Smut in feathers on chickens

There seems to be some confusion about what I said about two of my buckeye cockerels showing what was called "smut" on the feathers. This was when Heather was over and looking at which of the four cockerels, two would be the better to keep to work on. She showed me when she was holding the bird, what was termed "smut", it wasn't a huge, big deal, but should not be there. Not sure how to get rid of that, through breeding, but I will be trying.

When she was holding the bird in her arms, the pulled back the feathers on the back and neck and showed me darkness in colour of the fluffy down of the feather shaft. Well, I think that was what she was showing me. I had a whole lotta information flowing through my mind that day, and I may have misconstrued things she may have said. Not sure, I know I will be corrected if anything I say does not hold true to what truth is.

I have scoured my standard of perfection to find out more about this term, smut, but find nothing, but I have tried to find out more.

With the buckeye breed the undercolour of all sections should be red, except for across the back, which should show a bar of slate....

I am going to type from the standard of perfection an excerpt, which defines the plumage and undercolour of all sections. It follows:

"PLUMAGE: General surface color an even shade of rich mahogany bay in all sections, with the exception the unexposed primaries and secondaries and the main tail feathers may contain black. Male sickles and coverts should be shaded bay and black, thus avoiding a sharp contrast between the body and tail.

UNDERCOLOUR OF ALL SECTIONS: Red except for back which should show a bar of slate."

Anyways, perhaps comments from our poultry judges would be most beneficial for us to try to improve this beautiful breed of the buckeye!! Have a wonderful and great day, CynthiaM

Smut- is a grey or slate color seen in the undercolor of of Buckeyes and Rhode Island Reds. This would usually be seen in the outside thigh area or under the neck feathers. The undercolor on the Buckeye should be Red except for on the back where you will see a bar of slate about at the shoulder. On Rhode Island Reds the undercolor should be a Rich Intense Red with none of the slate anywhere on the body undercolor. Hope this discription helps.

Heather

.

viczoe wrote:Smut- is a grey or slate color seen in the undercolor of of Buckeyes and Rhode Island Reds. This would usually be seen in the outside thigh area or under the neck feathers. The undercolor on the Buckeye should be Red except for on the back where you will see a bar of slate about at the shoulder. On Rhode Island Reds the undercolor should be a Rich Intense Red with none of the slate anywhere on the body undercolor. Hope this discription helps.

Heather

It does help.

I was imagining finding dirty pictures in the feathers.

Smut in the undercolor is just another thing you want to watch out for, think type first and then color but you still have to work it all together. So like everything if you have a bird with excellent type but he has some smut in his undercolor it's not a deal breaker but remember the more of the little things you let go the bigger they can become in a very short time. It is something that I look for in my Rhode Island and if I have 2 birds of near equal quality I will not keep the one with the smut in my breeding pens.

But Remember your Buckeyes have that bar of slate in the undercolor across the back but nowhere else on the body undercolor!

Heather

Heather, could you please take a moment to more clearly define the bar of slate? I find it a little confusing yet, I take a long time to get things down pat in my mind, but when they finally stick, they stick like glue.

I am visioning one series of feathers from one side of the back to the other that fall in a line, which have that slate coloured bar you speak of. Only one series of feathers, and the slate is on the down feather of the shaft? Clarify please, and have a beautiful day, CynthiaM.

.

Tara, first off I would like to express my gratitude for you to get a picture of the smut on the bird, that was a nice gesture. This has opened a good can of worms, smiling. Many owners of buckeyes are now looking for the bar of slate across the BACK. yes, I said back, three times and it is imprinted that the bar of slate is on the back, from one side to the other, did I mention that it is on the back (not the neck). As Heather said, the smut will usually be seen on the neck feathers and the leg feathers. I am on an agenda over the next couple of days to have a good look and get some pictures of what I find on my buckeyes, smiling.

ABA, what does that acryonym stand for?

It would appear that smut was discussed in that book. I would imagine that smut is not in the new APA Standard of Perfection because this is a terminology that has been around since time beginning and perhaps it is thought that it is already a known fact. I wonder why it is not spoken of in the 2010 version. I know, I have scoured the book too. Not there. It is a term used, absolutely, I don't think it is just a "word" that can be used loosely.

The canine book spoke of smut: The encroachment or infiltration of tan coloration into the blue coat areas of the Australian Silky Terrier and the Australian Terrier. An undesirable feature in both breeds, the standards of which require such colour patterns to be distinct.

This smut on the terriers is tan, on the chickens it is dark, still the terminology remains the same, a colouration where it should not be, basically, my understanding of this.

Now where was I, guess I need to re-read your post. Seems that is all I am addressing at this time.

This bar of slate that has shown up in your reds, it would appear to be a couple of feathers in thickness. Hmmm...kind of hard to explain. A bar to me is a thin, thick line. I would be looking for a bar (a think thick line) of slate colour across the back, which I thought might have been one feather thickness, hmmmm, still not really making sense. Guess there could be a line across the back that was a couple of feathers thick. Rats...now I wish that I for surely had a good slate bar on my buckeyes for an example for me to look at myself. Oh brother, this paragraph is making less and less sense, better run off and not get in any deeper . Thank you Tara for bringing these good pictures for us to look at and find out about SMUT!!! Beautiful days, CynthiaM.

.

