Standardbred Leghorn Thread

HaikuHeritageFarm

Crowing
10 Years
Jul 7, 2010
1,611
669
291
Memphis, TN
@ Chickat
I know you mentioned you liked Silver hens.

View attachment 2494658

View attachment 2494660

I wouldn't be scared of working with these. I like their nice wide stance. Width is so important and even if they are small as I expect they may be, it looks like they have some substance to them for their frame size.

The browns would be much more difficult to whip into shape I believe. They are light browns, but I suspect they have a lot of the same faults I saw in my own hatchery browns—heavy shafting, bricking, narrow and pinched through the body, extremely small throughout. Good browns are fairly easy to come by, I would personally not consider setting myself back by using hatchery browns in any projects.

I have never seen Dark Browns at a hatchery.
 

HaikuHeritageFarm

Crowing
10 Years
Jul 7, 2010
1,611
669
291
Memphis, TN
Some interesting background on Buff in Leghorns. I had no idea that buff was actually introduced to so many breeds by the Leghorn in America! There are other ways to achieve the color, but it seems like it mostly was introduced from Cochins which developed the color through possibly decades of selecting stock originating from black and red.

"Buff Leghorns: A Specialty of Forty Years" by Dan Honour, 2011
 

JacinLarkwell

Free Ranging
Mar 19, 2020
8,382
14,378
531
South-Eastern Montana
Some interesting background on Buff in Leghorns. I had no idea that buff was actually introduced to so many breeds by the Leghorn in America! There are other ways to achieve the color, but it seems like it mostly was introduced from Cochins which developed the color through possibly decades of selecting stock originating from black and red.

"Buff Leghorns: A Specialty of Forty Years" by Dan Honour, 2011
I'm planning on bringing the buff color into leghorn using buff minocoras and red leghorns. Excited to see how this turns our next spring
 

HaikuHeritageFarm

Crowing
10 Years
Jul 7, 2010
1,611
669
291
Memphis, TN
Also, I came across an interesting post on Facebook by Bjorn Maxwell Netland who I respect a lot in the breed and shares a lot of great photos of more unusual varieties from overseas.

He's posted a few photos of Exchequers that he calls specifically "properly marked" that look like this:

109231042_150981259899756_8586761130516624330_o.jpg


and this:

90916976_10222262523455768_1896735846577471488_o.jpg


Which are both credited to Niels van Eck, Netherlands.

In his post in the APA official group he included the caption:
"Exchequer Leghorns that show a nice exchequer pattern as opposed to those that look like poorly marked Anconas with too much black."

This sparked some debate as someone brought up the ABA definition of the color:
Plumage: Black and white evenly distributed.
White in the surface color in the form of a large white blob as distinct from V-shaped ticking.
Tail feathers and primary and secondary wing feathers, mainly white but half and half should be given preference.
Undercolor- Dull black and sooty white evenly distributed.

To which Bjorn replies:

I know the ABA description and do not care for it one bit; it was “dumped” into the ABA standard when many breeds/varieties in the British Standard were simply accepted without much ado.
The LF Exchequers that we (and I) had in the US were of British origin and totally the British type — so different that they should have been classified as a different breed (like “UK Leghorns”); however, they were phenomenal layers, even into their 3rd year.
I tried crossing them with APA whites but lost the pattern in the sense that they had less black but “dirty” white, even after 3 generations of selecting ...
One (dirty white) cockerel was mated to some California Pearl (?) production Leghorns to get birds for my layer flock. The offspring were all over the map, but actually a wee bit more like APA Leghorns — and I got 3 blue cockerels, which is how I got my start with the Blues

And in response to someone nothing the differences between standards from different countries:

I certainly realize that because I have several standards in book format from various countries and also read others on line in the languages I master. In Europe there is now a move to unify the standards of the various breeds where they are at variance, and as for breeds with European origin, the country of origin is supposed to set the parameters. Therefore, the Polish breed (British: Poland) will not be determined by the Polish association but by the Dutch, and the Hamburgs by the British and perhaps Dutch in cooperation etc.
Some breeds have already been done over but many more have to be done.
Standard interpretation is another issue, for even here in the US we tend to see regional differences, especially in regions where clubs rarely select judges from outside and recirculate the same over and over again.

I bring this up because I think a few of us noted the mostly white birds with sporadic black feathers in the old Leghorn illustrations and I for one didn't even recognize them as Exchequers because I thought EXCHEQUERS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A MOSTLY BLACK BIRD! And all this time I just thought it was a fancy term for mottled black.

I've asked now if the Exchequer variety was dropped by the APA or never accepted at all. I'm not sure of which, but either way it's not currently a recognized variety in either large fowl or bantam through the APA, though apparently, the ABA does list them.

I don't know if I actually like the appearance of this or not. What do you all think?
 

RoostersAreAwesome

Crossing the Road
May 21, 2017
8,012
23,794
882
Also, I came across an interesting post on Facebook by Bjorn Maxwell Netland who I respect a lot in the breed and shares a lot of great photos of more unusual varieties from overseas.

He's posted a few photos of Exchequers that he calls specifically "properly marked" that look like this:

View attachment 2503566

and this:

View attachment 2503568

Which are both credited to Niels van Eck, Netherlands.

In his post in the APA official group he included the caption:


This sparked some debate as someone brought up the ABA definition of the color:


To which Bjorn replies:



And in response to someone nothing the differences between standards from different countries:



I bring this up because I think a few of us noted the mostly white birds with sporadic black feathers in the old Leghorn illustrations and I for one didn't even recognize them as Exchequers because I thought EXCHEQUERS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A MOSTLY BLACK BIRD! And all this time I just thought it was a fancy term for mottled black.

I've asked now if the Exchequer variety was dropped by the APA or never accepted at all. I'm not sure of which, but either way it's not currently a recognized variety in either large fowl or bantam through the APA, though apparently, the ABA does list them.

I don't know if I actually like the appearance of this or not. What do you all think?
It’s unique to leghorns. I’ve read that exchequer is actually a different form of the mottling gene, though I’m not sure if that’s true. If that’s so, the gene should be preserved.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Top Bottom