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

[BGMatt]

No, I am not assuming anything. If I don't have at least one source to say American Game is a breed created or developed in the United States and when, then how can I put the breed on the list?

You'll have to track down some actual gamecock people and ask. You're asking about a fowl that was used for fighting, it's not a popular topic around here. You don't seem to understand that, or that once that happened, records and histories about cockfighting in the US disappeared or don't exist. Most of it is verbal history. That's the point I was trying to get across to you.

 

[BGMatt]

As far as I know they've never been proposed for admission to the Standard. From what I understand about "American Games" is they can have any comb or leg colour; can have white or yellow skin & don't adhere to any particular coloration. I know in many instances birds I've seen pictured here may have the same name but look very different. How would it be possible to include birds like that in a Standard? How could they be judged?

That was kind of my point. The American Game breeders don't want to conform to APA rules. The bantam guys did and they are recognized now. I think it's kind of silly to hold onto the trappings of coloration not mattering and such and not submitting to standard recognition. Then again, there seems to be a lot of folks out there that still raise the American game because they just enjoy having them, Old English Game large fowl are in the standard and don't seem to be as popular, so maybe the American Game guys are right. Either way, once again you word my point better than I do.

 

[Bullitt]

As far as I know they've never been proposed for admission to the Standard. From what I understand about "American Games" is they can have any comb or leg colour; can have white or yellow skin & don't adhere to any particular coloration. I know in many instances birds I've seen pictured here may have the same name but look very different. How would it be possible to include birds like that in a Standard? How could they be judged?

".. they can have any comb or leg colour; can have white or yellow skin & don't adhere to any particular coloration."

If that is true, I do not know how American Game could be called a breed. The only thing there in common is maybe body type.

I did a search and I could not find much history on American Game. Until I see a reliable source with history with at least approximate years on American Game, this one is not going on the list.

 

[Bullitt]

You'll have to track down some actual gamecock people and ask. You're asking about a fowl that was used for fighting, it's not a popular topic around here. You don't seem to understand that, or that once that happened, records and histories about cockfighting in the US disappeared or don't exist. Most of it is verbal history. That's the point I was trying to get across to you.

I understand that American Game roosters were used for cockfighting. I knew that. That is pretty widely known.

But from what I am seeing, American Game is not a breed. This is similar to Easter Eggers in that there is some similarity among them but they are not members of a breed.

 

[gjensen]

The American game was not originally an American breed. They were either "English" or "Spanish". Separation and selection took the birds in different directions. This happened over time.

It seams (they would be better speaking for themselves) that they do not want to be bound by the minute details, and fit for performance is priority. Regardless, whether or not they are used. They feel similarly to Yakima Kid about these things. Performance is #1.

I get that.

I have to admit, I am a sucker for a well bred American Game. You cannot find a more vigorous, alert, active, sharp breed out there. They are impressive. IMO.

 

[cubalaya]

they were created in america just like all the other composite breeds. as far as judging them, maybe use the family or strain name. roundheads should look like roundheads. kelso, hatch, sweater etc. the judge would have to know the differences. i really don't know if that would work but they are a historical american breed and just as pure as any other american chicken.

 

[catdaddyfro]

they were created in america just like all the other composite breeds. as far as judging them, maybe use the family or strain name. roundheads should look like roundheads. kelso, hatch, sweater etc. the judge would have to know the differences. i really don't know if that would work but they are a historical american breed and just as pure as any other american chicken.

I agree and IMO they may be the only American breed of chicken with the fewest added ingredients in their mix/composition(the more mixing the less GAME). Most of the others have a washpot full of genetics which is why if one doesn't stay on top of them they will start to venture off one way or another in type. But, by golly those games are out there generally frolicking and running amuck like a party at Caligulas and I gaurontee ya ever one that is hatched looks like an AG an a very distinct look for sure. When you see one you know what it is.Once again IMO and J/s

Jeff

 

[The Yakima Kid]

I agree and IMO they may be the only American breed of chicken with the fewest added ingredients in their mix/composition(the more mixing the less GAME). Most of the others have a washpot full of genetics which is why if one doesn't stay on top of them they will start to venture off one way or another in type. But, by golly those games are out there generally frolicking and running amuck like a party at Caligulas and I gaurontee ya ever one that is hatched looks like an AG an a very distinct look for sure. When you see one you know what it is.Once again IMO and J/s

Jeff

Considering that they combine several British, Spanish, and Asian game strains in their background, they are a composite breed, one based on performance. Mixing does not always reduce a characteristic or trait if the parental strains are selected for the same characteristic or trait.

