The Heritage Rhode Island Red Site

[immyjay54]

I still can't believe that if I take a 100% pure Underwood male and put him over a 100% pure Underwood female that it could be anything but a 100% pure Underwood bloodline chick. Now if this is true then the Underwood will always be. If not then I give up. I can't answer questions about any of my birds if I can't even say what lines they are. I don't only have one but the way you folks are talking, I would only have one.
Geez, this is totally mind boggling to me. lol

.

 

[BGMatt]

I still can't believe that if I take a 100% pure Underwood male and put him over a 100% pure Underwood female that it could be anything but a 100% pure Underwood bloodline chick.  Now if this is true then the Underwood will always be. If not then I give up. I can't answer questions about any of my birds if I can't even say what lines they are. I don't only have one but the way you folks are talking, I would only have one. 
Geez, this is totally mind boggling to me.   lol

. 

Hah! I think it's a bunch of nit picking over the definition of "line". I just say it doesn't matter what you call them, they're good Reds. I send people your way for information on the different "lines", "strains" whatever people want to call them.

The focus in my mind should be how to produce birds that are closer to the Standard, and produce eggs and meat as befits the legendary status of the Rhode Island Red.

I'm really curious to know more about what you guys know and experience on how quill and under color translate to surface color. Can some of y'all talk about that?

 

[har]

I still can't believe that if I take a 100% pure Underwood male and put him over a 100% pure Underwood female that it could be anything but a 100% pure Underwood bloodline chick.  Now if this is true then the Underwood will always be. If not then I give up. I can't answer questions about any of my birds if I can't even say what lines they are. I don't only have one but the way you folks are talking, I would only have one. 
Geez, this is totally mind boggling to me.   lol

. 

It seems to me that there is no cut and dry rule to this. If you want to tell people that you have the Underwood line I say go for it. You would not be telling a lie.

 

[ronott1]

Hah! I think it's a bunch of nit picking over the definition of "line". I just say it doesn't matter what you call them, they're good Reds. I send people your way for information on the different "lines", "strains" whatever people want to call them.

The focus in my mind should be how to produce birds that are closer to the Standard, and produce eggs and meat as befits the legendary status of the Rhode Island Red.

I'm really curious to know more about what you guys know and experience on how quill and under color translate to surface color. Can some of y'all talk about that?

I Bet you can find that on Bob's website.

 

[immyjay54]

Hah! I think it's a bunch of nit picking over the definition of "line". I just say it doesn't matter what you call them, they're good Reds. I send people your way for information on the different "lines", "strains" whatever people want to call them.

The focus in my mind should be how to produce birds that are closer to the Standard, and produce eggs and meat as befits the legendary status of the Rhode Island Red.

I'm really curious to know more about what you guys know and experience on how quill and under color translate to surface color. Can some of y'all talk about that?

Matt,
Go to Bob's old site and if it is down go to the other one tributetobobblosl.weebly.com and go to The Lost Secrets page. I think maybe you will find what you are looking for on there.

 

[docdandc]

With regards to the name of the line of RIR: It is best to know where the stock came from in order to keep the concentrated genes from being mixed with outside stock. If we do not name the lines, according to where they originated from, it will soon be mixed by someone who dosn't know what direction we are working towards. It is common knowledge for the RIR breeders to keep fixing family traits and work towards the SOP year by year. Therefore, RECORDS OF THE LINE BREEDING METHOD AND FAMILY, are important. The name is just for making it easy and not diluting the already fixed traits. Breed with a method and start with a family of RIR's with traits that have already been fixed. You will be closer to the SOP goals and save time and money.

For the new breeder; "Nelson" family RIR ls an example of one of the lines with traits that have been fixed toward matching the SOP. Fogle, Mohawk, Reese, ect are other families that have been line bread over the years trying to achieve this goal as well. Each of them have used their own Method for breeding within their own family. The lines have common names based on the breeder who originated the stock. The methods used by the breeder, and their goals of breeding, are unique to that breeder. (Only Picaso can paint a Picaso) The Name should follow the line.

In the spirit of KISS, as Bob Blosl would call it, a name is easier to remember then Bird 53 and 62 bread bird 78. So just name the dang thing and keep good line records and don't dilute your good RIR stock and go backwards on us. We already know dilution will cause more culls and lost time and wasted money.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[NestingHillsSC]

Hah! I think it's a bunch of nit picking over the definition of "line". I just say it doesn't matter what you call them, they're good Reds. I send people your way for information on the different "lines", "strains" whatever people want to call them.

