Cream Legbar Working Group: Standard of Perfection

[KPenley]

Could everyone please pause for a moment? I love the excitement. I love the fact that so many people are writing in every day. But I'm hearing a lot of things like double breeding necessary...mistakes and omissions being made in the UK SOP...unachievable SOP...and these are just not true.

The Poultry Club of Great Britain does write their Standard differently than ours, so ours will be a bit different. And we may have to add things that they don't just because we know that it will help us not lose points for no reason. But wasn't the Standard was passed when Punnett was President of the Poultry Club? He may have even written it. Do you really think that a guy who created a breed to make farmers lives easier would make a double breeding/unrealistic/impossible to meet standard? He approved it. He and Pease showed their own birds. Punnett got the Cream Legbar accepted.

If a breed exists and is imported here to America, we have to write our standard to reflect the original (as per the APA). We are not the creator.

ok...

 

[TheTropix]

Importer... Imported birds not meeting SOP in own Country.... there's a can of worms!!!!! lol
Sherry

 

[Pozees]

I have read with interest all the posts regarding the potential for needing double breeding. What I am picking out is that the male needs some chestnut in the shoulders to sire correctly colored females. If I have gotten this right, shouldn't that be the way the standard is written? I am a newcomer to this breed, all I have at this time is a trio of chicks and some eggs being incubated, so I have not produced anything yet. As the chicks mature and I can gauge what I have, it will be helpful to know not only whether I have birds of correct (or at least in the right direction) type, but whether the "paint" is workable. I agree with all who remind of the priority of type, and that seems to be pretty well agreed upon. The color thus becomes front and center of the discussion. Developing a Standard for a breed new to the US is a task not taken lightly, and I deeply appreciate the attention paid to details that may make or break acceptance and popularity.

Breeding true means having birds that can reproduce themselves. A male with chestnut shoulders can produce a female with a salmon breast. From what I am reading, a male with no chestnut in the shoulders cannot. I have not seen anything that contradicts this, but maybe someone here has proof the male with no chestnut in the shoulder can produce a female with a salmon breast.

Crests - stated to be cream and silver - doesn't this mean the dark crested birds are less correct?

Shafting - hoo boy. Seems to me it is again a question of whether it is possible, genetically, to have all other aspects of color correct and still eliminate shafting. This does not mean a picture shows it, it means someone has done it, repeatedly. The notion of interviewing a UK judge is very important, and I would add that interviewing several breeders from the UK may prove fruitful. If it can't be done, put "some shafting" in the standard. Leave out "acceptable", so as to simplify it for judges to interpret. Their job is hard enough, especially with a new breed. I know "some" is subjective, but it allows a judge to move forward a pullet or hen with shafting.

Just the thoughts and questions of a person only just delving into the breed. I must say I am greatly enjoying the depth of the discussion here

 

[TheTropix]

KPenley made a great point about 'what did Punnet' say about the Breed he created. So I went and read my 'copy' of Punnet history of the CL Here is what I gather. I couldn't copy and paste, but this is word for word.


Low on page 3 of Punnet The Legbar history pdf (did I get it in the Clubhouse maybe?) under ‘The Adult Plumage’, just above and continued below the picture, it says;
"The hen, as shown in fig.1, is not unlike a Brown Leghorn in general appearance, though the gold of the hackle and the salmon of the breast are rather less intense.
The cock on the other hand is a strikingly handsome bird. As fig. 2 shows, he is barred all over, though the general effect is definitely lighter and softer than a barred breed such as the Plymouth Rock. At the same time the pale gold of the hackles and the bright chestnut of the wing coverts lead to his presenting an appearance at once brilliant and quite unlike that of the male of any recognized breed.


Does that mean that the silvery/whitish in the hackle isn't necessarily the Punnet bird, but a perfectly acceptable color because it's so pretty? Realistically, it seems to me that 'Pretty' carries a little, just a little weight in deciding on a Standard...usually.. (Turkens? i dunno lol). If This were a naked neck, frizzled Breed, nobody would even WANT it to have a spot in the APA. Just seems like with all the work, time, it takes to get this all done, that some parts have been over-complicated, when it's already complicated enough, I'm sure! GREAT WORK!!

