The Buckeye Thread

[cgmccary]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[slfarms]

No, I do not remember it being Joe's bird pictured - that I would remember. If someone took his birds and messed them up, then that is not on Joe. There was a photo or two of birds with wings oriented down (i.e. pointed down). A number of people defended those wings. I remember Pathfinders quoting the SOP which is very specific about wing carriage. Several folks defended & argued the wing carriage in the photos as correct. The carriage in those photos were not SOP correct. I realize it can just be the way the bird is holding them at the moment but that was not claimed (from what I remember).

No, I do not have a problem with getting a bird with correct tail angle. I get birds too high, too low and some just right. Doesn't everyone who breeds birds? I cull most birds keeping only the ones with the most traits I like or with faults but ONE trait I need. The Sire I pictured was one such bird -- lots of faults but excellent type, best body I have seen. I just didn't keep offspring with his worst faults. That is what I was showing Melody in my post (with my "this sired this, interesting huh" as they were different and is why she asked to see the Momma -- what did I pair it with - she asked the question I knew she would). Subsequently, I was asked by a beginner to critique my own bird, which I did, to be helpful.

Yes, Joe is a very good Buckeye breeder. I have only had the privilege of showing my birds against him once and that was in 2012. He had a nice bird in that show.

There are a couple of other experienced & good breeders of Buckeyes on this forum too (Pathfinders (Laura H), Melody come to mind). I have had the privilege of showing against Pathfinders one time too, and she had nice birds. I have handled both Joe's and Laura's birds at those shows and can attest them worthy & good Buckeyes (both worthy of getting stock from). I won't critique someone else's birds unless asked, but I do not mind telling what I think of my own if honestly asked. Thanks for your suggestions. Good Luck with your Buckeyes.

Good luck with yours as well and thank you for a nice response.

 

[buffalogal]

Cushions are not specific to anyone's lines. Fluffiness in the thighs is not specific to any one line. They appear in individual birds. Some people seem to always be talking about color problems and comb problems. Those are not problems I have. I guess we all want to discuss our own problems. That is what we are here for.

Just so we know we're talking about the same parts of the bird, I did a quickie mock up (using my own cross breed bird) illustrating these "fluffy' areas as I interpret them. Chris, if this isn't what you're talking about, feel free to correct me.

 

[cgmccary]

Just so we know we're talking about the same parts of the bird, I did a quickie mock up (using my own cross breed bird) illustrating these "fluffy' areas as I interpret them. Chris, if this isn't what you're talking about, feel free to correct me.

Yes, that looks right.

Edit: "A" is also what I am referring to as "cushion."

 

[buckeyechicken]

Just so we know we're talking about the same parts of the bird, I did a quickie mock up (using my own cross breed bird) illustrating these "fluffy' areas as I interpret them. Chris, if this isn't what you're talking about, feel free to correct me.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/a/chicken-diagram-and-anatomy-of-a-chicken-pictures-and-labels

 

[fowlman01]

Thank you for breaking down your interpretation of the SoP. It would be fool hardy for me (or any breeder for that matter) to assume my visualization of the verbal description in the SoP is the same as another person's visualization and that is why back and forth discussions are so helpful for a new person. As I am studying all of this, I consider all resources available in addition to the SoP itself. I've found a number of great websites that help to break down the SoP and apply it to specific breeds. Over and over again I've heard the advise to use black and white pictures or "cuts" to evaluate the type and how seeing the top line is so important to visualize the over all silhouette the breed should have. This is all in reference to type and so tail angle is definitely part of this evaluation. True, there can be a lot of traits or even defects that are hard to evaluate under the feathering and that's why you can't judge them simply by a picture or the silhouette.

The reason I asked those questions is because in my mind's eye (or interpretation of the SoP) , NECK: Medium in length, well-arched should look like a curvature that makes a nice even arc from the shoulders up to the head with the fullest part of the curve around mid neck and tapered nicely should look like hackle feathers that gradually decrease in thickness or width. IMO, the offspring is displaying an exaggerated curve or right hook close to the head with a rather full feathered neck. There appears to be a hump at the back of the neck in line with the jaw line. I realize I could be wrong in my visualization of the SoP, so I do hope there is more discussion evaluating this part of the SoP.

I agree the fluffiness in the thighs are improved in the offspring. I think the fluff would be a little less noticeable if the wings were carried slightly lower as well, but that's just my opinion.

As far as the tail angle, I don't really see that 40 degrees and that is the primary reason I asked. Again, in my mind's eye, 40 degrees means half of perpendicular (90 degrees) minus 5 degrees. The horizontal line runs straight across the flat part of the back and the tail angle measurement starts at the base of the tail. I know when any two people try to eyeball measurements they are likely going to see things differently so I copied your pictures put them into a photo editor and drew the angles. No matter how I played with it, I could not come up with 40 degrees. I'm just trying to learn this not make an open criticism.

