Discussion of Legbar Standard of Perfection for -Alternative- Legbars - SOP discussion

[dretd]

I am going to show y'all a series of rooster and wanted to get your view on them-
Are they a) phenotypic Cream (or too light or too dark) and b) are they genetic Cream ig/ig or non-Cream Ig/ig?

Which ones are closer to your vision of the standard? Worst examples?
Are any of them 'not a Cream Legbar' to you becasue they are too far from the standard (not just color but type as well)?

1)

2)

3)
4)

5(
6)
(the one in front)

7)

8)
9)

10)

 

[ChicKat]

Hi FMP. I am glad you showed up and think you can contribute a lot to the discussion since you have Cream Legbars, are experienced at showing and have birds that are most probably split for Cream.

I think that back in the day, the folks that had Brown Leghorns really didn't appreciate that there was an e+ and an eb genetics going on and they were both combined into one breed**. After a time they came to realize that e+ produces a salmon colored breast in females and eb produces a breast the same color as the back in the females--the boys pretty much look the same. Brown Leghorns were accepted into the APA SOP in 1874 and split into Light Brown and Dark Brown in1923. The APA was formed in 1873 so the Leghorns were in the first Standard they published. I don't have that reference so I don't know how the original Brown variety description varied before and after the split. FMP--Do you have that reference by any chance?

The way I see it is the Cream Legbar as it was admitted in Britain, was a variety based on the Genetic Variant ig that was discovered. The genotype is ig/ig, the phenotype is Cream. The Silver Legbar was based on the genotype S/S (S/-) and the Gold was based on Ig/Ig. For me I think it is pretty straightforward that Cream is referring to the genetic state of the bird. Punnett in one of his papers (http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jgenet/48/327.pdf and the paragraph about the secondaries is found just above the entry "Rhode Island Red Cross" on page 329) describes how red doesn't show up in the wing triangle, only gold. So looking to see if there is gold in that location is the best way for a breeder to get an idea if their bird is ig/ig or Ig/?. It is a tool in the tool box to decide what you have. The breed standard (original British) allows for chestnut in 4 places--the back. shoulders, coverts (qualified as some chestnut smudges permissible) and crest. I think they left it off the secondaries because there is no red there and because the gold gets diluted by cream in that location. Otherwise the standard would read as it did for the gold variety: "primaries and secondaries dark grey barred, intermixed with white, upper web of secondaries also intermixed with chestnut"*

So for me, I am using that gold or lack of gold in the secondaries as my litmus test help me understand the underlying genetics I am dealing with in my flock. Having gold in the wing triangle alerts me that there may be an issue with dilution genetics piece to the puzzle, but for me it doesn't mean I need to cull that bird or that they are not a Cream Legbar. The problem as I see it though, is that if I ignore the gold there and turn down the chestnut, turn down the barring, turn down the melanizers in my bird to achieve a phenotype that matches the standard (except for the gold in the wing triangle) then I am setting myself up for problems down the road with getting too light of a bird when I hatch the ig/ig version of the Ig/ig father. I think to a certain extent this is how we end up getting lighter and lighter birds.

SO the big question I have for you FMP, and also for anyone else who cares to answer--and this is the crux of the conflict between folks about color in the Cream Legbar--

Does the Cream Legbar mean to you:
a) The Cream is a genetic designation for this variety of Legbar and the ideal bird should be ig/ig
b) The Cream is color of bird and can be diluted with 2 copies of ig/ig or can be Ig/? and the ideal bird just needs to match the standard

How does the APA view the variety Cream? Is it a color or a genetic state? Can I show a bird that is white under a traditionally silver if they look the same or would that be viewed as wrong? A BYCer once suggested that he could recreate the Cream Legbar by introducing silver as a substitute for Cream. I was not happy by this suggestion, but if look at Cream as a phenotype and the following reference seems to indicate that Cream and Silver look the same in the males (also referenced in the Punnett Cream Paper) then why would that be wrong as long as the bird looks cream in appearance?

In Sex-Linkage in Poultry Breeding Bulletin No.38 - Punnett & Pease say- 'An interesting new autosexing variety is the Cream Legbar.The cream colour is undistinguishable to the eye from the silver : but cream is none the less a form of gold. It may be thought of as an extremely diluted gold .The Cream Legbar has a crest, which distinguishes it readily from the Silver Legbar.Its most striking peculiarity is that it lays blue eggs. The sex-distinction in the downs is the same as that in the Gold Legbar'***

(from: http://www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=109450 )

I realize the judges don't have a genetic test kit (or wouldn't if there was one available) so what do they think about this issue? Should the birds be ig/ig or just look Cream? It all comes down to Phenotype vs Genotype.

