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

[ChicKat]

Ok, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I have been reading all these recent posts with great interest. I am still trying to understand all of this and how I should be moving forward with my birds. In referencing the cream debate, right now I guess I can see both "sides" and I think both have great points.

My take on it is that Chickat believes there is room for more genetic variation. Dretd states the bird isn't really cream unless it is double for cream genetically and the tell is the wing triangle. Walt states that it doesn't really matter what the genotype is as long as the birds looks like the written standard. But a lot of the birds look the same or similar. And if they look the same (except for the black and white wing triangle which isn't a DQ is it?) then why can't they both be worthy of breeding forward?

If you can get the same type and the same look...does it matter if they are double for cream? I am really trying to wrap my head around this.

Since type and look are what are judged, in theory that is all that matters in the minutes that the judge is examining the bird from what I can tell, BUT to get the type and look - you would go via the route of the correct genetics. That is probably one reason why the APA requires 5-years of breeding true to get a breed accepted.

AS dretd has said -- someone said -- "heck I can make a cream Legbar I will just use a silver duckwing leghorn as an outcross... presto CL!" (back in the days when everyone thought that cream was silver [i.e. preceeding the pale butter annoucement]) And that was not the way anyone who owns the breed and cares about them thought was correct - although if Cream WAS silver -- it wouldn't be detectable at that moment of judging.

So why, if someone had a breed that was breeding true, would they outcross to silver? Even if silver was correct (which in general we know it is incorrect on the genetic level- since cream dilutes gold). Besides being a cheat, it would be unneeded.

I believe that we should have the perfect genetics underlying the chicken - so thanks for bringing up the point that something I wrote was misleading. What I don't believe is that we can know with absolute certainty what our birds may be comprised of. Punnett did some testing with split for silver birds, and got some very interesting results - written I think in his cream paper. Some offspring were cream some were silver some were gold -- then add in that it is sexlinked. What if my male is S/s+, ig/ig, has autosomal red, etc. (and he may) -- and I pair him with a hen that is s+, ig/ig. There are a number of variables there -- and since cream is considered a different color over time and by different folks - I think some silver hens with autosomal red so their body feathers were more taupe than pure gray could be mistaken for cream. I haven't seen anyone post a detailed test for these qualites - with pictures etc. - and the number of off spring to the number of generations that would be required. It may be a project that would require the expertise of a university level project and beyond a backyard breeder. I think someone in UK did a test because numerous people said that their males looked too silver. so she paired it with a silver welsumer -- (remember the photos a bit earlier of the silver Welbar pair?) Her conclusion was that all the offspring were as they would be with a gold male and a silver female - though no photos of the parent birds or chicks have been produced to my knowledge -- and her test never included the possibility that her male was split - so of the genes he could indeed give a daughter a gold gene... I guess it was a test not on the level or with the documentation that we see in Punnett's papers....

Now while I think that there shouldn't be genetic variation from what we DO understand -- and while we should acknowledge that there are a number of genes that could be in the mix that we haven't discussed, such as the dilute gene, di, the champagne gene, all the autosomal reds, the Mahogany and on plus the black pigments of melanizers and how those all would work on each other as they duke it out inside the chick to be the one(s) that get expressed.... I think that there is a variation of the expression of the genes..and I don't see any advantage of excluding a lot of Cream Legbars based on imperfections which are based on supposition in some cases. And don't think that I have, as I have said before, genetic expertise -- I'm just trying to dig a bit deeper. Infact, there was some genetic work about another gene that could inhibit gold - other than of course ig.... So I have to say -- not only do I not know, I don't think any of us truly know all the controls of the expression of the colors in the plumage. That isn't to say we cannot get close -- but it really isn't a scientific fact that I think would stand up to scrutiny by a really qualified geneticist. And if I'm wrong -- hopefully someone will come forward with conclusive information - and I can stand corrected. So no genetic variation -- but possible variation in the expression, and as Walt has told us -- that needs to be a NARROW variation. Since I consider the ig gene pretty much a normally function recessive -- I think that if a chicken had only 1 cream gene it would look gold -- just like a chicken with only 1 white recessives looks normal. (but perhaps I'm mistaken -- perhaps there is some external tell for a white recessive...I have never had any) - and since I am targeting my interpretation of the standard -- I hope to not introduce that gene into my flock.

