Cream Legbar Working Group: Standard of Perfection

[dretd]

. Here is a pic of the 2 Roos I've chosen to keep. I hatched them from eggs from 2 sources that both claimed they were 1st gen GFF. They are 28 weeks old. The 5 pullets I kept are pretty nice, only one has really good cream color (but she has a very small crest)- so I hv some work to do there, too. About the boys: the one on the left is considerably bigger (doesn't look like it in the pic, I know), has the best color, a longer balanced frame and better tail, but a not-so-perfect comb. The boy on the right has more gold, is smaller and has a shorter back. BUT, he has a near perfect comb! I hv 2 pens and will be switching them between the girls and hatching different combos (while I wait for GFF to send me some from their 2013 line). Am I evaluating them correctly? Any suggestions?

Hi Sweetdreaming! Its really hard to make any constructive advice without seeing your girls and knowing your background.

That being said, I agree that the roo on your left is your better roo. In addition to size and color, he also has a better tucked up wing placement which is something I really like to see. Neither's ear lobes are enamel white but hopefully over time they will lose the pink color. Although the Left's comb is lacking points, from this angle I think it may be following the head and neck a little better than the Right's. I am not sure about the tail--from this angle I am thinking that the right one may have better feathering but its hard to see them because of the way they are overlapping and slightly out of frame.

Anyway just on looks and substance, I would use the roo on the left predominantly--but again without seeing the other half of the equation (the girls) its hard to know as the one on the right may compliment the one or more of the girls better.

Good luck!

 

[sweetdreaming]

Hi, I know I'm just new to raising CCL's, but I agree w/ The Tropix re: color. It's also what attracted me to this breed! If I wanted a black and white bird, I'd raise Barred Rocks. If we take all the color away, how is anyone going to be able to distinguish them at an exhibition? I understand the powers-that-be want to return the bird to the original version. But I hv a problem w/ someone who says: "you can raise what you want, but if you want to show you're not going to succeed unless you hv OUR idea of the perfect bird".

Here is an analogy: I hv raised American Quarter Horses (AQHA) for 50 yrs. I hv bred #1 for athletic ability and type, then color. If I have 2 individuals who are identical in every respect but 1 is an unusual color (like palomino- the result of a dilution gene on a red base, by the way), that horse will sell quicker and for considerably more money. He may even do better in the show pen because he is remembered by the judges (and his color may indicate he is from a respected lineage and be pre-destined in the judges mind to perform better). Furthermore, although we horse folks respect and appreciate the foundation bloodlines from the original QH's from the 1930's, most no longer find them entirely aesthetic. I'm glad there are some diehard purists who continue to raise foundation bred horses, but most QH people like the modern type now. There are now only occasionally a few foundation QH classes in otherwise huge AQHA shows (and even those horses have been bred to be considerably more "attractive" than the originals). Tastes change, what's considered aesthetic changes. Can anyone show me ANY other livestock group that is trying to breed back to what they had in 1930?

It seems to me that when the CCL was developed, it wasn't a "done-deal" either. Rather, it was (and is) a "work in progress". I, personally, don't find the birds pictured by R.C. Punnett very attractive (and the modern versions of Brown Leghorns and Barred Rocks don't look like their 1930 predecessors anymore, either). With that said, why are we trying to reverse the color that has become ubiquitous by selective breeding (i.e. breeders like it!) for the past 80 yrs? Why can't we, instead, focus on an SOP for a bird that is: 1) immediately recognizable (color!), 2) consistent type, 3) hearty constitution w/ few genetic flaws, 4) a crest without cranial deformity, 5) auto sexing, and 6) lots of blue eggs? I've been following this thread for months now and finally felt I should share my opinion!

 

[dretd]

Hi, I know I'm just new to raising CCL's, but I agree w/ The Tropix re: color. It's also what attracted me to this breed! If I wanted a black and white bird, I'd raise Barred Rocks. If we take all the color away, how is anyone going to be able to distinguish them at an exhibition? I understand the powers-that-be want to return the bird to the original version. But I hv a problem w/ someone who says: "you can raise what you want, but if you want to show you're not going to succeed unless you hv OUR idea of the perfect bird".

