Discussion of Legbar Standard of Perfection for -Alternative- Legbars - SOP discussion

[KPenley]

when ever I loose stuff --and it is usually my tablet too -- it has always been stuff that was brilliant and long and in depth - and I can never recreate it...... and don't get me started on what auto correct does to text messages.... LOL
Yes, and I was using the wrong terminology above to help demonstrate my status as a rookie.... the correct term is incomplete dominant.... not semi dominant -- so I found the above while I am trying to find if there is an incomplete recessive...via google. 

Are you talking about Incomplete Autosomal Dominant Inheritance? Wild type pattern in conjunction with a recessive color gene when paired with a dominant or mutant color can produce offspring with a color somewhere between the two. ie. Cream plus gold can equal pale gold. Tony talked about that some last year in the Eastern District when he saw a cream rooster for the first time, and then noticed the difference in his birds between Ig/Ig, Ig/ig, and ig/ig.

 

[KPenley]

Double post

 

[fowlman01]

To clear up some things from the APA perspective: Ranges in color in the descriptions are not usually permitted and when permitted are very narrow. There is no way to keep everyone happy when the description is finally agreed on. The type of the bird is the most important but this is also a complex color pattern that will need constant attention while working on type. The type should be the British version of the Leghorn not the APA version.....so we have a different looking bird that will need some education of the judges. If the education is not done correctly judges that don't know the breed will assume.... as I initially did, that the type is like the APA Leghorn.

I haven't read your written version of the type. Does it describe it correctly?

The APA does not get into the genetic makeup of the birds. Some of the reasons why are: most people don't know what genes their birds are really carrying and as noted here ...there is usually more than one way to arrive at the color. We just require that they breed 50% true. In this color pattern you will always have a range in color with very few hitting it close to the mark. You may also have to do matings for well marked males and females from different matings. I can see progress.......keep at it!

Walt

 

[KPenley]

To clear up some things from the APA perspective: Ranges in color in the descriptions are not usually permitted and when permitted are very narrow. There is no way to keep everyone happy when the description is finally agreed on. The type of the bird is the most important but this is also a complex color pattern that will need constant attention while working on type. The type should be the British version of the Leghorn not the APA version.....so we have a different looking bird that will need some education of the judges. If the education is not done correctly judges that don't know the breed will assume.... as I initially did, that the type is like the APA Leghorn.

I haven't read your written version of the type. Does it describe it correctly?

The APA does not get into the genetic makeup of the birds. Some of the reasons why are: most people don't  know what genes their birds are really carrying and  as noted here ...there is usually more than one way to arrive at the color. We just require that they breed 50% true. In this color pattern you will always have a range in color with very few hitting it close to the mark. You may also have to do matings for well marked males and females from different matings. I can see progress.......keep at it!

Walt

Yes, the Shape sections are based on the PCGB just like the Color sections. Or were you asking the Crele group about a different standard?

 

[ChicKat]

To clear up some things from the APA perspective: Ranges in color in the descriptions are not usually permitted and when permitted are very narrow. There is no way to keep everyone happy when the description is finally agreed on. The type of the bird is the most important but this is also a complex color pattern that will need constant attention while working on type. The type should be the British version of the Leghorn not the APA version.....so we have a different looking bird that will need some education of the judges. If the education is not done correctly judges that don't know the breed will assume.... as I initially did, that the type is like the APA Leghorn.

I haven't read your written version of the type. Does it describe it correctly?

The APA does not get into the genetic makeup of the birds. Some of the reasons why are: most people don't know what genes their birds are really carrying and as noted here ...there is usually more than one way to arrive at the color. We just require that they breed 50% true. In this color pattern you will always have a range in color with very few hitting it close to the mark. You may also have to do matings for well marked males and females from different matings. I can see progress.......keep at it!

Walt

Thanks Walt! It was kind of you to say very few hitting close to the mark - rather than say 'almost none' ;o)

Quite some time ago Tadkerson - (who I wish was still on BYC as he is another person with a LOT of genetic expertise, and gave us a lot of good genetic information that was on the mark!!) told us it would be wise to write a standard of a bird that is not unattainable - as that would also drive people from the breed, and that may be another reason that people over these last few years have given up on raising CLs.

