Ameraucana thread for posting pictures and discussing our birds

[ashandvine]

Don't entirely agree because although Splash Ameraucanas are not in the SOP nor will they ever be - they can and do regularly produce true Blue Ameraucanas which are in the SOP. And I know folks working with serious project colours like lavender that are perilously close to inclusion in the SOP might also find this a bit "strong".

I have project birds here. I love my splash girls and roo. I wasn't clear enough apparently. Those splash and lavs are being included to SOP and they are Ameraucanas. They aren't called EE just because they aren't SOP recognized yet. THAT is my point. EE=not pure bred. The only strong point I am trying to make is this: Ameraucana is a BREED. There are colors etc that are/not recognized but the bird is still an Ameraucana and not an EE. EE should only apply to a cross between an Am and something else. When breeding for new colors like these folks, or lacing or whatever, their first generation crosses are EE. The results that breed true because of a LOT of work and selective breeding are Ams waiting to be recognized by judges. I'm trying to point out that EE is a loose and fast term that isn't being used well or accurately. When learning about genetics and standards and types bla bla bla, you learn all of a sudden why so many people are confused by the EE term. Its being used WAY too liberally and not correctly as far as I am concerned. But... its only my opinion I will never refer to anything that is an Am with poor 'traits' as an EE again. If it is poorly bred, its poorly bred. If its not SOP its not SOP. If its a cross then its EE. 'Culls' mean not SOP. It does not mean 'not breed.' And these standards are all just opinions or values that are cannonized along the way.
Anyone got golden eggs yet?

 

[fowlman01]

I have project birds here. I love my splash girls and roo. I wasn't clear enough apparently. Those splash and lavs are being included to SOP and they are Ameraucanas. They aren't called EE just because they aren't SOP recognized yet. THAT is my point. EE=not pure bred. The only strong point I am trying to make is this: Ameraucana is a BREED. There are colors etc that are/not recognized but the bird is still an Ameraucana and not an EE. EE should only apply to a cross between an Am and something else. When breeding for new colors like these folks, or lacing or whatever, their first generation crosses are EE. The results that breed true because of a LOT of work and selective breeding are Ams waiting to be recognized by judges. I'm trying to point out that EE is a loose and fast term that isn't being used well or accurately. When learning about genetics and standards and types bla bla bla, you learn all of a sudden why so many people are confused by the EE term. Its being used WAY too liberally and not correctly as far as I am concerned. But... its only my opinion I will never refer to anything that is an Am with poor 'traits' as an EE again. If it is poorly bred, its poorly bred. If its not SOP its not SOP. If its a cross then its EE. 'Culls' mean not SOP. It does not mean 'not breed.' And these standards are all just opinions or values that are cannonized along the way.
Anyone got golden eggs yet?

I have wondered about the the way EE has been used here for some time. There is no other breed I can think of that has a term like that for non standard birds. They are usually called cross bred, hybrids, projects or mutts in other breed threads. If it is poorly bred and is 100% AM it will still be DQ'd for type at an APA show. ...and it could be a recognized color.......just thought I would throw that in

I believe you are correct when you say AM to AM is a pure bred AM, but may not have an accepted APA color.

It does not seem as if the splash and lavender AM's are very close to being accepted by the APA. So far the APA only recognizes a couple breeds in splash and none in lavender.

Interesting post though.

Walt

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:
I define "EE" as anything that lays a coloured egg - including the culls my Ameraucanas produce that end up in my layer pen. I think "Easter Egger" is the perfect way to describe any bird that lays a coloured egg that doesn't meet the SOP whether it be an Araucana or Ameraucana cross or just a bird that came out "odd" and doesn't meet the SOP description. My point is, "Easter Egger" is meant to be used liberally.

 

[heatherscooby77]

Don't entirely agree because although Splash Ameraucanas are not in the SOP nor will they ever be - they can and do regularly produce true Blue Ameraucanas which are in the SOP. And I know folks working with serious project colours like lavender that are perilously close to inclusion in the SOP might also find this a bit "strong".

Why do you think Splash will never be in the SOP?

 

[heatherscooby77]

I have project birds here. I love my splash girls and roo. I wasn't clear enough apparently. Those splash and lavs are being included to SOP and they are Ameraucanas. They aren't called EE just because they aren't SOP recognized yet. THAT is my point. EE=not pure bred. The only strong point I am trying to make is this: Ameraucana is a BREED. There are colors etc that are/not recognized but the bird is still an Ameraucana and not an EE. EE should only apply to a cross between an Am and something else. When breeding for new colors like these folks, or lacing or whatever, their first generation crosses are EE. The results that breed true because of a LOT of work and selective breeding are Ams waiting to be recognized by judges. I'm trying to point out that EE is a loose and fast term that isn't being used well or accurately. When learning about genetics and standards and types bla bla bla, you learn all of a sudden why so many people are confused by the EE term. Its being used WAY too liberally and not correctly as far as I am concerned. But... its only my opinion I will never refer to anything that is an Am with poor 'traits' as an EE again. If it is poorly bred, its poorly bred. If its not SOP its not SOP. If its a cross then its EE. 'Culls' mean not SOP. It does not mean 'not breed.' And these standards are all just opinions or values that are cannonized along the way.
Anyone got golden eggs yet?

