I tend to agree with you DarkRedBird. Undercolor needs to be there and it will be much harder to optimize if it wasn't there to begin with. I feel it does help with the overall sheen appearance(proper husbandry and feed selection helps this as well). The breed creator viewed and noted this observation. She felt undercolor played a role and wrote recorded her thoughts for a reason! I have had birds without undercolor and they were used for utility purposes; not to be included into the brood pens. I've also had birds they had undercolor all of the way to the body void of any clear bar. I'd rather have that than the lack of undercolor entirely, but that is just me. I've witnessed far more light color birds with no undercolor vs really dark birds with no undercolor. I've also witnessed very light colored birds decent undercolor as well. All goes back to breed interpretations......you are the one throwing feed at them....it's the breeders call. I'll argue color any day of the week, but it's just fall on deaf ears with most. I agree with you "it's possible to get good production, nice big carcass, an have the proper color and undercolor all at the same time"..........
My experience with undercolor is not the same. I think every one of my lighter hens have a good slate bar in the their back. I did not keep them for their slate bars or their color but for their type. Some of my hens that are too dark do not seem to be blessed with any better a slate bar than the light ones. With my males, there doesn't seem to be a correlation one way or the other. I am not repeating what anyone is telling me; this is what I have observed with my Buckeyes, fwiw.
Metcalf,
I assume, had a good deal to say about how the SOP was first written and for whatever reason, she chose not to DQ a bird that did not have it. The only DQ specific to Buckeyes is an entirely white feather in the outer plumage so white seems to be what she considered the big no-no (white on the earlobes was also included as a DQ in the earlier SOPs). Metcalf also lived a long life and never sought to change the color of the Buckeye which has remained the same since its creation.
I assume she could have sought a change, after-all, she was the breed's creator. The subtle differences in early color descriptions are semantics -- describing the same thing.
I agree one can work on all of it ALL at the same time, why not? Don't all breeders of all breeds work on it ALL at the same time? I don't argue with that. I guess that is why there are so many nice, large fowl out there.
A lot of people, including myself, hatch small numbers of chicks every season (i.e. enough for my replacements and meat & for a couple of people who request each year). I do not hatch the quantities of hundreds that others hatch each year -- so for me, hatching a few chicks each season, when I am forced to select a bird with better type vs. the bird with better color (which happens sometimes, not often), then I am picking the better type bird.
I don't ever have a bird that has it all. I assume that there are others who fall in my category in this regard. If I could increase the numbers I hatch, I am am sure I would have a wider range of choices and could pick a Buckeye that had it all. My birds meet SOP weight and body type, and I have been able to get that & maintain it with small hatches because I started with some good genetics and also because I select first for type. All that being said, my Buckeyes do not do badly at the shows with a wide spectrum of judges. I understand the beginner's obsession with color; I have not found color in Buckeyes to be as problematic as some. I don't think I have had a male who did not have shiny feathers -- is this an issue elsewhere? I haven't seen the issue. The more serious issues I have seen in some Buckeyes are body or other issues: lacking adequate heart girth, appearing rangy and looking small all around (a body depth problem), small skull and in one here or there, legs too short -- these issues are more difficult to correct. Rather than get all hung up on exact shade or argue about what "rich mahogany bay" looks like, I like a Buckeye that is most even in shade. You can disagree, but this is my honest opinion.
I am not advocating everyone do it my way but simply saying what has worked for me. Since I have only been breeding Buckeyes for about 7 years now, I am only a beginner & still have a lot to learn. I am open to new insights and do not believe I have all the answers. Where my observations conflicts with what is being said by someone simply repeating what others are telling them, I do not mind speaking my mind.
