Cream Legbars

[ChicKat]

Hi ChicKat,

That is wild. I hope it is a pullet so you can confirm a blue egg gene.
Hope to hear what anyone else has to say about this, especially in the Classroom. Regardless of the factors, it seems like another breeder should have had a more or less spontaneous solid black chick show up, as any breeding pair could have both contributed a double dose of eumelanin. I wonder if the line breeding stirred up something else?

Indeed you are right, - I do remember a CL on this forum that was posted that looked nearly black -- and my remark was that I had never seen a darker CL. There are oceans of genes that affect plumage -- and the more we know -- the more we may realize how much we don't know.

The reason that I posted the above, is that anyone can recreate the 'wild farbig' - by putting normal CL genes in the chicken calculator -- and on the line for Ml/ml+ they can see the likelihood (i.e. Punnett square percentage) of obtaining Ml/Ml - Yes, perhaps my flock had/has some recessives that are not in any other flock -- LOL -- but this exercise in the chicken calculator led me to wild farbig - which is NOT pictured by an image -- which lead me to classroom in the coop. -- Of course my theory could be wrong. -- and it could be correct or partially correct~

The facts are that the chick is 'black' - that I know the pedigree - it could very easily be that people didn't breed the darker CLs in their flocks -- which is what it would take to not get two copies of Ml -- again - it also depends upon one's understanding of the incomplete dominance and the degree of expression for that gene even when two copies are not present. - As you may be aware -- I had long been an advocate that 'cream' is not quite the narrow definition that some subscribe to.

Why would I be the first to discover this? How many have line bred and gone to the 7/8 level? How many may have thought that the chicks tumbled together in the incubator because as FAF says that happens. That's why I usually stock only one hen's worth in the incubator -- because once hatched, that do mix themselves up. In this case -- because only this one egg hatched I do know the exact egg from which the chick came. What fascinating fun.

Could this chick have other than blue egg gene -- I don't think so -- unless Ml - influences egg color -- then maybe a black egg.... (that was a joke).

OH --- FAF -- another variety of CL... holy cow. That is what the breed needs....

Your observations are really astute. I'm thinking that like BPR this 'variety' flavor of CL could be auotsexable - easily - if males retained the white headspot. One also knows that chick down color doesn't really indicate adult plumage...at least not 100% from what we know.. This chick could grow out to be somewhat different. Also possible is that this chick is a 'sport' -- but normal genetic explanations seem more plausable to me than a spontanious genetic mutation here in my incubator. Just based on the odds. .

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

I love my cream leggie girls! They are just the sweetest things! When it's feed time in the morning, one of them always flies up onto my shoulder! But the most amazing thing about them is their productivity! None of them have ever had a day off, I can always find three beautiful blue/green eggs in the nestbox, they lay better than my white leghorn!

If I could only have one breed of chicken, it would, hands down, be the cream legbar

Aren't they so awesome! I love mine. I couldn't ever choose just one breed - I would have to have both Cream Legbars and Naked Necks. I suppose if I were forced to choose only one, I'd have to create a Naked Neck CL!

Quote:
I am finding this to be SUPER interesting.

With regard to your comment above - with the negative aspect/perception of melanization in the more mainstream CL coloring right now, and the focus on super light birds (I agree with @duluthralphie , and don't prefer the super light/almost white birds - I like the more darker grey ones), I am presuming that many folks who want SOP CLs are not choosing to breed from dark birds. I recall when I posted photos of Paula here earlier for input that it was noted that the dark edging on her breast feathers was a negative feature, as was her overall darkness. So there probably aren't many folks making the breeding choices that would ever lead to a dark chick like this. Which may be fine for the standard SOP light coloring, of course, if that is the goal - if one doesn't want a feature, one selects against it.

Oh, I'm getting all sorts of SCANDALOUS ideas now....

- Ant Farm

 

[ChicKat]

Aren't they so awesome! I love mine. I couldn't ever choose just one breed - I would have to have both Cream Legbars and Naked Necks. I suppose if I were forced to choose only one, I'd have to create a Naked Neck CL!

I am finding this to be SUPER interesting.

