Guys? Confusion? 🤔

[lilwanderer]

That’s basically a slightly better worded version of what I meant. I don’t think both parents have to be heterozygous dom white though as recessive white to I/i+ would still produce some none whites.

Oh I see . You said homozygous instead of heterozygous so I wasn't sure if there was a difference or not.

 

[pipdzipdnreadytogo]

Yeah, that poster is not quite correct in a couple areas, but most importantly in that both parents must be hetero dominant white. If both are heterozygous dominant white, I/i+, then yes, about one quarter of their offspring will be non-white.

However, if one parent is only heterozygous dominant white and not recessive white, I/i+ C+/C+, and the other parent is recessive white without dominant white, i+/i+ c/c, then about half of the offspring will still be non-white, i+/i+ C+/c. It does not require both parents to be hetero dominant white, in other words.

All we know at the moment is that your male has leakage, so must be dominant white instead of recessive. Your hen didn't seem to have any, so most likely is recessive white. Either or both could carry blue, though it sounded like the male had stray black feathers and not blue ones so it sounds like the blue dilution is most likely coming from the hen. So on the surface, this looks like (and thus far is correct for) hetero dominant white crossed to recessive white.

With a small sample size (it was 4 chicks from your whites, only 2 of which were thought to be from the frizzle hen, correct?), there is often a skewing of the results; this is why statistical analyses generally are not considered significant unless a certain threshold of samples is entered into them. Think of flipping a coin two times. Pretty often, you'll get the same result both times, right? But that doesn't mean that your coin only ever lands on that one side every time. The more times you flip that coin, the more equal your results become, because both sides have a roughly equal chance of coming up in each flip. That's the same in this case with your birds. You've 'flipped' the dominant white 'coin' twice and gotten not-white both times with your frizzle hen's chicks, but if you 'flip' it again, you might just get white. And if you 'flip' it a dozen more times, you might get a little of both!

 

[lilwanderer]

However, if one parent is only heterozygous dominant white and not recessive white, I/i+ C+/C+, and the other parent is recessive white without dominant white, i+/i+ c/c, then about half of the offspring will still be non-white, i+/i+ C+/c. It does not require both parents to be hetero dominant white, in other words.

All we know at the moment is that your male has leakage, so must be dominant white instead of recessive. Your hen didn't seem to have any, so most likely is recessive white. Either or both could carry blue, though it sounded like the male had stray black feathers and not blue ones so it sounds like the blue dilution is most likely coming from the hen. So on the surface, this looks like (and thus far is correct for) hetero dominant white crossed to recessive white.

With a small sample size (it was 4 chicks from your whites, only 2 of which were thought to be from the frizzle hen, correct?), there is often a skewing of the results; this is why statistical analyses generally are not considered significant unless a certain threshold of samples is entered into them. Think of flipping a coin two times. Pretty often, you'll get the same result both times, right? But that doesn't mean that your coin only ever lands on that one side every time. The more times you flip that coin, the more equal your results become, because both sides have a roughly equal chance of coming up in each flip. That's the same in this case with your birds. You've 'flipped' the dominant white 'coin' twice and gotten not-white both times with your frizzle hen's chicks, but if you 'flip' it again, you might just get white. And if you 'flip' it a dozen more times, you might get a little of both!

Someone also mentioned the silver gene- (He said he's been breeding LF cochins for 26 years)
Although mine are bantam if that matters.
And then while looking around I saw someone had a white cochin split to mottled.
Also, I believe I hatched 3 from the frizzle- 1 is that yellow like the others and the other 2 are with the blue coloring.
I'll be hatching more, I didn't get as many to hatch as I'd like to this first round.
The one chick with more white I don't believe is gunna make it, so I went ahead and snapped a picture.

 

[BlueTheBrahma]

Oh I see . You said homozygous instead of heterozygous so I wasn't sure if there was a difference or not.

Homozygous means two copies of the same allele (version of the gene), in this case I/I for dom or c/c for rec
Heterozygous means different alleles if the same gene. I/i+ for dom and C/c for rec (this rec wouldn’t be white).
Both heterozygous and homozygous dom white are white, but hetero is more likely to have leakage as they don’t have two copies of white. Only homozygous rec white are white, hetero are whatever the chicken would be otherwise.
I don’t know if that was the question you meant, sorry if not.

 

[BlueTheBrahma]

Someone also mentioned the silver gene- (He said he's been breeding LF cochins for 26 years)

Silver birds can appear white depending on genes. For example, a light Sussex is not white, they are silver columbian. However, to completely get rid of the black on the hackles and tail you would need white genes. A silver rooster is less likely to have leakage in the shoulder on I/i+ birds as the leakage would be silver white anyway as long as there is no autosomal red. For this reason, most of the best whites, blues and splashes are silver based to reduce gold leakage. I don’t think this matters too much for yours as it’s pattern colour we’re more worried about rather than ground colour.

 

[lilwanderer]

Small update- The mystery blue chick is looking frizzled so I was correct about the frizzle hen being the mama. Cute little guy!
I'm actually now trying to determine if he's actually a blue, he's starting to look black. .

 

[BlueTheBrahma]

Small update- The mystery blue chick is looking frizzled so I was correct about the frizzle hen being the mama. Cute little guy!
I'm actually now trying to determine if he's actually a blue, he's starting to look black. .
View attachment 3739904
View attachment 3739905View attachment 3739906

I’m still saying blue, his colour is a lot like some blue marans I’ve had as chicks.

 

[lilwanderer]

@BlueTheBrahma @pipdzipdnreadytogo
Hatching more and they've started- one is currently pipped and it looks like another blue.
but this one isn't from the frizzled hen, so either multiple hens are hiding something or it's something to do with that roo.
-
(I actually lost the frizzle hen a few days ago, came home to find her in terrible shape and egg bound. . I threw the remaining eggs i had of her in the incubator, but i didn't have much.)
-
But back to the blues, I'll update when it hatches to see if it's really another blue.
Update on the other blue, frizzled as ever:

 

[lilwanderer]

So the baby hatched overnight- although I don't think its a blue, looks more like a splash. Does that complicate things more it make it easier? Some kind of bbs thing going on. Could it refer back to the roo having black leakage?

 

[pipdzipdnreadytogo]

What a cutie that little frizzle is! I'm so sorry you lost your hen, though.

Pictures would help of the new little one, but best wait until it's fully fluffed for a more accurate assessment. Based on the description, though, it's possible that the little one is recessive white, which can sometimes let a grayish color through in the chick down that's similar to Splash in appearance.