J_Star
265 posts
Feb 24, 2006
11:16 AM
|
Here is a question that has come to mind. How many people on this list had something show up in there birds that they didn't know was there or breed for it, for example, Crest on back of head. The reason I am asking is because there was a discussion with one of my friends about a crest showing up on the back of some bird’s head in his loft. He claims that his birds are pure and never mixed any thing with them since had them back in 1992. I never have had this show up in my loft and was wondering if this or any other kind of throw back from generations ago when the birds were developed that has shown up in other fanciers lofts. I know of other lofts in Ontario (Canada) that has had this show up in their lofts. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has had this or something different. Thanks.
Jay
|
Mount Airy Lofts
116 posts
Feb 24, 2006
12:14 PM
|
I have heard this happening in a few select families. It seems to be all linked to one select England bred family. I don't recall which one but it did originated from England.
I think Crest can occur in these select families. If inbreded the right birds to produce it. The question is, if one is willing to stock such a bird when he does breed it.
Like crest, web feet is the most commonly found mutation. It is found in most of the top families. I have heard rumours that the Crystal Palance Cock located on the cover of Mr. Pensoms book had the genes or was little web footed himself or was that the 514 Hen. Memory isn't what it use to be so this is just what I recall hearing.
Neither web feet or crest have ever cropped up in my family. Altho if it had, I would stock it. The only determining factor would be if it was a Champion. Champion is RARE and I wouldn't hesitate to breed from it if I bred the bird in question. I don't breed many Champions but if I had an equally good bird without crest or web feet, I would rather stock that bird instead.
Yes, Crest can occur in a pure family. Altho, I believe the majority of crested roller in name only is more of a product of cross genetic breeding now then in the past.
Just my opinion,
Thor
|
donb
8 posts
Feb 24, 2006
9:17 PM
|
A recessive gene can float around in a family for an eternity and you never will know it is there until it pairs up with another one like it and , bingo, it shows up. I had that happen with the barless gene. I had gotten a blue ck cock from larry Ward in dewitt Mi. and had used him extensively with different hens also used some of his offspring in several different matings. I got a lot of bars from these birds but never a barless. Then3-4 yrs. later James Turner gave me a dilute blue barless cock and I mated him to a blu bar hen from from the Ward line and lo and behold I got barless babies first time around. So this recessive barless gene had been there for a long time but did not happen to get the right pair together for it to show up. This can happen with any recessive gene -- not just color or pattern.
|
Mount Airy Lofts
117 posts
Feb 25, 2006
6:12 AM
|
I don't get it.
If you had been breeding a certain family tight for several generations... let's say 30 years without any barless and whammo.. you bring in a bird with the Bar Less gene into your program. Then you start breeding Bar Less, what is the problem. How could it be hidden when you crossed it in?
I'm confused?
We are talking about not crossing in any thing here from any other source, aren't we? If you have crossed in a family you know nothing about, then expect to see mutations - bar less, opal, etc.
Oh, for breeding Bar Less... don't you only need one bird to carry it. Maybe I am off base here but that is what I recall. If so, then it would not be a mutation if the bird you crossed in from James was carrying Bar Less.
Confused?
Thor
P.S. Isn't it like saying if I only had one opal cock in the loft - of like say pure bred (old famous family)... mated to a non producing, non carrying, regular blue check self of like say pure bred (old famous family). They went on to produce opal checks in the first generation if not the second and all of a sudden one of my other pair produced a round of opal youngs. This new pair never in it's history produced opal youngs before or in their family back ground and after. I can bet my money that the Cock mated to that hen was not the father. Did opal mutate? You can bet the hen was probably mounted by the opal cock when she wasn't looking or maybe she was just a slut. Wouldn't you agree. If so, how could your bar less mutation be a mutation.
|
661roller
3 posts
Feb 25, 2006
11:15 AM
|
Thor,
The barless is recessive to bar and check so one bird being barless will not produce more barless unless it's mate carries the barless pattern underneath a more dominant pattern such as check or bar.
