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

[Yellow House Farm]

While I agree with you that the RIR's development was in the works way before the Buckeye, I respectfully disagree that a RIR is a far superior bird (and that is "just history). I know it's a bit annoying when one is an aficionado of a breed, but all of the best breeds have the block-type that the Buckeye doesn't have: Rocks, Reds, Dorkings, Leghorns, Anconas, Minorcas, Houdans. It is the type both associated with the best egg-production and the best meat production. Although for years the Buckeye was omitted from the SOP when it fell to near extinction, I refuse to allow the Buckeye to simply be a footnote in the American Class breeds. But it was. If it weren't for the work of the ALBC to revive it, who knows where it would be today. I enjoy seeing them today at the shows, but that doesn't mean that they were a strongly impactful breed in the past. My favorite novel by James Baldwin is Giovanni's Room. It' not his most noted work, but it's my favorite, but being my favorite doesn't forcibly make it what it was not.The Buckeye serves its role as a dual purpose fowl well. Of course it does. At no point did I say it didn't.I have the advantage of the creator of the Buckeye own words. The creator of the Buckeye was a single individual, Ms. Nettie Metcalf. She never aspired to show the breed but her objective was utility qualities -- this objective I believe Metcalf fully achieved. Yes, but those qualities do not equal the typical potential of the Rock or the Red, which is why they were overlook for the Rock and the Red. Metcalf admitted that the Buckeye's "great beauty . . . in the future more show birds will be produced yearly." Again though, showing was not her objective.

She obtained, raised and showed RIRs too. In fact, Metcalf was the first to introduce RIRs into Ohio. However, Metcalf knew nothing of the RIR development back East when she created the Buckeye and in the beginning called her birds, "Buckeye Reds."

When Metcalf learned of the RIRs in late 1896 in an article in the American Agriculturist, she corresponded and exchanged eggs with some of the RIR breeders of the day. She found that the RIR were "bred to a lighter shade of red." She even described the RIR at the time of APA admittance as being "sorrel" in color. At the time, she had Buckeyes that were both pea comb and single comb. The RIRs were rose and single comb. She tossed her single comb (SC) Buckeyes and bred them to the RIR. The first Buckeye had superior color to the RIR, and Metcalf "never liked [the RIR] well enough to mix them" in her Buckeye breed. Particularly, she was keen on keeping the slate bar in the back of her breed. She put some of her SC Buckeyes/ RIRs in the shows back East. "All my single comb Buckeyes scored well under their [RIR] standard in the shows and were made use of in leading yards down East." Metcalf's rose comb RIRs scored well in shows too (92.5 to 95.5), but she said her 95.5 point RIRs "were almost buff to my thinking." Metcalf said, "I did think inasmuch as I had helped make the RIRs by an infusion, however slight, of Buckeye blood, I would undertake to get them admitted to the Standard at the same time as the Buckeyes, so fitted up some fine birds for the Cleveland show in 1902, both Buckeyes and S.C. RIRs, which was the first official showing of either breed." RIR color was in flux for a long time. Her description of Reds reflects what she was seeing in the birds she procured, but it would be inaccurate to claim them as an authoritative statement about RIR color at the time. Because of the way RIRs were developed, the fluctuated in color for decades upon decades.

The RIR has changed color drastically over the years since their creation and are no longer the lighter color they were originally. Again, it would be more accurate to think of early RIR flocks as being a patchwork that went from buff-ish to dark brick-red. Contrastingly, the Buckeye is still the color it was originally created & has not changed one iota. Actually, I don't know if I've ever seen a Buckeye cock that has proper tail coloring. Those that I've seen are solid black in the tail creating a strong contrast between tail and body which is distinctly contrary to standard. This may be the connection to the past that inspires Buckeye breeders today. Today's RIR is a darker bird than the Buckeye, but this was not always so.

Did Buckeye color influence RIR color in the early years? Although Buckeyes are still supposed to be the color they were originally, but RIR is no longer a lighter color, but darker than the Buckeye, then how is this fact impacting the SOP interpretation of the color of the Buckeye today?

