Does it Matter if Rare Heritage Breeds go Extinct ?

I think it was the tone of the previous post, in culmination with the last one, that caused a couple knee jerk reactions.

I know what you mean, CS. In everything but the frizzles, I breed to the standard and I am very thoughtful and careful about what I put in the breeding pen. I educate myself on the standard and come up with a plan for each pen/combination of birds while trying to produce offspring closest to the standard.

With the polish, I did my best to pick through over 20 polish after raising them to point of lay. I picked the "closest" to standard, but I know they are not show quality because of the coloring in their topknot (however they have awesome type, so if we are building the barn before we paint it, they are wonderful). Nearly everyone who has come to the farm would like to buy my polish flock, which I'm not willing to part with, so I decided to use a pen in spring for my polish.

I think there is a difference between being upfront with people and telling them the quality of the birds you are selling them (and pricing them accordingly!), and selling poor quality as show birds.

Anyways, to me heritage birds are very important and I really enjoy them, even the heritage mutts - which around here are all EE's. I'm passionate about heritage (not just heritage chickens ...) and I guess it gets me on edge at times.

Well, my intent was to incite people to think and discuss this issue but not to purposely ruffle feathers, as my introduction and tongue in cheek end comments implied.

All these heritage breeds were created with a purpose and a look in mind and many were created using a strict breeding and culling regimen.

Do we honor the originators of our heritage breeds by not having a full uderstanding of our breeds and by breeding without the purpose to improve what we have?

We all like to promote our heritage breeds and discuss why they are better than modern breeds, but I have seen many so called heritage breeds that have little in common with the original breed. I have many in my own coop. Are they REALLY heritage breeds?

Sue

Well, I can clearlysee both sides of the latest rabbit trail. But the pullets I have that are not up to APA are still beautifull little hens that lay the same eggs as any other. As a responsible and knowledgeble breeder/farmer, it should be mentioned that these are or are not show quality etc.. In large animals don't they refer to this as a "breeder" if it has good to excellent conformation? I bought some French Balck Copper Maran eggs, and never considered wondering what the original stock was like. Had a heck of a time getting the things to hatch, and now that they are maturing, the roo is ugly, and the pullets are runty..leg feathering leave much to be desired; dissapointing non-quality stock. These birds cannot be bred, and I paid good money for these eggs... So I can see both sides.

Schipperkesue wrote:

We all like to promote our heritage breeds and discuss why they are better than modern breeds, but I have seen many so called heritage breeds that have little in common with the original breed. I have many in my own coop. Are they REALLY heritage breeds?

Sue

What do I know? Very little to nothing probably. But my first thought is, no, they aren't literally heritage in some circumstances. Those that have been replecated, started from scratch just like the originals, well they are the same, but not actually the same (same breed, but not same lineage) Does that count?
So for some it is the idea of preserving the breed to the best of our ability, but is done with completely modern heritage stock, and not the actual decended relatives..

I don't know if this applies to poultry, but this has been done with a few horse breeds, like Friesian.

if you are really trying to do the breed you are working with a favor, you need to cull hard, culling is butchering, not selling. if you sell your culls to someone who some day decides to breed them, you get even more birds that have defects. just my opinion!
if you sell something not up to parr, make sure you tell the people they arnt and why.

For Liz, another point for Heritage Breed preservation...

This was briefly mentioned earlier and it was something I was thinking about, because it does matter that these breeds continue to exist, but ----really why--?
Well back in 1908 when the chantecler was created, for instance, the grain fields were still ploughed by horses, and stooked and threshed nearly by hand. Can you imagine how small the amount of grain was produced back then when considering that it was all done in such tedious and painstaking fashion? And all those heritage poultry breeds thrived on what? Because you better believe that the farmers needed to sell and or eat every single kernel off that tiny field every winter.... As things modernized, and grain plots got bigger, diesel tractors, then 4x4 tractors, now pulling cultivators that are as wide in one pass as the whole field would have been back then. So, we can afford to have a frankin-chicken that eats its body-weight every 3 days in wheat. Because there is alot of it. But, the world is suffering food shortages and have been for a long time now. It is well known to anyone who pays attention that the usable farmable land on earth is not enough to properly feed all it's residents.
So, should we be ramming so much grain into poultry for the sake of quick turn-over and tender, tastless meat? Especially when the sensible, and cost effective solution is the preservation and improvement of our proven heritage breeds?
A
nd you know what, it doesn't even need to be an official SOP chicken either. If it looks like a chicken and meets all the basic requirements like body size, maturing rate, egg laying, feed conversion rate that are desired - ta da! What more could we ask. The actual "Standard of Perfection" is just for showing off, is it not? I don't understand how a "pea comb versus a cushion comb" truly affects production; it just plain doesn't.
And so my point is, the most valuable aspect of the heritage chicken in my opinion is "just like my great-grandparents from the dirty-thirties, the heritage breeds were thrifty, had to be". I bet the "new heritage look-alikes" are not as thifty as the originals were. Or, maybe as the breed gets older and older, it slowly gets less and less thrifty. Partly to do with modern feed availabity but also because before it was fashionable to have specific chicken breeds, there were just barnyard chickens kept and culled by the farmer's wife.

