RIR girls????

[ThePRfan]

The original RIR,is the heritage rit....

 

[krista74]

My understanding is that the RIR is a pure, original heritage breed. They are darker - a deep mahogany colour, with yellow legs and blackish tail feathers.

A Production Red, on the other hand, is a RIR with Leghorn crossed through it's bloodlines to improve egg production. These tend to be a lighter colour - sort of reddish to look at.



- Krista

 

[Michael OShay]

Where did you read "Their completely " and is this true Michael Oshay??

No, they are not completely RIR. There are traces of leghorn in them which is why an off-color feather or two occasionally pops up in a Production Red. It's also why they lack the deep mahagony color of a pure RIR, and often the black feathers in the tail as well. See Chris09's two posts below. They are good explanations of both the Production Red and the New Hampshire.

The original Production Red was a egg production version of a Rhode Island Red bred solely from a Rhode Island Red (hence the name Production Red) later on some Leghorn blood was added to increase egg production.
Today there are many crosses that are know as a Production Red and it seems that every hatchery has there own cross that they call a "Production Red".

There are/were a few people in the Rhode Island Red Club that has done a tone of research on not only the R.I. Red but also the Production Red.
The information that I have posted comes not only from there research but mine also.


The OP's birds are production reds...

X2 on the above.

Another chicken that was bred solely from the Rhode Island Red is the New Hampshire.
The breeders of the New Hampshire wanted a meat type fowl so they started breeding the R.I. Red for a more faster meat production.

X2 again, on the above.

 

[Chris09]

Basically this is where I am getting lost.....If the 'production red' is not an out cross from the original rir, but Rirs selectively bred for the egg laying trait....how on earth can they not be RIRs?

Let me try to clarify my last post some.

Back in the 30's breeders started breeding some Rhode Island Red (R.I. Red) more for a production meat breed but still being a dual purpose fowl, this breed later became the New Hampshire (N.H.). In the breeding of the N.H. a lot of the R.I. Red's characteristics were lost, Color, Shape, Size and Egg laying ability are just a few. Now since the new bred of birds no longer share the same characteristics as the original breeding stock it can really not be considered a R.I. Red and is a new breed with a new name.

Now the same can be said about the Production Red but with a little twist.
The original production reds were bred from R.I. Red's much the same as the N.H. but instead of breeding for meat production the now production red was bred for egg production. The main objective for breeding this new fowl was to compete against the R.I. Red in the Rate of Lay contest. This new breed laid well but breeders of the production red wanted a little more edge over the dominating R.I. Red so breeders started breeding Leghorn blood into the production red to improve the egg production. Now just as with the N.H. the production red lost a lot of the R.I. Reds characteristics, Size, Shape, Color, Broodiness, etc. Also as with the N.H. since this new fowl no longer looks like a R.I. Red it really cant bear its name.


Now days most all production "breeds" that you receive form hatcheries have Mediterranean blood add to them to increase egg production. These production "breed" are nearly all Large Fowl breeds that hatcheries sell including production red.

 

[krista74]

Back in the 30's breeders started breeding some Rhode Island Red (R.I. Red) more for a production meat breed but still being a dual purpose fowl, this breed later became the New Hampshire (N.H.). In the breeding of the N.H. a lot of the R.I. Red's characteristics were lost, Color, Shape, Size and Egg laying ability are just a few. Now since the new bred of birds no longer share the same characteristics as the original breeding stock it can really not be considered a R.I. Red and is a new breed with a new name.

Now the same can be said about the Production Red but with a little twist.
The original production reds were bred from R.I. Red's much the same as the N.H. but instead of breeding for meat production the now production red was bred for egg production. The main objective for breeding this new fowl was to compete against the R.I. Red in the Rate of Lay contest. This new breed laid well but breeders of the production red wanted a little more edge over the dominating R.I. Red so breeders started breeding Leghorn blood into the production red to improve the egg production. Now just as with the N.H. the production red lost a lot of the R.I. Reds characteristics, Size, Shape, Color, Broodiness, etc. Also as with the N.H. since this new fowl no longer looks like a R.I. Red it really cant bear its name.

^ x2. This is exactly the impression I was under.

Thank you for explaining it so eloquently.

- Krista

 

[Chris09]

Why is the SQ RIR considered a rir and the egg laying RIR not a RIR? Is this just convention? My logic centers are having a problem lol.

Are chicken breeds color breeds (if if looks like the breed, it is the breed)? I am sort of thinking no, but have read a few things on other breed threads that state that if the color is not right, then the chicken in question is not the breed (Ameraucanas for example...maybe rhodebars)

Thanks for all the info!

Quote: Chickens have to meet a breed standard to be that breed.

Quote: More than one breed can have the same color, and that color has a standard that it should look like.
There are ton more things that make a breed than just color.