It is easiest to focus on one trait at a time. Which is why breeding for high meat or egg productivity without over emphasizing other traits results in quicker production of a high laying strain than if one emphasizes several traits concurrently.

 

[catdaddyfro]

Considering that they combine several British, Spanish, and Asian game strains in their background, they are a composite breed, one based on performance. Mixing does not always reduce a characteristic or trait if the parental strains are selected for the same characteristic or trait.

It is easiest to focus on one trait at a time. Which is why breeding for high meat or egg productivity without over emphasizing other traits results in quicker production of a high laying strain than if one emphasizes several traits concurrently.

Yes but those dual purpose american class breeds are made up of composites X composites. The Gameness/performance trait makes the AG and sets its type/ID. Not color of feather, comb type, shank color,usually none of these traits are set(some strains/namebrands are somewhat set) and just as you say from their backgrounds these traits are everywhere but most all will fill a sillouette the same.

Jeff

 

[The Yakima Kid]

Made up composite breeds:

American Games (crosses of OEG, Asian, and Spanish game breeds)
Asil or Aseel (In the west, they are the resutt of the crossing of distinct separate lineages found in India, Pakistan, and surrounding countries.)

Breeds, as we know them, are an invention of the late 18th Century; before that animals were bred to be of a type, not breed. There were meat and dairy cattle, although generally the milch cow outside of Northern Europe came from the draft or meat stock- and any steer could be used as an ox for riding or draft purposes.. Dogs were bred to be "hound type", "lurcher type" or some other type. Many of the types were landrace stock. The only chickens that were selectively bred at the time seem to be game fowl.

Registries for animals began with a stud book in Britain as a result of a demand for a better class of cavalry horse, a matter that had not worried the sea power British much before the 17th C. James I imported an Arabian stallion, and this caught the attention of breeders - but the first effort at the General Stud Book was in 1791. Early on, it was restricted to the offspring of Arabian stallions on native mares, or the offspring of Arabian stallions on mares who were the result of an Arabian - native mare cross. In the early days there was great emphasis on making sure that the animals were not consanguineous. The original animals were entirely practical, and were tested in races of as long as eight miles to be sure they would meet the requirements of the cavalry. In the late 18th C. there came a demand for "sprint races", which seems to have encompassed any run below about two miles in length. Around that time, the registry or stud book was opened to crosses between the original half-blood horses. Prior to that they had no established type, and were registered solely on the criteria of lineage. (There is a modern tendency to see the original crosses superiority as entirely due to the alleged superiority of the Arabian horse by those who have forgotten that the native dams were also extremely fine animals and made an equal contribution to a cross that excelled both parents in the desired qualities.)

Chickens were predominately barnyard scavengers in Europe. The eggs were collected and when they were eaten in Britain, it was as an expensive delicacy. British farmers who raised meat birds did not attempt to improve them, and meat birds were not raised for home consumption. Looking through history, it seems that the breeding of practical, specialized fowl was perhaps first and last a project of the Romans who discovered chickens made excellent portable rations for the troops. The only selective breeding of poultry in Britain seems to have been restricted to game fowl.

Colonial North America was an entirely different environment. The chicken was kept as a practical, subsistence food source. Even the local tribes took up the raising of chickens; the Iroquois are documented as raising chickens by 1687, and chickens were in British North America no later than 1609; while the Spanish introduced them during the conquest.

The Colonial British ate chicken and eggs in the summer, overwintered a few to provide for next years breeding, and ate eggs and chicken in the summer. They were a food source that rustled up most of its own food, and could eat whatever portion of the leftovers - AKA slops - that weren't fed to any hogs that happened to be on hand.

Selective breeding wasn't really practiced until the North Americans (here defined as Canadians and Americans) began to try and improve birds in the mid-19th Century, apparently inspired by the "hen fever" fad.

In the US and Canada there was a fervor associated with Cochins and Brahmas, just as in Europe; but rural Americans seemed to find the practical application of Javas, Cochins, and Brahmas to be of interest. The result of these early American selective breeding efforts later resulted in the export of America breeds to Europe where they played an important role in the development of many European breeds, including the Orpington, Welsumer (via the Orpington), the Niederrhein, the Dutch North Holland fowl (not to be confused with the American Holland fowl), the Amrock (a European/British utility breed of Plymouth Rock ancestry, but bred for performance), Langshan (a bare legged German breed as distinguished from the British feather legged Croad Langshan), the Vorwerk (by way of the Orpingtons), Marans, and Ixworth.