# Red bar cock x Blue check hen



## Kastle Loft (May 7, 2008)

Ok, not quite as simple as it appears! I tried to figure this out on paper but failed miserably. This pair is on eggs and about to hatch and I was trying to be a smart fellow and try and predict the possible color outcomes. Didn't work. So I thought I turn to you experts.

Here's the thing: Both of these guys have a fair amount of grizzle in their background.

Cock (see ped here): He is a red bar. His father is a red grizzle whose parents were red grizzle x blue bar. The dam is a blue bar. So he's surely homozygous for bar and split for red, but how does the grizzle factor in?

Hen (see ped here): She is a blue check. BUT, her father is a white grizzle and every generation behind him is grizzle (White Bandit line). Her dam is a blue bar but was split for bar/check.

So, from what I can tell, I could get just about anything - red, blue, check, bar, grizzle? But I guess I'm asking what proportions would I be likely to get any particular color/pattern and how does the grizzle factor in?

Here are their photos (cause I know y'all like photos):

Edit: sorry I had to remove the photos for space

Thanks!


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Grizzle is dominant, so if it is present, it shows. You won't get any grizzles from this pair. 

The cockbird is a bar, more than likely no chance of being a carrier of barless. He is split for blue, even though I don't see any flecks (probably hidden somewhere).
The hen is split for bar. Her sire was a check underneath the grizzle. He wasn't homozygous grizzle; probably either grizzle and heavily splashed, or maybe has het tiger grizzle thrown in the mix. But if he was homozygous grizzle (which usually gives you the very white birds), then all of his children would be grizzles. Since your girl is a regular blue check, that means he must be het OR her momma was tagged by someone else.

SO, here's what you can expect:

Sons: 50% Red split for blue, 50% Blue
50% Check carrying bar, 50% Bar (the pattern applies to all the babies, regardless of color)

Daughters: 50% Red, 50% Blue
50% Check carrying bar, 50% Bar (again, pattern applies to all babies, regardless of color)


----------



## Kastle Loft (May 7, 2008)

MaryOfExeter said:


> Grizzle is dominant, so if it is present, it shows. You won't get any grizzles from this pair.


So does this mean that they don't even carry grizzle if it doesn't show, despite it being in a large part of their pedigree?



MaryOfExeter said:


> The cockbird is a bar, more than likely no chance of being a carrier of barless. He is split for blue, even though I don't see any flecks (probably hidden somewhere).


Yeah, he has some flecks, just not real prominent.



MaryOfExeter said:


> The hen is split for bar. Her sire was a check underneath the grizzle. He wasn't homozygous grizzle; probably either grizzle and heavily splashed, or maybe has het tiger grizzle thrown in the mix. But if he was homozygous grizzle (which usually gives you the very white birds), then all of his children would be grizzles. Since your girl is a regular blue check, that means he must be het OR her momma was tagged by someone else.
> 
> SO, here's what you can expect:
> 
> ...


If I get a red with flecks, then it will likely be a cock, right?



MaryOfExeter said:


> Daughters: 50% Red, 50% Blue
> 50% Check carrying bar, 50% Bar (again, pattern applies to all babies, regardless of color)


So I guess it does look like I could get just about anything but NO grizzles. Thanks for 'splaining.


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Yes, they can't carry grizzle without it showing  Unless of course it is a recessive white or recessive red, but that is self explainatory.

Any reds with blue/black flecks will be males, for sure.


----------



## Kastle Loft (May 7, 2008)

So is that true with all/most of the color modifiers? They can't be carrying the gene for it unless they are showing it? I'm just trying to get this stuff hammered in my head - sorry for all the repetition.


----------



## rudolph.est (May 14, 2009)

dstephenson said:


> So is that true with all/most of the color modifiers? They can't be carrying the gene for it unless they are showing it? I'm just trying to get this stuff hammered in my head - sorry for all the repetition.


Nope, that is not true for all modifiers. The main point to remember here is that some genes are dominant, others are recessive.

Dominant genes, _dominate_, that is they will always show some effect on a bird that has the dominant gene. Check, T-pattern, grizzle, indigo and ash-red are dominant mutations. 

Recessive genes, _recede_, they will not show an effect if there is a more dominant gene present. Barless, recessive red and brown are examples of recessive mutations.

Hope that helps,
Rudolph


----------

