The BANTAM ORPINGTON Thread



T
These are what I consider my 2 best boys in type. I need some opinions here. The first is smaller, narrower in the chest (than #1 and a few others), slower grower, but on the plus side, he seems to be balanced overall. The boy on the bottom has a nice breast (actually I think the best one in this department), wide, and deep enough. He's bigger and grew faster.His feet don't carry the black down dark enough, but minor detail.He has the shortest back of any of the bunch. My question is, is it too short? These birds are around 6 months old.
Thanks.
 
I haven't weighed them for about a month. They have changed a lot since then, jockeying positions so to speak. The largest ones, which there were about 3, were about 2 1/2#, so they will likely go overweight at maturity. The roo in the first picture was under that. I only noted weights on the 3 heaviest ones.
 
Sande,

I do not like the short tail. An easy thing to compare to is the Nike swoosh or a check mark. That is how the back line should resemble.
 
Thanks, Tammy. Roo #2 kept bothering me, ie, too short. So you're saying he isn't necessarily too short backed but the tail is. Therefore, I assume, you prefer Roo #1. Am I correct? Most of the other roos are longer in the back/tail or more like Roo #1. There are just too many roos and part of them must be go. How long or old do you think they need to be to look like what they will be as adults?
Thanks for the help!
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom