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

[Bullitt]

Talk about one extreme concerned with another extreme.

The balance is in the middle.

Have either of you tried taking a mediocre laying strain and bred them up to high performance? I would take the arguments more seriously if the arguments were not based on dead men's accomplishments and ideals. I mean, do you guys actually breed birds?

If you are, I would like to hear numbers, records, accomplishments, failures. I would find that far more interesting.

I have long been interested in performance genetics, and you are right. There is a lot more to it than how a bird is shaped. That is not to say type is irrelevant though. Far from it.

And do not be so bitter. LOL. This is a hobby.

There is nothing to be concerned about. There are far more performing birds in this world than not. LOL. They might not live long, but they are out there.

Are you saying I am bitter? I am not bitter.

You seemed to have avoided the issue completely by trying to put the focus on individuals. Don't kill the messenger. Address the message.

 

[gjensen]

OK.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

You've just explained why the APA is irrelevant to anyone into practical poultry. Dual purpose bird laying over 200 eggs a year were in development in the 19th C - but I don't think the APA was particularly happy about it. Wow! First of all if you actually look into average farm poultry in the 19th century, they were mutts that laid under 100 eggs a year. Production was literally abysmal. Hamburgs, Minorcas, Leghorns, and Anconas were the best hope. 200 egg hens were in no way commonplace in 19th century anywhere. The early 20th century is when on starts to really see some progress. You would actually really find interesting the development of the Danish Brown Leghorn. On another note, even though your "facts" are completely incorrect. Why on earth would you assume it would bother the APA? Again you really should actually purchase the Standard and learn about the APA before you make judgments about it. Besides, you might be missing out on a lot of fun and the opportunity to learn about a lot about chickens. the Standard before you assume you understand how it works. Early maturity - and fast feathering - tend to mess up those perfect bars the APA wants on Barred Rocks. For years after it was found that the barring gene caused a difference in the width and intensity of the bar colors in Barred Breeds - the APA still held both cocks and pullets to the same standard, leading to the totally wasteful practice of double mating which depended on the existence of birds that failed to meet the standard for their sex! Sure, but most institutions take a while to change. They did ultimately change though. They haven't in the UK, though.

Sorry, but the APA is as untouched by reality as the modern AQHA which continues to register good looking horses best known for a genetic defect that causes them to fall on their riders and not be able to get up. Again, your inexperience with the APA renders your ideas about its attachment to reality a bit empty, and what on earth does width of barring have to do with genetic defects? Just the fact that you're having this conversation is sign that you'd probably have a blast at APA events, but you're functioning under all sorts of misguided assumptions that keep you from enjoying it. There's a ton of farm knowledge there, some very practical concerns, as well as the intricacies of more challenging aspects of breeding. It was very nice, actually, when all of my prior misconceptions about the APA were clarified, and I was able to begin enjoying the events and community. Besides, it was then that I began to learn so much beyond selection for productivity. I, of course, understand if this doesn't tempt you. Still, spreading misinformation or skewed information isn't fair to useful to those who would learn.

 

[cgmccary]

Quote:
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. Metcalf procured RIRs from some of the best RIR breeders of her day & she showed RIRs. She reported what she observed. I believe what she wrote as being truthful.

The better lines of Buckeyes today have the red edging on some of their tail feathers where red bleeds into the black. When we are at the same show one day, I will point it out to you. It is something I have consciously sought but have not bred long enough to always select for. I admit that more concentration needs to be placed on obtaining more red tail feathers. You make a good point and are correct. This issue has not escaped some of us but nonetheless, it is a color issue.

I do not mean to come across as exceedingly defensive. Your deep knowledge of poultry makes you an engaging target. I think of most of the American breeds as a recent development -- all being standardized or coming into existence in the 19th or early 20th century & considered old breeds I think somewhat comical - because none really are -- there is not one with that much history except the last 100-150 years (young for domesticated poultry which go back farther than 2000 B.C.). The American breeds were created to fill a need for food for a fast growing industrialized country. They served this need well but were replaced by the hybrid cross as the need for protein grew exponentially after WWII due to the demographic changes and population explosion (and the shrinking of the Atlantic Cod because of over fishing). IMHO, none of the American breeds are what I would call "antique" but merely old for "our" nation -- or appropriately called, "heritage breeds." I still have a great deal of respect for all the American breeds as they are a reflection of what was happening in our country in those times.

