Heritage RIR vs production RIR

[ginbart]

I may as well put my two cents in. I have both heritage and production. Here they are. Can you see the difference between the one on the left and the other two? I put all three in the Bloomsburg fair the one on the left was the wrong color. The roo in the middle won first and the hen on the right won first. But since I put them in the fair they came back sick and have not layed an egg in all most 2 months.

I got the one on the left from eBay and the other 2 off of someone on here. Thank you by the way William.

If you don't want to show them and you only want eggs they will lay for you so don't worry what you have as long as you enjoy them.

 

[spartacus_63]

I stand by my opinion that a breed is a breed. I have already stipulated that not all of a breed fit into the "Standard of Perfection" that a show bird is judged on. Because a RIR is not as dark as the judge would like it does not disqualify it from being a RIR. It just means it does not fit the APA's American Standard for Perfection. The RIR is the most popular dual purpose chicken in America. They are a dual purpose breed, as they were intended. They were bred to be hardy, consistent egg layers with sufficient size to suit the table. Color was of little consequence except for the Roos. Red was the dominant choice due to the vigor of those roosters. The breed was developed in the NE as far back as the 1840s. The APA did not recognize the breed until (as far as I can tell) 1904. The common desire to have a breed recognized by the APA or any other breeding association, in the last century was to increase marketability. Some say that breeders not true to the RIR brotherhood crossed their birds to increase egg production. Of course there is no evidence to support that other than tales of the breeders that lost market share because their birds were not keeping up in the egg production arena. Could it possibly be that breeders that were intent on filling a void in the market bred within the breed selectively to increase egg production. The so called Production Reds beat out the "Heritage" line in a Review of Poultry contest with strict breed rules and official judges. Are we to believe that the judges had it out for the Heritage line or that they allowed cross bred birds into the Review? Money was the motivator for breeders then as now. One of the primary breeders of the RIRs, Kenneth Bowles, also developed the NH Reds. What was his motivation? Some say to capitalize on the popularity of the RIR. BTW, he sold several truck loads of NHR chicks.

A lot of the so called heritage breeds are considered rare or otherwise endangered by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy because there are fewer and fewer of "heritage" birds. In the poultry arena, specifically chickens, most of the breeds are only short in the "show" birds not the breed. All breed standards are man made (and in the case of RIRs, it is said to be six men in a tavern) and in some species, they have even changed over the years to keep up with what is popular or best for the breed. The common thread for chickens and the rareness of specific breeds is that the heritage breeds were not able to keep up with demand of the keepers. There is less desire for a pretty bird vs one that can produce more eggs.

Another item to keep in mind is that the RIR breed has only been a recognized breed (by the APA) for a little more than 100 years. It has been a breed declining in "show" quality birds for more than 60 of those years. The entire RIR breed was devised from cross breeding several other breeds, which is how ALL American breeds came to be. I believe that it only takes five generations of out breeding to get any American breed back to the original Jungle Fowl. If that is in fact true, is it not reasonable to believe that selectively breeding within the breed would allow for great variation in size and color over a very short span of time?

I have nothing against "show" quality birds or preserving heritage lines or the folks that take pride in raising them. I admire their discipline and dedication. To tell me that my birds are not REALLY RIRs makes for a silly argument. It is like saying that the birds in Rhodes Island and Massachusetts in the 1850s were not REALLY RIRs, that Mr. Jenny's birds of the 1880s were not truly RIRs

I selectively breed my chickens for my own purposes. I wanted hens that are more broody because I only use bio-bators. So I breed my broodiest hens selectively in the hope of producing a broodier set of RIRs I also want to increase the overall size of the birds in my flock so I breed the largest hens selectively. I doubt that the overall shade will darken much, but they are still RIR chickens.

Now for one last item; how did we manage to come up with RIR with rose combs? Were these birds cross bred, or selectively bred? Or was it a combination of the two? If they were cross bred why do we call them RI anything? If they were selectively bred, how is it that somewhere along the line they assumed a previous comb. Could it be a recessive gene in there somewhere?

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
The Red (Rhode Island Red) was still in development in the 1840's. (Not developed).
It wasn't till the 1846-1850 when different Asiatic breeds were introduced in to the U.S. and Captain Richard Wheatland didn't import into the U.S. the Malay till around 1846. (All key breeds in the, "making" of the Rhode Island Red)

The other thing that you have to remember is that the, "first" (Pre-entry into the standard) Rhode Island Red was most likely a Pea and/ or Rose Comb breed do to the heavy use of Asiatic breeds and
the, "Red" (more of a Yellow /Gold) Fowl that predating the Rhode Island Red in that area was most likely a Red Gamefowl type breed.

Chris

 

[greathorse]

Quote:
Quite a long post which misses the point of the OP. The first question was "Is this a Heritage Rhode Island Red. Several indicated that in fact the bird in question was not close to a heritage/exhibition REd. The OP did rather persist in not seeing the differnece in the bird in the photo and the photos of some birds that came much closer to meeting the standard of perfection. So in my mind the answer really remains the same.

 

[McSpin]

Quote:
I guess we all read questions differently. Here is the exact question in the OP. "I found out today that my RIR's are heritage. What's the difference?" It appears that Spartacus made a good attempt to give his opinion on the difference.

The OP is stating that his are Heritage birds, not saying they are the best examples or that they are suitable for winning in exhibition. It seems to me that many are trying to prove that they are not heritage - hard to do without the bird in hand and knowing the lineage - also not what the OP was looking for.

