**KAZ**

You gotta be proud of them Phill

The positives of the Budgerigar Nationals speak for themselves. The very best of Australia's show budgies brought together in competition with each other to decide on which breeders have bred what is considered the best budgies of their type in Australia at the time. Other positives............a great collection of likeminded breeders brought together in one place for fellowship and social interaction and discussions. A place and time to meet and form lasting friendships within the fraternity. Most likely many more positives. I didnt open a topic to discuss the glory of the Nationals. I enjoy the nationals myself and have attended. We show breeders all aim for a bird that makes it and would send it off to be judged along with the rest. As stated I began this particular topic as a discussion and as posted in the first post... This is just a curiosity question, hoping for open discussion, ideas, etc. If such things pertaining to our shows and show budgie conditions were never discussed at any level then we would never have had any changes. We have had many changes over the years.................ring issue dates, drinker in cages, seed in cages, perch sizes etc etc. All these things brought about by discussing it and bringing it forward for the betterment of the hobby and for the sake and health of the birds. Simple discussion begin this way, unless someone takes offence, decides its a negative attack instead of a general inquiry and discussion point......and goes so far off on a tangent that no discussion actually takes place. Then it becomes he said she said stuff and finger pointing and lots of outrage and defense mechanisms in place. Havent seen any discussion thus far, just defense and outrage that I dared simply pose a question. My intent was never to pose a negative slant on the nationals. I was haoping for some discussion. Didnt get that. The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. I am basing my knowledge on accounts from breeders who did have birds in the nationals and NOT third hand horror stories or shed talk. A number ? there has been one admitted Nationals breeder/shower post ....You and Chookbreeder I also know is a Nationals breeder/shower but he didnt say he was. so A number here equals TWO ?? ASSUMPTION on your part. What I know is called straight from the horses mouth, not third hand and not shed talk so far no discussion as such..........waiting. This forum began its beginnings as a pet budgie forum. We are changing the tide by degrees. A great many members here are show breeders. We all endeavour to present good knowledge and info on this forum. Some try harder than others. Some seek out good articles and interviews to keep the forum interesting. Some visit and use this place as a source of amusement and something to ridicule without putting all that much back into it. If we dont discuss and provide info and educate the up and coming budgie breeders of tomorrow...........if we dont put a little bit back into the " well" , where will we drink from in the future ?? No wonder so many clubs these days struggle to get members and to keep them. If inquiring minds and questions are squashed and suffocated, if mentoring isnt implemented, if knowledge sharing isnt employed in a fostering caring way and not treated like secret society the hobby will belong to the big boys with the bucks and it will become a dollar sport and not a hobby at all. I am sorry you feel the need to go off on a tangent like this. Since a previous PM discussion between you and I regarding a moderation issue in another topic occurred it must be said you seem to have a grievance with me which has a whole lot more to do with the way this topic is heading than anything else.

No it's not this is a DF Spangle Blue series a Green series would be Pure Yellow yours looks like a Yellow Face type 2 Sky Blue Spangle I agree. This bird is not a DF spangle with suffusion.

