Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: Blindness in yellow mutation
I have a friend is breeding yellow mutation kaks that are born totally blind. the first point is yes the parent birds are closley related. the interesting thing is all the other chicks produced eg pieds are perfect in every aspect. the blindness only apears in the complete yellow or near complete yellows. a large no. of these birds have appeared. has anyone seen or heard of this before, any thoughts on this.
I have been told that inbreeding creates many problems, including blindness. The other interesting point is that in Kakariki an all yellow bird can also signify internal problems. The chance of fertility in these birds is almost nil and high numbers usually die at a young age.
There is another breeder we both know who several years ago bred red eyed yellow birds, but all of those died whilst still in the nest. It is an interesting subject as the true yellow mutations in Kakariki have been improved in both fertility and size. I believe a lot of the illness that is now starting to occur in Kakariki is due to inbreeding. Kakariki dont seem to fair very well when inbred. Pity we cant convince a few Aussie breeders of that.
I have just learn't how to access this site so I hope I have pressed the right key to post a reply to Kaka-riki's comments about inbreeding. You do say that you 'have been told inbreeding creates many problems, including blindness'. I do wish that if you were going to quote other sources, you would name the source and also quote it accurately.
Mistake No.1. Inbreeding 'per se' does not CREATE any problems. All it does is bring to the surface any inherent defect that may be in the genes of any given line of livestock.
The fact that you know who the breeder Brett is referring to is, and have done your best to belittle his achievements or cast aspersions upon his stock both conversationally and in your posting of Wed.28/6, only does discredit to yourself other than the breeder in question. Is there anywhere in this forum where you have expessed your efforts to obtain stock from him.
Mistake No.2. An 'interesting point is that in kakariki an all yellow bird can also signify internal problems.' You pass this off as blanket statement of fact and many less informed breeders who read your comments would well take this as gospel. What a load of askewed bunkum. You should have clarified the particular genetic traits of the birds (in your experiance) in question. Whilst I am aware of several of the Yellow birds within your experiance, indeed have not bred and some that have have been infertile, this in all honesty cannot be ascribed to the mutation in general. According to the gallery on this site, even you are now breeding all Yellow birds that do not fall into this catagory. The more learned members of this forum are well aware that all Yellow birds (black-eye, red-eye and acquired colour)are being bred in ever increasing numbers all down the Eastern Seaboard right round to Adelaide and probably beyond, that can in no way be descibed as having internal problems. This statement of yours can be read as a rash generalization and can be so easily misinterpreted and I feel a person of your reputation should put a little more thought into how your words can be interpreted.
Mistake No.3. 'as the true yellow mutations in kakariki have been improved'. What do you mean by this? 'True Yellow".Either a Kaka is Yellow or it isn't. Either it is born ALL Yellow (not PURE) or it acquires all Yellow colouring as it matures. Are you intimating that you may have some advantage over the rest of us in having OR having access to 'true yellows' that are in some way different to the Yellows other breeders may have.
While I don't have a particular axe to grind, many people look to you as an 'expert' and I feel you should take the responsibility of that label more seriously.
I think everyone is missing the point i was trying to make , why are only the yellow birds blind and not the rest. surely if it simply a case of the parents being to closely related would not all the ofspring be blind or show some other defects, theyare all large healthy birds, some being 70% PIED. could it be that too much pigment has been removed from the eyes in the yellow birds.
I will try to bring some sort of perspective to your query about the blind birds and also endeavour to put it into a realistic context.
To begin with, I believe and the evidence to date would seem to confirm, that this particular Yellow (or near Yellow) gene, and the gene for this particular state of blindness are either interconnected or are the same gene. That is to say, that not all Yellow birds will be blind (as you know) and not all blind birds will be Yellow.
For the sake of arguement and clarity let us assume that both of these characteristics are on the same gene.
What I do know is that this particular gene has been in the Australian Kakariki genepool for more than 30 years. Speaking to an ex-Kaka breeder last year, he said that he bred similarly afflicted birds more than 30 years ago and that the progenitors were normal green birds. Among the siblings and subsequent generations of this particular line, began to appear birds with pied toes, feet & occassional feathers. This breeder hoped to perpetuate the pied and increased its dispersment by continueing to interbred with the stock. He achieved his aim to some degree but gave up because of the difficulty & slow results. So we know the gene had to come to Oz with the birds from NZ & it is unlikely that it did not go to other countries where Kaka's spread as well.
