Glen Carr on Judging Thriantas-2011 ARBA Judges Conference, Indianapolis, IN |
5/15/2012
Information on Epizootic Rabbit Enteropathy
http://www.raising-rabbits.com/epizootic-rabbit-enteropathy.html http://world-rabbit-science.com/WRSA-Proceedings/Congress-2008-Verona/Papers/P-Huybens.pdf |
Thrianta Information
Thrianta are considered by the A.R.B.A. to be a "fancy" breed, yet are a medium-sized rabbit, ranging up to 6 pounds maximum show weight. They're healthy and hardy, and produce large litters easily. Since all original stock in America was imported, there are limited quantities of the breed available. Most shows nowadays are seeing 20+ Thrianta per show, and specialty shows are starting to be held across the nation.
|
|
Thrianta Questions and Answers
by Glen Carr
July 2011
(This is an email response by Glen to questions that were posed by a breeder after his tutorial at the 2009
Convention in San Diego. Read on ... lots of great information!)
I'll answer the easiest question first! There are seven breeds that DQ for a dewlap. The DQ is appropriately listed within each breed standard. Several breeds refer to a dewlap regarding size preferred i.e. New Zealand . Some fault for a dewlap i.e. Giant Chin. again clearly stated within the respective breed standard. Most breeds do not mention the dewlap at all meaning that the dewlap is insignificant and needn't be considered at all, no points allotted or deducted. Our Thrianta falls under the latter. Some does have rather sizable dewlaps and some have no sign of a dewlap. I've yet to see a dewlap on a buck in our breed but have commonly seen them on bucks of other breeds i.e. New Zealand . I will say that an over sized dewlap that overly distracts from the firmness of the animal could affect the placement. This would be a rarity. I've yet to see a doe with such a large dewlap that I would comment on it or fault it under body type. Tell judges to forget the dewlap!!
Head type!! It appears that you've had some frustration with judges commenting on the specific shape of the head. Bold forehead, lacking slant, crown, egads!! Granted the description presently in our SOP isn't detailed and perhaps could be better defined however, we don't want to be too defined for a feature worth only 5 points. Judges shouldn't pick apart the shape of the head and deduct more than its true value. Short, full, well filled cheeks, is fairly descriptive. Anything other than this would be a fault. I think we should allow some variances in the shape of the head structure as long as it meets the description presented. The bone composite of the animal has a lot to do with the head structure. A finely boned animal will not have the full cheeks and fullness in shape. It will have a narrow, pinched look which distracts from the look we wish for our breed. Some judges like to pontificate and have no idea what is desired. My mentor many years ago told me the more comments a judge gives the more he inserts foot in mouth. I've found this to be true most of the time. In due time perhaps you could come up with a more defined description of the head. And, I'd like to put a few more points of value on it in the next SOP. It should be worth more than 5 points. It is difficult to retain a full head and bone!
Fur: I think the description is fine! Many judges just don't understand and are not experts on the various types of fur on many breeds. I've been involved in many discussions with judges about fur and it is true all of us need more exacting training or experience with fur types. Our breed wants a dense, softly textured, coat with an ideal length of 1." It isn't to fly back when stroked but gently roll back. We have lots of inconsistencies with our breed fur. Mostly, we have a coarse texture that affects the gentle rollback. We have thin density thus causing more flyback. I have found it a fact that our breed doesn't hold condition/finish of coat as long as many other breeds. Can't explain why but its true. Continuing education of judges and breeders alike is needed regarding the proper fur. BTW, our fur description is not unique. The Lilac breed has the very same description. The problem is that judges see fewer Lilacs than Thriantas these days! The fur on the BOS open in California was very well textured, soft, had great density, but was just a trifle short, thus causing a wee bit of a fly back. At first I really thought it to be excellent but the more I felt it, it was perhaps 3/4" in length. A slight fault. its fur was much better than the BOB. It was thin, a bit coarse, and had some fly back.
Belly color: I think you make a good point about allowing for slightly lighter color on the belly. It could read better. We must allow for the belly and lower body color to be SLIGHTLY lighter because it is the genetic makeup of the color. We aren't dealing with a self gene but a tan/agouti gene. It is nearly impossible to get the color on the belly exactly the same as the top of the body. The key word is slightly! Judges should allow belly color to be slightly lighter and fault for extremely lighter color. Eye circles & underside of tail are to be a lighter shade of red, certainly not fawn which in SOP description is an entirely different color than red thus would be a DQ or agouti which is a banded hairshaft, also a DQ.
The standard does not speak to the hocks. In the next standard it should be addressed however as long as there is no pure white anywhere on the foot pad, underside of the tail, or on the belly, these factors shouldn't be a factor in judging. One should look at the overall depth, eveness, and brightness of the color. Not nit pic on minor things.
