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

[ChicKat]

However, is it cheating to get to a "Type" with a different route. Just curious. At first glance it would only be unethical if one was selling something which wouldn't breed correctly. I would just like to hear why it is cheating. (Don't worry I have no ability to make any fake birds. I just thought it is an interesting point.

Definitely an interesting point -- and set aside the question of ethics - and go back to how the bird is constructed.

dretd (I'm not sure if it is here -- I think it is in other CL threads where people were having autosexing questions -- or maybe I am thinking of some photos she was helping the 4H goup with --) has put up demo pictures of how the underlying genetic make up could influence the base (E allele , or sometimes I call it E-locus)

-- If something other than e+/e+ gets in there -- then the genetics have to duke it out to see which one will have the influence on the chick down (and adult plumage) -- To my mind if the construction of Legbar that Punnett did and documented is wild type and barring (I have a plate where he introduces the concept and he shows the resulting chick down wild type and barring:





Some folks in UK -- who maynot have taken this (E-locus) into consideration (and as Walt says we truly don't know the genetics that are there -- so perhaps the ones who outcrossed the bird over there did take it into consideration and this is a fluke? we shall never know -- but usually humans have a hand in it) - MAY have introduced some unusual and recessive -- or difficult to detect genes. Disclaimer -- since people seem to be especially sensitive lately - I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings -- let me know how I can say the same thing that is more neutral than that)


Probably NOT to 'cheat' at a show but perhaps to boost size of egg, frequency of eggs, adult weight -etc. And thought that they had gotten it out - (bred the recessive out) -- or they weren't aware of it being there.... hard to know -- but that is a speculation of a possible scenario.

Some how someway someone has introduced recessive white -- Because it is recessive -- you wouldn't know by looking at the chicken that it is hidden in there. Most recessives to my understanding are all or nothing. So you buy two chicks from a seller (let me pick on GFF -- since all the CLs have GFF as a point of origin) -- they are different lines -- they are beautifl healthy chicks --etc. each carries a recessive white -- but you don't KNOW that -- until you pair them. Ooops a white chick? -- Well easy enough don't breed that one forward. and on our merry way.
BUT -- the babies from that hatch -- (do a quick Punnett Square here -- or go to the chicken calculator and it will generate a Punnet's square for YOU..... and what are the odds-- each parent passes a gene - one recessive white and one normal gene are in each parent. If my math is right 25% (or fewer - I think that people who have recessive white are saying -- so there are other factors at work here -- If you are someone who has recessive white then please chime in about how often you see it)--- and 25% of the chicks got their parents dominant gene (or genes since, as I said recessive white seems to show up in less than 25%) The chicks that got the non-recessive - normal look genes -- have left behind recessive white. BUT -- half the hatch will have a recessive white gene -- There isn't way to my knowledge to look at a chick that carries recessive white -- grows to an adult and possibly passes that recessive to it's off spring -- lurking there until the day it is paired with another recessive. So back to the scenario -- they weren't trying to cheat for a show -- they just thought that an outcross would make a better chicken.

THAT is why most recommend that if you ever DID outcross the breed you would use is brown Leghorn. Why brown Leghorn? 1. it is one of the construction/foundation breeds. 2. it is wild type so the daughters of a CL male X brown leghorn female -- would all get a barring gene - and thus all their offspring would be autosexing. ETA when paired with a CL male. Then the outcrosser would have to get back IN two blue egg genes instead of one-blue and one-white that the above cross (ETA Legbar x Leghorn) would result in -- And the outcrosser would have to get back in two cresting genes that the above pairing would be split for -- and the subsequent generation would then (according to Punnett's square - have the same predictable ratios of crested and non-crested and heterozygous (one cresting gene and one non cresting gene) and heterozygous for blue eggs -- etc. ) So as much work as a person would generate for themselves following this route -- perhaps in some cases the resulting chickens would not be completely returned to Cream Legbar. That is the reason that we are seeing - crestless - since crest is a semi dominant - it would be easier to extract from a flock that white eggs -- (especially white egg-laying roosters)

