The Heritage Rhode Island Red Site

[gojira]

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 am well aware of Rhode Island Red history. I am also very familiar with gamefowl.

There was a unified type and color when Rhode Island Reds were admitted to the standard. The standard has changed many times over the years. Breeders have decided to change the Rhode Island Red many times after a standard was adopted, instead of breeding to the accepted, established standard. Even today, you would be hard pressed to find a Rhode Island Red at a show that is close to the standard.

The Rhode Island Red used to actually be a dual purpose breed. Today, people are more concerned with aesthetics, and production went out the window. The standard has nothing to do with production, though many have been led to believe that. I prefer efficient birds, as I can eat a lot. I can eat a 4 lbs. bird at one sitting, so maybe my criteria for a meat bird differs from some.

I am sure many raise the heritage variety, but they are discouraged in this forum, and told their birds are production reds. Do you raise heritage birds, or the modern variant?

 

[gojira]

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...

Many things vary from the older Rhode Island Red standards, and if you feel egg and meat production remain the same, the modern birds fall short, and would be considered to be in bad shape. I guess the breed has been lost. The standard has nothing to with whether a bird is actually dual purpose or not. That was marketing from 80+ years ago. Shouldn't breeders try to breed according to the standard, instead of constantly changing the standard to fit changing tastes. Shouldn't that "stamp" be similar to the standard, if they claim to breeding according to the standard? Mohawk V did not match the standard of his day either. It is interesting the people today are so focused on that bird. He might not come close to today's standard either, but maybe closer than what is being bred today. What do you consider the needs of modern society? What a chicken looks like? At one time, it was more important how productive a bird was, than how many ribbons it won. Although, at one time, the birds winning ribbons were also used for meat and eggs. I guess that is no longer needed in modern society. I guess modern society needs a darker Rhode Island Red with a lower tail angle.

 

[RhodeRunner]

I am well aware of Rhode Island Red history. I am not sure Ur is. I am also very familiar with gamefowl.

There was a unified type and color when Rhode Island Reds were admitted to the standard. The standard has changed many times over the years. Breeders have decided to change the Rhode Island Red many times after a standard was adopted, instead of breeding to the accepted, established standard. Even today, you would be hard pressed to find a Rhode Island Red at a show that is close to the standard.

The Rhode Island Red used to actually be a dual purpose breed. Today, people are more concerned with aesthetics, and production went out the window. The standard has nothing to do with production, though many have been led to believe that. I prefer efficient birds, as I can eat a lot. I can eat a 4 lbs. bird at one sitting, so maybe my criteria for a meat bird differs from some.

I am sure many raise the heritage variety, but they are discouraged in this forum, and told their birds are production reds. Do you raise heritage birds, or the modern variant?

Heritage- This "coined" term, has no meaning. "I raise heritage birds", does not indicate if the bird is hatchery stock, standard bred, or what the goals of the breeder are. Therefore, what meaning can it have? It is a meaning purely of preference.

Exhibitors breeding for aesthetics is not new, and is not breed specific. Of course the Rhode Island Red has these breeders, and has changed with time. What breed hasn't? Landraces and some games are perhaps are the only ones left? Thankfully, the dual-purpose nature of the breed has remained, and the breed has never become a useless fluff ball.

Judges that also do not understand a breed, feed the problem of allowing birds to win, that shouldn't win. This is not new, or breed specific either.

The only thing I have seen on this group is breeders politely telling new comers that they have Production Reds instead of Standardbred Reds (sometimes using the term heritage, because well it's hard to change old ways, and they consider their birds heritage... preference term). To say that production reds are closer to the original intended Reds is faulty to a degree... I am yet to see those birds focused on being dual-purpose, they are geared towards egg production not meat.

One thing I love about the breeders here, is how real they are. Most of us weigh and eat our birds, kill mean birds, and will yank out an axe instead of antibiotics. Some of us show, some of us do not. I am a second generation Rhode Island Red breeder, that doesn't exhibit. I raise my birds in the following manner
1) Health - only parasites and occasional injuries are treated. Birds must handle climate without wavering in health or condition.
2) Temperament - I don't get bite and my hens do not get terrorized
3) Feel - I feel the breast bone, back width, pelvic area, and decide if like a bird
4) Weight - birds must hit proper weights at the proper times of development.
5) Egg Production - 1 -2 year old hens must lay 3 - 5 eggs/week during laying periods.
6) Type - Set by the Standard of perfection
7) Color - Set by the Standard of perfection

Are my birds heritage? That is a preference question.

If people ask a question, I will offer a recommendation if I can. But, they are free to raise their birds as they wish.

Also, some food for thought. Heritage and Original are not the same thing? You can focus on history as much as you like, but many will not keep up. Many of us do not care if Mohawk V met the standard today, or yesterday. This group of people likes their Standard bred Rhode Island Reds, and that is what we do.