Here is a example of the Standard for the Rhode Island Red

Shape Male
Comb: Single, moderately large, set firmly on head, straight and upright, with five even and well defined points, those in front and rear smaller than those in the Center: blade smooth inclining slightly downward following contour of the skull.
Comb: Rose , moderately large, firm on head ; oval, free from hollow center, surface covered with small rounded points, terminating in a spike at the rear, the spike drooping slightly but not conforming too closely to the shape of head.
Bead: Medium length, slightly curved.
Face: Clean cut, skin fine and soft in texture, free from wrinkles.
Eyes: large, full and prominent.
Wattles: Medium size, uniform, free from folds or wrinkles.
Ear Lobes: Oblong, well defined, smooth.
Head: Medium in length, fairly deep, inclined to be flat on the top rather than round.
Neck: Medium length.
Hackle: Abundant, flowing over shoulders, not too closely feathered.
Back: Long, moderately broad its entire length, carried horizontally. Saddle: moderately broad, feathers of medium length, moderately abundant, blending into tail.
Tail: Medium length, well spread carried at an angle of twenty degrees above horizontal.
Main Tail: broad and overlapping.
Main Sickles: medium length, broad, extending slightly beyond mail tail feathers.
Lesser Sickles: medium length, broad, extending slightly beyond main tail feathers. Lesser Sickles and Tail Coverts medium length , broad and overlapping.
Wings: Good size, well folded, carried horizontally.

Comb: Single; medium in size, set firmly on head, straight and upright with five even and well defined points, those in front and rear smaller than those in center.
Comb: Rose low free from hollow center, set firmly on head, much smaller than that of the male and in proportion to its length, narrower covered with small points and terminating in a small, short spike at the rear.
Beak: Medium length slightly curved.
Face: Clean cut, skin,, fine and soft in texture, free from wrinkles.
Eyes: large, full, and prominent.
Wattles: Medium size, regularly curved.
Ear Lobes: Oblong, well defined, smooth.
Head: Medium in length, fairly deep, inclined to be flat on top rather round.
Neck: Medium length, moderately full feathered.
Back: Long, moderately broad its entire length, carried horizontally, blending into tail.
Tail: Medium length well spread, carried at an angle of ten degrees above horizontal.
Wings: Rather large, well folded. Fronts well covered by breast feathers Flights carried nearly horizontally. Primaries and Secondary’s broad and overlapping in natural order when wing is folded.
Breast: Moderately, deep, full, well rounded.
Body and Fluff: Body long, moderately broad, moderately deep, straight, extending well forward, giving the body an OBLONG appearance feathers, carried close to body. Fluff moderately full.
Legs and toes: Legs set well apart, straight when viewed and front. Lower Thighs medium length, well feathered, smooth. Shanks; medium length, smooth. Toes four on each foot, medium length, and straight, well spread.

Comb, face, wattles and ear lobes: Bright red.
Beak: Redish horn.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Head: Plumage, lustrous rich dark red.
Neck: Hackle lustrous, rich dark red.
Front of neck rich dark red.
Back and Saddle: lustrous, rich, dark red.
Tail: Main Tail black Sickles lustrous, greenish black. Beattler Green. Coverts maily lustrous, greenish black, rich red as they approach the saddle.
Wings: Fronts, Bows and Coverts lustrous, rich dark red. Primaries upper webs, lustrous , rich dark redl lower webs, black with narrow edging of red. Secondaries lower webs, lustrous, rich, dark red, the red extending around end of feathers sufficient to secoure a red wing bay and lacing the upper portion of the upper web, this color growing wider in shorter secondariesl remaidnder of each secondary blackl feathers next to the body being red on surface so that the wing when folded in natural position shall show one harmononious lustrous, rich, dark red color.
Breast: lustrous, rich, dark red.
Body and Fluff: body lustrous , rich dark red. Fluff rich dark red.
Legs and toes: Lower thighs rich, dark red. Shanks and toes rich yellow tinged with reddish horn. A line of red pigment down the sides of shanks, extending to tips of toes, is desirable.
Undercolor of all sections: Rich intense Red.
Plumage: General surface color, lustrous, rich dark red, except where black is specified and free from and shafting or mealiness. No contrast in color between any of the sections, the harmonious blending in all sections desired. The specimen should carry a high sheen in all outer sections so as to give a glossed appearance.

