Cream Legbar Working Group: Standard of Perfection

[ohrealy]

Hi, I clicked on the first link . It says it no longer exists and i should tell the webpage carrying the link.

 

[Laingcroft]

Gary – thank you for that information on Applegarth and Coombs. Your time frames are a bit confusing. If Applegarth started with CCL in 1987, then outcrossed in 1988/9 and then had to fix the characteristics (assuming 7 years/generations or 1995/6) then he has not been breeding CCL for 30 years which would be 2025/6, OR do you mean he has been working with a variety of rare breeds for 30 years???

Sorry, my bad on the Hamburg. Yes, its barring is on an eb base (a Columbian like restrictor that wasn't isolated until 1965) and the pg pattern gene.

Part of the problem is that neither the papers nor the experiments were clear linear progression. We also don't have all the pieces of the puzzle. And yes, the CCL is a mutt with various lines and from Gary’s additional information, that has been further muddied by Applegarth’s modifications, especially if our birds come out of Applegarth’s CCL. The part that bothers me, if correct, is that Applegarth deemed his CCL pure without peer review. Gary, do you know if he published in peer journals like the JG?
.
Now given that Applegarth’s CCL really aren’t that old (slightly less than 20 years) we may have an alphabet soup of genes still trying to express themselves which would explain the white CCL some are getting. It is even more important to try and understand what we should have, based upon the originators’s i.e. Punnett and Pease, foundation. Basically, I’m trying to figure out a way to understand exactly what I have and what I need to move toward. I wish I were an archeologist who can extrapolate from a jawbone what an entire creature would have looked like but unfortunately I’m not.

I also don’t have all the documentary link that proves when/which Legbar was bred to Cream Leghorns to get the CCL, only the independent papers on each project and what is clear to me from those papers is the following.

1, The CCL is based on the Leghorn. Each generation was bred back to Leghorns whether the first cross was Chiliean/Hamburg offspring x Leghorns or Leghorn x barred Plymouth Rock.
2. All the Leghorns used in the crosses were gold based – Buff, Brown and the White cock that produced cream (which wouldn’t be possible without s+ gold)
3. Punnett thought of cream as the base for gold i.e. “gold is an intensifier of cream” therefore he believed all gold birds carried cream; Taylor thought of gold as the base for cream, as cream was an “inhibitor of gold” In either case, GOLD is necessary to express CREAM.
4. The cresting and blue egg came from the mutt Chilean hen of “yellow or yellow brown” (which I have my suspicions was Wheaten based) It is undetermined if this hen carried the cream gene.
5. Breeding consistently back to one purebred increases the percentage of that breed in the offspring i.e. a percentage of purety; therefore, by the 4th generation, the offspring were at 94% for Leghorn.
F4 = 93.75 / 6.25 (94% of breed A)
F5 = 96.625 / 3.375 (97% pure A)
F6 = 98.3125 / 1.6875 (98% pure A)
F7 = 99.15625 / 0.84375 (99% pure A)
6. Buff was understood as NOT cream at the time of the experiments
7. The difference between Gold and Silver were also understood at the time of the experiments.
8. There was a clear and marked difference between the Gold, Cream and Silver Leghorn hens that triggered the research in the first place. For hens, Punnett expressed that as degrees of warmness in the tint of the base color, not the shade (light or dark) and intensity of the salmon in the breast
9. Barring in the Legbar hen is not as emphasized as in the cock, ergo the base color is more pronounced
10. Chestnut remained on the coverts/shoulders in Leghorn cocks based on gold, and that is true for either gold or cream.
11. Silver Leghorn cocks do not, and should not per their standard, contain any red/chestnut. Red is expressed in the silver carrier Faverolle, but there is no evidence Punnett ever added them to the mix in his experiments.

Based on the above, and without further facts at this time, my logical conclusions for correct CCL phenotype, that should reflect the correct genotype, are these: a correct CCL hen will have subtle barring on a warm gray base color, soft salmon breast, cream hackles and cream crest. The correct CCL cock will have gray barring on a cream base with some chestnut in the coverts/shoulders (as evidence of non-silver), and no gold in the secondaries, hackles or saddle.

