HerSHE

[John]

We already allow black legs on black.

Lynn,
That\'s what I told Jerry when we were at Indy talking about the chocolate variety.  It\'s just one more opinion, but as long as we are not going for different genes in the dermis and epidermis then...maybe.  Then again the birds are judged on phenotype, not genotype.  As I wrote this post I talked myself into another position on the subject.
As I understand it a black dermis (id+/id+) and white or clear epidermis (W+/W+) produce blue & slate shanks/legs.
Extended black darkens that normally slate shank to black, so our E/E black Ameraucanas naturally have black shanks, but this black is just a very, very dark slate.  E-locus genes and secondary feather color/pattern genes affect the overall shank color...some enhance it and some dilute it.  Many of our blue, recessive white and lavender Ameraucanas are based on E/E, but these color genes all dilute the shank color so the shanks become slate that would appear black if the bird was black.  And, so we have many different shades of slate due to the effect of E-locus and color/pattern genes.  Anything from blue or a light slate to black is fine with me...kind of like all the shades of gray.  
I haven\'t studied the chocolate variety at all, but if it only has that same \"natural\" affect of enhancing or diluting the natural slate color of the shanks then I\'m for it.  If it changes the pigment to chocolate, which is not a shade of gray, then I think it may be going too far.
Just my 2 cents worth  

[Tailfeathers]

One of the major reasons we created an Ameraucana breed and standard in the first place was to get away from the circus atmosphere surrounding the easter eggers, false claims of egg superiority,  wierd coloring  and shapes, etc.    Our national meet at Indianapolis last October drew the 7th largest entry out of about 35 breed club national meets.   I don\'t see where surrendering our principled approach to creating and maintaining the breed will improve anything.  We already have 16 recognized varieties of Ameraucanas if you count bantams and large fowl as seperate, plus lavender and splash waiting in the wings for enough breeders to qualify them.   I believe it is a huge mistake to let existing varieties slide into or remain in mediocrity for lack of breeders in order to create endless numbers of new varieties.  

I agree wholeheartedly with the above!!  I\'ve been saying for quite some time that it is frustrating to see so little attention being paid to existing approved varieties and so much attention being paid towards creating the next new fad.  

I know I\'m not the brightest bulb in the socket and perhaps that\'s one of the reasons why it\'s taking me so long to improve my birds but dadburnit, I\'m committed to continuing to work on the WBS variety and I sure wish a lot more folks were too.

Btw, before I forget, can somebody tell me when the W & BW were accepted into the APA for LF?  I don\'t remember seeing that anywhere in the SOP.

I understand the intrigue behind wanting to create a new variety.  I\'ve even played with it myself a bit.  But it always took a backseat to my real efforts to improve my WBS birds.  And this is in spite of being told by at least one judge that I\'ll have to go with a solid color if I ever expect to make it to Champion Row!  Maybe if we could get a more concerted effort towards improving our existing varieties, we would see an Ameraucana being given Champion of the Show!  I don\'t even recall ever seeing that.

I\'ll be the first to admit that I don\'t know a lot about the other varieties besides the WBS that I work with (and many might say I don\'t know much about them!) but from what I understand most of the other varieties still need a lot of work.  I know the Black LF that took BB at one show had a comb that looked more like a Walnut comb than a Peacomb.  Doesn\'t that say something?  I know I\'ve thought about getting some Buffs because I like Buff colored birds and they\'d be a solid color - but have read that they need a lot of work too.  I seem to recall a lot of discussion on shafting with the Brown/Reds recently.  So with all the work that apparently needs to be done on our existing varieties, shouldn\'t we really be putting more effort into them?

God Bless,  

[Mike Gilbert]

Tailfeathers wrote: \"Btw, before I forget, can somebody tell me when the W & BW were accepted into the APA for LF?  I don\'t remember seeing that anywhere in the SOP. \"

It\'s in there Royce.  All the large fowl varieties were accepted by the APA in 1984, a year after our qualifying meet (for bantams btw) was held at the Ohio National.

I did not mean to stir up a firestorm of controversy.  But I will draw a line in the sand where it comes to primary breed characteristics.   For the record, I am not opposed to the Chocolates being developed and admitted someday if enough folks jump on the bandwagon.  They have the slate dermis that is required for the breed.   The epidermis (outer layer of skin) of the shanks often takes on the color of the pigment in the feathers in E, E^R, and e^b based birds, because the feathers are just an extension of the epidermis.  Thus black pigment creeps into the leg epidermis because of black feathering.   Reddish epidermis pigment creeps into the shanks from partridge and red birds.  And chocolate coloring will creep into the shank epidermis from birds with chocolate feathers.   But any bird without a dark dermis, e.g., barred, mottled, etc., is never going to qualify short of a minor miracle.   There are other very good reasons besides leg color not to allow barred.  It has been scientifically demonstrated that slow feathering is necessary to get crisp barring, and it has also been proven that slow feathering birds are more susceptible to Marek\'s disease.   Anyone is free to mess around with any color they desire, but don\'t expect wholehearted acceptance by the Ameraucana community when primary breed characteristics are missing.  

