Complete specifications and judging points of all standardised breeds and varieties of poultry as compiled by the specialist affiliated Breed Clubs and recognised by the Poultry Club of Great Britain
Seventh Edition
This edition first published 2019
© 2019 Poultry Club of Great Britain
Edition History [John Wiley and Sons 6e, 2009]
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of J. Ian H. Allonby and Philippe B. Wilson to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office(s)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK.
Editorial Office
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Allonby, J. Ian H., editor. | Wilson, Philippe B., editor.
Title: British poultry standards : complete specifications and judging points of all standardized breeds and varieties of poultry as compiled by the specialist affiliated breed clubs and recognized by the Poultry Club of Great Britain / co-edited by J. Ian H. Allonby, Philippe B. Wilson.
Description: Seventh edition. | Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. | Identifiers: LCCN 2018023892 (print) | LCCN 2018035716 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119509172 (Adobe PDF) | ISBN 9781119509196 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119509141 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: Poultry–Judging. | Poultry breeds. | Poultry–Standards.
Classification: LCC SF485 (ebook) | LCC SF485 .B75 2018 (print) | DDC 636.5/1–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018023892
Cover image: © The Poultry Club of Great Britain
Cover design by Wiley
The Editors and the Poultry Club of Great Britain (PCGB) wish to acknowledge the Breed Clubs for their cooperation in compiling this new edition. Additionally, the PCGB thanks Jed Dwight, Rupert Stephenson, Tim Daniels, Joshua Kittle, Christopher Parker, Victoria Roberts, Michael Corrigan, Graham Hicks, John Tarren, David Scrivener, Alan Davies, Malcom Thompson, Geoff Parker, the Breed Clubs and Arnaud Asselin for providing illustrations and photographs. Illustrations of Dominique are from the American Standard of Perfection 1974.
Standards for pure breeds of poultry owe their origin to the popularity of exhibition and the need for a benchmark by which they could be judged fairly; individual exhibits of a breed needed to be judged against each other. There was a call, therefore, for uniformity of type (encompassing body, shape, and carriage) together with a breed’s colouration while taking into account egg production and table values in those classified as Utility. Apart from these attributes, Standards needed to embody the ideal characteristics which defined not only each individual breed to make them distinctive from others but also the specific colours and markings of particular varieties within a breed. Standards needed to be formulated to serve as a guide for breeders, exhibitors, and judges alike.
It was as long ago as 1865 that the Poultry Club authorised the publication of the first Standard of Excellence in Exhibition Poultry, edited by W.B. Tegetmeier and published by Groombridge & Sons. This was the first book of its kind in the world. Two years later, in 1867, it was adopted by the American Poultry Society and published in the United States by A.M. Halsted, complete with alterations and additions to suit the fancy in America.
The original Poultry Club lasted just three years before being disbanded with the second, and current, Poultry Club of Great Britain being founded in 1877. During the intervening period, W.B. Tegetmeier’s The Poultry Book was published in 1867, followed by a new edition in 1873. This book contained not only the original British ‘Standards of Excellence’ but outlined comparisons with those of America – notably that the original ‘Scale of Points’ for each exhibit was 15 in Britain while being 100 across the Atlantic.
It was Lewis Wright who next published Standards for exhibition poultry in his 1873 work The Illustrated Book of Poultry, making every attempt to achieve uniformity in the way the Standards were set out. Each bird was considered perfect to begin with and allocated 100 ‘Points of Merit’, from which various points for ‘Defects to be Deducted’ were to be subtracted. The defects and points varied from breed to breed. Clearly, after this, it must have been realised that 15 points were inadequate when grading exhibits and, in Britain too, the ‘Scale of Points’ in each breed Standard was to total 100 from then on.
A Scale of Points for each breed is important. While judges in Britain may not necessarily award a percentage mark when awarding prizes, it is a breed’s ‘Scale of Points’ which highlights, at a glance, the features which are regarded as significantly important for that particular breed. This may or may not be so apparent in the actual wording of the Standards as the following examples reveal: ‘Colour’ in Andalusians accounting for 50 points, 60 in a Hamburgh, but just 9 in Old English Game Bantams, while a Norfolk Black Turkey’s ‘Head’ is considered to be worth 20 points in comparison with a lowly 5 for this feature in a Sebastopol Goose where ‘Conditioning & Feathering’ attract 40 points. Scales of Points can be useful, too, when comparisons between different breeds and species are made to arrive at the award of Show Champion.
