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

[ChicKat]

If someone wanted to "create" cream legbars in their own line for example because they found that doing a particular breading path produced a more stable outcome (in one or more areas) For APA standards if it looks and has all the characteristics (breeds 50% true) then for all intents and purposes it is that breed. It may be genetically different but APA judging doesnt care.

** edited to add
If you use the cream is a gold inhibited color idea than it restricts the path you can take to cream.

Yes, I think that you are correct, that you could build a CL look-a-like from the ground up. Of course it depends upon if you define cream as the UK judge did and say it is the color of pale butter.

Probably this is what dr.Teel-Duggan has been trying to drum into our silly little heads -- there is phenotype (looks) and there is genotype (ingredients). I think if I understand correctly what Walt has said -- then you could enter a Frankenchicken that was constructed of spare parts in a show. You could maybe even win if you were to hurry before a lot of CLs were to show up -- the judge has to judge the bird in the show cage--not a pie-in-the-sky imaginary bird. So if you did that you could get Best of Breed and Best of Variety. It makes sense to me that the judges just judge the phenotype. Reason 1. as Walt has said...no one really knows what all is in the soup - and what is the 'secret sauce' 2. They have a LOT of show birds to judge in a short time - and I don't know how they do it as IS. My hat is off to them one and all...because they really are thorough and you can learn a LOT from them IMO.

So then Walt went on to say-- it becomes unethical when you the owner of that bird represent the Genotype as a Cream Legbar.

I rather seriously doubt that one could build from scratch a CL unless they did start with CL... you would have to separate the pea comb and the blue egg gene -- I know of no other breed that has that distinction, you would need crest, you would presumably need cream. If you are thinking that you would base this new bird (Not YOU, you - but just you in general) - on a silver S-Locus - -then you wouldn't get the warm color needed.

• so the color would be off
• it would take years
• you couldn't sell it (ethically as a Cream Legbar - it would kind of be like a knock-off Rolex)
• you couldn't breed it
• you couldn't sell hatching eggs
• you probably wouldn't have much respect in the CL community -- you wouldn't be solving the same problems
• It could be that you would loose the most important Cream Legbar trait - autosexing

Anyway that is my evaluation of what all those years would accomplish. If you out-crossed to get something some trait, lets say add on some weight - to small birds -- unless you really knew what you were doing you could introduce genes you don't want -

It may be better just to breed Cream Legbars for a few years toward the Standard of Perfection.

Do I detect some that are thinking that it isn't a CL if it isn't a perfect CL??

I'm conflused

 

[ChicKat]

question for all -- looking for the summary posts -- I came across post 394. it struck me that the two cockerels in the photos are nearly in the exact same stance.

do you see it the same way. My question is how near or far that TYPE is from the USA types we are discussing, and how near or far from both our actual CLs and the CL Club's logo images.

In answer to a question I got:

Summary 1 is post 54
Summary 2 is post 448


ETA Summary 3 is the unfinished symphony

 

[KPenley]

question for all -- looking for the summary posts -- I came across post 394.  it struck me that the two cockerels in the photos are nearly in the exact same stance.  

do you see it the same way.  My question is how near or far that TYPE is from the USA types we are discussing, and how near or far from both our actual CLs and the CL Club's logo images.

In answer to a question I got:

Summary 1 is post 54
Summary 2 is post 448 


ETA Summary 3 is the unfinished symphony

I think the Hammon's rooster, from 30 years ago, has the best type in regard to shape only, with the younger first cockerel coming in second. He just needs a slightly deeper top line, which could grow in, and slightly lower tail set. They're both pretty close to the logo shape.

 

[KendyF]

On the draft standard as far as I can tell the only issues are the Chestnut one you mentioned and the broader issue of the definition of Cream.

In the history section I would probably include the information about Leghorn variances and be sure that the type descriptions fall in line with the UK.

I am pretty sure I read a post from Walt early on stating the reference to Leghorns should be eliminated and the type should be described instead. Just pointing this out as it was a while back and might have been forgotten or missed.

 

[caychris]

I am pretty sure I read a post from Walt early on stating the reference to Leghorns should be eliminated and the type should be described instead. Just pointing this out as it was a while back and might have been forgotten or missed.

I was reading the draft and the type descriptions do not mention leghorn but the history section does I dont know if the descriptions are similar to UK leghorn or not

 

[KendyF]

I was reading the draft and the type descriptions do not mention leghorn but the history section does I dont know if the descriptions are similar to UK leghorn or not

Probably appropriate in the History, as long as the correct type of Leghorn is mentioned.

 

[ChicKat]

I think the Hammon's rooster, from 30 years ago, has the best type in regard to shape only, with the younger first cockerel coming in second. He just needs a slightly deeper top line, which could grow in, and slightly lower tail set. They're both pretty close to the logo shape.

That's great, is there an image of the Hammon's rooster some place?



apologies for not reposting the pictures -- my computer (and cell phone) have been acting very strangely lately -- and my monthly allotment of 10GB is used up

Here are the images I was referencing:




The first one is the UK nationals winner from 2014 and the second one is from Greenfire Farms - that Paul Bradshaw gave us to use on the website.

Kind of strange that they are both in the same stance...what are the odds of that occurring? Very upright, and not quite the Leghorn type. Going back to find Those photos I also noticed this:

This is a full side-on view that HaHaUthinkSo sent us. It is from the PCGB's version of the standard. Very long back on that cockerel -- maybe that will be my next year's breeding target...long backs.

The pair that we think was in Applegarth's flock - from Fancy Fowl magazine.

but then while searching for the first two photos, I saw a different 'view' of the 2014 UK winner and compared this photo with the Club's logo image and they are pretty close:



Thought that in this thread the image that KPenley posted of the club's logo was here -- but not seeing it when I click the view all--- so it must be in a different thread. KPenley if you see this and could easliy post -- that wold be apprecaited for comparison to the 2014 UK champion above. Thanks!

 

[1muttsfan]

1 - tail is better, but hard to evaluate angle from that view. If the bottom picture is him as well, his tail is a little high. Higher wing carriage. Chest a little more filled out.

2 - better comb. Lower wing carriage. Looks a little upright, as if he was alarming a little, his angles may be better when he relaxes.

Back length is hard to evaluate from an angled shot, the length looks good in the bottom pic.

I really like the (possible) Applegarth cock.

(As far as overall color, 1 has much brighter legs, and overall more saturation- it could be that the picture of 2 is a little washed out, not unusual when photographing light colored objects. This is one of the things that makes color so hard to critique in a picture, what the camera "sees" is often different from what we see live. We can like or dislike the way a bird looks in a picture, but the actual bird may not look just like that. That is why judging is hands-on, what you see is not always the full picture.)

 

[KPenley]

I could totally be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Fancy Fowl picture is of birds belonging to Sue Hammon, who got her first birds from David Applegarth I really like their shapes, other than the wonky combs- tiny points cut, so not a huge deal in showing..
Are one of these the pic you were looking for?

 

[ChicKat]

I could totally be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the Fancy Fowl picture is of birds belonging to Sue Hammon, who got her first birds from David Applegarth

I really like their shapes, other than the wonky combs- tiny points cut, so not a huge deal in showing..
Are one of these the pic you were looking for?

Thanks KP - it was the second one to compare to the UK winner that is facing left. these are a variation on the Club's logo right? I think that it should become a t-shirt - this is the template tht yu use when you go to your coop right?

that being said, the artwork is more to SOP type than the real bird...but what goes in the show cage is a real live bird trying to emulate the ideal.....