Telling blue from lavender and olandsk dwarf chickens

[ChicksnMore]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes

Um, sort of.
The dominant allele gets a capital letter, and the recessive one gets a lowercase letter.
So you just list whichever is present, the dominant or the recessive trait.

Example with blue:
Bl/Bl is splash (two copies of the blue gene, which is dominant.)
bl/bl is black (two copies of the not-blue gene, which is recessive.)
Bl/bl is blue (one copy of the blue gene, and one copy of the not-blue gene.)

Example with Dominant White:
I/I is pure for Dominant White.
I/i has one copy of the Dominant White gene, and one copy of not-Dominant-White
i/i is pure for not-Dominant-White

With many of the genes, we have a name for the mutation (blue, Dominat White, recessive white, etc.) But we don't have a good name for the other form of the gene, the original wild-type form.

I've settled for calling them not-blue, or not-Dominant-White, or not-recessive-white, just to point out that they are a gene at that place, but it's the gene for not having that trait. (I don't know of anyone else who habitually refers to them that way, but people seem to understand well enough what I mean, so I've kept doing it.)

Sometimes the mutation is dominant (Dominant White, Blue) and sometimes it's recessive (recessive white, mottling, lavender.)


I had a few Yokohamas at one point, too. Mine were all females. I liked them quite well, except that they made a LOT of noise (egg song too many times a day). I gave them to some friends, where they flew out of their pens and got killed by various predators (many other breeds of chickens were staying safely IN the same pens.)

So the Yokohamas I had didn't rate too high on survivability!


Incomplete dominance means that one copy of the blue gene has an effect (turns black to blue) but two copies of the blue gene have a stronger effect (turns black to splash.)

Complete dominance is when one copy of a gene (not-recessive-white) has the very same effect as two copies of that gene. You cannot tell by looking at the chicken whether it carries one copy of the recessive white gene or whether it is pure for not-recessive-white.


I think they had splash birds, and mistakenly thought they had white birds. (So they crossed a splash with a black and got blue-- no surprise there!) That is the simplest explanation that covers the "facts" in the story.

Or they had a bird that was splash, but looked white because it also had one copy of the Dominant White gene. So when they crossed it with a black bird, they got some white chicks (Dominant White, also genetically blue but you can' t see the blue) and some blue chicks (no Dominant White, so you are able to see the blue.)



Or they could possibly have had birds that were white from recessive white, but also splash. Crossing those to a black bird would have given blue chickens (black x splash = blue, and recessive white x not-recessive white gives birds that are not white.) Or to use symbols, the chicks from such a cross would be Bl/bl C/c.

But I think they most likely had splash birds and were CALLING them "white."

Yes, a "white" bird created with Dominant White is genetically an all-black bird (so no red can show), and then the black is turned to white by Dominant White.


You seem to be grasping a lot of this very quickly, so your brain probably is working very hard!


Yes, black can be complicated!


Blue is the name for an actual allele. It just happens to be incompletely dominant, so only one copy of the blue allele is needed to make a chicken look "blue."

Dominant White is a separate gene, at a different locus.
Blue is much easier if you leave Dominant White out of the picture.


Dominant genes get capital letters, whether they are completely dominant or incompletely dominant. Recessive genes get lowercase letters.



The e-locus is definitely interesting, but also complicated!
It affects the adult color of the chicken, but also the color of the down when the chicks hatch. And with at least 5 alleles, and many ways to combine them, and many other changes caused by other genes-- it can be very hard to figure out!


I've learned a lot from it too!


From what you have described of your birds, you probably do not have Extended Black in your flock.

--Extended Black chicks are often colored like little penguins, in black and yellow.

If you want to look up pictures, here are examples of some chickens that have Extended Black:
Barred Rock and Cuckoo Marans (white barring on the black)
Blue Cuckoo Marans (blue gene dilutes the black, and white barring on that.)
Mottled Ancona (mottled gene on the black)
Lavender Orpingon (lavender gene dilutes the black)
Chocolate Orpington (chocolate gene dilutes the black)
Pearl Old English Game Bantam (lavender gene dilutes the black, AND mottled gene makes white dots.)
White Leghorns (Dominant White changes the black to white. But they often have blue, barring, and various other genes too-- it's like someone stacked up every possible gene that could make black lighter or remove it in places, and put them all in the same chickens to make them REALLY white!)