With regard to your comment above - with the negative aspect/perception of melanization in the more mainstream CL coloring right now, and the focus on super light birds (I agree with @duluthralphie , and don't prefer the super light/almost white birds - I like the more darker grey ones), I am presuming that many folks who want SOP CLs are not choosing to breed from dark birds. I recall when I posted photos of Paula here earlier for input that it was noted that the dark edging on her breast feathers was a negative feature, as was her overall darkness. So there probably aren't many folks making the breeding choices that would ever lead to a dark chick like this. Which may be fine for the standard SOP light coloring, of course, if that is the goal - if one doesn't want a feature, one selects against it.

Oh, I'm getting all sorts of SCANDALOUS ideas now....

- Ant Farm

It was probably me that made the observation about Paula's dark breast feathering. LOL

-- Glad that you are strong enough to march to the beat of your own distant drummer. ;o)

Yeah, pretty scandolus to have a NN CL........ (I kind of think that NNs are funny -- but aren't 'show girls' NNs? so it shows you that they can be glamorous too.)

I've heard that with the lavender gene -- years of lavender requires an introduction of going back to the pre-lav stage to preserve the beauty of the color. It could be that way with the Ml gene that it has various expressions of strength working with some of the other genes...... there's a lot we don't know.

 

[dretd]

Due to line/breeding in breeding I had something happen that I think is just remarkable... I have my original CL hen from 2012 -- and in my mind she set the standard for the breed (pertaining to my needs and expectations - very blue eggs, plenty of them -- and the correct CL appearance for me -- with the exception that she may have too strong 'black accents' in her plumage'.

I bred her to one of her sons from the very first CL hatch I did. Then from a son of that hatch (theoretically her 3/4 her gentics) I bred her to her then grandson. Of the eggs I set for that hatch, ...(theoretically 7/8 her genetics) -- I got only 1 chick!!!!

But I was so amazed at the result -- I thought I was going to be cloning Robin -- but instead I got a black CL chick -- and I have no doubt that it is from a blue CL egg -- and not one of my Isbars, and I know the exact pedigree if you will.

So I went to the chicken calculator and found out how that could be possible. Now you know chickens feathers are white -- and the pigments added are either red or black -- There are some recessive blacks - but one gene easily available on Henk's chicken calculator gave me --> 'Wild farbig' - no picture available. " Thought that wild farbig just sounded so exotic I did some more research and used google translate to go from the german to english. -- There is some interesting stuff on wild farbig in 'the classroom in the coop' I may put my chick pict there for some questions to the world-class experts that hang out there.... Henk, Sigrid, Warslaw, KazJaps and sometimes Grant Brereton is on that forum -- but here is my amazing chick:


obviously I'm talking about the foreground chick -- the background is an OEGB that I got at the local feed store -- so she wouldn't have to be an only child -- and she is about 2-3 weeks younger than the batch of chicks ahead of her.

Dark beak, dark legs and dark down.... I keep thinking it is a she -- but that presupposes that a cream legbar wild farbig male would still have a head spot -- (based on the barring of BPRs)-

farbig BTW translates to 'partridge' -- and the Europen 'partridge' is our 'duckwing' if memory serves. (sorry just flew back to TX today -- and the journey started at about 2AM this morning so I'm really tired.

From what I have been researching -- Eumelanin - the black pigment - that I call melanin for short is Incomplete dominant... That means that unless there are two copies, it isn't fully expressed, however, one copy will influence the coloration. Although Punnett never spoke of how the melanin gene should appear in the CL lineup -- the presence of the gene in one copy could explain (IMO) the dark versus light crest on the female, the females that have the black edging on the salmon breasts etc.

The chick got it from Robin -- who must be (these gene symbols are from memory from reading before I left town for the funeral so correct me if my letters are scrambled oh you gene experts...) -- Ml/ml+ She passed Ml to her son and the father passed ml+ - so that was F1 generation -- In F2 either she or the son passed the Ml and the other parent passed the ml+

So since there were no two copies -- it behaved in an incomplete dominant way -- easiest said perhaps as influencing the plumage -- for example the darker of the two cockerels above probably is Ml/ml+ according to my theory -- and the lighter one is ml+/ml+

Now She is an F3 and got Ml/Ml from both parents....and so being dominant is makes here appear black.

anyway that is my working hypothesis -- If I wanted blacks I could raise her and breeder her back to dad -- and get the results according to punnets square.