After the second Poultry Club was founded in 1877, its initial series of Standards Books for Poultry was initiated. The first edition of Poultry Club Standards, edited by Alexander Comyns, was published by the Poultry Club in 1886 with subsequent editions of 1901 edited by T. Threlford, published by Casell & Company; 1905 edited by Lewis Wright, also published by Casell & Company; 1910, 1922, and the sixth in 1923, all edited by William W. Broomhead; then the seventh in 1926, with the last of the first series, the eighth, published in 1930. Following the Second World War, Poultry World took over as publisher and here the modern-day series of editions began. The first edition was published in 1954; the second in 1960; the third in 1971, edited by C.G. May; the fourth in 1982, edited by David Hawksworth; and then the fifth in 1997 and sixth in 2008 were both edited by Victoria Roberts. Publishers changed during the series to Butterworths, to Blackwell, and to John Wiley & Sons, which acquired Blackwell Publishing in 2007 to become Wiley Blackwell.
Right from the very beginning, therefore, the Poultry Club has remained guardian of the Standards without necessarily being the body responsible for framing them. This task is normally undertaken by the specialist Breed Club or by the originator of a new breed or variety. So seriously, however, is this guardianship imposed, and accepted by the clubs, that until a new variety is admitted to Standard it remains unrecognised by show authorities whose events are staged under the rules of the Poultry Club of Great Britain.
Current procedures for the admittance of a new breed or variety of an existing breed to Standard are comprehensive. A Provisional Standard must first be submitted to the relevant Breed Club not only for its recommendation but also for postal ballot approval by its members. Once this is received, the proposed Standard with particulars of origin and breeding together with a list of breeders and the ballot papers must then be submitted for full standardisation by the Poultry Club. This is when further criteria, including a signed declaration, have to be met – the breed or variety has to satisfy Council as to its purity and whether it breeds true to type and colour; specimens of the proposed breed or variety need to have been exhibited in non-Standard classes; three rung generations of the new breed or colour should be available for inspection by the Poultry Club; a new breed has to possess distinctive characteristics and a new colour variety has to conform to the character of the breed concerned. The only exception to these procedures is when a recognised breed is imported from another country in which it has already been accepted to Standard.
Since the middle of the last century the introduction of hybrid strains of layers and broilers has meant that, commercially, pure breeds of poultry have been kept less and less. However, the fact that these hybrids owe their origin to Standard pure bred poultry is appreciated. The Poultry Club not only represents our hobby with the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) but as custodian of British Poultry Standards is involved with the preservation of these traditional breeds, especially those that have originated in Britain. The significance of the pool of genetic resources retained in the pure breeds is recognised as important should hybrid strains need to be remade due to disease.
To safeguard publication interests the Poultry Club has agreed not to accept or authorise publication of any alterations to existing Standards for a period of two years from the issue of this edition. The Poultry Club, through its affiliated Breed Clubs, maintains the strictest watch on these Standards of Excellence. It will not allow alterations or amendments until its governing Council has made a thorough examination of all the circumstances. Once established, whole-scale alterations to existing Standards due to fashion should not happen. They should not stray too far from the original. In this way the Poultry Club can be truly said to be the guardian of the Standards and so plays its part in ensuring that our pure breeds of poultry will be part of the heritage we pass on to future generations.
Indeed, with recent advances in the science of agricultural feeds, some breeds may be increasing in size. This is less an issue for large fowl examples; however, in order to maintain the dichotomy between the two sizes of most breeds, it is important for breeders and ourselves as the guardians of the Standards to maintain a watchful eye on size deterioration. Furthermore, greater numbers of breeds are seeing decreases in the size differences between their bantam and large fowl equivalents – a worrying factor when assessing Standards with strictly stipulated weights. The Standards established within this and earlier editions provide distinct judging points to guide and inform the judge, exhibitor, and breeder. Although strictly defined, each Standard can be used as a guide to establish the viability of stock and provides the blueprint for judges to carry out their duties at shows.
This edition has been thoroughly revised and edited, with numerous changes to breed pictures and profiles providing a well-defined update for contemporary breeding, judging, and exhibiting. It is also intended for use as a manual to aid in the instruction and identification of breeds for the novice through to the veterinary surgeon.
