Sexlinked Ams

[Dennis Heltzel]

I could sell a lot more Ameraucanas to local backyard chicken keepers if I could sex the chicks. I now use California Grey pullets to make black sexlinks with a black Am cock. They are extremely high-production layers that bear a strong resemblance to a black Am pullet. I sold hundreds of them this spring and everyone has been very happy with them.

I would love to produce a sexlink that I can sell as a true Ameraucana, not an EE. I realize sexlinked barring is not an accepted color, but is anyone working with them anyway? Alternatively, I have Silvers, is there a gold Ameraucana line I could use to make red sexlinks?

[Mike Gilbert]

I would love to produce a sexlink that I can sell as a true Ameraucana, not an EE. I realize sexlinked barring is not an accepted color, but is anyone working with them anyway? Alternatively, I have Silvers, is there a gold Ameraucana line I could use to make red sexlinks?

Sure, Brown Red is one that is gold based, and Buff is another, and so are wheatens and blue wheatens.   But when you start crossing varieties other than the wheaten varieties you are back to easter eggers.  Ameraucana by definition is true breeding, not a sex link cross.    My advice would be to sell them for what they are.   

[Jerry Segler]

I have the barring in Cuckoo and Lavender Cuckoo . I have produced sex links with them .

[Jerry Segler]

I should add these are project color Ameraucana .

[Dennis Heltzel]

Sure, Brown Red is one that is gold based, and Buff is another, and so are wheatens and blue wheatens.   But when you start crossing varieties other than the wheaten varieties you are back to easter eggers.  Ameraucana by definition is true breeding, not a sex link cross.    My advice would be to sell them for what they are.

I get what you are saying, and technically any "project color" would be an EE if you choose to interpret it that way. Lavenders were also EE's for a long time, right? Is a splash bird considered an EE or just AOC? I haven't showed chickens since my 4-H days, so the differences are not that obvious to me.

If I got a strain of cuckoo Ams and used those pullets to create black sexlinks, would the pullets not be true Ams that could even be shown as blacks? Perhaps they would not show well against a good strain of blacks, but genetically they are black Ams, the cuckoo gene not being present at all in the pullets from that cross.

You might not see the utility in that, but if a family with 4-H age kids in suburbia (where roos are not allowed) were able to purchase known pullet chicks to keep as layers and also to show in 4-H, that seems like a win all around. Right now, I have no solution for them other than to raise a bunch of straight run birds and try to re-home the roos, which is painful for a family that has grown to love them all. Families like this now buy my Cream Legbars or Black Sexlinks (black Am over California Grey pullets), neither of which are showable in 4-H (or elsewhere). I believe that Ameraucanas are close to the perfect "first chickens" for 4-H'ers, and I'm planning to actively sell into that market here. Some people can have roos and some can't, I want to help both groups.

[John W Blehm]

I get what you are saying, and technically any "project color" would be an EE if you choose to interpret it that way. Lavenders were also EE's for a long time, right? Is a splash bird considered an EE or just AOC? I haven't showed chickens since my 4-H days, so the differences are not that obvious to me.

Dennis,

I've read and heard others that were under the impression that varieties that are not APA/ABA recognized were Easter Eggers.  Lavender Ameraucanas were Ameraucanas from day one, because they breed true.  It is the same with any other color/pattern variety.  Splash Ameraucanas are Ameraucanas also.

FAQ #1 from our site...What is an Ameraucana?

A chicken is an Ameraucana when it meets the American Poultry Association’s (APA) Standard Ameraucana breed description and meets a variety (color) description or breeds true at least 50% of the time, whether the variety is recognized or not.

[Tailfeathers]

FAQ #1 from our site...What is an Ameraucana?

A chicken is an Ameraucana when it meets the American Poultry Association’s (APA) Standard Ameraucana breed description and meets a variety (color) description or breeds true at least 50% of the time, whether the variety is recognized or not.

I don't know if I've ever brought this up before but I have long thought that definition is inadequate.  For example, as many know, I've bred a closed flock of WBS Ameraucanas for 9yrs now.  NEVER added any "new blood".  I currently have a clean-faced Wheaten pullet that is otherwise gorgeous in a breeding pen with a double-Mb cockbird. 

I hope it's obvious as to why I'd do that.  Now, would anyone really believe that she is an EE?

[Mike Gilbert]

Royce, I think the 50% rule would come into play visa vis her parents.   But if she lacks muffs and beards she would be disqualified under any competent judge.   Recessive genes plague a lot of breeds and varieties.   For example, many lines of Wyandotte bantams throw some chicks with single combs.   Is one of those S.C. birds still a Wyandotte?    I guess it's a matter of opinion.   They can certainly be used for breeding if need be. 