[dak]

Perhaps it is time to survey the membership on the leg color issues.In the past we have always settled  matters with a vote.Mottled,barred/cuckoo and chocolate projects are all hampered by genetic reality.We broke the slate only barrier a long time ago when we allowed black legs on the black variety.

As a personal preference, I have taken to the B/B/S, Lav, and Mottled color families.  Maybe there are some who would wish for more people working on Wheaten, Brown-red, Silver and such, but I don\'t want these colors around.  My working on Mottled does not keep me from working on those colors.

I guess I\'m trying to say that perhaps the lack of popularity of a variety may just be due to personal tastes.  I for one would like to see more varieties accepted, be that Mottled, Lav, Chocolate...... Just getting a hobbiest involved in Ameraucanas has a way of leading to an accumulation of varieties in the breed.  

[bryngyld]

Thinking about mottled... aren\'t there some white spotted birds with dark legs - like the hamburg?  Is there more than one gene for white spots?  I also saw some barred birds that had dark spots on their legs - so they might be slate with color inhibitors... slate genetically perhaps?

This is great to discuss this stuff.  It is also good to be reminded that the existing varieties need support.  Hmmm.  A new member lured to the Ameraucana ranks with a fad variety will eventually add more varieties to their coop.  It\'s inescapable!  ^_^

[Tailfeathers]

It\'s in there Royce.  All the large fowl varieties were accepted by the APA in 1984, a year after our qualifying meet (for bantams btw) was held at the Ohio National.

Thanks Mike.  I knew the Ameraucanas (LF) were accepted in 1984 but I didn\'t know that all the varieties were accepted at the same time!  That\'s an achievement than defies words for me!

And, if you know me at all, I\'m never short on words.   :p

Seriously, thanks a bunch.  That\'s a terrific piece of history that I was not aware of.

God Bless,

[Jess]

Good Morning,

First I would like to say, Thank the Good Lord that I live in a country that, so far, we are free to pursue happiness. I think that to work on other colors is a choice for individuals to make for themselves.
But for me I think we have a great selection of colors to work on.
It takes a lot of space to house just two breeds that I am working with. Blacks, Blues, Splash and Wheaten. I have found that the Wheatens really need a lot of work to keep them up to standard.
I don’t think we should modify the breed standards just make another color though.
If you like a lot of different colors do like my wife does just raise Easter eggers. That way you don’t have to worry about shank color or any of the other faults we deal with, when working on the eight other recognized breed colors.
Just my humble opinion.
Jess

[John]

That\'s a terrific piece of history that I was not aware of.

Most varieties were developed after being recognized.  You can read more from the \"History\" link on the ABC site.
Jerry and Mike are charter members, but I\'m celebrating 30 years with the ABC this year!  

[grisaboy]

Most varieties were developed after being recognized.  You can read more from the \"History\" link on the ABC site.  

The recognized varieties that we have were almost accidental.  I wouldn\'t discourage breeders from developing new varieties.  If we follow the proper procedures for getting new varieties, including multiple breeders and multiple years for development, it seems that the new varieties may be more legitimate than the original recognized varieties.

Curtis

[OldChurchEggery]

Part of the adventure of keeping chickens for me is that it\'s a practical application of genetics that doesn\'t require a research subjects protection protocol. The more people experiment with different colors and trait combinations, the more we collectively learn about the invisible information behind the visible phenotype. I like to hear about the projects folks on this forum have underway. I think my Australorps are great birds, but they only come in one color- black. Part of what attracted me to the Ameraucana is the variety of colors of the birds, not just the novelty of a blue egg. If folks want to work on their own dream variety, that\'s great! Partridge, Blue Laced Red, and Silver Penciled are patterns that catch my eye at a poultry show because of the contrast, but if chocolate, lavender, splash, black-gold, whatever it is does it for someone else and makes that person want to stay in the poultry fancy, so be it.

[Mike Gilbert]

Most varieties were developed after being recognized.  You can read more from the \"History\" link on the ABC site.  