J. Ian H. Allonby and Philippe B. Wilson
1 Hackle feather conforming to Standard as applying to brown Leghorn and other males of black-red colouring. Note the absence of shaftiness, black fringing, and tipping. The actual colour of the outer border varies in different breeds between dark orange and pale lemon. In such breeds the saddle hackle should conform closely to the neck hackle.
1A Faulty hackle in the same breeds. There is considerable shaftiness, the striping runs through, and the feather is tipped with black. Striping is also indefinite and fouled with red.
2 Hackle feather conforming to Standard from the partridge Wyandotte male. There is no shaftiness and the striping is very solid and distinct. In partridge Wyandottes lemon-coloured hackles are a desirable exhibition point.
2A Faulty neck hackle in the same breed. Note that the black striping runs through to the tip and is irregular in shape. There is also a distinct black outer fringing to the gold border.
3 Standard hackle feather from a male of the gold-laced Wyandotte and similar breeds with a rich bay ground colour. Note the intensity of the centre stripe, absence of shaftiness, and freedom from blemish in the outer border. Note also the soundness of colour in the underfluff.
3A Faulty hackle feather from similar breeds, showing indistinct striping, with foul colour, shaftiness, and black running through to the tip. Underfluff is a mixture of red and dark grey.
4 Standard hackle feather from a male of the light Sussex and similar breeds of ermine markings, such as light Brahma, Columbian Wyandotte, and ermine Faverolles. The demand is for a solid black centre with a clear white border extending to the underfluff. Green sheen is an important feature.
4A Faulty hackle from similar breeds, showing black fringing to the border, black tipping, and shaftiness in the quill. Underfluff also lacks distinction.
5 Perfect tri-coloured hackle feather from a speckled Sussex male. The black striping is solid, with green sheen, and the border is the desired rich mahogany colour, finishing with a clean white tip. Note clarity of the undercolour.
5A Faulty speckled Sussex hackle feather showing almost complete lack of black striping, varying ground colour in the border, and indistinct white tipping.
6 Neck hackle conforming to a Standard Andalusian male. The so-called Andalusian blue is a diffusion of black and white, and in male hackles a dark border or lacing surrounds the slate-blue feather. Undercolour is sound and even.
6A Faulty hackle from same breed. The colour generally is blotchy and lacing is indefinite.
7 Standard neck hackle of a Rhode Island Red male. No attempt has been made to show the ultra-dark red usually seen in show specimens, but the colour seen here conforms with Standard and should be agreeable for exhibition. Note the purity of the undercolour – a very important point in this breed.
7A Faulty hackle feather from the same breed, showing uneven ground colour, black tipping, and smutty undercolour, which is a very severe defect in a Rhode Island Red.
8 Hackle from an Ancona male, conforming closely to Standard. Note the clear V-shaped white tipping, complete absence of shaftiness, rich green sheen, and solidity of the dark underfluff, a particularly strong point in the breed.
8A Faulty hackle feather from the same breed, showing indistinct tipping of greyish-white and faulty undercolour not dark to skin.
9 Hackle feather conforming to Standard from a buff Orpington male, very similar, except for the exact shade, to feathers from other buff breeds, such as Cochins and Rocks. Note the even colour throughout, absence of shaftiness, and sound colour in the underfluff, with a quill buff to the skin.
9A Faulty hackle feather from a similar breed, showing severe shaftiness, uneven ground colour with a darker fringe, and an impure undercolour.
1 Standard hackle from a barred Plymouth Rock male and similar breeds. Note the points of excellence – barring practically straight across the feather, sound contrast in black and blue-white, barring and ground colour in equal widths, and barring carried down the underfluff to the skin. The tip of the feather must be black.
1A Faulty saddle or neck hackle from a similar variety. There is a lack of contrast in the barring, with a dull grey ground colour and V-shaped bars.
2 Hackle as the Standard description from a silver Campine, in which males are inclined to hen feathering. Note that the black bar is three times the width of the ground colour and the tip of the feather is silver.
2A In this faulty hackle (also from a silver Campine male) the ground colour is too wide and the barring narrow. The feather is without a silver tip.
3 Standard hackle from a Marans male. In this and some similar breeds evenness of the banding is not essential, but it is expected to show reasonable contrast. It should, however, carry through to the underfluff.