At least you " get" where I was coming from

bump

We have been fortunate in being given a series of upcoming articles by Don Burke of Burke's Backyard and rare budgerigar breeder. Don has offered us some articles he has written and I am about to post three. There are two mutations that I have discovered that affect clearwing wing colour. First Mutation: One affects the general wing markings reducing them to a spangle-like appearance (this is not spangle at all, but produces similar crescent shaped markings. You can identify it from spangle by the lack of body colour suffusion on the head and lack of the yellow body colour feathers on the rump above the tail feathers.) This gene I have called type B wing markings. Type A, the wild type that almost all budgies carry produces an overall greyish wing colour like a greywing. That is: Type A is an overall grey feather with a white or yellow crescent at the tip. Type B is an overall white or yellow feather with a grey crescent marking in the middle of the visible part of the feather (see diagrams). In my experience, only Type B is capable of producing the really clear wing. The Type B mutation seems to be missing in Europe, hence they can’t produce really clear clearwings. Type A is dominant to Type B. Second Mutation: The second mutation only affects the colour of clearwing tail and flight feathers. Most budgies carry a gene that produces dark flights and tails. A recessive mutation clears up the flight and tail feather colour in clearwings and dilutes – this opens the door to produce, in combination with Type B above, the perfectly clear wing. These same two mutations (Type B and clear flights and tail) do not affect each other nor do they affect body colour. They are pivotal mutations to include in blackeyed selfs. Needless to say, in both blackeyed selfs and clearwings, the perfectly clear wing colour is finally produced by dogged selection for clarity. What Should The Standard Say? In Australia, as you correctly pointed out, we are required to have as light a coloured tail (& flights) as possible. The standard is poorly worded and rather confused, but the judges have always gone for very light colours in the long feathers of tail and flights. Personally, I couldn’t care less about tail colour, although I feel that the lighter coloured flights finish the bird off well. For me, a perfectly clear wing contrasted to a really intensely coloured body is a sublime appearance. The colour of the tail and the cheek patch for that matter, don’t really concern me one way or the other. I suppose that it is rather silly that judges worry about tail colour and cheek patch colour in clearwings (not to mention wing clarity), yet completely overlook massive colour problems in normals and most other varieties. In normals for instance, judges overlook huge amounts of body colour suffusion on the wings and they also ignore the fact that the wing markings are an untidy mess of grey and black. Years ago the markings were jet black with no grey. If judges were consistent, in penalising all varieties equally for colour failings, then I would have no problems. But somehow judges just drift away from the standard. This does huge damage to varieties such as clearwings, rendering them uncompetitive against normals, cinnamonwings, etc. The cop-out line from judges is that clearwings (& blackeyes for that matter) are “colour varieties”. This is again quite silly. All budgerigar varieties are colour varieties. Judges need to balance colour against size, feather and type in all varieties. The balance at the moment is way out of whack. Curiously, the major effort on the part of the judges at the moment is to produce blind budgies. In awarding highest marks to birds with buffalo horn directional feather, the modern showbird is being forced down the same blind alley that Old English Sheepdogs live in. This will inevitably lead to action by animal cruelty bodies &/or government bodies as is happening with purebred dogs in the UK at the moment. The world won’t tolerate flying birds that can’t see forward. To make this point quite clear, we stand to lose control over our ability to run our budgerigar clubs independently. The way things are going, standards of perfection in the future will most likely have to be approved by a government animal cruelty committee. What an awful day would that be! ….And we just sit around and quibble over the tail colour of clearwings. The world has gone mad. If anyone agrees with this, I am quite happy to prepare an article on “Finessing the Exhibition Budgerigar”. I strongly believe that the future of our showbirds lies in refining the modern showbird to a better coloured, tidier bird that flies well. Gary Gazzard is leading the way down this track and I support him. Retain modern, big heads, mask and spots, but re-introduce vibrant colour, velvety and smooth feathers, good wing markings and athleticism. 7/10/10 http://www.bestofbreeds.net/wbo/article11.htm

