The Legbar Thread!

[blackbirds13]

I may have missed something (I have been doing a lot of skimming and skipping).

I didn't think the percentage break down had anything to do with the genotype. I was thinking this was something like the Araucana color cards. A way to describe a the phenotype ( 20 different shades of blue/green eggs even though all of the birds are assumed to be O/O in the genotype and similarly 8 shades of cream even though all the birds are assumed to be ig/ig) .

I assumed that you could say that the color of you flocks was in the 10-25% range to describe the shades of cream you are seeing, or you could say that you flock was in the 33-45% range.

It didn't look like this chart was set up to describe the Ig/ig or Ig/Ig birds since there is a gap from 50%-100% which all the gold birds would probably fall into.

I am still a long way off from talking about shades of Cream, but in 5-10 years when I get to that point I though this type of chart would be intended for that purpose.

I have noticed red enhanced birds (cinnamon in the chick down, red on the throat of the hens, ginger on the crest of hens and cockerels, ginger barring on the saddle feathers of cockerels, etc. ) and birds with out red enhancement. A cream bird with red enhancement may look more like 50% where a cream bird with out red enhancement may look more like 20% and a cream bird with additional dilutors of gold may look like the 0%. All of these are just examples. I really have no test results of observations to be able to determine what genotype makes each of the colors on the chart above. Fortunately I don't have to know the genetic formula. I just need to know how my flock breeds and what their tendencies are in the offspring to get the colors I want.

I have not seen this chart but I understand your point in using it. I guess my concern is that the phenotype coloring that it may be describing may have little to do with the actual cream gene and what it does is lump the different melanizers and diluters into one big pile with the cream. The descriptive nomenclature as a being a % of cream would be incorrect as it's not specifically speaking to the cream gene but more so to autosomal, pheomelanic or eumelanic issues. So rather than a description of cream it seems to be more so the melanizing of the plumage its describing, and those are still an issue with many birds here, mine included. Cream is cream genetically so I find that it just confusing the issue, especially for newer breeder when this idea of a % of cream is used. If the bird is not double cream, regardless of melanizers it is not a Cream Legbar.
Parts of the plumage are more susceptible to enhancement than others but others not so much, for example major portions of the hackle will definitely denote whether the bird is cream or not regardless of enhancers while the areas at the top of the head and bordering the neck and back may show influence.

 

[Junibutt]

I have not seen this chart but I understand your point in using it. I guess my concern is that the phenotype coloring that it may be describing may have little to do with the actual cream gene and what it does is lump the different melanizers and diluters into one big pile with the cream. The descriptive nomenclature as a being a % of cream would be incorrect as it's not specifically speaking to the cream gene but more so to autosomal, pheomelanic or eumelanic issues. So rather than a description of cream it seems to be more so the melanizing of the plumage its describing, and those are still an issue with many birds here, mine included. Cream is cream genetically so I find that it just confusing the issue, especially for newer breeder when this idea of a % of cream is used. If the bird is not double cream, regardless of melanizers it is not a Cream Legbar.
Parts of the plumage are more susceptible to enhancement than others but others not so much, for example major portions of the hackle will definitely denote whether the bird is cream or not regardless of enhancers while the areas at the top of the head and bordering the neck and back may show influence.

@blackbirds13 are you saying that if we consider phenotype only, a double cream gene should look like it has 0% Gold in it or in other words it should be silver? So only true Cream Legbar is a Silver looking Legbar? I am not being critical, just trying to clarify your opinion.

Since you have not seen the chart yet, I would suggest probably take a look at it and tell us what you think. P.S the chart shows %age of Gold as a reference and not %age of Cream. Anything that looks more than 50% gold tone, is considered a Gold Legbar. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[GaryDean26]

@blackbirds13 are you saying that if we consider phenotype only, a double cream gene should look like it has 0% Gold in it or in other words it should be silver? So only true Cream Legbar is a Silver looking Legbar? I am not being critical, just trying to clarify your opinion.

Since you have not seen the chart yet, I would suggest probably take a look at it and tell us what you think. P.S the chart shows %age of Gold as a reference and not %age of Cream. Anything that looks more than 50% gold tone, is considered a Gold Legbar. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

No!!! Cream and Silver are NOT the same thing.

The Cream Dutch Bantams breeders had to demonstrate to the APA that Cream is a distinct color from Silver and Gold when that variety was accepted. The Cream Legbar and any other breed will have to do the same. I would NOT call the 0% gold on this chart a Cream Legbar. It has over shot the mark and has nothing cream about it. I would accept the 10-50% range as unique to a cream variety. The 20-25% is the range that I tend to look for (but this may change once I have cream fixed in my line and can play more with the range of colors).