Ah the last thing! My use of the word "shine". You are absolutely correct, nowhere in our standard is the word used. This word was chosen by me to use as a description for fiery and brilliant. Looking back perhaps I should have used the word brightness instead. The word fiery can mean lots of things. Brilliant means very bright. We must not use words like sheen or luster as these are terms used in other breeds with completely different meanings and desires than we want for our breed. My term shine meant a bright, clean, finish to the color. We have so many now that have great depth of color but its dull looking, kinda dead, and lifeless. I wish everyone could have seen Brianna when she won at the national last year. Her fur was nearly perfect! Not bragging but it is true. She had a soft, very dense, rollback fur that glistened. It was shiny, it was very pleasant to look at. I've seen only a few with a similar brilliance. This is what we are shooting for with respect to this one aspect of color. I'll try not to use the word shine anymore but use brilliant or glistening!
by Glen Carr
July 2011
(This is an email response by Glen to questions that were posed by a breeder after his tutorial at the 2009
Convention in San Diego. Read on ... lots of great information!)
I'll answer the easiest question first! There are seven breeds that DQ for a dewlap. The DQ is appropriately listed within each breed standard. Several breeds refer to a dewlap regarding size preferred i.e. New Zealand . Some fault for a dewlap i.e. Giant Chin. again clearly stated within the respective breed standard. Most breeds do not mention the dewlap at all meaning that the dewlap is insignificant and needn't be considered at all, no points allotted or deducted. Our Thrianta falls under the latter. Some does have rather sizable dewlaps and some have no sign of a dewlap. I've yet to see a dewlap on a buck in our breed but have commonly seen them on bucks of other breeds i.e. New Zealand . I will say that an over sized dewlap that overly distracts from the firmness of the animal could affect the placement. This would be a rarity. I've yet to see a doe with such a large dewlap that I would comment on it or fault it under body type. Tell judges to forget the dewlap!!
Head type!! It appears that you've had some frustration with judges commenting on the specific shape of the head. Bold forehead, lacking slant, crown, egads!! Granted the description presently in our SOP isn't detailed and perhaps could be better defined however, we don't want to be too defined for a feature worth only 5 points. Judges shouldn't pick apart the shape of the head and deduct more than its true value. Short, full, well filled cheeks, is fairly descriptive. Anything other than this would be a fault. I think we should allow some variances in the shape of the head structure as long as it meets the description presented. The bone composite of the animal has a lot to do with the head structure. A finely boned animal will not have the full cheeks and fullness in shape. It will have a narrow, pinched look which distracts from the look we wish for our breed. Some judges like to pontificate and have no idea what is desired. My mentor many years ago told me the more comments a judge gives the more he inserts foot in mouth. I've found this to be true most of the time. In due time perhaps you could come up with a more defined description of the head. And, I'd like to put a few more points of value on it in the next SOP. It should be worth more than 5 points. It is difficult to retain a full head and bone!
Fur: I think the description is fine! Many judges just don't understand and are not experts on the various types of fur on many breeds. I've been involved in many discussions with judges about fur and it is true all of us need more exacting training or experience with fur types. Our breed wants a dense, softly textured, coat with an ideal length of 1." It isn't to fly back when stroked but gently roll back. We have lots of inconsistencies with our breed fur. Mostly, we have a coarse texture that affects the gentle rollback. We have thin density thus causing more flyback. I have found it a fact that our breed doesn't hold condition/finish of coat as long as many other breeds. Can't explain why but its true. Continuing education of judges and breeders alike is needed regarding the proper fur. BTW, our fur description is not unique. The Lilac breed has the very same description. The problem is that judges see fewer Lilacs than Thriantas these days! The fur on the BOS open in California was very well textured, soft, had great density, but was just a trifle short, thus causing a wee bit of a fly back. At first I really thought it to be excellent but the more I felt it, it was perhaps 3/4" in length. A slight fault. its fur was much better than the BOB. It was thin, a bit coarse, and had some fly back.
Belly color: I think you make a good point about allowing for slightly lighter color on the belly. It could read better. We must allow for the belly and lower body color to be SLIGHTLY lighter because it is the genetic makeup of the color. We aren't dealing with a self gene but a tan/agouti gene. It is nearly impossible to get the color on the belly exactly the same as the top of the body. The key word is slightly! Judges should allow belly color to be slightly lighter and fault for extremely lighter color. Eye circles & underside of tail are to be a lighter shade of red, certainly not fawn which in SOP description is an entirely different color than red thus would be a DQ or agouti which is a banded hairshaft, also a DQ.
The standard does not speak to the hocks. In the next standard it should be addressed however as long as there is no pure white anywhere on the foot pad, underside of the tail, or on the belly, these factors shouldn't be a factor in judging. One should look at the overall depth, eveness, and brightness of the color. Not nit pic on minor things.
Ah the last thing! My use of the word "shine". You are absolutely correct, nowhere in our standard is the word used. This word was chosen by me to use as a description for fiery and brilliant. Looking back perhaps I should have used the word brightness instead. The word fiery can mean lots of things. Brilliant means very bright. We must not use words like sheen or luster as these are terms used in other breeds with completely different meanings and desires than we want for our breed. My term shine meant a bright, clean, finish to the color. We have so many now that have great depth of color but its dull looking, kinda dead, and lifeless. I wish everyone could have seen Brianna when she won at the national last year. Her fur was nearly perfect! Not bragging but it is true. She had a soft, very dense, rollback fur that glistened. It was shiny, it was very pleasant to look at. I've seen only a few with a similar brilliance. This is what we are shooting for with respect to this one aspect of color. I'll try not to use the word shine anymore but use brilliant or glistening!