CSU - Chicken State University- Large Fowl SOP

[Luckytaz]

I take it to mean large body, small legs.

 

[Yellow House Farm]

I agree with Walt, that is a perfect example of a sentence that needed a qualifier. If I were to make a guess I would say that it is a general statement about the balance of the bird and the distribution of the fleshing, that the whole body is a bulk of flesh, such that it does not appear that, from breast to tail, the body is funneling down to the shank, but rather that the mass of the bird looks--and actually is--distributed over the entire structure of the bird, giving it the look of a boat of fleshing and substance; I imagine it counters the Game, a bird with a very opposite type, which probably was very familiar to the author as a counterpoint, a bird whose entire balance is based in powerful, domineering thigh; the bird comes up as muscle out of turned out legs as a weapon. The Game back is " short, flat, broad across the shoulders, tapering and sloping well to tail. Everything draws the gaze down to the legs like a vanishing point: not only does the back tapper sharply, but it funnels down to the legs, which is even more suggested by the breast held up and forward and the abdomen being tuck up.

The back of the Dorking, on the other hand, is "long, broad its entire length , straight, declining to tail." The entire balance of the bird hangs in balanced proportion off the length and breadth of the back, by in no way tapering, the stern is as broad as the bow. The balance, the vanishing point is in the body. The legs, for all of the flourish of the 5th toe, are incidental. The Sussex back description is "long, flat, broad its entire length, sloping slightly to tail. The effect is more or less the same.

This is only a guess. When left without explanation, one is forced to conjecture.

 

[thedragonlady]

I agree with Walt, that is a perfect example of a sentence that needed a qualifier. If I were to make a guess I would say that it is a general statement about the balance of the bird and the distribution of the fleshing, that the whole body is a bulk of flesh, such that it does not appear that, from breast to tail, the body is funneling down to the shank, but rather that the mass of the bird looks--and actually is--distributed over the entire structure of the bird, giving it the look of a boat of fleshing and substance; I imagine it counters the Game, a bird with a very opposite type, which probably was very familiar to the author as a counterpoint, a bird whose entire balance is based in powerful, domineering thigh; the bird comes up as muscle out of turned out legs as a weapon. The Game back is " short, flat, broad across the shoulders, tapering and sloping well to tail. Everything draws the gaze down to the legs like a vanishing point: not only does the back tapper sharply, but it funnels down to the legs, which is even more suggested by the breast held up and forward and the abdomen being tuck up.

The back of the Dorking, on the other hand, is "long, broad its entire length , straight, declining to tail." The entire balance of the bird hangs in balanced proportion off the length and breadth of the back, by in no way tapering, the stern is as broad as the bow. The balance, the vanishing point is in the body. The legs, for all of the flourish of the 5th toe, are incidental. The Sussex back description is "long, flat, broad its entire length, sloping slightly to tail. The effect is more or less the same.

This is only a guess. When left without explanation, one is forced to conjecture.

I'll take a stab on this one to mean that he valued breast meat more than thigh meat, even though the standard calls for " well meated thighs." Too long legs on a Dorking would also give the bird a very precarious balance point.

 

[3riverschick]

Thank you YWF
Ok, that makes a lot of sense. I know a proper Sussex doesn't stand with legs that are straight up and down When standing, the thigh reclines behind the foot, which foot stands on the ground such that the leg is at a pronounced angle. All the great ones look alike. I have seen this in show pose from Outram (1925) to Overton (current day). This set of the legs throws the eye to the body. Even more then if the legs had been perpendicular when standing. L. Sussex: Central Indiana Poultry Show , Lebanon, IN 46052 http://tinyurl.com/ogk2dlg & Cannberra show, AU
Champion Red (Sussex), a pullet 15/06/2011 http://tinyurl.com/opz4nlt
Lewis Wright's The Illustrated Book of Poultry, 1890,: Henny Game and White Dorking: http://tinyurl.com/o8e8jng

 

[fowlman01]

The position of the legs on a chicken is very important. They should be well spaced and not close together (most breeds). The leg placement affects the stance/station of the bird and the width between the legs shows the capacity for internal organs.....or the lack of that capacity in birds with legs that are close together. You see legs close together in a lot of hatchery birds. Once you notice this it will be something that you always notice. You will be surprised by how many birds with that are around that have legs almost touching. The next thing that happens with these birds is that they become knock kneed. Two very famous breeders in the west ended up with knock kneed birds because for some reason they didn't notice how close the legs of the birds in their line were getting over the years. This happens.......some call it barn blindness. I suppose they were too close to the problem or were looking at other features of the bird.

Leg placement and leg spacing is very important.........it affects the overall look of the bird and it's balance. By balance I mean the overall impression of the bird.

One of the things I like to say when someone asks how I get my runner ducks to have such good station is: "I just put the legs as far back on the bird as I can and they have to stand upright". When you see chickens leaning forward or backward it is usually because the legs are in the wrong place.

I just ran across this when I was cleaning up some chicken stuff.




I had my license for a while when I judged this.....kind of makes me feel old.

Walt

 

[Yellow House Farm]

The position of the legs on a chicken is very important. They should be well spaced and not close together (most breeds). The leg placement affects the stance/station of the bird and the width between the legs shows the capacity for internal organs.....or the lack of that capacity in birds with legs that are close together. You see legs close together in a lot of hatchery birds. Once you notice this it will be something that you always notice. You will be surprised by how many birds with that are around that have legs almost touching. The next thing that happens with these birds is that they become knock kneed. Two very famous breeders in the west ended up with knock kneed birds because for some reason they didn't notice how close the legs of the birds in their line were getting over the years. This happens.......some call it barn blindness. I suppose they were too close to the problem or were looking at other features of the bird.

Leg placement and leg spacing is very important.........it affects the overall look of the bird and it's balance. By balance I mean the overall impression of the bird.

One of the things I like to say when someone asks how I get my runner ducks to have such good station is: "I just put the legs as far back on the bird as I can and they have to stand upright". When you see chickens leaning forward or backward it is usually because the legs are in the wrong place.

I just ran across this when I was cleaning up some chicken stuff.




I had my license for a while when I judged this.....kind of makes me feel old.

Walt

I realized all of a sudden that this had happened with our Anconas. I saw it one day out of the blue. The legs were becoming too close. A stitch in time saves nine. We've since more or less gotten them out again, but it really is uncanny how many different things one has to look for.

and wise, wise, wise, with a heck of a lot of experience. What's this old stuff?

 

[aveca]

"it should carry its weight upon its body rather
than upon its legs".

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


Walt

I the day, they probably knew exactly what that meant.......today...?? sounds like a compensation kind of like walts runner duck, move the leg back the body carries itself with a slight compensation to make up for leg configuration...

maybe as simple as weight gain on body not legs.?.

 

[ocap]

I realized all of a sudden that this had happened with our Anconas. I saw it one day out of the blue. The legs were becoming too close. A stitch in time saves nine. We've since more or less gotten them out again, but it really is uncanny how many different things one has to look for.

and wise, wise, wise, with a heck of a lot of experience. What's this old stuff?

"how many things one has to look for"
is there a first thing to look for "absolutely" most important dominate trait ,,, color seems to be last in most of the treads that I have read.

 

[pysankigirl]

healthy!!!!

 

[capayvalleychick]

is there a first thing to look for "absolutely" most important dominate trait ,,,

Type. " The general shape and form common to all members of a breed..."