To be a barless bird it has to be what some refer to as "pure" for barless or as some say, have two doses of barless or as others say, be homozygous for barless.
So in order for a "pure" for barless to produce barless young, it's mate had to be carrying a single dose of barless and that could go undetected in the family for years and years.
So it is not a mutation when barless are produced in such a mating...it just tells the breeder that he had the barless pattern already in his stock without knowing it.
Jim
|
Mount Airy Lofts
118 posts
Feb 25, 2006
8:14 PM
|
Jim,
I see what you are saying if that is true. I am not a genetic expert so I can't agrue otherwise.
I just know the basics - like T-Check can produce T-Check, Check, Bar, and Bar Less (rare). Check can produce Bar and Bar Less. Bar can produce Bar Less. Bar Less can produce Bar less.
I didn't know you need two of any pattern to produce any of the above. Of course, what do I know...
I still am quite confused about how you figured it mutated tho. You stated Bar Less needs to be present in both birds. Yet, you never got any Bar Less until you crossed in the Turner Bar Less. Did this Turner Bar Less have a track record of producing Bar Less for Turner? Was it bred down from Turners Bar Less line?
To me, a mutation is some thing that mutated. It is not something that is in the line. That is why I am confused... maybe you can help me understand my wrong here.
Flier,
Thor
P.S. Bar Less is suppose to be a recessive trait as you have explain. Is it like Rec. Red then. If so, don't you only need one Rec. Red mated to a non carry Rec. Red to produce Rec. Reds?
|
Tony Chavarria
Site Publisher
497 posts
Feb 25, 2006
8:45 PM
|
Hey Jay, I have never had any crest or webfeet show up in my family, I will see some with shorter beaks from time to time.
Starfire of Canada, who used to frequent this site has a loft full of crested rollers. I think he took alot of heat for breeding to this trait and getting away from the roll.
----------------------
FLY ON! Tony Chavarria
|
J_Star
269 posts
Feb 26, 2006
7:36 AM
|
Yes Tony, I remember that time. But here is my friend, who swears that he never crossed anything but yet one crest just came out last breeding season. Also I was reading 'Winners with Spinners' by Graham Dexter which was printed (first edition) in 1989 and there are a few pictures for crested rollers in his loft or the lofts of the rollermen at that time. That is in England where they don't believe in crossing anything with their roller. So, that leads me to believe that crest is not fault and is not crossed by other breed as the discussion was leading to back then. Am I right or wrong?
Jay
|
661roller
4 posts
Feb 26, 2006
7:54 AM
|
Thor,
My point was that there was no mutation in that case, barless was already hiding in the stock and when a "pure" for barless was introduced it was much easier for the barless to pop up and be seen. With a recessive pattern like barless and also with recessive red it is true that both parents have to have at least one dose of it for it to appear in their young.
Maybe where you are being confused is that you can introduce a recessive into your stock by adding only one bird, but you need to breed an offspring of the one carrying recessive back to it's parent to make it show up.
So it takes a few generations to appear, you won't see it just by mating a recessive or recessive carrier to a non-recessive.
Jim
P.S. I am not the one who got a barless Turner bird. I just jumped into the conversation with my 2 cents worth. I beieve it was Don who brought it up.
Last Edited by 661roller on Feb 26, 2006 7:57 AM
|
661roller
5 posts
Feb 26, 2006
8:16 AM
|
Thor,
One other point of clarification on the patterns....you are correct that T-check can produce check, bar and barless. And check can produce bar and barless. And bar can produce barless.
But there is a big IF in all of these cases. The IF being if it is carrying the other pattern.
A bird can only carry two of these patterns. For example, a T-check will be either pure for T-check or be carrying ONE of the following...check, bar, or barless.
A check will either be pure for check or carrying ONE of the following...bar or barless.
A bar will be either pure for bar or carrying barless.
