The Heritage Rhode Island Red Site

[RhodeRunner]

I really do not spend much time on here these days. I need to visit more often.

Honestly, I was a bit surprised how good they look so far. They are only five months old, so I haven't bothered culling anyone... minus a few that were underweight. Thankfully, I have 10 cockerels, so I will not have to keep any with a high tail. But, have been pleasantly suprised so far. Hopefully, they continue to grow well.

 

[Feathyr]

I've been out of the chicken scene for a while for various reasons, but I recently realized that despite having paid my membership dues, I haven't received any messages from the RIRCA for several months.

Has the club been put on hiatus?

 

[kaiwan]

I've been out of the chicken scene for a while for various reasons, but I recently realized that despite having paid my membership dues, I haven't received any messages from the RIRCA for several months.

Has the club been put on hiatus?

The club is still around. They held the national meet and club meeting at a show in Oklahoma last month.

 

[Valley Farmer]

Does anyone know why the "heritage reds" are so dark in color, while many early paintings show them as significantly lighter? I mean no disrespect to those breeding darker Reds, but it's something I'd love to know, if anyone has any ideas. Thanks.

 

[gojira]

Does anyone know why the "heritage reds" are so dark in color, while many early paintings show them as significantly lighter? I mean no disrespect to those breeding darker Reds, but it's something I'd love to know, if anyone has any ideas. Thanks.

The short answer is because the standard has changed over the years. I am not sure if someone bred darker birds, and then the standard changed, or if someone wanted darker birds, and the standard changed to give people something to work towards. The former seems more likely.

 

[RhodeRunner]

I've been out of the chicken scene for a while for various reasons, but I recently realized that despite having paid my membership dues, I haven't received any messages from the RIRCA for several months.

Has the club been put on hiatus?

I have gotten three messages this year. Feb, Sept, and October? If you didn't get any of those, I would contact Toni. Perhaps, your email was accidentally not typed in during the last group email, but they are sporadic.

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Does anyone know why the "heritage reds" are so dark in color, while many early paintings show them as significantly lighter? I mean no disrespect to those breeding darker Reds, but it's something I'd love to know, if anyone has any ideas. Thanks.

The short answer is because the standard has changed over the years. I am not sure if someone bred darker birds, and then the standard changed, or if someone wanted darker birds, and the standard changed to give people something to work towards. The former seems more likely.

If I remember correctly, lighter feathers tend to be loose. Darker feathers tend to be tighter. Not only that, the darker color has a more aesthetic appeal to it. To achieve this, breeders push the black gene to it's limit. There is a fine line between correct black, and excess black. Finding the right balance without overrun is very tricky, to say the least.

Early paintings differed from today's birds in a couple of ways. The combs were much smaller, and the tails much shorter than today's version of RIR. I don't know of any breeder(s) who strives to reproduce the birds of yesteryear. Since it's mostly the comb and tail that have changed, eventually, the SOP will adapt to the birds of today.

 

[gojira]

If I remember correctly, lighter feathers tend to be loose. Darker feathers tend to be tighter. Not only that, the darker color has a more aesthetic appeal to it. To achieve this, breeders push the black gene to it's limit. There is a fine line between correct black, and excess black. Finding the right balance without overrun is very tricky, to say the least.

Early paintings differed from today's birds in a couple of ways. The combs were much smaller, and the tails much shorter than today's version of RIR. I don't know of any breeder(s) who strives to reproduce the birds of yesteryear. Since it's mostly the comb and tail that have changed, eventually, the SOP will adapt to the birds of today.

Are you saying in general lighter feathers are looser, and darker feathers are tighter, or just in Rhode Island Reds? Rhode Island Reds have never been intended to be a hardfeathered breed like a Malay, Cornish, or Modern Game. Why change the color of the bird because people have a different preference? Today, there is more black than was originally intended and desired, so that fine line has been crossed.

Why does the Standard have to change based on what people choose to breed at a given time? People who breed to the standard say they are trying to preserve the breed, but if people keeping changing the Standard, that is not preserving anything. Worst of all, it is changing just for aesthetics, not for something worthwhile like production. Actually, just about everything on a Rhode Island Red has changed, not just the comb and tail. Maybe since the last standard revision.

The Dominique is in a different position. Breeders are wanting to return that breed back to what it was, and what it was intended to be. It is sad to me that people want to turn a once great breed, the Rhode Island Red into something it was never intended, and not even trying to improve production, so what is the point?

 

[RhodeRunner]

Are you saying in general lighter feathers are looser, and darker feathers are tighter, or just in Rhode Island Reds? Rhode Island Reds have never been intended to be a hardfeathered breed like a Malay, Cornish, or Modern Game. Why change the color of the bird because people have a different preference? Today, there is more black than was originally intended and desired, so that fine line has been crossed.

Why does the Standard have to change based on what people choose to breed at a given time? People who breed to the standard say they are trying to preserve the breed, but if people keeping changing the Standard, that is not preserving anything. Worst of all, it is changing just for aesthetics, not for something worthwhile like production. Actually, just about everything on a Rhode Island Red has changed, not just the comb and tail. Maybe since the last standard revision.

The Dominique is in a different position. Breeders are wanting to return that breed back to what it was, and what it was intended to be. It is sad to me that people want to turn a once great breed, the Rhode Island Red into something it was never intended, and not even trying to improve production, so what is the point?

Rhode Island Reds are not hard feathered, they are not soft feathered, they are a medium feathered fowl... with both Malay (hard) and Asiatic (soft) heritage, as well as Leghorn. Is it true that many production reds have feathers that are soft? Yes. Is this genetic? Yes. Is it color related? Perhaps. Is it an absolute truth that lighter colored fowl have harder feathers? No. Gamefowl and soft feathered breeds come in both dark and light colors.

