There are some in the Fancy who are puzzled, mystified, and often downright incredulous at the decisions made by judges when awarding prizes, much use is made of the expression 'it's not to the Standard'.

Poor old Standard, how misused it often is, and how it is blamed for the imperfections of judges, but we must never forget it as a guide only for mortals to interpret. It has been suggested by some that we are not judging to the scale of points when making awards. I would argue that the scale of points in each Standard should be regarded as a separate guide within the whole.

If we were to adopt a system of judging based on a scale of points, would this then be regarded as grading birds numerically i.e. 5 points for eye, 6 for condition, etc, until the assessment card is completed and then totalled up. What happens then if several birds have the same total? In this case one could say the birds had been graded but would this be acceptable to the Fancy? There could be merit in such a system but we would have to change our attitudes. We have become accustomed to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, with Best of Breed and Best in Show in a strongly competitive atmosphere. Personally I like the competitiveness of exhibition and judging within the fancy today. Grading livestock always appears to be associated with sales and the exhibition of poultry does not take place in a sale room. However, I realise that this could be debated.

To return to the standards of excellence. The Standard of any breed is to attempt perfection, the scale of points within it is just a set of figures which tries to place emphasis on the more important parts of the bird, whether type or markings. Now would grading according to the scale of points, or any other criteria, make for more level judging results? Would it be a fairer system than first past the post according to the judges competence? Newcomers to the Fancy who find difficulty in understanding the judges' placement where there is no indication of how the decision has been made could be helped by a completed grading card on each pen. I expect it would arouse a great deal of interest.

Grading by this method could cause problems, let us try an example. Two birds of similar merit, but one is a better colour but of poor eye colour. The particular standard states that the colour is of high importance, when totting up the score the bird with the better body colour wins because the points allowed greatly outweigh the ones for eye colour. No judge that I know will give a bird with bad eyes a first card, it should not even be placed.

Grading birds in any manner, either in groups or single birds is just an indication that the offerings have some merit and while it has some effort on the prices realised at a sale I do not think that it would be accepted by the Fancy at this time. In any case I feel that it would be of greater impact at the larger shows where the more of general public and the less well informed are present. Even then it could cause just as much confusion as traditional methods of awarding prizes.

Grading birds by completing an assessment card for each bird in the class takes a lot longer than judging by experience and for a judge with many classes in several breeds it would be an impossible task. We would need a lot more graders per show than at present. Who would want to be known as a 'grader' - a judge is a much more suitable title.

Adapted from 'Grading Poultry', by Derek Alsop, in the Poultry Club Yearbook.