The Heritage Rhode Island Red Site

[waddles99]

Waddles,

What was your point? I read your post, but you missed my point. You also mentioned things that are not accurate. You once said you were learning, and would listen. I tend to teach by asking questions. I asked a few things in my post to see what your understanding was. You are a junior exhibitor, correct? My son is also. I did not say you were clueless. I did say you needed reliable, accurate information. There is a lot of information out there, but much of it will take you on the wrong direction.

You have responded to posts I have made in the past. You have assumed I am new to poultry. If someone tries to point out something you have not thought of before, you assume they are wrong.

I was not ignoring the rest of the bird. I understand type, color, etc. My question was about what I was seeing as far as tail angle, and what the standard calls for. I was simply wanting to know if there was a reason for the tail angle I am seeing so that I could make my selections accordingly. I am not neglecting the rest of the bird. I am putting selection pressure on many traits, not just tail angle. Like I said, once I start selecting in a particular direction, and once I start eliminating genes, I may not be able to go back. Once genes are eliminated from a gene pool, they can't be brought back without bringing in an individual or individuals from outside the gene pool. I want to keep a pure strain, and do not want to have to bring in outside birds later. Tail angle is a quantitative trait, meaning it requires genes at many loci to make what we see. If you remove/replace an allele at one of those loci (which is what you are doing when you select for or against a quantitative trait), you change things, and you can't get it back.

I don't think I ever assumed you were new to poultry. Maybe new to the thread? I would never assume someone I didn't even know was new to poultry. Any ways I was just trying to provide some insight. I never said it was fact but I guess that was implied. Sorry. I was just trying to explain something in how I understood it.

 

[gojira]

Waddles,

In another thread a while back you talked down to me in your posts (some of which were deleted by moderators), and even went as far as telling me I need to study genetics. You should know more about someone before making comments about them. If you don't know something is fact, why put it out there? You even assumed in another thread that what I said was untrue, but you don't know my experiences and accomplishments, and you don't know what I have seen and heard first-hand. You might have learned something had you not assumed I did not know what I was talking about. I am not building myself up, but simply saying be careful about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Why not ask questions or do some research before you assume someone does not know what they are talking about? It goes the other way also, one should ask questions and do research before they assume someone knows what they are talking about. I posted a question about a breeding criterion, wanting some input. I meant no harm. I simply want a balanced bird that comes close to the breed standard.

 

[waddles99]

Waddles,

In another thread a while back you talked down to me in your posts (some of which were deleted by moderators), and even went as far as telling me I need to study genetics. You should know more about someone before making comments about them. If you don't know something is fact, why put it out there? You even assumed in another thread that what I said was untrue, but you don't know my experiences and accomplishments, and you don't know what I have seen and heard first-hand. You might have learned something had you not assumed I did not know what I was talking about. I am not building myself up, but simply saying be careful about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Why not ask questions or do some research before you assume someone does not know what they are talking about? It goes the other way also, one should ask questions and do research before they assume someone knows what they are talking about. I posted a question about a breeding criterion, wanting some input. I meant no harm. I simply want a balanced bird that comes close to the breed standard.

Yes, I remember that conversation very well now. I remember it a little bit differently than you but that's fine. I don't think there is any point in continuing this conversation now that I see what is happening here. Good luck.

 

[3riverschick]

how disappointing. IfBob as here he would help answer my questions. I do miss him.
Bst,
Karen

 

[RhodeRunner]

I finally paid my dues and joined the Rhode Island Red Club of America.

I joined back in early December, but never heard back from the club. Is this normal, or do I need to contact someone? All the other clubs I joined sent some kind of notification?

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Hi,
I have been doing some studying on how the colors in the underfluff effect the top colors in Red birds. Specifically the Red Sussex. I understand that to get that deep Rhode Island Red color in the Red Sussex we must incorporate the recessive black factors. What else needs changing?
Ok back to history. It seems that 1922 was a watershed for the the Rhode Island Red breed. When they changed the Standard to allow for different hues in the underfluff to make the correct top color. There was dispute among several of the Red breeds at this time about which hue of Red was proper for their breed and which colors of underfluff were necessary to achieve this. Three of the breeds involved were the Rhode Island Red, the American Red ,and the Red Sussex. . My question is about the American Red . It seems this breed was developed and accepted by the APA Standard. Then there was a dispute with the Rhode Island Red folk. Eventually, the American Red was taken off the Standard...everyone subsequently joined the Rhode Island Red Club and everything was copacetic. Was the American Red the same as the Rosecomb Rhode Island Red? One article intimated that.
Also, does anyone have cites on other articles about how the hues of the undercolor effect the top colors in a Red bird? I am trying to figure out what needs to be done to change the present awful color of the Red Sussex into the magnificent color of the present day show Rhode Island Red. Back then in 1922, after the color change in the Rhode Island Red Standard, the Red Sussex wasn't as washed out as it is today. In fact, many said its color should be almost identical to the show Rhode Island Red of that day. So I figure the best place to start is here on the Heritage thread. The Red Sussex should simply be a Speckled Sussex without the mottling. So if we can fix the coloring in the Red Sussex, we can use them to deepen the color in the Speckled Sussex.
I just read Blosl's description above. I had thought the Rhode Island Red was a red bird. But its not. It's a Black Tailed Red. Hum. That's interesting. The Red Sussex is also a Black-Tailed Red. Ok things are starting to clear up a bit. Does recessive black do anything else besides darken the red on the body? How does one get the black out of the hackles in a Black-Tailed Red bird?
Thanks for any help you can give.
Best Regards,
Karen.

Here's a good read that may help:

https://books.google.com/books?id=s...6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q=blue ribbon reds&f=false

 

[3riverschick]

Here's a good read that may help:

https://books.google.com/books?id=s...6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q=blue ribbon reds&f=false

Yes yes! This is exactly what I have been looking for Perfect! Thank you so much! Van Dort in her book on Chicken colors says that show RIR color has the recessive black factor and that's one of the things that separates it from regular Black Tailed Red color. I have huge respect for W.H. Card. His book on "Breeding Laws" ( readable online at Hathitrust libraray) is one of my top 10 poultry books. Judge Card being Danne Honours' uncle's uncle and author of what Mr. Honour describes as the best article he's seen on the color Buff. Included in Honours' PDF compilation on "Buff Coluoration", titled "The True Gospel of The Color Buff". So now I see Card saying also Black is involved in making perfect Red. And also orange?!? That's a new one to me. I never thought of chickens as being orange. What do you suppose he means by "orange"?
Best,
Karen
Oh there are two more Card articles in this great book! I am reading one on Surface Color Diagrams now. So very helpful! What a great book!

ok so it seems the proper red color is balanced combination of the orange
( showing improperly in the pumpkin neck), the recessive black factors ,
and the true red? Am I even close here?

 

[cmom]

Joey, which bird is your avatar?

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Joey, which bird is your avatar?

Brother to Matt's Knoxville champion.