Author Topic: Wheaten SOP - Female  (Read 4392 times)

Jean

  • Administrator
  • Ameraucana Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pipsandpeeps.com
Wheaten SOP - Female
« on: February 19, 2009, 11:50:34 AM »
I was just reading the SOP on female Wheatens and I noticed that it says:
\"HACKLE:  Golden yellow, striped with black.\" and \"BACK:  Ginger yellow stippled with black.\"

My question is:  If this is the Standard how are we supposed to breed males without stripping in the hackles?  It would seem to me that it would be assumed that since the females have it, the males would too.

Can anyone elaborate on why this is?  Should we be breeding two lines of wheatens, one for pullets and one for cockerels?

I have been told to only breed from pullets and hens without/or with the least amount of striping in the hackle for good males.  I would assume this is why we are getting less color in the wings and tails of our female birds.

Thanks,

Jean
Jean

bryngyld

  • ABC Members
  • Associate
  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
    • http://www.bryngyld.com
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2009, 12:40:51 PM »
I HATE the idea of having to have separate lines for males and females.  If it doesn\'t match the genetics of the \"proper\" variety, then perhaps the standard should be changed.
Lyne Peterson
Northern California

Mike Gilbert

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2009, 12:57:14 PM »
Jean, my American Standard of Perfection reads as follows for wheaten females, page 220, 1998 version:   Neck:  Lustrous, medium shade of wheaten.  Front of neck - creamy wheaten.
Back:   creamy wheaten.     You are quoting the standard for the Ginger Red color listed on the same page.  

Jean

  • Administrator
  • Ameraucana Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 986
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pipsandpeeps.com
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2009, 01:57:53 PM »
I typed it from my friends SOP into my computer, so you are probably right.

I will check again.  So, now I\'m just an idiot................ :p
Jean

Mike Gilbert

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2009, 03:11:12 PM »
None of us are immune from making a mistake from time to time.   Welcome to the human race.

John

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2009, 07:54:43 PM »
While on the subject of the wheaten variety...
We\'ve assumed they are based on recessive wheaten (e^y) at the e-locus, but from what I read recessive wheaten females are more likely to have black stippling in thier backs and other areas than dominant wheaten (e^Wh).  Jeffrey\'s proposed genotype for the wheaten variety, including OE Game, calls for e^Wh/e^Wh.  
As Mike and I have discussed there is some talk suggesting there is really only one wheaten allele.  It may be that there is only dominant wheaten and when combined with a modifying gene(s) it produces the recessive wheaten phenotype.

Mike Gilbert

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2009, 09:53:58 AM »
When we talk dominant or recessive with regard to the wheaten allele, it is in relationship to wild type (e) at the e-locus.   A good example of wild type would be B.B.Red as in the Red Jungle Fowl and as expressed/modified in other B.B.Red colored chickens.    I believe there is only one wheaten, and its\' dominance or recessiveness when crossed with e depends on one or more modifiers, such as Ml (melanotic).   Ml would put more melanin (black pigment) in the female feathers.     Thus we have the problem of getting enough black (or blue) in those female flight feathers without darkening the bird too much otherwise.   I believe we need ML, but then need another modifier, perhaps Di (dilute) to keep the body feathers that nice light creamy color.    These are only untested ideas, but they make sense to me.   Any other thoughts or ideas?    What about the presense or absense of Co (columbian restrictor) ?    Like most other disciplines, the more we learn, the more we realize we still don\'t know.  

John

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2009, 10:11:51 AM »
I\'ve used the KIP Calculator to experiment a bit.  
http://home.hetnet.nl/~h.meijers69/kruising.html
It only offers e^Wh, not e^y, as an e-locus option to build from.  Adding Ml doesn\'t show a difference, but I assume it can\'t hurt.  Adding Di may help lighten the female, but also dilute the hackle and saddle on the male too much.  With Co you lose the black breast on the males.  Cb may help the females, but then again you dilute the red parts of the BB red male.
Modifying genes must be the key to getting the proper contrasting colors in the right places, but it ain\'t easy.

Mike Gilbert

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2009, 02:47:13 PM »
I had looked at some calculators and they do contain some good basic information.   I\'m not sold on them completely from a practical standpoint, as some of the info put up is more theoretical than pragmatic.   For example, the  fellow in Holland still asks questions about certain combinations.   The reason I threw out the hypothetical on Co is because I wondered if it would help females\' color in a double mating system.  To tell the truth I had overlooked it would remove black from the breast and body of the males.  

John

  • Guest
Wheaten SOP - Female
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2009, 03:03:52 PM »
Quote
more theoretical than pragmatic

For sure, but a neat tool.  Also, theory can\'t account for the genes we still don\'t know about.  
Quote
it would remove black from the breast and body of the males

That came to mind because I think it is the problem I have with my partridge Chanteclers.