Yes, I completely agree. When I first read in the original post I assumed I read it wrong, but I would really like clarification. If healthy animals were culled for no reason other than to prevent keeping and/or selling them, that’s hugely concerning to me.
Thank you for explaining this better than I could! Yes, in the hobby we use “super” to refer to a homozygous form, and that isn’t what most of the genetics community uses because every gene has a homozygous version whether it is a visual “super” or not. Likely, we just don’t hear about “supers” of dominant genes precisely because they don’t look any different, so there’s significantly less incentive to produce them. But every since incomplete dominant, dominant, and recessive gene has a homozygous form. This one may not have a visual super, but there is absolutely a homozygous form.