Reading the below posts, I get the impression that an animals look is what is considered to be a "quality" animal. This is just my opinion, but I find it hard to state any certain breeder has "quality" animals simply based on the appearance of one, or even several animals shown publically. I'm not saying these breeders don't have quality animals, I just think an animals appearance is highly variable even among siblings. Within almost any litter, you will see "keepers" and you will see what most would consider ugly animals. Why is the ugly animal of less "quality" than the "keeper"? I just think it's a mistake to start using the term quality to describe an animal that is above average.....in one persons OPINION. After a while, people will be coming by your table at a show, and viewing your left over stock since you've already sold your better looking animals earlier in the season. Now, these buyers start telling people that you have "low quality" animals simply based on looks. Can you see where this trend will go? Just my opinion on the subject, hope it makes sense. Take care



Paul

[ Show Entire Thread ]