I find myself more drawn to recessive blue mutations and was wondering if there are some budgie mutations more prown to sicknesses/shorter lives. I remember something about Albino animals not living as long.. but it wasn't about budgies. Hypothetically, will a blue dilute budgie live as long as a normal green given the same standard of care? Are red eyed varieties such as albinos/lutinos genetically weaker? I've heard that Rainbows *a combinations of several mutations * don't live as long.. does anyone know why?

Edited January 15, 200619 yr by HurdyBirdy

I can't give a straight answer but I'll just share my thoughts...

 

I think that mutations in general have the potential of a shorter lifespan than a standard colored budgie purely because many many breeders inbred their birds to achieve the different mutations. But because it's so hard to trace the background of even a visually normal bird, I don't think it would be worth it to look over a mutation in hopes the normal green bird would live longer. Budgies are bred like mad and most of them aren't bred carefully.

 

All that aside, I've never heard of one mutation being shorter-lived than another. It all depends on the breeding I guess. The cleaner the gene pool, the better the chances at a long life. And you can't really tell how "clean" it is by looking at a bird.

 

English budgies, however, often have shorter lifespans than American/pet budgies but again, that's because of the seriously muddy genepool and poor breeding that was used to achieve such a dramatic look.

I can't give a straight answer but I'll just share my thoughts...

 

I think that mutations in general have the potential of a shorter lifespan than a standard colored budgie purely because many many breeders inbred their birds to achieve the different mutations. But because it's so hard to trace the background of even a visually normal bird, I don't think it would be worth it to look over a mutation in hopes the normal green bird would live longer. Budgies are bred like mad and most of them aren't bred carefully.

 

All that aside, I've never heard of one mutation being shorter-lived than another. It all depends on the breeding I guess. The cleaner the gene pool, the better the chances at a long life. And you can't really tell how "clean" it is by looking at a bird.

 

English budgies, however, often have shorter lifespans than American/pet budgies but again, that's because of the seriously muddy genepool and poor breeding that was used to achieve such a dramatic look.

Eterri I don't completly agree. I do agree that inbreeding can cause problems in the bird but i couldn't say that a particular mutations would be any less healther than another.

 

As for English Budgies. They are of the larger size for show. We discussed this in another topic. I believe that the obesity of the show budgie is not as healthy as it should be. Hath would be the best to comment on this thou.

 

As far as in breeding in the current Budgie Pool. They are probibly as "Clean" as we are. Our life span has moved from 42 to 84 in the last 2000 years. .......... and I don't really mind the 6 fingures and extra toe... :dbb1:

 

Terms are put forward as a general observations.

Edited January 17, 200619 yr by daz

and I don't really mind the 6 fingures and extra toe...

 

:dbb1:

I don't think that extra toe is helping with your typing

Edited January 17, 200619 yr by Nerwen

and I don't really mind the 6 fingures and extra toe...

 

:ausb:

I don't think that extra toe is helping with your typing

 

woh nac uoy yas taht newreN ?...........Sorry :dbb1: how can you say that Nerwen

Eterri I don't completly agree. I do agree that inbreeding can cause problems in the bird but i couldn't say that a particular mutations would be any less healther than another.

I didn't say that particular mutations are shorter-lived than others either. Just that a budgie with a cleaner background would be longer lived and the careless breeding for color of the past has muddied things up a bit. The reason being that inbreeding was a common practice back when the emphasis was on making each mutation more plentiful.

 

As for English Budgies. They are of the larger size for show. We discussed this in another topic. I believe that the obesity of the show budgie is not as healthy as it should be. Hath would be the best to comment on this thou.

I wasn't talking purely about the size but also all the other aspects of the english budgie in general. They were heavily inbred to bring these characteristics (which in reality, are just faults) out of the birds and make them more prominent. Hardly anything about the english budgie is natural. Even its posture has been altered by breeding. This wouldn't be all that bad if the birds didn't ultimately suffer for it, but they do.

 

This is seen all across the board. Lutino cockatiels have a bald patch behind their crest. It's not supposed to be there. They are also said to be more prone to night frights.

 

I used to keep gerbils and the albinos never seemed quite right. I had one that swayed to the side every time he stood up! It was sad.

 

I'm not saying that ALL mutations are going to have problems but pointing out that they are more likely to have problems related to improper breeding. I'm also not saying that everyone who breeds mutations is doing a bad thing. The problem began with those who bred those first color mutations and inbred so that they could get more.

Well the truth be know is that all budgies except for the original wild or bush budgie is a mutation and have been breed that way.

 

All I am saying is that not all mutations have been inbred. But as I said I do aggree that the inbreeding has caused weaknesses. I am also saying that some breeding has improved the species.

 

These are general comments.

I suppose the most obvious example of inbreeding gone wrong is the feather duster mutation. Which has a very much shortened life span. As Daz says, all the budgies that we keep are mutations. Some mutations are useful and beneficial to the bird, others, specifically where a lot of inbreeding has happened when a new mutation is discovered, can potentially be harmful

Well the truth be know is that all budgies except for the original wild or bush budgie is a mutation and have been breed that way.