Extended Black written as E means it is dominant over the other alleles at the e-locus.

Dominant White written as I means it is dominant over other alleles at the i-locus.

Recessive white written as c means it is recessive to other alleles at the c-locus.

Whether a gene is dominant or recessive at its own locus does not tell you how it interacts with genes at a different locus.


I think you are likely to be right about them being e+ or eb at the e-locus, but I'm not positive either.


I've had times when I really wanted to know what genes something had, so I certainly understand that!

Aaaa!

I did say my brains fried right?

I completely forgot that dominant white masks black, not leaks color! I do actually remember that...most of the time. Eventually I'll remember it all of the time!

Your explaination of blue makes sense now and I agree...those original white birds must have carried splash. So it is a gene and not an interaction. Very nice explaination!

I kept hanging up on the "expressed in a reduced ratio" and thinking that must mean it's not a gene but an interaction between genes. I thought reading Mendel's theory might help me understand the interactions between genes but but...sigh. I do like your explaination of incomplete/complete dominance. That made sense.

Ok. Let's try again

So....all the letters we use to describe phenotypes are genes and the interactions between them that effect phenotypes are understood from reading the gene combinations once you know enough about how the individual genes work.

Each locus requires 2 alleles...wait...or 5...ouch...

Hmm. Ok. So maybe better to say that each parent gives 1 allele so each locus recieves 2 alleles for each spot that requires an allele? So we state the visible allele and know that there is a paired allele there that may be visible as in cc. Or it might be invisible and only show through future breedings as in Cc. And C is not the absence of an allele there but the wild type which may or may not have a visible effect but isn't significant enough to be named or is unknown.

Whew...did I get it right?

I think I'll start on that kippenjungle site tonight. It'll make nice bedtime reading. I started to read it the other night and got sidetracked. Did you know that kippenjungle site has calculators for finches, squirrels and all kinds of things? It's amazing! Anyways, genetics may take a bit to understand but it's fascinating.

I loved seeing how the chicks are effected by the genes, and the pearl old English are absolutely gorgeous! I read somewhere that the lavender fades out if bred lav to lav too much and needs an occasional dose of black added back in? I have my hands full on chickens right now...but someday I might have to get some of those if I can find them.

Your poor Yoko's! Mine are pretty quiet...well, maybe it seems that way because their nests are further from the house then my little chickens. They get more freedom then the little guys so they often end up in my garden...but their house is about half an acre from it. My roosters crow so rarely that it sometimes startles me...their voice is so much deeper then my other birds!

Well...at least they made some predators happy

 

[NatJ]

Aaaa!

I did say my brains fried right?

I completely forgot that dominant white masks black, not leaks color! I do actually remember that...most of the time. Eventually I'll remember it all of the time!

And that's why I've said that I "sort-of" know things, and look some up to be sure.
I've done things like that too many times to count!
But over time, I do remember it more often and forget less often.

Your explaination of blue makes sense now and I agree...those original white birds must have carried splash. So it is a gene and not an interaction. Very nice explaination!

I'm glad my explanation helped!

I kept hanging up on the "expressed in a reduced ratio" and thinking that must mean it's not a gene but an interaction between genes.

I've forgotten where you found that phrase, but I would expect "expressed in a reduced ratio" to mean that less offspring show the recessive trait, and more show the dominant trait.

Example with recessive white:
Cross CC with cc to get Cc
Cross Cc with Cc to get 25% CC, 50% Cc, 25% cc
But when you look at those chicks, CC and Cc look alike (show color), so 75% of the chicks are colored. Only 25% look white (cc). So you're seeing a reduced number of cc chicks, compared to what you might see with a dominant gene.

I thought reading Mendel's theory might help me understand the interactions between genes but but...sigh.

It can certainly be a lot to wade through

I do like your explaination of incomplete/complete dominance. That made sense.

Ok. Let's try again

So....all the letters we use to describe phenotypes are genes and the interactions between them that effect phenotypes are understood from reading the gene combinations once you know enough about how the individual genes work.

That sounds right to me!

Each locus requires 2 alleles...wait...or 5...ouch...

Hmm. Ok. So maybe better to say that each parent gives 1 allele so each locus recieves 2 alleles for each spot that requires an allele?

Yes, correct. One allele from each parent, so 2 total in the chicken.
Each locus requires at least 2 alleles to exist, or else we wouldn't be paying any attention to it. (Because if only 1 allele exists, then all chickens have that trait, so we just consider it part of being a chicken-- like having 2 legs and 2 wings and 1 head. So we don't think of it as a locus.)