We know that the gene is recessive and to breed a visible recessive characteristic we need to double up on the recessive gene. The quickest way to do this is inbreeding which will bring these adverse genes to the surface. Linebreeding (which is inbreeding to a lesser degree) can also help identify the gene.
This particular gene for blindness is behind so many of our birds in Oz but is lying dormant (or unexpressed) because so many of us have an unrealistic aversion to inbreeding and so the gene does not present itself as frequently as it could. The catalyst that has helped express this gene in your friend birds is that the gene so often is associated with a gene for good pied expression. As you stated in your forum, the sighted progeny of your friends birds are normal in every other way but, it is a fact that some of these progeny will carry that gene for blindness and there is no indication which of those progeny are carriers. The amount of pied on these birds, while very impressive, is no indication that they do or do not carry the blind gene as you and I both are aware that the blind gene has come out of solid green or cinnamon parents.
So much for the context, now the perspective. None of us can guarentee that our birds do not carry this gene. And even random inbreeding may not prove it. The only way to prove you do not have this gene is to actually identify that you do have it. Identify where it is and then breed away from it. As far as I am aware these blind birds are not viable (and who in their right mind would want to prove otherwise) so the only option open to verify a given bird is free of the gene is to test mate it to a known carrier. Because of the high degree of impressive pieds that seem to come from this particular line, several breeders (many of them known to you) are prepared to use these good pieds from that line and take their own chances.
The theoretical expectation of blind birds from 2 carriers is 1/4 and these breeders are quite happy with those odds. When the first blind bird appears in any extension of this line it is not the bad thing it first appears. It identifys your carriers (i.e. the parents) and you cannot eliminate a gene until you can identify it.
These adverse genes appear in many forms of pedigreed livestock and should be dealt with accordingly as they arise. One of the most common of these genes that would be known to yourself and other breeders reading this, would be hip dysplasia in many breeds of hunting dogs. Breeders just take the info in hand and do something about it and that is why you can see advertised hunting dog breeds as being 'hip dyslpasia free'.
This gene for blindness is the kakariki breeders own 'hip dysplasia' and there is no kaka breeder in the country who can say they haven't got it if they haven't test mated for it. There is a claim however that a breeder may say it is unlikely that they may have it IF they have extensively inbred their stock (not for this gene but for some other favourable characteristic).
Such a characteristic would be the par-blue gene that turned up with a Melbourne breeder. This gene just didn't appear out of thin air, first it had to mutate, which was an invisible occurance, and then it had to marry up to another similar gene to appear. For this to happen, the breeder had to inbreed.
Hope this helps you see the whole forest Brett, and not just a couple of trees.
I will start by saying that YOU and your buddy are the last people I would make reference to on this site. Brett had indicated to me that he has had no dealings with you and your partner and as such I assumed he was making reference to a breeder with whom I HAVE dealt with in the past and whose birds ended up on the autopsy table. So I apologise if I dont give you guys the recognition to which you think you are entitiled but as you have said in the past there is NO reason for us to have any dealings with one another and I for one have abided by your wishes. Further to that I know you have sold birds to mutual aquaintances and as they have not complained to me directly I see NO REASON to slander you. On the other hand you have felt it neccessary to come to this site seeking some sort of "discussion" and feel I have spoken out of line. I really dont have an opinion on your particular birds and as such have little or no interest in what you are trying to achieve other than to point out a few FACTS.
In the world today there are TWO yellow mutations of Kakariki. These are established and have been confirmed as TRUE mutations by several genetics experts. These experts study genetics for a living and as such I believe they have a right to be heard. IF a new mutation is found and subsequently proven to be exactly that there are avenues that can be taken to have the mutation in question verified and classified. We are in the process of doing that at this very point in time.
To hypothosis on theories and "backyard gossip" in my opinion is a total waste of my time. My earlier post in regard to another "yellow" mutation and the possible reasons for these genetic defects IS BASED on our own findings in dealing with Kakariki mutations. You may recall a similar incident in the "red princess parrot mutation" several years ago. This was in fact found to be a genetic imbalance and the birds died out.
