Calling All Cream Legbar Breeders- 2024 Edition

[RememberTheWay]

The breed standard should describe the bird with the best type to produce the desired utilities for the breed.

But I'm not sure the standards are enough sometimes. I've seen bird with correct shape that had very narrow pelvic bone widths. I know I hear this a lot but I think there is a bit more to it then simply following the standards. Of course I do want my birds to look right for their breed but I also know tons of show quality lines that are severely lacking in vigor, production, fertility, etc. Which is what leads me to believe their is more to it then simply following the breed standard. I've even had show breeders admit that longevity is an issue in their line and that all hens are culled at 1.5 to 2 yrs!

 

[GaryDean26]

But I'm not sure the standards are enough sometimes. I've seen bird with correct shape that had very narrow pelvic bone widths. I know I hear this a lot but I think there is a bit more to it than simply following the standards. Of course I do want my birds to look right for their breed but I also know tons of show quality lines that are severely lacking in vigor, production, fertility, etc. Which is what leads me to believe their is more to it then simply following the breed standard. I've even had show breeders admit that longevity is an issue in their line and that all hens are culled at 1.5 to 2 yrs!

When draft 1 of the cream Legbar proposed standard was being written there were some live breed evaluations by members of the APA standards committee. I was part of two of these sessions. We had the chairman of the standards committee for one of them and he showed us his process for evaluating birds at shows. He first would take his pointer and tap the back of the bird to get it to walk so he could see if it had any problems moving or walking. Then he looked at its stance to check it over for defects like legs bowed in, legs bowed out, narrow bodies (legs should have 4 fingers between them. If they have less than 2 fingers width it is a defect (defect name?)). Then he would check the keel bone for straightness and the conditioning of the bird, then he would check the back. Then he would check the head (he said he was a head freak. That is where he was the most strict in finding the bird with the best vigor). He would then hold the bird upside down to see if it held its wings close (good vigor) or if the wings fell down (poor vigor). He would also pull the wings all the way out and see how fast they would snap back to the body (good vigor would snap right back like a rubber band, poor vigor was more like a door swinging slowly shut). He would check the wings for split wing and other defects. When he put it back down he would drop it from a foot off the ground to see how it landed and how quickly it recovered ( fast recovery is good vigor, slow recovery is poor vigor). By that time time, he pretty much had the best bird picked out. Anything that didn’t make it past his initial evaluations would not be evaluated for the breed standard. He used the breed standard as tie breakers between the birds that ranked highest on the non breed specific things. Judges first look for the best bird then they look to see who is the best representation of the breed standard from the top few in the general evaluation. Lots of “show” breeders skip right over the first part of the evaluation and only focus on the distinguishing features of the breed. They go to a show and their Polish has the biggest crest of all the birds on exhibit but they get last place and can’t figure out why, or have Silkie with the softest feathers and wonder why the keep getting beat by birds with less fluff. Ya, you can have a Legbar with electric yellow legs but that isn’t going to do much to impress a judge. You have to have excel on the general evaluation first before they will even consider finer points. The finer points are really just used to pick one bird over another given all else being equal. A bird can be disqualified at the SOP evaluation if they lack required features for the breed but most things just result in small point deductions so focus on big, full, healthy birds with good utilities first that try to get as close to the standard as possible. We were told that the first 30 pages of the APA standards book covered the general defects and that if the CLB did pay attention to those first then it was pointless to work on a proposed Legbar SOP.

 

[RememberTheWay]

. Then he looked at its stance to check it over for defects like legs bowed in, legs bowed out, narrow bodies (legs should have 4 fingers between them. If they have less than 2 fingers width it is a defect (defect name?)

Maybe "Knock Knees"? Not sure if that is the technical term for it though

 

[GaryDean26]

But I'm not sure the standards are enough sometimes. I've seen bird with correct shape that had very narrow pelvic bone widths. I know I hear this a lot but I think there is a bit more to it then simply following the standards. Of course I do want my birds to look right for their breed but I also know tons of show quality lines that are severely lacking in vigor, production, fertility, etc. Which is what leads me to believe their is more to it then simply following the breed standard. I've even had show breeders admit that longevity is an issue in their line and that all hens are culled at 1.

 

[GaryDean26]

From the 1923 APA standards book.

 

[RememberTheWay]

He would then hold the bird upside down to see if it held its wings close (good vigor) or if the wings fell down (poor vigor). He would also pull the wings all the way out and see how fast they would snap back to the body (good vigor would snap right back like a rubber band, poor vigor was more like a door swinging slowly shut). He would check the wings for split wing and other defects. When he put it back down he would drop it from a foot off the ground to see how it landed and how quickly it recovered ( fast recovery is good vigor, slow recovery is poor vigor).