But there can be several mutated alleles, like at the e-locus (5+), even though a particular chicken only has two of them. It's like having a plate with many kinds of cookies, but you're only allowed to take one with each hand, so it's impossible to try them all

So we state the visible allele and know that there is a paired allele there that may be visible as in cc. Or it might be invisible and only show through future breedings as in Cc. And C is not the absence of an allele there but the wild type which may or may not have a visible effect but isn't significant enough to be named or is unknown.

Whew...did I get it right?

Yes, I think you do have it

I think I'll start on that kippenjungle site tonight. It'll make nice bedtime reading. I started to read it the other night and got sidetracked. Did you know that kippenjungle site has calculators for finches, squirrels and all kinds of things? It's amazing! Anyways, genetics may take a bit to understand but it's fascinating.

Definitely easy to get sidetracked, with that many fun things

I loved seeing how the chicks are effected by the genes, and the pearl old English are absolutely gorgeous! I read somewhere that the lavender fades out if bred lav to lav too much and needs an occasional dose of black added back in?

I may have read that too, but I don't remember for sure.
I have no personal experience with breeding lavender.

 

[ChicksnMore]

And that's why I've said that I "sort-of" know things, and look some up to be sure.
I've done things like that too many times to count!
But over time, I do remember it more often and forget less often.


I'm glad my explanation helped!


I've forgotten where you found that phrase, but I would expect "expressed in a reduced ratio" to mean that less offspring show the recessive trait, and more show the dominant trait.

Example with recessive white:
Cross CC with cc to get Cc
Cross Cc with Cc to get 25% CC, 50% Cc, 25% cc
But when you look at those chicks, CC and Cc look alike (show color), so 75% of the chicks are colored. Only 25% look white (cc). So you're seeing a reduced number of cc chicks, compared to what you might see with a dominant gene.


It can certainly be a lot to wade through





That sounds right to me!


Yes, correct. One allele from each parent, so 2 total in the chicken.
Each locus requires at least 2 alleles to exist, or else we wouldn't be paying any attention to it. (Because if only 1 allele exists, then all chickens have that trait, so we just consider it part of being a chicken-- like having 2 legs and 2 wings and 1 head. So we don't think of it as a locus.)

But there can be several mutated alleles, like at the e-locus (5+), even though a particular chicken only has two of them. It's like having a plate with many kinds of cookies, but you're only allowed to take one with each hand, so it's impossible to try them all


Yes, I think you do have it


Definitely easy to get sidetracked, with that many fun things


I may have read that too, but I don't remember for sure.
I have no personal experience with breeding lavender.

Quick questions...from the little I think I know about olansdk chickens, they come in a really wide variety of colors with no solid colored birds. But there can be everything between nearly solid dark colored to nearly solid white colored.

What my friend told me was that in natural conditions there's multiple flocks and that supports the wide color variety of landraces, which we try to mimic by separating them into color groups for breeding. That makes sense to me...but, I'm wondering if there's any birds who's genes support the wide variety without breeding them by colors?

Then health wise...I'm used to culling birds with unhealthy defects and periodically adding a few unrelated birds to keep the flock healthy. I asked my friend about inbreeding and she said that there is always a downward curve in health at the beginning, but that with careful selection for health rather then looks once you've achieved your inbreeding goal, then the health of the flock can return to pre-inbreeding health. Is that true as far as you know?

Then there's breeding out to birds of a different breed to introduce or improve traits or to improve vitality. My friends stance was that if it looks like that breed as far as colors, markings and body type and can reliably pass those same traits on to its offspring, then it is that breed. That also makes sense to me...but then I know a lot of people also care greatly about the purity of bloodlines, including my friend...lol. I'm wondering if the blue birds from her are an outcross to add blue or a naturally occurring color. I haven't found anyone who's heard of blue in the breed and don't know how to tell...they look like the other birds except in color and as far as I know, she didn't outcross them. But she said they breed true which I thought referred to color...now I'm wondering if she meant total phenotype. I have a hard time believing she didn't know lav from blue so I'm guessing I misunderstood something somewhere. Is there a way I can tell or does this not matter as long as they breed true to phenotype for the breed?