Here is an analogy: I hv raised American Quarter Horses (AQHA) for 50 yrs. I hv bred #1 for athletic ability and type, then color. If I have 2 individuals who are identical in every respect but 1 is an unusual color (like palomino- the result of a dilution gene on a red base, by the way), that horse will sell quicker and for considerably more money. He may even do better in the show pen because he is remembered by the judges (and his color may indicate he is from a respected lineage and be pre-destined in the judges mind to perform better). Furthermore, although we horse folks respect and appreciate the foundation bloodlines from the original QH's from the 1930's, most no longer find them entirely aesthetic. I'm glad there are some diehard purists who continue to raise foundation bred horses, but most QH people like the modern type now. There are now only occasionally a few foundation QH classes in otherwise huge AQHA shows (and even those horses have been bred to be considerably more "attractive" than the originals). Tastes change, what's considered aesthetic changes. Can anyone show me ANY other livestock group that is trying to breed back to what they had in 1930?

It seems to me that when the CCL was developed, it wasn't a "done-deal" either. Rather, it was (and is) a "work in progress". I, personally, don't find the birds pictured by R.C. Punnett very attractive (and the modern versions of Brown Leghorns and Barred Rocks don't look like their 1930 predecessors anymore, either). With that said, why are we trying to reverse the color that has become ubiquitous by selective breeding (i.e. breeders like it!) for the past 80 yrs? Why can't we, instead, focus on an SOP for a bird that is: 1) immediately recognizable (color!), 2) consistent type, 3) hearty constitution w/ few genetic flaws, 4) a crest without cranial deformity, 5) auto sexing, and 6) lots of blue eggs? I've been following this thread for months now and finally felt I should share my opinion!

Hi Sweetdreaming!

Not sure where this came from, I didn't really say anything about color other than agreeing with you that the one on the left had better color than the one on the right.

I think your analogy with regard to Quarter Horses is interesting, but that analogy is talking mostly about type. Perhaps you could comment on the AQHA's historical disqualification of otherwise purebred QH where the white of the lower leg extended past the carpus or hock and thus the horse became a Paint and unregisterable as a QH.

What are your concerns, exactly, with regard to the color. Do you think that your two boys are not colorful enough or too colorful or colored just right?

The SOP that was imported along with the Cream Legbar allows for some chestnut. Yours have some chestnut. The one on the right has chestnut in his saddle area which is not described on the SOP, whereas the one on the left does not, so therefor the one on the left matches the SOP with regard to plumage color better.

I think it has been pretty well address before that in order to gain acceptance into the APA the SOP must pretty much match the SOP as it was written and imported. If we want the Cream Legbar to succeed and become a recognized breed in the US, this is the place to start or it won't happen at all. My hope is that once it is officially recognized we can then get varieties including perhaps the Light Brown Rose Comb Legbar, the White Legbar and the Light Brown (or Crele or Ginger or?) Legbar accepted. I would love to have people that are interested in breeding those varieties join a committee and work on the SOP for that variety. It is a huge amount of work. They will also need to be willing to get together a large number of like-minded breeders to develop and perfect that one color variety. Did you want to work on the Light Brown color variety--your boys look Cream based to me so I guess I am really confused.

A concern I have is that there seems to be a lack of understanding that the Cream Legbar is a cream based breed. It needs to be cream. Going back to your analogy to horses, it is like a registry being the Palomino registry and to show the horses the rules say they have to be palomino but lets say your horse is sorrel. I shouldn't be mad at the Palomino folks for not allowing me to show my horse in a Palomino show because he's not palomino, he's sorrel. I can still use him for breeding to make more palominos, but by definition to show him, he must exhibit the palomino dilution. Its the same thing with the Cream Legbars. In the case of Cream Legbars, you could still show the birds that are very colorful but there is a risk that they may be cut because too many points were deducted for the colors not matching the SOP.

As for your concern that the color is the major identifier between Cream Legbars and other breeds, the birds should be readily distinguishable from any other barred breed partly on plumage but mostly on type. Much the same way you could tell the difference between a chestnut Arabian and a chestnut Quarter Horse.

I am really sorry that you didn't like my statement that the color only really matters if you are showing and that you should breed what you like. I want nothing more than to get the breed into the APA and the only way to do that is to follow with little deviance the British SOP. At the same time, I think everyone should be happy and enjoy what they are doing. My blending of the two is to try to make the SOP as permissive as possible (its going to have to stay substantially the same), to advocate for several varieties to follow the Cream's acceptance and to try to be as supportive as possible to folks that want to breed what they like. I seem to have gotten it wrong. What would you suggest we do?

