Vulture Hocks in Cochins

As a long-time breeder of large Cochins, when I was asked to write an article for The Exhibitor I decided to write about a current trend I have noticed with this breed at the shows: birds being regularly disqualified for vulture hocks. While vulture hocks are considered to be a disqualification in all of the Asiatic breeds, the Cochin is an anomaly within the class as the only breed within the class in which the very best specimens carry the genes for vulture hocks. And so the feedback from judges may lead breeders to a catch 22 situation where they cannot breed out the disqualification without breeding out a key breed characteristic, with an unintended consequence being fewer breeders breeding and showing large Cochins. So, in this article I will look beneath the technical requirement to disqualify for vulture hocks to discuss the history and genetics that make Cochins different from other Asiatic breeds, to define the key indicators of true vulture hock, and to consider a judging philosophy that communicates improvement areas without discouraging exhibition of the Cochin breed.

The Cochin breed is easily recognized by its great size, mass of soft feather, and forward tilt, but it is the footings – the platform of long foot feather and skirt of abundant, soft thigh feather – that form the visual foundation of this iconic breed. The longer and more substantive the foot feather, the better. Like the pedestal of a Renaissance statue, they convey both gravity and presence. No other breed has them and a Cochin would not be a Cochin without them. In fact, the footings are so important that there are three breed-specific disqualifications relating to lack of feathering on the shank, outer toe, and middle toe.

There are three gene mutations that cause the traits of feathered shanks and feet known as Ptilopody, two dominant and one recessive (the recessive gene is separate from the gene for stubs, which is also recessive). These three genes known shorthand as Pt1, Pt2, and Pt3 each will create visual Ptilopody on its own, but when combined enhance each other and create different visual effects. For example, the Langshan generally carries one of the dominant genes and the recessive gene creating the effect of fully feathered shanks without vulture hocks, creating a visually long and clean leg line. Breeds such as the D’Uccle, where breed standards require visual vulture hocks, generally carry both dominant genes. It is this second dominant gene that appears to be pleiotropic (tightly linked) to the vulture hock trait. The effect of the two dominant genes combined in the D’Uccle is long, stiff foot and hock feathering that is not obscured by the excessive feather that would come with the recessive gene.

The Cochin is unique among the Asiatic breeds in North America in that the best lines are homozygous for all three genes for foot feathering, including the dominant gene associated with vulture hocks. These three genes in combination are required to produce the long, substantive foot feather as well as the abundant skirt that give the breed its stout appearance. In fact, the abundant long feather that projects backward from the lower thigh creates structure and mass for the skirting. Removing this gene would dramatically alter the mass and length of foot feather, the amount of feather on the shanks and toes, and the abundance of feather around the thigh. The obvious conundrum here is that the gene associated with vulture hocks is also one of the critical genes required to create a quality Cochin. The absence of that gene would result in reduced quality birds, higher likelihood of disqualification for lacking breed characteristics, and higher likelihood of breed-specific disqualifications relating to lack of feather on the shanks and toes.

In short, without this gene, a Cochin would not be a Cochin.

So, if the Cochin breed cannot be the Cochin breed without the gene for vulture hocks and vulture hocks are a disqualification in the breed, then how are judges to treat this trait? There are few corollaries. Most disqualifications are objectively either visible or not upon inspection. They are also often highly heritable as well as being undesirable. Put another way, if the judge sees the negative trait the bird is disqualified. This sends a message to the breeder that the bird carries genes that should not be reproduced. The feedback loop is very clear, beginning with the judge making a yes or no assessment – the disqualification exists or it doesn’t – and the breeder taking action based upon that assessment, removing that bird from the breeding program. There are a large number of disqualifications that fit this model – split wing, side sprigs, and incorrect leg color – to name only a few.

In breeds such as the Langshan, the bird will either show visible vulture hock or it won’t. If it doesn’t, the bird can be placed as normal. If it does, it is disqualified and should not be used for breeding. The choice is binary; yes or no.

Cochins, as it should now be clear, do not follow this model. The foot feathering gene that gives them their characteristic abundant foot feathering and massive skirt is the same gene that causes the disqualification vulture hock. In other words, it is always there and breeding it out would create the conundrum of producing birds that “lack breed characteristics” – one of the three general disqualifications.

The decision to disqualify a Cochin for vulture hock is based on qualitative criteria, which begs the question: when do the long feathers projecting backward from the lower thigh cross the threshold from breed characteristic to disqualifiable offense? There are three criteria that define the vulture hock, and the hock feathers must demonstrate all three in order to meet the threshold for disqualification: 1. Rigid, 2. Straight, and 3. Tightly gathered to form a tight cluster that is distinct from other groups of feathers and easily visible from outside the show coop. The difference between disqualifiable vulture hock in Cochins and hock feathers that create breed type is often a matter of degrees between rigid and soft, straight and recurved, tightly gathered and well-spread.

In addition, the visual presentation of hock feather is greatly impacted by both gender and age. The hock feathers grow in as retrices, similar to flight and tail feathers – essentially hock wings – and therefore are some of the first feathers to grow in. They are also most visible on the male birds, which have longer thigh and shank, harder feather quality, and slower time to maturity than females. As anyone who has raised Asiatic breeds can tell you, the time to maturity for Asiatic males can run eighteen to twenty-four months so the hock feathers can be visible for a long period of time as the bird fills in. So young birds and male birds will be most likely to show visible long hock feathering from outside a show coop.

