American Lavender Geese

[AquaEyes]

Everyone's are from Holderread's stock. If not directly, indirectly. Dave Holderread developed both the American Blues and American Lavs as designer breeds on his farm.

Some will, some won't. Lavender is double recessive blue. So if B is the dominant form of the blue gene and b is the recessive form of the blue gene a bb goose will be lavender. If you have two heterozygous blues, that is blues who carry one dominant and one recessive copy of the gene, 25% of their offspring will be lavender.

OK, so the "blue" is a heterozygote for an incompletely dominant gene, and the "lavender" is the homozygote. What do you call geese that are Blue-Buff or Lavender-Buff? Is this what makes the "Blue Ice" geese I've seen mentioned? Until I read your post, I thought "blue" was a recessive gene, and "lavender" was Blue-Buff, but then couldn't figure out what "Blue Ice" was. Now I'm thinking I figured it out, but I'm not sure.....

 

[Olive Hill]

OK, so the "blue" is a heterozygote for an incompletely dominant gene, and the "lavender" is the homozygote.

It should probably be noted that, to my knowledge, Dave has never released what exactly he did to create the blues and lavs, but from what info we do have, yes, that's the way it seems. A single copy of the blue gene results in blue, while a double copy results in lav.


Quote:
Mutts?



Quote:
I think what you've seen is probably some creative (or unknowing) marketing.



Quote:
It doesn't appear the buff plays a role at all.


Disclaimer: I'm not a color guru. Just what I've found in reading. I breed buffs, but used to have blues and lavs, too.

 

[AquaEyes]

I would think that combining Blue and Buff in geese would work similarly to combining Blue and Chocolate in Muscovies -- these are called Blue-Fawns. Essentially, the difference between Buff and non-Buff is down to one gene, and the same goes for Blue and non-Blue.

Buff in geese -- that's sex-linked recessive, right? If so, you could see what they look like combined in one generation -- cross a Buff gander with a Lavender goose. Female offspring will be Blue-Buff, male offspring will be Blue split to Buff. Perhaps the really pale, cream-colored geese pics I remembered seeing were such geese bred by someone who had a similar idea.

I don't understand what would make them "mutts" since -- from how I read the Holderread site -- the "breed" of goose is American, with varieties being Buff, Blue and Lavender. Are there other differences, such as size or conformation, between the Buffs and the Blues/Lavenders?

Hmmm....

 

[Olive Hill]

Blues and Lavs are designer "breeds" created by Dave Holderread -- think: cockapoos and labradoodles -- they are not recognized by the APA and their genetic background is not known. IMO, it's highly unlikely they are heavily based in true Americans to begin with and based on those I had, I would wager a guess that they're more closely related to Toulouse. Regardless, when it comes to poultry, adherence to a breed is based on appearance and ability to reproduce true to the breed. A buff-blue or buff-lav is not a recognized breed -- or even established designer breed, for that matter -- and would not breed true. Thus, mutts. JMO.

 

[AquaEyes]

Blues and Lavs are designer "breeds" created by Dave Holderread -- think: cockapoos and labradoodles -- they are not recognized by the APA and their genetic background is not known. IMO, it's highly unlikely they are heavily based in true Americans to begin with and based on those I had, I would wager a guess that they're more closely related to Toulouse. Regardless, when it comes to poultry, adherence to a breed is based on appearance and ability to reproduce true to the breed. A buff-blue or buff-lav is not a recognized breed -- or even established designer breed, for that matter -- and would not breed true. Thus, mutts. JMO.

OK, so while the Blues and Buffs are called "Americans", you're saying they're different as far as conformation -- thus the Blues and Buffs are not varieties of the "American" breed. As for breeding true, the colors would, but if conformation differs between the Buffs and Blues, their bodies would vary -- in the first generations. One could "introduce" the color from one into the other, and then breed for type. And I'd think that, considering the limited number of color mutations in geese as compared to ducks and chickens, taking advantage of creating another variation by combining two existing variations would be something someone would want to try. I wonder if Dave Holderread already has.