 

[ChicKat]

Hi, I know I'm just new to raising CCL's, but I agree w/ The Tropix re: color. It's also what attracted me to this breed! If I wanted a black and white bird, I'd raise Barred Rocks. If we take all the color away, how is anyone going to be able to distinguish them at an exhibition? I understand the powers-that-be want to return the bird to the original version. But I hv a problem w/ someone who says: "you can raise what you want, but if you want to show you're not going to succeed unless you hv OUR idea of the perfect bird".
........
It seems to me that when the CCL was developed, it wasn't a "done-deal" either. Rather, it was (and is) a "work in progress". I, personally, don't find the birds pictured by R.C. Punnett very attractive (and the modern versions of Brown Leghorns and Barred Rocks don't look like their 1930 predecessors anymore, either). With that said, why are we trying to reverse the color that has become ubiquitous by selective breeding (i.e. breeders like it!) for the past 80 yrs? Why can't we, instead, focus on an SOP for a bird that is: 1) immediately recognizable (color!), 2) consistent type, 3) hearty constitution w/ few genetic flaws, 4) a crest without cranial deformity, 5) auto sexing, and 6) lots of blue eggs? I've been following this thread for months now and finally felt I should share my opinion!

Hi sweetdeaming--

That was SO interesting about the Quarter Horses. I think I completely understand about the aesthetic of the horses and the horse world.

It will be great too, when we have actual photos that reflect the best of what people should be going for. It seems insightful that although accepted by the Brit Poultry Club the Cream Legbar is not quite exactly a 'done deal'. -- From my perspective this is because the original birds nearly disappeared, and there were no photographs that ANYONE has found of them, from back-in-the-day. So hobbiests over in the UK worked to either recreate them, OR to diversify the gene pool and make the breed stronger.

It seems that the people doing this breeding allowed olive eggs to creep into the breed, and as one of the UK sites states, the Cream Legbars "lost their autosexing". (Like the birds lost it -- it wasn't the people who screwed it up....

)

Somehow, somewhere, the birds became very faddish. In the UK they are sold in pet stores...and the UK is pretty far ahead of the USA in a LOT of backyard chicken things...(Did you know they have reflective little chicken rain coats..so that the chooks won't get hit by a car if they are out in the dreary light of evening on their way home to roost-- seriously) They have better chicken wormers that the USA..I could go on - but I digress.

I think a big conflict arose when people in the UK interpreted the SOP to mean one thing...and bred/are breeding toward that interpretation. A number of people in the USA did fall in love with the colorful bird..and had a real push-back on folks who wanted to go monochrome.

Back to being a done-deal...in addition to all the lost records, lack of pictures, mixed up breeding in the UK to loose autosexing and introduce olive eggs...etc. in the UK a commercial breed like our Easter Eggers was named the Cotswold Legbar - because it was similar to the CL - and perhaps had CL parentage -- as a hybrid it was a prolific layer---and I think the eggs in pretty packages were selling for something astounding like $2.00 per egg in Harrods and other high-end department store food sections in the UK.

When GFF imported CLs the birds were colorful ones, and -- I also think that the colors on the website are a bit extra saturated.

Then the idea that cream looked like white flew around for awhile...until KPenley contacted a UK judge who responded that Cream looks like light butter. That would have, should have, could have put the discussion to rest...but it hasn't seemed to. One thing that I really look for now is a mis-match between the color of the ear lobe (enamel white according to the SOP) and the adjoining hackle feathers - should be according to the USA Draft SOP :Neck: Hackle—cream, sparsely barred with gray. So - it cannot be both enamel white and cream.

It was dismaying when people were told their birds weren't good, because they weren't 'white-looking' --- until the light butter comparison came along -- and as a friend of mine said "all my cream legbars suddenly got much better"

If you go to the Club's website and look at the slide show of randomly posted CL pictures...https://sites.google.com/site/thecreamlegbarclub/02-gallery---photos-of-cream-legbars
Slide 8 shows the more white looking CL and slide 9 a more Cream colored cream legbar -- and again the earlobes are a real "tell".

Here is a link also to another rooster that has Cream in the hackles... --> Post 345
https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/825092/cream-legbar-hybrid-thread/340

So there are maybe 3 Cream roosters in the USA... that I know of....... but a lot of them have partial Cream in their hackles.....

It will take awhile for everyone to be on the same page, and it may never happen. Occasionally I search google for Cream Legbars, and I also search eBay and go to the poultry sites like feathersite and the sites in the UK....for the most part, I am seeing the distinctive Cream Legbar that is recognizable and unique...and not the white Cream legbar...so I think that for the most part the bird is known and set...

