RIPbudgies

Splat I intend to put my two cents worth into this topic but have been busy doing assignments. Hopefully towards the end of the week things will be clear enough and I will jot down a few chicken scratchings for you. Heads up though at this point I will disagree on not using dark factor birds. I say go ahead. I used them and in fact most of my clearbodies I bred before were dark factored birds.

TCB does not remove markings. It alters markings that exist on the bird. At first look it is obvious the bird is pied. Then due to lack of other 'visual markers' it becomes a guessing game as to what else is there. This is were experience with variety combinations comes into it. If the parents of the bird had not been put up I wonder how many on this forum, including myself, would have picked up the different mutations in this bird. As I have already said the pied was obvious and given the fact it is a baby one would have to wait till it is moults for the iris ring to develop, or not. The grizzling effect on the feathers can be the result of a couple of mutations but again unless you are familiar with them and their consequences in action with others one cannot begin to even have a clue. Sometimes some combos are just plan hard to see. Example being Cinnamon Fallows looking almost exactly like Lacewings. There is such a subtle difference that it can be missed almost entirely by anybody, myself and judges included. I have two such birds. Remove or alter is just getting technical over words for no reason. The TCB gene is Par-ino which blocks the blue from the bird in some areas of the birds body. A agree to the fact the parents where shown it helped rule out any mutations that could have been brought forth if the baby was shown alone.I will have to disagree with you in regards your statement highlighted above.It is the incorrect usuage of the english language which contributes to misinformation. The words 'remove' and 'alter' in a broad sense appear to have the similar meaning. Placed into a different context however they have very different meanings. The words (remove, alter) choosen would not be considered 'technical' by any means. Grammer also plays a part in getting points across and sadly that is lacking on this forum too as it is elsewhere in life these days. TCB gene is indeed a par-ino but this have nothing to do with blocking blue. There is no blue pigment to block. The Ino gene interupts the function of melanin deposition resulting in yellow or white budgies with pink eyes. TCB being an allele of Ino are a variation of the same dysfunctional gene. GB you are a sponge I enjoy our talks and you know more than you think you do. You are always wanting to know more about this wonderful little parrot and I commend you for that.

I'm about to cut the flower heads off my Tatsoi and feed it to the birds. Brocolli too.

No Worries.

///////// This was a blood pairing Kaz,the parents visually are very ordinary.The mother is a double factor grey dominant pied,the dad a sky normal . Nice chick. Just a query. Which is double factored....the pied or the grey part? ///////// It's a sky dominant pied,it's mother was a double factor dominant pied,i know this because she has been with three different cocks & bred nothing but pieds,her parents where both dominant pied so she is one of the 25% or is that 50% not sure? ,so i am reasonably sure she is a double factor.If she was a double factor grey the youngster would have to be a grey pied. Okey Dokey then. No worries. Now that's sorted would you be a dear and get some more pix of the Dominant Pied hen. Back, front, side that sort of thing. Would really appreciate it.

wouldnt the spangle also influence the markings ? Sure does Kaz. The effect will depend on the quality of the Spangle used. As we all know there are some Spangles with such pale markings that if this type were used the TCB markings would almost dissapear and would be extremely difficult to pick up. The Spangle TCB pictured is lucky it was influenced by a well marked Spangle and in this case may well have enhanced the markings more than if it had been a non spnagle only.

RIP the reason I said rec pied in the end is the excessive grizzling of the wing markings. I was initially thinking this is just TBC but usuallu TBC grizzled grey markings are towards the bottom on the wings not up at the shoulder like this hen has. Still think it could be a heavily marked dom pied too but the grizzed markings just don't fit for me. Yeah I can see were ya coming from. This is a baby bird though so again baby feather. Baby feather varies so much and maybe it is a gentic trait within some families. Without seeing the parents I too would more than likely would have said Recessive Pied as on a visual summation would be my frame of reference. Don't forget the Opaline has to make it's effect know too and this effect will depend on the quality of Opaline involved. The TCB component in baby feather does not show a full coloured feather like an adult. It actually appears quite grizzly. I have included a picture of a baby TCB. Take note of the markings on the wings and it can seen that the markings are not as heavy in babies. Once this bird moults out it will get darker. This bird is also a Spangle. http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo40/RI...earbodyGrey.jpg This picture is of a fully grown TCB Spangle Opaline Grey. This is one I bred back in the 90's. This is when TCB were still being introduced and I was pairing with other mutations to see what of the TCB effect would remain that could still be indetified without to much trouble. And I LURRRRRRVV your Cinnamon Fallows!! Even if though they are yellow. They have awesome feather on them.

