Rhode Island Red yes or no?

[heritagehatch]

I will venture one step deeper for the original poster. The image he provided is an industrial ( modern) RIR. There exists heritage strains of RIR in LF and rarer yet are the Bantam class RIR. The variance in the modern RIR is that certain genetic characteristics that allowed them to be cultivated for commercial production were the focus for industrial production RIR. Many of these birds made up the basis of what is available from hatcheries. As where the old non commercial "family farm" style heritage breed RIR has diminished in population and it now kept with mostly conservation breeders. By appearance the old heritage RIR is a sturdy even tempered dark mahogany red with substantial size. They are long lived and excellent multipurpose birds.

In any event both will make fine stock for the smallholder farming family. Best of luck with your birds.

 

[gojira]

If you think these "purple" birds posted by Fred and Matt here are "production reds", then you are very wrong. Are they perfectly bred to the standard? No, no bird is. But these birds are pretty much as close to the standard as you will find. When I look at them, I see fine examples of the Rhode Island Red breed. What you have to keep in mind here is, color isn't the only thing that makes the difference between a Rhode Island Red and a Production Red. Sure, it is a very defining difference, but theres more to it than that. Type, or body shape, for one thing. Also tail angle and fullness. Leg color. The list goes on and on. The "purple" birds you see in this thread definitely are not production reds.

Basically, a company can sell whatever they choose under any name they choose. Is it false advertising? To an extent, but there is nothing anyone can do about it. They are selling you a red chicken that will lay eggs. Simple. The buyer has to be partially responsible in these cases to know what is quality and what isn't, and to select birds of quality. An important thing about the hatchery birds is, they might have originated from an all RIR flock, and just been bred down and ruined. Thus, someone with no understanding of breed standards, genetics, and quality would suggest that they are RIR based on their lineage, and sell them as such. This is not the case. Chickens do not have a pedigree. It doesn't matter what they came from, it matters what they look like, and how well they meet their breeds standards. If they have RIR in their lineage but don't meet any of the breed standards, its a production red. Many of these hatcheries are mislead about these birds, and truly don't know that they are lying, just because they think they have RIR because their founding stock were RIR.

Every living thing has a pedigree, it may or may not be known. So, if one were to mix different birds together, and come up with something that looks like Fred and Matt's birds, this would be a pure Rhode Island Red? A breed is a look, not a lineage? Honestly, that is why there are very few truly pure birds left in the poultry world.


Edited by Staff

 

[waddles99]

​Every living thing has a pedigree, it may or may not be known.  So, if one were to mix different birds together, and come up with something that looks like Fred and Matt's birds, this would be a pure Rhode Island Red?  A breed is a look, not a lineage?  Honestly, that is why there are very few truly pure birds left in the poultry world.  Just curious, what is your understanding of genetics?  You say someone is wrong to say certain people are lying, yet you say another group of people are lying and that is ok?

Every living thing has a lineage, yes. A pedigree is a record of that lineage. Chickens don't come with a record of their lineage, do they? I can't take a RIR cockerel and look up its exact lineage to Mohawk V, can I? If a bird doesn't meet the breed standard, it cannot be classified as that bird. RIR are man made, bred to fit a standard that is man made. A Malay was one of the breeds used to create the RIR, but that doesn't make it a Malay. Of course not, since it fits the standards set forth by the APA saying what a RIR is. And for the record, I never said what a hatchery is doing is ok. I merely said there is nothing anyone can do about it. Never have I said it is ok to do what they do.

 

[gojira]

Every living thing has a lineage, yes. A pedigree is a record of that lineage. Chickens don't come with a record of their lineage, do they? I can't take a RIR cockerel and look up its exact lineage to Mohawk V, can I? If a bird doesn't meet the breed standard, it cannot be classified as that bird. RIR are man made, bred to fit a standard that is man made. A Malay was one of the breeds used to create the RIR, but that doesn't make it a Malay. Of course not, since it fits the standards set forth by the APA saying what a RIR is. And for the record, I never said what a hatchery is doing is ok. I merely said there is nothing anyone can do about it. Never have I said it is ok to do what they do.

Some breeders do keep meticulous records of their breedings, so some chickens do have a record of their lineage. Who said if a bird doesn't meet the breed standard, it cannot be classified as that bird? Actually, Rhode Island Reds were bred to fit a purpose, not a visual standard. A Rhode Island Red is not a Malay because it contains other breeds in its background. Not because it does not look like one. I never said that you said what a hatchery is doing ok. I was saying you felt it was ok for you to say they were lying, but you were upset thinking someone was saying others were lying.

 

[waddles99]

Some breeders do keep meticulous records of their breedings, so some chickens do have a record of their lineage. Who said if a bird doesn't meet the breed standard, it cannot be classified as that bird? Actually, Rhode Island Reds were bred to fit a purpose, not a visual standard. A Rhode Island Red is not a Malay because it contains other breeds in its background. Not because it does not look like one. I never said that you said what a hatchery is doing ok. I was saying you felt it was ok for you to say they were lying, but you were upset thinking someone was saying others were lying.

