The Legbar Thread!

[HaplessRunner]

Well, as I had posted earlier, I really think that we get caught up in terminology and words. While we each may read the same words, we each can come away with a different interpretation. While I would really like to know the genetic profile for our cream legbars from an academic point of view, like Steen, I would like it to be focused on specific areas that may need work.

I also indicated earlier that I am not a fan of silvered or grayed CCLs. I like the colors which make them distinctive. While efforts are underway to downplay the red bleed through, I do not want to lose the chestnut, the cream, the cresting, and blue eggs. My preference would be focused on moving them more to a dual purpose bird as opposed to the egg layers they now seem to be. If I understand correctly, that was Punnett's intent, a dual purpose bird.

The males now seem to grow to a good size but the females seem to be very undersized. The females are so undersized that they have no difficulty in flying the coop! I have one female that can regularly fly up to eight feet off the ground. That flying ability is absolutely a function of the undersized hen. This should not be.

 

[blackbirds13]

Niclandia you have really given me some food for thought here. Thanks.

 

[lonnyandrinda]

Well, as I had posted earlier, I really think that we get caught up in terminology and words. While we each may read the same words, we each can come away with a different interpretation. While I would really like to know the genetic profile for our cream legbars from an academic point of view, like Steen, I would like it to be focused on specific areas that may need work.

I also indicated earlier that I am not a fan of silvered or grayed CCLs. I like the colors which make them distinctive. While efforts are underway to downplay the red bleed through, I do not want to lose the chestnut, the cream, the cresting, and blue eggs. My preference would be focused on moving them more to a dual purpose bird as opposed to the egg layers they now seem to be. If I understand correctly, that was Punnett's intent, a dual purpose bird.

The males now seem to grow to a good size but the females seem to be very undersized. The females are so undersized that they have no difficulty in flying the coop! I have one female that can regularly fly up to eight feet off the ground. That flying ability is absolutely a function of the undersized hen. This should not be.

Punnet's idea of "dual purpose" is very different from today's "dual purpose" though. Plus, as a leghorn-based breed they are considered a light fowl, at least as they were intended to be. Not to say we aren't seeing a size problem in that some birds are undersized, just saying don't create a problem that doesn't exist if that makes sense?

 

[FridayYet]

Niclandia you have really given me some food for thought here. Thanks.

Me too. I love genetics discussions and the complexity really makes me think.

Thanks to everyone posting rooster pics. It's great to see the diversity. What a challenge to pick the right wording for the SOP! Keep up the good work, team.

 

[CibolaChooks]

This makes my point. i pulled this from the Cochin thread because i needed help with another issue on the hybrid page.

I have a question for the genetic experts and it's on barred cochin. The barring on my barred cochin looks silver is it actually a silver gene giving that color to their barring. also can anybody give me a complete list of the genes in a barred cochin

This is what I got from the Chicken Calculator.
hen: EE co+co+ db+db+ pg+pg+ ml+ml+ Cha+Cha+ mh+mh+ di+di+ Ig+Ig+ cb+cb+ i+i+ bl+bl+ Lav+Lav+ C+C+ Mo+Mo+ B- S- Choc+-

roo: EE co+co+ db+db+ pg+pg+ ml+ml+ Cha+Cha+ mh+mh+ di+di+ Ig+Ig+ cb+cb+ i+i+ bl+bl+ Lav+Lav+ C+C+ Mo+Mo+ BB SS Choc+Choc+
Definitely no Lav or Choc in Barred. Shouldn't be any Mo either.I hate using the Calculator - I've never been able to get it to work for me.

any time you see + next to a mutation, it means that's the wild type and not taken into consideration for the current bird... so basically the bird listed above is extended black (E) barred (B) and silver (S) the rest of the genes are presumed to be wild type, tho others may be hiding under the E...

any time you have a bird that has no red, only black and white, you can automatically know it carries silver.

So EE B/B and S/S for males and EE B/- and S/- for females.

Now i assume because i don't know genetics that the B/- in the hen and the B/B in the roo as well as the S/- in the hen and the S/S in the roo is the difference that makes a barred Cochin male Grey and the females Black.