This is awesome! But I don't think everyone is this thorough especially when it comes to breeders. Some of us are (myself) and some Breeders are lacking in knowledge of what is desirable as traits and what isn't. Most I see never take the time to actually learn anything about their birds bodies or genetics and are simply doing flock mating without ever really attempting to improve anything in their flock. I am much more detail oriented and get somewhat hyper focused when I am interested in something. Breeding birds is an interest of mine and a particularly fascinating one at least in my opinion

I don't remember seeing any of these graphics on my copy of the standards but maybe it is the wrong year or edition?

From the 1923 APA standards book.

View attachment 3993124

View attachment 3993129View attachment 3993144

Loving these excerpts though. In general though my own observations have been and through speaking with various show breeders around the country that many factors are sacrificed in utility for favor of form and visual appeal. Longer waits for age of maturity, longevity, fertility is most, etc. English Orpington, Marans, Faverolles, and Cochin are just a few that come to mind that I personally know of issues in those areas.

 

[RememberTheWay]

When draft 1 of the cream Legbar proposed standard was being written there were some live breed evaluations by members of the APA standards committee. I was part of two of these sessions. We had the chairman of the standards committee for one of them and he showed us his process for evaluating birds at shows. He first would take his pointer and tap the back of the bird to get it to walk so he could see if it had any problems moving or walking. Then he looked at its stance to check it over for defects like legs bowed in, legs bowed out, narrow bodies (legs should have 4 fingers between them. If they have less than 2 fingers width it is a defect (defect name?)). Then he would check the keel bone for straightness and the conditioning of the bird, then he would check the back. Then he would check the head (he said he was a head freak. That is where he was the most strict in finding the bird with the best vigor). He would then hold the bird upside down to see if it held its wings close (good vigor) or if the wings fell down (poor vigor). He would also pull the wings all the way out and see how fast they would snap back to the body (good vigor would snap right back like a rubber band, poor vigor was more like a door swinging slowly shut). He would check the wings for split wing and other defects. When he put it back down he would drop it from a foot off the ground to see how it landed and how quickly it recovered ( fast recovery is good vigor, slow recovery is poor vigor). By that time time, he pretty much had the best bird picked out. Anything that didn’t make it past his initial evaluations would not be evaluated for the breed standard. He used the breed standard as tie breakers between the birds that ranked highest on the non breed specific things. Judges first look for the best bird then they look to see who is the best representation of the breed standard from the top few in the general evaluation. Lots of “show” breeders skip right over the first part of the evaluation and only focus on the distinguishing features of the breed. They go to a show and their Polish has the biggest crest of all the birds on exhibit but they get last place and can’t figure out why, or have Silkie with the softest feathers and wonder why the keep getting beat by birds with less fluff. Ya, you can have a Legbar with electric yellow legs but that isn’t going to do much to impress a judge. You have to have excel on the general evaluation first before they will even consider finer points. The finer points are really just used to pick one bird over another given all else being equal. A bird can be disqualified at the SOP evaluation if they lack required features for the breed but most things just result in small point deductions so focus on big, full, healthy birds with good utilities first that try to get as close to the standard as possible. We were told that the first 30 pages of the APA standards book covered the general defects and that if the CLB did pay attention to those first then it was pointless to work on a proposed Legbar SOP.

I find this entire post very fascinating. I think maybe there is a difference though in evaluation and judging process for a breed to first be accepted vs a regular show where birds are already in accepted breeds. Do you think there is a difference? I would personally think that when going through the process to be accepted that the judges are going to be much more strenuous and detail minded then they would be during a regular show? But maybe I'm wrong. I've never actually shown birds before I just appreciate the "blue print" I find in the standards. I use them as a proverbial "north star" in my breeding program and depending on the breed I'm working with it may be priority for the standards or other things may take priority. My Faverolles are intended for meat and eggs production- of course I want them to look right for their respective breed but at the end of day of I'm picking between a bird that fleshed out sooner but has slight visual color imperfections over a slower fleshing bird with perfect color- the better meat bird will be chose to move forward with.

 

[RememberTheWay]

The finer points are really just used to pick one bird over another given all else being equal. A bird can be disqualified at the SOP evaluation if they lack required features for the breed but most things just result in small point deductions so focus on big, full, healthy birds with good utilities first that try to get as close to the standard as possible. We were told that the first 30 pages of the APA standards book covered the general defects and that if the CLB did pay attention to those first then it was pointless to work on a proposed Legbar SOP.