If you truly feel this way, explain to me why there are visual breed standards for RIR.

 

[gojira]

If you truly feel this way, explain to me why there are visual breed standards for RIR.

There are visual breed standards for RIR (as well as other breeds) simply because people wanted them. They are/were intended to keep breeds distinct, and also to give something to strive for when showing. When the APA first started writing standards for breeds, there was little understanding of genetics. The breed standard for Rhode Island Red has changed over the years, as people have changed what they want them to look like. When the breed standard changed, did that mean that the birds that were Rhode Island Reds by the old standard were no longer Rhode Island Reds?

 

[waddles99]

There are visual breed standards for RIR (as well as other breeds) simply because people wanted them.  They are/were intended to keep breeds distinct, and also to give something to strive for when showing.  When the APA first started writing standards for breeds, there was little understanding of genetics.  The breed standard for Rhode Island Red has changed over the years, as people have changed what they want them to look like.  When the breed standard changed, did that mean that the birds that were Rhode Island Reds by the old standard were no longer Rhode Island Reds? 

I find it very interesting that you come onto this thread with questions and end up telling people who are trying to help you answers that are false but you believe to be true. Breed standards were not developed "because people wanted them". They were developed in order to characterize a bird as a certain breed. If a bird does not meet the characteristics of a certain breed, it cannot be that breed.

 

[gojira]

I find it very interesting that you come onto this thread with questions and end up telling people who are trying to help you answers that are false but you believe to be true. Breed standards were not developed "because people wanted them". They were developed in order to characterize a bird as a certain breed. If a bird does not meet the characteristics of a certain breed, it cannot be that breed.

I ask questions to get people to think. But, I did want to know if anyone actually had proof of what they were saying. So far, they don't. So, who or what wanted breed standards if it was not people? So Rhode Island Reds from 1905 were not Rhode Island Reds, because they don't fit the current breed standard? Yet, if I were to cross various birds and the resulting offspring look like the breed standard for a Rhode Island Red, then I would have pure Rhode Island Reds?

 

[waddles99]

I ask questions to get people to think.  But, I did want to know if anyone actually had proof of what they were saying.  So far, they don't.  So, who or what wanted breed standards if it was not people?  So Rhode Island Reds from 1905 were not Rhode Island Reds, because they don't fit the current breed standard?  ​ Yet, if I were to cross various birds and the resulting offspring look like the breed standard for a Rhode Island Red, then I would have pure Rhode Island Reds?

I don't understand what "proof" you would like. It's a fact that if a bird doesn't meet the breed standards, it is not considered that breed. Otherwise, how would you classify a bird as a breed? Where would you draw the line between a Rhode Island Red and another breed, if there was no defenition of what a Rhode Island Red was? Breed standards serve to show what a breed is supposed to look like. If you would like I can show you the RIR breed standards so you can see how a Production Red doesn't meet them. And yes, Rhode Island Reds in the 1900s were Rhode Island Reds since they fit the standards at the time. The standard hasn't changed much since then, I have studied both the 1910 and 2010 version of the RIR SOP and only a couple minor changes have occurred. So, I'm sure RIR back then would be RIR even by today's standards. And yes, in theory if you crossed various birds and they fit the breed standard of a RIR, it would be considered a RIR. Anything that fits the standard would be classified as such.

 

[gojira]

I don't understand what "proof" you would like. It's a fact that if a bird doesn't meet the breed standards, it is not considered that breed. Otherwise, how would you classify a bird as a breed? Where would you draw the line between a Rhode Island Red and another breed, if there was no defenition of what a Rhode Island Red was? Breed standards serve to show what a breed is supposed to look like. If you would like I can show you the RIR breed standards so you can see how a Production Red doesn't meet them. And yes, Rhode Island Reds in the 1900s were Rhode Island Reds since they fit the standards at the time. The standard hasn't changed much since then, I have studied both the 1910 and 2010 version of the RIR SOP and only a couple minor changes have occurred. So, I'm sure RIR back then would be RIR even by today's standards. And yes, in theory if you crossed various birds and they fit the breed standard of a RIR, it would be considered a RIR. Anything that fits the standard would be classified as such.

It was said that hatcheries crossed Rhode Island Reds with Leghorns, but no one has ever shown proof of this. People continue to say that hatchery birds are not pure, and also show no proof that birds that meet the standard are pure. Where does it say that if a bird does not meet the breed standards, it is not considered that breed? If that is the case, are there any Rhode Island Reds in existence? You said breed standards serve to show what a breed is supposed to look like, but that does not mean every bird of that breed looks like that. Even within a flock no two birds are identical. If the standard has not changed much since 1910, tell me what changes have been made. Why do you consider these changes minor? Fred's and Matt's birds would not have placed in 1910.