Has the feather type been changed over time? Not that I know of? The breed was never intended (as you said) to be hard feathered... and it is not hard-feathered! The breed was never intended to be soft feathered, and it is not soft feathered.

Has the color changed over time? Yes, and it does in many color varieties. Saying that the first Reds were lighter in color isn't shocking. It takes a long time to get a unified type and coloration when making a breed, and the standard can change color.

People can bred and create whatever they want. When they submit their birds to be recognized by the American Poultry Association, they give up a lot of their power. They do not create the standard, they also don't have the right to pick the bred they created's name... The APA takes that right.
Examples:
1) APA decided Brahmas with vulture hawks have a dq. In Europe and Asia, Brahmas have vulture hawks.
2) APA decided that Marans would have feathered legs, instead of non-feathered legs. Both varieties exists, they just picked what they wanted.
3) The Partridge Chantecler was submitted as a Partridge Albertain... the APA decided that they would follow the same standard and be recognized as another variety of Chantecler instead.
4) APA decided they like a different shade of Partridge vs. what is common in Europe.

Is this right or wrong? Does it matter? The APA creates a standard to unify breeders. Breeders decide what they are going to do.

The APA was created for exhibitors and breeders alike. In a show, birds are judged by size, feather condition, body type and color. This doesn't mean that heritage breeders should forget a breeds original purpose.

What is the point if you are not trying to improve production? Not only are we trying to improve our birds, we are trying to keep these birds Dual-Purpose, which is what the standard say's they were created for. This means we try to keep weight proper, and egg production steady. We aren't looking to turn them into egg machines, or cause them to weigh more. Many of us celebrate a broody hen, it makes them very homestead friendly. Some of us like slower growing birds, I personally think it gives the meat better flavor and texture, and enjoy the quality of my birds meat.

Production Reds exist. If you want to raise them, go for it. If you want to raise the old heritage variety, go for it. Is the heritage variety different than what it was intended? Perhaps? Is that sad? I don't feel sad when I look at my birds.

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Rhode Island Reds are not hard feathered, they are not soft feathered, they are a medium feathered fowl... with both Malay (hard) and Asiatic (soft) heritage, as well as Leghorn. Is it true that many production reds have feathers that are soft? Yes. Is this genetic? Yes. Is it color related? Perhaps. Is it an absolute truth that lighter colored fowl have harder feathers? No. Gamefowl and soft feathered breeds come in both dark and light colors.

Has the feather type been changed over time? Not that I know of? The breed was never intended (as you said) to be hard feathered... and it is not hard-feathered! The breed was never intended to be soft feathered, and it is not soft feathered.

Has the color changed over time? Yes, and it does in many color varieties. Saying that the first Reds were lighter in color isn't shocking. It takes a long time to get a unified type and coloration when making a breed, and the standard can change color.

People can bred and create whatever they want. When they submit their birds to be recognized by the American Poultry Association, they give up a lot of their power. They do not create the standard, they also don't have the right to pick the bred they created's name... The APA takes that right.
Examples:
1) APA decided Brahmas with vulture hawks have a dq. In Europe and Asia, Brahmas have vulture hawks.
2) APA decided that Marans would have feathered legs, instead of non-feathered legs. Both varieties exists, they just picked what they wanted.
3) The Partridge Chantecler was submitted as a Partridge Albertain... the APA decided that they would follow the same standard and be recognized as another variety of Chantecler instead.
4) APA decided they like a different shade of Partridge vs. what is common in Europe.

Is this right or wrong? Does it matter? The APA creates a standard to unify breeders. Breeders decide what they are going to do.

The APA was created for exhibitors and breeders alike. In a show, birds are judged by size, feather condition, body type and color. This doesn't mean that heritage breeders should forget a breeds original purpose.

What is the point if you are not trying to improve production? Not only are we trying to improve our birds, we are trying to keep these birds Dual-Purpose, which is what the standard say's they were created for. This means we try to keep weight proper, and egg production steady. We aren't looking to turn them into egg machines, or cause them to weigh more. Many of us celebrate a broody hen, it makes them very homestead friendly. Some of us like slower growing birds, I personally think it gives the meat better flavor and texture, and enjoy the quality of my birds meat.

Production Reds exist. If you want to raise them, go for it. If you want to raise the old heritage variety, go for it. Is the heritage variety different than what it was intended? Perhaps? Is that sad? I don't feel sad when I look at my birds.

I agree wholeheartedly. Just to be clear, in my previous quote, I never said darker feathers were harder... only tighter. In my experience, lighter colored reds tend to have feathers that are larger, and looser. RIR feathers should not be large, or small... they should be medium width. Reds with lighter colored feathers tend to have loose, shredded feathers, especially in the saddle/tail area. This is undesirable. While certain (cosmetic) areas have varied slightly from the old standard, egg and meat production remain constant. If you lose either of those qualities, you've lost the breed. When held closely to the standard, they are, and will remain, a true dual-purpose bird. While breeders use the SOP as a guideline, they do so with the realization that no bird will ever meet the standard perfectly. There is no such thing as the perfect red. We simply strive to get as close to perfect as possible. Even with the SOP as a guide, each breeder has their own visual image of what the perfect red should look like. Every breeder puts his or her own "stamp" on their line... according to what they think reds should look like. There will never be another Mohawk V, nor should there be. The reds of today meet the needs of modern society. If it were a matter of survival, I'm sure some changes would be made to better meet the need for food... rather than winning ribbons, plaques, and trophies. Just my 2c...