BBR Cubalaya genetics question

[saladin]

gallo,

I do know from Craig that Mr Finch actually prefered and showed the partridge females (or stippled: depending on where your from as to the word usage) instead of the wheaten.

 

[cashdl]

gallo,

I do know from Craig that Mr Finch actually prefered and showed the partridge females (or stippled: depending on where your from as to the word usage) instead of the wheaten.

But doesn't the SOP call for A wheaten bird based on the description. We have the same issue in the araucana. Unfortunately for many years people didn't read the description and just assumed BBR ment wild type as in the old english games. But its really in the description of the female that the SOP is clear.

I recently showed a dark wheaten female and she was written up for incorrect color because she was too dark and didn't fit the description. The judge was very clear that she needed to be more like the lighter bird per the SOP. So how did Mr. Finch do at the shows if he showed a partridge female which sounds to me like a wild type, because the word partridge is usually used to indicate a bird built on eb or brown and almost always carries pg or pattern gene which gives each feather a laced pattern. Please bear in mind as I am making these statements, I am struggling to understand the BBR pattern that is supposed to be in the araucana per the SOP Brian Reader believes it is the genotype I postulated in the beginning and what I have been basing my breeding program on. I probably have as many pictures of wheaten cubalayas on my computer as I do wheaten araucana so that I am constantly referring back and for as I evaluate my birds.

This is the bird the judge said was dark Her lighter daughter And a still lighter bird of mine


These are all three based on wheaten and to me follow the SOP to some extent depending on shade interpretation. All my birds carry Mahogany. I was told that the first hen may also carry Dark Brown which makes her even darker. Not sure about that.

Lanae

 

[gallorojo]

Lanae,

First, yes, some of the old now deceased Cubalaya breeders bred non wheaten lines. They just didn't show the females!! The males would be fine to show and probably did quite well. The influence of those lines is still felt as I mentioned in the occasional non wheaten female or heterozygous female popping up. A line like that to me is a cockerel or male line, it produces good makes and non standard females. Yes, the female in the standard is absolutely wheaten and the fact that the SOP says BB Red is a confusing point on several breeds. Dark wheaten is right for Cubalayas for sure , I don't know about Araucanas, but the judge may have been wrong, they have made that mistake in the Cubalaya before as well, people think wheaten is only the light straw colored version. When we say partridge we mean wild type, and it's a quite dark version of it just like the wheaten is quite dark. Your darkest bird- Db is dark brown, but it does not darken a bird, it's a black restrictive like Co Columbian, a better name is ginger.

 

[cashdl]

Lanae,
First, yes, some of the old now deceased Cubalaya breeders bred non wheaten lines. They just didn't show the females!!

The males would be fine to show and probably did quite well. The influence of those lines is still felt as I mentioned in the occasional non wheaten female or heterozygous female popping up. A line like that to me is a cockerel or male line, it produces good makes and non standard females. Yes, the female in the standard is absolutely wheaten and the fact that the SOP says BB Red is a confusing point on several breeds. Dark wheaten is right for Cubalayas for sure , I don't know about Araucanas, but the judge may have been wrong, they have made that mistake in the Cubalaya before as well, people think wheaten is only the light straw colored version. When we say partridge we mean wild type, and it's a quite dark version of it just like the wheaten is quite dark. Your darkest bird- Db is dark brown, but it does not darken a bird, it's a black restrictive like Co Columbian, a better name is ginger.

The standard for aruacana is exactly the same as Cubalay in the BBR in fact in the newest SOP it says refer to Cubalaya for color description.

The judge said he used to breed Cubalaya and he would get all variations in the BBR color from medium to very dark wheaten and the only accepted color was as the standard read a medium color like the lightest female I have pictured. I showed him the picture of the Cubalaya in the SOP and he said my bird didn't look like that.

My question then if I am to breed toward the color standard of the Cubalaya, please advise me as to which hen I should be breeding towards color wise. I am thinking the middle hen ( hoping to because I am producing mostly that color). I think the hen on the right is just too pale looking. Any thoughts would greatly help me. Thank You.

Lanae

 

[gallorojo]

If it were me I would go darker, the darkest one looks good to my eye. That to me would match up to the SOP better than the lighter one shown, but, there is a lot of room for debate here as the standard can be interpreted differently.

