BRITISH WATERFOWL STANDARDS 2008
Available now from the suppliers listed below

FOREWORD
The Waterfowl Club was founded in 1887 as the overall organization for keepers of ducks and geese. Since that time, it played a major role in writing and monitoring Waterfowl Standards. Originally these had been published by the fore-runner of the Poultry Club, when in 1865 only the following breeds were regarded as suitable for standardization: Embden and Toulouse geese; Aylesbury, Rouen, Black East Indian and Call Ducks. When the next collection of Waterfowl Standards was produced in 1901, the Waterfowl Club made key contributions, notably in writing the very first Standard for Indian Runner Ducks.
The Club's role in overseeing standards for waterfowl has continued up to and beyond its merger with the British Duck-keepers' Association in 1949. From this point it was known as the BWA, the British Waterfowl Association, Britain's premier society for ornamental as well as domestic waterfowl. I am very pleased to be part of this tradition.
In 1982 the Waterfowl Standards were published as a separate booklet. Later, in 1999, the BWA took the bold step of publishing its own up-dated edition with specially commissioned illustrations by the wild-life artist, Carl Donner. The paintings were begun in the 1980s following a direct suggestion by Will Burdett of the Poultry Club.
The 2008 edition continues to use the paintings alongside colour photographs of pure-breed ducks and geese, many of which have won championship awards in major shows. They include a complete range of breeds and varieties, especially a number of new colours of Call and Runner Ducks, which are now very popular. I think it will be most useful for breeders and exhibitors to have detailed and accurate descriptions of the birds. Also, for the very first time, breeders will have the colour genotypes to help them maintain and develop their stock.
I must pay tribute to the scores of people who have contributed to these new Standards, from suggestions sent in by post or email, up to the hours of work put in by the various committees. The BWA Standards Committee met at least 12 times between December 2003 and the publication date. They were further helped by specialists co-opted for particular areas of the Standards. Our thanks go to all those who spent time and money travelling from all parts of the country. A special note of appreciation goes to the Call Duck Association committee (which contains nine fully qualified Call Duck judges). From organizing workshops to scrutinizing draft copy, their work has been invaluable. Similarly the Indian Runner Duck Association had three top officials on the BWA Standards Committee, and both organizations published copies of the proposed Standards in newsletters and on their websites. The BWA website too has shown examples of the Standards reports. I think there is no doubt how much consultation has taken place.
I hope this edition will prove to be a book for all people, from those who keep a few birds just for an enjoyable hobby to the serious breeders who want to improve their stock. For years to come it will be a vital reference book. It is a wonderful piece of research and will be used in this and other countries where they keep domestic waterfowl

John Richards, BWA President 2008

INTRODUCTION
Historically, the production of Standards has been a piecemeal process. When the first Waterfowl Standards were published in 1865 (by the original Poultry Club), they included only four breeds of ducks and two of geese. One of these breeds was the Call Duck, in just two varieties: the White and the Grey (Rouen coloured).
So much has changed over 140 years. The point system was overhauled in 1901, for the waterfowl. New breeds were added, following the importation of the Pekin and Indian Runner Ducks, with the many new forms resulting from crosses with European breeds. New colour varieties were developed. All of this took place over quite a long period of time.
By 1982 not all these Standards were in a uniform and rational format. There was limited consistency from one breed to the next. Judging points varied irrationally. The terminology had lots of faults: the same terms were used for different things, and different descriptive terms were applied to the same colour or pattern. The rush to print in 1997 did not allow time for a really thorough revision. The BWA was asked to help in the final stages and only the Goose points were put into a rational order. Much was left untouched, including some serious inaccuracies in the breed histories. The special edition of the BWA British Waterfowl Standards, which used paintings commissioned from the artist Carl Donner, went a long way to remedy some of the shortcomings in the previous edition, yet not enough. There is only a certain amount one can do by patchwork repair.
In December of 2003 a special meeting of the BWA Standards Committee decided to start from scratch. They agreed a common format for the ordering of descriptors of all the characteristics (shape, colour, size, etc.), including the parts of the body in a consistent manner. This had not always been the case in the past. Also proposed was a more rigorous use of scientific terms. 'Wing bay', wing bar' and 'wing bow' were replaced by biologically accurate terms for the particular wing covert feathers. The historical introductions were checked thoroughly for accuracy and they were expanded where necessary.
One revolutionary change was introduced, primarily to help judges and breeders alike. It was decided to classify faults in exhibition birds into three categories:
(1) Disqualifications, for birds that were not true examples of their breed or colour;
(2) Major Defects for birds with serious breeding faults which would preclude them from major awards;
(3) Minor Defects, for birds showing slight imperfections from the ideal model.
Deformed birds, and those that showed clear signs of crossing with other breeds or varieties, would not be judged in that class. They would be disqualified. Where mistakes, putting a sound bird in the wrong class for example, were apparent, such birds could be judged in another appropriate category or class. They would be 'passed' in the traditional way. This was not revolutionary, but giving clear instructions in the Standards was a step forward. Where birds varied from the ideal model of the Standard, the next step was revolutionary. It attempted to give judges an idea of what defects were serious and what could be treated as trivial. Care was also taken to allow certain defects to be reclassified as a breed or colour developed over time, where variability had been reduced and exhibition birds more commonly approached the standard ideal.
Lastly, the Standards were allowed to indicate not only what a bird should look like but also how it bred. It is obvious to all that a standard bird should breed offspring like itself. That is why it is included in a so-called 'breed'. Yet descriptors alone cannot explain why ducks with blue plumage can produce three colours of offspring. Nor is it good enough simply to define a Pilgrim male as a white gander. There is something special in a breed in which the males are nearly white and the females are most predominantly grey. Why, too, do smooth-breasted Sebastopols produce a range of offspring, some of which are as smooth as Romans and some are like balls of curled fluff?
A 'breed' can be described by how it looks, but it can be defined only by how it breeds.
This led to the inclusion of genotypes, shorthand ways of classifying the genetic makeup of what a bird inherits from its two parents. In the BWA material, the genotypes are limited largely to the main colour genes affecting the skin and plumage of ducks and geese. They are different from chickens, in the most part, and have been researched extensively from the beginning of the twentieth century.
As a consequence of a more scientific understanding of animal breeding, new breeds and colour forms have emerged. It is now clear that most categories of domestic duck share the same potential for colour forms. Abacot Rangers, Silver Calls and Silver Runners have similar colour genes. Rouen Clair and Trout Runner Ducks have the same colour genotypes, and there is little reason why Call Ducks cannot be produced in the same plumage. Indeed they have been bred, if not always recognized, and there is little reason why they too should not be standardized in the near future, when they have been stabilized and produced in reasonable numbers. So too with Brown Mallards and Brown Silvers. All of these varieties are feasible, and an understanding of them has been the direct result of informed experience in genetics.
The BWA is now in a position to publish a more up-to-date and consistent set of Waterfowl Standards than at any previous time. Indeed, the Poultry Club has used, almost unchanged, the material from the BWA reports on Heavy, Light and Bantam Ducks.