 

[nicalandia]

Quote:
First.. Pheomelanin can be expressed on Silver birds, no need for Salmon Faverolles(which are red enhanced Silver wheaten based)... there are countless stories of people crossing gold with silver birds to improve size or type and actually having to get rid of that line because they could not get rid of the extra brassiness(orange/red shoulders) once you get red enhancers on a silver based bird is very hard to get rid of them... second some Chestnut in the Coverts/shoulders is no evidence of non-silver as per the British SOP WINGS: primaries dark grey, faintly barred, some white permissible; secondaries dark grey more clearly marked; coverts grey barred, tips cream, some chestnut smudges permissible. now lets try to visualize what are the Primaries(which should be dark grey, faintly barred, some "White" Permisible) now Visualize the Coverts: should be grey barred, Tips Cream...... " Some Chestnut Smudges Permissible" permissible means its accepted but "No Chestnut" is also accepted here is the drawing need it for us to do the Visualizing br>

 

[nicalandia]

As a Separate post to the one above(not related to it)


I would imagine that a Cream Creasted Legbar that look near Silver(and still show some chestnut on shoulders) would look very close to below bird(not mine, Green Fire Farm bird) but with more penciling saddle and hackle(yeah I dont like the comb)

a bird with more red enhancers would look more richer but still diluted instead of gold based non-cream birds..

 

[GaryDean26]

Gary – thank you for that information on Applegarth and Coombs. Your time frames are a bit confusing. If Applegarth started with CCL in 1987, then outcrossed in 1988/9 and then had to fix the characteristics (assuming 7 years/generations or 1995/6) then he has not been breeding CCL for 30 years which would be 2025/6, OR do you mean he has been working with a variety of rare breeds for 30 years???

[GD26] I am not actually sure when Applegarth started breeding chickens or what breeds other than the Auto-sexing breeds he worked with, but I saw a comment with respect to the Skylines that stated that he bred rare breeds for 30 years prior to working on the Skylines. I am guessing the 30 years is a rounded number and only repeated it to emphasize his dedication to preserving endangered breeds.

The developer of the Cotswold Legbar got his first Cream Legbars from a lady, that got her stock from Applegarth in 1990 but was was giving up on the breed. I don't know what quality the Cream Legbar were in by the time they went to the public in 1990, but fixing Barring, Cresting, Blue Eggs, and Cream Plumage can defiantly be done in that time. Just look at the progress that has been made in the US in two years and Applegarth started with pure hens.

Part of the problem is that neither the papers nor the experiments were clear linear progression. We also don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

[GD26] The Cream Legbar Club History should put all the pieces of the puzzle in place for you. If covers all the crosses used in the creation of the Cream Legbar in a linear Progression You can find it in the Club Members Handbook (See Figure 3 on page 32) or in the 3rd Quarter News Letter (See Figure 3 on page 30).

And yes, the CCL is a mutt with various lines and from Gary’s additional information, that has been further muddied by Applegarth’s modifications, especially if our birds come out of Applegarth’s CCL. The part that bothers me, if correct, is that Applegarth deemed his CCL pure without peer review. Gary, do you know if he published in peer journals like the JG?

GD26] People that care about their work and an endangered breed that no one but them feels is worth while preserving for future generations do not call it a mutt and certainly done treat it like a mutt. They value the breed and treat it as the priceless specimen that it is. I would hardly call preserving a breed from extinction muddying things. If there are not Cream Legbar Cockerels available to breed to and even an out cross to another variety in the breed was too inbreed to produce a single chicks from the mating, then point finger and criticize if you feel it would have been better to let the breed go extinct, but you won't find be doing that for a work that I have great respect for.

Why does it bother you that Applegarth deemed his stock pure when he had locked all the hallmarks of the breed in place? That is 1000 times better than what 95% of the so called breeders in the UK are doing with the breed now. Just take a look at the Ebay Auctions and breeder's websites in the UK (or the US for that matter) and you will see "Cream Legbars" that don't have double barred cockerels, doesn't have cream plumage, some don't even have the blue egg gene fixed, the single comb fixed, yellow shanks fixed, clean faces, etc. fixed. Applegarth was a reputable breeder. It is quite possible that all the Cream Legbar blood in the UK today goes back to Applegarth's work (the Cream Legbar Club History Committee is still trying to verify this).

Now given that Applegarth’s CCL really aren’t that old (slightly less than 20 years) we may have an alphabet soup of genes still trying to express themselves which would explain the white CCL some are getting. It is even more important to try and understand what we should have, based upon the originators’s i.e. Punnett and Pease, foundation. Basically, I’m trying to figure out a way to understand exactly what I have and what I need to move toward. I wish I were an archeologist who can extrapolate from a jawbone what an entire creature would have looked like but unfortunately I’m not.

