Worlds First "RED" Grey

[ecodweeb]

hm.. perhaps i've been kind of hard lined for no real reason. Thanks to all for opening my mind up a bit on the subject matter.

[JillyBeanz]

particle77 wrote:

All of this depends on the practices of the breeder. selective breeding is exactly the same process that happens in the wild. The only difference is that humans are manipulating what environmental traits are successful, as such its certainly possible to run a selective breeding program without producing sickly animals.

 

Large scale commercial breeding of any animal frequently results in a less than ideal situation for the animals, that is not specific to selective breeding though

 

Oooh, goodie - someone else gets to quote you!!!!

 

You quote my WHOLE passage, questioning my opinion (which is all it is) and putting your own in - but still didn't include my bottom line!

 

WHAT USE DOES IT HAVE - None! It doesn't save lives, the breeder hasn't managed to cure any parrot diseases. It is for the own breeder's merriment (as outlined in your "quote".

 

My opinion is that we shouldn't play with genetics (believe me, I work in genetics would love to discuss it, but shan't!!).

[danmcq]

JillyBeanz wrote:

My opinion is that we shouldn't play with genetics (believe me, I work in genetics would love to discuss it, but shan't!!).

 

Jill - Since you would love to discuss it. Please do!! :-)

 

This is certainly an interesting thread and the more opinions, information and facts added to it will only make it more valuable for referencing.

[AbbysDaddy]

Are you really playing with genetics though if you are just picking which birds "look good" as far as I have found there are no bad traits that come along with this NATURAL mutation ... and the only out come is that their is a beautiful bird now ... it would have happened in nature any ways eventually presuming that the bird didnt go extinct do to other cause's ... now if that red bird were to stay alive in the wild and make more is another question ....! Probably not lol but its still a beautiful bird ... I wish I could call Germany and see how much this guy wants for them. And I would love to her more on this topic lol

[JillyBeanz]

danmcq wrote:

[\quote]JillyBeanz wrote:

Jill - Since you would love to discuss it. Please do!! :-)

 

Mmmm, perhaps a sarcastic phrase I've used - but since you've pushed me into it, I shall summise extremely quickly!!! It's very tedious - but the over-production using similar family members (cousins in particular) can bring on a multitude of dysfunction relating to all matter of organs and other bearings on the human body. The want for a better word of "inbreeding" in human families causes untold disabilities (not only physical, but chromosomal and chemical) which I would only guess would transfer into whatever species "inbreeds".

 

Kidneys, for example, you can't see - but generational inbreeding causes numerous gene deficiencies, which can lead a patient into kidney failure (eg Alport's syndrome - which includes deafness).

 

In essence, I could go on and on and on (and usually do) but the multiple births from related species brings so many unseen problems - and in animal species these are NEVER tested for.

 

Please tell me that this is enough now!!! I don't think I'm technically known for my brains around here!!!! :laugh:<br><br>Post edited by: JillyBeanz, at: 2010/01/14 20:20

[particle77]

Jill, I agree that those practices are ill conceived, but selective breeding doesn't require this.

 

that is the main point I've been making though out these posts. I also disagree with in-breeding, but take issue with people saying selective breeding is bad and then implying that in-breeding is always involved in selective breeding.

 

In-breeding is a short-cut that some people have chosen to take because it is easier than identifying animals which are not closely related, but which posses the trait the breeder is interested in. If there is evidence the breeder of the red Greys did this, then I agree it should not have been done.

 

The same results could be achieved without in-breeding.

[danmcq]

Thanks Jill!!

 

I agree that anytime selective breeding is done to amplify a specific trait such as coloration using close family lines produces health issues.

 

I is similar to breeding Dobermans to obtain what is called a "Fawn" color. They all have serious skin, allergy and thyroid problems etc. that requires prescription drugs after they are around 2 years of age for the remainder of their lives.

 

This type of selective and unnatural breeding technique always produces a weaker animal.

 

This would never happen in the wild where the diversity of gene pool guarantees weaknesses such as these are not amplified. The weak die and decrease, while the strong live and increase. That is a basic law of nature.

 

Thus, not "Red" Grey is found in the wild.