Hi Chickat. Could you tell us when this little one was hatched? I will look forward to seeing her as she grows out!

It appears that Ml is an (incompletely) dominant trait and you shouldn't see that much amplification of the trait with two copies, certainly not enough for it to be hidden with one copy anyway. If you go to http://www.edelras.nl/chickengenetics/mutations1.html they talk about the different genes especially with regard to down color. Here is an excerpt from the talk on Ml (I am bolding the parts I think are most relevant):
"First described by Moore and Smyth (1971), after extracting it from a random breeding recessive white population previously described by Jeffrey (1947). Ml is incompletely dominant autosomal mutation that extends eumelanin into the normally red areas of pyle-zoned fowl, while having little effect on the chick down colour. Heterozygotes on wild-type (e+) or brown (eb) backgrounds are distinctly darker, particularly in the hackle and head; however, Ml/ml+ has little effect on eWh/eWh females. Homozygotes approach self blackness, but the salmon pigment of the wildtype and wheaten females remain evident.

• • Ml found in the Quail pattern (Campo and Oronzco, 1986)
• • The Melanotic gene by itself does not make a wild-type bird black."

If this information is accurate, then Ml would explain the darker girl previously posted but it would not explain your girl. There must be something else afoot.

Brassy Backs are a variety of eumelanin enhanced wild type birds. The adults look black-enhanced but there is little change to the down color pattern. This would probably be the closest bird to compare apples to apples as far as wild type with eumelanin enhancement there is.

I have what I believe to be some Ml in my own flock. The down pattern is still very much wild type, although there is some black tint to the dorsal strip in the females--of the 3 females in front, the melanized on is in the front left. You can see the dorsal stripe nearly appears black on her but I would describe it as more of a sable (as in antelope) color .
The males I would describe as being more of a charcoal instead of slatey grey--here is one at about 6 o'clock. Not a solid black at all--the parts that are normally grey are very, very dark and the other parts--tummy, face etc are more of a normal male chick down color.


Definitely time for all the Sherlocks out there to put their Thinking Deerstalkers on and come up with some other ideas!

 

[Fire Ant Farm]

Soooooo interesting!

 

[sol2go]

Hi Chickat. Could you tell us when this little one was hatched? I will look forward to seeing her as she grows out!

It appears that Ml is an (incompletely) dominant trait and you shouldn't see that much amplification of the trait with two copies, certainly not enough for it to be hidden with one copy anyway. If you go to http://www.edelras.nl/chickengenetics/mutations1.html they talk about the different genes especially with regard to down color. Here is an excerpt from the talk on Ml (I am bolding the parts I think are most relevant):
"First described by Moore and Smyth (1971), after extracting it from a random breeding recessive white population previously described by Jeffrey (1947). Ml is incompletely dominant autosomal mutation that extends eumelanin into the normally red areas of pyle-zoned fowl, while having little effect on the chick down colour. Heterozygotes on wild-type (e+) or brown (eb) backgrounds are distinctly darker, particularly in the hackle and head; however, Ml/ml+ has little effect on eWh/eWh females. Homozygotes approach self blackness, but the salmon pigment of the wildtype and wheaten females remain evident.

• • Ml found in the Quail pattern (Campo and Oronzco, 1986)
• • The Melanotic gene by itself does not make a wild-type bird black."

If this information is accurate, then Ml would explain the darker girl previously posted but it would not explain your girl. There must be something else afoot.

Brassy Backs are a variety of eumelanin enhanced wild type birds. The adults look black-enhanced but there is little change to the down color pattern. This would probably be the closest bird to compare apples to apples as far as wild type with eumelanin enhancement there is.

