blue X black breeding

[pips&peeps]

Quote:
What? Why? My black birds from black x blue matings are black with 'beetle green sheen'.
Why would you say that?

Lisa

I always breed blue X black. I have no problems with my sheen on my black birds either. In my opinion it hasn't hurt my black line and has only improved my blue lines.

Ford is actually from a blue X blue mating.

 

[speckledhen]

I was told by someone in the know awhile back that the birds with the best beetle-green sheen are gold-based, not silver. I believe I've since heard Tim say the same thing. My Black Ameraucana cockerel, Scout, was positively gleaming with green sheen, if you recall. He did have his base color leaking through, and it was most definitely gold, so I'd say its true. His sire was black and his mom was blue.

 

[Guitartists]

Jean... he is GORGEOUS!!!!

I hope one of my blacks is a roo!

 

[pips&peeps]

Actually, Ford has hidden birchen genes.

I have been told it is genetically impossible to get blue legs on a genetically black bird and his legs are blue.

 

[tiki244]

Well Ford is lovely and Korfus I would love to see pictures of the differences also.

 

[MissPrissy]

Breeding black to blue is good. What I was referring to is the black chicks from those crossings should not be mixed up with a black from pure lines. If you have pure blacks you don't want to mix in the blacks from blue/black/splash lines. You should keep the pure blacks for lack of a better term 'pure'. If I am buying blacks I know I, like many hobby breeders, do not want a black from a bbs line. For instance the lavendars Jody has bred with 'pure black' hens. You can control and predict the genetics better. If someone sold me a black orp and failed to tell me it was from a bbs line they could ruin a years worth of development and work. So, yes, breed black to blue but keep in mind the blacks from them aren't pure blacks.

 

[Dipsy Doodle Doo]

I don't understand.

A black from blue x black breeding is black.
It isn't 'hiding' blue genetics. If it had the blue gene, it would be blue. If it had 2 copies of the blue gene it would be splash.
If you breed 2 blacks from blue x black, you'll get blacks.
Why wouldn't they be 'pure' blacks?

Lavender is a different ballgame. I don't understand any more than what has been discussed here on the board and have never bred any.

Lisa

 

[halo]

It sounds like theres some mis-understanding on the black gene. Since you can get a black from blue x blue, then black must be recessive. Since you have to have one blue parent to get blue, then blue must be dominant. It can't express itself unless one of the parents has the blue gene, i.e. blue or splash (if Im understanding that correctly). A black bird with a blue gene is blue (correct?). So breeding black to black will only give you black, which in essence is "pure" black, since there is no blue gene.

Im only summarizing what Im understanding here. Its like the chestnut and bay gene in horses . Two bays can produce chestnut , since bay is dominant and chestnut is recessive. Breeding 2 chestnuts , however, will only result in a chestnut . You can not get a bay unless there is a bay parent.

This is how Im understanding it.

 

[Mahonri]

Now I'm confused because I thought blue was recessive.

I'll keep reading.

 

[SusanJoM]

I think that the confusion has to do with the fact that some of the phenotypes (displayed traits) are a result of incomplete dominance and/or co-dominance rather than a straight forward dominant/recessive relationship.

Okay, I can't explain it any better than that, but one of the genetic whizzbangs here probably can, and there's a great source here for learning more about it

http://home.ezweb.com.au/~kazballea/genetics/theory.html

Susan