 

[TheTropix]

You do know that was a genuine GOOD WORK!!! and not being sarcastic! I re-read that after I posted and thought that might be taken wrong. I know y'all are being bombarded by stuff from every direction. Truly, Good Job!

 

[KPenley]

last rant of the evening, I promise...

@Pozees: Thank you for taking the time to read through the various notes and excitement that have transpired this past week...and dare I say it? The same things we debated a year ago. Double breeding, or a chestnut shoulder, is not necessary to produce a salmon breast. Anyone who says so has most likely not spoken with top breeders from the UK, or the ones who sold them their birds, or the ones who helped to the bring the Cream Legbar from a dying breed to the popularity is it at today. I am not an expert, but I have spoken to these people. The fading of the breast can be caused by a multitude of things, but there IS proof of salmon breasted cream girls being descendants of silver looking (tested positive as true cream) roosters with no or little chestnut in the shoulder. The best birds are not the ones that there are many pictures of, but if you look hard enough, you will find them.

@Tropix: Are you talking about the Genetic Studies in Poultry, XI. The Legbar, by R.C. Punnett, article from the Journal of Genetics, volume 41?
If so, professor Punnett's article is about Gold Legbars, the first Legbar that he created. It is a wonderful article and full of great information, but it is not describing Cream Legbars in color. This has been quoted and misquoted many times here on BYC. Again it is a great article, but not about Cream Legbars.
I remember that Pease, the other creator of the Cream Legbar, described the Cream Legbar (something to the effect of) as so much in appearance to the Silver Legbar that they kept the crest to distinguish between the two at a glance. I will find the quote tomorrow when i have more energy

, but it is from one of the Autosexing Annuals.

I have said this before, if there are enough of you that love the Gold Legbar look (described above in Punnett's article), why don't you start breeding them? I would love to see different Legbars as successful breeds over here in the USA!

 

[TheTropix]

Ok uncle!

 

[lonnyandrinda]

I have read with interest all the posts regarding the potential for needing double breeding. What I am picking out is that the male needs some chestnut in the shoulders to sire correctly colored females. If I have gotten this right, shouldn't that be the way the standard is written? I am a newcomer to this breed, all I have at this time is a trio of chicks and some eggs being incubated, so I have not produced anything yet. As the chicks mature and I can gauge what I have, it will be helpful to know not only whether I have birds of correct (or at least in the right direction) type, but whether the "paint" is workable. I agree with all who remind of the priority of type, and that seems to be pretty well agreed upon. The color thus becomes front and center of the discussion. Developing a Standard for a breed new to the US is a task not taken lightly, and I deeply appreciate the attention paid to details that may make or break acceptance and popularity.

Breeding true means having birds that can reproduce themselves. A male with chestnut shoulders can produce a female with a salmon breast. From what I am reading, a male with no chestnut in the shoulders cannot. I have not seen anything that contradicts this, but maybe someone here has proof the male with no chestnut in the shoulder can produce a female with a salmon breast.

Crests - stated to be cream and silver - doesn't this mean the dark crested birds are less correct?

Shafting - hoo boy. Seems to me it is again a question of whether it is possible, genetically, to have all other aspects of color correct and still eliminate shafting. This does not mean a picture shows it, it means someone has done it, repeatedly. The notion of interviewing a UK judge is very important, and I would add that interviewing several breeders from the UK may prove fruitful. If it can't be done, put "some shafting" in the standard. Leave out "acceptable", so as to simplify it for judges to interpret. Their job is hard enough, especially with a new breed. I know "some" is subjective, but it allows a judge to move forward a pullet or hen with shafting.

Just the thoughts and questions of a person only just delving into the breed. I must say I am greatly enjoying the depth of the discussion here

I like that.

Tropix if you are interested you can read the Club's history of the Cream Legbar in the most recent newsletter. Curtis Hale spearheaded the effort of the History Team, they went delving for original sources rather than rely on the rumored history found on several websites. I think it's the best one you will find anywhere.

 

[KPenley]

Ok uncle!

if you need a laugh...

tip!

 

[TheTropix]

KPenley HA! I just might have to do that!

LOL

lonnyandrinda,
How much would it cost, or is it possible at this time, to buy a hard copy of the Club Newsletter and have it mailed to me?