- Aug 22, 2010
- 742
- 24
- 156
Hi Cuba,
our SOP calls for " ....a sweeping curve from neck to tail." Ray Connor - " The sweeping curve from neck to tail is very important. The key here is that the curve starts at the base of the neck and continues in one sweep to the tail. No angles at all is the point to keep in mind." Don't really see any issue here.
Pretty strong words at the end, Cuba! Not really sure what you mean, but I presume you're referring to fluffy thighs. I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you on this one. It's a matter of interpretation, but I don't read "well feathered" as meaning 'well fluffed'. Don't want an argument, Cuba. I'll leave you with a couple of quotes from old Ray, whom I'd suggest knows more about BA's than all of us together!
" When I look down the sides of a fowl I don't want to see any side fluff hanging out."
" Fluff is one of the terms in poultry often confused in its interpretation. Both definitions apply to Australorps but in different ways. The first ...is the silky feathering found on the inner half of every feather..... we do not want them to be 'fluffy' because they are a tight feathered breed. Orpington fowls and Pekin bantams are'fluffy' breeds.
The second definition ...... describes the soft feathering on the thighs and abdomen. We really only want the absolute minimum here to cover the skin but no bare skin and no feather dusters!"
"As breeders, we must try to breed a tighter feathered bird, particularly round the thighs."
I could go on, Cuba, but I'll spare you! Over here it's a "fad" that began with the first standardised BA's.
Cheers Geoff
I meant nothing on the subject of fluffy thighs, but that it gives those that like fluffy birds(not me) the subjective wording that they need lots of feathers on the thighs. I see it as the thighs should be feathered but not so much as too hide the thighs. Not by any means as tight as an old English but surely not as fluffy as an orp. I completely agree with you. The word fluffy is not in the description of the thighs. I see our current description having too much room for interpretational error and should be worded differently to rid of even the slightest interpretation of fluffyness. I did not by any means mean to bring in any frustration, or bring up something that would step on toes, so to speak. I really was just pointing out, in my opinion, a flaw in our standard.