We have been fortunate in being given a series of upcoming articles by Don Burke of Burke's Backyard and rare budgerigar breeder. Don has offered us some articles he has written and I am about to post three. PUTTING A FACE ON CLEARWINGS The hardest part of breeding clearwings is to put a decent face (forehead “blow”, directional feather, plus a long, wide mask) on a bird with good clear wings and decent body colour. I have started some work on faces, but I don’t have sufficient statistics yet to be certain of what is going on. However, Warren wants an article so here goes on some half-baked ideas. The Directional Feather Gene There are two aspects here: having the gene for directional feather and having the length of directional feather. My preliminary observations are that the gene for directional feather is a sex-linked recessive. So it is much the same as cinnamonwing or opaline. So if you cross a male modern showbird homozygous for the directional feather gene to a female pure primitive bird (e.g. a clearwing), all of the young females should have some directional feather, no matter how subtle it is and all of the young males should have none. But all of the males are split for directional feather. If you cross a modern female showbird to a pure primitive-headed clearwing, expect 100% primitive heads on the babies. All of the females from this cross are more or less useless, since they won’t carry the directional feather gene, but all of the males will be split for directional feather. Length of Directional Feathers I am not at all sure of which gene is working here. Nonetheless, this is a genetic volume control issue* That is, some gene controls the length of directional feathers (perhaps it also controls the length of all head feathers). Volume controls on this gene control the length of the directional feathers. Since volume controls are at play, blending inheritance is the result. So matings of long directional feathers to short directional feathers should more or less give medium length ones. That is, what you see is what you get, genetically speaking. This is the sort of thing that we used to refer to as modifier genes – except that modifier genes, in general, don’t exist. If they did you would get segregation of feather lengths in babies, but you don’t. Modifier genes are a furphy that needs to be put to rest once and for all. So, select by eye for better length directional feathers and ignore the genetics as there is none at play that affect the outcome. How to Pick the Presence of the Directional feather Gene Itself This took me a while to work out. In clearwings, the effect was so subtle that, for years, I missed it. Now, what I do is to hold the bird in my hand and look at it from above and behind the head. As you look, you should notice that the front of the head should be wider than the middle or the rear. This is a certain sign that the gene is present. You will mostly see it in females due to the sex linkage. In the crude drawing that I have done, I have greatly exaggerated the difference to show what to look for. Blow This appears to be largely a sex-limited gene. That is, it is visible mostly in males. Sex limiting genes create primary and secondary effects in sexual dimorphism: they create the peacock’s tail, body and facial hair in male humans, penises in most male animals, breasts in human females etc. If I am correct, extreme forehead blow in females may indicate a masculinised female. That is, her hormones may be out of whack and she may not breed well. In other words, don’t expect too many females that can erect their forehead feathers like a male can. Technically speaking, these birds with blow are the first truly crested budgies. What we call cresteds merely have a facial feather whorl which is common in horses, cattle and some species of uncrested birds (especially parrots). A truly crested bird has long, erectile feathers that are erected to indicate mood swings or for general communication. As with cockatoos, you can eventually produce females with a true crest, but I suspect that it won’t be easy. Blow appears to be another volume control gene in this case affecting the existing erectile blow behaviour in male budgies. A feather length gene is also involved and this, too, is a volume control issue. So: 1.Don’t expect too much blow in hens 2.But do expect that hens may produce it in their sons 3.Select really hard for it in all males. In males it is never hidden. 4.Expect blending inheritance. Non blow lines crossed with full blown lines should produce partial blow in the males only. Mask I really don’t know much about this at all. Obviously length and width of feathers are involved. It could be a volume control gene – i.e. blending inheritance issue. The strong ability for reversion worries me. Masks tend to fall back to very short in so many babies. Makes you wonder if something else is going on. Anyway, long to short mask tends to produce medium masks, so clearly volume controls are at work somehow. *New discoveries about gene actions have shown that the normal set up for most, if not all, genes is that the gene itself has volume control sections. That is a gene for say brown colour in bears can have its volume turned down and this produces the white polar bear. The gene for dilute in budgies can have its diluting effect turned up so that you get a blackeyed yellow. The pied gene can be turned up to get a reverse pied. Skin colour in humans is probably the result of volume controls too. Where volume controls are involved, you get blending inheritance rather than the segregation of genes that Mendel discovered. This explains why a white person married to a black person produces kids half way between the two in colour. These gene controls produce banded pieds, winged pieds, and of course blue macaws. Blue macaws still possess the yellow gene, it is just re-shaped in area expression and turned down. That is, we can produce a white-faced green budgie. But not by finding a mutation, but rather by selecting for insipid yellow colour amongst greens. 7/3/11 http://www.bestofbreeds.net/wbo/article11.htm