 

One of my first questions to this breeder over a year ago was, have any health issues been observed. The response was: None are old enough to determine that yet....

[particle77]

Dan, thats a great point you bring up about the dobermans.

 

even when not attempting to produce "fawn" colored dobermans, purebreds often have health problems because so many of them carry recessive genes for health problems. this is definitely a danger with selective breeding that can arise if the initial population lacks sufficient diversity, and new members from an outside population aren't continually allowed to enter the population.

 

I think its a bit of a leap though to assume that the red greys don't currently occur in nature because of linked genetic disorders. I suspect its more likely that like albinos of many species, these red greys are more susceptible to predators in the wild. However it is possible that being red itself is inherently unhealthy for some currently unknown reason.

[danmcq]

particle77 wrote:

I think its a bit of a leap though to assume that the red greys don't currently occur in nature because of linked genetic disorders.

 

Oh, true. I didn't intentionally make that jump at all.

 

I just meant to imply, it would not happen due to it being such a diluted gene at this point. That it only naturally occurs as a few red feathers here and their in a small percentage of greys.

 

Now if the female and male greys started thinking it was desirable to seek out mates with that trait specifically, POOF, in a few generations you would start seeing greys with largely pronounced red coverage.

[particle77]

I think I might be coming across as far more polar than I am...

 

I'm not crazy about the red grey. Its not particularly attractive to me, I'm just not convinced breeding it has resulted in any harm, so in my mind if no harm is being done, and there is a market for it, then ok.

 

I agree selective breeding can and often is taken too far, and don't like what has happened with purebred dogs.

 

However I also think some good can come of selective breeding.

 

for example selective breeding can prevent health problems if that is the goal of the breeder.

 

selective breeding for traits that make an animal easier to live with might also result in fewer cases of abandonment. (sure, we can all say people should do there research, and talk about how horrible it is to abandon pets, but that's not really working...)

 

and really all captive breeding is selective breeding to some degree, so when does it become a problem? Does a breeder have to be ignorant of the fact that the animals chosen for breeding impact th offspring to be ok? I doubt many breeders select animals completely blindly. Do they have to be unaware of what makes them choose one animal over another? or is it ok if they know they chose those animals because they were slightly bigger, or because they seemed cuter, etc.

[JillyBeanz]

danmcq wrote:

Now if the female and male greys started thinking it was desirable to seek out mates with that trait specifically, POOF, in a few generations you would start seeing greys with largely pronounced red coverage.

 

So, what would they be called? African greys, correct me if I am wrong, are grey and they come from Africa - pretty simple!! There are your Congo African Greys (CAGs) and your Timneh African Greys (TAGs) so, what would these be? Surely they are not Red African Greys (RAGs) - because there's not a bit of grey in them!!<br><br>Post edited by: JillyBeanz, at: 2010/01/14 21:32

[danmcq]

Jill - I like that RAG, technically though their species would remain that of a CAG. Just of a different color, like us humans of different colors :-)<br><br>Post edited by: danmcq, at: 2010/01/14 21:42

[danmcq]

particle77 wrote:

However I also think some good can come of selective breeding. for example selective breeding can prevent health problems if that is the goal of the breeder.

 

Great Point!

 

I couldn't agree with you more!

 

We see that type of "good breeding" taking place everyday. Those are good breeders and care about the quality of the critter they are providing.

 

A responsible breeder will discontinue breeding a "Pair" when they see a genetic weakness crop up if it significantly impacts health.

 

I know Doberman breeders that provide both the black and red dobermans. That use pairs of breeders that produce both black and red in the same litter. Thus elimination the downfall of only breeding two reds together and the possible health issues it results in. They understand the significance of keeping the gene pool varied and strong.

 

Unfortunately, there are irresponsible breeders that only care about the dollars, irrespective of the poor health of the pair(s)they use for breeding.

[Acappella]

danmcq wrote:

Jill - I like that RAG, technically though their species would remain that of a CAG. Just of a different color, like us humans of different colors :-)<br><br>Post edited by: danmcq, at: 2010/01/14 21:42

 

What about CAR, Congo African Reds!