* The gold Legbar standard was admitted into the PCGB in 1945 a more detailed history is http://blue-eggs.co.uk/#/history-of-cream-legbars/4554275782 Obviously, the chestnut referred to in the Gold Standard is genetic gold, not red.
**For those of you reading the post that are not up on genetics, e+ is wild type and often referred to as duckwing (the wing triangle matches the hackles and saddle) where eb is often referred to as partridge (although to confuse matters, partridge in Europe means duckwing--they are not the same!)
***the British downs description now reads Cream, as for Silver. When I look at the two down descriptions they are almost identical with very few minor changes--I am not sure of the date on the above reference--it may have come out about the time the Silver Legbar was accepted and thus not well known.

Interestingly --

Here is a picture of a silver pair -- This pair is WelBar not LegBar -- but could readily show what the sliver Legbar was like in the day of Pease and Punnett -


Picture of Silver welbars from Nick in Australia.


The front view of the cockerel shows a neck hackle that appears to be cream. I think that some folks in the UK went way 'overboard' with their idea of what silver was...and thought that silver Legbar was white. I suspect Pease and Punnett were talking about a fowl far more like the above pair.

Again, the gold Legbar would have MUCH more color -- and most folks would kind of consider this silver a cream.

I don't think that APA descriptions are of genetics - but rather of appearances.

 

[ChicKat]

Here are the family portraits of the Leghorns that include the chick down -- which are very similar in appearance to Cream Legbar chicks

-- and I do have to say in defense of the Brit. standard that the chick's down of CLs apears more like the picture of chick down in the silver Crele Leghorn picture than the Gold Crele Leghorn -- and I can also see how Pease said that they appear as the gold Legbar if the Gold Legbar down is similar to the Gold Crele chicks in the illustration. :O)

 

[kjbizy1]

It is very cool that people are attracted to the fully saturated birds - and I do consider those gold.  kjbizy1 - this topic is valuable and 1Muttsfan things that coloration is great.  It is almost more of a Red Crele -- which I suppose would be based on a 'black breasted red' rather than a 'golden duckwing' - which Cream Legbar is.  I think some folks want the appearance of a bird that would look like one based on a 'silver duckwing'  Here is one thing though about your single barred cockerel - his offspring won't be autosexing - because autosexing requires two barring genes in the male. 

What is the source of your juvenile guy?  Are you certain he doesn't have double barring?  I'm curious, especially since only color gets everyone excited - but most think autosexing is the single most important trait of the Legbar breed. 

ETA too bad some folks don't realize the value of a fresh point of view - and set of questions that a newbie brings to the table!!!

Well,technically even if he is single barred, which I am not completely sure about, he would still produce a percentage of barred and non barred. My intention was to test breed and obviuosly cull,and not breed on with anything that is not properly barred for auto sexing.

 

[sol2go]

@ChicKat thank you for your gracious remarks in light of the chart discussion. My comment was directly to @junibutt who proposed the chart as something that should be voted on and incorporated at some level with the SOP. The chart reminds me very much of Henk69's graphics on the chicken calculator and so I can see the impetus for providing that. Thank you for doing so.

 

[sol2go]

Hi FMP. I am glad you showed up and think you can contribute a lot to the discussion since you have Cream Legbars, are experienced at showing and have birds that are most probably split for Cream.

I think that back in the day, the folks that had Brown Leghorns really didn't appreciate that there was an e+ and an eb genetics going on and they were both combined into one breed**. After a time they came to realize that e+ produces a salmon colored breast in females and eb produces a breast the same color as the back in the females--the boys pretty much look the same. Brown Leghorns were accepted into the APA SOP in 1874 and split into Light Brown and Dark Brown in1923. The APA was formed in 1873 so the Leghorns were in the first Standard they published. I don't have that reference so I don't know how the original Brown variety description varied before and after the split. FMP--Do you have that reference by any chance?

The way I see it is the Cream Legbar as it was admitted in Britain, was a variety based on the Genetic Variant ig that was discovered. The genotype is ig/ig, the phenotype is Cream. The Silver Legbar was based on the genotype S/S (S/-) and the Gold was based on Ig/Ig. For me I think it is pretty straightforward that Cream is referring to the genetic state of the bird. Punnett in one of his papers (http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jgenet/48/327.pdf and the paragraph about the secondaries is found just above the entry "Rhode Island Red Cross" on page 329) describes how red doesn't show up in the wing triangle, only gold. So looking to see if there is gold in that location is the best way for a breeder to get an idea if their bird is ig/ig or Ig/?. It is a tool in the tool box to decide what you have. The breed standard (original British) allows for chestnut in 4 places--the back. shoulders, coverts (qualified as some chestnut smudges permissible) and crest. I think they left it off the secondaries because there is no red there and because the gold gets diluted by cream in that location. Otherwise the standard would read as it did for the gold variety: "primaries and secondaries dark grey barred, intermixed with white, upper web of secondaries also intermixed with chestnut"*

