the stock there on, and how it grows there.

The difficulty with much of this discourse is that it is rather subjective, or "in the eye of the beholder." Those who cleave to breed definition as that defined by type as found in the Standard might put forth that the RIR and NH(Red) are very different breeds. I guess I would not make that assertion.

Old-timer NH farmers call NH's "NHReds", regardless of what the Standard has to say about that and they're their chickens; so, I'm certainly not going to correct them for calling their chickens what they want to. In a process that lasted 15-ish years, more or less, original RIR stock was transformed into NHR stock by NH farmers in cooperation with UNH and the extension service to emphasize what were perceived to be better meat qualities. The current NH Commissioner of Ag still speaks with reverence when she refers to the importance of fowl genetics in NH Ag. I have never heard or read any mention of outcrossing; thus the blood was/is a direct line. Now an Ancona, well, in my opinion, this constitutes a very different breed. The type and shape of the RIR and the NH may be different, and the color may be diverse, but considering the whole heritage of the two breeds--they're both fairly new in the annals of poultry; the latter is extracted uniquely from the former; all of this was happeneing when my grandmother was still a girl, which might seem old, but really isn't historically thinking; they have different primary focuses but do not differ all that much on either level compared to a Cochin-Leghorn comparison, they're not all that very different. In fact, they could very well be the most intricately intertwined/closely related Standard-bred poultry in recent history.


I guess what's ultimately sad is that the Devil apparently is in the details. All of this worry about little details divides us from the reality that it's all really about the chickens. We could be much more productive in the support of our breeds by finding the ties that bind.

 

[centrarchid]

Looks as if a breed is to be conserved both production characteristics and SOP need to be considered. Failure to consider production and eventually you will a breed that only looks like the original but is not. Failure to follow SOP and and eventually you will have breed that produces like original and can very quickly begin looking like a breed that is not the original.

Why have all the different appearances of breeds been developed? In my way of thinking, many of the variations we see that help define a breed do not seem to promote any production value (more eggs, bigger eggs, better conversion of feed to meat, etc.). Within a given breed as they exist today, individuals look so much alike but what other than the breeders selection efforts maintains such uniformity and keeps various breeds different. I like to think the differences we try to maintain actually protect the breeds production value into the future but are we actually doing that?

 

[CharlieVoda]

Maybe we should change Heritage to utility or farmyard.

Good luck with the birds
Charlie