I have what I believe to be some Ml in my own flock. The down pattern is still very much wild type, although there is some black tint to the dorsal strip in the females--of the 3 females in front, the melanized on is in the front left. You can see the dorsal stripe nearly appears black on her but I would describe it as more of a sable (as in antelope) color .
The males I would describe as being more of a charcoal instead of slatey grey--here is one at about 6 o'clock. Not a solid black at all--the parts that are normally grey are very, very dark and the other parts--tummy, face etc are more of a normal male chick down color.


Definitely time for all the Sherlocks out there to put their Thinking Deerstalkers on and come up with some other ideas!

I have a very recent hatch from a double cream breeding group that exhibits more melanin than my normal hatches, much as you've described, but not to the degree your photos exhibit.
Neither parent is remotely melanized, so I was surprised to see this in the offspring. However the male does have very fine barring. I'm hoping at this point that the extra color (which is not red) will sort its way out into nice barring on both the males and females.

 

[dretd]

In my flock, I do think that the ones that exhibit more melanin from unknown melanizer(s) do seem to be showing better/crisper/more distinct barring. The female I am thinking of (I will try to get a picture of her) is very dappled/more grey than usual taupe with a much darker hackle. She'd be great if it wasn't for that hackle. The males seem to be overall darker and have a darker/more distinct breast barring for sure. The ones that are this very dark charcoal/sable I think are a bit too dark, and the females especially because there is hardly any contrast between the hackles and the body. I still am hanging on that one dark female because although she lacks the contrast I want to see I think she has pretty good type and I am trying to build my flock to be the best type I can achieve.

It makes sense, though, because barring expresses itself better on black rather than red so if a bird carries more melanizers you would theoretically expect more distinct barring. In theory.

This breed is so very interesting. Its like you have a set of dice that you roll every time you breed where one die is barring intensity from 1-6, one is chestnut intensity from 1-6, one is the color cream's intensity from 1-6 etc. When you roll the dice, you may get all ones and they are almost white or you roll the dice and get all 6's and they are overly dark/richly colored and the ideal bird is all 3's and 4's. But you may have a bird who is 1 on chestnut and 6 on melanin and they balance each other out--but the offspring will inherit that 1 and 6 so if you pair them with another seemingly well-balanced bird (but this one is a 6 for barring and 1 on melanin) you all the sudden get some unexpected results with doubled intensities or lack of intensities. If any of that gambling reference makes any sense at all

 

[rottlady]

These 4 hens are what appeals to me personally in the breed. Not much visible comb, big bouffant crest, compact body, perky tail

But they are all different colors. My 3 week olds will be dark I suspect because the bottom two hens are their mothers

How do these hens fit in the standard? I have no plans to show, but this hen type is what I personally want along with rounder blue eggs (not green eggs or blue green eggs) is this even possible? (The bottom 2 hens lay blue eggs only)

Thanks


C line GFF


unknown to me lines

next two birds are from my chick's breeder and are B & C line GFF lines mixed





my chicks

 

[ChicKat]

Hi Chickat. Could you tell us when this little one was hatched? I will look forward to seeing her as she grows out!

It appears that Ml is an (incompletely) dominant trait and you shouldn't see that much amplification of the trait with two copies, certainly not enough for it to be hidden with one copy anyway. If you go to http://www.edelras.nl/chickengenetics/mutations1.html they talk about the different genes especially with regard to down color. Here is an excerpt from the talk on Ml (I am bolding the parts I think are most relevant):
"First described by Moore and Smyth (1971), after extracting it from a random breeding recessive white population previously described by Jeffrey (1947). Ml is incompletely dominant autosomal mutation that extends eumelanin into the normally red areas of pyle-zoned fowl, while having little effect on the chick down colour. Heterozygotes on wild-type (e+) or brown (eb) backgrounds are distinctly darker, particularly in the hackle and head; however, Ml/ml+ has little effect on eWh/eWh females. Homozygotes approach self blackness, but the salmon pigment of the wildtype and wheaten females remain evident.

• • Ml found in the Quail pattern (Campo and Oronzco, 1986)
• • The Melanotic gene by itself does not make a wild-type bird black."

If this information is accurate, then Ml would explain the darker girl previously posted but it would not explain your girl. There must be something else afoot.