We have been fortunate in being given a series of upcoming articles by Don Burke of Burke's Backyard and rare budgerigar breeder. Don has offered us some articles he has written and I am about to post three. THE WORLD’S FIRST CLEARBODIES 19/1/11 Australia produced the world’s first clearbodies way back in 1930. Not only that, but around 1962 a blackwing yellow (then incorrectly known as a greywing yellow) won Champion of the NSW State Show. This bird had a dazzling pure yellow body with an inky-black wing colour (sheer triumph, but weird judging, since only greywing or cinnamonwing yellows were standard: this was a normal!). It wasn’t until 1950 that the Texas clearbody turned up and later on in 1955 the Easley Clearbody also came along. Perhaps we could also refer back to the lacewing as a red-eyed cinnamon-winged clearbody, this one turned up in 1946. All this became clearer when my wife gave me a copy of Neville Cayley’s ‘Budgerigars in Bush & Aviary’ for Christmas. It was written in 1933 and published in 1935. This book is dazzlingly luminous for its time. He refers to blackwing yellows & whites and greywing yellows and whites as “in existence, and probably will be established in the near future.” That is, too rare to be seen as an established variety. (It’s curious to note that the variety is still at the verge of extinction today). Cinnamonwing yellows and whites are mentioned as established varieties. They were developed around 1930. It astounded me that way back then, Cayley notes that “some recognized authorities (opined) that yellow or white cannot carry the greywing factor.” That is that even in 1933, genetics experts denied that a greywing yellow or white could exist. Those experts were proven correct by Ken Yorke in 1997. If the yellow or white body colour was caused by the dilute gene (as it was) then the presence of the recessive dilute gene must exclude the dominant greywing gene. In theory you could easily get a greywing or cinnamonwing Texas Clearbody as this is a mutation that dilutes the body colour of existing varieties (eg normal) rather than putting a dark wing colour on dilutes (aka blackeyed yellows or white). Sorting all varieties out by wing colour, rather than by mutation, Cayley listed four groups: 1.Blackwings or “Darkwings” this includes normal greens and blues Plus blackwing yellows and whites 2.Greywings Greywing greens and blues Plus greywing yellows and whites 3.Cinnamonwings Cinnamonwing greens and blues Plus cinnamonwing yellows and whites 4.Clearwings or “Lightwings” Clearwing greens and blues Plus (wait for it!) clearwing yellows and whites: that is, blackeyed yellows and whites. Clearwings Vs Greywings From what he writes about Clearwings and Greywings in the early 1930s, the only difference between the two varieties was the depth of body colour. Both had greyish markings on the wings, but clearwings had far greater contrast between the body and wing colours due to the extra-intense body colour. Hence the decision had already been made to try to clear up the wing colour on the clearwings to perfect the look. He notes the aim to get the wing “markings as faintly defined as possible; primaries and tail white”. In his superb paintings, greywings and clearwings have identical depth and pattern of wing markings, but whites and yellows (deeply suffused then) had a clearer wing. The clearwings had a vastly deeper body colour than the greywings This again raises the question as to whether greywing and clearwing are separate wing-colour mutations or whether the real difference is simply the depth of body colour. The very clear wings on Australian clearwings are obviously a man-made effect from constant selection for ever clearer wings. Cayley regards the increased depth of body colour in clearwings as being a genetic difference and postulates the existence of dark and light body colours in all varieties including normal, cinnamonwing, greywing and clearwing. He calls this normal body colour vs 50% intensity body colour. While this all seems a bit whacky these days, please note that 50% body colour intensity does occur in greywings. I produce a number of intensely body-coloured dilutes from my clearwings each year. I also produce some cinnamonwings with wishy-washy body colour as well as others with deep body colour. His theory seems to fail in relation to normals, however. In general, normals don’t seem to produce 50% body-coloured birds (apart from the mutation called Faded). When I cross clearwings to normals, I commonly get clearwings with 50% body colour in the second generation. They also have greyish wing markings and no judge could tell these apart from greywings. The other curiosity in Cayley’s book is the fact that budgerigars were developed overseas, not in Australia. We seem to have convinced ourselves that we were, at least, equal to Europe and the rest of the world in developing mutations: we weren’t. John Gould took budgies to England in 1840 and this began a flood of exports of budgies to Europe. While Europeans worked hard to develop the new mutations and the science of budgie breeding, Australians relied on trapped birds. “No-one thought it worthwhile trying to breed them” as Cayley grew up: “it seemed a useless waste when they (trapped birds) could be purchased in dozens at the cost of only a few shillings.” Yellow birds were developed in Holland in 1870 and lutinos were established around 1878. Blues turned up in Holland around 1880 and became established in Belgium by 1910. Blue budgies were imported into Australia from Europe in 1918. Cayley notes that there is “no recorded occurrence of albinos or lutinos in Australia”. This is 1933 yet lutinos were being bred in numbers in Europe in 1878! I suppose the reason that England (& not Australia) still seems to set all of the standards for budgies is that they and other European countries got it all going – including breed standards, colour standards and budgie clubs. We didn’t really get much happening in the Land of Oz until about 1930. Anyway – if you can ever get a copy of Neville Cayley’s ‘Budgeriars in Bush and Aviary’ I strongly recommend that you do so. My copy is in good condition and cost $40 from Andrew Isles Natural History Books in Melbourne – www.andrewisles.com 13/1/11 http://www.bestofbreeds.net/wbo/article11.htm