 

[KPenley]

Ok, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I have been reading all these recent posts with great interest. I am still trying to understand all of this and how I should be moving forward with my birds. In referencing the cream debate, right now I guess I can see both "sides" and I think both have great points. 

My take on it is that Chickat believes there is room for more genetic variation. Dretd states the bird isn't really cream unless it is double for cream genetically and the tell is the wing triangle. Walt states that it doesn't really matter what the genotype is as long as the birds looks like the written standard. But a lot of the birds look the same or similar. And if they look the same (except for the black and white wing triangle which isn't a DQ is it?) then why can't they both be worthy of breeding forward? 

If you can get the same type and the same look...does it matter if they are double for cream? I am really trying to wrap my head around this.  

Great question. No, ultimately as long as the bird looks like the description of the standard it can be shown as that bird. We don't have pedigrees like horses, dogs, etc. There was actually a trick played on judges a few years ago when a bird of mixed parentage was shown as something else, and it won. But the judges were not amused, and the competitors learned that phenotype is what matters in standards.

Currently the standard calls for no chestnut in the flight feathers or saddle of a cream Legbar rooster. This does not mean that a bird with excess red or who is genetically gold or split for cream can't be shown. These are not DQs. But it should not place as high as a bird who is closer to the standard, if the type of both birds is equal. Type counts for a lot more than color. Another important thing to note is that Walt mentioned that a great deviance in color will not help us get the first variety accepted. They don't have to be exactly the same, but similar enough to look like the same breed and variety. As you asked before, ultimately it comes down to phenotype.

 

[ChicKat]

Buffy

So back to what direction you should take for your flock -- It would be nice if someone could say this is what cream IS - and everyone would agree. I think possibly because of events in the past year, the perception, or interpretation if you will of what it is may have changed somewhat.

Once again -- you will need to work with the chickens you have available to the ideal that is your vision of Cream Legbar.... you could think that the ones that are ultra-light are the ones that you want, or you could cull every one that has any third color in the secondary feathers..... And I would kind of see that on the same level of culling all the ones that lack 6 points on the comb. for me, the comb is actually more important... I really want to work on the heads.....and I think that the head in the UK standard is 10 points and the legs 10 points -- and again -- the color only 20 points -- so I think that a Cream Legbar could be imperfect in coloration - and that would be determined by the secondaries on the wing...but I also think that if a bird showed no color at all (was pure white with some barring -- and lacked any pale butter anywhere -- it would be one that deserved to be phased out of a breeding program. :O)

 

[ChicKat]

Great question. No, ultimately as long as the bird looks like the description of the standard it can be shown as that bird. We don't have pedigrees like horses, dogs, etc. There was actually a trick played on judges a few years ago when a bird of mixed parentage was shown as something else, and it won. But the judges were not amused, and the competitors learned that phenotype is what matters in standards.

Currently the standard calls for no chestnut in the flight feathers or saddle of a cream Legbar rooster. This does not mean that a bird with excess red or who is genetically gold or split for cream can't be shown. These are not DQs. But it should not place as high as a bird who is closer to the standard, if the type of both birds is equal. Type counts for a lot more than color. Another important thing to note is that Walt mentioned that a great deviance in color will not help us get the first variety accepted. They don't have to be exactly the same, but similar enough to look like the same breed and variety. As you asked before, ultimately it comes down to phenotype.

KP - I think this is the enlightened outlook that will help the breed go forward - and most likely what will happen

 

[dretd]

Ok, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I have been reading all these recent posts with great interest. I am still trying to understand all of this and how I should be moving forward with my birds. In referencing the cream debate, right now I guess I can see both "sides" and I think both have great points.

My take on it is that Chickat believes there is room for more genetic variation. Dretd states the bird isn't really cream unless it is double for cream genetically and the tell is the wing triangle. Walt states that it doesn't really matter what the genotype is as long as the birds looks like the written standard. But a lot of the birds look the same or similar. And if they look the same (except for the black and white wing triangle which isn't a DQ is it?) then why can't they both be worthy of breeding forward?

If you can get the same type and the same look...does it matter if they are double for cream? I am really trying to wrap my head around this.