Like I said before I use a lot of resource materials and a while ago I saved the slide presentation by Doug Akers from 2010 on judging show poultry. In that presentation he teaches there are three important factors in exhibition judging- Type, Condition, and Color. He starts out with type and tail angles is the first topic under type. I've studied these slides before, but it was good to go back and review the photographs and illustrations on tail angles that meet the SoP. I'm not going to offer my opinion on the tail angles you have there, but I will post the links in case you want to review the slides that formed my interpretation of the SoP.

http://www3.ag.purdue.edu/counties/perry/Documents/4-H/Judging Chicken Breeds.pdf

Again, thank you for your time in answering a newbie's questions. I hope a few more people will weigh in on the discussion as I still have lots to learn. Cheers!

Hmmm...for some reason you don't come across as a newbie. The wings should not be lower for any reason whatsoever. You don't change the Standard to hide a fault.
The first consideration of type by anyone is the body, not the tail. If Doug said that he was incorrect. I have a lot of respect for Doug......a lot of respect, but he is not a judge, nor do I think he made that statement in that way.

Walt

 

[buffalogal]

Quote:
Ah, okay. You're absolutely right. I'll rework the image so that A. refers to the cushion, and I'll doctor another to illustrate "fluffy butt". Although none of these images are an exact profile, Baby Ben makes a pretty good model for this as no one can accuse me of being critical anyone's "lines". Shhhh, don't tell him, but I think he certainly illustrates the meat qualities one looks for in a chicken. My grandsons are here this week, so I'll see about catching him today so I can get photos of the top looking down, maybe straight front and rear as well.

 

[cgmccary]

nevermind

 

[fowlman01]

I have read back through the posts and the only person that stuck out that people insisted had low wing carriage was Joe. I've been to his farm several times and let me tell you those statements are wrong. It is of poor form to suggest he breeds birds with low wing carriage. The man has unofficially accomplished the first ever grand master for the breed which further illustrates anyones comments about the wings on his birds to be poor taste. He's done what those who came before him couldn't in a very short amount of time. Instead of disagreeing or discredit in maybe we should all be asking him for his assistance in our programs?
No breeder that I know of breeds low wings. One thing that I can tell you is that Joe doesn't have problems with poofy thighs and saddles; so to say every line of buckeyes has this problem is incorrect. I myself have a cock bird and three hens from his line that I am using to reestablish my flock after the fox kill. The cock bird is a breeder only yet has medium saddle, well tucked wings and no saddle poof. Hens don't have cushion nor do they have fluffiness in the thighs and bum area.

You had mentioned previously having an issue getting to the correct tail angle...just a suggestion if you will take the assistance. If you breed a cock or cockerel with a little less width to the back it should correct the tail angle. Trying to help a fellow breeder as I feel we need to help each other for the betterment of the breed.

You are not a Grand Master of a breed until the APA says you are. He has 41 points as of the last APA yearbook (2012)...he needs 100. I doubt very much that he got 59 points in the few shows he showed in this season. The most you can get in a show is 25 points and most shows are 5-15 points even if you win best of show (best of show adds 2 points period!). Maybe he has enough, but until the APA issues you the designation, you are not a Grand Master of anything. I am sure he will attain that at some point, but don't jump the gun . I realize you said "unofficially" but I want people to understand that it is not that easy and people usually overestimate their wins. I'm a Grand Master in 8 breeds and no one believes anything I say, so why give him any special credence? lol

Walt

 

[Wynette]

I'm a Grand Master in 8 breeds and no one believes anything I say, so why give him any special credence? lol

Walt

SPEW ALERT! (note to self: make sure to not have a full cup of coffee when Walt's posting).

Walt, EIGHT breeds? Holy heck. And, by the way, you're so very wrong to think no one believes anything you say.

Also, buffalogal, EXCELLENT idea to use a bird of a different breed to show what you mean - type is type, if you're talking about a bird with a cushion when it should not have one, show ANY bird with a cushion beside ANY bird that does not. I had this same discussion with one of the longtime Buckeye posters here several weeks ago. You don't always need to use a picture of the breed you are directly discussing to talk about a type issue. Just recently, we were discussing length of back in one of the Marans threads, and I posted THIS picture as a good example of what I was talking about:



This is a juvenile Columbian Rock pullet, but it clearly shows a nice length of back. I also find that when I'm looking at a different breed, it often allows me to "see" more type, as I'm not trying to evaluate the entire bird, like I would have been if it was the breed being discussed.