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

[Yellow House Farm]

The Dominique lays a brown egg; which hardly makes it a "distinctly European" bird. Ahh, but did it always lay a brown egg? The Dominqiue type is distinctly European. It seems to originate from what was found in the family chicken coop Which in the early days that demarcate Dominique uniqueness originated from Europe- including additions of surplus "living food" brought back on ships that traded all around the world.

Plymouth Rocks did not displace Javas and Dominiques because of their beauty. Rocks are larger than Dominiques, and provide a larger carcass for meat; and Rocks mature and grow more rapidly than Javas, meaning less feed and less time before a bird is either laying or ready for the table. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the advice to poultry farmers from many in such occupations as the Poultry Science departments and the Bureau of Animal Industries was that if the farmer intended to egg ranch he needed white Leghorns, and if he intended to raise dual purpose or meat birds, he should confine his attention to Plymouth Rocks, Rhode Island Reds, and White Wyandottes. Actually, the excellence of barring was early on a major factor in the popularity of breeding the Barred Plymouth Rock, although you are correct in the statement about them maturing more quickly than Javas. In the beginning of the rise of Plymouth Rocks, in the 1800's, Dominiques and Rocks were often coming out of the same flocks. There is a period that spans over many years that the breed is differentiating itself, and in that time period quality of barring played a significant role. By the beginning of the 20th century, Barred Rocks, had soundly displaced both Javas and Dominiques. It's not a time period, however, to consider in discussing how they emergedschool". That they were early on recognized for productive excellence is why I mentioned them at the forefront of my list in the original post. It is also why they are the first breed and variety described in the Standard of Perfection where great attention is, and has consistently been, given to the exactitude of the barring.

There have been two distinct strains in poultry raising sense the days of the "Cochin Craze" or "Hen Fever." One has been to breed for appearance; the other has been the effort of farmers, raisers, and later agricultural colleges to produce more meat and eggs with little or no attention to looks. This is not accurate. They were not divided into distinct and discreet camps for a very longtime. There have, indeed, been many poultry projects over time, but between 1850 and 1950 there was a whole lot of blurring of lines between the camps. By the 1930's schism and division is becoming clearer until the post-WWII period where it sets in strong. The "Cochin Craze" days marks the very beginning of poultry the way we think of it today, and it would take them decades just to sort out the first composite breeds. They most certainly were not divided into camps based on production and exhibition. Of the earlier, 1800's composite breeds, the breed most closely aligned with production from its inception was the Rhode Island Red, which also explains why it took so long to standardize it.

The Holy Grail of American poultry men in the first half of the 20th Century was to produce a white egg laying yellow skinned bird as Americans preferred white eggs and yellow skinned table birds. In Britain, the Holy Grail of poultry men was a brown egg layer with a white skin to reflect British preferences. Few people realize that until the 1950s, the British were more likely to see rabbit than chicken on their tables. A breed that is considered British is the AmRock, essentially the result of the importation of utility Barred Rocks that did not reflect the British standard for Plymouth Rocks but these birds were prized by farmers for their productivity. In Britain, the niche filled here by Barred Rocks apparently was heavily occupied by the AmRock,. I would think that describing these projects as the "Holy Grail of American poultrymen" would be a bit of stretch, which is why those breeds which were developed to meet the perceived niche were generally unsuccessful. The "Holy Grail" of the early 20th century was--hands down--the New Hampshire, this joining the already established ranks of Plymouth Rocks and Rhode Island Reds, with a nod to Wyandottes who never really could move out of the shadow of the Rocks. No other American breeds ever competed with these in stature or distribution. The white egged, yellow skinned, dual purpose breed was fairly well achieved in the Lamona; it did not catch on, because the perceived niche wasn't all that important at the end of the day.

If you read the origins of many contemporary British and European breeds, one finds that judicious additions of American dual purpose birds was used I their final development. I'm not sure what you actually mean here.

The Cornish (sometimes called Indian Game) isn't considered an Asian breed since it apparently resulted from the crossing of British game birds with imported game fowl. The goal was to produce a superior fighting chicken for cocking - but what the result had the wrong shape for fighting and a great shape for eating. Yes, indeed, and in qualities it sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the British class being in all things distinctly Oriental. What in it that is British, is the British talent for taking a random breed type and transforming it into a truly appreciable meat bird: Dorkings being Mediterranean type birds bred for meat; Redcaps being Hamburgs bred for meat, and Cornish being Asil-esque games bred for meat.

