Guys? Confusion? 🤔

[lilwanderer]

Curious how you like the sand (know it's way off topic, ) and what state your in mainly to know what kind of weather you deal with? I'm in TN and considering switching to sand

The sand works great for us! Sure does last a while. We've used it over hardware cloth to keep things from digging in from under the pen. It's gotta be a thick layer of sand though.

 

[lilwanderer]

Are you not supposed to breed frizzle to frizzle? New to this

You definitely shouldn't- Creates a frazzle. I've only heard bad things about it and the birds have never looked the prettiest. The feathers will fall part.

 

[pipdzipdnreadytogo]

Are you not supposed to breed frizzle to frizzle? New to this

No, ideally you shouldn't. Frizzles have a single copy of the frizzling gene, causing the gentle curve to their feathers. Breeding frizzle to frizzle mean that approximately 1/4 of their offspring inherit two copies of the gene, however, which is where you run into trouble. The double dose of the frizzle gene is also called 'frazzle', and it causes extreme curling of the feathers, resulting in them being more brittle and prone to breaking off, leaving the bird bald in patches much of the time. There are also internal issues associated with a double dose of the gene, including enlargement of the heart and metabolic imbalances. Thus, responsible breeders always breed frizzle to smooth in order to avoid producing any of these 'frazzles'.

I thought blue and splash were essentially the same gene and that you could get splash chicks from a blue parent and blue from a splash because it's a dilution gene. At least that's how I thought it worked for breeding BBs to each other. If the other parent isn't BBS does that change things?

Yes, Blue and Splash are caused by the same gene. Black is the other 'B' in BBS. Technically speaking, every single pattern is one of those three, either diluted to blue, to splash, or not diluted by the gene at all, so inheritance of it will be the same regardless of the other genes present.

 

[RememberTheWay]

No, ideally you shouldn't. Frizzles have a single copy of the frizzling gene, causing the gentle curve to their feathers. Breeding frizzle to frizzle mean that approximately 1/4 of their offspring inherit two copies of the gene, however, which is where you run into trouble. The double dose of the frizzle gene is also called 'frazzle', and it causes extreme curling of the feathers, resulting in them being more brittle and prone to breaking off, leaving the bird bald in patches much of the time. There are also internal issues associated with a double dose of the gene, including enlargement of the heart and metabolic imbalances. Thus, responsible breeders always breed frizzle to smooth in order to avoid producing any of these 'frazzles'.




Yes, Blue and Splash are caused by the same gene. Black is the other 'B' in BBS. Technically speaking, every single pattern is one of those three, either diluted to blue, to splash, or not diluted by the gene at all, so inheritance of it will be the same regardless of the other genes present.

Where I wasn't quite understanding was in this particular case it seemed like a lot splash chicks were showing up , and everyone was saying that was properly because someone was splash recessively. My confusion is on why no blues? Wouldn't splash produce blue and maybe black too and not just create more splash?

And couldn't recessive blue also produce splash chicks? Couldn't more then one of her hens and or the rooster be carrying blue or splash recessively? And if it's just a dilution gene meaning it's not splash and blue are not two different genes then wouldn't what were seeing just simply be explained by some form of the dilution gene being present and not necessarily specifically blue or splash? Because aren't they infact one in the same?

I'm just trying to understand all this and am quite fascinated by these topics so any inputs or clarifications are welcomed.

 

[NatJ]

Where I wasn't quite understanding was in this particular case it seemed like a lot splash chicks were showing up , and everyone was saying that was properly because someone was splash recessively. My confusion is on why no blues? Wouldn't splash produce blue and maybe black too and not just create more splash?

And couldn't recessive blue also produce splash chicks? Couldn't more then one of her hens and or the rooster be carrying blue or splash recessively? And if it's just a dilution gene meaning it's not splash and blue are not two different genes then wouldn't what were seeing just simply be explained by some form of the dilution gene being present and not necessarily specifically blue or splash? Because aren't they infact one in the same?

I'm just trying to understand all this and am quite fascinated by these topics so any inputs or clarifications are welcomed.

Blue and splash are caused by the same gene as each other. One blue gene dilutes black to a gray shade, two blue genes dilute black to splash. Blue is considered incompletely dominant because one copy of the gene has a visible effect (blue) and two copies have a stronger effect (splash).