Heres something that may tick a few off.


If you want true hertiage you well not be able to breed to the APA. Frankly to many people are worrried about if it meets the APA. The longer you worry about the looks, the less time you can work on the stuff that matters!


Has anyone try to breed a breed that does not have a APA standered? ( and no Coronation do not count they are a joke in type and size, BLRW do not count ethter beause the wyanddote has a standered).


I would like to think true heritage breeds like this: they do not have a standered that can not take away from the breed. Although some breeds are still worth reseracting, others are not.

call ducks wrote:Heres something that may tick a few off.


If you want true hertiage you well not be able to breed to the APA. Frankly to many people are worrried about if it meets the APA. The longer you worry about the looks, the less time you can work on the stuff that matters!


Has anyone try to breed a breed that does not have a APA standered? ( and no Coronation do not count they are a joke in type and size, BLRW do not count ethter beause the wyanddote has a standered).


I would like to think true heritage breeds like this: they do not have a standered that can not take away from the breed. Although some breeds are still worth reseracting, others are not.

A good point. Most Dominiques you see in show are too big.

I don't know if the person who has this website is on this group forum but there is a great explanation of rare breed conservation and issues on this website and includes chickens. . So have a visit and pick out the great info to share. THey won't let me post the link because I am new so I ave removed the http and .com so you can google the rest. I believe it will
also come up under Our chickens.
roundcreekquarterhorses

We all talk of preserving the old, old breeds, old ways, old stuff (soon I will need preservation too). Nothing wrong with this, but what about going forward into the future? Life never stays the same for long, if it lives it changes, if it procreates it will evolve over time. Would some of the more hurting breeds do better if combined wisely into new breeds? Would this preserve their genetic potential for the future? I think it would be better than doting on a weak breed or allowing it to pass on to other inexperienced handlers, each to his own I guess. It seems obvious to me that anything kept the same for too long becomes weak and ineffective. The chantecler is a good example of what I'm saying here. As a breed it too may be a bit hurting, but the more I find out about it the more I'm attracted and I see the potential for it to recover and meet it's mandate: to provide the people with food in the harsh Canadian climate. The previously unknown breeding information that just surfaced about the Chantecler gives me hope that this can be done again.

Reneggaide, I like the way you think, not just because you like Buckeyes and Chanteclers.

Here is another way of looking at heritage breeds, more of a hobbiest's view -

There is a motto on the outside of the Royal Ontario Museum that says something like "the works of man through all the years" (I take it as "mankind" being a post feminist!). I think of that in relation to poultry heritage breeds. Not only did breeds develop as a perception of local tastes, local conditions and local priorities but they are in many cases the work of years of poultry keepers often working away on their own or with a few others. I admire that passion and commitment and skill, much the way I admire some arts like quilt making or saddle making, or hobbies like stamp collecting or butterfly collecting. The breeds have their own beauty and interest, quite apart from utility. I think about a barnyard of bantam roosters - all so infinitely varied in colour, structure and feathering. They are works of art in many ways, pleasing how some are balanced as to combs and wattles, feathered legs and fabulous tails, and all interesting in how breed behaviours can differ.

What is more beautiful - a barnyard of bantams or a barn full of commercial meat birds?

To keep these breeds with the aid of a standard of perfection is a great hobby, just as fixing up old cars or making old recipes from vintage cookbooks is a fun and admirable hobby. I like hobbies with animals and I think a lot of people's lives could be enhanced by a hobby like this. I think of local old ranchers I know who have given their sons the ranch and sit around neighbours' houses all day complaining of boredom. Of young ranchers' wives sitting inside watching television or fiddling on social media. I think all of us have learned something unexpected from keeping chickens and I think they could too.

But as was suggested, for some passionately working away on a new breed is good too.

So many good reasons for keeping heritage breeds, my plea is just to remember how much fun we are having with an infinite variety of beautiful birds.

