Ameraucana thread for posting pictures and discussing our birds

[WalnutHill]

It is all a mystery to me, I am still trying to unravel it all but so many people have different ideas about this. I read that many Araucana breeders use tailed Araucana to help in their lines. There are tailed in this country. They are from breeding Araucana to Araucanas. I have one. They lay blue eggs and they are Araucanas, not EEs. What I never understood is if you breed two Ameraucanas why don't you get Ameraucanas. If I bred two purebred dogs of the same breed even if they have terrible confirmation, disqualifying faults.... they are still purebred whatevers. Why isn't it the same for chickens? A Marans without leg feathers for instance. Are you going to say it isn't a Marans?

Exactly.

 

[samouw]

That is somewhat curious. Why bother to try and get a new color into the SOP if a bird is, by definition of the "or" clause within the AND clause, an Ameraucana? And why fuss about "Lavender" vs "Self Blue"?

Lavender, or self-blue, whichever you prefer, will meet an accepted variety or color and already breeds true at least 50% of the time, so they do not fit the "or" clause. That is for project colors that are still under development.

APA would not accept lavender as the color description, because they already have other breeds of chickens that have the same coloration and are called self-blue. In order to get the variety approved - so it can compete in shows for Best of Breed and above, which it cannot now - we had to accept the self-blue description. That really only matters when you enter them in shows. At home, here, on facebook - any where else, you can still call them lavender, or whatever you want.

 

[samouw]

I am not an Ameraucana breeder, though I will have some purebred Ameraucana and Araucana here shortly. I do have several EEs, some of which meet the SOP for Ameraucana type but not with standard colors because they are mixed birds. Every time a new color is developed it comes from outcrosses with other breeds, essentially a planned blending of the gene pool to bring in desired traits, followed by work to rid the new crosses of undesirable, non-SOP traits.

I find the notion that a bird isn't a breed unless it is decreed to be even if it comes from pure parent stock, and that it may be a breed even though it is known to be intentionally mixed breeds a generation or few back, a bit unfriendly. My backyard pairings breed true over 50% of the time. I am sure that if I selected carefully I could bring up a line that met a color standard, but I would not feel right calling them Ameraucanas knowing they were mixed. And if I took the time and effort to raise pure Ameraucanas only to be told they were Easter Eggers because they were not the right color or the shanks were a little off, I would firmly believe that the standards were corrupted.

I understand your confusion and frustration. But the guidelines for pure-breds isn't just restricted to birds. The same is true for dogs, horses, other pedigreed stock. The major difference is that there is no pedigree with chickens, so we have to rely on the appearance (Does it meet an accepted color variety?), and test it by breeding (will it produce true at least 50% of the time?

Without the pedigree or the registration services offered by such agencies as the AKC or AQHA, it is best to buy true Ameraucanas from someone you trust and have seen their stock, or, at the very least, pictures of their stock. Trust is more important here than with dogs, horses - although it has been happened that dogs with a certain pedigree weren't really what they were purported to be.

Remember, too, that it isn't just the color that makes the breed. Not all black chickens with muffs and/or beards are Ameraucanas - they should be, and produce, true to type, not just color.

 

[samouw]

It is all a mystery to me, I am still trying to unravel it all but so many people have different ideas about this. I read that many Araucana breeders use tailed Araucana to help in their lines. There are tailed in this country. They are from breeding Araucana to Araucanas. I have one. They lay blue eggs and they are Araucanas, not EEs. What I never understood is if you breed two Ameraucanas why don't you get Ameraucanas. If I bred two purebred dogs of the same breed even if they have terrible confirmation, disqualifying faults.... they are still purebred whatevers. Why isn't it the same for chickens? A Marans without leg feathers for instance. Are you going to say it isn't a Marans?

Forgive me if this sounds like a rant. It isn't meant too. Just questioning the state of the union.

I was reading some genetics history last week..and forgive me if I get this wrong, my memory ain't what it used to be...but I think the gene for the tufts are fatal if paired? I need to go back and read that - it might have been something else, but it would explain why breeders of Araucanas keep, and breed, non-tufted birds to their birds with tufts. That would be the only way to guarantee the chicks don't have the fatal pairing.

I'll go look that up.

Edited to add - I found it. Yes, the tufted gene is lethal if homozygous dominant (both copies are dominant for the tufts). Here is a link to the article - http://www.feathersite.com/Poultry/CGA/Arau/ACARumplTufted.html

Edited (again) to add - the genetic trait for tailless is not lethal, so I'm not sure why breeders would keep tailed and tailless birds to breed to. I'm sure there's a reason, but I'm not informed enough about the breed to ponder it.

 

[Red Banks]

I was reading some genetics history last week..and forgive me if I get this wrong, my memory ain't what it used to be...but I think the gene for the tufts are fatal if paired? I need to go back and read that - it might have been something else, but it would explain why breeders of Araucanas keep, and breed, non-tufted birds to their birds with tufts. That would be the only way to guarantee the chicks don't have the fatal pairing.

I'll go look that up.

You are correct. It is lethal.. If both parents have the tufts gene, 25% of the chicks will die in the shell. Only a bird with tufts carries the tufted gene. If both parents are tufted 50% of the chicks will be tufted 25% dead in shell and 25% non-tufted. If only one parent is tufted you will get 50% tufted and 50% clean faced. This mean you will have tufted and not tufted in your flock. Tailless also causes problems with mating difficulties and reduced fertility.