Seriously couldn't agree with this any more! Sounds like fantastic advice for anyone getting into breeding and I wish more paid true attention to these things then they do. No bird will ever be perfect but to have a general road map to refer to when making breeding decisions, definitely makes things much easier in the long run!

 

[GaryDean26]

I find this entire post very fascinating. I think maybe there is a difference though in evaluation and judging process for a breed to first be accepted vs a regular show where birds are already in accepted breeds. Do you think there is a difference? I would personally think that when going through the process to be accepted that the judges are going to be much more strenuous and detail minded then they would be during a regular show? But maybe I'm wrong. I've never actually shown birds before I just appreciate the "blue print" I find in the standards. I use them as a proverbial "north star" in my breeding program and depending on the breed I'm working with it may be priority for the standards or other things may take priority. My Faverolles are intended for meat and eggs production- of course I want them to look right for their respective breed but at the end of day of I'm picking between a bird that fleshed out sooner but has slight visual color imperfections over a slower fleshing bird with perfect color- the better meat bird will be chose to move forward with.

Have you ever talked to an APA judge? No, there isn’t a difference. Enter some birds in an APA show (not a state or county fair or a 4H event). Then call the show director and ask who is assigned to judge the Legbars. Then find the judge’s contact info and send him/her a copy of the proposed SOP. Ask for feedback on the proposed SOP prior to the meet and to meet with the Judge after judging of the Legbar for feed back on the quality of the breed. They will tell you how they judge.

Note: I am NOT a show breeder. I had raised chickens for about six years before I got Legbars and had never been to an APA show although I always spent an hour or more in the Poultry barn at the State Fair looking at all the different breeds and talking to the exhibitors. I started attending APA shows after getting the Cream Legbars and doing table displays on the breed because no one in the USA knew what they were. At these shows were could talke to one hundred people (including APA judges) and only have 2-3 people who had ever even heard of the breed. We would bring baby chicks to show the auto sexing. Bring eggs to show the size, shape, texture, color of the eggs. Etc. Bring information on R.C. Punnet and the economical goals on the Cambridge University breeding program that developed the breed, etc. Eventual the Cream Legbar Club was organized, and I was encouraged to show Legbar to help with the process of getting the breed added to the APA standards book. I tried take legbars to at least one show every year to get feedback, etc. Over the past dozen years I have now exhibited Legbars at 6-7 Shows. Most of those were regional Legbar meets where we would typically have 4-5 exhibitors with about 18-20 Legbars (some more, some less). We took 4-5 best of breeds awards. The "Show Breeders" would exhibit at as many as 10 APA shows in a single year.

 

[RememberTheWay]

@GaryDean26

Yes, I actually have spoken to various judges and poultry exhibitors. My statements are mainly from actually seeing various birds (not sure what show they were in, probably smaller ones) that have placed and wondering how on earth it was that they won such high ribbons.

And from knowing various exhibition breeders who have serious production or fertility issues in their lines but consistently place very well in shows. That's the discrepancy that I'm talking about. How is it that a line can have terrible production or fertility and simultaneously place really well in shows. To me, that means that either the body structure isn't as highly correlated with those traits or they are being judged differently . Honest I have no clue Because I don't show birds, I'm only a few yrs in and just try to learn as much as I can while also making general observations about what I'm noticing. And maybe you are right in that I am probably lumping observations from smaller shows into APA shows and there is probably a huge difference.

A few Examples- I know a Faverolles breeder that has terrible fertility and longevity in their birds. They are done at 1.5-2 yrs old. That line though consistently places very well. How do explain that? I also know someone who breeds Large fowl Orpingtons. Again consistently places very well and outwardly looking the birds are very nice. But they have terrible hardiness, low fertility, and vigor. Egg production is also severely lacking. How do you explain these things? I also know someone who breeds exhibition Marans- same story there too.

What about Seramas? They also are notoriously infertile and have terrible hatch ability. I personally gave up on them months ago because even when I did finally get fertilized eggs none of them made to hatch day. I don't personally know any Serama breeders but I do see the frustration on forums regarding breeding them.

Anyways..... Did I mention that the tail length that I was talking about was on my pullets not the rooster? I know the standard says moderately long but I feel like these ladies tails are a bit too long? Also- what can you tell me about improving chest depths in a line? How difficult is that to do? Especially of you don't have one already that has decent depth to start with?

Also- do you happen to know anything regarding the breed club? Will the website be coming back up? Are they looking for new chair members?

Also are there any "Opal" Legbar Breeders that you would recommend looking up for me to learn from?