I think another point could be made about birds breed to the SOP. It is not the be all and end all of birds and I know many people do not like the idea of birds that are bred for `show`.
We have to remember that each breeders lines are bred from their interpretation of the Standard, which can sometimes be quite different. I may choose of focus on certain things to get just right, that may be different from breeder X.
I have seen breed lines develop so that you can actually know whose birds they are because of the way they look. My line may be showable and be as close to the Standard as I can get them, but look slightly different than another breeder who is working with the breed as well. I like when a breeder puts a stamp on the breed he is working with. It adds some individuallity to the whole thing I think.
Just because there is a Standard doesn`t mean we ever get peas in a pod at a show.
May not be totally on topic, but Heda Gobbler`s comments made me think of this.

I like that too - someone working away passionately on a vision they have....

Schipperkesue wrote:

coopslave wrote:

Schipperkesue wrote:

DoubleSSRanch wrote:I think a large reason of why many breeds are so critical is they are so hard to get! lol Theres quite a few breeds that I would love to get into, that are listed as critical, less than 1000 breeding birds etc. But try to get ahold of any of them

Why are we saving them? Its our heritage... We didnt devlop as a culture from franken chickens and battery cages. The general public has no idea where their food at the grocery store comes from, and it really bothers me.

Aha! Perhaps they are so hard to get because no one wants them. Isn't it more cost efficient to get a breed of chicken that produces more meat/eggs for the feed you put into them? Why should you keep a breed that will cost you money in the long run?

Why save them? Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe there are reasons why they are going extinct/ losing popularity. Maybe they are weak or don't stand up health-wise. Perhaps their gene pool is so limited and in-bred they have genetic health issues that should end their time on earth.



Sue

Oh man, I wasn't going to get into this, I was just going to enjoy what others have written. sigh
Does it matter if they become extinct, probably not, isn't that how evolution happens? I truly think it would be a shame though.

I like Sue's comments about the thriftiness and laying ability of the hybrids as that is what I always hear about them. I personally think that was a great marketing thing done by the founders. They are perfect for the eggs farms and they made them seem perfect for a backyard bird as well.

I think people have done a disservice to the Heritage breeds in the way that they have been breeding them to some degree. Losing some of the traits that were valued in the past. Not only number of eggs laid, but the size of the egg as well.Having said all that, I think it is about education. Many people don't know (or they didn't up here) that a bird will lay well for more than 18-24 months. The regular person getting the hybrids and replacing them every 2 years doesn't realise they can actually have a bird that will lay well for 5-6 years if they pick the right breed.
I always hear it is more cost effective to replace birds every year or two if you want eggs, I am not so sure. I pay for one bird and let it lay for 5 years where others are paying for birds 3 times in the space. I know my birds have so much better shell quality than the hybrids as well. They are just not playing out the same way.
Don't you think it is about letting people know that there are options out there.

I don't think the same argument can be made for the meat birds. Who can compete with 8 weeks to consumption. They are a terminal cross for a purpose anyways.

I suppose it depends on if you like the self replacing method or the as much as I can get for the shortest time. This is all a tough thing for sure.

Forgive the long quote but I have highlighted the section I wish to address. Here it is again:

I think people have done a disservice to the Heritage breeds in the way that they have been breeding them to some degree. Losing some of the traits that were valued in the past. Not only number of eggs laid, but the size of the egg as well.

Now I am not picking on anyone in particular because I have seen the following behavior in breeders of many species of animals.

You are doing a heritage breed a GREAT disservice when you have a couple mediocre chickens, maybe with faults, maybe even with APA disqualifications and you sell their eggs and chicks touting them as purebred. Buyers purchase your birds and repeat the same procedure, thus continuing to create birds lacking type, size and correct traits.

If you are really, truly dedicated to the heritage ideal you will end up spending money and time and do a whole lot of culling as well as educating yourself on that breed before you offer anything up for sale.

OK, I am bracing myself, let me have it!

(Oh- and I am not innocent of this heinous crime against Heritage breeds myself!)

Sue

I agree. Speaking just for myself, you get caught up in the idea of it's better to breed inferior specimens and keep the breed around rather than no breed at all. But after sometime you realize that you aren't helping the breed out at all by doing that. Instead all you are doing is helping it go extinct even quicker because people who see the inferior specimens won't want them.

You guys are great! You have given me new life on the subject. I will just plagiarize everyone and look really smart!

I am going to ask this:

In 60 years how well those birds change.


When thinking for people breeding for show Now(Ok egg laying, mehhh carcus)->{60 years} lay from spring to summer and sucky carcus.