The Buckeye has never been wildly popular nor did it sustain the U.S.'s populace with meat for dinner, but how many rare breeds did? However, the Buckeye has survived as a breed and against great odds virtually unchanged since its creation. Today, the breed is flourishing. This is due in large part to the focus of the ALBC (now Livestock Conservancy) for the breed's recovery and to some very dedicated new breeders. This last statement is exactly the point I was making--100%. Again, I know when one has taken a fancy to a breed, one often gets defensive, but if you actually go back to what I wrote you'll find that this is exactly what I meant. Personally, I think that the Buckeye is enjoying the most positive attention that it ever has.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

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.

X2!

 

[Bullitt]

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.

Both of you raised this point about the APA.

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

Why shouldn't the APA care about the reason that breed exists today?

If a person is showing a chicken, a judge has no idea the ability of the chicken to lay eggs and the judges have no way to really check on it. It is not considered when judging chickens.

I agree that breeders should try to meet the standards and the utility qualities that the breed was intended for. But a chicken that can't lay very well but should can be declared the winner in a show.

"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."

As I was saying, it is just a beauty contest for chickens.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Both of you raised this point about the APA.

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

Why shouldn't the APA care about the reason that breed exists today?

If a person is showing a chicken, a judge has no idea the ability of the chicken to lay eggs and the judges have no way to really check on it. It is not considered when judging chickens.

I agree that breeders should try to meet the standards and the utility qualities that the breed was intended for. But a chicken that can't lay very well but should can be declared the winner in a show.

"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."

As I was saying, it is just a beauty contest for chickens.

Nope. You haven't quite gotten it yet. Old-fashioned breeds were developed at a time when expectations for productivity were less than they are now. A good dual-purpose breed that laid 150 to 200 eggs and had a nice carcass was a darn good bird, and, in reality for a family sized operation, it still is. There are lots and lots of exhibition birds that do that.

However, it's also completely false to think that beauty wasn't a huge motivator in the development of the old breeds. Most of the old breeds were developed before refrigeration and reliable, fast mass transportation. Food production, like most production of most things, was decidedly localized. Beauty and the development of breeds went hand in hand, and why should it not have? The breeds were being asked to supply a local market and they did, but they were also an attraction of the local market. Consider it, smaller-scale, localized life appreciates smaller-scale, localized things. Hamburgs were always awesome layers, very beautiful and challenging to maintain in good form. It was a total package--just like distinct barring. Indeed, in most breeds, the more "beautiful", meaning complex color-wise, were developed before the "practical" white varieties. Plymouth Rocks were first barred--barred, not cuckoo--very specific, very complicated, challenging, exciting--beautiful. The Whites arose out of them as sports in Maine. The Wyandottes? Silver-laced. Now, that's hard work. How much fun for one not buried in emails, commutes, life-time mortgages, college debt: eggs, meat, and a creative challenge. They were perfectly suited to small-scale farm life, along with all of the other "impractical" hogs breeds, cattle breeds, sheep breeds, and goat breeds, that were ignored in the rise of large-scale corporate agriculture. Their loss of profitability in the current economic climate doesn't somehow make them unworthy of admiration or somehow less than, nor does it somehow devaluate APA breeders who maintain them, they way one maintains other old-fashioned crafts that hail from a day where beauty and purpose could walk together.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Yep, but most people who are interested in utility care most about eggs and meat.

The Buckeye does better in cold climates than the Rhode Island Red because the Buckeye has a pea comb.

It depends on the method of management used. I'm fond of eggs and meat - and I prefer chickens to not freeze their feet off.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

it is just a beauty contest for chickens.

On another note, as I intimated above, breeding for production isn't all that hard, nor is it all that interesting as a sole purpose. If you breed for egg production alone, you'll reinvent hatchery birds. If you breed for meat alone, you'll head towards Cornish X but you'll never actually get there. If you dedicate your poultry time to one breed, learn your standard and learn to breed for production (much of which you can learn in the first 50 pages of your standard), then you'll actually do something amazing chicken-wise.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

There has to be at least a description for a breed. I am guessing Dryden described the size, weight, egg-laying ability, and other characteristics that hens and roosters should have.

