New Color Varieties of Ameraucana......pictures from breeding projects

[Crunchie]

Quote:
Let me preface this by saying I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, Ameraucana + Ameraucana = Ameraucana. I'm not going to argue your point there 'cause, well, I get it.

But I'll give my own $.02, for the heck of it. The thing about new color varieties of Ameraucana is there is a standard for that variety that breeders are working towards. There can't be a standard for Ameraucana of mixed color parentage (EEs, if you will), like your example of brown red to silver, because a) the resulting colors are going to be random and b) they're never going to breed true. Take Lavender for example. Not a recognized color yet, and a variety that still needs a lot of work--but you know what you are working towards and it breeds true.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I try to make the Ameraucana/EE distinction because the waters seem to have been muddied so much by the hatcheries calling everything that lays a colored egg an "Ameraucana/Auracana." How else are folks who have worked so long and hard to preserve a breed (not me--talking about those who are much more experienced than I

) supposed to keep their breed true? I think most folks aren't looking to hurt feelings or tread on toes--they just want to educate. Most folks new to chickens have no idea what a true Ameraucana (or Auracana) is. It creates a lot of confusion.

Back to your point (the double standard)--I think it would be nice if you could refer to a non-standard color Ameraucana as just that--a non-standard Ameraucana. It makes sense. It is what it is. But until the confusion over what exactly an Ameraucana is (and until the hatcheries quit selling mixed-breed birds as Ameraucanas), it keeps things simpler (in my mind, anyway) to call non-standard birds EEs. Personally, if I have an off-colored bird (for example, I've hatched birds from my B/B/S pens--parents are pure Ameraucana that meet the standard--that have leaky gold feathering), I cull it and, if I sell it, I advertise it as an EE. I'll tell folks who are interested that it came from standard parents, but I want them to know that I'm not recommending that they breed the bird as an Ameraucana, because they will only be perpetuating that particular fault. Sometimes though, I struggle with that. Right now I have a nice black split to lavender cockerel that has some leaky silver. I ordinarily would get rid of the bird as an EE (or send him to be someone's dinner), but in the case of this new variety, I'm not so sure he couldn't be useful in a Lavender breeding program (I don't know enough about the genetics of self-blue to know if this leaky color would affect visually lavender birds). ???

This argument usually gets folks all fired up, but really, I think everyone is coming from a good place with it, and I think that discussion is good.

 

[McSpin]

Quote:
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. It actually makes it even more confusing. I mean, how can I take a pure ameracauna, breed it to a pure ameraucana, and end up with one of those "hybrid, a cross, a mutt, or whatever", simply based on color. Illogical to say the least.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Let me preface this by saying I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, Ameraucana + Ameraucana = Ameraucana. I'm not going to argue your point there 'cause, well, I get it.

But I'll give my own $.02, for the heck of it. The thing about new color varieties of Ameraucana is there is a standard for that variety that breeders are working towards. There can't be a standard for Ameraucana of mixed color parentage (EEs, if you will), like your example of brown red to silver, because a) the resulting colors are going to be random and b) they're never going to breed true.

Except that if you take a brown red OEGB and breed it to a silver OEGB the offspring will be considered OEGB

Take Lavender for example. Not a recognized color yet, and a variety that still needs a lot of work--but you know what you are working towards and it breeds true.

Lots of recognised colours do not breed true. No blue variety breeds true, and yet blue varieties are pretty much recognised. Splash which does breed true is unrecognised for many varieties and breeds. (When I say blue and splash varieties I am including not only blue and splash, but also blue/splash laced red, partridge, lemon blue, silver blue, blue red, blue mille fleur, etc.)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I try to make the Ameraucana/EE distinction because the waters seem to have been muddied so much by the hatcheries calling everything that lays a colored egg an "Ameraucana/Auracana." How else are folks who have worked so long and hard to preserve a breed (not me--talking about those who are much more experienced than I

) supposed to keep their breed true? I think most folks aren't looking to hurt feelings or tread on toes--they just want to educate. Most folks new to chickens have no idea what a true Ameraucana (or Auracana) is. It creates a lot of confusion.

While I do not disagree with your sentiment, preserving a breed sounds like you're talking about a heritage breed that has been around a very long time. A more accurate wording would be "have worked so hard to develop a breed."