 

[nicalandia]

If it were me I would go darker, the darkest one looks good to my eye. That to me would match up to the SOP better than the lighter one shown, but, there is a lot of room for debate here as the standard can be interpreted differently.

How dark is too Dark?

BBR cubalayas are basically a wildtype bird with Wheaten at the e locus instead of wildtype(e+) and males have the duckwing phenotype found on wildtype birds based one eb/e+/eWh/ey....

here is the darkest duckwing breed I have seen so far.. its the Dark Brown Leghorn(based on eb)

 

[gallorojo]

That would be much too dark for the males. You do NOT want dark males, only females.



This bird still has too dark of a hackle in my opinion. It should be even lighter than on this guy.

 

[nicalandia]

That would be much too dark for the males. You do NOT want dark males, only females.

How do you darken the Females without doing the same to the Males..?

my genetic eyes see the BBR cubalayas enhanced by Autosomal red only, not Mahogany, the Brown leghorn I posted has Autosomal Red, Mahogany, Dk1 and DK2 as Pheomelanin enhancers, all autosomal genes

 

[gallorojo]

I will try to get some pics this weekend.
As for how you darken the females and not the males, I have no idea!!?? I wish I had a firm answer for that. I was pretty sure I had it figured out finally but after this thread I am not sure. Either the standard as written describes a different genotype for male vs female, or, no one has quite figured out what all truly makes up a Cubalaya. One of these days I will get it all sorted out. Until then, I will breed for type first and sort out the colors as I go.

 

[DaveK]

Well Dave you brought up the obvious problem which is the male hackle color. That always has concerned me as well. In a standard description female, I think the above genotype describes them well. I would tend to think that if you melanize the males, and add mahogany, you would get the solid dark hackle color. That makes sense but I am not convinced its true. So far to me the Reeder description makes the most sense, so for now let's say it's my working theory. Dave, maybe you could also shed some light on the Castagnetti birds. I know the birds Mr Zook keeps are heavily influenced by Castagnetti blood at this point. This year he had some partridge type pullets, very dark even color, not at all wheaten, appear out of his wheaten birds. I assume this is the Castagnetti influence resurfacing. The males from this line currently have the correct bright bright hackle. What did the original Castagnetti males look like in terms of hackle color? The bright color there would seem to indicate no mahogany, unless you need something else to darken the hackle in addition to Mh? The one thing that really does indicate the presence of Mh is the dark red shoulders in the males of the silver and golden wheatens. I think a silver male with red shoulders is carrying autosomal red and or mahogany or both. All my silver or golden birds have had very dark shoulders, but , I know both Saladin and Zook have produced silvers with light shoulders, so it can be done. I guess someone more knowledgeable than myself needs to answer whether mahogany always darkens the hackle. The possibility does exist that the standard description describes two separate genotypes, a different one for each sex. Which is the case in other breeds, hence double mating schemes, cockerel lines, all that good stuff. If the sexes are in fact two separate genotypes, it could explain a lot. If the male / female lines got muddled up over the years it would explains some of the variations in color we see.

When I described some red duckwings as being mud colored a friend who is much more into the actual genetic factors than I am said that that was the mahogany factor. And I am familiar with melanizers in another breed and nothing we should want about our Cubalayas suggests melanizing or that mud color if that really is what mahogany does. Not sure what is being described here as far as the non wheaton Zook pullets. Were they stippled? John's first birds were dark and richly colored which is very different from mud. Stippled hens and males with hackle striping. Often plenty of shafting in the females. Wheaton hens weren't part of that picture. Dark and very rich color was though but they were good or clear colored. No mud. Think the ground color of a spangled OEG bantam. More red tones in the hens than walnut brown. Once he got into the other duckwing colors he had golds of a very rich gold color instead of the usual cream and he did have some silver males with silver shoulders. There doesn't seem any reason a richly colored wheaton/cinnamon hen would not be the logical mate to a very fire bright male. There might have to be some selection to help keep the hens as richly colored as possible. This based on observing the Bayliss birds but I do not think the colors described come from different ends of the spectrum. Saladin; you've done a lot of breeding and strain crossing and I wondered what you are thinking of the SOP description for color as compared to real life birds on the ground. We all know that APA doesn't always get it right though here I feel they have. Still would like to have others chime in.