Hi BBS....for me as a breeder, it is important eventually to have my birds be ig/ig although I have plenty who are split for Cream and many of those are phenotypcially cream--even for people who prefer a lighter shade of cream. The reason for my eventual movement towards a flock of ig/ig is that the breed is very complicated genetically and I eventually (once I get my barn built in 2-5 years) will want some stability in my color. In my flock:
-I have Ig/ig and ig/ig
-I have melanizers (unknown how many or what they are but I know I have at least 2 in my flock)
-I have chestnut/red--which I like and want to keep
-I have barring variations with some birds like the hen pictured above who have clear barring and others who are very darkly or muddled in their barring
-I have (probably) the inherent saturation of base gold color
-I may have another dilutor such as Di in my flock that I will try to identify (and eliminate if it is present) this summer with test pairings

Of all of these variables the easiest to select for is a double dilute cream (ig/ig). It will eliminate one of many variables and make it easier to work with a very challenging bird. I need this stability to make my eventual strain easier to work with. I don't really care about the SOP not allowing for gold in the wing triangle--that's not a big deal at all if a bird has it or not. Somebody wants to show that--fine by me! Its just that I need to trust if I pair that male with a hen that I wont get some really saturated gold and have to worry how each chick is going to look. I know that 50% off-standard is ok according to the APA, but my goal would be more like 90% meets standard--why would I want to make life any harder on myself than it already is? My goal is a pale buttery color that may have some chestnut and I want that to breed true from generation to generation (within reason) and after seeing some very unexpected results in test pairings I think the only way I am going to be able to achieve that is to have a strain that is genetically Cream as well as phenotypically cream.

I used to think the cream wasn't an issue until I saw these results--there is book learning and genetic theory and then there is the school of hard knocks--I am from a scientific background so I trust my books/the experts, but want to conduct my own experimental breeding to verify what is really going on. Its the only way to form your own opinion. I am also aware that what I have in my flock is not what someone else has in theirs and they may be able to breed a cream-looking flock that is Ig/ig and that's great, but I think everyone who is serious about breeding should do some experimental pairings of your own to figure out what you have. I know that I will not be able to get stability with the building blocks I have without eventually eliminating Ig.

Do I care if someone else has Ig/ig birds? Only insofar as the color is not too gold-tinted and it hurts the chances of getting the Cream into the APA SOP. What I see is that many of the non-dulute birds are a) very beautiful and more attractive to most people who just want a pretty bird and b) to get them to match the SOP you naturally will have to breed out many of the features that makes them so beautiful. Why would we be compelled to do that if we could put them into their own group and turn up the volume on the very traits that are causing controversy and that people like to see? Initially you will have some issues with where to put the split cream birds (as I said I have several who are split but look very cream) but eventually things will settle down and the birds will start looking more like they belong in one group or another.

What I would ask those who like the more richly colored birds is to stop referring to the lighter colored version as silver. I frequently see a post about how a bird looks silver and that really causes confusion--so you mean to accuse me as a breeder of having Silver genetics in my flock or are you just saying that the bird is too light-colored for your concept of cream and are describing it that way. We have tried to get people to minimize the use of the word gold--'he looks gold' and are replacing that with gold-tinted or perhaps looks split for cream (although gold is genetically correct for a non-dilute legbar) and it would be nice to figure out a way to comment on a bird who you feel is too light without calling it silver (which is a genetically incorrect way of referring to the color).

Honestly, I will be incentivized to keep the split cream chickens around if there is a crele standard available to work on as well as the cream.

 

[dretd]

Quote:
Sorry--no can do! I like this hen a lot. Her hackles have lightened up over time so she look more like my 'regular' cram Legbars, though. I kept her becasue I liked her barring so much--very wide border of color around the even barring. Alas she is undersized. If I could take the best feature of each bird and combine it with the other bird's best parts it would sure make life a lot easier, wouldn't it?

I would be happy to send you down some eggies from her later this summer, if you like I was thinking of pairing my Cream Roo who is overly melanized (you know, the one who looks a lot like the Show Winner from GB?) with her for a fall hatch--just saying!

 

[BuffyBugSlayer]

Thanks so much to all that have replied! Each time I feel like I am starting to understand all of this I realize I still have a long way to go.

I need to read all of this again but I appreciate all of the clarification.

I am sorry Chickat if I misinterpreted your stance. I understand what you are saying now.