3A From the same group of breeds this feather is far too open in the banding and lacks uniformity of marking. It is also light in the undercolour.
4 Standard markings of a female body feather in Plymouth Rocks and similar barred breeds where barring and ground colour are required to be of equal width. Note that barring runs from end to end of the feather and that the tip is black.
4A Faulty feather from same group. Note the absence of barring to the underfluff and the V-shaped markings; also blurred and indistinct ground colour.
5 Sound body feather from a silver Campine female showing a Standard silver tip and barring three times as wide as the ground colour, as in the male. Gold Campine feathers are similar but different in the ground colour.
5A Faulty female feather, again from a silver Campine. Here again, as in 2A, barring is too narrow in relation to the silver ground colour and the tip of the feather is black.
6 Body feather from a Marans female, conforming to Standard requirements. Note that the markings are less definite than in Rocks and Campines, and the black is lacking in sheen, while the ground colour is smoky white.
6A Faulty Marans female feather. Lacks definition and contrast in the banding, which is indefinite in shape, the blotchy ground colour making an indistinct pattern.
7 Excellent body feather from a partridge Wyandotte female, showing correct ground colour and fine concentric markings. Note the complete absence of fringing, shaftiness, and similar faults. Fineness of pencilling is a Standard requirement.
7A From the same breed this faulty female feather shows a rusty red ground colour and indistinct pencilling, with faulty underfluff.
8 Body feather of Standard quality from an Indian or Cornish Game female. The illustration shows clearly two distinct lacings with a third inner marking. Lacing should have a green sheen on a rich bay or mahogany ground.
8A Faulty feather from the same breed. Missing are evenness of lacing and central marking. The outer lacing runs off into a spangle tip.
9 Standard feather from a laced Barnevelder female. In this breed the ground colour should be rich with two even and distinct concentric lacings. Quill of the feather should be a mahogany colour to the skin.
9A Faulty Barnevelder female feather, showing a spangle tip to outer lacing and irregular inner markings on the ground colour that is too pale.
1 Standard markings on a silver-laced Wyandotte female feather, showing very even lacing on a clear silver ground colour and rich colour in the underfluff. In this breed clarity of lacing is of greater importance than fineness of width.
1A Faulty female feather from the same breed. In this there is a fringing of silver outside the black lacing, which is irregular in width and runs narrow at the sides. Undercolour is also defective.
2 Excellent feather from a gold-laced Wyandotte. In this the ground colour is a clear rich golden bay and there is a complete absence of pale shaft. Undercolour is sound and lacing is just about the widest advisable.
2A This shows a very faulty feather from the same breed. It portrays a mossy ground colour with blotchy markings and an uneven width of lacing at the sides of the feather. Undercolour is not rich enough.
3 Standard markings on an Andalusian female feather showing well-defined lacing on a clear slate-blue ground and good depth of colour in the underfluff. The dark shaft is desirable and is not classed as a fault.
3A Faulty feather from a female of the same breed. In this the ground colour is blurred and indistinct, and the lacing is not crisp, while the undercolour lacks depth.
4 This shows a feather from an Ancona female, almost perfect in Standard requirements. The white tipping is clear and V-shaped and the undercolour is dark to the skin.
4A Faulty feather from a female of the same breed. Here the tip of the feather is greyish-white and lacks the necessary V-shape, while the undercolour is not rich enough.
5 An almost perfectly marked feather from a speckled Sussex female – though the white tip might be criticised by some breeders as rather too large. The black dividing bar shows a good green sheen and the ground colour is rich and even.
5A As a contrast this faulty feather shows a blotchy white tip and lack of colour in the underfluff. The ground colour is also uneven.
6 An excellent example of ‘mooning’ on the feather of a silver spangled Hamburgh female. Note the round spangle and the clear silver ground with sound undercover.
6A In this feather from the same breed the spangling at the tip is not moon-shaped and there is too much underfluff and insufficient silver ground colour to the body of the feather.
7 A good example of the desired colour in Rhode Island Red female plumage. Note the great depth of rich colour and the sound dark undercolour.
7A Faulty colour in a feather from the same breed. Here the middle of the feather is paler and inclined to shaftiness, and the colour generally is uneven.
