Mille Cochin Info

[mibirder]

A few of the Odd Balls:

Mottled showing Silver Lacing - Lacing is increasing with molt.


Blue based with penciling - will probably molt out as Blue based Calico




Blue Laced Red (?) showing some white ticking on breast



Solid Red showing Spangling



Columbia or Db based white showing nice Spangling - A little leary to use as he could be dominant white



Either a Blue Columbian Splash or Blue Db Splash - He has several spots of red/gold leakage



I think the blue gene may have snuck in a someplace in my Calico breeders as I was holding the hens in with some younger blue cockerels. I may not have wanted long enough before setting eggs from the hens. Oh well.

Dave

 

[Cadeau]

Hi guys!

I'm finding a lot of the same things!
I, too, was wondering what to do with the washed out buffs and where they are coming from?

and getting odd ball colors - mostly from a mottled/MF girl and a vermillion MF roo (I think?)
buff, black with red leakage, red mottled, a patridge-ish MF, washed out buff MF, buff columbian, (white) columbian...along with the MF

I have a really cute (white) columbian male that I'd LOVE to use, but I'm worried about the white.

I'm not even close to as experienced as most of you regarding the genetics side of things....so can't answer to that...going to have to do some research!

 

[mibirder]

When I got started, I found that MF recipe called for s+/s+(gold) Db/Db (so called dark brown) Co/Co (columbian) Pg/Pg (pattern) Ml/Ml (melanotic) Mh/Mh (mahogany) mo/mo (Mottle). The base elocus could be wheaten (eWh) , brown (eb) or a combo of each (eWh/eb).

While not 100%, lighter ones are likely eWh/eWh and are that washed out buff, almost yellow color. The darker reds are likely from Mh on the eb/eb based. According to many the best color comes from the eWh/eb buff colored females and vermillion males. Of course all of this is affected by what other genes are present.

Here in the US many started with Buff Columbian (that's the eWh or eb, Co, and likely Pg, Db, and Mh) crossed with mottled ( that's the mo parts). In Europe they apparently also use spangled which provides Db Mi and Pg. An alternative here was adding in partridge which has eb, s+,Pg, Mh, and often Di (dilute) with Mottle.

Even with all of the correct (?) parts for color present there can/will be variation in what is actually produced to a certain extent.

And all of this just addresses the color. Type is going to involve other genes and their variations within a group. Hence the importance of a constant gaze over the adults and offspring and the appropriate culling in order to achieve at,least modest success.

Dave

 

[ki4got]

When I got started, I found that MF recipe called for s+/s+(gold) Db/Db (so called dark brown) Co/Co (columbian) Pg/Pg (pattern) Ml/Ml (melanotic) Mh/Mh (mahogany) mo/mo (Mottle). The base elocus could be wheaten (eWh) , brown (eb) or a combo of each (eWh/eb).

While not 100%, lighter ones are likely eWh/eWh and are that washed out buff, almost yellow color. The darker reds are likely from Mh on the eb/eb based. According to many the best color comes from the eWh/eb buff colored females and vermillion males. Of course all of this is affected by what other genes are present.

Here in the US many started with Buff Columbian (that's the eWh or eb, Co, and likely Pg, Db, and Mh) crossed with mottled ( that's the mo parts). In Europe they apparently also use spangled which provides Db Mi and Pg. An alternative here was adding in partridge which has eb, s+,Pg, Mh, and often Di (dilute) with Mottle.

Even with all of the correct (?) parts for color present there can/will be variation in what is actually produced to a certain extent.

And all of this just addresses the color. Type is going to involve other genes and their variations within a group. Hence the importance of a constant gaze over the adults and offspring and the appropriate culling in order to achieve at,least modest success.

Dave

the problem with all that, is you need to narrow your focus. use either eb or eWh but not both, because the effect of other modifiers may be different on each base. eWh/eb is visially eWh since eb is the most recessive mutation on the e-locus.

quoted from http://kippenjungle.nl/basisEN.htm

for eb: "The males are wildtype looking including groundcolor wing triangle, but they have heavier hackle and saddle striping. Their underfluff is often dark. The hens are wildtype except they lack the salmon breast. Sometimes black animals are based on this partridge/brown color. " * I don't think eb is being referred to as partridge color, like partridge cochins, which i believe include pattern genes, but simply a partridge-brown.*

and for eWh: "Wheaten is the most suitable allele for red expression and the least suitable for black expression. The hens are mostly wheaten colored with little to no black markings on neck and back. The black tail is also prone to lose color. The salmon breast color is relocated to shoulder and back. Roosters look wildtype but have less hackle and saddle striping, and mostly light underfluff."

and that is before you even start playing with pattern genes, melanizers, mottling, etc.

 

[WestKnollAmy]

Awww, you all make it sound so hard with all the genes and modifiers. I have found that I breed type to type and get my better birds.
My mahogany roos had very little type nor did the girls so those were tossed from the MF program and just went for Frizzle fun.
The washed out buff/MF girls had very good type and are actually crossing with the vermillion colored MF roos nicely.
My MF/Mottled girls are extremely varied but I have started choosing the more Mottled ladies with just a bit of red in the throat because of the best type. I noticed that the least amount of white tipping on the feathers in these crosses and more leakage in the throat hackle areas, gave me least type.
Yes, I understand genetics but have found my typy birds out produce anything else. I might understand it and what bred to what will give me what but in my 40 years of breeding experience, knowing genetics is only half the battle.

I loved reading you all's conversation but I can just imagine a few sitting here scratching their heads. It really isn't all that difficult.