 

[fowlman01]

Hi BBS....for me as a breeder, it is important eventually to have my birds be ig/ig although I have plenty who are split for Cream and many of those are phenotypcially cream--even for people who prefer a lighter shade of cream. The reason for my eventual movement towards a flock of ig/ig is that the breed is very complicated genetically and I eventually (once I get my barn built in 2-5 years) will want some stability in my color. In my flock:
-I have Ig/ig and ig/ig
-I have melanizers (unknown how many or what they are but I know I have at least 2 in my flock)
-I have chestnut/red--which I like and want to keep
-I have barring variations with some birds like the hen pictured above who have clear barring and others who are very darkly or muddled in their barring
-I have (probably) the inherent saturation of base gold color
-I may have another dilutor such as Di in my flock that I will try to identify (and eliminate if it is present) this summer with test pairings

Of all of these variables the easiest to select for is a double dilute cream (ig/ig). It will eliminate one of many variables and make it easier to work with a very challenging bird. I need this stability to make my eventual strain easier to work with. I don't really care about the SOP not allowing for gold in the wing triangle--that's not a big deal at all if a bird has it or not. Somebody wants to show that--fine by me! Its just that I need to trust if I pair that male with a hen that I wont get some really saturated gold and have to worry how each chick is going to look. I know that 50% off-standard is ok according to the APA, but my goal would be more like 90% meets standard--why would I want to make life any harder on myself than it already is? My goal is a pale buttery color that may have some chestnut and I want that to breed true from generation to generation (within reason) and after seeing some very unexpected results in test pairings I think the only way I am going to be able to achieve that is to have a strain that is genetically Cream as well as phenotypically cream.

I used to think the cream wasn't an issue until I saw these results--there is book learning and genetic theory and then there is the school of hard knocks--I am from a scientific background so I trust my books/the experts, but want to conduct my own experimental breeding to verify what is really going on. Its the only way to form your own opinion. I am also aware that what I have in my flock is not what someone else has in theirs and they may be able to breed a cream-looking flock that is Ig/ig and that's great, but I think everyone who is serious about breeding should do some experimental pairings of your own to figure out what you have. I know that I will not be able to get stability with the building blocks I have without eventually eliminating Ig.

Do I care if someone else has Ig/ig birds? Only insofar as the color is not too gold-tinted and it hurts the chances of getting the Cream into the APA SOP. What I see is that many of the non-dulute birds are a) very beautiful and more attractive to most people who just want a pretty bird and b) to get them to match the SOP you naturally will have to breed out many of the features that makes them so beautiful. Why would we be compelled to do that if we could put them into their own group and turn up the volume on the very traits that are causing controversy and that people like to see? Initially you will have some issues with where to put the split cream birds (as I said I have several who are split but look very cream) but eventually things will settle down and the birds will start looking more like they belong in one group or another.

What I would ask those who like the more richly colored birds is to stop referring to the lighter colored version as silver. I frequently see a post about how a bird looks silver and that really causes confusion--so you mean to accuse me as a breeder of having Silver genetics in my flock or are you just saying that the bird is too light-colored for your concept of cream and are describing it that way. We have tried to get people to minimize the use of the word gold--'he looks gold' and are replacing that with gold-tinted or perhaps looks split for cream (although gold is genetically correct for a non-dilute legbar) and it would be nice to figure out a way to comment on a bird who you feel is too light without calling it silver (which is a genetically incorrect way of referring to the color).

Honestly, I will be incentivized to keep the split cream chickens around if there is a crele standard available to work on as well as the cream.

Do you ever wonder why geneticists don't agree on everything?...and why they can't make good birds? I have only seen one geneticist talk the talk and walk the walk....most of it is talk. That would be Fred Jeffrey. He published several books.

Walt

 

[ChicKat]

Thanks so much to all that have replied! Each time I feel like I am starting to understand all of this I realize I still have a long way to go.

I need to read all of this again but I appreciate all of the clarification.

I am sorry Chickat if I misinterpreted your stance. I understand what you are saying now.

Oh -- no need to be sorry at all -- more likely it is the way I stated it than your misinterpretation.......

 

[ChicKat]

Sorry--no can do! I like this hen a lot. Her hackles have lightened up over time so she look more like my 'regular' cram Legbars, though. I kept her becasue I liked her barring so much--very wide border of color around the even barring. Alas she is undersized. If I could take the best feature of each bird and combine it with the other bird's best parts it would sure make life a lot easier, wouldn't it?

I would be happy to send you down some eggies from her later this summer, if you like I was thinking of pairing my Cream Roo who is overly melanized (you know, the one who looks a lot like the Show Winner from GB?) with her for a fall hatch--just saying!

What a deal!!

I think your UK-winner look-alike, and this pullet will make a great pair.