 

[spartacus_63]

Thanks Chris for clarifying my sloppy writing. My point in that statement was that the folks in RI & MA were calling their birds RIRs before the APA recognized the breed and even before the 6 poultry men met in the tavern on a stormy night to establish the desire breeding and production standards. As to the comb style, my point was that in breeding it is not uncommon for recessive or recessed genes to come out in distant descendants. It was to show that even though some RIRs are lighter in color than others, it is not evidence that they have been cross bred with other breeds.

To greathorse, my post was not in response to the OP. It was rather in response to the posts that stated as fact that the birds in question were not RIRs, but rather they were "production" reds. This is factually inaccurate. There is no recognized breed of chicken known as "Production" Red. There is also no recognized breed known as Heritage Reds.
Without knowledge of linage, one can not make a factual statement in regard to breed. One with sufficient knowledge can opine as to true to type traits or the lack there of.

 

[Chris09]

Quote:

My point in that statement was that the folks in RI & MA were calling their birds RIRs

Back Pre-admittance to the SOP they called the, "Breed" that they were working on a Red. It wasn't till admittance into the APA/SOP that the breed picked up the name Rhode Island Red. Infant some breeder still refer to them as Red's.

I know that recessive or recessed genes can come out in distant descendants that is why in the Standard it states that if a bird has one or more entirely white feathers showing in the outer plumage it is a DQ. The breed was Columbian patterned [like a light Brahma] they just replaced the White with Red and took most of the Black out of the hackles of the hens. [the pattern in now known as a Columbian Red]

Yes in poor breeding or the interdiction of another breed the coloring could lighten BUT when the OP says, "I found out today that my RIR's are heritage." you must take in consideration the term, "heritage" and since the ALBC has the term, "heritage" cornered we must use there definition of a, "heritage" chicken. In there definition it states
Quote:
With that definition the OP's bird is not a Heritage Rhode Island Red because it doesn't meet the Standard nor would I say its parents did. So I would say that his bird was not bred to the Standard.

Chris​

 

[spartacus_63]

Chris, since neither of us were there, I can only go off history. The RIR birds were being developed for a specific purpose regionally. Subsequently, due to the success of the desired results the bird became popular outside of the region. Some smart breeders capitalized on the popularity and marketed the bird and refining to the desired market. To market these birds they would have to be set apart from other similar birds. "You want the RIR because it is the best egg laying meat bird" or some such advertisement. Maybe they didn't call the RIR in 1840 or 50, but at some point that name was added and it stuck. I was not there, I can only surmise.

Isaac C. Wilbur gave the breed their name (Rhode Island Red) in the late 1880s. And Mr. Jenny was the first at the Southern Massachusetts Poultry Association show to exhibit them in or around 1880. This is some 20 sum years prior to the APA recognizing the breed as far as I can determine.

Once again I will state, I NEVER said the the OP's bird was a heritage bird. I replied to a comment that was in my opinion factually inaccurate. The term as coined by the ABLC is for a specific purpose. There is NO breed recognized by the APA that carries the name Heritage. The ALBC uses the term Heritage for marketing. It is a way for breeders to narrow their pool of prospective birds, to fine tune the breeding lines for a specific purpose. Whether this is a way to ensure genetic diversity in poultry or to more closely control the breeding for true to type birds is unknown to me.

I find it very interesting that poultry folks will so readily discount a bird as some kind of mutt just because of a lighter shade. I have been breeding animals on & off for most of my life and I have never encountered this in any other species. I have know many a hound that didn't look much like it's breed standard, but it had a traceable linage. It definitely wasn't an indication of it's ability to hunt. I have also dealt with cattle, pigs and sheep. None of these arenas tell you you animal is not a whatever because it is the wrong shade. Especially when you are not breeding for show.

I would put to you that if you breed your flock to a specific desired result such as egg production, meat density or broodiness vs standard type, your offspring could vary away from the standard body type or color. It would not mean that you changed breeds, just that you had a desired result other than the standard type. That has been the center of my discussion from the beginning.

 

[Chris09]

Quote:

Isaac C. Wilbur gave the breed their name (Rhode Island Red) in the late 1880s

Would you like to post where you got this information from? I'm sure some Red breeders would like to read it considering that News Letter put out by the club is still/ was called the, "The Red Club Chronicle" and not the Rhode Island Red Club Chronicle.

I NEVER said the the OP's bird was a heritage bird

No the OP did.

There is NO breed recognized by the APA that carries the name Heritage

I know there is no breed that carries that name BUT the term has been used on this site to describe a breed that has been bred to Standard [ASOP]. Not a correct term but it is used here on BYC.

Chris​

 

[spartacus_63]

Would you like to post where you got this information from? I'm sure some Red breeders would like to read it considering that News Letter put out by the club is still/ was called the, "The Red Club Chronicle" and not the Rhode Island Red Club Chronicle.

I got this information from one of the RIRCA Hall of Fame members who I am sure has written articles published in their quarterly, The Rhode Island Red Chronicle

I know there is no breed that carries that name BUT the term has been used on this site to describe a breed that has been bred to Standard [ASOP]. Not a correct term but it is used here.

It is true that many incorrect or non standard terms and abbreviations are used here on this site, as is common with most forms of informal correspondence. That said, it does not then make it actual or factual and should not be used as a proper term unless it is understood by all parties. That practice leads to misunderstanding.​