[GD26] That is exactly why I have spent so much time researching the breed history. When I started with Marans I was fortunate to make connections with some breeders that had been working with the breed for a long time and one in particular was able to answer every question I have every had about breeding them. With the Cream Legbar I made some connecting in the UK and some in the US, but no one could answer my questions. The more questions I asked the more I was convinced that a lot of the knowledge of breeding the Cream Legbar that the creators of the breed possessed was NOT possessed by those who are currently breeding Cream Legbars. I was limited on the History I was able to find on my own, but when the Cream Legbar Working Group formed a History committee that that was able uncover more information on the breed in 2 months than I would have been able to find on my own in a decade. We are really fortunate to know as much about the origins of the Cream Legbar as we do. Look at other breeds. Many of them have little to no information on what was used to create the breed. For example have you read the history on the origins of the Iowa Blues? Talk about a jawbone.

I also don’t have all the documentary link that proves when/which Legbar was bred to Cream Leghorns to get the CCL, only the independent papers on each project and what is clear to me from those papers is the following.

[GD26] You can look at the reference list for the Club history. Much of this information was in a the Publication of the Autosexing Poultry Association of Great Britain. The Working Group only had selected section for a few of these publications, but I would love to read the full collection.

1, The CCL is based on the Leghorn. Each generation was bred back to Leghorns whether the first cross was Chiliean/Hamburg offspring x Leghorns or Leghorn x barred Plymouth Rock.
2. All the Leghorns used in the crosses were gold based – Buff, Brown and the White cock that produced cream (which wouldn’t be possible without s+ gold)
3. Punnett thought of cream as the base for gold i.e. “gold is an intensifier of cream” therefore he believed all gold birds carried cream; Taylor thought of gold as the base for cream, as cream was an “inhibitor of gold” In either case, GOLD is necessary to express CREAM.
4. The cresting and blue egg came from the mutt Chilean hen of “yellow or yellow brown” (which I have my suspicions was Wheaten based) It is undetermined if this hen carried the cream gene.
5. Breeding consistently back to one purebred increases the percentage of that breed in the offspring i.e. a percentage of purety; therefore, by the 4th generation, the offspring were at 94% for Leghorn.
F4 = 93.75 / 6.25 (94% of breed A)
F5 = 96.625 / 3.375 (97% pure A)
F6 = 98.3125 / 1.6875 (98% pure A)
F7 = 99.15625 / 0.84375 (99% pure A)
6. Buff was understood as NOT cream at the time of the experiments
7. The difference between Gold and Silver were also understood at the time of the experiments.
8. There was a clear and marked difference between the Gold, Cream and Silver Leghorn hens that triggered the research in the first place. For hens, Punnett expressed that as degrees of warmness in the tint of the base color, not the shade (light or dark) and intensity of the salmon in the breast
9. Barring in the Legbar hen is not as emphasized as in the cock, ergo the base color is more pronounced
10. Chestnut remained on the coverts/shoulders in Leghorn cocks based on gold, and that is true for either gold or cream.
11. Silver Leghorn cocks do not, and should not per their standard, contain any red/chestnut. Red is expressed in the silver carrier Faverolle, but there is no evidence Punnett ever added them to the mix in his experiments.

Based on the above, and without further facts at this time, my logical conclusions for correct CCL phenotype, that should reflect the correct genotype, are these: a correct CCL hen will have subtle barring on a warm gray base color, soft salmon breast, cream hackles and cream crest. The correct CCL cock will have gray barring on a cream base with some chestnut in the coverts/shoulders (as evidence of non-silver), and no gold in the secondaries, hackles or saddle.

[GD26] Nice list and conclusion. How does this compare with what you have learned from your own matings of your Cream Legbar Flock?

 

[ChicKat]

As a Separate post to the one above(not related to it)


I would imagine that a Cream Creasted Legbar that look near Silver(and still show some chestnut on shoulders) would look very close to below bird(not mine, Green Fire Farm bird) but with more penciling saddle and hackle(yeah I dont like the comb)

a bird with more red enhancers would look more richer but still diluted instead of gold based non-cream birds..

nicalandia,
Is there any information on that cockerel? -- the earlobes are really nice white and shape...wattles not oversized, cream colored hackles etc. Has a crest..so it may have some CL in -- probably no one could deny that it has cream. Any info? Thanks!

 

[nicalandia]

nicalandia,
Is there any information on that cockerel? -- the earlobes are really nice white and shape...wattles not oversized, cream colored hackles etc. Has a crest..so it may have some CL in -- probably no one could deny that it has cream. Any info? Thanks!