Though without an established phenotype....sigh...this is helping me understand why she wanted them recognized. I think I know at least some of her thoughts on what their phenotype should be. Without an established phenotype and unreliable internet picture resources to look at to know what an olansdk dwarf should look like...do I just study the birds I have an try to pick birds to breed that please me or are there things I should be trying to look for like chest size, stance, back length....?

 

[NatJ]

from the little I think I know about olansdk chickens, they come in a really wide variety of colors with no solid colored birds. But there can be everything between nearly solid dark colored to nearly solid white colored.

I've read that chickens with the mottling gene will show more white as they get older (more white appearing each time they molt.)

I don't think that's enough to account for all the differences you are seeing, but it might be part of it.

What my friend told me was that in natural conditions there's multiple flocks and that supports the wide color variety of landraces, which we try to mimic by separating them into color groups for breeding. That makes sense to me...but, I'm wondering if there's any birds who's genes support the wide variety without breeding them by colors?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

If you just let all the colors mix freely, you certainly will get a variety of colors in the offspring.

This is common in flocks of Easter Egger chickens (selected to lay colored eggs, but the hatchery or breeder doesn't care what color they are.)

At least one hatchery sells "naked neck" chickens in mixed colors. They all breed true for some traits (naked neck, size, body shape, egg color), but not for color.

If you're wondering why so many chickens DO breed true for color, it's because people have chosen to breed them that way.
Chickens that just breed among themselves, with no people controlling the pairings, do tend to have a mixture of colors.

Then health wise...I'm used to culling birds with unhealthy defects and periodically adding a few unrelated birds to keep the flock healthy. I asked my friend about inbreeding and she said that there is always a downward curve in health at the beginning, but that with careful selection for health rather then looks once you've achieved your inbreeding goal, then the health of the flock can return to pre-inbreeding health. Is that true as far as you know?

I've heard that idea before, and I think it's partly true.

If a certain problem is caused by a specific gene, you can develop a flock that is completely free of that problem by culling all birds that carry the gene. It's the same way you could eliminate Blue or recessive white from a flock, but with health issues rather than color ones. That part I am sure is true.

But I've also read that inbreeding tends to cause a general state of less health, smaller chickens, lower egg production, and poor hatchability of eggs. Those are probably caused by some set of genes that we don't currently recognize or understand. It may be possible to select the best birds and ultimately breed out the unwanted genes-- I don't know for sure, but it MIGHT be possible.

I've read of experiments with mice, where they bred brother-sister for many generations. Some lines completely died out (could not produce enough babies to keep breeding.) But some other lines were apparently fine, even after many generations.

I've read of similar things with gardeners saving seeds from a small number of plants. With the plants, it largely goes by species. Peas usually self-pollinate, so they are naturally inbreeding, and any plants with problematic genes just die out. This leaves only the ones that grow fine when they are inbred. But corn spreads pollen all over on the wind, and naturally crosses with many other corn plants. Inbred corn performs very poorly (small plants, low yields, poor fertility.) It looks like corn has a large number of genes that are fine until too many of them stack up in the same plant.

If it can happen in mice and plants, there is at least the chance that it can work in chickens too-- select the healthiest ones, and eventually have an inbred population that is free of the genes that would cause trouble. It would depend on how many genes are involved, and how easy it is to recognize the effects. I do not know if it actually can be done in chickens or not. So maybe??

My friends stance was that if it looks like that breed as far as colors, markings and body type and can reliably pass those same traits on to its offspring, then it is that breed.

I would agree with that.

That also makes sense to me...but then I know a lot of people also care greatly about the purity of bloodlines, including my friend...lol.

If you cross to chickens from another bloodline, you might get unexpected traits popping up because of the crossing.

For example, if you cross white chickens (recessive white) to white chickens (Extended Black with Dominant White), you get white chicks. But when you cross those with each other, the next generation produces a few chicks that are NOT white. The off-colored chicks might be black: Extended Black, pure for ii (not-Dominant-White), and also have C (not-recessive-white). Or they might have some amount of gold: any other e-allele (inherited from the original recessive white chicken), plus C (not-recessive-white) to allow the color to show.

Of course this can happen with other traits too, not just colors.

I'm wondering if the blue birds from her are an outcross to add blue or a naturally occurring color. I haven't found anyone who's heard of blue in the breed and don't know how to tell...they look like the other birds except in color and as far as I know, she didn't outcross them. But she said they breed true which I thought referred to color...now I'm wondering if she meant total phenotype.