Sometimes I get an impression that some are thinking if a bird is not 100% the SOP it isn't a CL -- and actually the SOP is something to strive for -- it is the goal and not the starting point threshold --- We may never get there...and even if we had the perfect CL pair-- the offspring of that possibly wouldn't be perfect. IF someone were to have a pullet-breeding line and a cock-breeding line -- and got a champion from each - after the CL gains APA acceptance, then the two champions paired together would definitely produce non-champions if they come from lines that have widely diverged in what the male and female appearance was OR if they used some 'out crossing' to get to their perfect bird.

And again -- we in reality do not know what the complete genetic package of our birds truly is -- I can think of so much complexity -- and if you are someone who read this whole thread... way back there is a quote of when Punnett crossed in a Rhode Island Red and got cream - if memory serves.

 

[KendyF]

Thanks Walt! It was kind of you to say very few hitting close to the mark - rather than say 'almost none' ;o)

Quite some time ago Tadkerson - (who I wish was still on BYC as he is another person with a LOT of genetic expertise, and gave us a lot of good genetic information that was on the mark!!) told us it would be wise to write a standard of a bird that is not unattainable - as that would also drive people from the breed, and that may be another reason that people over these last few years have given up on raising CLs.

Sometimes I get an impression that some are thinking if a bird is not 100% the SOP it isn't a CL -- and actually the SOP is something to strive for -- it is the goal and not the starting point threshold --- We may never get there...and even if we had the perfect CL pair-- the offspring of that possibly wouldn't be perfect. IF someone were to have a pullet-breeding line and a cock-breeding line -- and got a champion from each - after the CL gains APA acceptance, then the two champions paired together would definitely produce non-champions if they come from lines that have widely diverged in what the male and female appearance was OR if they used some 'out crossing' to get to their perfect bird.

And again -- we truly do not know what the complete genetic package of our birds truly is -- I can think of so much complesity -- and if you are someone who read this whole thread... way back there is a quote of when Punnett crossed in a Rhode Island Red and got cream - if memory serves.

In the early days of my flock, I had some SLW and considered breeding them. I read you could not raise an excellent roo and an excellent pullet from the same breeding pen. That was the end of the SLWs for me. Maybe to early to tell for the legbars.

 

[ChicKat]

so for those who think that they can see a Legbar that has only 1 copy of the gene to dilute gold.... You are opening up a door to an avenue that hasn't been traveled - and may have some very interesting implications for the breed.

After seeing the video of the lovely purple haired Dr. giving us the 17 minute genetics lesson -- I can concede that perhaps cream is not completely recessive. If it were - it would behave exactly as the recessive white genes in SOME lines of CL -- where you will only know it is there when you pair two with recessives white - and each parent give the recessive to the offspring.

(BTW if someone had the time -- they could take the entire course on line for free!! and just how cool is that?)

So if cream gene - (gold dilution) -- is not a recessive... that does imply quite a lot that I don't think we have been viewing. I still tend to think of it more in the behavior as the recessive white-- and I think it is more all or nothing - but the strength of the gene's expression is variable.

So I come back to the idea that if a chicken had only one Cream Gene it would appear as a gold legbar -- which suddenly includes a lot of Legbars that don't appear as a gold legber in the gene pool for this breed. I see some non-black and white in the wing triangle as an imperfection equivalent to having the wrong number of points on the comb. It's interesting that a gold will have a definite brown (aka gold) wing triangle, a silver will have a definite white (aka silver) wing triangle -- and no one wants to start a new variety for those CLs (i.e. pure white wing triangle unbarred) -- and no one squawks about it.

JMO :O)

ETA I re-read this - and I guess to be more specific I would have to pair the gold-dilution to the non-gold dilution and be a bit more correct to say recessive to the non-dilution of gold gene... but I think y'all know exactly what I meant.