 

[ChicKat]

. Anything that looks more than 50% gold tone, is considered a Gold Legbar. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Hi Junibutt,
although the term Gold Legbar gets thrown around a lot - it actually IS a breed that doesn't have a crest and lays white eggs. So if a Cream Legbar that has a crest and lays blue eggs had 100% gold plumage, it would still probably be a Cream Legbar more than it would be a gold legbar. (2 out of three). It would also probably be my belief that if someone raised birds with gold crele plumage, and a bird that had 60% gold was presented to them they wouldn't say it was gold. Likewise if someone raised silvers, they would not want any percentage of gold. However, there is a range of these phenotypes that are acted upon by other factors in the individual chickens genetics. Some breeders/geneticists have shown a path to the appearance of cream - going through silver that is red-enhanced. I will be back with an interesting link after I post this.

ETA: Aha -- Here is an article by Grant Brereton. He has a way to make it all add up--really a good read about silver, gold and red!
http://poultrykeeper.com/poultry-breeding/the-other-type-of-gold-red

This chart is a way of talking about the phenotype with out a need to have any knowledge of genetics or genotypes.


The Cream Legbar Breeder in the UK that I feel has done the best job with her flock has spent years trying to learn genetics but it still confuses her more times than not. Still she can put two birds together and tell you what they will produce. There is a lot of power in looking at the phenotype by itself.

That is so interesting! Certainly that is an art. Definitely is a way for us to carry on a conversation over the internet - just like the OAC is a way for people to look at something and each see the same thing...despite computer differences. Especially since we are saying that the color of the Cream Legbar doesn't photograph well...a reference may help us have better conversations.

 

[blackbirds13]

@blackbirds13 are you saying that if we consider phenotype only, a double cream gene should look like it has 0% Gold in it or in other words it should be silver? So only true Cream Legbar is a Silver looking Legbar? I am not being critical, just trying to clarify your opinion.

Since you have not seen the chart yet, I would suggest probably take a look at it and tell us what you think. P.S the chart shows %age of Gold as a reference and not %age of Cream. Anything that looks more than 50% gold tone, is considered a Gold Legbar. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I am saying that the differences in the phenotype are not sometimes due to a lack of cream but that a cream bird and a gold bird are distinguishable for the most part. There will be melanizers that enhance parts of the plumage but the bird is still cream or not. I think to refer to genetic cream/gold/silver coloring just seems incorrect.
I think the language is not semantically accurate.
I'm not a color chart person especially for items on the internet. I do and teach Graphic Design so I'm more comfortable with a printed and consistent chart like Pantone. And those you need to update as they fade and discolor.

Blackbirds13,

There is no mention of cream or genetics on this chart.


The idea is to breed a bird that meets the SOP and breeds true. That requires the Cream Gene (ig/ig), and all the different melanizers to work together. So....yes they are all lumped together.

Further, different strains or bloodlines can achieve the same colors with different melanizers and diluters. So...when you are talking about the phenotype and need to have a way of talking about it without referring to the genotype.

The Cream Legbar Breeder in the UK that I feel has done the best job with her flock has spent years trying to learn genetics but it still confuses her more times than not. Still she can put two birds together and tell you what they will produce. There is a lot of power in looking at the phenotype by itself.

I understand the power of phenotype observations as it has worked well for me thus far

I guess for me the lumping together is what concerns me. ChicKat introduced the chart as speaking to % of gold, cream and silver so that is what I went by - the titles speak to gold and not enhancers or melanizers. Gold is a genetic term when you are speaking to this breed and the birds are gold based with cream and barring diluters so that's why I would have assumed a genetic link. I think if the issue is melanizers then that should be the language. I'm not part of the Club structure other than being a member so I have no say or part to play in this and it's not going to really be a concern to me personally going forward but I am one who thinks the language used is important and this seems to confuse how different they are by lumping them together. There is already so much confusion as to what is cream that I am not convinced this will not make it worse. I see your point I'm just not convinced on how well this works as a solution. Each to their own.

 

[GaryDean26]

I am saying that the differences in the phenotype are not sometimes due to a lack of cream but that a cream bird and a gold bird are distinguishable for the most part. There will be melanizers that enhance parts of the plumage but the bird is still cream or not. I think to refer to genetic cream/gold/silver coloring just seems incorrect.
I think the language is not semantically accurate.
I'm not a color chart person especially for items on the internet. I do and teach Graphic Design so I'm more comfortable with a printed and consistent chart like Pantone. And those you need to update as they fade and discolor.