 

[mibirder]

Karen -

Some research breeders have found that eWh may have several forms as well as acting more recessive than previously thought based up black enhances that may be present.

http://www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=90033

This is a short thread discussing eb and eWh as used in MF. In addition Sigi references a paper she wrote in Dutch that I think will translate. I think I used Googles translator to do that.

I think part of the reason eWh/eb were used was to help even out the ground color ( caused by the eWh) as well as to help with the placement/restricting of black (from the eb).


As a few have stated, MF can be maddening and interesting all at the same time!

Dave

the problem with all that, is you need to narrow your focus. use either eb or eWh but not both, because the effect of other modifiers may be different on each base.  eWh/eb is visially eWh since eb is the most recessive mutation on the e-locus.

quoted from http://kippenjungle.nl/basisEN.htm

for eb:  "The males are wildtype looking including groundcolor wing triangle, but they have heavier hackle and saddle striping. Their underfluff is often dark. The hens are wildtype except they lack the salmon breast. Sometimes black animals are based on this partridge/brown color. "  * I don't think eb is being referred to as partridge color, like partridge cochins, which i believe include pattern genes, but simply a partridge-brown.*

and for eWh:  "Wheaten is the most suitable allele for red expression and the least suitable for black expression. The hens are mostly wheaten colored with little to no black markings on neck and back. The black tail is also prone to lose color. The salmon breast color is relocated to shoulder and back. Roosters look wildtype but have less hackle and saddle striping, and mostly light underfluff."

and that is before you even start playing with pattern genes, melanizers, mottling, etc. 

 

[ki4got]

Karen -

Some research breeders have found that eWh may have several forms as well as acting more recessive than previously thought based up black enhances that may be present.

http://www.the-coop.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=90033

This is a short thread discussing eb and eWh as used in MF. In addition Sigi references a paper she wrote in Dutch that I think will translate. I think I used Googles translator to do that.

I think part of the reason eWh/eb were used was to help even out the ground color ( caused by the eWh) as well as to help with the placement/restricting of black (from the eb).


As a few have stated, MF can be maddening and interesting all at the same time!

Dave
Quote: I agree eWh may or may not be dominant, but it's the eWh/eb that i find causes so many problems. because eb is recessive to eWh (and all other e-locus mutations) it's just hiding there to jump out at you when least expected (or wanted).

what I was suggesting was to 'develop' a pure eb or eWh line to work with.

personally my experience with these mutations so far has been primarily with e+ and my dorkings. i still have yet to get my brain wrapped around the various cochin colors yet. like what makes a buff? LOL

 

[bantyman]

Awww, you all make it sound so hard with all the genes and modifiers. I have found that I breed type to type and get my better birds.
My mahogany roos had very little type nor did the girls so those were tossed from the MF program and just went for Frizzle fun.
The washed out buff/MF girls had very good type and are actually crossing with the vermillion colored MF roos nicely.
My MF/Mottled girls are extremely varied but I have started choosing the more Mottled ladies with just a bit of red in the throat because of the best type. I noticed that the least amount of white tipping on the feathers in these crosses and more leakage in the throat hackle areas, gave me least type.
Yes, I understand genetics but have found my typy birds out produce anything else. I might understand it and what bred to what will give me what but in my 40 years of breeding experience, knowing genetics is only half the battle.

I loved reading you all's conversation but I can just imagine a few sitting here scratching their heads. It really isn't all that difficult.

Hey Amy

You have found out like I did a few years ago Breed type to type and color will find its way home Especially when you have a closed flock and use all your own birds genectics

Mike

 

[Msbear]

It may sound very complicated and common sense breeding may work just as well. I am no guru so... I just breed strong points to weaker points (light to dark, etc.) and keep funneling my way to better birds by selecting the nicest offspring. But, what I am concerned about especially considering this project may very well take us 15 years or so.. is that at some point down the road I hit a dead end. And, by breeding type to type I wind up with a silver gene that won't quit. OR find out that my bright idea to add partridge will never give me a clean pattern and I will be begging you wheaten people for birds. This stuff DOES HAPPEN. I have seen it. But, after 15 years, you ho hum and suck it up and take another 5 or 10 to try and correct it.. or give up. And, even if we create something we are proud of, what will happen when our line is crossed with someone else's??? A big surprise probably. I think swapping birds along the way and intermingling gene pools as much as possible could help the latter problem but, MARK MY WORDS.. there will be issues LOL

 

[WestKnollAmy]

You are right, there can be problems but I added one of Mike's roos to my line and it helped, not hindered my breeding. I did get different things but nothing I could not work with. I have not wanted to add partridge because that gene can cause problems and not ones that I want to deal with such as smuttiness. It has come out though so I work with it.
I also have many breeding pens and breed granddaughters back to grandfathers but then cross with roos in other pens to see what that gets me by introducing a "new" roo to my strains.

Like Mike, I breed, type to type and know the pattern will follow.

I think a lot of us are careful breeders. I see so much beauty in your birds that I know you are coming along nicely. It is slow going and if I am still puttering along with it in 15 years I will be thrilled to see how far I have come. The improvements I have seen in the 3 years I have been working with this project has given me great hope.

Losing a great roo is really hard. I have several and will keep them here until they pass away. Xavier is such a basic bird but his type and color is what I need. Schmoozle daughters back to him give me excellent material to work with and from there I keep other roosters. So much so, that I have sold a lot of my LF breeding birds.
I did lose Fred, my foundation roo, recently and can feel the loss as he and his offspring were crossing and giving me some really nice birds. Xavier is his son though and I will continue to try to improve it all.