I would guess the "breed true" refers to overall type, not specifically the blue color, but of course I cannot be sure that's what she meant.

If she had done an outcross to add blue, it might have been many years ago. Just including a blue chicken in each year's breeding would make sure some chicks have blue, so the gene would continue to be present in the flock.

Or maybe someone else did an outcross, before she got the chickens.

Or maybe the color always was in the breed, but not in large numbers, so many people just don't know about it

I have a hard time believing she didn't know lav from blue so I'm guessing I misunderstood something somewhere. Is there a way I can tell or does this not matter as long as they breed true to phenotype for the breed?

I agree it seems likely that she could tell blue and lavender apart, but of course there's no way to be positive about that.

Can you tell whether there was an outcross? Probably not, unless you find proof that blue NEVER existed in the breed before that point. I do not think you could ever prove a thing like that.

I found this page about the breed online:
http://www.mythosfarm.com/olandsk-dwarf-info.html
It says, "The brightly spangled color patterns of the established Olandsk Dwarf flocks in the US include red, white, black and blue, with a lot of variation between individuals. This makes them very easy to tell apart in a small flock, especially nice for those who like to name their chickens! In Sweden, both straight and rosecombs are seen, along with occasionally feathered shanks, but the US strains thus far are all straight combed and have featherless shanks."

I have no idea how accurate that is, but at least one other person thinks blue does exist in the breed.

Though without an established phenotype....sigh...this is helping me understand why she wanted them recognized. I think I know at least some of her thoughts on what their phenotype should be. Without an established phenotype and unreliable internet picture resources to look at to know what an olansdk dwarf should look like...do I just study the birds I have an try to pick birds to breed that please me or are there things I should be trying to look for like chest size, stance, back length....?

Sorry, I don't know what to look for.
If there is a group of people working toward recognition of the breed, you might consult them-- that way everyone could work toward the same standard, instead of breeding toward different goals.

 

[ChicksnMore]

She said something along the lines of small flocks tend to homogenize in appearance over time even if the beginning birds have diverse colors, because they end up inbreeding without control and the gene pool is too small. That in nature the birds disperse, mix and form new flocks which means theres some inbreeding but at the same time a huge gene pool that we can't mimic in the small numbers we keep birds. So in the typical household flock, each generation looks more and more alike until the wide color variety is lost.

Is this true?

And if it is true...then are there any breeds that keep the color variety even if they're in small flocks for a long time with no new blood added?

 

[NatJ]

She said something along the lines of small flocks tend to homogenize in appearance over time even if the beginning birds have diverse colors, because they end up inbreeding without control and the gene pool is too small. That in nature the birds disperse, mix and form new flocks which means theres some inbreeding but at the same time a huge gene pool that we can't mimic in the small numbers we keep birds. So in the typical household flock, each generation looks more and more alike until the wide color variety is lost.

Is this true?

And if it is true...then are there any breeds that keep the color variety even if they're in small flocks for a long time with no new blood added?

Oh, that makes sense. I think she's right.

In a given small flock, if one rooster mates with all the hens, he is providing half the genes for EVERY chick. And if he later mates with his daughters, that concentrates his genes even more. So yes, they would all come to look more and more like him, and be more and more alike genetically.

And yes, with a gene pool more than a certain amount small, you lose genes over time. One year you might have just a single bird with blue, and if it dies without passing on the gene, that flock will never again have any blue chicks, unless some other bird brings the gene back in.

Yes, I can see how that would happen with flocks owned by individual people or with wild flocks.

In that case, no, I do not think there are any breeds or combinations of genes that would keep a variety of colors for a long time, unless a person was controlling the breeding.

If a person controls the breeding, they can make sure that the whole array of variations are present in each generation, so none are lost-- which CAN make it possible to keep all varieties present as a long-term thing. But it would still depend on flock size. You can generally keep a larger collection of genes if you have 12 chickens than if you have only a single pair, and and even larger flocks would help even more.

 

[ChicksnMore]

So if I did put all the birds together and just enjoyed them as a flock...they probably wouldn't stay the same...although with multiple roosters it might?

Sorry...guess I'm trying to decide if I really want to try to do this. I enjoy trying to learn genetics but I enjoy the birds more in less controlled conditions. Part of me wants to make one flock of them...that's when they're the most enjoyable. And I'm not sure I'm even up to all this.