For any chicken that can show black, then you can tell if the chicken has blue or splash because the blue gene is dominant. That goes for chickens that are black all over, and chickens that are black in just some places (like black lacing or a black tail.)

But white chickens are a bit of a special case. The genes that turn a chicken white can hide the effects of many other genes, including blue.

One gene called Dominant White turns all black into white. If that black was diluted to black or splash, it still turns white when the chicken has Dominant White. If the black was diluted to chocolate or lavender, it also turns white. This doesn't really make Blue a recessive gene, more that Dominant White hides the effect.

A gene called recessive white is recessive (obviously), and when a chicken has two copies of this gene it is white all over. No matter what other color genes it has, the chicken still looks white. Again, you can't tell if the chicken has the blue gene, or the genes for any other specific color or pattern.

The Silver gene turns gold into white, and is the only "white" gene I can think of that has no effect on blue (because the only color it affects is one where blue would not be anyway.)

 

[Debbie292d]

Where I wasn't quite understanding was in this particular case it seemed like a lot splash chicks were showing up , and everyone was saying that was properly because someone was splash recessively. My confusion is on why no blues? Wouldn't splash produce blue and maybe black too and not just create more splash?

And couldn't recessive blue also produce splash chicks? Couldn't more then one of her hens and or the rooster be carrying blue or splash recessively? And if it's just a dilution gene meaning it's not splash and blue are not two different genes then wouldn't what were seeing just simply be explained by some form of the dilution gene being present and not necessarily specifically blue or splash? Because aren't they infact one in the same?

I'm just trying to understand all this and am quite fascinated by these topics so any inputs or clarifications are welcomed.

I hatched 17 silkie chicks 3 days ago. The rooster is Mauve, with 2 Chocolate hens, a Splash hen, and a Black hen.

I got one blue. No black.

I don't know why they seem to be so much more scarce than the mauve as I got tons of mauves and mauve splashes.

Mauve x Chocolate = Mauve and Chocolate - straight run.

Mauve x Splash = Mauve & Choco Splash pullets, Blue & Splash split Chocolate cockerels

Mauve male x Black female: 25% Blue males carrying chocolate, 25% Black males carrying chocolate, 25% Mauve females, 25% Chocolate females

 

[RememberTheWay]

I hatched 17 silkie chicks 3 days ago. The rooster is Mauve, with 2 Chocolate hens, a Splash hen, and a Black hen.

I got one blue. No black.

I don't know why they seem to be so much more scarce than the mauve as I got tons of mauves and mauve splashes.

Mauve x Chocolate = Mauve and Chocolate - straight run.

Mauve x Splash = Mauve & Choco Splash pullets, Blue & Splash split Chocolate cockerels

Mauve male x Black female: 25% Blue males carrying chocolate, 25% Black males carrying chocolate, 25% Mauve females, 25% Chocolate females

I hatched 17 silkie chicks 3 days ago. The rooster is Mauve, with 2 Chocolate hens, a Splash hen, and a Black hen.

I got one blue. No black.

I don't know why they seem to be so much more scarce than the mauve as I got tons of mauves and mauve splashes.

Mauve x Chocolate = Mauve and Chocolate - straight run.

Mauve x Splash = Mauve & Choco Splash pullets, Blue & Splash split Chocolate cockerels

Mauve male x Black female: 25% Blue males carrying chocolate, 25% Black males carrying chocolate, 25% Mauve females, 25% Chocolate females

Do you think maybe you just hatched a smaller percentage of the black hens eggs? Or maybe none at all?

 

[RememberTheWay]

Blue and splash are caused by the same gene as each other. One blue gene dilutes black to a gray shade, two blue genes dilute black to splash. Blue is considered incompletely dominant because one copy of the gene has a visible effect (blue) and two copies have a stronger effect (splash).

For any chicken that can show black, then you can tell if the chicken has blue or splash because the blue gene is dominant. That goes for chickens that are black all over, and chickens that are black in just some places (like black lacing or a black tail.)

But white chickens are a bit of a special case. The genes that turn a chicken white can hide the effects of many other genes, including blue.

One gene called Dominant White turns all black into white. If that black was diluted to black or splash, it still turns white when the chicken has Dominant White. If the black was diluted to chocolate or lavender, it also turns white. This doesn't really make Blue a recessive gene, more that Dominant White hides the effect.