 

[Bullitt]

"The "Holy Grail" of the early 20th century was--hands down--the New Hampshire, this joining the already established ranks of Plymouth Rocks and Rhode Island Reds, with a nod to Wyandottes who never really could move out of the shadow of the Rocks. No other American breeds ever competed with these in stature or distribution. The white egged, yellow skinned, dual purpose breed was fairly well achieved in the Lamona; it did not catch on, because the perceived niche wasn't all that important at the end of the day."



The Holland seems to be a good dual-purpose white-egg layer. But that breed was probably too late when chickens were specialized for eggs or meat. I wouldn't mind having some Hollands, though.

It is not a surprise that of American breeds, the four you named are some of the most popular for people with small flocks. They are also some of the most popular of all breeds.

 

[gjensen]

The average Rhode Island Red lays about 250 eggs a year, and the average Buckeye lays about 220 eggs a year. So the Buckeye is still pretty good.

You are right that there are variations. That is why I talk about averages.

I would not call the darker Rhode Island Red an "improvement," as I mentioned earlier. But I understand you mean it was intentional. Each person has his or her own tastes. The Rhode Island Reds from hatcheries look better to me and they sure lay better on average.

No chicken looks good when it is molting.

Bullit "after they molt out". The depth of color and the depth of under color makes fore more evenly colored birds after the molt. Otherwise they are very mottled in appearance. That is what you get with NHs more or less.

I tend to like lighter reds to. Until the molt. LOL.

And those averages . . . .maybe for hatchery birds. Unfortunately.

I hear a lot of talk about qty of eggs but know no one that actually tracks it. Usually people's birds are laying less than they think. I applaud anyone that has a well bred strain that reliably lays over 220pa and they could verify it.

 

[gjensen]

The NH was indeed a major accomplishment. Changed commercial poultry forever.

 

[Bullitt]

So people have bred a different color into Rhode Island Reds so that they will have a more even color after their first molt.

If there ever was a utility chicken for eggs and meat, it is the Rhode Island Red. Breeding a different color and sacrificing laying ability is a shame.

I will stick with the original Rhode Island Reds that are actually red and not what people are calling "heritage" reds that are barely red at all. It's a crazy world.

 

[gjensen]

I am no Red expert.

Personally, I think a well bred bird is both beautiful and productive. I do not want a poorly bred producer, or a beauty queen with no substance. I want both.

 

[Bullitt]

I am no Red expert.

Personally, I think a well bred bird is both beautiful and productive. I do not want a poorly bred producer, or a beauty queen with no substance. I want both.

Unfortunately the APA does not consider whether a chicken can lay eggs. That means a chicken that can't lay eggs can be declared the best example of a breed. That is crazy. But that is why birds from breeders look nice but do not lay eggs as well as hatchery birds, on average.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

It is very important to remember that the interests of the practical poultrymen and the APA have long been separate. This all depends on what your definition of "long". If "long" means after most breeds were developed, than "long" is pretty short. At one time, the APA was the national organization that practical poultrymen belonged to, and a leading promoter of poultry industries. This time period was very important to what is today the poultry industry. It's what is invoked in the idea of "heritage" poultry. Today it is simply an organization for showmen , the practical poultrymen having long since founded organizations directed to practical production and use of poultry. There are several problems with a reductionistic statement like this. First of all it underlines that you're not part of the APA community, and thus all you see are the show cages because that is the demarcating difference that can be seen from the outside. What you don't know is that it is the hub the holds the knowledge for the maintenance of the old breeds, which cannot be understood until you are part of the community. When on says "practical poultrymen" what does one mean? Most frequently I have heard that term associated with some sort of feedlot operation, whether it be contained broilers and caged/penned layers to organic, grass-fed ,commercial stock. Regardless, it tends to mean the purchasing of hatchery stock that one then uses in a given production model. Herein, lies the most ssignificant difference between APA culture and "practical poultrymen, one could also say between old-school "practical poultrymen" (APA affiliated entrepreneurs) and modern "practical poultrymen", in APA culture the emphasis is on breeding the poultry and maintaining breeds, in form if not always in production, and "practical poultrymen" couldn't breed their way out of a box. They might talk a game, but they can't actually do it and don't--which is why they're "practical". There's nothing profitable in maintaining a breeding program when on can simply get a dirt-cheap box of replacements. However, what this means is that "practical poultrymen" are feedlot owners and not poultry breeders.