Now if you put this in front of me and explained it it would make perfect sense. A list of the genetic makeup and why the breed comes out looking like it does. you can point out the genes that create that look. today we heard about Crele Leghorn, Dark Barred Plymouth Rock Australian exhibition Light Barred Plymouth Rock Silver Penciled Rock/
All the breeds will have a different list of genetic make up and they look different because of their differences in their genes. its these differences that make mating those males to the those females look like they do.

i wouldn't mind learning about all these breeds. but unless you can compile a list of the genes like the barred Cochin above for the CCL ROO and the CCL hen then a list for one of those other breeds genetic makeup its just a wast of time. And their is no proof our CCL should look like them in any way shape of from. If you had a list of the genes for both breeds and could show see look here at these genes it makes the yada yada pattern in yada yada breed look like it does and look there they are the same as the CCL genes in the same location so the CCl should look the same. the evidence just is not there with out such proof its all just a hypothesis . And for people who don't know genetics sure you sound really smart but its all mumbo jumbo and really a run around to confuse people just so you can say their birds are wrong. I really don't mind learning my birds are wrong here and wrong there but id like to know why. i could care less what the other breeds look like because im sure the similarity in the genetic make up is so small in number compared to the differences i don't trust that our CCl American stock should look the same as any other different breed.

 

[FridayYet]

No grey barring on mine.

I love the looks of this one!

 

[TheTropix]

Steen said: "And for people who don't know genetics sure you sound really smart but its all mumbo jumbo and really a run around to confuse people just so you can say their birds are wrong. I really don't mind learning my birds are wrong here and wrong there but id like to know why. i could care less what the other breeds look like because im sure the similarity in the genetic make up is so small in number compared to the differences i don't trust that our CCl American stock should look the same as any other different breed."

100% with ya on that!!

 

[CibolaChooks]

Steen said: "And for people who don't know genetics sure you sound really smart but its all mumbo jumbo and really a run around to confuse people just so you can say their birds are wrong. I really don't mind learning my birds are wrong here and wrong there but id like to know why. i could care less what the other breeds look like because im sure the similarity in the genetic make up is so small in number compared to the differences i don't trust that our CCl American stock should look the same as any other different breed."

100% with ya on that!!

thanks Tropics. hocus pocus here is some knowledge you will never know if im right or wrong but i sound really smart. here confuse yourself thinking about another bird you can never make your ccl look like. its tom foolery . just show a list of both breeds genetics with explanation on whats going on and ill understand and believe it. And if you cant id rather just keep to the facts and CCl unless there is real proof something is off that can be tested or corrected then its a waste of time.

I love the looks of this one!

x2

 

[TheTropix]

Steen: "here confuse yourself thinking about another bird you can never make your ccl look like."

LOL ... and didn't want to. ;D

 

[HaplessRunner]

Punnet's idea of "dual purpose" is very different from today's "dual purpose" though. Plus, as a leghorn-based breed they are considered a light fowl, at least as they were intended to be. Not to say we aren't seeing a size problem in that some birds are undersized, just saying don't create a problem that doesn't exist if that makes sense?

I do not believe that this is the creation of a problem. I think it is an issue that has not been addressed. If you take the draft SOP from the club site you have:

STANDARD WEIGHTS
Cock…………………………7 lbs. Hens…………………………6 lbs.
Cockerel…………………..6 lbs. Pullet…………………………4 lbs.
​

​

The assumption is that a female is considered a pullet until it is one year old. My two pullets are 8-9 months old and have started laying. But there is absolutely no way that either of these girls are approaching 4 pounds. Granted there is still some time for them to get to one year. But my cockerels who are two weeks younger than these pullets are already in the 6-7 pound range. They look gigantic next to these two pullets.

Dual purpose back in the early to mid twentieth century for chickens meant that they were good for meat production and, oh by the way, really laid a lot of eggs. The dual purpose was essentially meant for meat production in that time period which means that they should have some size and market advantages to be commercially viable. The latter part of the twentieth century is when things really turned around for the classic and developed breeds which nearly resulted in mass extinctions of everything not white leghorn and cornish cross.

So my point remains, I think that there is a size issue with the hens of the crested cream legbar that are currently in the USA, assuming, of course, that my two pullets are representative samples of this population.