Oops, I mean a rooster carrying the white egg gene. So then complicate it and go for cream (recessive ) presumably not found in brown Leghorn - but Punnett said he got a silver, gold and cream from a RIR and some other mix -- so either the RIR carried cream or cream isn't as recessive as we thought...Someone suggested Punnett's published paper was in error - or had an error in the paper to be more precise (the reference is back in this thread someplace or other)

To balance back to the complex CL -- cream, crest, blue egg, double barring in males, barring in females -- not to mention the wild type e+ -- if for example some one thought just use a BPR because that is where Punnett got his barring -- then the gold/silver balance is messed up -- and the wild type is messed up ....

Bottom line - maybe just keep Cream Legbar to Cream Legbar to improve the breed -- and select from the ones you have to make that same improvement - be it size, egg frequency, weight or what every would be the outcross source...

All that being said!!!!!! when David Applegarth got the Cream Legbar -- the genetics were so thin that they couldn't reproduce (Maybe a bit like Isbars that are so inbred and the genetics so thin -- if memory serves I think the genetic term is consanguinity -- and there are charts that help figure out the co efficient of that - you can google... or call in inbreeding or line breeding. That's where the recessives pop up BTW.

okay -- well maybe I pontificated long enough - but it was sure fun!

 

[KendyF]

Definitely an interesting point -- and set aside the question of ethics - and go back to how the bird is constructed.

dretd (I'm not sure if it is here -- I think it is in other CL threads where people were having autosexing questions -- or maybe I am thinking of some photos she was helping the 4H goup with --) has put up demo pictures of how the underlying genetic make up could influence the base (E allele , or sometimes I call it E-locus)

-- If something other than e+/e+ gets in there -- then the genetics have to duke it out to see which one will have the influence on the chick down (and adult plumage) -- To my mind if the construction of Legbar that Punnett did and documented is wild type and barring (I have a plate where he introduces the concept and he shows the resulting chick down wild type and barring:





Some folks in UK -- who maynot have taken this (E-locus) into consideration (and as Walt says we truly don't know the genetics that are there -- so perhaps the ones who outcrossed the bird over there did take it into consideration and this is a fluke? we shall never know -- but usually humans have a hand in it) - MAY have introduced some unusual and recessive -- or difficult to detect genes. Disclaimer -- since people seem to be especially sensitive lately - I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings -- let me know how I can say the same thing that is more neutral than that)


Probably NOT to 'cheat' at a show but perhaps to boost size of egg, frequency of eggs, adult weight -etc. And thought that they had gotten it out - (bred the recessive out) -- or they weren't aware of it being there.... hard to know -- but that is a speculation of a possible scenario.

Some how someway someone has introduced recessive white -- Because it is recessive -- you wouldn't know by looking at the chicken that it is hidden in there. Most recessives to my understanding are all or nothing. So you buy two chicks from a seller (let me pick on GFF -- since all the CLs have GFF as a point of origin) -- they are different lines -- they are beautifl healthy chicks --etc. each carries a recessive white -- but you don't KNOW that -- until you pair them. Ooops a white chick? -- Well easy enough don't breed that one forward. and on our merry way.
BUT -- the babies from that hatch -- (do a quick Punnett Square here -- or go to the chicken calculator and it will generate a Punnet's square for YOU..... and what are the odds-- each parent passes a gene - one recessive white and one normal gene are in each parent. If my math is right 25% (or fewer - I think that people who have recessive white are saying -- so there are other factors at work here -- If you are someone who has recessive white then please chime in about how often you see it)--- and 25% of the chicks got their parents dominant gene (or genes since, as I said recessive white seems to show up in less than 25%) The chicks that got the non-recessive - normal look genes -- have left behind recessive white. BUT -- half the hatch will have a recessive white gene -- There isn't way to my knowledge to look at a chick that carries recessive white -- grows to an adult and possibly passes that recessive to it's off spring -- lurking there until the day it is paired with another recessive. So back to the scenario -- they weren't trying to cheat for a show -- they just thought that an outcross would make a better chicken.

