05/06/2026
Well said and translates to goats. Adding to it, the lack of genetic diversity in Guernseys is far more dangerous than any cosmetic flaw. I like the phrase, “build the barn first, then paint it”.
At the risk of glorious eye-rolls from those who spout, "BREED THE BEST, CULL THE REST!" with a megaphone at any biped who holds still longer than two seconds, I'm going to wade into the quagmire of thought that bridges the gap between worshiping ribbons on your barn (or kennel) wall, and actually putting the breed (whatever species you're raising) first.
"The best" is a subjective term. It is quite literally whatever YOU as the breeder deem to be important in the improvement of your program from one generation to the next...and if defining "the best" begins and ends with holding up the almighty SOP as Gospel, and disavowing anyone who has a different perspective as a literal heretic, then you are not only being immeasurably myopic--you are also undermining the very breed you purport to "improve" by detrimentally truncating the available gene pool. (And yes, this is a hill I WILL die on...bring it.)
Coming from a working dog background, MY gospel is "form follows function". In other words, what an animal looks like is directly related to how well it does it's job. You wouldn't ask a Dachshund to run down a lion like a Rhodesian Ridgeback any more than you'd ask a Greyhound to dive into a badger hole. It's the same with meat rabbits...
In my barn, "the best" is measured up against what is already in my barn, and what (if any) other attributes the animal might have that are worth keeping even if said animal doesn't perfectly conform to the ARBA's SOP. And let me say something TRULY heretical here--even a less than outstanding individual, who nonetheless is a fair representative to the breed (with no disqualifying congenital defects) has something to offer the entire gene-pool, and THAT is genetic diversity.
Just because a specific animal isn't "perfect" doesn't mean that crossing it with another "fair-to-middling" animal from different lines might not yield something truly spectacular. Just like you can breed two Grand-Champion-whatevers and get total junk, you can also breed a couple of "mediocres" and sometimes magic happens. (I have personally been on both ends of that scenario.) But if you destroy every "mediocre" that crosses your path, you'll never know what might have happened. And a "mediocre" crossed with a Grand Champion might just yield something truly amazing, simply because you've got more genetic cards in the deck to shuffle.
Case in point here, Mint Julip (pictured) is a product of breeding two undersized animals simply because I wanted to have a litter of torts that carry all colors to work with. I knew they would likely also be undersized, but I'm dealing with a limited deck of recessives and needed more "cards" to shuffle in against my structurally superior breeders to try to level up color-carrying individuals. Julip is 15 weeks old today and just weighed in at one ounce shy of 8 #. She already outweighs her mom by over half a pound, and is only a quarter pound lighter than her adult sire...To put this in perspective, mathematically "excellent" growth at 15 weeks would be anything over 7.25 #. She clocks in at basically 8 # now. From two undersized parents who I thought would ONLY bring color to the table, I now have a MONSTER girl who is tort AND carries all four colors...
Loin, peak, shoulders, etc. aside, you simply CANNOT make more meat on a small animal...I don't care how "beautiful" it is. I have a GORGEOUS buck from a top-shelf northern rabbitry....who didn't even reach senior weight until he was nearly a year and a half old. He's beautiful. And tiny...my "grade" buck that outweighs him by almost two pounds will absolutely yield more meat simply because he's bigger. So, should I remove the "grade" buck from the gene pool because his peak is not as perfect as the little guy? (A rhetorical question, obviously, but I know lots of breeders who would say YES, unequivocally.) Furthermore, the little guy USUALLY produces small offspring, but I've found a couple of my grade does that, when paired with him, for some unfathomable reason, produce absolute monsters. Again, diversity.
My takeaway message here is this, and it's aimed at homesteaders primarily--don't let ribbon-snobs dictate what is and is not "the best" in YOUR barn. Don't let narrow thinking about "perfection" over-prune your available genetics for you. Of course you shouldn't breed something with congenital defects--that's flat unethical. And obviously don't breed something carrying known DQ's unless you are simply creating terminal culls for the freezer...but beyond that, make your OWN determinations as to what defines "the best" in your barn.
Frankly, if we all culled everything that isn't "perfect" we'd have no purebred animals left...and how sad would that be?
