Quote:
Why Heritage is Much much more then how they look. It's how the "function" It incompasses more then how a bird looks. It's egg laying abiltys it's meat quiltys.
I guess no one has worked with a rare breed yet?? And no Rhode Island Reds are not rare. After all chickens are
only live stock. Unless they lay, unless they have good qauilty meet theres no point of having a chicken look good.
I have a great friend that is bring back the light sussex. She has raised something like 600 chicks from 4 different breedings. And she well not use Aus. Sussex... beacuse "they are more like cochins then sussex"
I think heritage seems to only be assicoted with "show quaility" Heritage is more then Just how many points a chicken racks up at a show.... Not saying theres no point to a APA standered. But try breeding a chicken with nothing to go by.... Other then your eyes and a scale
As i do with one of my breeds.
You are preaching to the choir concerning the usefulness of our fowl. People are like pendelums, swinging from one extreme to the other. My point (just an opinion that was asked for), is how many percieve the terms. I didn't even attempt to give an opinion on what I personally think of the terms. That is another debate altogether.
The usefulness of our stock was not part of the question that was asked. Since you bring it up though, I am no fan of exagerrated traits like excessive fluff etc. I believe there may come a time when we will question the practicality of keeping our birds. The more useful strains or breeds may come out on top. That being said I will not be dependent on the commercial industry as to aquiring stock on a regular basis. I prefer pure breeds.
I want my cake and to enjoy eating it to. Many of our breeds can be bred for the show pen AND be productive. I would guess that originally many at the shows were bringing birds from the farm. There just might be a few still doing it today. I find most enthusiasts of a breed are drawn by the total package, not just for looks. Breeds have unseen and seen traits. Personally I like New Hampshires. I like that they mature fast, are meaty at a young age, AND lay well. It just helps that good examples are beautiful. Poor examples are underweight, and are just run of the mill red birds. Many supposed NHs look an awful like "production reds". Are production reds, RIRs? No. Some have leghornes in their backgound, and or New Hampshires. The "lightened" the bird up, and bred it to reach POL faster. They are lighter in color and weight than RIRs. They aren't even shaped like a RIR. RIRs are the foundation of the type, but not an equivelant.
My original point was to make an effort to communicate what you have. Most view "Heritage" as authentic or original. I would be disaponted if I thought I was getting an old time RIR and didn't. I never said that there was anything wrong with having Rhodes that were not. I do not like either extreme. I like a balance and want both.