It is a good exercise to read the APA journals of the 1950s, where the APA promised that those farmers who are true to the standard will eventually triumph over those who had moved on to breeding for practical traits and were no longer viewing the APA standard as a major goal of breeding decisions. It didn't happen. With the exception of some pastured operations, few of those who actually make their entire living raising poultry use one of the APA breeds, let alone one that conforms to the standards. If they do use an APA breed, it is likely a Barred or White Plymouth Rock, or RIR or NH, or a White Leghorn whose conformity to the standard is apt to be an accident instead of a goal. California Grays seem to have revived as pastured poultry egg operations have expanded - even though they lay a little less than White Leghorns, they are easy to manage, and an important trait in pastured operations is being able to get close enough to the birds to evaluate their condition and health without exhausting oneself. Sure, this is always true when one sees the ending of a new way of life being replaced by a new way. There are always those that cling to the old ways and believe in them. This isn't actually a debate, though. No one who actually breeds standard-bred poultry in a serious, long-term, experienced way confuses them with hatchery stock that is selected for naught but production.

In the days before vent sexing, Barred Rocks and California Grays offered another advantage not well understood today; with most strains, if you know the "secret" regarding the sizes and shapes of the light head patches on dried, hatched chicks, you can sex them with maybe 80% - 90% accuracy if you are really, really, good at it with the particular strain on hand.

My focus is practical, and my raising conditions, with the exception of the materials I used to build the housing and enclosures, Marek's immunizations, and the availability of modern formulated feeds, aren't that different than in the early 20th Century household poultry yard. They live in a coop and run in the backyard, where the run is turned and limed periodically to keep down the parasite load. They roam the garden beds before planting and after harvest, and in the spring they are let out among the fruit trees to harvest pest larvae trying to climb the trunks. They have names, and have been handled not only because I foolishly and accidentally turned them into pets, but for ease of care and inspection. They are soiled with items grown specifically for them in the garden, and they eat trimmings and left overs from the people food (I don't feed them ruminant ingredients because of AHA guidelines.) I use neem oil and pyrethrins instead of tobacco dust, fluoride compounds, and other long obsolete and extremely deadly to people pesticides. The birds most suited for my use are the breeds that were bred to thrive in such conditions - which means mainly old-fashioned American dual purpose, some British breeds, and Black-Star hybrids. I include the California Gray as an old style American dual purpose.
California Greys aren't a breed, they're an atypical, production-bred, cuckoo Leghorn. They are certainly not "dual-purpose" in any usual use of that term, although I'm a big fan of eating egg-bred birds. The "advantages" you've claimed for them are not actually "breed" traits. Breed traits are typical claims; it's what makes breed breed. Things like production and temperament might be breed goals but they are strain specific. Folks often make claims about "breeds": "Oh, I love my Orpingtons because they're so sweet" or "I love Leghorns because they're so productive" etc...but this sort of thing is related to the strain, what each breeder has produced from generation to generation. Seeing that very few sources actually produce California Greys (I only know of Ideal Hatchery) this means that they've done a good job of maintaining these qualities in their strain. Their Dorkings are flightier than the worst Leghorns, which is completely contrary to the truisms one hears about Dorkings. Incidentally, there are many strains of Leghorns and Anconas that are quite docile.

Your "practical focus" sounds interesting. Over time, if you begin to spend time with APA people, you'd find that they, too, are replete with practical practices. Indeed, many of them will rank among the most "practical" and knowledgeable poultrymen you'll ever meet. When I was solely involved in market farming and not part of the APA scene, I used to hold all sorts of false ideas about APA culture and was pretty vocal about it. However, once I actually got involved in it and ceased judging it from afar, I actually began to learn what it's about.
I know nothing about showing poultry, although I have shown hogs and horses. Showing horses has some similarities, not so much with showing hogs. My selections are based on vigor, hardiness, temperament, and productivity. These are all part of APA SOP selection. Some might be better at it than others, but that's just the way it goes with most things. Now when you can do that and actually maintain breed type, you're beginning to really breed a BREED.Just as in 19th C and early 20th C backyard poultry coops, my birds must be calm, quiet, and not upsetting to the neighbors. This is one of those romantic statements that sounds sweet but is not based in reality. Chickens have been chickens since time immemorial. 3:30 is cocks crow all around the world and has been since the beginning of recorded history...and then probably before that.They must be able to withstand the occasional stray animal or yelling child in the backyard without panicking and injuring themselves, or losing production. Again, this is just plain old APA SOP breeding.They should withstand both high and low temperatures, and they should lay well throughout the year without needing supplemental lighting if it can possibly be avoided. Robert Plamondon and Joel Salatin are more relevant to me than an APA judge or the standard. --because Joel Salatin is a fancy feedlot, dependent on hatcheries, if that has changed, ergo if he's started to produce his own hatchlings on site (starting I'm assuming with hatchery stock) he's only been doing it for a few years and thus has no reputation as a breeder. I was deeply entrenched in the New England localvore movement during the time of Saladin's rise to fame. I'm fairly familiar with him and have been helping "practical poultrymen" learn about chickens for a longtime. Five or six years ago, he was known for his rotation schedules. It's all quite nice, but it has nothing to do with the chickens themselves;school farming and homesteads and whose knowledge and "practical" wisdom are most humbling. It's best not to judge the shop from outside the window.