A gene called recessive white is recessive (obviously), and when a chicken has two copies of this gene it is white all over. No matter what other color genes it has, the chicken still looks white. Again, you can't tell if the chicken has the blue gene, or the genes for any other specific color or pattern.

The Silver gene turns gold into white, and is the only "white" gene I can think of that has no effect on blue (because the only color it affects is one where blue would not be anyway.)

Curious how many genes for color and pattern a chicken can hold recessively? I was under the impression that it was only one, meaning it has two copies but one shows and one is recessive. But if a recessive white has to have two copies of re white but can still pass other colors recessively then maybe my thinking was flawed on how the recessive genes are carried? Because what you're describing means that that bird would carry at least three genes and two would be recessive. One being white and at least one other being another color.

 

[Debbie292d]

Do you think maybe you just hatched a smaller percentage of the black hens eggs? Or maybe none at all?

I have no idea whose egg is whose but there are 5 hens in a pen with a rooster. No broodies at the time. I would have just assumed I'd get a few. I'd be left to making an assumption that maybe her eggs were the 3 in the beginning of 23 that weren't fertile, or, the 3 that died along the way. Or maybe, she's not laying at all. That blue I did get could have come from the Mauve and Splash.

I have 20 or so hatching on the 12th so this should be interesting to see how we fair this time on blues and blacks.

 

[NatJ]

Curious how many genes for color and pattern a chicken can hold recessively? I was under the impression that it was only one, meaning it has two copies but one shows and one is recessive. But if a recessive white has to have two copies of re white but can still pass other colors recessively then maybe my thinking was flawed on how the recessive genes are carried? Because what you're describing means that that bird would carry at least three genes and two would be recessive. One being white and at least one other being another color.

Yes, I think you have a flaw in how you think of recessive genes.

The genes are located (in a physical sense) on the chicken's chromosomes.
The chromosomes come in pairs.

Each gene has a particular spot on the chromosome. Since chickens have pairs of chromosomes, that means their genes are in pairs too.

A chicken has many different pairs of genes.

For example, a chicken can have the gene for rose comb or the gene for not-rose comb. It can have two rose comb genes, or two not-rose comb genes, or one of each. (Chickens with a single comb have the not-rose version of this gene.)

A chicken can have the gene for blue feathers. It can have two copies of the blue gene (splash) or one blue gene and one not-blue gene (blue) or a matched pair of not-blue genes (black.)

But the rose comb gene and the blue feather gene are located in different places on the chromosomes. Knowing that a chicken has two genes for rose comb does not tell you anything about whether it has the blue gene.

Recessive white is another gene. If the chicken has two genes for recessive white, those genes are sitting at a particular spot on one pair of chromosomes. They make the chicken's feathers all be white. But having two recessive white genes will have no effect on whether the chicken has rose comb genes or blue genes, because each of those is located in a different place on the chromosomes. The chicken still has genes for blue or not-blue, it just cannot show the effect because recessive white is blocking all colors in the feathers. The chicken still has the genes for rose comb or not-rose comb, and because those are not feather colors they are not getting blocked.

There is a gene called Mahogany that turns gold into a darker red shade. Every chicken has either two Mahogany genes, or two not-Mahogany genes, or one of each. But you can only see the effect of those genes if a chicken has some gold in its coloring. You can't see it on a black chicken, or on a white chicken, or on a blue chicken. Those colors of chickens do still have genes for Mahogany or not-Mahogany, but you just can't tell because there is no visible gold to be affected.

Dominant or Recessive is about how a gene behaves with other genes at the same spot in the chromosome (the other half of the pair.) So blue is dominant over not-blue, and rose comb is dominant over not-rose, and Mahogany is not dominant over not-Mahogany, and recessive white is recessive to not-recessive white.

Being dominant or recessive does not tell how a gene interacts with genes located in other places on the chromosomes (genes in other pairs). The feather color genes and the rose comb gene have no effect on each other. Among the feather color genes, Mahogany affects gold, and Blue affects black, and neither has any effect on the other. But recessive white affects all other feather color genes, by blocking all color.

Recessive white is recessive to a gene that allows the chicken to show colors in the feathers. That gene doesn't seem to have a common name, but it is present in every chicken that shows colored feathers. Then we can see the effects of other genes that determine what colors the chicken will actually show.