Anyhow, time will tell me if I can enjoy my row of new coops with their cute little occupants.

Thanks again for your time, patience and well worded explanations

 

[NatJ]

So if I did put all the birds together and just enjoyed them as a flock...they probably wouldn't stay the same...although with multiple roosters it might?

If you hatch more chicks than you keep each year, and are careful to choose a variety of colors to keep each year, you might have lots of colors for a long time.

I've seen a suggestion for some other kind of livestock, that could apply to chickens too: make sure more than one animal has each gene (allele) that you care about.

So if you like both blue and not-blue, make sure you have at least two birds that are blue or splash, and at least two that are blue or black. Obviously, you can do that with 2 blue birds, or 2 black and 2 splash, or 1 each of black, blue, and splash. But if a single bird dies, you have not entirely lost that gene. (And so on for other genes where you want variety.)

But the birds can all breed true for traits that you want in all of them (that might include clean legs, single combs, and mottling.)

Sorry...guess I'm trying to decide if I really want to try to do this. I enjoy trying to learn genetics but I enjoy the birds more in less controlled conditions. Part of me wants to make one flock of them...that's when they're the most enjoyable. And I'm not sure I'm even up to all this.

Decisions are hard!

You might be able to separate them for a few months when you want to breed, and let them be together the rest of the time. (Integrating all the little groups might be difficult or might not be. But putting a bunch of small groups together is probably easier than adding just a few chickens to a big group.)

Or you could keep most of the roosters in a bachelor pen, and leave just one with the hens. Then switch roosters every so often, and hatch one batch of chicks from each sire. That would keep all the chickens as two groups, but let you hatch chicks from most possible combinations of parents.

You could even keep them as one flock for a few years and see how it goes, and then sort them out into same-color breeding groups if you were not happy with how things were going. (Depending on how long you keep each individual chicken, you might still have the original birds after several years, which would make it much easier to re-establish pure colors.)

Thanks again for your time, patience and well worded explanations

You're welcome. It's fun to find someone else who enjoys this!

 

[ChicksnMore]

If you hatch more chicks than you keep each year, and are careful to choose a variety of colors to keep each year, you might have lots of colors for a long time.

I've seen a suggestion for some other kind of livestock, that could apply to chickens too: make sure more than one animal has each gene (allele) that you care about.

So if you like both blue and not-blue, make sure you have at least two birds that are blue or splash, and at least two that are blue or black. Obviously, you can do that with 2 blue birds, or 2 black and 2 splash, or 1 each of black, blue, and splash. But if a single bird dies, you have not entirely lost that gene. (And so on for other genes where you want variety.)

But the birds can all breed true for traits that you want in all of them (that might include clean legs, single combs, and mottling.)



Decisions are hard!

You might be able to separate them for a few months when you want to breed, and let them be together the rest of the time. (Integrating all the little groups might be difficult or might not be. But putting a bunch of small groups together is probably easier than adding just a few chickens to a big group.)

Or you could keep most of the roosters in a bachelor pen, and leave just one with the hens. Then switch roosters every so often, and hatch one batch of chicks from each sire. That would keep all the chickens as two groups, but let you hatch chicks from most possible combinations of parents.

You could even keep them as one flock for a few years and see how it goes, and then sort them out into same-color breeding groups if you were not happy with how things were going. (Depending on how long you keep each individual chicken, you might still have the original birds after several years, which would make it much easier to re-establish pure colors.)


You're welcome. It's fun to find someone else who enjoys this!

Omg! I was thinking I needed to keep them my way or her way... but your right...lol. I can re-mark them by coop with a system I know, then put them together and separate only when I want to breed!

I was getting hung up on honoring my friend.

That sounds perfect. Now I feel like I can relax, breathe, and just enjoy my wonderful gift. I can take my time and learn what I need to know so I can choose chicks to keep...lol. I have chicks just hatched and I kept looking at them knowing I have to choose from them down the road and not feeling ready.

They mix together easy. I had to put them all together when they first came while I built a row of coops to keep them as she had them. A little squabbling and a few of the birds have small scabs on their combs now...but they settled down quickly.

I can just hear my friend laughing at me

 

[NatJ]

put them together and separate only when I want to breed!

It's best if you separate them 3-4 weeks before you start collecting eggs for hatching (because hens can store sperm from mating with the other roosters.)

But that's still a relatively short time, compared with all year long