www.plamondon.com is the ultimate website on raising pastured poultry and earning enough to support your family and send your children to college on the income. He notes that with the exception of medications and pesticides, the books written before about 1950 are far more useful to the pastured poultry operator than both more recent books which focus on intensive indoor management or the APA. Yes they are, and many...many of them are deeply entrenched with APA culture. Indeed, some of the most authoritative authors were bastions of the American Poultry Association. Some, of course, were not, but they're negative opinions, are simply their own. Most of the time opinions like that are silly and umbilical. Discover the writings of John Henry Robinson. Had I been reading him when I first began market farming, I wouldn't have made half the mistakes I did. Start with Principles and Practice of Poultry Culture.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Unfortunately the APA does not consider whether a chicken can lay eggs. That means a chicken that can't lay eggs can be declared the best example of a breed. That is crazy. But that is why birds from breeder look nice but do not lay eggs as well as hatchery birds.

Ah, but this is an over simplification and, I would add, an assumption. Maybe some do, maybe some don't. I'd bet that most don't, but that's OK. Hatchery birds lay well, but that's about it. I know at first that sounds interesting, but it's really not. Once you learn how to select for egg production, you can select for egg production, too. Selecting for egg production is pretty simple and pretty easy. It does not a great breeder make. However, most hatcheries are horrible custodians of the breeds they raise, which is why none of them can qualify at a show. It's not simply that they're not "fancy" enough, as outsiders might think. "Fancy" enough are thoughts that come to mind while selecting among the best for champion status. It's when one is nitpicking among top birds.

Most people when they start raising chickens are color focused. All hatcheries do is produce color on a bird that lays; then they sell them under a name they don't deserve. People buy these birds and think they're getting some old-school quality, but it's like buying hand-hewn furniture at Walmart. Once you actually get hand-hewn quality, you realize that Walmart is a farce. Now, if all you care about is eggs, than "Walmart" will do. Many APA breeders don't sell eggs or meat, thus selecting for top production isn't a top priority. That doesn't mean that one can't procure their excellent stock and start selecting it for production. Now, if all one does is select it for production, one will eventually destroy it and reinvent the hatchery stock they could have begun with in the first place. However, if one restricts one's self to one breed so that one generates a large enough selection pool one can select for breed qualities as well as laying production. Now that bird is a gem. Of course the best layers, are specific strains of industry fowl. But who's arguing that? It's old news. Why shouldn't they be, they've been working hard to achieve that. However, with APA standard-bred fowl, the assumption often seems to be that "doesn't lay as well as hatchery stock" means "doesn't lay well". That is very much false. What most people of BYC actually need for production, i.e. a family supply of eggs or a small production to sell to neighbors or the local farmers market, is easily had from well-bred, standard-bred stock. The only difference is that one's birds are then attractive to boot, as opposed to these asymmetrical, pinched, underweight, atypical, thin-feathered, poorly marked, scrawny things produced by hatcheries.

As I mentioned above, I don't say this with animosity. I, too, used to make all of these assumptions about standard-bred stock, too. They're claims often parroted on the internet and written in books by folks who don't actually know standard-bred stock. It would make sense, from a point of view, to assume they're true, but in reality, most of these claims are made by folks who actually don't really understand APA culture or the SOP in the first place. Unfortunately, this misinformation goes on to unduly bias and taint the impressions of beginners such that they never get to know what standard-bred poultry is all about. It's quite the shame, because it's much more interesting that just selecting for egg production.

 

[gjensen]

Unfortunately the APA does not consider whether a chicken can lay eggs. That means a chicken that can't lay eggs can be declared the best example of a breed. That is crazy. But that is why birds from breeders look nice but do not lay eggs as well as hatchery birds, on average.

I think the APA does consider it. Before every description is an introduction called "economic qualities". A judge cannot see whether or not a bird is a good layer, but the breeder knows.

Those concerns are not with the APA, but with the breeders.

How functional a bird is, is a big deal to me. I can relate I that sense.

Let's face it. Times have changed. Poultry keeping is a hobby. Not everyone is going to value production as we once did. That is not any fault of the APA. That is just changing times.

And how productive a bird is does matter to some very good breeders. You just have to find them.