Were are on the same page.

TCB does not remove markings. It alters markings that exist on the bird. At first look it is obvious the bird is pied. Then due to lack of other 'visual markers' it becomes a guessing game as to what else is there. This is were experience with variety combinations comes into it. If the parents of the bird had not been put up I wonder how many on this forum, including myself, would have picked up the different mutations in this bird. As I have already said the pied was obvious and given the fact it is a baby one would have to wait till it is moults for the iris ring to develop, or not. The grizzling effect on the feathers can be the result of a couple of mutations but again unless you are familiar with them and their consequences in action with others one cannot begin to even have a clue. Sometimes some combos are just plan hard to see. Example being Cinnamon Fallows looking almost exactly like Lacewings. There is such a subtle difference that it can be missed almost entirely by anybody, myself and judges included. I have two such birds.

///////// This was a blood pairing Kaz,the parents visually are very ordinary.The mother is a double factor grey dominant pied,the dad a sky normal . Nice chick. Just a query. Which is double factored....the pied or the grey part?

Well, you couldn't have picked a better vet. Terry Martin is not only a good animal vet but he is a bird breeder as is his brother. He is one of the best avian vets I have met. He is a good bloke too.

SC why do you keep seeing Recessive Pied? Are you sure you understand the difference between the varying pieds? Given the statement above it would seem you have a long way to go to understand them. Pied visual appearance cannot be easily 'pigeon holed', even though it is a trait of human being to do so. The show standards 'pigeon hole' the various mutations. they have too in order to have a frame of reference in which to class birds. Pieds have long since caused much confusion to most and no doubt will continue to do so.

These mushrooms are not the common garden type you see in the produce department of your local grocery. These are fungi within the mushrooms family. There are a number of different species and have been dried and used for decades by cultures such as the Chinese for medicinal purposes. Besides the "cultured" mushrooms we common more than likely don't have these properties. But they are still good for you anyway.

GB, TCB do not have red eyes. They are exactly the same as in a Normal.

Here is a another link. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91223094729.htm From this page you should be abale to access a number of mushroom related articles.

First thing to remember when trying to identify mutation combinations is to not get caught up in the depth of colour in baby birds. As I have said in many posts baby birds DO NOT have fully developed feathers the pigments will be paler and will often not be representative of the final colouration once the bird has moulted. The father is an Opaline TCB in either Dk or Lt Green (can't see the colour that well) so he will produce all Opaline daughters and split sons. If he is a pure TCB ie not split for Ino or Lacewing he will produce all TCB daughters and split sons. The mother is a Dominant Pied Cinnamon Dk Green and she CANNOT produce any Cinnamon young unless the cock is split. She can produce Dominant Pieds and they will of course be single factored. As Pied is variable in its application the resultant baby could be more or less pied than the parent. The chick (hen) itself, given the parameters above is a TCB Dominant Pied Opaline and looks to be Dk Green. It is down on colour firstly because as I said it is baby feather. Opaline also reduces the depth of body colour as does TCB. So combine both TCB and Opaline together and you will reduce body colour. If the cock has been bred from Ino and TCB show stock he will also be carrying a certain amount of residual genes for the decrease of body colour as this is what is strived for in the show standard. The genes will persist for a generation or two if not continually monitored. Is there any Recessive Pied involved? I don't really think so. The only way to be certain is to pair each parent with a visual Recessive Pied. People who have difficulty in identifying muation combinations often see stuff that is not usually there. They are unfamiliar with how the mutations themselves work and are even more unfamiliar with how they interact when in combination. Having bred a few combination TCB's myself I find this combo very nice indeed. You have some nice healthy looking birds there Snoopy. Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your stay.

