Ameraucana thread for posting pictures and discussing our birds

[junebuggena]

A blue wheaten Ameraucana rooster would throw some interesting looking chicks with that mix of girls. With a solid black or blue rooster, I think a lot of the chicks would be solid black as well.

 

[Ravynscroft]

Thanks for the chart! I am actually breeding for EE'S so separating out colors isn't a worry. I would have a couple Am hens of the same color as the roo so I could have a few pures but my main focus would be diverse EE chicks. My flock currently contains gl polish, light brahma, dark cornish, blue cochin, W leghorn, BCM, EE and a light blue Am hens.

Ah, ok...

Well, blue over blues will give you a variety, but the wheaten over splash would *probably* give you more mixed up and different colors... not totally sure on that... but if you want to keep some pure in color, then I wouldn't use the wheaten...

You *can* breed wheaten to other colors to improve type, etc, but it takes a lot of back breeding and heavy culling to correct the color again...

Good luck!

 

[ChickenFox]

A blue wheaten Ameraucana rooster would throw some interesting looking chicks with that mix of girls. With a solid black or blue rooster, I think a lot of the chicks would be solid black as well.

Now that's an interesting thought. Would I have a chance of regular blue and splash birds if he bred my blues? Hmm...I might just have to order 2 sets of hatching eggs. Some BBS and Blue Wheaton. Lol Hubby is going to hate me. Unless I can track down some Splash Am hens and a trio or pair of blue wheaton. The hunt is on!

 

[junebuggena]

If a blue wheaten bred your blue or splash hens, the results would be either blue or splash birds with red leakage throughout. But once you breed wheaten into your blue blood line, you may never get rid of the red leakage that would disqualify them from being called pure Ameraucana. They would be very beautiful Easter Eggers though, if that's all you're really after.

 

[PapaChaz]

If a blue wheaten bred your blue or splash hens, the results would be either blue or splash birds with red leakage throughout. But once you breed wheaten into your blue blood line, you may never get rid of the red leakage that would disqualify them from being called pure Ameraucana. They would be very beautiful Easter Eggers though, if that's all you're really after.

wouldn't this hold over in the females once they're bred? I've read recently that a scientific study was done that showed a female (all species) retains some DNA of the male forever once they've received his semen into their body. Yes, this even included women.....that's a scary thought indeed.

so if that's actual fact, wouldn't that hold over for future breeding? if so, any hens bred to the wheaten could potentially always have that possibility? If it were me and I was going to do it, I'd only use one or two hens that I'd mark somehow to always know so as not to use them for any future 'pure' breeding purpose

 

[jerryse]

wouldn't this hold over in the females once they're bred? I've read recently that a scientific study was done that showed a female (all species) retains some DNA of the male forever once they've received his semen into their body. Yes, this even included women.....that's a scary thought indeed.

so if that's actual fact, wouldn't that hold over for future breeding? if so, any hens bred to the wheaten could potentially always have that possibility? If it were me and I was going to do it, I'd only use one or two hens that I'd mark somehow to always know so as not to use them for any future 'pure' breeding purpose

I have my doubts on this information . I have used hens with different roosters for years . I have never seen any signs of this .

 

[EastNashChick]

My chick looked a lot like that a few weeks ago, now she is black.

Wow that's cool. Trying to read up on extended black. Genetics stuff is so interesting.

 

[junebuggena]

wouldn't this hold over in the females once they're bred? I've read recently that a scientific study was done that showed a female (all species) retains some DNA of the male forever once they've received his semen into their body. Yes, this even included women.....that's a scary thought indeed.

so if that's actual fact, wouldn't that hold over for future breeding? if so, any hens bred to the wheaten could potentially always have that possibility? If it were me and I was going to do it, I'd only use one or two hens that I'd mark somehow to always know so as not to use them for any future 'pure' breeding purpose

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you asking if once a hen is bred to a rooster, that her chicks will always be that roosters offspring, even after being bred by other roosters? DNA is inherited, not something that can be transmitted. Semen can only survive for a week or two inside a hen. Once the semen dies off, the genetic information carried by it also dies.

 

[PapaChaz]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you asking if once a hen is bred to a rooster, that her chicks will always be that roosters offspring, even after being bred by other roosters? DNA is inherited, not something that can be transmitted. Semen can only survive for a week or two inside a hen. Once the semen dies off, the genetic information carried by it also dies

LOL

um, no that's not what I was asking at all. I do know semen only lives a short time, and no I wasn't asking if her chicks would always be that roosters offspring, I do know a little more maybe than some of y'all give me credit for.....

I really need to go find that article and post it up so y'all can read it. It was more along the lines of traces of the males DNA would always remain with the female once his semen was implanted. The article talked about how frightening this could be for rape victims and for women who had had sex partners who had diseases or carried genetic problems. I'll see if I can find it


this isn't the exact article, but it carries some of the same thought lines:

http://jenapincott.com/do-you-carry-the-dna-of-your-former-lovers/

this is the paragraph that is most similar to what I meant:

"This was the subject of a study by immunologists at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. They took blood samples from 120 women without sons and found that 21 percent of them had male DNA. Women were then categorized into four groups according to pregnancy history: women with daughters only, spontaneous abortions, induced abortions, and no children/no abortions.
While the number of women bearing male DNA was highest in the groups that had abortions (nearly 80 percent), women who had only girls or no babies (20 percent) also had male cells in their blood. For no apparent reason.
There are other reasons why women in the fourth group carried male cells: inherited in the womb from a male twin that passed, from a miscarriage they did not know about, from their mother via an older brother…
Or through sexual intercourse.
There remains a possibility, however remote, that cells from a lover may pass be transmitted during sex. Those cells may hang out forever in the recipient’s body, taking residence in any organ. These cells are the imprint of lovers past, a trace of living history."
- See more at: http://jenapincott.com/do-you-carry-the-dna-of-your-former-lovers/#sthash.TEEkxefr.dpuf

 

[PapaChaz]

click the first sentence in that paragraph that refers to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and their study. that's where this came from.

So basically they are saying that a woman can have male DNA once she's given birth to a son, or even if she was pregnant with a son and lost or aborted........I'm assuming it's because of the of the blood flow during the pregnancy. I know just enough about the chicken reproduction process to be dangerous, LOL I do know the yolk is fertilized inside the hen's body cavity, and then is wrapped in the shell. I don't know if that would necessarily give any or enough of the roosters DNA any time of actually 'mixing' with the hens blood/system to actually remain permanent in her body like this article suggests is possible with a woman who carries a child.

anyway, for those who thought me to be completely ignorant of how reproduction works, I promise I'm not. Maybe I just read a little more into what that article was saying than it really said