THAT is why most recommend that if you ever DID outcross the breed you would use is brown Leghorn. Why brown Leghorn? 1. it is one of the construction/foundation breeds. 2. it is wild type so the daughters of a CL male X brown leghorn female -- would all get a barring gene - and thus all their offspring would be autosexing. Then the outcrosser would have to get back IN two blue egg genes instead of one-blue and one-white that the above cross would result in -- And the outcrosser would have to get back in two cresting genes that the above pairing would be split for -- and the subsequent generation would then (according to Punnett's square - have the same predictable ratios of crested and non-crested and heterozygous (one cresting gene and one non cresting gene) and heterozygous for blue eggs -- etc. So as much work as a person would generate for them selves following this route -- perhaps in some cases the resulting chickens would not be completely returned to Cream Legbar. That is the reason that we are seeing - crestless - since crest is a semi dominant - it would be easier to extract from a flock that white eggs -- (especially white egg-laying roosters)

)ops, I mean a rooster carrying the white egg gene. So then complicate it and go for cream (recessive presumably not found in brown Leghorn - but Punnett said he got a silver, gold and cream from a RIR and some other mix -- so either the RIR carried cream or cream isn't as recessive as we thought...Someone suggested Punnett's published paper was in error - or had an error in the paper to be more precise (the reference is back in this thread someplace or other)

To balance back to the complex CL -- cream, crest, blue egg, double barring in males, barring in females -- not to mention the wild type e+ -- if for example some one thought just use a BPR because that is where Punnett got his barring -- then the gold/silver balance is messed up -- and the wild type is messed up ....

Bottom line - maybe just keep Cream Legbar to Cream Legbar to improve the breed -- and select from the ones you have to make that same improvement - be it size, egg frequency, weight or what every would be the outcross source...

All that being said!!!!!! when David Applegarth got the Cream Legbar -- the genetics were so thin that they couldn't reproduce (Maybe a bit like Isbars that are so inbred and the genetics so thin -- if memory serves I think the genetic term is consanguinity -- and there are charts that help figure out the co efficient of that - you can google... or call in inbreeding or line breeding. That's where the recessives pop up BTW.

okay -- well maybe I pontificated long enough - but it was sure fun!

Okay, I totally get it. So, really the problem is ethical with breeding vs. the show. Which doubtful somebody would breed it once, show it and cull it. So, I get your points... Totally.

 

[fowlman01]

However, is it cheating to get to a "Type" with a different route.  Just curious. At first glance it would only be unethical if one was selling something which wouldn't breed correctly.  I would just like to hear why it is cheating.  (Don't worry I have no ability to make any fake birds.  I just thought it is an interesting point.  

most of the breeds in the APA Standard are composite breeds as are the CL's. Some of the best Delaware chickens now are the result of going back and recreating them using New Hampshires and Plymouth Rocks.

Walt

 

[flyingmonkeypoop]

On one of the FB groups, I was called a cheater and a mongrelizer because I outcrossed to leghorns for comb. When I sell eggs or birds, I am sure to tell the buyer what generation they are on, like the chicks produced this year are 1/16 leghorn and I know in goats when you outcross, 7/8 is considered pure for does to register. Like I have said before- since the legbars are still a young breed and they are a composite, we should be able to outcross to a parent breed that they resemble without being looked down on. It seems that every breed has an outcross potential. We sell sumatras to araucana and cubalaya breeders, phoenix bantams, leghorn bantams, and Dutch bantams have been mixed; cochins and the UK orps are pretty much the same bird with the only difference being skin color and the amount of leg feathers, I can keep going but I'll stop. I am proud to admit that I have outcrossed the legbars and I have no regrets about it. Chicken breeds are all made from mixing breeds, new colors are brought in by an outcross. There is a fine line though because if you are like me and understand the genetics and have a goal then it is fine but if you are mixing birds and trying to sell them as something they don't even resemble, then there is a problem.
In dairy cows, we only have registered cows and have mixed the swiss and holstiens a couple times to try to get better feet on the holstiens and better production in the Swiss but it is all recorded. We do AI on all the ladies so all of the genes can be traced back and such but there have been some semen companies that have told total lies about production records behind their bulls and like you say, it ruins their reputation for good.