The RIR had many more fanciers and a huge club in the beginning years, many of whom actively fought in mass against Mrs. Metcalf and the inclusion of her Buckeye. They almost succeeded. This is well documented by letters from Mrs. Metcalf to the journals of the day where she defends her breed and herself. The Buckeye was a Mid-West red breed created by a woman vs. a red breed from the East Coast created by men over a longer period of time and widely accepted. It was a very different time for a woman in that day and time as poultry breeders were almost exclusively gentlemen. Metcalf did not even have the right to vote when she created the Buckeye. Think of this fact -- it seems profound today. This totality of circumstance had something to do with the hostility and rejection toward the Buckeye and not its lack of being a good dual purpose fowl. It was a different era in more ways than the poultry landscape. The Buckeye deserves as much respect for what it stands for as do the other breeds. In a sense, it is a reflection of its time too & not because it lacks quality.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

"utility traits," not physical traits.

As I have been saying, egg-laying, a utility trait, is not very important when APA judges consider a chicken.

Strictly speaking, no, but the body type of an egg laying bird predisposes it to production, and that is in the consideration of the APA.

 

[Bullitt]

Strictly speaking, no, but the body type of an egg laying bird predisposes it to production, and that is in the consideration of the APA.

So a judge can feel a hen's body shape and determine if she lays say 150 eggs a year or 250 eggs a year?

I'm not buying that.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Talk about one extreme concerned with another extreme.

The balance is in the middle.

Have either of you tried taking a mediocre laying strain and bred them up to high performance? I would take the arguments more seriously if the arguments were not based on dead men's accomplishments and ideals. I mean, do you guys actually breed birds?

If you are, I would like to hear numbers, records, accomplishments, failures. I would find that far more interesting.

I have long been interested in performance genetics, and you are right. There is a lot more to it than how a bird is shaped. That is not to say type is irrelevant though. Far from it.

And do not be so bitter. LOL. This is a hobby.

There is nothing to be concerned about. There are far more performing birds in this world than not. LOL. They might not live long, but they are out there.

Your third paragraph is *exactly* the problem I have with the APA. Why would I obtain a mediocre utility strain and spend money and time breeding it up when I can start with a good utility strain? This is the difference between the APA and practical poultrymen. The idea is that the birds earn a living for us; not that we earn a living for the birds. Your sixth paragraph makes it clear - breeding to the standard is a hobby, not a business.

Type in layers hasn't been found to be all that related to laying prowess. Early utility breeders were amazed at how many birds who had all of the characteristics that supposedly indicated a "good layer" were indifferent or poor layers and how many birds whose conformation indicated poor performance laid very well.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Are you saying I am bitter? I am not bitter.

You seemed to have avoided the issue completely by trying to put the focus on individuals. Don't kill the messenger. Address the message.

The message was addressed. For the individual who made that remark, chickens are a hobby.

 

[The Yakima Kid]

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. Breeders were already developing strains that would reliably lay 200 eggs a year before the dawn of the 20th Century. Slocum, Lamon, Dryden, the folks at Rutgers - even some of the earliest hatcheries were breeding strains of pure breeds for productivity. So were some forward looking American farmers in those heady days of early land grant colleges.

I know what the average bird laid in the 19thC; I even know what the average bird laid by region and state in the early 20th C. The fact that overall performance was abysmal says nothing at all about the serious and dedicated work of poultrymen. They soldiered on, despite the claims of some alleged agricultural experts that layer productivity was not a heritable trait - even then, almost everyone agreed that meat qualities were heritable.

 

[gjensen]

Your third paragraph is *exactly* the problem I have with the APA. Why would I obtain a mediocre utility strain and spend money and time breeding it up when I can start with a good utility strain? This is the difference between the APA and practical poultrymen. The idea is that the birds earn a living for us; not that we earn a living for the birds. Your sixth paragraph makes it clear - breeding to the standard is a hobby, not a business.

Type in layers hasn't been found to be all that related to laying prowess. Early utility breeders were amazed at how many birds who had all of the characteristics that supposedly indicated a "good layer" were indifferent or poor layers and how many birds whose conformation indicated poor performance laid very well.

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.