 

[samouw]

You are correct. It is lethal.. If both parents have the tufts gene, 25% of the chicks will die in the shell. Only a bird with tufts carries the tufted gene. If both parents are tufted 50% of the chicks will be tufted 25% dead in shell and 25% non-tufted. If only one parent is tufted you will get 50% tufted and 50% clean faced. This mean you will have tufted and not tufted in your flock. Tailless also causes problems with mating difficulties and reduced fertility.

Ahh, ok - I figured there must be a reason, but didn't know what it was. So I learned something new tonight.

 

[WalnutHill]

I understand your confusion and frustration. But the guidelines for pure-breds isn't just restricted to birds. The same is true for dogs, horses, other pedigreed stock. The major difference is that there is no pedigree with chickens, so we have to rely on the appearance (Does it meet an accepted color variety?), and test it by breeding (will it produce true at least 50% of the time?

Without the pedigree or the registration services offered by such agencies as the AKC or AQHA, it is best to buy true Ameraucanas from someone you trust and have seen their stock, or, at the very least, pictures of their stock. Trust is more important here than with dogs, horses - although it has been happened that dogs with a certain pedigree weren't really what they were purported to be.

Remember, too, that it isn't just the color that makes the breed. Not all black chickens with muffs and/or beards are Ameraucanas - they should be, and produce, true to type, not just color.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. My muffed, bearded peacomb Salmon Faverolle/Am cross rooster, when crossed with the muffed, bearded peacomb Salmon Faverolle/Am hen, produces male copies of himself and female copies of her. The colors of Salmon Faverolles are not accepted Ameraucana colors, but they reproduce true to type and the muffs, beards, and combs reproduce reliably and lay lovely pale blue eggs. I know what their parentage is, and know it's not pure. But what if those two parents were black, and produced black offspring with muffs and beards and pea combs that laid blue eggs? Would they be accepted as Ameraucanas?

 

[samouw]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. My muffed, bearded peacomb Salmon Faverolle/Am cross rooster, when crossed with the muffed, bearded peacomb Salmon Faverolle/Am hen, produces male copies of himself and female copies of her. The colors of Salmon Faverolles are not accepted Ameraucana colors, but they reproduce true to type and the muffs, beards, and combs reproduce reliably and lay lovely pale blue eggs. I know what their parentage is, and know it's not pure. But what if those two parents were black, and produced black offspring with muffs and beards and pea combs that laid blue eggs? Would they be accepted as Ameraucanas?

Good question. You could enter them in several shows, under different judges, and probably get a different response from each one. The real question, though, is what other genes are you introducing that, while not evident in that first generation, will pop up later to deflate someone else's breeding program? That is why the second part of that question is, will they breed true? That doesn't just apply to the first generation.

When you contemplate the fact that every variety of Ameraucana was developed using different breeds - which is why we are now battling some of those hidden traits - like slightly feathered legs (stubs), porcelain ears...etc. - you start to understand why even crossing an Ameraucana of one variety to an Ameraucana of another variety won't breed true and, at least for those first few generations, are considered EEs. With Ameraucanas, the different varieties are not genetic "twins", except for color. Each variety has a different gene template from which they emerged. So when you breed across varieties, you are really creating a mixed pool of genes - and no telling what hidden genes may crop up in future generations.

Project colors, those that aren't a natural result of breeding - eg. blue to blue will produce splash - are often developed by bringing in traits from another breed, but along with the desired trait (color, pattern, etc), they are also bringing in the undesired traits - yellow skin, single comb, porcelain ears, etc. and it takes many generations to breed the undesirable traits out, while keeping and stabilizing the desired ones.

 

[WalnutHill]

Good question. You could enter them in several shows, under different judges, and probably get a different response from each one. The real question, though, is what other genes are you introducing that, while not evident in that first generation, will pop up later to deflate someone else's breeding program? That is why the second part of that question is, will they breed true? That doesn't just apply to the first generation.

When you contemplate the fact that every variety of Ameraucana was developed using different breeds - which is why we are now battling some of those hidden traits - like slightly feathered legs (stubs), porcelain ears...etc. - you start to understand why even crossing an Ameraucana of one variety to an Ameraucana of another variety won't breed true and, at least for those first few generations, are considered EEs. With Ameraucanas, the different varieties are not genetic "twins", except for color. Each variety has a different gene template from which they emerged. So when you breed across varieties, you are really creating a mixed pool of genes - and no telling what hidden genes may crop up in future generations.

Project colors, those that aren't a natural result of breeding - eg. blue to blue will produce splash - are often developed by bringing in traits from another breed, but along with the desired trait (color, pattern, etc), they are also bringing in the undesired traits - yellow skin, single comb, porcelain ears, etc. and it takes many generations to breed the undesirable traits out, while keeping and stabilizing the desired ones.

Which, to me, seems that Ams are really just carefully selected EEs. I'm not slighting them, Ams are beautiful birds. That's why I am hatching some now.

I am hatching the third gen of my SF/Am (EE) crosses, using the same rooster to his daughters. It will be a couple of months to see what develops. I really want to see if they still lay blue eggs.

 

[samouw]

Which, to me, seems that Ams are really just carefully selected EEs.  I'm not slighting them, Ams are beautiful birds.  That's why I am hatching some now.

I am hatching the third gen of my SF/Am (EE) crosses, using the same rooster to his daughters.  It will be a couple of months to see what develops.  I really want to see if they still lay blue eggs.

But, EEs are not pure bred, there is no standard, and they can't bred true - none of which is true of Ameraucanas.

Good luck with your hatching.