Back to your point (the double standard)--I think it would be nice if you could refer to a non-standard color Ameraucana as just that--a non-standard Ameraucana. It makes sense. It is what it is. But until the confusion over what exactly an Ameraucana is (and until the hatcheries quit selling mixed-breed birds as Ameraucanas), it keeps things simpler (in my mind, anyway) to call non-standard birds EEs. Personally, if I have an off-colored bird (for example, I've hatched birds from my B/B/S pens--parents are pure Ameraucana that meet the standard--that have leaky gold feathering), I cull it and, if I sell it, I advertise it as an EE.

Whereas with other breeds people would call those birds pet quality breedname

I'll tell folks who are interested that it came from standard parents, but I want them to know that I'm not recommending that they breed the bird as an Ameraucana, because they will only be perpetuating that particular fault. Sometimes though, I struggle with that. Right now I have a nice black split to lavender cockerel that has some leaky silver. I ordinarily would get rid of the bird as an EE (or send him to be someone's dinner), but in the case of this new variety, I'm not so sure he couldn't be useful in a Lavender breeding program (I don't know enough about the genetics of self-blue to know if this leaky color would affect visually lavender birds). ???

Well, lavender dilutes both pigment colours, but you cannot dilute the complete lack of pigment. However, in developing a colour, or even in developing (via breeding) a flock or quality birds, you sometimes need to accept parents that are considerably lacking. If the gene(s) needed is not available in the breed, then you have to accept the faults that a different breed brings into the mix and work to breed them out. If you choose to breed to a quality flock rather than start with one (and goodness knows that many (especially young) people have more time than $$ available).

This argument usually gets folks all fired up, but really, I think everyone is coming from a good place with it, and I think that discussion is good.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. It actually makes it even more confusing. I mean, how can I take a pure ameracauna, breed it to a pure ameraucana, and end up with one of those "hybrid, a cross, a mutt, or whatever", simply based on color. Illogical to say the least.

Which is where flyingmonkeypoop and I come in with our comment that it is the type and other traits that define the breed, not the plumage colouring.

An EE can have feathered legs, or not. It can lay many colours of eggs. It can have any weight/size. It can have many body shapes. The wings can be carried at any angle. Feathering can be hard or soft. Numbers of toes are not defined. Tail can be long/short, level to squirrel, wide to narrow, ... Legs can be long (as in moderns), extra short (as in japanese), or average. These are the traits that define the difference between a dominique and a plymouth rock, between a leghorn and an ancona, between a cochin and a brahma, between any breeds that may share some similar traits.

 

[tadkerson]

Quote:
The standard defines the breed. If a bird does not meet the minimum standard it is disqualified. The females from the cross may meet the brown red standard therefore they may be brown red and some may or may not. The males on the other hand will not meet the standard for a red brown or a silver, therefore they are disqualified from winning at a show. You can not sell the male birds as silver or brown reds- if this is so what are they. They have to be something else because they have been disqualified. I would call them easter eggers because they do not qualify as an ameraucana variety.

Tim

 

[wilds of pa]

I love this lil site
EASTER EGGER CLUB OF AMERICA
Eastereggers.com
THUMBING OUR NOSES AT THE A.P.A. SINCE 1976
http://www.eastereggers.com/

 

[Birch Run Farm]

I have wondered why splash isn't an accepted color in ameraucana, does anyone know?

 

[Goose and Fig]

Quote:
Like that alot!

I have wondered why splash isn't an accepted color in ameraucana, does anyone know?

Yes- and it's not accepted in other breeds as well. Why is blue acceptable, and not splash?​

 

[Crunchie]

Quote:
Let me preface this by saying I completely understand what you are saying. Yes, Ameraucana + Ameraucana = Ameraucana. I'm not going to argue your point there 'cause, well, I get it.

But I'll give my own $.02, for the heck of it. The thing about new color varieties of Ameraucana is there is a standard for that variety that breeders are working towards. There can't be a standard for Ameraucana of mixed color parentage (EEs, if you will), like your example of brown red to silver, because a) the resulting colors are going to be random and b) they're never going to breed true.

Except that if you take a brown red OEGB and breed it to a silver OEGB the offspring will be considered OEGB

Take Lavender for example. Not a recognized color yet, and a variety that still needs a lot of work--but you know what you are working towards and it breeds true.

Lots of recognised colours do not breed true. No blue variety breeds true, and yet blue varieties are pretty much recognised. Splash which does breed true is unrecognised for many varieties and breeds. (When I say blue and splash varieties I am including not only blue and splash, but also blue/splash laced red, partridge, lemon blue, silver blue, blue red, blue mille fleur, etc.)

