Old and Rare Breeds

[Raven81]

Quote:
I'm from New Zealand, and haven't heard anything about native chickens, surviving or extinct. From what I remember from school, the Maori people brought with them dogs (a food source) and the polynesian rat (a stowaway), and no other domestic animals... pigs were introduced later, around the time of European contact. Much is made of the Maoris' limited food options, so if there had been chickens, it would have been a very big thing.

You may be thinking of Easter Island... there are certainly islands elsewhere in Oceania which have ancient chicken populations from different, non-Maori waves of settlers.

Quote:
I'm all for ancient, traditional and modern, with modern kicking in around the year 1870 - 1890, in time to encompass the final development of the Brahma and Cochin, and a fourth category for breeds developed after 1940 (dare I call it post-modern?

) Maybe contemporary would be best. I thought about "factory" and "industrial" but these seem inappropriate for new breeds and varieties developed outside of industry.

Best - exop

no i dont know of any native ones either not from nz. the Polynesian islands do or maybe its just a hybrid they have developed

 

[buffalogal]

Post modern makes me think of that whole Picasso thing: http://quixote.tumblr.com/post/268871762/picasso-chicken

 

[Cuban Longtails]

Ahhh, but this is the real one: img/smilies/big_smile.png" alt="big_smile" />">http://www.famousartistsgallery.com/gallery/picasso-tc.html

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
I like that; I'd hang one on my wall if I could find a print.

 

[spartacus_63]

Quote:
I am curious as to why there is a need to "classify" further than function? It appears from these that this is an attempt to distinguish an age to a breed. I'm not certain it is necessary for a "Classification" The age of the breed has no bearing on anything other than history.

There is already a class system that distinguishes origin, which only serves to partition breeds. The only functional classifications are for purpose. Ornamental, egg, meat, and dual purpose. These are quantifiable by standard and functional. Any other classification or partition would only serve the market or the show ring.

It seems to me that if we as the keepers of livestock would put more emphasis on the purpose of the animal and less on vanity, nature would help us maintain better breeds.

Just my humble opinion.

Already there is a classification system which you didn't mention (actually 2 systems): APA large fowl system and the Bantam system based on combs and legs.

You forgot Games.

My reasoning was because of history and the age of a breed. The age of a breed is important to many of us who are preservationist.

Thanks for the question. I'm sure I didn't answer to anyones satisfaction though.

Maybe I missed the intent of the post. My intent of the question was to inquire as to the purpose of another classification. If it is solely to attach an age to a breed and for personal satisfaction, my next question would be why? If there is a lack of history on a particular breed, attaching a moniker to it will only lead to further debate. If there is adequate evidence of the origin of a breed, an arbitrary title would add confusion. It seems to me that there are already titles for specific eras and that to avoid confusion, those names should match the breed origin time line.

I also did not forget games, I omitted them. Since "Game" is not a function, I see no need to categorize any breed into it. I would group games with egg producers. As for comb type, those classification are aesthetic. Although they could lend to regional hardiness.

As for large and bantam, bantams would all fall into the ornamental category in my opinion. I'm sure they lay a decent number of eggs and most would provide as much meat as a quail, but their egg and meat weights would never equal recognized market standards.

 

[stoneunhenged]

Fairly convincing evidence exists that the first chickens brought to America --specifically, South America-- were from Polynesia. These pre-dated by about 200 years the chickens brought to North America by the Spaniards in the 1500s.

It's fascinating to think about how the chicken genome has spread and morphed around the world. Think about it. The Polynesians bring an Araucana-like bird to Chile 700 years ago. A British botanist, Clarence Elliott, collects four of their descendants in the 1920s and brings them back to his native England. (Three hens survive the punishing boat trip and the rooster was eaten by the ship's cook when he misinterpreted Elliott's instructions to console the bird during a violent storm.) These hens are offered to brilliant Cambridge genetecist Reginald Punnett who, fusing their genes with a brown legbar and a Plymouth Rock, creates an entirely new breed, the cream legbar. And so the legbar begins it slow trip across the globe, crossing paths with its ancestors as it goes.

Circles within circles....

 

[Cuban Longtails]

Quote:
I like that; I'd hang one on my wall if I could find a print.

I would too! I could only find The Rooster (a line sketch), and The Cock (the one you posted) available in prints.

 

[DaveK]

Quote:
Spanish were my first and still my "true love" where chickens are concerned. Mike Miller in North Carolina and Jim Bell in north east Tennessee actually have good ones. Hamburgs are out there though probably not like they used to be. Used to be Ontario was full of them, all six colors/patterns. Pencilled with real pencilling. Minorcas are hard I think but there are a few who keep them as they should be. Tom Kane in Goldvein, Virginia, has shown some of the most true to type largefowl Moderns I have seen in recent years. Actually, not all that recent though I think he still has them. Nothing against the Orientals but Moderns should not appear to have been infused with some sort of Oriental game even if size and stature have been added. Other things get added too. Just as La Fleche (more white eggs, LOTS of them LOL) should not show obvious Minorca influence. Crap, there are way too many really interesting chicken breeds.

 

[gallorojo]

DaveK, thanks again for the response.

I guess I just prefer a bird that looks graceful, and, that can handle itself on range, a real survivor. All of the breeds I mentioned are old, and all fit the bill of beautiful, elegant, and able to survive. One of these day sI may get myself some Spanish or Hamburgs.

Thanks also to the others who threw out some responses!!

 

[saladin]

Quote:
Already there is a classification system which you didn't mention (actually 2 systems): APA large fowl system and the Bantam system based on combs and legs.

You forgot Games.

My reasoning was because of history and the age of a breed. The age of a breed is important to many of us who are preservationist.

Thanks for the question. I'm sure I didn't answer to anyones satisfaction though.

Maybe I missed the intent of the post. My intent of the question was to inquire as to the purpose of another classification. If it is solely to attach an age to a breed and for personal satisfaction, my next question would be why? If there is a lack of history on a particular breed, attaching a moniker to it will only lead to further debate. If there is adequate evidence of the origin of a breed, an arbitrary title would add confusion. It seems to me that there are already titles for specific eras and that to avoid confusion, those names should match the breed origin time line.

I also did not forget games, I omitted them. Since "Game" is not a function, I see no need to categorize any breed into it. I would group games with egg producers. As for comb type, those classification are aesthetic. Although they could lend to regional hardiness.

As for large and bantam, bantams would all fall into the ornamental category in my opinion. I'm sure they lay a decent number of eggs and most would provide as much meat as a quail, but their egg and meat weights would never equal recognized market standards.

In further answer to your question, which is a very good one I might add, with terms such as 'heritage' or 'heirloom' being tossed about so loosely today as to include such new breeds as Delawares, I thought it was time to either define the terms more specifically or to drop the terms and introduce a very simple historically accurate class system.

I do disagree with you concerning Game as a function. Historically the first chickens utilized by humanity were Games. Beyond that, a chicken is either Game or it isn't. Like it or not, it is a function. That does not mean you have to utilize the bird for it's function, but it is a function. For example, an English Pointer is a Working Breed of dog (quail hunting to be exact). You might think hunting is barbaric (of course, I don't). That is yours or anyone elses right. So, you buy an English Pointer and turn it into a pet: well and good ( I guess). That does not stop it from being a Working Breed with a function; even though you do not use it for that function. So, it is the same with Games.

A denial of the historic function of Games by yourself or anyone else does not change that historic function.