ChicKat as you may have already notice, Phenotype is everything and This boy does infact look like a CCL lacking Barring gene(and maybe Melanizers, but only a few people pay attention to them) and thats why I put him in here,

he is a Sulmtaler a breed from Austria and green Fire Farms have them http://greenfirefarms.com/store/category/chickens/sulmtaler

now his genetic make up is the same as Salmon Faverolle, so if I had to describe his phenotype would be Golden/Cream Duckwing and his genotype is eWh/eWh(wheaten) S/S(Silver) some form of red enhancers(maybe Mahogany, autosomal Red) and the rest appear to be wildtype in nature, co+/co+(not restricted)

so as you can see you can make a Silver based bird look Cream with basic dominant genes like S/S and Ar or Mahogany

 

[ChicKat]

ChicKat as you may have already notice, Phenotype is everything and This boy does infact look like a CCL lacking Barring gene(and maybe Melanizers, but only a few people pay attention to them) and thats why I put him in here,

he is a Sulmtaler a breed from Austria and green Fire Farms have them http://greenfirefarms.com/store/category/chickens/sulmtaler

now his genetic make up is the same as Salmon Faverolle, so if I had to describe his phenotype would be Golden/Cream Duckwing and his genotype is eWh/eWh(wheaten) S/S(Silver) some form of red enhancers(maybe Mahogany, autosomal Red) and the rest appear to be wildtype in nature, co+/co+(not restricted)

so as you can see you can make a Silver based bird look Cream with basic dominant genes like S/S and Ar or Mahogany

Thanks for the run down. What a pretty breed. Here is another example in this thread from Australia that shows some first generation silvers that have similar hackle feathers to the guy you posted.

http://forum.backyardpoultry.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7960029&sid=12dd923e0b9d3cfcbf5ac4fc8c20d4dd

On the first page he has some silver Welbars from the Canberra show I think, and on the second page his split rooster, silver and gold pullets and his gold and silver cockerels. Welbar has some similar background (BPR and gold rooster) to CLs and -- Welbar would also be autosexing. To my eye the CL coloration would fall between the silvers and the golds. :O)

 

[nicalandia]

To my eye the CL coloration would fall between the silvers and the golds.  :O)

thats correct, Golden Duckwing(S/s+) do look like Cream Duckwings, but they are not stable, meaning they dont breed true, but as you can see you can also have a cream duckwing looking bird with Silver and red enhancers(Sulmtaler) and they breed true

 

[Laingcroft]

[GD26]
The developer of the Cotswold Legbar got his first Cream Legbars from a lady, that got her stock from Applegarth in 1990 but was was giving up on the breed. I don't know what quality the Cream Legbar were in by the time they went to the public in 1990, but fixing Barring, Cresting, Blue Eggs, and Cream Plumage can defiantly be done in that time. Just look at the progress that has been made in the US in two years and Applegarth started with pure hens.

Cotswold Legbar? Skylines? What are these and how are they relevant to our (U.S.) Crested Cream Legbars?

Oy…this gives me a headache and is exactly the problem. Too many people took Punnett’s Legbars and went in different directions with them. To clarify – we have Punnett’s original Crested Cream Legbar, accepted by the UK poultry authority (sorry, don't remember the proper club name) in 1958. Let’s call these the Original CCL. Then along comes Applegarth who gets two Original CCL hens from a Cambridge affiliated dude (do I have that right?) Applegarth then breeds the Original CCL hens to a Gold Legbar cock, also from the Cambridge program, which mating produces viable F1 offspring heterozygous for recessive cream. As far as that goes, it fixes (presumably) type and numbers in the F2 generation; however, Applegarth (presumably) messed up the blue egg genetics which seemed to be what he was aiming for given the later sales to commercial blue egg producers. To fix this (presumably) he adds an Auracana hen/cock to the mix. In the end, he may have re-created a blue egg laying CCL, but he didn’t recreate THE Original CCL. Given that this project also occurred only within the past 15 years or so, there are likely a significant number of recessive or mixed genetics (white chicks popping up, non-crested “pure” CCL, etc.) still in there to eliminate. So no, I don't believe we're 100% at a truly pure Applegarth version of the CCL GENOTYPICALLY, even if we have one PHENOTYPICALLY. Though that is suspect too, or we wouldn’t be having all these debates on what is the correct color --- both here and in the U.K.