The recognized varieties that we have were almost accidental.  I wouldn\'t discourage breeders from developing new varieties.  If we follow the proper procedures for getting new varieties, including multiple breeders and multiple years for development, it seems that the new varieties may be more legitimate than the original recognized varieties.Curtis

Just a clarification on John\'s statement.  It was the large fowl that were developed after recognition, but only the buff bantams were developed after recognition.  The other seven qualified for the APA the regular way;  at the 1983 Ohio National.  Prior to that, the wheatens and white bantams had been recognized by the ABA in 1980 in California.  
Curtis, why would you say that?  I don\'t agree.  It took years of concentrated effort to develop the existing varieties, so it certainly was no accident.  Some of us were focused on developing specific varieties, including Wayne Meredith, John Blehm, Rande Buske, and myself.  There were others too, but we could have used a lot more help than we had.   Some of our charter members practically disappeared from the effort for years after Don Cable had to resign in 1984 or 85.  We spent a lot of time, money, and plain work to get as far as we did.   Sixteen varieties don\'t come about by accident.

[bryngyld]

Look at this hen.  Is this the mottled gene?  The legs sure look slate.

[grisaboy]

Curtis, why would you say that?  I don\'t agree.  It took years of concentrated effort to develop the existing varieties, so it certainly was no accident.  

 I admit, I was \'poking the bear\' a bit.  I know that a lot of work went into developing the breed and the various varieties.
I especially appreciate the efforts that you and others have spent improving the various varieties. I didn\'t mean to minimize the work you have done.

Curtis

[jerryse]

John said:
\"Most varieties were developed after being recognized.  You can read more from the \"History\" link on the ABC site.\"

Curtis said:
\"The recognized varieties that we have were almost accidental.  I wouldn\'t discourage breeders from developing new varieties.  If we follow the proper procedures for getting new varieties, including multiple breeders and multiple years for development, it seems that the new varieties may be more legitimate than the original recognized varieties.\"

Curtis, at the time we were the Ameraucana Bantam Club and actually had the varities that were accepted.The large fowl had another club.The large fowl got in a year later only by accepting our standard and colors in large fowl. At the time they did not have most of the varities listed. We became the Ameraucana Breeders Club.

[jerryse]

Tailfeathers wrote: \"Btw, before I forget, can somebody tell me when the W & BW were accepted into the APA for LF?  I don\'t remember seeing that anywhere in the SOP. \"

It\'s in there Royce.  All the large fowl varieties were accepted by the APA in 1984, a year after our qualifying meet (for bantams btw) was held at the Ohio National.

I did not mean to stir up a firestorm of controversy.  But I will draw a line in the sand where it comes to primary breed characteristics.   For the record, I am not opposed to the Chocolates being developed and admitted someday if enough folks jump on the bandwagon.  They have the slate dermis that is required for the breed.   The epidermis (outer layer of skin) of the shanks often takes on the color of the pigment in the feathers in E, E^R, and e^b based birds, because the feathers are just an extension of the epidermis.  Thus black pigment creeps into the leg epidermis because of black feathering.   Reddish epidermis pigment creeps into the shanks from partridge and red birds.  And chocolate coloring will creep into the shank epidermis from birds with chocolate feathers.   But any bird without a dark dermis, e.g., barred, mottled, etc., is never going to qualify short of a minor miracle.   There are other very good reasons besides leg color not to allow barred.  It has been scientifically demonstrated that slow feathering is necessary to get crisp barring, and it has also been proven that slow feathering birds are more susceptible to Marek\'s disease.   Anyone is free to mess around with any color they desire, but don\'t expect wholehearted acceptance by the Ameraucana community when primary breed characteristics are missing.  

While it may seem that Mike and I dissagree that is really not the case.So let me try to clarify my position.There is no color pattern that will change leg color to yellow,willow or pure white.These should not be allowed.Slate is the genotype for our breed and should not change.However some color patterns change what we see [phenotype]We allowed this with black even though slate legs are possible on black.Look at the black austrolop and orpington.So what I am saying is it should be allowed in chocolate as they are the black variety with slate or black legs first.The color pattern changes to chocolate and so does the leg color.On mottled and cuckoo the gene that interupts black in the feathers also does the same in the legs.This results in white in the feathers and legs.However there are slate areas or slate spots in the legs.pure white legs should be a disqualification.We patterened our one leg color after the Polish breed and they are now working on a cuckoo variety.I saw several at Indy.They have the same problem with leg color.I will be interested in how they describe leg color when or if they are addmitted.I also looked at cuckoo D\'anvers While at indy.Same leg color problem.The standard on cuckoo D\'anvers says light slate but all I saw was broken slate.It seems they chose to ignore the problem and call it light slate.Like Mike I do not support another leg color.I do support genetic reality.When we hit a genetic wall we should make allowences