Comb, Face, Wattles and ear lobes: bright Red.
Beak: Reddish horn.
Eyes: Reddish bay.
Head: Plumage lustrous rich dark red.
Neck; Lustrous, rich dark red with slight ticking of black, confined to tips of lower neck feathers. Front of neck rich dark red.
Back and Saddle: Lustrous, rich dark red.
Tail: Main tail Black.
Sickles lustrous, greenish black Coverts mainly lustrous, greenish black, rich red as they approach the saddle.
Wings: Fronts, Bows and Coverts lustrous, rich, dark red. Primaries upper webs, lustrous, rich dark redl lower webs, black with narrow edging of red. Secondaries lower webs, lustrous, rich, dark red, the red extending around end of feathers suffient to secure a red wing bay and lacing the upper portion of the upper web, this color growing wider in shorter secondariesl remainder of each secondary blackl feathers next tobody being red on surface so the wing when folded in natural position shall show on harmonious lustrous, rich dark red color.
Breast: lustrous, rich dark red.
Body and Fluff: body lustrous, rich, dark red. Fluff rich dark red.
Legs and toes: Lower thighs rich dark red. Shanks and toes rich yellow tinged with reddish horn.
Under color of all sections: Rich intense red.
Plumage General surface color, lustrous, rich dark red, except where black is specified, even in all sections and free from shafting or mealiness.

Weights: Cock 8 ½ Lbs Hens 6 ½ pounds Cockerels 7 ½ pounds Pullets 5 ½ pounds
Weight Bantams: Cocks 34oz Hens 30 oz Cockerels 30 oz Pullets 26 oz.
Shape and color descriptions the same as for large Rhode Island Reds and Bantams .
Disqualifications: One or more entirely white feathers showing in outer plumage. More disqualifications such as stubs or feathers between the toes ect.

Here is a idea of the body we work for --

 

[ThePRfan]

Thanks for clearing it u!

 

[ThePRfan]

 
Basically this is where I am getting lost.....If the 'production red' is not an out cross from the original rir, but Rirs selectively bred for the egg laying trait....how on earth can they not be RIRs?  

Let me try to clarify my last post some.

Back in the 30's breeders started breeding some Rhode Island Red (R.I. Red) more for a production meat breed but still being a dual purpose fowl, this breed later became the New Hampshire (N.H.). In the breeding of the N.H. a lot of the R.I. Red's characteristics were lost, Color, Shape, Size and Egg laying ability are just a few. Now since the new bred of birds no longer share the same characteristics as the original breeding stock it can really not be considered a R.I. Red and is a new breed with a new name.

Now the same can be said about the Production Red but with a little twist.
The original production reds were bred from R.I. Red's much the same as the N.H. but instead of breeding for meat production the now production red was bred for egg production. The main objective for breeding this new fowl was to compete against the R.I. Red in the Rate of Lay contest. This new breed laid well but breeders of the production red wanted a little more edge over the dominating R.I. Red so breeders started breeding Leghorn blood into the production red to improve the egg production. Now just as with the N.H. the production red lost a lot of the R.I. Reds characteristics, Size, Shape, Color, Broodiness, etc. Also as with the N.H. since this new fowl no longer looks like a R.I. Red it really cant bear its name.


Now days most all production "breeds" that you receive form hatcheries have Mediterranean blood add to them to increase egg production. These production
"breed" are nearly all Large Fowl breeds that hatcheries sell including production red.

So my NH could have Mediterranean blood in he
She is very orange short comb,and is a very good flier.

 

[cafrhe]

Let me try to clarify my last post some.

Back in the 30's breeders started breeding some Rhode Island Red (R.I. Red) more for a production meat breed but still being a dual purpose fowl, this breed later became the New Hampshire (N.H.). In the breeding of the N.H. a lot of the R.I. Red's characteristics were lost, Color, Shape, Size and Egg laying ability are just a few. Now since the new bred of birds no longer share the same characteristics as the original breeding stock it can really not be considered a R.I. Red and is a new breed with a new name.

Now the same can be said about the Production Red but with a little twist.
The original production reds were bred from R.I. Red's much the same as the N.H. but instead of breeding for meat production the now production red was bred for egg production. The main objective for breeding this new fowl was to compete against the R.I. Red in the Rate of Lay contest. This new breed laid well but breeders of the production red wanted a little more edge over the dominating R.I. Red so breeders started breeding Leghorn blood into the production red to improve the egg production. Now just as with the N.H. the production red lost a lot of the R.I. Reds characteristics, Size, Shape, Color, Broodiness, etc. Also as with the N.H. since this new fowl no longer looks like a R.I. Red it really cant bear its name.


Now days most all production "breeds" that you receive form hatcheries have Mediterranean blood add to them to increase egg production. These production "breed" are nearly all Large Fowl breeds that hatcheries sell including production red.

Thanks everyone for their input and patience. I really appreciate the discussion....Wow is there a lot to read about chicken breeds!

 

[cafrhe]

I should ask this too---am I comparing apples to oranges when I try to relate dog breeding to chicken breeding? I do know of one major difference between the mammals and birds--sex linked genes are double in males for birds instead of females for mammals. I am sure there are other differenced that I just dont know about yet.