I'm glad that you spoke up -- and dretd, I don't think that the poster was referring to the advice you offered but rather to the seeming push away from the bird that people came on board the breed with. -- that they were subsequently told was not correct according to the standard... because a group in the UK has gone silver....

When one reads the standard...I think that the interpretation of Cream may be what was misunderstood over there. HTH

ETA - I said monotone, but meant monochrome -- changed that.
We have the same thing in our breed of registered cattle too-- (just sold 50-head today whoo hoo) They are a composite breed, and have aesthetically changed since the inception.

 

[sweetdreaming]

Oh Dretd, I'm so sorry! You're response to my 1st post hadn't even posted when I wrote my "opinion" post! I really (really!) appreciate your evaluation and comments about my boys! I'm sure you must be puzzled: my "opinion" post had nothing to do with my post about my Roos...nor your response!

I wrote my 2nd post after I spent some time perusing the last several pages of this thread. I just don't care for some of the Roos posted that are supposedly "closer to the SOP" that look like Barred Rocks without any chestnut. If I wanted a B&W bird, I wouldn't even get a BR, I'd get a Spangled Hamburg! So, when I read The Tropix's comment that he/she liked color, I just had to agree.

Regarding the AQHA disqualification of any animal with too much white: it was rescinded and reversed several years ago. There are now 100's of double registered AQHA/Paint "Quarter Horses w/ chrome". In their reversal statement, the AQHA cited "it wasn't fair to DQ a good horse simply based on color". (Lol! In support of your argument, tho, they still don't allow showing of "Perlinos": horses w/ double-dilute genes. Which I also think is stupid.)

What's wrong w/ having a breed that is immediately recognizable? Our state fairs and livestock shows are attended and supported by 1000's of "lay-people" (or are we the lay-people and they are the "non-lay-people?? Lol). What will be our response when we hear someone say "Look, honey, Grandma used to hv those kind, they're called Barred Rocks". Should we just respond: "If you looked at their plumage and form you could tell that they're NOT!! Hmmmm....

And I love the cream gene, I'm going to breed for it. I just don't want all the chestnut to go away, and I like the more muted barring. And I like the salmon breasts on the girls. Conversely, I'm kind of appalled at some of the hatching eggs being sold on eBay as CCL's that hv Roos that look like Wellsummers.

I just kinda think we have the unique opportunity to get it right the first time. We don't have a 1930 SOP we have to follow. We can have a 2011 SOP --when they arrived here. Or does the AMERICAN Poultry Association demand that we follow the UK SOP exactly?? (if so, I'll hush!!). I certainly don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, tho, as I know there's so many of you who have invested countless hours (and are still!) on this subject.

I just wanted y'all to know, if there's a vote, I vote for more cream, muted barring, with a little chestnut being mandatory on the Roos. And, again, I'm so sorry about the confusion, I bet you were sitting there scratching your head going "what the...???". I welcome any comments, critiques and advice you can give me!

Lemme know if I can help you, I'm a pretty good writer (beak in cheek!)

-Marla Waite

 

[KPenley]

Welcome Marla! Have you seen the first draft of the SOP yet? If not, no worries, Draft 2 will be released as soon as one more person signs off on the latest changes. I would recommend going over it and referring to the first 40 or so pages of your 2010 APA Standard of Perfection if you have any questions. Or of course you can come here too

Our end goal is not a barred rock, although it is an ancestor and a pretty important one at that. Since you love to write, if you have a great story about your birds or breeding challenges with Cream Legbars I encourage you to share your experiences with the Newsletter. We're always looking for great articles! And there are some great historical articles in past Newsletters as well, should you have an interest in reading them. I'll refrain from my normal broken record responses since some wonderful breeders have commented above! Welcome again!

 

[WHmarans]

I'd set 6 eggs from Merlin and my best hen and 4 hatched and all appear very much to me to be female. Are there any of these that seem too blurred in the back stripe to be good chick down to use in breeding? Of course ill see how they mature too and if they don't look ok still won't use them. At least one looks a little blurred to me her name is scramble now.

 

[WHmarans]

Don't let the yellow ones worry you! Those are wheaten marans!

 

[KPenley]

Congrats on your new babies!!! So cute! Those look clear to me! If you personally want to straighten the lines in future stock I'd go with the front two.

 

[WHmarans]

Thanks! I love seeing girls hatch but the funny thing is I'm in the market for a rooster. Thanks for the tip RE straight lines. I didn't notice this about them before!