And, as much as we try to breed all Cochin varieties to a single breed standard, it needs to be recognized that all of the varieties have different histories and genetic makeup that will impact how feathered hocks are presented. For example, Black and White Cochins, two of the oldest recognized varieties, tend to be bred to high levels of perfection with a good mass of feather around the skirt that blends into the hock feather. The Buff Cochin, considered to be the original Cochin, has a long history of show wins and generally displays a good mass of soft feather as well as long and abundant foot feather, but has a different feather texture than the Black or White Cochins – being a bit more brittle, likely due to a number of color enhancing and dilution genes that combine to produce the bright gold color. I have seen in recent years exceptional young Buff males disqualified for vulture hocks. Varieties such as Golden Laced may exhibit many of the critical breed characteristics such as heavy bone, good size, and long foot feather but lack the mass of soft feather seen in more common varieties. Disqualifying otherwise exceptional Laced Cochins for vulture hock would create an unfortunate feedback loop where varieties that require more dedicated breeders in order to advance repeatedly are disqualified, thus discouraging would-be breeders. These differences between varieties need to be recognized when judging a Cochin class so as to encourage, not discourage, exhibition and continued interest.

I am including with this article two series of photos. The first set is of a line of large Black Cochins that I have raised for a long time and which has won numerous awards and national titles for me and for my customers. That series shows a chick at about four weeks of age to demonstrate that feathered hocks are some of the first feathers to grow in, a pullet at about six months of age that demonstrates length and abundance of foot feather, and a hen at about eighteen months of age that demonstrates mass of thigh feather and the way in which the hock feather blends and becomes part of the skirting. This series demonstrates the linkage between the vulture hock gene, fullness and length of foot feather, and proper skirting.

The second set of photos shows young large White Cochins between five months and eighteen months of age. In these photos, the male shows very visible “vulture hocks” at five months of age while the females do not. These are birds from the same parents and so carry very similar genetics. Also in this series of photos, I demonstrate how the look of the males changes from five months to eighteen months. While I would not normally show a large Cochin at five months of age, I use this series of photos to make the point that otherwise very high-quality animals could be disqualified for vulture hocks if the judge does not understand the breed.

From an exhibition perspective, there are very few disqualifications that present in matter of degrees rather than absolutes, but that doesn’t mean we have no corollaries. Possibly the closest corollary is enamel white in the face of Mediterranean breeds (White Faced Black Spanish excluded) where the gene for enamel white can’t be bred out because it creates the breed characteristic white earlobes and its intensity or visibility from outside the show coop changes as the birds age. In this case, enamel white originates on the earlobe and continues to grow as the bird ages. If penetrance is incomplete, then red shows through on the earlobe (generally not desirable). If penetrance is too strong, the bird will show enamel white covering the full earlobe plus parts of the face. A Leghorn cockerel that shows enamel white on the face should be disqualified as the enamel will continue to grow, while a Leghorn cock will be given some leeway. Enamel white in the face also tends to present more often in males than females. In these regards, enamel white in the face is similar to vulture hocks in Cochins – the genes that cause it are required in the breed, disqualification is a matter of degrees, and the trait itself presents differently based on age and gender of the bird.

This brings us to judging philosophy. A solid philosophy seeks to move the best, most balanced bird to the top of the class rather than seeking negatives to eliminate birds from competition. It is a focus on the positive that sees a defect or point cut in the context of the overall composition of the bird. Consistent with this approach, the standard requires that in cases where evidence is doubtful the bird shall be presumed to be acceptable. As noted earlier, for disqualification all of the following criteria should be met: 1. Rigid, 2. Straight, and 3. Tightly gathered – being visually distinct from the rest of the skirt and visible from outside the show coop. Special dispensation should be noted for young birds, males, and uncommon varieties.

If there is doubt, the judge has a range of tools available where the shape of the bird’s hock is not the ideal for the breed but does not rise to the level of disqualification and all of these should be considered. A point cut within range for the section, which would treat an imperfect hock as a defect rather than a disqualification. If there is concern that a bird should not be placed as a champion within its class, it can be placed lower or marked down to second place even if it is the only one in competition. Any of these actions should be combined with a comment on the card that is as specific as possible without being demeaning – so the exhibitor can walk away from the show with useful, actionable information that encourages continued improvement.

A note to breeders: It should be clear by now that the breed standard is not a breeding “how to”, but a documented set of rules for judges to place birds on exhibition based upon physical characteristics and condition on a given day. It can be tempting, especially for new breeders, to give outsized importance to a judge’s opinion – either taking a blue ribbon to mean that a bird should be reproduced en masse or a disqualification to mean that the bird has no breeding value. As a breeder, you have a duty to know your own breed better than the judge, to have a grasp of the details, and to have a strong long-term vision for your breeding program – one that is not easily swayed by a single comment at a point in time.

In sum, almost all top lines of large Cochins in North America carry the gene for feathered hocks. It is necessary to achieve full footings and skirting – a Cochin would not be a Cochin without it. This feathering expresses itself differently based upon the age, gender, and color variety of the bird. A positive judging philosophy will see a defect in context of the overall bird and will give the benefit of the doubt to the bird. The end goal of these exhibitions should be to encourage the breeding and ongoing exhibition of the Cochin breed by offering specific, meaningful, and actionable feedback.

Recommended additional reading: In writing this piece I have referenced “An Introduction to Form and Feathering of the Domestic Fowl” by Brian Reeder. It is available on Amazon and is based upon Brian’s own genetic experiments. I recommend this book both for follow up reading and as an addition to the poultry breeder’s reference library.