8 Standard plumage in females of Australorp and similar breeds of soft feather with a rich green sheen. Note the brilliance of colour and the general soundness of the underfluff.
8A This shows a common fault in similar breeds, a sooty or dead black colour without sheen and lacking lustre. This sootiness is, however, usually accompanied by a dark undercolour.
9 Standard colour and feather in the buff Rock female and similar breeds which perhaps vary in exact shade and in quantity and softness of the underfluff. Note the clear even buff and lack of shaftiness or lacing, also the sound rich undercolour.
9A This feather from a similar buff breed shows very bad faults – mealiness and bad undercolour with a certain amount of pale colour in the shaft.
1 This shows a typical Standard bred feather from a Derbyshire Redcap female. Note the rich ground colour and the crescentic black markings, which are really midway between spangling and lacing.
1A In this faulty feather from a female of the same breed the ground colour is uneven and lacks richness, while the black tip is too small and indefinite and too closely resembles moon-shaped spangling.
2 This is a Standard example of the webless type of plumage associated with Silkies in which the feather vane has no strength and the barbs no cohesion. This plumage is common in all colours.
2A Faulty feather from the same breed. In this the middle of the feather is too solid and lacks silkiness, while the fluff has insufficient length.
3 A delicately pencilled body feather from a silver grey Dorking female. Note the silvery colour and absence of ruddy or yellow tinge in the ground colour. This type of feather is also usual in duckwing females of various breeds.
3A Faulty colour in a female feather from the same breed. Here there is a distinctly incorrect ground colour and pronounced shaftiness.
4 A good example of a Standard bred colour and markings in the body feather of a brown Leghorn female, where the ground colour is a soft brown shade and the markings finely pencilled. This type of feather is common to many varieties of partridge or grouse colouring.
4A This shows a body feather from the same breed, in which the ground colour is ruddy and the shaftiness is pronounced – both severe exhibition faults.
5 A well-chosen example of the irregularity in markings of an exchequer Leghorn female. In this breed the black and white should be well distributed but not regularly placed, and the underfluff should be parti-coloured black and white.
5A This faulty feather from the same breed shows a too regular disposition of markings, the body of the feather being almost entirely black and the white markings almost resembling lacing.
6 This is a Standard feather from the breast of a silver Dorking, and with slight variations of shade from pale to rich salmon applies to a number of varieties with black-red or duckwing colouring. Colour should be even with as little pale shaft as possible.
6A A faulty sample of a breast feather from the same group. Here the ground colour is washy and disfigured by pale markings known as mealiness.
7 Standard markings in a North Holland Blue female. Note the defined but somewhat irregular banding on a distinctly bluish ground. No banding or other requirements in the underfluff are called for in the Standard.
7A This shows a faulty female feather in the same breed, which is not closely standardised for markings. The ground colour is smoke-grey instead of blue, and is blotchy, with uneven markings.
8 A good example of clear colour in an unlaced or self-blue female feather, where no lacing is permissible, such as in blue Leghorns, blue Wyandottes, etc. Note the even pale blue shade and absence of any form of markings. This is an example of the true-breeding blue colour found in Belgian bantams.
8A This faulty female feather is a dull dirty grey instead of clear blue, and has blotchy markings as well as a suggestion of irregular lacing.
9 A good sample of exquisitely patterned thigh fluff in Rouen drakes. The ground colour is a clear silver and the markings a delicate but clear black or dark brown. These markings are sometimes known as chain mail.
9A Another good Rouen feather – this time from the duck. Ground colour is very rich and markings intensely black, though seldom so regular and even as in domestic fowl.