so nubbly could you find out for me if the 007 brand of horse lick is dangours as i havnt used one as yet but i finally got told their safe by a breeder who uses them but your the expert in that feild would you please find out if theirs a brand i could use or if not what salt can i use apart from i think rock salt which i think is safe Is this the one GB? OLSSENS 007 MINERAL BLOCK 2KG Formula 007 mineral bricks are designed to provide the essential mineral and trace element in supplementary form, giving horses extra vigor, stamina and muscle and bone strength. Field tests have shown that Formula 007 helps brood mares produce sound foals and helps keep stallions in top condition without piling on fat. The balanced levels of calcium and phosphorus in the brick build stronger bones in growing foals, and replenishes these minerals drawn from the mare's reserves during pregnancy and lactation. Formula 007 blocks contain: Salt, molasses, phosphrous, calcium, cobalt, zinc, iodine, manganese, potassium, magnesium, iron, fluorine and sulphur. Directions for Use: One 2kg brick should last a single horse about three weeks. If consumption rate is higher than this at first, it merely indicates a mineral/trace element deficiency in the animal which is greater than normal. The horse will lick for what it needs, then, with its hidden hunger satisfied, daily consumption will settle down. Olssens Formula 007 mineral blocks are available in 2kg and 20kg.

I really find it absolutly ridiculous in this day and age with all the info around that this sort of c**p is still being told to people. Birds DO NOT have the same colour vision as humans for start. Their vision is further down the visable spectrum. The rod and cone structure in the eye differs to our own. Hence the difference in what they see compared to us. Given what you have been told at the club meeting, if it were true, I would have lost so many chicks that I would have lost count. Quite honestly I can say in 20 years of breeding show budgies I never had a chick killed by a foster but have lost them from being killed by their own mothers.

I used to use it in my sprouting mix with no worries at all. It is quite nutrious.

Not 100% sure cause I have only ever a couple rabbits over the years but the ones I had were mixed breed and quite but they were handled a lot. I think those dwarf types are usually pretty quite. There's a lop type, can't remember the proper name, but I think they are suppose to be quite tame also. Matt, contact somebody from a Rabbit club and they may be able to advise you better.

Yeah I know it is an old topic. Was looking at your profile Martina and saw this post and it caught my eye. Anyhow checked out the link to the pedigree and well I must say the pedigree has so many anomalies in it.

One problem with forums is you just don't know if the person asking questions is well aquainted with the inner workings of the budgerigar or not. Your orignal post came over as somebody who knew very little yet then you come in later and obviously know more than your first post led me to believe. I am well aware of the pigments in budgies and how they are produced. I put the colours black, grey and brown in brackets so people could understand better by visualising the colour. The word location in the second point was pertaining to placement, as in a pied area, not loci. Again trying to make it so the majority can understand it.

I think you better read what is written a bit more carefully. I never said the birds were related. I was trying to say that it is the relatedness (inbreeding) that generally gives rise to more individuals being present within the show system where as in colony systems there is not same level of inbreeding and therefore the incidence of one occuring is rarer. Birds can be completely unrelated and still produce a mop.

How people choose to euthanase birds will always depend on a number of things. It can be done by the method one learns from a parent for example. car exhust is not a bad as it seems. They simply go to sleep quite peacefully. It is sometimes the manner is which a bird is held gives the impression the method is not a sound one when in fact it is. In fact the toad busting campaign held up Kunnanarra once a year euthanse the cane toad by carbon monoxide (same stuff your car exhust puts out). My methods for euthansing are: 1. Choloform - it is quick and simply go too sleep. 2. I hold bird in which ever hand is the strongest at the time. Place the thumb over the breast bone onto the area directly above the heart. Press hard enough that the heart cannot pump any more blood. They simply go to sleep and although it sounds like they would struggle they actually do not. I do not recommend this method to the beginner if you don't know much about bird anatomy as you may well no press on the heart and actually prolong the process thereby causing more distress to the bird.

It is perfectly normal for a Dominant Pied to have an ring in one eye and not the other. It is also possible to find Dominant Pieds with no rings. The cause of this is simply the gene which produces the 'pied' effect has effected it's control at this area just as with other areas of the bird. Any area that is subject to the action of the 'pied' gene will be altered if the mutation responsible applies its effect in that area. Generally the more 'pied out' a bird is the greater the chance of one or both eyes being affected and also the fleshy parts i.e. feet, cere, beak. I suppose you could look at pieds this way to make it easier to understand. 1. Mutation for 'pied' removes melanin (black, grey, brown) pigments. Further instruction is required as it does not know where to remove the pigment, so............ 2. Mutation for 'location' working with the 'pied' gene to tell the 'pied' gene where to remove pigment.