Why would someone come to euthanase a bird they havent as yet assessed. The bird may be able to be saved. The person examined the bird, but didnt have the right tools to deal with the bird at that moment, and was busy. People I talked to on the phone recommended I also do it, just from my description. it is a sad ending, but the bird is to far gone. He has no sense of up or down, or how to use his wings. He isn't eating properly and has dropped 2 grams since yesterday. Very sad but at least you are learning from this and beginning a medicine cabinet too. PS I dont need tools to euthanase a bird.

Why would someone come to euthanase a bird they havent as yet assessed. The bird may be able to be saved.

I agree with the others. Aviary is not a good idea right now.

Please welcome New Admin Maesie into her new position to help with the running of this forum. I am sure she will be a great asset to our staff.

I am not focussing on negatives Heathrow. I am merely asking questions. Its a discussion topic, not a "ban the Nationals" topic. No need to bristle over the mere mention of these things. I for one am all for the Nationals as well. But I dont go around with my ears shut either. I hear things within the clubs. People talk. I am only raising a subject that has and is being discussed around and about. I wonder if theres a better way to transport and house the birds at the Nationals, or is it more of stress thing on the birds that affects how they cope with going to the Nationals ? What procedures do some breeders employ when their birds come home ?

It soaks in. The area you put the drops on is big enough to apply the solution. If it isnt then it isnt an average to large bird requiring two drops. Why not make it a once application instead of going at the bird twice ?

it takes one drop on the back of the neck under the feathers.........thats it. How are you applying it ? With a syringe. You said in another thread you should apply two drops if the bird is over 30 grams. "how big are your birds. If larger than the 30 gram bird they will need two drops" So why do you think you have to wait till it soaks in ?

A 3 week old can take a 14 or 16 guage crop needle and as such it wont block up a crop tube when using hand rearing mix.

it takes one drop on the back of the neck under the feathers.........thats it. How are you applying it ?

As the Budgerigar nationals are about to happen again very soon, I was wondering yet again about the procedures in place for birds to travel safely to the venue and return just as well as when they left. I find it odd that many breeders who employ quarantine measures in their aviaries with regard to new incoming birds, then have birds go off to the Nationals in communal travel boxes, the birds are then housed together and travel back home the same way. I know this is just how it is, but is there a better way ? Is there better seperate travel boxes or cubicles that would work or wouldnt this acchieve it anyway ? Are these things discussed at a higher level ? How many birds get sick along the way ? How many good birds go off to the nationals and return and die ? How many successfully breed afterwards ? Is there any facts kept on this situations or do breeders just accept certain losses ? Do breeders hold back their better birds and send the lesser ones of a family line ? I hear of many birds that come back from the nationals sick or injured or die shortly after. Others that dont breed after...ever again. This is just a curiousity question, hoping for open discussion, ideas, etc. If anyone has any stories to tell and dont want their name put to it PM me so we can get the full story ....post comments ....one way or another. Article http://www.oocities.org/heartland/2761/articles/national.html

Thats good to know PJ

I agree

Post bigger pictures.......close ups of cere and eyes

How cold is it where you are and have your birds just moulted as well ?

Vitamin A deficiency is not a sole cause of staining above the cere. More often than not its respiratory issues.