tails vs. no tails breed cross - weird quirk of genetics?

[burntumber]

Quote:
Wow! Terrific link! I loved that it even has a glossary of terms at the end.

So what I need to do is evaluate the spine when we dress them out, I suppose. I will say they don't seem to have the hump-back look of a roachback- but it must be due to a recessive gene. I suppose it could be a modifier?

 

[mikarod]

Feather leg SHOULD be dominant if the male is Homozygous. If Heterozygous for feather-leg, then you could see 3/4 featherless and 1/4 with feathers, but could have seen 1/2.

Sounds like the Langshan was heterozygous rather than homo.

Example:

FF= Feathered Leg homozygous
Ff= Feathered Leg heterozygous
ff=No Feather Leg homo

f f
F Ff Ff

f ff ff

(I think we can ALL see that I made these symbols up...)

 

[Kev]

It should be FF= homozygous Ff= heterozygous.

So, it would be FF, Ff and ff with ff being no feather leg in your example.

But yeah, that's the basic point i was saying- hatchery stock is notorious for not being pure, breedwise or genetics wise(not being pure for feather legs in the Langshans in this instance).

Also there are several different genes for leg feathering. At least three.. silkies and cochins have all of them, langshans have either just one or two.


To find out if the rumplessness is dominant or not, breed the rumpless with a tailed bird that is completely unrelated and also do a sibling mating.

If they throw rumpless with the unrelated bird, it is dominant.

If the above does not produce any rumpless but sibling matings do, it's something recessive.

If none happen from either, it was something non-genetic probably.

 

[mikarod]

AH SHOOT. I meant to type the hetero on bottom and homo on top. That's what I get for cutting and pasting in mid-sentence...next time I'll just delete the whole sentence and forget about making it look pretty!

Thanks for the correction!

 

[burntumber]

Quote:
Thanks Mikorod and Kev- Good ol' punnet squares make these matters seem so tidy.

So, a sibling mating as in the other rumpless sibling? Or any tail length- it doesn't matter?

I may just do this out of curiousity- partly b/c I know one of the rumpless is a pullet and I was half way planning on keeping the pullets from this hatch. They're a tad younger than my up and coming flock of layer pullets- black stars. But I was thinking of tossing them in the pen with them when they get big enough.

My Langshan roo was the latest casualty of the fox or skunk or coyote that's been running off with my chickens of late.

So I'll need to put a roo in with them. I have a buff orpington with my meat birds, I was thinking he would be a good cross and would add a little meat to the offspring.

So I suppose the unrelated pairing would be a rumpless hen with a Buff Orpington roo.

 

[wilds of pa]

what type of combs do they all have, the rumpless ones and the tailed ones just wondering....??

Charlie

 

[Kev]

It sort of doesn't matter too much which sibling, however to another rumpless would have been good. For example if rumpless x rumpless produced all variants of total rumpless and partials while rumpless x another breed produced zero rumpless, it would be very clear support of the idea it's something recessive.

I forgot to mention that in your case offspring back to parent bird would have worked also.. if it is something recessive then expect 50% of the offspring to be rumpless. But it would be important to also cross with an unrelated bird, to make sure it isn't something dominant.. because if it was dominant, the results of offspring x parent would have produced 50% rumpless anyways..

The chick ratio does sound like it may be a recessive- 2 rumpless chicks out of 10 could fit the 25% result expected out of two parents carrying something recessive. Too early and not enough birds to make any real confirmation though.