The focus in my mind should be how to produce birds that are closer to the Standard, and produce eggs and meat as befits the legendary status of the Rhode Island Red.

I'm really curious to know more about what you guys know and experience on how quill and under color translate to surface color. Can some of y'all talk about that?

I just had an APA judge come to the house this past weekend. He said that the quill should be dark from tip to were in meets the skins. He even pulled a feather out of the cockerel to show me. He said the dark quill will translate into a darker feathered bird.

 

[Fred's Hens]

Bob said many, many times on this thread that you desire the deep red, almost black, right down the quill to the skin. I believe that.

I also do believe in the gene stable theory. Just my own point of view, so take it for what it is worth to you, it cost you nothing. LOL

A strain/line/family group that has been line bred, closed, for many, many generations produces after its kind and as Bob once said, it is a kind of cloning. There may be a kabillion genetic possibilities available, but through faithful line breeding, you narrow those expressions down, down, down, down. The family stabilizes and produces after a certain predictable kind.
Thus, out crossing rocks the boat and suddenly you're back to host of wide possibilities and the genes can link up in wildly expanded possibilities. This is just my mental picture of it, pay no mind to my farmer's manner of speech.

Further, from what I've seen to date, the "set" features, lovely temperament, and wonderful type/color of these little "Nelson" birds are such that I have absolutely zero desire to do anything but breed them faithfully within their stable strain. If I find I need a little something, I intend to follow Bob's oft given advice and go searching for their Nelson cousins somewhere for some fresh spark. That's it.

Why? Because these birds turn me on, just the way they are. I don't want or need other influences in them. I just want to breed them well, cull the duds, and keep this great strain going.

 

[NYREDS]

To help those who are just starting out with a small sample of birds, it might also be worth noting the following. I don't say this to continue the "line name" conversation, so much as to add to folk's thinking.

We've been breeding a few lines for years and years. When I send someone a box of eggs and they happily hatch out 7 or 8 chicks, yes, they have some of our line of birds. But, and this is important, I think, they only have a very small slice of that line. We have over 70 Rocks on the ground, between our three farms. All someone gets in a box of eggs is a small sample of the flock's much wider DNA.

Not only does a new breeder make the out-years choices and decisions but that line itself a fork, a small side stream flowing off from a much larger river. These two families may well evolve differently over the next 5-10 years even if no one dares to outcross.

I got 4 little birds from Jim that are from Don Nelson stock, twice removed already. Neither Jim nor I know what the "in between" breeders did either. Four birds. That's all. If the good Lord is good and we're vigilant, we'll turn those 4 birds into 50 next year. I hardly have any idea whether the four birds we have are even a decent representation of what Don bred for. I have no idea. I got what I got. (giddy happy, btw)


But Bob talked often about this and saw this divergence as a possible good thing for when the time comes, those subset gene pools can be re-united for vigor if needed.

Once birds change hands it's a little misleading to refer to their offspring as being of the original line. If, for example, someone bought Reds from gary Underwood the only way to legitimately call their offsspring "Underwood Reds" would be to have gary come over & set up your breeding pens according to his selection preferences. The least important thing about birds is the name of the person they may have originally come from.
I judged some Sumatras at a recent show. The owner of some of the birds asked me to review them with him after the show, which I did. He named 2 well known sumatra breeders as having been the source of the birds or at least that was what he was told by the person who sold him the birds. The 3 birds I lookd at were undersized, very narrow feathered & 2 of the 3 had small, narrow heads more like those of a Modern Game Bantam. This fellow bought names not birds.
I know that Bob Blosl used to state that Don Nelson's birds were a 30-40 year pure strain. Don, however, says different. According to Don he mixed birds from several different sources, including some production birds, in the process of developing his Reds. A quote from Don goes "I breed birds not names".
I see evidence of this strain-name culture at many shows. People frequently make the claim that their birds come from some well known breeder but when question it turns out that they didn't buy those birds from that breeder but from an intermediary source. In some cases this results from dishonest sellers "name dropping", in other it's a result of unsuccessfull mating decisionsEither way, the source [name] of the birds is unimportant. What is important is what's the bird in front of you look like, not who did it's ancestors come from.

 

[Fentress]

I just had an APA judge come to the house this past weekend. He said that the quill should be dark from tip to were in meets the skins. He even pulled a feather out of the cockerel to show me. He said the dark quill will translate into a darker feathered bird.

Does the validity of this test depend on which feather you pluck or will any feather do?