 

[gojira]

Heritage- This "coined" term, has no meaning. "I raise heritage birds", does not indicate if the bird is hatchery stock, standard bred, or what the goals of the breeder are. Therefore, what meaning can it have? It is a meaning purely of preference.

Exhibitors breeding for aesthetics is not new, and is not breed specific. Of course the Rhode Island Red has these breeders, and has changed with time. What breed hasn't? Landraces and some games are perhaps are the only ones left? Thankfully, the dual-purpose nature of the breed has remained, and the breed has never become a useless fluff ball.

Judges that also do not understand a breed, feed the problem of allowing birds to win, that shouldn't win. This is not new, or breed specific either.

The only thing I have seen on this group is breeders politely telling new comers that they have Production Reds instead of Standardbred Reds (sometimes using the term heritage, because well it's hard to change old ways, and they consider their birds heritage... preference term). To say that production reds are closer to the original intended Reds is faulty to a degree... I am yet to see those birds focused on being dual-purpose, they are geared towards egg production not meat.

One thing I love about the breeders here, is how real they are. Most of us weigh and eat our birds, kill mean birds, and will yank out an axe instead of antibiotics. Some of us show, some of us do not. I am a second generation Rhode Island Red breeder, that doesn't exhibit. I raise my birds in the following manner
1) Health - only parasites and occasional injuries are treated. Birds must handle climate without wavering in health or condition.
2) Temperament - I don't get bite and my hens do not get terrorized
3) Feel - I feel the breast bone, back width, pelvic area, and decide if like a bird
4) Weight - birds must hit proper weights at the proper times of development.
5) Egg Production - 1 -2 year old hens must lay 3 - 5 eggs/week during laying periods.
6) Type - Set by the Standard of perfection
7) Color - Set by the Standard of perfection

Are my birds heritage? That is a preference question.

If people ask a question, I will offer a recommendation if I can. But, they are free to raise their birds as they wish.

Also, some food for thought. Heritage and Original are not the same thing? You can focus on history as much as you like, but many will not keep up. Many of us do not care if Mohawk V met the standard today, or yesterday. This group of people likes their Standard bred Rhode Island Reds, and that is what we do.

I am well aware the the Livestock Conservancy coined the term "heritage", and I am aware of their definition. I am also aware that people use the term to describe anything they want. Personally, I do not use the term. I also see people using the term "standard bred", and the same applies. It should not have a meaning of preference, it should fit the definition of the entity that coined it.

Some breeds have standards that have not changed much over timr, and some breeders are trying to get their breeds back to the standards. The dual purpose nature of the Rhode Island Red went away decades ago.

I think breeders should be responsible and breed and show birds that fit the standard. A judge can only judge a bird that is there.

I have seen people rudely tell people they have production reds if tgeir birds come from other than the few accepted breeders. Some of those Rhode Island Reds may be closer to the standard than many that are shown. Heritage is a fairly recent term, so it should not be that ingrained yet. Some production reds are conformationally more correct to the stsndard than some "standardbred" reds.

So you don't breed for dual purpose. So when the standard chsnges, the type and color you select for will change? You are the one that called your birds heritage, not me.

If people don't care about Mohawk V, why do people keep bringing him up? Again, I would think "standard red reds" would be Reds bred to the standard, so I guess that term is as misused as the term "heritage".

 

[RhodeRunner]

Some breeds have standards that have not changed much over timr, and some breeders are trying to get their breeds back to the standards. The dual purpose nature of the Rhode Island Red went away decades ago. "

The average Standard bred Rhode Island Red hen lays 4+ eggs per week (not including extreme heat or cold weeks) in her prime. She should weigh at least 6.5 pounds and her counterpart should weight at least 8.5 pounds. That is generally considered dual-purpose.

The type and color standards that have changed, haven't done so in the years I've ben working with reds, and I don't know people trying to change them. If the standard changed it would take years for all the breeders to change what they are doing. But, it of course isn't impossible, and many breeds standards have changed over the years.

I said, that people have their own definition of heritage, and they are welcome to it. If you don't consider my birds heritage, that is fine. If you do, that is fine.

Some people are rude, and some breeders form a bit of a club. I have found the Rhode Island Red community to be very friendly, particularly Ur-ur-ur-urrr s... who is very responsive to people's questions, and always seems to have a nice thing to say when people post pictures of their birds, even if he has some critique or tips to share.

People bring up bloodlines, because they vary slightly. In my experience Kettles mature faster, weigh less, and lay more eggs. Mohawks weigh more and mature slower. Certain bloodlines are also known to have certain problems. Old Shepard Rocks are known to have low hatch ability. Mohawks, often have poor wing carriage. Some people also like to keep closed flocks, and some like the history of the famous Mohawk. That doesn't mean that they are upset if he doesn't fit todays standard requirements. That was close to 100 years ago.