(Figures 1–6)
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the chief points of the various breeds of fowl.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3 Types of comb
1 Rose, leader following line of neck 2 Triple or pea 3 Rose, short leader 4 Walnut 5 Cap 6 Mulberry 7 Medium single 8 Large single 9 Cup 10 Rose with long leader 11 Leaf 12 Horn 13 Small single 14 Folded single 15 Semi-erect single
Figure 4 Leg types
1 Clean legged, flat side (Leghorns) 2 Clean legged, round shanks (Game) 3 Heavy feather legged, and feathered toes, i.e. foot feather 4 Feather legged, no feathers middle toe (Croad Langshan) 5 Short round shanks (Indian Game) 6 Five toed (Dorking) 7 Slightly feathered shanks (Modern Langshan) 8 Feather legged and vulture hocked (Sultan) 9 Thin round shanks (Modern Game) 10 Mottled shanks (Ancona) 11 Mottled and five toed (Houdan) 12 Feather legged and five toed (Faverolles)
Figure 5 Types of tail
Figure 6 Feather markings
1 Neck hackle, male (striped)
2 Neck hackle, female (laced)
3 Saddle hackle, male (striped)
4 Pencilled hackle (female)
5 Ticked hackle
6 Tipped neck hackle, male, as in spangled Hamburgh
7 Striped hackle, male, showing outer fringing of colour – a fault
8 Striped saddle hackle, male, showing open centre (desired only in pullet-breeder)
9 Pencilled feather, cushion, female, as in silver grey Dorking and brown Leghorns
10 Barred neck hackle (male)
11 Triple pencilled back (female)
12 Laced
13 Faulty laced (i.e. horseshoed)
14 Spangled (moon-shaped)
15 Speckled. White tick and two other colours on feather
16 Shoulder feather in spangled varieties
17 Poland laced crest (pullet)
18 Poland crest, female
19 Crescent marked
20 Barred or finely pencilled as in Hamburgh. Bars and spaces same width
21 Double laced
22 Tipped, showing V-shaped tip, as in Ancona
23 Barred as in barred Rock, shows barring in undercolour. To finish with black bar
24 Laced and ticked, as in dark Dorking
25 Elongated spangle, as in Buttercup
26 Finely pencilled, as in dark Brahma female
27 Barred, as in Campine. Finishes with white end. Light bars a quarter to a third of the width of dark bars
28 ‘Silkie’ (no webbing)
29 Fine in pencilling, as in black marks of black-red, and duckwing Game
30 Barred Rock sickle
31 Buff laced
32 Wing marking on flight feather
33 Laced sickle
34 Saddle hackle mackerel marked (Campine cockerel)
| Hard Feather | Soft Feather: Heavy | Soft Feather: Light |
| Carlisle Old English Game | Australorp | Ancona |
| Indian Game | Autosexing breeds: | Appenzeller Spitzhauben |
| Modern Game | Brussbar, Dorbar, Rhodebar, Wybar | Araucana |
| Old English Game Bantam | Barnevelder | Rumpless Araucana |
| Oxford Old English Game | Brahma | Autosexing breeds: |
| Cochin | Legbar, Cream Legbar, Welbar | |
| Croad Langshan | Derbyshire Redcap | |
| Dorking | Hamburgh | |
| Faverolles | Leghorn | |
| Frizzle | Minorca | |
| German Langshan | Poland | |
| Marans | Scots Dumpy | |
| New Hampshire Red | Scots Grey | |
| Orloff | Silkie | |
| Orpington | Welsummer | |
| Plymouth Rock | ||
| Rhode Island Red | ||
| Sussex | ||
| Wyandotte | ||
| Asian Hard Feather | True Bantam | |
| Asil | Belgian Bearded Bantams: | |
| Ko Shamo Kulang Malay Nankin Shamo Satsumadori |
Barbu d’Anvers, Barbu de Boitsfort, Barbu d’Everberg, Barbu de Grubbe, Barbu d’Uccle, Barbu de Watermael | |
| Shamo | Booted | |
| Taiwan | Dutch | |
| Thai Game | Japanese | |
| Tuzo | Pekin | |
| Yakido | Rosecomb | |
| Yamato-Gunkei | Sebright | |
| Serama | ||
| Suffolk Chequer | ||
| Rare True Bantam | Rare Soft Feather: Heavy | Rare Soft Feather: Light |
| Burmese | Crèvecoeur | Andalusian |
| Nankin | Dominique | Appenzeller Barthüner |
| Ohiki | Houdan | Augsburger |
| Ixworth | Ayam Cemani | |
| Jersey Giant | Brabanter | |
| La Flèche | Brakel | |
| Modern Langshan | Breda | |
| Norfolk Grey | Bresse-Gauloise | |
| North Holland Blue | Campine | |
| Sulmtaler | Dandarawi | |
| Transylvanian Naked Neck | Fayoumi | |
| Friesian | ||
| Groninger | ||
| Kraienköppe | ||
| Lakenvelder | ||
| Marsh Daisy | ||
| Old English Pheasant Fowl | ||
| Sicilian Buttercup | ||
| Spanish | ||
| Sultan | ||
| Sumatra | ||
| Thüringian | ||
