Breeding a new color to size

[Lilyofsalen]

OK, so when you breed coturnix for size you want to pick the largest offspring from your initial parentage and start line breeding. Multiple generations later you will start to see results. Let's say I were to start breeding a new color with the goal of bringing it to jumbo size. Eventually, I would need to bring in new birds to keep the gene pool from narrowing too much and causing issues with inbreeding. However, if I want to keep a specific color in my stock, I would need to choose new birds that are that color (or close). This will also mean that I would be pairing smaller birds with those I am breeding for size. Would that mean I would undo all the hard work I put in to get my birds up to weight?

If so, then how did breeders get Coturnix up to Jumbo weight in the first place?

 

[Quailobsessed]

They probably either took a really long time, or inbred their birds (which unfortunately is how some mutations have been created). Probably a combination of both.

 

[Lilyofsalen]

But even if they did take a long time, wouldn't adding smaller breeders from other sources limit the size of the stock's offspring? From what I understand (breeding seasonally--no artificial light), hens lay good hatching eggs for two years and a cock will keep the eggs fertile for about a full breeding season before there are infertility issues. So this means that new breeders will need to be brought in after two years to avoid breeding brother to sister.

So every two years a new smaller bird from another line will be paired to slightly bigger birds from the original line. Would this keep later generations from getting any bigger? Is this like taking one step forward only to take two back? Or more more like two steps forward one back?

What happens when you pair a jumbo wild and a tiny wild? How big would the offspring be? Would they be a mix of sizes? Or a compromise between jumbo and small?

 

[Quailobsessed]

But even if they did take a long time, wouldn't adding smaller breeders from other sources limit the size of the stock's offspring? From what I understand (breeding seasonally--no artificial light), hens lay good hatching eggs for two years and a cock will keep the eggs fertile for about a full breeding season before there are infertility issues. So this means that new breeders will need to be brought in after two years to avoid breeding brother to sister.

So every two years a new smaller bird from another line will be paired to slightly bigger birds from the original line. Would this keep later generations from getting any bigger? Is this like taking one step forward only to take two back? Or more more like two steps forward one back?

What happens when you pair a jumbo wild and a tiny wild? How big would the offspring be? Would they be a mix of sizes? Or a compromise between jumbo and small?

I don't have the answers to all your questions, but I'm pretty sure it would be more like two steps forward, one step back.

 

[2020Chickadee]

I really am unfamiliar with color breeding and whatnot but what I would do is line breed three separate lines then do a circle rotation. So you're breeding your three separate lines, then when it comes to needing a new rooster select the best male from each line and rotate him to a new one. So rooster from line A is now the breeder for line B, rooster from line B is now the breeder for line C, and rooster from line C is now the breeder for line A. Does that make sense? Of course more lines is always better, because you'll get more genetic differences, but three is generally the minimum.

 

[sylviethecochin]

I really am unfamiliar with color breeding and whatnot but what I would do is line breed three separate lines then do a circle rotation. So you're breeding your three separate lines, then when it comes to needing a new rooster select the best male from each line and rotate him to a new one. So rooster from line A is now the breeder for line B, rooster from line B is now the breeder for line C, and rooster from line C is now the breeder for line A. Does that make sense? Of course more lines is always better, because you'll get more genetic differences, but three is generally the minimum.

Additionally, inbreeding isn't as big a worry as you think it is. It's bad in humans for a couple reasons, such as brain chemistry (very delicate, and deficiencies are hard to detect, just look at some of the kings of England) which isn't really a huge concern, in fowl. And we don't cull "deficient" humans from the gene pool. (at least, not since people started overlooking Buck vs Bell. Which is still a standing Supreme Court decision, and that infuriates me.)

But if you have an obviously unhealthy quail, you kill it. Its genes don't get passed on, and if it has unhealthy siblings, you might take a hard look at continuing to use its parents. You're eliminating the harmful genes, and improving the gene pool overall, so your inbred stock might actually end up a bit healthier than the outbred stock.

 

[JacinLarkwell]

Also from what I understand, even if you bred the color you want with a different color, some of the chicks will have the color you want

 

[Lilyofsalen]

I really am unfamiliar with color breeding and whatnot but what I would do is line breed three separate lines then do a circle rotation. So you're breeding your three separate lines, then when it comes to needing a new rooster select the best male from each line and rotate him to a new one. So rooster from line A is now the breeder for line B, rooster from line B is now the breeder for line C, and rooster from line C is now the breeder for line A. Does that make sense? Of course more lines is always better, because you'll get more genetic differences, but three is generally the minimum.

That makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, I simply don't have the room for three separate lines.

 

[Lilyofsalen]

Additionally, inbreeding isn't as big a worry as you think it is. It's bad in humans for a couple reasons, such as brain chemistry (very delicate, and deficiencies are hard to detect, just look at some of the kings of England) which isn't really a huge concern, in fowl. And we don't cull "deficient" humans from the gene pool. (at least, not since people started overlooking Buck vs Bell. Which is still a standing Supreme Court decision, and that infuriates me.)

But if you have an obviously unhealthy quail, you kill it. Its genes don't get passed on, and if it has unhealthy siblings, you might take a hard look at continuing to use its parents. You're eliminating the harmful genes, and improving the gene pool overall, so your inbred stock might actually end up a bit healthier than the outbred stock.

OK, I've talked with a lot of people about breeding quail. Some say don't breed brother to sister, some say it will be fine for a number of generations, others say its not reccomended.

What you're saying is that if the original gene pool is good, then breeding brother to sister will not cause issues? Breeding brother to sister causes the gene pool to narrow which can select for unwanted or lethal genes? If it turns out the original gene pool is bad then you would have to add new breeders to dilute the bad genes?

Doesn't breeding brother to sister effect fertility pretty sharply?

 

[Lilyofsalen]

Also from what I understand, even if you bred the color you want with a different color, some of the chicks will have the color you want

That is true but sometimes you will only get heterozygous expressions of that gene in all offspring. (ex: roux X silver -- you will not get only silver or only roux but silver roux)