Tara, this is going to get funny. Now you say:

This is fun Cynthia with an "M"...mmmmm fun! LOL

My chosen name (ya, I know, ramblin' off topic) is Cindi -- with an "i".

Many years ago my second up Sister bought me a birthday card. It was a picture of a woman with one eye, a cyclops we shall call her. And the card indicated that it was for Cindi, with and "eye". I will never forget how I laughed when I looked at that one-eyed-Cindi.

Now getting back to your post. That will have to wait until tomorrow, I felt compelled to answer you, if only for a fleeting moment in time. My soup, which is from every garden veggie that I preserved from my garden awaits me, and then the TV is also calling -- yes, those warm and comfy winter nights....you have sparked some very interesting stuff on this thread, and comments must ensue. Have a beautiful night, to all my forum friends, CynthiaM.

.

Oh boy Tara, sounds like I am going to be spending quite a great deal of time with you this morning.

The first question that I would like to answer for you is that question of "is it buckeyes or buckeye".

I went to my APA SOP and had a look at the pictures. The picture of the buckeye is singular, buckeye, I go to the description and the description is entitled "buckeyes" in the plural. I look across the page to the description of the Rhode Island White and Chantecler. Both those in the description part in the plural (Rhode Island Whites, Chanteclers). So I am assuming the breed is called "buckeye", but when the description titles are set, it is in the plural form, as they are speaking about many birds' descriptions? I don't know, but certainly in description titles, the plural is used, did this help?

Your question to me: Tell me, how pure does a well turned out Buckeye replicate? Have you got enough breeding experience yet to tell us that once you get the Buckeyes in the right colour form...they are like peas in a pod when it comes to producing like begets like offspring?

You asked what my experience in breeding chickens lies. It does not. I have kept chickens as farm critters for about 7 years. It has only been in the past two or so years that I began to get nice heritage birds and chose to continue on with small time breeding, mostly for my own use, but at the same time, to help others that I know to attain heritage birds for their pleasure -- be that visual or for food services. I am not a long time breeder, nor profess to be one. I most certainly do enjoy to raise chicks and do so..I absolutely do NOT have enough breeding experience to, for many years yet to come even, imply that this breed will be like two peas in a pod, or three peas in a pod, when it comes to producing offspring that will be identical to the parent, and probably never will bother to care that much. Honestly. I just want to try to do the best that I can with what knowledge I achieve with life lessons and learning, I am not out to produce the perfect bird, even as far as to produce a bird that would be a show winner, but will try to make nice birds, fertile and strong, with good immune systems, well taken care of and well, just nice.....

I have keen interest in the three breeds of birds I have, all large fowl, buff orpington, cochin and buckeye. I have keen interest to try to raise nice birds and make them nicer birds, by paying attention to things that the birds should or should not look like. I like things to be good and right, so my focus is to try to have a nice selection of birds to breed from. I like that I am receiving help from so many much more knowledgeable people about what is proper and what is not. So, you ask my experience, basically nuthin', really, when you look at the big picture.

Genetics intrigue me, and what you speak about with the dark and the light, eb brown, eWh wheaten, the light and dark bowl of soup . Well, girl, you might as well be talkin' in Greek to me. I love genetics, I love to listen and I love to learn. But that is stuff that I am having the worst difficulty understanding. I learn things by visual and touch, I can learn by reading too, but must read and read and read certain things to get a full understanding. Many have tried to explain some very basics of genetics to me, yes, getting some of it, but taking so long to get it, I have forgotten what I was getting . So your trying to explain things using any genetic terms is very difficult, but I still listen, and try to put those twos and twos together. Some things come easy for some, others not so. Oh well. Still love to listen. I hope that I have answered some of your more pointed questions.

Your comments are very valued, and it is nice that you have taken the time to spend with me, that is nice and shines through that you like to help others, good on you girl, so for now, thanks, and have a most wonderful day, CynthiaM.

.

.

Tara, I enjoy your sense of humour, and find listening to you delightful and you have consumed my thoughts, now tag -- your're it.

I have read this post with interest and have become befuddled most of the way through it, so much that for tonight I must put this on the back burner. I am tired, the end of the day, a big fatty type dinner and I am spent. You have caught my interest extremely well, what I mean in this regard is -- how you teach youngsters some very complex things and they understand. Consider me as that youngster. I have these issues with learning and I like that bowl of soup, of different quantities of ingredients, I am listening, I am learning. Tomorrow morning I will have a fresh mind, and I will walk with you through that post, if only through your mind's eye, my mind's eye. I am listening and I am learning, thank you for taking things to what I see a more simple method of learn.

I cannot speak anymore tonight about your response in the thread, it was deep, it was not dark, but was great to listen to, and did I mention before -- that I love to listen, smiling that big smile. Thank you for taking the time to post such lengthy and very convoluted "stuff" -- to me this is a good thing. I am also thinking that there are many people that do not have the special ability to learn in a "regular" sense of the word -- I know I am not alone and you are demonstrating to others, ways to 'learn' in a different way. Kudos, good on you girl!! Now have a wonderful night, rest well, and I will be off in a different head space after having a good night's sleep. CynthiaM.

Tara, I still have this post on the back burner in my mind, it will be resurrected again, after I have done more studying on things you have been teaching me. Beautiful days, CynthiaM.