| Vorwerk | ||
| Yokohama |
| Heavy | Light |
| Bourbon Red | Blue |
| Bronze | Buff |
| Crimson Dawn/Black-winged Bronze | Crollwitzer (Pied) |
| Narragansett | Harvey Speckled |
| Nebraskan | Norfolk Black |
| Slate | |
| White |
| Heavy | Light | Bantam |
| Aylesbury | Abacot Ranger | Black East Indian |
| Blue Swedish | Bali | Call |
| Cayuga | Campbell | Crested |
| Muscovy | Crested | Silver Appleyard Miniature |
| Pekin | Hook Bill | Silver Bantam |
| Rouen | Indian Runner | |
| Rouen Clair | Magpie | |
| Saxony | Buff Orpington | |
| Silver Appleyard | Welsh Harlequin |
| Heavy | Medium | Light |
| African | Brecon Buff | Chinese |
| American Buff | Buff Back | Czech |
| Embden | Grey Back | Franconian |
| Skåne | Pomeranian | Pilgrim |
| Toulouse | West of England | Roman |
| Sebastopol | ||
| Shetland | ||
| Steinbacher |
The Poultry Club of Great Britain strives to promote adherence to the Standards, thereby encouraging the breeding of alert, healthy, active fowl, which reproduce well. Poultry Club of Great Britain judges are encouraged to consider these factors in addition to the Standards, to ensure that exhibition breeding does not affect the vigour of breeds. In this section, defects, deformities, and issues with specimens are highlighted, which should be considered from both a breeding and judging point of view. This section should be considered in addition to the defects or serious defects included in each Standard, although some Standards explicitly mention components included herein. This is due to common issues found in the breed, and both judges and breeders should be particularly vigilant when examining birds.
The following are given as deformities and defects for which judges must pass or penalise an exhibit according to the seriousness of the defect.
Crossed or deformed beak. Malformation of beak. Badly dished bill in ducks. Blindness. Defective eyesight. Defective pupils. Odd eye colour. Comb that closes the nostrils. Side sprigs or double end on a single comb. Excessive fall to side of rose comb, blocking vision. Split combs at blade. Fall-over comb that obstructs vision. Malformed combs. Defective serrations. Unusual head carriage. White in face for breed Standards demanding red. Wry neck. Indications of brain or nerve affection. Badly distended and sagging crop.
Figure 7
Figure 8 Dished bill
Any deformity. Rounded or curved spine (roach back). Weak back formation. One bone higher than the other, giving the back a lopsided appearance.
Figure 9
Pigeon breast (abnormal protrusion of the breastbone). Seriously deformed breastbone. Malformation of breastbone that interferes with the internal organs. Down behind and curved end of breastbone, which leads to drooping abdomen. Dented breastbone from perching. Enlargement on breastbone of turkey. Broken or malformed pelvic bones. Faulty stance.
Badly twisted or curled wing feathers. Slipped or drooping wing. Split wing, in a serious form, with large gap between primaries and secondaries. Defective wing formation in waterfowl. Slightly defective wing formation, even if well positioned and carried, to be penalised.
Wry. Squirrel. Defective parson’s nose. Split or divided tail feathers or badly twisted feathers in tail. High tail in excess.
Enlarged bone. Curved thigh bones. Malformation of bone. Bow legs or ‘out at hocks’. Badly in at hocks. Duck toes. Crooked toes. Turned toes. Twisted feet. Enlarged toe joints. Lack of spurs on adult male. Leg feathers on clean-legged birds.
Soft or frizzled feathering in plain feathered breeds. Curled feathers on any part of body, including neck. Signs of slow feathering.
Figure 10 Comb faults
Figure 11
Figure 12
Any disease or disorder not making for maximum health, condition, vigour, and breeding fitness, including colds, heartiness, abdominal dropsy, cysts, egg substance in oviduct, or abdomen. Sour crop. Impacted crop. External parasites. Any other disease symptom or deformity.
Any exhibit deficient in breed or size characteristics, so that it is an unworthy specimen of the breed or variety intended, must be passed.
Any bird that in the opinion of the judge has been faked or tampered with shall be disqualified.