I understand everything you are saying. I think the hatcheries need to change there breed listing. Because this is an issue that seems to be based on opinion and word usage style it will never be resolved. The only thing you can do is educate newbies when you can. As for yourself you will have learned from trail and error. I know that's how it was for me. We also have to remember that Ameraucana is a new breed. I also think the breed is a fad right now??? maybe??? So you have people with no honor, hatcheries included that are misrepresenting there "product" to sell, sell, sell.

As far as terminology for shortening sentences, I am all for it. I got reamed out for typing roo in another forum, for rooster. I was told that I makes my chickens sound cheap and not as nice as ones called cock..........................Well needless to say...........for goodness sakes I am typing on the computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some people are very picky about wording, others are not....................??????????????????

 

[fowlman01]

Why do you think Splash will never be in the SOP?

There is no reason why splash could not be in the SOP. It is a recognized APA color. So far I think only the Splash Modern Game. (accepted at Indy last year) and the splash Silkie are the only splashes recognized so far. I could be missing another breed but don't think so.

Walt

 

[ashandvine]

Where this gets tricky, is that you don't have hatcheries selling barred rocks with solid white heads and pale legs and long tails, calling them "barred rocks" just because the majority of the body is barred and they have the right body type and comb. That would be ridiculous. But that is what is happening with the ameraucana.

So is there someway that the ABC can either file a lawsuit, or do something, to stop hatcheries from selling EE's under the name "ameraucana" and then that would allow the breed some breathing distance from the mutts, and then the EE/Ameraucana dividing line would be much clearer. It would also allow breeders to sell their Ameraucanas under "pet quality" vs show quality and for their to be more definition.

I think that, until the hatcheries stop selling birds that are no where NEAR the SOP of ameraucanas under the name ameraucana, then we can discuss all day why or why not some birds should be called ameraucanas but we won't get very far.

YES YES YES. I am glad to be understood well and for you to have put it in a much clearer way. Great examples. The hatcheries don't help and the fad mentioned might not either. I am so glad that as 'just a newbie' I am not alone or without enough information to suggest that our language is what is causing the problem as much as the hatcheries bastardizing of the term 'AmerIcauna.'

Fowlman01
Thank you for your information as well. I think Splash and Lavenders are beautiful-- have a few. I am all for new breeding and new types while preserving the old, I just don't think that the loose and wild term of Easter Egger should be used the way it is, especially in here. I haven't seen it in the Ameraucana Breeders Forum.

I define "EE" as anything that lays a coloured egg - including the culls my Ameraucanas produce that end up in my layer pen. I think "Easter Egger" is the perfect way to describe any bird that lays a coloured egg that doesn't meet the SOP whether it be an Araucana or Ameraucana cross or just a bird that came out "odd" and doesn't meet the SOP description. My point is, "Easter Egger" is meant to be used liberally.

Unortunately, there are other breeds the produce colored eggs- blue and green, without being crossed, so that makes my point all the more annoying. The colored egg trait is dominant. ANY mix could be an EE. Any mix is not an Am.

 

[Dipsy Doodle Doo]

Just noticed this splash Ameraucana hen has 'extra' bits besides her muffs.

Almost looks like little tufts?

 

[ashandvine]

Just noticed this splash Ameraucana hen has 'extra' bits besides her muffs.
Almost looks like little tufts?

These remind me of the Araucana 'ear tufts.' Is it possible- asking anyone here- that this is a genetic throwback to the Araucana? One of those tricky genes? I noticed it also has dark marks on its beak-- streaks, and dark nostril cavities. For those who know the breeding/genetic bits, is this a genetic trait like the legs on that Wheaten I posted earlier? Neither of my splash girls nor my roo have these streaks or the ear tufts.

 

[BarnGoddess01]

Quote:
Because Splash doesn't breed true. They are a by-product of sorts, or, perhaps, a means to an end. Splash are a result in a blue breeding program. Many folks don't believe in using them in a blue breeding program because they are unpredicatable. Splash on splash breeding can end up totally white pretty quickly. Splash are genetically two copies of the blue gene (Bl/Bl) whereas visually blue birds are Bl/bl+ - a single copy.