 

[gojira]

The average Standard bred Rhode Island Red hen lays 4+ eggs per week (not including extreme heat or cold weeks) in her prime. She should weigh at least 6.5 pounds and her counterpart should weight at least 8.5 pounds. That is generally considered dual-purpose.

The type and color standards that have changed, haven't done so in the years I've ben working with reds, and I don't know people trying to change them. If the standard changed it would take years for all the breeders to change what they are doing. But, it of course isn't impossible, and many breeds standards have changed over the years.

I said, that people have their own definition of heritage, and they are welcome to it. If you don't consider my birds heritage, that is fine. If you do, that is also fine.

Some people are rude, and some breeders form a bit of a club. I have found the Rhode Island Red community to be very friendly, particularly Ur-ur-ur-urrr s... who is very responsive to people's questions, and always seems to have a nice thing to say when people post pictures of their birds, even if he has some critique or tips to share.

People bring up bloodlines, because they vary slightly. In my experience Kettles mature faster, weigh less, and lay more eggs. Mohawks weigh more and mature slower. Certain bloodlines are also known to have certain problems. Old Shepard Rocks are known to have low hatch ability. Mohawks, often have poor wing carriage. Some people also like to keep closed flocks, and some like the history of the famous Mohawk. That doesn't mean that they are upset if he doesn't fit todays standard requirements. That was close to 100 years ago.

Laying under 50% production would not fit the egg side if dual purpose. Those weights may not either, depending on the rate of growth. That is only considered dual purpose to inexperienced newbies.

Breeders may not be trying to change the Standard, but they are not breeding towards the current Standard. The Rhode Island Red standard seems to have changed more often, and more drastically than other breeds.

People should not have their own definition of heritage. If people can't agree in a definition, then words have no meaning.

I have found the Rhode Island Red community to be rude. Especially Ur. He has very little experience (less than two years I think), yet he is an expert.

I was not talking about a line, but an actual bird. I have two lines of Barred Plymouth Rocks, and one is mostly Good Shepherd (not Old Shepherd), and they do not seem to have low hatchability.

I said Mohawk V did not meet the standard for his time, and he might not meet the standard of today. People should be upset, because if they keep breeding based on a bird that does not meet the standard, and keep producing birds that fall short of the standard, why should they think it will magically get better? And the birds are no longer dual purpose either. I guess that is another poultry breed relegated to memories and old literature. "Rhode Island Reds used to..."

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Many things vary from the older Rhode Island Red standards, and if you feel egg and meat production remain the same, the modern birds fall short, and would be considered to be in bad shape. I guess the breed has been lost. The standard has nothing to with whether a bird is actually dual purpose or not. That was marketing from 80+ years ago. Shouldn't breeders try to breed according to the standard, instead of constantly changing the standard to fit changing tastes. Shouldn't that "stamp" be similar to the standard, if they claim to breeding according to the standard? Mohawk V did not match the standard of his day either. It is interesting the people today are so focused on that bird. He might not come close to today's standard either, but maybe closer than what is being bred today. What do you consider the needs of modern society? What a chicken looks like? At one time, it was more important how productive a bird was, than how many ribbons it won. Although, at one time, the birds winning ribbons were also used for meat and eggs. I guess that is no longer needed in modern society. I guess modern society needs a darker Rhode Island Red with a lower tail angle.

As for my "needs of modern society" statement, I was simply pointing out that the red is no longer a vital part of our culture. Mass food production has taken the place of family farms. If it wasn't for the dedication of a few red fanciers, the breed would have died out a long time ago. Modern society is more convenience oriented, where it's easier to raise "production" type birds for eggs, and/or cornish x birds for meat. For the most part, the "standard" RIR no longer fills the niche in society it was designed for, except for those few of us that continue to keep their heritage alive.

 

[gojira]

As for my "needs of modern society" statement, I was simply pointing out that the red is no longer a vital part of our culture. Mass food production has taken the place of family farms. If it wasn't for the dedication of a few red fanciers, the breed would have died out a long time ago. Modern society is more convenience oriented, where it's easier to raise "production" type birds for eggs, and/or cornish x birds for meat. For the most part, the "standard" RIR no longer fills the niche in society it was designed for, except for those few of us that continue to keep their heritage alive.

Rhode Island Reds used to be productive, but I guess the breeders refused to adapt, and the breed was left behind, and went backwards.

 

[Ur-ur-ur-urrr]

Looks like I really need to work on next year's crop... as this is the best I could do this year. I should have culled them all...

 

[radams]

Everybody must really be busy with the spring hatch. No postings for 6 weeks! Im going into lurker withdrawal. LOL
Ur-ur-ur-urrr, I wish I could get down your way to take some of those "culls" off your hands. They look good to me. Of course Im no breeder and only interested in a self sustaining flock that can also provide meat and eggs while maintaining the SOP as best I can.