List of oldest U.S. chicken breeds. Is it correct?

[Bullitt]

RIR color has changed in the SOP as well and color plates from around 1915 show a buff colored RIR.

My five old SOPs are 1910, 1915, 1923, 1938 and 1942 and the color of the RIR in all was "rich red" or "brilliant, rich red" in those years. My next SOP, the 1974 100th Anniversary edition had the RIR a "lustrous, rich, dark red." At some point between 1942 and 1974, the red was changed to "dark red" in the SOP.

Color names are subjective. People can interpret "rich red" in different ways. But when it is changed to "lustrous, rich, dark red" the standard has clearly been changed.

It s strange to me that the standard of perfection would be changed like that. I am guessing many breeders interpreted "rich red" as a darker red until they pushed for a change in the standard of perfection to explicitly state "dark red." We can see here how over time a color shade can change and then the written standard change to reflect that physical change. Maybe that is less common today since color photography and video are used. But I suspect Rhode Island Reds have gotten even darker because breeders are reading that "dark red" standard. They seem to be trying to make them as dark as they can.

My eyes have really been opened by this and I see how much BS is involved with this "heritage" stuff. It is interesting how people have fooled themselves into believing that brown is the way Rhode Island Reds looked when the breed was accepted by the APA in 1904.

For me, I am sticking with the old color of Rhode Island Red that is actually red and not this "heritage" Rhode Island Red that is brown.

Maybe people from the Heritage Rhode Island Red thread will read this and pass it on. I would post it there, but I don't feel like stirring up a hornets' nest.



By the way, what is the argument about Metcalf and Buckeyes? What is the point of disagreement about what she observed? Maybe I missed something.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

My point was if you have no practical experience breeding poultry for production then it is hard to take your argument seriously.

I agree and have always dismissed the notion that type is everything concerning laying genetics. That is something we can agree on. BUT. If you take some time to handle the hybrids out there, you will find a very strong tendency towards a particular type. You cannot just look at them. You have to handle them.
What you do not feel is just as important. There is no extra flesh and for a bird that is strictly a layer that is more efficient. There certainly is not any excessive feather.

What is better is to dress them. Just compare white egg layers to white egg layers and brown to brown. I think you will be surprised how similar their type is.

Seriously. Start seriously investigating by handling all of the different brown egg hybrid layers and you will see a very familiar tendency. I know because I have. I have had them all. And I like them. I am not against them. The accomplishments made in this dept, is impressive.

Production genetics fascinate me more than color genetics. There is a lot we could agree on, but my interest has broadened a bit. I do not think that makes me evil like the evil APA. LOL.

There is room for all in this. Like I said, this is just a hobby. I do not know why it bothers you so much.

There are brown egg hybrid layers that are actually dual purpose hybrids, such as the Black Star.

What makes you think that I haven't investigated the various brown egg hybrid layers, and the various meat hybrids, breeds, and dual purpose breeds? What makes you think that I didn't in the past breed my own replacement birds?

I think your assumption that I consider the APA evil is particularly odd. I find it irrelevant, a waste of time, and active in discouraging people's interest in the more productive and efficient strains. I also think that your constant references to keeping poultry as a hobby explains a lot.

In other words, you give the serious impression that you have absolutely no clue about production.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

My eyes have really been opened by this and I see how much BS is involved with this "heritage" stuff. It is interesting how people have fooled themselves into believing that brown is the way Rhode Island Reds looked when the breed was accepted by the APA in 1904.

For me, I am sticking with the old color of Rhode Island Red that is actually red and not this "heritage" Rhode Island Red that is brown.

Maybe people from the Heritage Rhode Island Red thread will read this and pass it on. I would post it there, but I don't feel like stirring up a hornets nest.



By the way, what is the argument about Metcalf and Buckeyes? What is the point of disagreement about what she observed? Maybe I missed something.

Uhyup. You just discovered that the "Heritage Poultry" movement is not only of interest to people seriously interested in preserving older breeds and strains for their genetic diversity and utility traits - but has been heavily hijacked by those who are disinterested in the utility qualities of these breeds.

In 1908 there were known, documented 200 egg hens - and those who bred to the standard insisted that this was not heritable and that breeding for production would not work and that any increase in laying that could be produced would likely come from better conditions and feed for the hens. Fortunately from Cornell to Corvallis, there were those who ignored this advice.

Interestingly enough, the first documented 200 egg hen in Corvallis was apparently a Barred Rock purchased from a poultryman who laid 218 eggs in 1908 during her first year at the Oregon station.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Yellow House farm rightly points out that Barred Rocks and Dominiques came out of the same flocks in portions of the 19th C - but doesn't point out that the decision of a New York poultry show removed all single comb Dominiques from the breed by fiat - and many of these were promptly rebranded by their owners as Barred Rocks. In 1849 Brown's Domestic Fowl described the Dominique as "single combs, with or without copplecrowns." In his "The American Poulterer's Companion, Bement in 1856 described Dominiques as follows: "The comb of the cock is variable, some being singe, while others are double -- most however are single."