I forgot where I was headed with this but I feel better for venting (writing small tidbits of this post as I was washing up at work so I lost my train of thought)

 

[ChicKat]

On one of the FB groups, I was called a cheater and a mongrelizer because I outcrossed to leghorns for comb. When I sell eggs or birds, I am sure to tell the buyer what generation they are on, like the chicks produced this year are 1/16 leghorn and I know in goats when you outcross, 7/8 is considered pure for does to register. Like I have said before- since the legbars are still a young breed and they are a composite, we should be able to outcross to a parent breed that they resemble without being looked down on. It seems that every breed has an outcross potential. We sell sumatras to araucana and cubalaya breeders, phoenix bantams, leghorn bantams, and Dutch bantams have been mixed; cochins and the UK orps are pretty much the same bird with the only difference being skin color and the amount of leg feathers, I can keep going but I'll stop. I am proud to admit that I have outcrossed the legbars and I have no regrets about it. Chicken breeds are all made from mixing breeds, new colors are brought in by an outcross. There is a fine line though because if you are like me and understand the genetics and have a goal then it is fine but if you are mixing birds and trying to sell them as something they don't even resemble, then there is a problem.
In dairy cows, we only have registered cows and have mixed the swiss and holstiens a couple times to try to get better feet on the holstiens and better production in the Swiss but it is all recorded. We do AI on all the ladies so all of the genes can be traced back and such but there have been some semen companies that have told total lies about production records behind their bulls and like you say, it ruins their reputation for good.

I forgot where I was headed with this but I feel better for venting (writing small tidbits of this post as I was washing up at work so I lost my train of thought)

You are one of the people doing a successful out cross. The choices that you made have really been to fulfill a need for the rose comb.

For example, You didn't breed a silver duckwing into the CL ( (don't know that anyone ever did -- so stay calm one and all LOL) -- said that I was going to use a silver duckwing bantam on a project -- but decided NOT to do the project and the CL would have only contributed crest, blue egg, barring and high productivty plus quirky personality -- and it would never have had cream anywhere near the name....) then take that silver duck wing to a show. Whick would have been a cheat...and I don't see you as doing anything like that.

ALSO - just by telling people that it is 1/16 Leghorn. You are giving full disclosure. IF you ever did it -- you would clean up the result before you would call it a CL because you would know enough about genetics. IMO some folks over the past 60 years outcrossed without delving deep enough or cleaning up the results of recessives -- which is one reason why the CL was more all over the map than it is now.

Beefmasters has the 7/8 rule too but I think it works so that offspring of the 7/8 bred to registered can be registered. The breed has EPDs - all based on Years of compilation -- so it can't be faked for things like numbers of calves etc. because the calves would all have to have been registered..etc.

We did an AI program -- pretty different with beef than with dairy - because diary are used to being handled and beef are NOT. Decided that it was cheaper to buy a $10,000.00 bull because he would 'work for food' and not require us to check them every 6 hours for heat. Midnight, 6AM, noon, 6PM. But the AI took the quality of the herd over the subsequent years to an amazing level.

ETA if Applegarth hadn't outcrossed, there probably wouldn't BE a Cream Legbar today. Isbars may be being outcrossed and as a consequence without a Standard ANYTHING GOES -- should the earlobes be red? should the earlobes be white? should the eyes look black ? Should the eyes look yellow? -- Shanks? there is every color of shank in Isbars.... Glad that the CL started with those who realized the importance of an SOP so that the breed is protected -- now we just need to come to a consensus IMO

 

[ChicKat]

I agree that there is a variety of color appearances that can all be labeled Cream. Remembering that Cream is the expression of a gene, we may have to do some work to figure out if some birds actually are Silver instead of Gold, leading to the appearance of Cream. And how would that best be done?