I would also point out to EVERYONE that visits this site that I am NOT an "expert" as suggested by others. Rather I am a breeder of Kakariki who is VERY passionate about his hobby and as such enjoys the challenge of digging beneath the surface to try and solve some of the genetic mysteries in the Kakariki mutations. My results are simply tabled and passed on to those who have the knowledge and when required I am happy to pass that knowledge on. EVERY breeder in Australia and indeed the world has access to one of the leading genetics experts in the land via his website and if you really want answers I suggest you post your thoughts on HIS site and accept the umpires decision.
I will add that the pictures of the "yellow" birds that appear in my gallery on this site ARE genuine mutations. This has been proven and confirmed by people I consider to be knowledgable to the facts. If other breeders wish to circumnavigate the correct procedures and "claim" to have struck gold on the back of what others are doing that is there right and it is up to individuals to decide which path they choose to take. I have a feeling that with the confirmation of the true Black eyed clear mutation in Australia there are several breeders willing to cash in on the renewed interest in Kakariki WITHOUT spending the big dollars which are required to invest in the BEC at this time. Again that is their right and as I have stated on another site it is simply a matter of "BUYER BEWARE". If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is a saying my father often used and it works for me. Hopefully, you feel the same way.
I will leave you to discuss this matter with other breeders on the site. I have stated my opinion and knowing the source of your original birds feel that the answer is really quite straight forward. However, I have NO desire to get into a heated debate when in essence you are simply harbouring a grudge over something that is best forgotten. I wish you luck in your endeavours and will leave you to discuss the matter with others.
Last edited by Kaka-riki on Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:59 pm; edited 2 times in total
As the "blue" mutation has been mentioned on this thread, and I AM the current owner of this line of birds I will comment. What was first thought to be a mutation has in fact now been established as nothing more than a "hiccup" in the mystery of genetics. This is NOT a mutation but rather a bird that has very poor feathering and as a result the colouring in the feathers has also been affected. It does show however that continual inbreeding can and does (in some cases) give us false results. All documentation I have read on the suject highlights the need for continual outcrossing to establish a base from which to work and in doing so we have come to the conclusion that there is a mutation in Kakariki, that when tampered with can provide very unstable results. The reason for this is still not clear but I suspect the mutation in question has the capability to provide a lot of variables in Kakariki. Most of these in time will be proven to have no viable future as the base from which the birds are produced is unstable in the first place.
Brett will also be aware that I have in fact viewed other birds with unusual markings and which the breeders believe to be "new mutations". When questioned at length they also admit to continual "inbreeding" in the hope of establishing something new. The only way to confirm THE FACTS is via outcrossing to normals. A genuine mutation will be maintained, a WEAK COLOUR VARIATION in a bird will not.
The new "phase" of yellow birds that are showing up up in aviaries around Australia are the result of combining two established mutations. To rectify the problem it is essential that one of the mutations become stabilised. Our own investigations have shown that if this in fact done the resultant offspring show no defects and are in fact of good quality. With careful consideration it will be possible to further enhance the gene pool. But, I have serious doubts as to the claim of a new mutation when in fact it is a combination of existing mutations.
Last edited by Kaka-riki on Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
It is not ethical for a member simply to identify a breeder who they believe to inbreed and produce pass on defective birds to unsuspecting buyers. Hence Kaka-riki NOT identifing any particular breeder.
Personally, I would like to have disreputable breeders identified, but this is not possible due to potentual law suits.
This site was created to provide reseaerch information, and the shareing of experiances for Kakariki owners/breeders.
Along the way, we do have differences of opinion, theories.
There is a common theme be it wilds or mutations, where breeders and pet owners around the world have had heath/defect/fertility problems due to inbreeding in Kakariki.
U have not researched this site of other related posts from breeders all over the world, and a genic scientist at all before making an attack on a member. The only area that u have have veiwed to any extent is 1 members gallery (not mentioned in this thread.)
We are here to dicuss problems, and argue the issues and opinions. NOT to set out to make personal attacks, simply because one feels they have been 'picked out'
Feel free to dicuss the matter, and keep it to the subject and constructive.
Co Owner and Site Administrator _________________ My Spelling is Not Incorrect...It's 'Creative'
Hi Brett, Greg and Mike i was wondering what if you took the parents of these blind yellow birds and paired each bird back to a normal then paired the young from each pair back together could you get yellow minus the blindness or would you be going to far back. I have a weak pied hen which came from a nest with 3 of these yellow birds, she has gone down for the first time and she current has five 3 week old chicks from 7 eggs so the fertility is still there. i know of to other yellow birds which have come about the same way and they are fine so it should be possible. I also have seen pictures of some of these yellows with lace or spangle wings which look great.
