Lavender Vs. Chocolate Genetics

[HenThymes]

O.k., so I have seen quite a few posts on BYC in relation to color genetics for both Lavenders as well as Chocolates and looking for some clarification on the two. From what I have read in regards to Lavenders this is what you get:

split/split breeding you get 50% split,25% lav & 25% black

Lav/split breeding gives you 50% lav,25% split,25%black

and obvious lav/lav = 100% lav.


What I have been reading about Chocolate genetics this is what you get:

If you breed a chocolate rooster to a black hen that the resulting females will be chocolate if they are chocolate but males can be black and still be a carrier.

So if this true you could breed to any black hen (non split) to a chocolate carrier rooster and end up with chocolate???
Are the resulting black females not carriers if they are black??


So my question about lavender is - would that not be how lavender works as well? You can breed a lavender rooster to ANY black hen (non split) and end up with lavender? And would that lavender be female as with chocolate it would not hide and be lavender if it was lavender?? Or do the two colors genetically work different?

With all that being ask, if that is the case then would the black females technically NOT be carriers/splits, they are just blacks and you get your color from breeding to a lavender rooster or from a black carrier rooster?

 

[Henk69]

 

[hinkjc]

Correction to the following:

Lav/split breeding gives you 50% lav,25% split,25%black

Lavender X Split would give 50% lavender and 50% black split (carrying lav). You would not get any straight black in this cross.​

 

[Chris09]

Quote:
Hen's can not hide the chocolate gene if they have a copy of gene in them then they are chocolate if they don't then they are not...

Hen's only need 1 copy of the chocolate gene to be chocolate.
Rooster's need 2 copies of the chocolate gene to be chocolate.

www.chickencolours.com/Brownies%20&%20Khakis.pdf


Chris

 

[Heather08]

Quote:
I dont understand these graphs, is this like a punnet square? I jsut cant make out how this works..

 

[hinkjc]

I think where you're getting confused is choc is sex-linked recessive, where lavender is a simple recessive.

 

[Heather08]

that makes much more sense , but sex link is still a tough one to grasp coming from animal genetics that dont have sex link traits, i cant wrap my head around it LOL even worse the fact that chickens are the opposite from the normal animal world *ugh* , why can roosters just be XY and hens be XX, life would jsut be so much more simple

 

[Henk69]

Quote:
I dont understand these graphs, is this like a punnet square? I jsut cant make out how this works..

You can't get around the punnett square in genetics...

The "-" represents the w chromosome (the "Y" of birds if you like).
It has no chocolate gene or wildtype chocolate gene. So what is on the other chromosome (Z or the X of birds) will always show.

Also the animals with the "-" are the females.
In the lavender punnett square sexchromosome/gender is not a factor. The outcome represents both genders.

 

[becky3086]

Ok. What?
Somebody put the chocolate one in English please.

Never mind. I am going to read the page Chris posted.

 

[Heather08]

Quote:
I dont understand these graphs, is this like a punnet square? I jsut cant make out how this works..

You can't get around the punnett square in genetics...

The "-" represents the w chromosome (the "Y" of birds if you like).
It has no chocolate gene or wildtype chocolate gene. So what is on the other chromosome (Z or the X of birds) will always show.

Also the animals with the "-" are the females.
In the lavender punnett square sexchromosome/gender is not a factor. The outcome represents both genders.

OK im starting to get it....2 more cups of coffee..its starting to click... thank you.

In chickens the W = male and Z =female ? the - = female and + = male? Just trying to peel that away first in my head... see if I have that clear.