So for me, I am using that gold or lack of gold in the secondaries as my litmus test help me understand the underlying genetics I am dealing with in my flock. Having gold in the wing triangle alerts me that there may be an issue with dilution genetics piece to the puzzle, but for me it doesn't mean I need to cull that bird or that they are not a Cream Legbar. The problem as I see it though, is that if I ignore the gold there and turn down the chestnut, turn down the barring, turn down the melanizers in my bird to achieve a phenotype that matches the standard (except for the gold in the wing triangle) then I am setting myself up for problems down the road with getting too light of a bird when I hatch the ig/ig version of the Ig/ig father. I think to a certain extent this is how we end up getting lighter and lighter birds.

SO the big question I have for you FMP, and also for anyone else who cares to answer--and this is the crux of the conflict between folks about color in the Cream Legbar--

Does the Cream Legbar mean to you:
a) The Cream is a genetic designation for this variety of Legbar and the ideal bird should be ig/ig
b) The Cream is color of bird and can be diluted with 2 copies of ig/ig or can be Ig/? and the ideal bird just needs to match the standard

How does the APA view the variety Cream? Is it a color or a genetic state? Can I show a bird that is white under a traditionally silver if they look the same or would that be viewed as wrong? A BYCer once suggested that he could recreate the Cream Legbar by introducing silver as a substitute for Cream. I was not happy by this suggestion, but if look at Cream as a phenotype and the following reference seems to indicate that Cream and Silver look the same in the males (also referenced in the Punnett Cream Paper) then why would that be wrong as long as the bird looks cream in appearance?

In Sex-Linkage in Poultry Breeding Bulletin No.38 - Punnett & Pease say- 'An interesting new autosexing variety is the Cream Legbar.The cream colour is undistinguishable to the eye from the silver : but cream is none the less a form of gold. It may be thought of as an extremely diluted gold .The Cream Legbar has a crest, which distinguishes it readily from the Silver Legbar.Its most striking peculiarity is that it lays blue eggs. The sex-distinction in the downs is the same as that in the Gold Legbar'***

(from: http://www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=109450 )

I realize the judges don't have a genetic test kit (or wouldn't if there was one available) so what do they think about this issue? Should the birds be ig/ig or just look Cream? It all comes down to Phenotype vs Genotype.

Second Question:
Knowing that the Light and Dark Varieties were split because of underlying genetic differences (have a different e locus) and given that you think the Cream Legbar may need to go down that path because of underlying genetics (homo vs hetrozygous for ig) would it be better to wait until after the Cream Legbar is accepted into the APA and has a track record with them, or would it be better to split them into Dilute Crele and Crele before that event so that the coloration has more uniformity and therefor increases the odds for acceptance? Maybe @fowlman01 will be able to enlighten us on that point if you don't know?

* The gold Legbar standard was admitted into the PCGB in 1945 a more detailed history is http://blue-eggs.co.uk/#/history-of-cream-legbars/4554275782 Obviously, the chestnut referred to in the Gold Standard is genetic gold, not red.
**For those of you reading the post that are not up on genetics, e+ is wild type and often referred to as duckwing (the wing triangle matches the hackles and saddle) where eb is often referred to as partridge (although to confuse matters, partridge in Europe means duckwing--they are not the same!)
***the British downs description now reads Cream, as for Silver. When I look at the two down descriptions they are almost identical with very few minor changes--I am not sure of the date on the above reference--it may have come out about the time the Silver Legbar was accepted and thus not well known.

Thanks for posting dretd
I hope we do hear from @fowlman01

Meanwhile I'll pop in for some comments:
question #1 - a) Cream = ig/ig is the answer for me
question #2 - I think the current naming conventions "Cream" and "Crele" are fine, if the Cream has a softer overall look and the Crele has a bolder coloration. I would not favor the term "dilute crele". Especially since "dilute" could reference an entirely different "dominant dilute" genetic at work. See @ChicKat 's recent link to Classroom in the Coop, discussions on or about 10/21/11.
www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=99193&page=all

The concept of dominant dilute, Di/Di, has also been related to the lighter shades of brown leghorns, specifically that it acts as a dominant gold diluter in addition to anything that cream ig/ig would impact, which may be a factor in the "whiter" birds we are seeing.

In that discussion they do occasionally refer to "Cream Crele", but never "Dilute Crele", so I think "Cream" is the operative term.