I think we are going the wrong way peserving heritage as show. You just can't worry about how a bird lays. And please don't take offence, But there well be one or two people who have the knowladge to breed for the more important asspects of a bird. Frankly the hungrain yellows i have suck, i well not plan to relase any to the public for at least 10+ years maybe even 20+ years beause it well take me that long to foucas on the 3 main points i have to hit, that are well lacking in other flocks.

Liz trust you to post a few lines that cause such a response...I have seen you do this more than once!

So many good points made. I would support the concept that it is critical that all of the characteristics of a heritage breed are maintained, not just those that are easy to judge at a show. So vigor, egg production, and temperament do matter!

I love heritage breed for the whole package. Their beauty, their hardiness, their productivity, their personality....the whole package. Who can compare all that to the frankenbird!

poplar girl wrote:Liz trust you to post a few lines that cause such a response...I have seen you do this more than once!

So many good points made. I would support the concept that it is critical that all of the characteristics of a heritage breed are maintained, not just those that are easy to judge at a show. So vigor, egg production, and temperament do matter!

I love heritage breed for the whole package. Their beauty, their hardiness, their productivity, their personality....the whole package. Who can compare all that to the frankenbird!

Well said What a thread!

A couple of other thoughts, apologies if I'm repeating anyone!

Firstly, what about specializations? For example, one would not want to throw a Sumatra out in a Canadian winter and expect it to thrive. However, if we face a radical climate shift, where we once dealt with -40 winters we may have to deal with drier, warmer conditions. Conversely, a Chantecler would do better out here on the Canadian parries than a Naked Neck. Egg colour may one day be found to have specific benefits, who knows?

My second point is, freedom. Not that chicken keeping gives you civil liberties, but hear me out. If Monsanto and Vitara can patent their grain seeds, whats to stop major hatchery's from patenting their lines of fowl?
Requiring minimum orders that no small farmer would ever meet? Or never mind, following Maple Leaf's example and not doing any outside sales? Introducing their own 'suicide' genes? Many breeds already have no interest in incubating their own eggs. If we have a capitalist driven system to produce all our fowl, we may end up with the most efficient birds, but if they hold the monopoly, well, you get the point.

No, Most breeds still want to set... Unless you get them forma hatchery. Also some breeds well be more prone to setting then others

Really good points Swamp Hen, and I don't think anyone mentioned them yet.

Haha, Liz! I thought you would appreciate a little contoversy!

Sue

Mistress Mary, quite contrary,
how does your hen house grow?

With Silverman 41's
and Coburn Broilers
In geneticly identical rows.

Well that was until a new form of Acian flu came through and evreything died. Now I grow GMO soy as a protein source, but somehow I just dont think it is the same.



So, my 2 cents worth.

1. Evolution is NOT the result of extinction. Death is the result of extinction, and visa versa.
2. Evolution is the result of genetic drift, adaptation, or selection (natural or manipulated).
3. If a breed goes extinct, "recreating it" does not actually recreate it. It makes something that acts like and looks like the other, but all the unseen bits of genetic information that developed with the original animal is gone.
4. Loss of genetic diversity is the result of either isolation (natural or unnatural) or of selection (natural or unnatural). Popular Sire Syndrome is a more modern example of this.
5. Selection for uniformity can also be brought on through terminal breeding programs, however few, other than those in the cattle industry, use this. This is where population A is kept as a sepperate genepool from population B. Usually this is two Completely different breeds with very different traits. The offspring resulting from breeding A to B are never kept for breeding, they are only kept for production.
6. Selecting only for the SOP will result in a narrowing of the genepool because one is selecting for thos certain traits, and many traits are linked to other traits.
7. Valuing only SOP compliant animals is a loss of genetics. Not keeping a bird for the breeding pool because of minor variations or imperfections abover other assetts decreases the genepool.
8. In many breeds/species keeping the NON SOP is important to creating top SOP specimins. DOuble breeding is one example of this where one is breeding one group for the best male birds, and a sepperate group for the best female birds, but crossing the two makes for a mediocre male/female. With some breeds/species colour and or markings are best attained to show standards by using animals that have non SOP color or markings. Yet another example is maintaining oversized non SOP size females for breeding and using very small males when small show animals are required, but small aminals have problems reproducing.

Ok, so maybe that was a buck and a half. But there you go.
I shall now rturn to merely lurking.

Another example of your #8 Arctic is keeping splash animals to breed to blacks in order to create blues. I have always wondered why splash is not a recognised Cochin color.

Sue

Sue!
You big tattle tail!

That was my top secret breeding plan!

Double top secret!!!!