A barless will always be pure for barless because it it the most recessive of all the patterns.
Jim
|
Mount Airy Lofts
120 posts
Feb 26, 2006
3:05 PM
|
With all the line breeding and in breeding I do, I should look forward to seeing Bar Less pop out? As to what I got from your post, you stated it is not a mutation now but had all ways been in your birds. That is probably why I was confused. As I thought we were talking about mutations here not something in our birds all ready.
If I get you correctly, then with enough time, I should see Bar Less being bred in numbers with the birds I have as well. Since it is recessive and all I need to do is pair up the right combonations. I sure hope this isn't true and highly doubt it will happen in my life time but by from your experience it should and will.
To my knowledge, there has been no such Bar Less bird bred in my linage. This family has been line bred and in bred for several generations spanning over 50 years. I plan on contiuning this - why fix something that is not broken. Looks like my birds don't have the Bar Less gene but if I do breed one, that should be a true Mutation right?
Recessive genes can be tricky but I'd all ways thought it will show itself eventually with enough breeding towards it. Like mating a Rec. Red with it's dauther or neice or cousin or grand daugther or etc.
My question now is, when would you consider that it is just something that is not in your birds - how many times do you need to inbreed or line breed before you come to this conclusion?
I would like to understand Recessive traits more, thanks for putting in the time to explain to me how recessive traits will crop up in my birds?
Thor
P.S. I know guys who have families that don't carry spread. In all the years they have inbred and line bred their family, never have a Black or Lavender been bred. Yet, once introduced, their family is filled with Spread. How could this be if Spread was in there family? Wouldn't they have been able to breed Spread without any outcross if it was in their birds. Yet, only after introducing Spread, were they able to breed spread. Now it is just a part of their family as in many others. How could this be in the birds when you have to introduce Spread?
P.S.S. I breed in individual pens.
|
661roller
7 posts
Feb 26, 2006
3:27 PM
|
I would not dare say how many generations you need to breed before being able to say you do not have a certain recessive gene in your stock. It all depends on the right two birds being mated together and when you throw in mating for performance and not trying for a specific pattern there is really no way to figure the odds.
Spread is not recessive, once you introduce it to your loft of non-spread birds it does not take two birds carrying it to produce more. If your one spread bird is pure for spread (two doses) all of it's babies will be spread (one dose). If the spread bird you introduced has only one dose of it, it will still look spread but on average just 50% of it's babies will be spread.
Jim
|
Mount Airy Lofts
121 posts
Feb 27, 2006
4:34 PM
|
That is interesting.
My theory in breeding is it has to be there to be produced. I don't believe in mutations unless you are talking about a Roller having three leggs or two heads or etc. Breeding two Racing Homer will not produce a True Champion Birmingham Roller no matter what two correct birds you use. I don't believe things are that difficult. People like to make things difficult but in reality, it is quite common sense. If you can breed it, it must be there or you probably crossed it in without knowing it. Just because everything evolved from the Rock Dove doesn't mean every breed after that will have the same genetic makeup. If so, we wouldn't need to cross breed in a Frill to put Frill into the Modenas, etc.
Just like you need a quality family to produce high percentage quality birds. It has to be there or am I wrong to believe this?
Recessive genes can be tricky but they should manifest after themselves sooner or later. The question I have for you is, how long did it take for you to break your record - your first Bar Less from that family? 1 year, 2 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, 100 years...
Interested in knowing how long it would take to breed a adnormal pattern from inbreeding/linebreeding my stock,
Thor
Last Edited by Mount Airy Lofts on Feb 28, 2006 10:02 AM
|
J_Star
273 posts
Feb 28, 2006
6:27 AM
|
Thor,
I don't know if you are aware of this site, but it might help. These articles are written by Frank Mosca, who is in my opinion is one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to pigeon genetics.
http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/pigeongenetics
Hope will help clarify the mutation stuff.
Jay
Last Edited by J_Star on Feb 28, 2006 9:34 AM
|