[Suki]

I get what you are saying, and technically any "project color" would be an EE if you choose to interpret it that way.

True that's why they say "project" hopefully avoiding that taint.  The same would be true of Mike's "  many lines of Wyandotte bantams throw some chicks with single combs.   Is one of those S.C. birds still a Wyandotte?"  not by APA definition anymore than clean faced Araucanas.  They fall in, like Royce's oddity, under the "50% rule" which they admit could be "around that" more or less.    I went through this one with Walt Leonard,the APA Standards Chairman already.

[John W Blehm]

I get what you are saying, and technically any "project color" would be an EE if you choose to interpret it that way.

True that's why they say "project" hopefully avoiding that taint.  The same would be true of Mike's "  many lines of Wyandotte bantams throw some chicks with single combs.   Is one of those S.C. birds still a Wyandotte?"  not by APA definition anymore than clean faced Araucanas.  They fall in, like Royce's oddity, under the "50% rule" which they admit could be "around that" more or less.    I went through this one with Walt Leonard,the APA Standards Chairman already.

I don't see why a project color would be an Easter Egger.  If any color/pattern doesn't breed true at least 50% of the time, blue egg layers, are called Easter Eggers along with those that don't meet a breed description.
Birds with the wrong combs, wrong shank color, lacking muffs when they should have them and such are called mixed breed, mongrels and sometimes Easter Eggers no matter what their parentage is.   

[Dennis Heltzel]

I have had a number of customers asking specifically for "Easter Eggers". I tell them that "technically", my blue egg black sexlinks are EE's and they usually end up buying them. I did find it interesting that people are asking specifically for EE's and not Ameraucanas. Seems like the educating process is having some effect.

[Tailfeathers]

Royce, I think the 50% rule would come into play visa vis her parents.   But if she lacks muffs and beards she would be disqualified under any competent judge.   Recessive genes plague a lot of breeds and varieties.   For example, many lines of Wyandotte bantams throw some chicks with single combs.   Is one of those S.C. birds still a Wyandotte?    I guess it's a matter of opinion.   They can certainly be used for breeding if need be. 

Mike, I don't understand the "50% rule would come into play" unless you are referring to 50% of her offspring having single Mb?  Just thought of that and am guessing that's what you meant.  I understand any competent judge should DQ her at a show.  I wouldn't even think about showing her.  The point of my post was to say she IS an Ameraucana.  Full blooded and probably as pure as most out there. 

I saw on Kippenjungle that they list the Mb gene as Incomplete Dominant.  So I guess it's not accurate to a bird carries a "single copy" or "double copy" of the Mb gene or is it?  I don't know.  It just seems to me that it works more like Dominant than Incomplete Dominant because of the Punnet Square formula in say a single copy Mb mated to a single copy Mb resulting in 50% single, 25% double, and 25% zero?

[John W Blehm]

I've only considered the "50% rule" as having to do with a variety (color/pattern) and we used it to say blues & blue wheatens, which theoretically only produce 50% of their variety, are Ameraucanas as opposed to Easter Eggers.

My personal feeling on whether a bird is an Ameraucana is that if it isn't disqualified by a qualified and competent judge is passes the test.  I've seen judges not disqualify birds that don't meet the Standard and one told me he didn't want to hurt anyone's feeling (or something close to that).  There are many licensed judges that are qualified to properly judge, but some choose not to and are not competent.

I was at the club meeting in Michael's living room when we came up with the Easter Egger description.  As I recall I was the only one that personally didn't and still doesn't agree with it, but I've supported it as an officer since the majority voted for it.  I did revise the wording a bit, because the original wording lumped Araucanas in with Easter Eggers. 

[Mike Gilbert]

I saw on Kippenjungle that they list the Mb gene as Incomplete Dominant.  So I guess it's not accurate to a bird carries a "single copy" or "double copy" of the Mb gene or is it?  I don't know.  It just seems to me that it works more like Dominant than Incomplete Dominant because of the Punnet Square formula in say a single copy Mb mated to a single copy Mb resulting in 50% single, 25% double, and 25% zero?

In this case "incomplete dominant" just means that those birds carrying a single dose will generally not have as large muffs and beard as those carrying the full two copies.   There are other factors affecting size of muffs and beard too, e.g., feather length, soft versus hard feather.    So a person has to be familiar with a line to be fairly accurate at predicting hetero or homozygosity based on visibility alone.   I still think of Mb as just plain dominant.   Some of the information on Kippenjungle and other sites are a bit subjective - subject to interpretation.  And they are not always 100% accurate either, as was recently pointed out in the discussion about spangling. 

[Suki]

Dian Gardner uses gold & silvers for her sex linking.  Attached is her method.