Let's talk Heritage Breeds

[warmfuzzies]

My goal in rasing the quality of heritage breeds is not to go toward the standard. (though there is nothing at all wrong with that) I really want to raise the quality of the birds as far as there usefullness. A lot of the breeds seen to have lost some of the traits that they were bred for.

Like rir, rocks, etc. They are still good birds, but factory production has focused on quantity. I also am working on Partridge Rocks. I will be culling any birds that are weak, not aggressive foragers, dont tolerate extreme temps, and off course, birds that are not good layers of nice eggs.

I will be looking specifically for broody traits, large eggs, (Which my birds do not have right now) and the ability to watch out for themselves on pasture.

I am just starting out on this adventure, but I am very excited to be working toward bettering my flock.

 

[heritagebirds]

When I bought my incubator/hatcher setup, I received a book with it written by (I believe) Janet Stromberg. At the back of the book I saw an ad for the SPPA(Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities). I became a member and through them found out about breeds like Javas, Araucanas, Dorkings, Buckeyes, and others that I wish I could have. There is a great network of people that are working to maintain the genetic diversity that these breeds provide.

 

[Mrs MIA]

I think with #2 they're talking about birds like the broad breasted bronze turkeys. They've been bred for their immense size to the point where the males literally cannot mate with the hens because their breasts get in the way. I could be wrong, but when I read that, that's what came to mind.

 

[cgmccary]

But if the line had the ability to reproduce naturally, there would be no way of proving certain chickens may or may not have been bred by AI???

What I mean is, if someone cheated how would anyone know?

They wouldn't know. Honestly, who among us, wants to go through the hassle of AI? I wouldn't know how anyway.

I think with #2 they're talking about birds like the broad breasted bronze turkeys. They've been bred for their immense size to the point where the males literally cannot mate with the hens because their breasts get in the way.

yeah, I think you are right. #2 is just to make sure a breed doesn't go that way and still get considered a "heritage breed."​

 

[pocopoyo]

Quote:
Why wouldn't you use the standard? If you are going to raise Plymouth Rocks or Rhode Island Reds you need the standard as a guideline on what to select for. If you don't breed toward a standard, you might as well just breed mutts. The standard has a nice section in the front that tells how to select birds for production qualities. The Standard of Perfection is used primarily now by the exhibition breeders, but when it was first developed, it was meant to be used by farmers as a guide to improve production qualities of their farm flocks.

 

[cybercat]

Pocopoyo,

One keeps standard in mind but to work only on the standard causes problems most show lines have now. Low fertilty, not laying that many eggs in a year or low hatching of eggs. Chickens that get sick more than they should ect.

Working on standarizing a line means making culls that will effect these things since beauty is paramont and usefullness is not. Those of us on small or large farms Need chickens that are usefull but not supermodels. We can not afford to not have chickens that are not laying or get sick all the time. These birds are out in all weather and must be able to take it. In the case of those of us that free range birds must be able to defend themseves also.

So all that said we select for traits we need more than just SOP. We will keep the SOP in mind but will not adhear to it only. For those of us breeding Plymouth Rocks we are lucky in that we have the Old SOP to go by.

To give you an idea how how selection changes from a farm breeder to a show breeder.
First culls will be done by a farmer any chicken not laying consitant. First culls by a show breeder any bird whos color is off or feathering is not right. So you can see how this would change things as following the SOP. Both parties would put the others first priority way down on there list of things to cull for since they are striving for too totally different things. As a result you will have chickens called the same breed but will not closely resemble each other due to direction of need and culling. Or as many say you have the working chickens and the show chickens, same breed but differnt purpose.

 

[saladin]

Each group has a right to create their own definition of "heritage" though it can really get confusing. That also means that anyone else has a right to disagree with that definition.

I take exception with the ALBC's definition. Basically, they have made the APA Standard the arbiter of what is a heritage breed. I'm an APA member and even I think that is absolutely absurd.

Let's take the Nankin for example. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest true bantam breed in the world but because it is not in the APA Standard it would not qualify to be considered "Heritage."

 

[saladin]

The ALBC listing is primarily based on hatcheries and not on individual breeders. However, to their credit they started sending out questionaries to individual breeder several years ago. Don Schrider implemented that; I can only hope that will continue.

 

[warmfuzzies]

Quote:
Why wouldn't you use the standard? If you are going to raise Plymouth Rocks or Rhode Island Reds you need the standard as a guideline on what to select for. If you don't breed toward a standard, you might as well just breed mutts. The standard has a nice section in the front that tells how to select birds for production qualities. The Standard of Perfection is used primarily now by the exhibition breeders, but when it was first developed, it was meant to be used by farmers as a guide to improve production qualities of their farm flocks.

I am actually thinking about adding some mutts into my Cochin line. My first goal for them is broodyness, and I am going to save any pullets form my broody hen, whether they are crossed with Partridge rock or not. I may end up with a new breed, but it will be what I want.

I read the article about 'Boxwood Broodies', and I really want to reach toward certain goals with my chickens, that have nothign to do with the standard, or even the breed. Mutts is great for me!

But I think it is great that people are breeding toward the standards, it is just not for me. Like the difference between working GSDs and show GSDs. I was talking to a police dog breeder for awhile, and he said he has NEVER found a GSD in show lines that could stand up to the rigours of his training. He got his dogs from Chechoslovakia, and I know that is not spelled right. Anyway, this is getting long, but I see it as the same. He couldnt care less what those dogs looked like, except for having proper coat for the weather, and being the right size.

I was looking into breeding working GSDs, but now I am going to breed working chickens instead. Much cheaper, I can eat my mistakes!!

 

[cgmccary]

WarmFuzzies: . . . My first goal for them is broodiness. . . Mutts is great for me!
. . . I was looking into breeding working GSDs, but now I am going to breed working chickens instead. Much cheaper, I can eat my mistakes!!

Good Luck to You! I know what you mean by wanting broodiness; it is missing from many of the Heritage breeds that are supposed to be broody. My Buckeyes from last year are some of the broodiest I have seen. One pullet went broody at about 7 months old. However, this year (because of my set-up), I can't let them all brood a clutch and it is a little frustrating breaking-up 3 or 4 at a time, but it is certainly rewarding observing and having a hen do all the caring for chicks & work involved. I may let the hens do all of the work next year!

The mutts are probably the healthiest anyway. I sometimes vacation on Kauai (Hawaii) and took these pictures of feral chickens there (mutts!):