The California Gray was created from Barred Plymouth Rock and White Leghorn. I believe the Barred Leghorn was developed the same way. I do not believe there is much, if any, difference between the two breeds. I suspect they are the same breed, and I have not seen any evidence to prove otherwise.

Put two of them in a pen together. Note the temperament difference. Take a very good look and watch their behavior. One is panicky, flighty, cannibalistic, and will be bouncing off the fences if in a yard or floor operation. The other is non-cannibalistic, not flighty, and will allow you to walk through a flock with the ease of passing through a flock of Dominiques.

Outward appearances are the concern of the APA, not utility traits.

Dryden's objectives tended to be stated in terms of ideal finished product - eggs per year, dressed carcass weight, meat distribution, meat quality along with ease of management and feed conversion. .

 

[Bullitt]

Nope. You haven't quite gotten it yet. Old-fashioned breeds were developed at a time when expectations for productivity were less than they are now. A good dual-purpose breed that laid 150 to 200 eggs and had a nice carcass was a darn good bird, and, in reality for a family sized operation, it still is. There are lots and lots of exhibition birds that do that.

However, it's also completely false to think that beauty wasn't a huge motivator in the development of the old breeds. Most of the old breeds were developed before refrigeration and reliable, fast mass transportation. Food production, like most production of most things, was decidedly localized. Beauty and the development of breeds went hand in hand, and why should it not have? The breeds were being asked to supply a local market and they did, but they were also an attraction of the local market. Consider it, smaller-scale, localized life appreciates smaller-scale, localized things. Hamburgs were always awesome layers, very beautiful and challenging to maintain in good form. It was a total package--just like distinct barring. Indeed, in most breeds, the more "beautiful", meaning complex color-wise, were developed before the "practical" white varieties. Plymouth Rocks were first barred--barred, not cuckoo--very specific, very complicated, challenging, exciting--beautiful. The Whites arose out of them as sports in Maine. The Wyandottes? Silver-laced. Now, that's hard work. How much fun for one not buried in emails, commutes, life-time mortgages, college debt: eggs, meat, and a creative challenge. They were perfectly suited to small-scale farm life, along with all of the other "impractical" hogs breeds, cattle breeds, sheep breeds, and goat breeds, that were ignored in the rise of large-scale corporate agriculture. Their loss of profitability in the current economic climate doesn't somehow make them unworthy of admiration or somehow less than, nor does it somehow devaluate APA breeders who maintain them, they way one maintains other old-fashioned crafts that hail from a day where beauty and purpose could walk together.

You seemed to have missed my point.

One quality should not be focused on to the exclusion of others. All of the qualities of a breed need to be considered.

Those who are raising birds for show do not need to consider all the qualities of a breed in order to do well with showing.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

Yep, but most people who are interested in utility care most about eggs and meat.

The Buckeye does better in cold climates than the Rhode Island Red because the Buckeye has a pea comb.

Rose Comb RIR are the RIR answer to cold hardiness.

 

[Bullitt]

Put two of them in a pen together. Note the temperament difference. Take a very good look and watch their behavior. One is panicky, flighty, cannibalistic, and will be bouncing off the fences if in a yard or floor operation. The other is non-cannibalistic, not flighty, and will allow you to walk through a flock with the ease of passing through a flock of Dominiques.

Outward appearances are the concern of the APA, not utility traits.

Dryden's objectives tended to be stated in terms of ideal finished product - eggs per year, dressed carcass weight, meat distribution, meat quality along with ease of management and feed conversion. .

Again, every breed has to have a description, otherwise anything could be called that breed. Dryden must have written a description. You seemed knowledgeable about the breed, so I thought you might know where I could read a description of the breed.

From what you just said, there may not be one. That surprises me.

Even a breed of wild animal has a description of its characteristics. This way we know the difference between say a wolf and a coyote.