Mark A. Fields (my APA hero) notes that until 1870 the predominant comb style on Dominiques was the single or blade comb, with rose comb predominate in only some stocks. Then, the New York State Poultry Society - on some whim related to Hamburgs - decided that Dominiques all had rose combs - and the next morning flocks that had gone to roost as Dominques came out to scratch as Plymouth Rocks.

There are some who believe that Mr. Upham was responsible for Dominiques being grouped as a "Leghorn type" as he shifted his interest from showing Dominiques as well as Rocks to the "new" Plymouth Rocks which seemed in many cases to be the more desired larger, single combed Dominiques. He began to heavily promote this "new breed and backed away from the Dominiques. The Dominique population suddenly only included rose combed smaller birds.

I have often wondered if a significant Java admixture occurred well before the breeding efforts that were reported as it seems the brown egg was just as present in the old Dominiques as in the new Plymouth Rocks. I have also wondered what became of the five toed Dominiques, some with multiple spurs that were reported in the 19th C that might have had some Dorking ancestry.

 

[cubalaya]

i just read this whole thread and feel some of the comments here are more important than simply 'show' over 'production'. the lamona, holland and california gray are modern composite breeds that just were not popular. i have always thought all these american breeds were composite breeds with the exception of the java and dominique but now wonder about them. the american game was not on the list? i guess they are composite breeds too with old english game being crossed with asil. it would seem that the american game would be at the top of the list though as far as history and importance.

 

[cgmccary]

Quote:
Not really an argument.

Mrs. Metcalf described RIRs in her day as being sorrel & buff color. She did not like the RIR's lighter color. She did NOT mix them into her Buckeyes. However, she did infuse Buckeye blood into the early 20th Century RIRs. Also, she showed her SC Buckeyes as RIRs, and they did well. She says her SC Buckeyes were used in some of the leading RIR yards in the East. This would have been done 1896-1907.

Some RIR lines in that time period were referred to as "crimson" and were darker than the "sorrel" or "buff." Metcalf often described color as found in equines. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrel_(horse)

Were the crimson & darker RIR's lines of that first decade those infused with Metcalf's Buckeyes? There is no significance in today's poultry world, it is simply historical or footnote interest.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

i just read this whole thread and feel some of the comments here are more important than simply 'show' over 'production'. the lamona, holland and california gray are modern composite breeds that just were not popular. i have always thought all these american breeds were composite breeds with the exception of the java and dominique but now wonder about them. the american game was not on the list? i guess they are composite breeds too with old english game being crossed with asil. it would seem that the american game would be at the top of the list though as far as history and importance.

Many modern livestock breeds are composite breeds. Even the those that are standardized landrace breeds have had deliberate admixtures with other breeds in the quest to meet the standards. The development of the modern Sussex in Britain is a case in point. The Orpington seems to be a result of a landrace, the Lincolnshire Buffs, outcrossed with other breeds.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

i just read this whole thread and feel some of the comments here are more important than simply 'show' over 'production'. the lamona, holland and california gray are modern composite breeds that just were not popular. i have always thought all these american breeds were composite breeds with the exception of the java and dominique but now wonder about them. the american game was not on the list? i guess they are composite breeds too with old english game being crossed with asil. it would seem that the american game would be at the top of the list though as far as history and importance.

I believe the APA only recognizes the American Game Bantam. It is classed in the Game class, not the American class.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

I believe the APA only recognizes the American Game Bantam. It is classed in the Game class, not the American class.

I would suggest the American Game and Dominique would qualify as the earliest American breeds. There were the "Blue Hens of Delaware", which were probably American Game and not pure OEG; and the fact that Abraham Lincoln didn't receive his nickname of "Honest Abe" for his behavior in politics, but rather for his reputation as a cockfighting referee.

 

[Bullitt]

Not really an argument.

Mrs. Metcalf described RIRs in her day as being sorrel & buff color. She did not like the RIR's lighter color. She did NOT mix them into her Buckeyes. However, she did infuse Buckeye blood into the early 20th Century RIRs. Also, she showed her SC Buckeyes as RIRs, and they did well. She says her SC Buckeyes were used in some of the leading RIR yards in the East. This would have been done 1896-1907.

Some RIR lines in that time period were referred to as "crimson" and were darker than the "sorrel" or "buff." Metcalf often described color as found in equines. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrel_(horse)

Were the crimson & darker RIR's lines of that first decade those infused with Metcalf's Buckeyes? There is no significance in today's poultry world, it is simply historical or footnote interest.

Of course Metcalf liked darker. Look at her Buckeyes.

I think it has significance. It is more evidence that the Rhode Island Red color was changed.