GD26] People that care about their work and an endangered breed that no one but them feels is worth while preserving for future generations do not call it a mutt and certainly done treat it like a mutt. They value the breed and treat it as the priceless specimen that it is. I would hardly call preserving a breed from extinction muddying things. If there are not Cream Legbar Cockerels available to breed to and even an out cross to another variety in the breed was too inbreed to produce a single chicks from the mating, then point finger and criticize if you feel it would have been better to let the breed go extinct, but you won't find be doing that for a work that I have great respect for.
Why does it bother you that Applegarth deemed his stock pure when he had locked all the hallmarks of the breed in place? That is 1000 times better than what 95% of the so called breeders in the UK are doing with the breed now. Just take a look at the Ebay Auctions and breeder's websites in the UK (or the US for that matter) and you will see "Cream Legbars" that don't have double barred cockerels, doesn't have cream plumage, some don't even have the blue egg gene fixed, the single comb fixed, yellow shanks fixed, clean faces, etc. fixed. Applegarth was a reputable breeder. It is quite possible that all the Cream Legbar blood in the UK today goes back to Applegarth's work (the Cream Legbar Club History Committee is still trying to verify this).

I DO understand about trying to save a rare breed, even recreating one that’s gone off track as kathyinmo is doing with Delawares. However, I see first hand what outcrossing to save a breed can do wrong. I believe you also have Basques, yes? My understanding is that a Canadian gentleman originally imported EOs to help his preservation efforts on a related Spanish breed, the Penedesenca (sp?). In crossing these two breeds the importer introduced a genetic mess, at least when it comes to the Marraduna (Red Barred) Basque, that I’m not certain when or if we will ever be able to correct, i.e. get it back to the Spanish standard. Too many DQ/weird things are present like black breasted males, white or willow legs, differing eye color, highly diluted plumage color, white tail feathers, millefleur mottling, heterozygous barred cocks, spurred hens, double spurred cocks and white sports. I’ve seen them all, either in my flock or those of others. I'm starting with my fifth generation this Spring/Summer.

Yes, I’ve read the CCL Handbook and think it is really good. Still working on trying to get it to print without cutting off the edge. The history is good too, even it if contains one line of supposition (with respect to the cream gene coming from the Hamburg --- unless you have the citation for that) instead of pure facts. As far as it goes, it is a good summary and serves its purpose well. Personally, I like more detail and prefer to read the original sources, which is what I’m trying to do now. A little late to the game, but better late than never.

As for my Legbar flock, I’m starting over this Spring. As GFF indicated in their open letter on the CCL site, they didn’t receive the top stock, but the best they could get from someone willing to sell. That stock may or may not have been genotypically ‘pure’ CCL even if it came from U.K. ‘pure’ CCL flocks. And here’s why I think so. My original trio, acquired from GFF in March 2012, contained two pullets with red bands and one cockerel with a blue band (this is for reference to anyone else who rec'd birds at that time with these bands.) None of them were crested. The cock matured to a very colorful crele. This is where Punnett’s paper on cream plumage was helpful to me. By reading it, I determined this cock was probably a barred red-black, possibly heterozygous for cream. The edging of his secondaries were barred gold instead of cream/white as you can see in this picture.



The hens matured with nice type, good tail set and one has coloration that hits the mark as far as warm gray base with light hackles, though she is darker headed than I’d like. They started laying beautiful blue eggs in late July at only 4 months old but I still wasn't getting crests and that was obviously going to be a deal breaker. Late in 2012 I added two crested pullets from Jordan Farms. They lean more toward gold, have a higher tail set and are darker in hackles and crest than I’d like. Punnett’s Legbar plates, even in black and white, make it clear that just the barring, based on the Brown Leghorn, should make the hens much lighter overall. If you can accept the results of the cream plumage paper as also applicable, the hens should carry light (cream) hackles and crest. Both papers taken together -- light color from barring and light color from cream -- SHOULD make it very clear that light crested/hackled females are on the money for a CCL.

[Picture of Jordan Farms crested pullet taken late spring 2013]




The offspring of the original trio also came out 75% for wry tails. Test breedings with other breeds revealed it was the cock carrying the wry tail deformity, so he definitely had to go. This July I added two new males from GFF. Only one reached maturity and he [Heathcliff] is my current avatar. He is looking very good so far with light plumage in crest, saddle, hackles and some flashes of red in his shoulders and coverts. I can’t wait to see what I get when the hens under Heathcliff finally start producing fertile eggs.

My plan is to set up three breeding clans from this group and weed out as many of the undesirable (non yellow legs, dark crests, dark hackles, too much/dark gold, squirrelly tails, greenish eggs, etc.) genes as possible. At this point I’m not going to add any Reese birds until I see what this group produces. I’m starting to believe that too much mixing of lines gets us further from where we want to be.