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I try to make the Ameraucana/EE distinction because the waters seem to have been muddied so much by the hatcheries calling everything that lays a colored egg an "Ameraucana/Auracana." How else are folks who have worked so long and hard to preserve a breed (not me--talking about those who are much more experienced than I

) supposed to keep their breed true? I think most folks aren't looking to hurt feelings or tread on toes--they just want to educate. Most folks new to chickens have no idea what a true Ameraucana (or Auracana) is. It creates a lot of confusion.

While I do not disagree with your sentiment, preserving a breed sounds like you're talking about a heritage breed that has been around a very long time. A more accurate wording would be "have worked so hard to develop a breed."

Back to your point (the double standard)--I think it would be nice if you could refer to a non-standard color Ameraucana as just that--a non-standard Ameraucana. It makes sense. It is what it is. But until the confusion over what exactly an Ameraucana is (and until the hatcheries quit selling mixed-breed birds as Ameraucanas), it keeps things simpler (in my mind, anyway) to call non-standard birds EEs. Personally, if I have an off-colored bird (for example, I've hatched birds from my B/B/S pens--parents are pure Ameraucana that meet the standard--that have leaky gold feathering), I cull it and, if I sell it, I advertise it as an EE.

Whereas with other breeds people would call those birds pet quality breedname

I'll tell folks who are interested that it came from standard parents, but I want them to know that I'm not recommending that they breed the bird as an Ameraucana, because they will only be perpetuating that particular fault. Sometimes though, I struggle with that. Right now I have a nice black split to lavender cockerel that has some leaky silver. I ordinarily would get rid of the bird as an EE (or send him to be someone's dinner), but in the case of this new variety, I'm not so sure he couldn't be useful in a Lavender breeding program (I don't know enough about the genetics of self-blue to know if this leaky color would affect visually lavender birds). ???

Well, lavender dilutes both pigment colours, but you cannot dilute the complete lack of pigment. However, in developing a colour, or even in developing (via breeding) a flock or quality birds, you sometimes need to accept parents that are considerably lacking. If the gene(s) needed is not available in the breed, then you have to accept the faults that a different breed brings into the mix and work to breed them out. If you choose to breed to a quality flock rather than start with one (and goodness knows that many (especially young) people have more time than $$ available).

This argument usually gets folks all fired up, but really, I think everyone is coming from a good place with it, and I think that discussion is good.

​

I don't have time to respond to each point, but I want to point out at least one thing--I think you think I'm disagreeing with you--I'm really not.

I think it would be appropriate to call a non-standard color Ameraucana a pet quality or non-standard bird. I'd like to sell my culls as such. It makes sense. I was simply trying to explain why I think folks get so up-in-arms about calling off-colored Ameraucana Ameraucana instead of Easter Egger--because I see their point, too. It's all well and good to sell a non-standard bird to someone for their backyard laying flock, but the problems arise when someone takes one of those birds to a show or starts breeding/selling birds themselves from those non-standard birds. And that wouldn't be a big deal (after all, there is a standard--a non-standard bird is always going to be a non-standard bird), except even APA judges don't always know what is accepted and what isn't, and a lot of folks buying birds called Ameraucana don't know what a true Ameraucana is. Calling everything that doesn't meet the standard an Easter Egger might not make a lot of sense to most of us, but I understand why a lot of breeders do just that. Like I said, I've done it myself, because at times I want to make sure that I am being perfectly clear about what I am selling (i.e., that I'm selling a pet, laying hen, or sunday dinner--not a bird that should be used for breeding standard Ameraucana).

And thanks for the info re: the leaky lav split. I'm fortunate to have a small breeding group of nice birds to work with (once they start laying

) that meets the standard and has nice size, type, etc. But I hesitate to cull the leaky roo as sunday dinner, when someone else might be able to use him. Maybe someone who doesn't mind working on the color but needs size & type.​

 

[McSpin]

Quote:
Exactly, so if I breed a pure ameraucana to a pure ameraucana, they will end up with ameraucana type, so regardless of color they are ameraucanas.

Another thing I've noticed. Why is it that no one refers to their splash birds are easter eggers? If you go to the ABC forum, you'll see tons of posts about splash ameraucanas, lavender ameracaunas and others, made by some of the more well-known ameraucana breeders. They should be saying Splash Easter Egger and Lavender easter egger, yet none of them do.