Your comment:
Punnett in one of his papers (http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jgenet/48/327.pdf and the paragraph about the secondaries is found just above the entry "Rhode Island Red Cross" on page 329) describes how red doesn't show up in the wing triangle, only gold. So looking to see if there is gold in that location is the best way for a breeder to get an idea if their bird is ig/ig or Ig/?. It is a tool in the tool box to decide what you have.
…has always been the litmus test for me of gold vs cream. Today I noticed another part of that statement that answers a loose end for me. I have always wondered if we were seeing red/chestnut instead of gold on the wing triangle. So your referenced information is very helpful for me to stay focused on is it gold or cream in the wing triangle.
I think if we can accept that as a reliable standard, it is a key point that would readily identify "Cream" vs "Crele" for the purposes of APA standards.

For the purposes of breeding, if the rooster's genotype is split for cream, and his phenotype is gold based on the wing triangle, then his offspring with a cream female could meet the APA requirements for breeding 50% true for cream. If everything else is equal, then he would be a valuable breeder for either variety. In the long run, I suspect that won't work as well if the Crele version wants to be more saturated than the Cream.

Time is our friend. As we all work towards our own preferences, the authentic characteristics of Cream and Crele will become clear and provide a solid basis for distinctions between the two. Staying with the effort also shows a true attachment to the breed and the varieties within it, beyond just a short term hobby or trend.

 

[ChicKat]

I am going to show y'all a series of rooster and wanted to get your view on them-
Are they a) phenotypic Cream (or too light or too dark) and b) are they genetic Cream ig/ig or non-Cream Ig/ig?

Which ones are closer to your vision of the standard? Worst examples?
Are any of them 'not a Cream Legbar' to you becasue they are too far from the standard (not just color but type as well)?

1)

2)

3)
4)

5(
6)
(the one in front)

7)

8)
9)

10)

Thanks for the gorgeous Post dr.ETD, --- and all the fowl pictures.

Maybe 10 is overwhelming and we can break it down one-by-one and tackle it.

Here is my thought (although you are probably pretty familiar with my views) on #1.
Type - wrong tail, wrong comb, short back - other wise good nice crest - but he pays for it with a crooked blade. ( I know some of his comb problems are due to frost bite).
Color: - earlobes too pink (could also be due to his exposure to weather I understand) - color too white by far for my eye, and barring seems irregular -- but we have a LOT of that in the breed.

If I were walking down a row of cages in a poultry show I would wonder if the cage was mislabeled but I am already familiar with this particular chicken so I know he is CL.

Regarding SOP -- and this is a question maybe someone who is close to Walt could ask him to reply to -- I believe that the SOP description is meant to be the appearance of the bird and not the underlying genetics. If the UK Standard was Really looking for a bird that had the appearance of silver, then they should not have used the word cream in the color description. If the USA swings to the recently passed UK what I would call 'fad' of white-looking birds -- then the SOP color description should say 'silver' instead of 'cream' JMO.

So that circles back to 'what color is cream' -- which I thought we had once gotten answered by a UK judge...but it seems to either not have filtered to Kendy's facebook groups or if they ever heard it -- it didn't stick. \

Please, everyone who is participating in this forum -- weigh in on either the photos dretd posted one at a time or all at once. !!

 

[ChicKat]

Well,technically even if he is single barred, which I am not completely sure about, he would still produce a percentage of barred and non barred. My intention was to test breed and obviuosly cull,and not breed on with anything that is not properly barred for auto sexing.

I am so glad that you said that -- because you are right -- and I totally overlooked it! See how "coop blindness" can creep in? -- So I was thinking you could have a variety that is semi-autosexing at hatch...some males would have the white head spot and others wouldn't and the females (and some males) would be chipmunk striped.

BUT then it got complicated in my mind, because if you select at hatch the head-spot males - you would probably be breeding forward double barred males. You would have to wait a long time to provide people with guaranteed females as day-old or young chicks. My supposition is that were you to carry forward the plan - and use double barred males - and definite females from you hatches from this line -- you would end up very close to the image of the gold pair of Gold crele Leghorns from the illustration - except they would have crests and blue eggs?

Would that gold be enough saturation for the aesthetic that you are after? IMO it is a beautiful coloration.

 

[KendyF]

I have a really dumb question please bare with me. How can you guys tell by the picture whether a bird is single barred or double barred? I get why it is important.. Just unclear on how you are identifying it. Thank you in advance.

 

[ChicKat]

@ChicKat thank you for your gracious remarks in light of the chart discussion. My comment was directly to @junibutt who proposed the chart as something that should be voted on and incorporated at some level with the SOP. The chart reminds me very much of Henk69's graphics on the chicken calculator and so I can see the impetus for providing that. Thank you for doing so.

Hi sol2go,

My understanding was that junibutt was trying to get us to focus on the outstanding but unanswered question 'what is cream'?

Also-- I think that dretd's photo post is trying to get people to foucs on the same thing - just coming at it from a different angle.

But I have the answer to that question already. (LOL)