I understand the power of phenotype observations as it has worked well for me thus far

I guess for me the lumping together is what concerns me. ChicKat introduced the chart as speaking to % of gold, cream and silver so that is what I went by - the titles speak to gold and not enhancers or melanizers. Gold is a genetic term when you are speaking to this breed and the birds are gold based with cream and barring diluters so that's why I would have assumed a genetic link. I think if the issue is melanizers then that should be the language. I'm not part of the Club structure other than being a member so I have no say or part to play in this and it's not going to really be a concern to me personally going forward but I am one who thinks the language used is important and this seems to confuse how different they are by lumping them together. There is already so much confusion as to what is cream that I am not convinced this will not make it worse. I see your point I'm just not convinced on how well this works as a solution. Each to their own.

Blackbird13,

You are scaring us. We had to challenge Nicalandia to talk about color with out using any genetics terms. It took him a few tries, but he was finally able to do it. We are going to have to challenge you to do the same thing.

Gold is NOT a genetics term when you are speaking to the Legbar. It is a color variety (i.e. Phenotype).

If you are speaking genetics, which would apply it every breed, cross, and mutt out there, then yes gold and silver are genetic terms but that is NOT specific to the Legbar breed.

When you are talking about melonizers you are getting into the genetics of the bird. The "why" does it look like it does. The "how" does the color combinations work.

When someone post a photo of there bird you can NOT say with any certainty what its genotype is. All you can do is speculate and make assumption. The golden birds look just line the Cream birds. The Champagne Blonde birds look just line the cream birds do. The same is true for the Melonizers. Does Charcoal look different than Melontonic? Are any of the melonizers in the Cream Legbar even named by geneticists?

Melonizers are NOT in the SOP of the breed. The SOP describes the breed and the APA assumes that the Breeders can read the descriptions and know how to breed what is described. Most of the people on the Board for APA don't have genetic background and would not know what you were talking about if you listed melonizers on a chart. All of them would be able to look at a color chart and tell you if a bird matches the 20% or the 50% or the 100% gold bird though. We are not only educating ourself, other breeders, and the public on what the breed is, but we are also educating the APA. I like the idea of keeping it simple. Mr. Einstein said you don't understand something until you can explain it to your mother. I don't think my mother would understand discussion of melonizers, but I think this color chart is something my mother would understand which is why I like it. I think it is something that can be universally understood. It shows what a Cream Legbar is and what it isn't with out trying to pin down a single color or narrow range that leaves everyone wondering what cream is if their bird is not an exact duplicate of the example they are shown.

 

[blackbirds13]

Quote:
I cannot say I will take the challenge. I do not claim in any way to be genetically minded. Like I said I understand what your stance is but as I said prior I do disagree with the semantics. I disagree that gold in regards to this breed is solely meant as a phenotypic statement as I use it solely to mean the I believe the bird to lack cream. I do not use it if I believe the bird is double cream but melanized. I might use the term red enhanced, autosomal issues ..... dark... etc.... some may be genetic terms but not unusual in the realm of poultry. I understand the terminology of the different Marans hackle colors when different terms are used. I dont' understand the genetics behind it all but I get the idea of what is being said and what I need to be looking for visually. I understand your drive for simplicity but I still believe that the term gold used in this way will muddy the waters. I think there are other words that can be used that would situate the descriptors better and as I said before this is just my opinion and I fully expect that many will not agree and that's fine as I don't think I know enough at this point but this I cannot say I agree with... that's that.

 

[cjwaldon]

You . . . guys . . . are . . . confusing . . . . me . . . .

 

[KPenley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Blackbirds' issue is with the percentage titles regarding gold and nothing to do with the pictures.

I'm also concerned about this, and think it will cause confusion. If the chart is truly for those confused by genetic conversations, and for phenotype only, then there is no reason for "gold" to enter their vocabulary. I'm already confused since the 0-50% birds aren't gold so why would I want to call them gold when comparing them to my Cream birds (I understand that it's just a graphics slide measurement)? Plus any mention of gold could be confusing to judges since we are trying to show them that our birds are a different color. But I do really like the idea of pictures for members/judges/fanciers to compare their birds to for purposes of discussion. Perhaps the percentage gold part could be dropped in conversation and pictures could be referred to as number 10 or 50, etc. That seems less confusing to me, but maybe it's just me. I could be alone and totally out in left field

p.s. Mr. C, with all due respect there are some birds who's pictures could be shared with certain genetic aspects being presented as true due to test breeding results. It's still the number one way judges and old timer fanciers have advised us to figure out what we have.

 

[KPenley]

You . . . guys . . . are . . . confusing . . . . me . . . .