 

[ChicKat]

In the early days of my flock, I had some SLW and considered breeding them. I read you could not raise an excellent roo and an excellent pullet from the same breeding pen. That was the end of the SLWs for me. Maybe to early to tell for the legbars.

Thanks KendyF

IN actuality - with the breed like ours -- (sexual dimorphism) unless there is a lot of care in how the breed is standardized that may be the case. There are some genetics experts in Europe (Sigrid von Dort for one, and I think Grant Brereton has also mentioned this) -- who will flat out say that this approach MUST be taken to meet the breed standard. I think Sigrid even points out that there is one breed who's standard make it impossible to do otherwise to get an example even close to the standard.

That is one thing that we have wanted to avoid in the CL if possible - but if perfection is the goal - it may be required because the variance between male and female. It is very much a common practice for showing fowl - called double mating - if I have my terms correct.

There is also an article in the Cream Legbar Club clubhouse from around 1919 I think where a person goes to great lengths to chastise -- was it the APA he was haranguing for allowing such a vast difference between the males and females of a breed -- His conclusion was they should then be different varieties - and the females that match the males should be one variety and the males that match the females should be another... Which should/could be another vote for a new variety of CL -- but I think we also have our hands full with one variety.

The importance of the practicality of a CL was one reason we didn't want people to have multiple lines in their back yard to get a correct (not perfect mind you) version of a CL.

If you aren't a member of the Cream Legbar Club - or you are and have trouble find the article in the Clubhouse -- send me a PM and I will see if I can get it to you if you want to read something form just after the turn of the last century -- (approaching 100 years old now)

 

[KPenley]

so for those who think that they can see a Legbar that has only 1 copy of the gene to dilute gold.... You are opening up a door to an avenue that hasn't been traveled - and may have some very interesting implications for the breed. 

After seeing the video of the lovely purple haired Dr.giving us the 17 minute genetics lesson -- I can concede that perhaps cream is not completely recessive.  If it were - it would behave exactly as the recessive white genes in SOME lines of CL -- where you will only know it is there when you pair two with recessives white - and each parent give the recessive to the offspring. 

(BTW if someone had the time -- they could take the entire course on line for free!! and just how cool is that?) 

So if cream gene - (gold dilution) -- is not a recessive... that does imply quite a lot that I don't think we have been viewing.  I still tend to think of it more in the behavior as the recessive white-- and I think it is more all or nothing - but the strength of the gene's expression is variable. 

So I come back to the idea that if a chicken had only one Cream Gene it would appear as a gold legbar -- which suddenly includes a lot of Legbars that don't appear as a gold legber in the gene pool for this breed.  I see some non-black and white in the wing triangle as an imperfection equivalent to having the wrong number of points on the comb.  It's interesting that a gold will have a definite brown (aka gold) wing triangle, a silver will have a definite white (aka silver) wing triangle -- and no one wants to start a new variety for those CLs -- and no one squawks about it. 

JMO  :O)

Does look like a cool course! More thoughts on cream...
Please excuse my repetitiveness, but I think the issue is not that cream is not recessive, it is, but that the gold we're dealing with is a mutant dominant gene. When that mutant dominant gene is used in conjunction with wild type pattern it opens the door for offspring having a mix of the two parents colors (mutant autosomal incomplete dominance). I can not look at one bird and tell it's genetics. But if I study it's parents, siblings, and offspring I can make pretty good guesses. And if my flock breeds true, then I see no reason to question it.

Regarding a standard, I agree with you it is always the ideal. Something to strive for and to pick areas to improve year by year. Almost no bird will ever match it exactly and that's fine. In the show world, 10% of birds will be keepers to grow out, and 10% of those will be good enough to show. That's normal. What is encouraging is that more and more birds are easily recognized when reading the standard every year! There has been so much growth over the past few years! Keep up the great work everybody!

 

[KPenley]

P.S. I do not have two lines for pullets/cockerels and this year's growers look like some will best their parents. Though some breeders may prefer that method, I don't think we have to have two lines for show birds.