Somehow that sounds confusing.

Personally I like the more gold-colored birds with bright chestnut markings, and yes I know they are not correct for Cream. I just like 'em

My issue with these Legbars is egg color - I was looking for a really nice blue egg, and many lay a more greenish blue egg. Compared to my Arkansas Blues, whose eggs are a lovely clear blue, they really look less blue than green. Fortunately the Standard was written to allow this - although again, my preference is for a BLUE egg.

Hi 1Muttsfan,

was going back through this thread to try to find something that was quoted to see who it was that said it -- and also to try to find what in this discussion some people seem to be taking offense to, and came across your post here -- You are so low-key and pack so much into a compact post -- that I think sometimes a part gets missed. (easily done!)

Every one -- if you quote someone else -- please include who's view -- or maybe the post number at least -- it is less confusing that way. Thanks! ETA post number,
and....

This year I may be eliminating a lot of possible recessives from my flock -- so before the 105-degree days of summer roll in -- I think I want to move the families out that may have possible -domed skull- (just found that out thanks to some folks who got hatching eggs from me) and I don't know if my feather legged pullet (not like the chick posted in the other thread---not feather feet - her feathers just don't stop soon enough.) She is great in everything except that IMO -- I wonder if it is a recessive gene - or if it is a 1-time abberation like that person who showed a photo of a 3-legged chick that they got from the hatchery...certainly THAT is a cross connection in the wiring of the genes and not a recessive for 3-legs) But Ms feather leg has been laying double yolk eggs -- That's why her early pullet eggs are so BIG...and I even sent a double yolker to someone as a hatching egg....

ooops!

so it is going to take a bit of doing to get to the bottom of those.

But since this thread -- I am increasingly wondering if the chicken that I have that has been dubbed cream, then later gold and now I'm wondering if has a spilt on the S-Locus doesn't have silver---
I don't have any silver hens, I'm not sure I WANT a silver hen right now, not sure I would want to hatch a lot of chicks that I don't want by pairing him with a silver hen, and it would be quite a few I think if there was a split and then cream is included...the daughters would be the tell -- . I would have to have a cream color that was like the one I told dretd to send me ;O) to be sure she was cream IMO. I think that there is a test hatch that happened in UK a few years back with a (don't know what is the presently correct way to say this -- 'white-looking' will work for people trying to understand) male and a silver hen, but I think that maybe some of the class-room-in-the-coop's genetics experts found that the approach used for the test would produce results that are conclusive.

and in the end -- what matters is what the particular offspring would look like in a Poultry show, since we honestly - as Walt says - don't know all the genetics in our own flocks of CL

So unbeknownst to me, I may have taken a CL to a poultry show that actually contained a silver gene -- not to try to cheat (I beat me - and I lost to me - because I had the only CLs there)-----but rather out of ignorance. Increasingly -- because of the behavior of the colors during molt,( light white-looking neck hackles replacing saturated 'golden' or gold-looking hackles) -- (it's pictured earlier in this thread some place)--- increasingly I'm wondering.

It wasn't until this year, that I read in Sigrid Van Dort's book about this, and saw an example (her's was from South Africa -- but I bet that the TX sun could give SA a run for its money).-- So it could be surmised by the possibility of sun exposure plus molting that he has some silver.

since as Walt said -- the appearance not the underlying genes are what is judged it doesn't matter. Especially if neck hackles for some others get lighter in the sun, while for my particular pair they get darker...I'm newly suspicious.

 

[KPenley]

However, is it cheating to get to a "Type" with a different route.  Just curious. At first glance it would only be unethical if one was selling something which wouldn't breed correctly.  I would just like to hear why it is cheating.  (Don't worry I have no ability to make any fake birds.  I just thought it is an interesting point.  