 

[Olive Hill]

OK, so while the Blues and Buffs are called "Americans", you're saying they're different as far as conformation -- thus the Blues and Buffs are not varieties of the "American" breed. As for breeding true, the colors would, but if conformation differs between the Buffs and Blues, their bodies would vary -- in the first generations. One could "introduce" the color from one into the other, and then breed for type. And I'd think that, considering the limited number of color mutations in geese as compared to ducks and chickens, taking advantage of creating another variation by combining two existing variations would be something someone would want to try. I wonder if Dave Holderread already has.

No, I'm saying their genetic heritage differs. I'm saying if I had to guess at what existing birds Dave used to create these I'd say Toulouse probably played a big part in it. The rest of what you have described is precisely what Dave does. You might want to browse his website, he's well known for creating designer breeds. He calls the Blues and Lavs Americans because he created them to mirror the buffs in body type and conformation, but in alternate colors. And he did a good job, but that doesn't mean they're genetically Americans. Which, because the true Americans are a rare breed, is an important distinction to make.

 

[AquaEyes]

Ok, I found one of the pictures that led to me asking about "Buff-Blue", and it was here on BYC. The last post shows pics, one of which mentions "Creams." I think this is genetically Buff-Blue.

https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/605821/post-pics-of-your-buff-blue-and-lavender-americans/20

 

[Olive Hill]

Let me look back through some posts and get back to you. Seems like that poster has posted the "creams" before with more discussion about their history, but I'll have to look to be sure. Might have been someone else.

I also know we've talked about breeding buffs and blues together before and an "expert" weighed in. I'll see if I can find that info for you. "Cream" wasn't mentioned at all, if I remember correctly.

 

[AquaEyes]

No, I'm saying their genetic heritage differs. I'm saying if I had to guess at what existing birds Dave used to create these I'd say Toulouse probably played a big part in it. The rest of what you have described is precisely what Dave does. You might want to browse his website, he's well known for creating designer breeds. He calls the Blues and Lavs Americans because he created them to mirror the buffs in body type and conformation, but in alternate colors. And he did a good job, but that doesn't mean they're genetically Americans. Which, because the true Americans are a rare breed, is an important distinction to make.

The way poultry standards are written, genetic heritage is not a requirement for a bird to be accepted as a breed -- or, at least, that's what's continually echoed here. There are poultry breeds which have varieties listed under them, even though the varieties themselves had different genetic origins (Rhode Island Red vs Rhode Island White, for example). They are considered the same breed because they can breed true to the same conformation, despite the fact that each arose independently from one another. There is a breed of turkey today that was formerly extinct, but was revived by combining other breeds which had the necessary color genes to recombine to form the color conformation in the extinct breed's SOP -- ironically, also a Buff (Jersey Buffs). They can be shown as the same breed, even though it is clear that today's birds are not descended from the birds in the original population. If they fit the physical description and can breed true, they're in.

Yes, I've followed as much as I can find of what Dave has been doing with breeding -- I have some of his publications as well. I remember seeing a "Blue Toulouse" somewhere, so perhaps this was a starting point for the Blue American -- and possibly why you say you see Toulouse traits in them today. If they are continually bred to the American's breed standards, and breeders petition to allow them as a variety, then they may become accepted. But even if they're not, there's still a population of "Blue Americans" which have a following. If people added the Buff gene to the "Blue Americans", it wouldn't make them any more or less an accepted breed, but would increase the color spectrum. Like you said, they're a "designer breed" which can't be shown -- they're just for fun, or for production.

 

[AquaEyes]

Let me look back through some posts and get back to you. Seems like that poster has posted the "creams" before with more discussion about their history, but I'll have to look to be sure. Might have been someone else.

I also know we've talked about breeding buffs and blues together before and an "expert" weighed in. I'll see if I can find that info for you. "Cream" wasn't mentioned at all, if I remember correctly.

OOOOH!

Thanks, you rock!

I know I'm weird, but genetics and breeding to me is pretty interesting and exciting.