Brassy Backs are a variety of eumelanin enhanced wild type birds. The adults look black-enhanced but there is little change to the down color pattern. This would probably be the closest bird to compare apples to apples as far as wild type with eumelanin enhancement there is.

I have what I believe to be some Ml in my own flock. The down pattern is still very much wild type, although there is some black tint to the dorsal strip in the females--of the 3 females in front, the melanized on is in the front left. You can see the dorsal stripe nearly appears black on her but I would describe it as more of a sable (as in antelope) color .
The males I would describe as being more of a charcoal instead of slatey grey--here is one at about 6 o'clock. Not a solid black at all--the parts that are normally grey are very, very dark and the other parts--tummy, face etc are more of a normal male chick down color.


Definitely time for all the Sherlocks out there to put their Thinking Deerstalkers on and come up with some other ideas!

Hi Dr ETD - nice to see you on the BYC forum.

• Hatched April 10th.
• Epistasis is a phenomenon that consists of the effect of one gene being dependent on the presence of one or more 'modifier genes' (genetic background). Similarly, epistatic mutations have different effects in combination than individually. Could be going on with some other recessives in CL that we don't know about -- I think I did point to that in my original post, not sure that they even know all the recessives for black...
• I'll quote your quote and raise you 5
  
  • It appears that Ml is an (incompletely) dominant trait and you shouldn't see that much amplification of the trait with two copies, certainly not enough for it to be hidden with one copy anyway. If you go to http://www.edelras.nl/chickengenetics/mutations1.html they talk about the different genes especially with regard to down color. Here is an excerpt from the talk on Ml (I am bolding the parts I think are most relevant):
    "First described by Moore and Smyth (1971), after extracting it from a random breeding recessive white population previously described by Jeffrey (1947). Ml is incompletely dominant autosomal mutation that extends eumelanin into the normally red areas of pyle-zoned fowl, while having little effect on the chick down colour. Heterozygotes on wild-type (e+) or brown (eb) backgrounds are distinctly darker, particularly in the hackle and head; however, Ml/ml+ has little effect on eWh/eWh females. Homozygotes approach self blackness, but the salmon pigment of the wildtype and wheaten females remain evident. *
  • • Ml found in the Quail pattern (Campo and Oronzco, 1986)
  • • The Melanotic gene by itself does not make a wild-type bird black." <---- as we often interpret things differently -- the gene by itself -- meaning less than one copy?

This chick is a homozygote and does express what almost looks like self-black. With really careful examination - I can see vestigal chipmunk stripes -- and I suspect adult plumage will display a salmon breast.. There could be epistatic action -- and I will go to Classroom in the coop and post her for the gurus there.... as time will permit.

Soooooo interesting!

Isn't it though FAF -- like a jigsaw puzzle.

I have a very recent hatch from a double cream breeding group that exhibits more melanin than my normal hatches, much as you've described, but not to the degree your photos exhibit.
Neither parent is remotely melanized, so I was surprised to see this in the offspring. However the male does have very fine barring. I'm hoping at this point that the extra color (which is not red) will sort its way out into nice barring on both the males and females.

Perhaps it's the old 'there's something in the water'.

 

[ChicKat]

These 4 hens are what appeals to me personally in the breed. Not much visible comb, big bouffant crest, compact body, perky tail

But they are all different colors. My 3 week olds will be dark I suspect because the bottom two hens are their mothers

How do these hens fit in the standard? I have no plans to show, but this hen type is what I personally want along with rounder blue eggs (not green eggs or blue green eggs) is this even possible? (The bottom 2 hens lay blue eggs only)

Thanks


C line GFF


unknown to me lines

next two birds are from my chick's breeder and are B & C line GFF lines mixed





my chicks

Hi rottLady --

Love your chick picts - and they do look like they have some dark pigments -- as do the parent birds. I like the upright type of CL as well in the hens and I'm very impressed by the tail barring in the last hen you picture.

for mine I like the short clipped looking crest -- more like a mushroom haircut (translated to a chicken of course) than a bouffant. JMO -- but too much crest makes the chicken look ditzy


with the exception of the last version -- I suppose you could say that Moe of the three stooges had a mushroom and that's pretty ditzy.