No, not in chickens, but you hit the nail on the head. If you need to outsource for genetic diversity, size, type, etc I would cross with a large show version of a brown Leghorn because the genetics will be the closest. It will take you about 5 generations to lock in the cream, cresting, barring, and blue/green egg genes, and other desirable traits again, but technically the birds will be Legbars even during those generations if done correctly.
Pease suggested that for new blood, and a lack of other Legbars around, a breeder could breed their Legbar rooster to Brown Leghorn hens. The male offspring should be discarded ( due to lack of one set of barring genes). The pullets could be bred back to their father, then subsequent generations could be line bred or bred back to other Legbars.

I think in general the "cheating" being discussed was based on breeders lying about their animals for monetary profit, and those disagreeing with it were saying that they could not in good conscience follow in the footsteps of those they were describing. If you are open and honest about your practices, you are not a cheater whatever your practices. At least IMO.

 

[fowlman01]

No, not in chickens, but you hit the nail on the head. If you need to outsource for genetic diversity, size, type, etc I would cross with a large show version of a brown Leghorn because the genetics will be the closest. It will take you about 5 generations to lock in the cream, cresting, barring, and blue/green egg genes, and other desirable traits again, but technically the birds will be Legbars even during those generations if done correctly.
Pease suggested that for new blood, and a lack of other Legbars around, a breeder could breed their Legbar rooster to Brown Leghorn hens. The male offspring should be discarded ( due to lack of one set of barring genes). The pullets could be bred back to their father, then subsequent generations could be line bred or bred back to other Legbars.

I think in general the "cheating" being discussed was based on breeders lying about their animals for monetary profit, and those disagreeing with it were saying that they could not in good conscience follow in the footsteps of those they were describing. If you are open and honest about your practices, you are not a cheater whatever your practices. At least IMO.

That is correct. If you sign an APA voucher swearing that you raise these for 5 years and they produce 50% true and they don't......well that is cheating. if you don't tell people that you are selling them a genetic mess that will not produce the birds the customer expects ......that is cheating. If you have a hybrid that looks like a CL and enter it in a show that is not cheating, but you will rarely do well and would probably only have one or two specimens that would be showable until everything is genetically "fixed".

Walt

 

[dretd]

Quote: I seriously doubt you have silver in your flock--or anyone does for that matter. If you have a male that is split for Silver, he will pass that trait on to 50% of his offspring. Beg, borrow or..buy a hen that is a non-dilute e locus (although eb would work too but they usually have pencilling) like LB Leghorn or Welsummer and breed her to your suspected roo. Hatch a minimum of 12 chicks (you may have to do it in 2 batches) and see if you are getting dilute chicks. If so you may need to do some further experiments with the dilute females to see if the dilution is sexlinked or not to confirm Silver.

The Cream Legbars are so complicated genetically there may be another factor that is causing yours to become more yellow and mine to become more white--it could even be an environmental thing like UV light since I am at 5,000 feet or maybe some unknown chemical reaction or a humidity or the feather structure itself may be slightly different in yours (ok these are a bit out of the box)--but its really probably some hidden gentetics/epistasis where one gene you have and I don't is influencing how ig is being express in each of our birds. Its the most logical explanation. If you have S in your flock that would mean that many, many other people also have it in there's--it would not be an isolated case unless there was a random mutation s ==>> S in your flock.

 

[ChicKat]

Hi -- thanks for the good insights. You may have something there that is related to what I read this morning about when trees - Oaks and nut have Mast. So acorn Mast comes in random times and may produce something like was it 10x more fruit than usual - as a result the wildlife is extra fat and happy.. Thing is they think it may be weather related, or it may not - Because it seems to cover huge areas that have different weather patterns. So it could be something unknown that has a different effect on them.

Your high-altitude - (heard that y'all got a snow up there -was it Monday -- in May?? enough already, you guys deserve it to be spring. I have ripe tomato and cucumber and strawberry and squash -- doesn't quite seem fair) My high humidity -- hmm it could have an effect.

Maybe it was a Mast year here -- and what ever conditions affect the trees affect other things too. (haven't been here long enough to know if last year was normal or 10x normal but there sure are a lot of acorns resulting in a lot of squirrels.

Can you just hear the wine steward "Excellent choice, that was a very good (mast) year"