 

All I am saying is that not all mutations have been inbred. But as I said I do aggree that the inbreeding has caused weaknesses. I am also saying that some breeding has improved the species.

 

These are general comments.

I'm confused (as usual ).....Inbreeding has to do something, good or bad it has to have an effect....I have always thought that inbreeding wouldn't be good because it would allow bad genetic traits from both birds (which would be similar) to be continued in the bloodline and made stronger???? But on the other hand it could also continue and make good genetic traits stronger......I suppose it's sort of weird to me because in dogs they say if you have a mongrel it will supposedly be healthier and have less genetic predispositions (eg:some breeds are more prone to cancer, bloat, hip displacier etc.)..... who knows????

Yes Bec inbreeding was used becuase althought the bad genes where made stronger so were the good ones.

 

Ohh they do said that about dogs and in agree but I wonder if it's really true at all. Thinking of the dog breeds out there and any other one (not taking in size differences) and you could get a dog with the bad traits from BOTH breeds. I know a crossed dog is still far from mogral status but continue the line down, cross that dog with another bad mixed dog and you can get a puppy with bad traits from four breeds!

 

Now where was I going with this :yellowhead:

Edited January 17, 200619 yr by Nerwen

The dog thing is a myth, from what I understand. Makes sense though, how would you know what's stronger and what isn't when the backgrounds of a mutt are mixed and untraceable? It would vary from dog to dog.

I don't know because at the university I take my animals to, their veterinary wing they do lots of studies and have lots of data of the dogs that are treated there and what they are treated for.....I suppose you could always argue that people with pedigrees are more likely to spend money at vets so the vet will get alot more pedigrees through their door and so alot of mongrels could just never get to visit the vet so they never see the problems these "mongrels "get....

Yeah. It could also be an issue where we know what problems certain breeds have so they stand out more. German Shepherds with hip displaysia, flat nosed breeds with respiratory problems, etc. There are no "common ailments" of the mutts because they're all so different. There's no way to pin one problem on them but they could easily come down with anything the other breeds are known to be afflicted with. You can't say "all mongrels have problems with hip displaysia" for instance. You just don't know what you're getting with dog of really mixed background.

 

Except for a really cute dog, usually.

Well from first hand experience, and I know this is a bird forum.

 

My dalmatian was not a good gene pool, he started to go down in health by the time he was 5 and passed away at 10 (average is 10-12 yrs)

 

My sheep mix Brandy, whom I posted a picture of in off topics, is the same size as the dal was and is 16 yrs old.

 

My husky, is as healthy as a horse at 10 yrs old (average 10-12 yrs), she also had the cataracts that are known to form in husky's, she was diagnosed with them at 2 years of age. They have not grown worse because they do not mature as fast like they do in other dogs (this was told to be by the vet because they are congenital not from old age).

 

Being around many dogs at the shelter, I can I have seen a little bet of everything, I bad tempered Austrian Shepherd, to a loving Standard Poodle.

 

The pool gene becomes stronger when we let nature takes its course. The strong survive and the weak do not. But as humans, we can not let nature take its course because we find it cruel (heck I do too) but if you let the aviary birds just breed with no supervision, would the stronger survive? Most likely yes, but would the appearance you are looking for in specs, mutation go the way you want it probably not.

 

We breed yes for a strong pool but is it a pool of appearance or a pool of good health or both? When I see German Shepherds in the show ring, with their hind quarter almost touching the ground that is not breeding for health but for looks. Or when you see budgies that are all feathery but they don't have a good life span, that is again for appearance.

 

I will get of my rant and rave but my last words are we humans play God way too much...

 

There are good breeders, and there are good breeders .

 

Sorry if this is offensive to anyone, I read this post and decided to jump on the bandwagon.

I was told that certain mutations are more prone to tumors than the normal green or normal blue due to inbreeding to get said mutations. Knowing what little I do about genetics, chromosomes and such I can believe that. But I don't think that means if you have a bird that is a combination of several mutations you can plan on a shorter lifespan. I think the possibility is definitely there, and the chances are better than average you could have problems, but that good nutrition and an active lifestyle go a long way toward longer life. Just because the bird might have a genetic propensity for, say, kidney tumors, you can't tell when or if they will occur if other aspects of the bird's care are optimal. Feed him a seed only diet and the tumors may start growing at a year or two of age. Take the same bird, feed him a varied diet with plenty of opportunity for exercise and play and the tumors may never grow, or may start growing at 5 or 6 years of age instead of one or two. Right now the mutations have been bred all over the world to a large degree, and the gene pool is more varied than if they were only bred on one continent, or in 12 aviaries. They are not all brother/sister pairings anymore. But somewhere down the line they were, which is where the problem began. From past experience, my longest-lived budgies were normal greens. On seed-only diets. Never got sick. (Yuck I know, but this was over 30 years ago. Thank goodness I know better now.) I wouldn't NOT get a budgie because the mutation might die early, but in the back of my mind I know the possibility is greater. I will love them for as long or as short as they are in my care. My thoughts.

Edited January 18, 200619 yr by Rainbow