In closing i dont think any of the guys in this topic are in it for a quick buck. Each is passionate in there own way. I have dealt with all of them and and they have all looked after me and passed there knowledge on at no cost. Hopefully we can work together and pass our passion on to others
Well!! I think I must accept the right of reply. But before I do I must say that discussion is the purpose of this forum and this issue has certainly generated some. I am sure that site admin does not have the intention of censoring discussion outside of legal barriers.
I will now reply in chronological order.
Brett, i had not seen your 9.50 p.m. addition when I tried to answer your query at 11.36 so may not have answered some of your specific points that came up at 9.50.
The Yellow birds are blind and not the rest of the siblings because this is a part of the expression of this particular gene. As I said earlier 'not all yellow birds are blind and not all blind birds are yellow'. It is just the combined characteristics of this particular gene. The gene itself (which causes total or near total Yellow PLUS blindness) has absolutely NOTHING to do with how closely related the parents are. Please remove that thought from your sphere of thinking as it is colouring your whole thought process regarding this gene. The only thing relevant about this gene that you need to remember is that it appears to be a SINGLE RECESSIVE gene that has 2 adverse expressions, namely blindness & colour. As Cattscapes mentions in a later posting, this particular gene also has another frequently occuring manifestation which is not adverse. That is the Lacing which more often than not, appears on the wings. All three aspects are characteristics of the expression of a single gene. Just as when you breed 2 Split Blue Ringnecks together, do you ask 'why have I got Green ringnecks in the nest. You have them because the parents are green and only carry Blue. Well the same principle applies with the parents of these blind birds. You get normal (none Blind-Yellow) birds because that is what the parents are. If this doesn't clarify the information for you Brett, I am quite happy for you to call me.
I noticed in some of the replys that members put their own interpretation on my words and not what I actually said. So please note: THIS PARTICULAR YELLOW GENE IS NOT THE SAME AS THE OTHER YELLOW GENES THAT OCCUR IN KAKA. I have no objection to being quoted, either verbally or in print, but I do object to being misquoted or misinterpreted.
Next issue - Steptoe forum 6.21 a.m. 30/6
I find your first 5 line particularly prevocative and bordering on libellous.
You defend 'Kaka-riki" as not identifying a particular breeder . This is blatant hypocracy as several of us know exactly who 'Kaka-riki' was referring to, he did not need to name him, but he obliquely identified him.
Fortunately I had downloaded a hard copy of the posting "kaka-riki' removed so I can quote it accurately. He made the totally inaccurate and rash generalisation that 'kakariki don't seem to fair well when inbred' and immeadiately followed it by 'Pity we cant convince a few Aussie breeders of that'. How are we supposed to interpret these 2 statements. Every Kaka in Australia is inbred to some degree because of our long standing restrictions of importation. To say that kaka's don't fair well when inbred is just a major statement of ignorance. Steptoe, it is true that I have not accessed all the' galleries' as I am still feeling my way with a computer. But I have read some of the vitriole you have had with DoC and just wonder which side of the fence you are playing for. Is it OK for you to say whatever you want on the site but the rest of us have to be censored? When Kaka-riki states 'pity we cant convince a few Aussie breeders of that' (sic -inbreeding) what is he trying to say? That he knows better than the rest of us and should heed what he says.
If you, Kaka-riki, or anyone makes such stupid statements, you must be prepared to defend them or otherwise keep ill-informed opinion to yourself.
To quote you Steptoe:'It is not ethical for a member simply to identify a breeder who they believe to inbreed and produce pass on defective birds to unsuspecting buyers.'
MINE IS NOT A POSITION OF ATTACK, IT IS A POSITION OF DEFENCE FOR WHAT HAS ALREADY GONE ON IN YOUR FORUM.
'Kaka-riki' is 100% aware that the breeder of the stock in question has been TOTALLY upfront about the genetic makeup of his stock and the suggestion that he 'pass on defective birds to unsuspecting buyers' is toally erroneous and purposefully deceptive and I am of the opinion that the true purpose of these statements is to reduce competition on the selling market by discrediting a superior breeder who at least produces results and acts with unqualified integrity.
Quote Steptoe 'There is a common theme be it in wild or mutations, where breeders and pet owners around the world have had health/defect/fertility problems due to inbreeding kakariki". Talk about twisting the facts to suit a particular point of view. These problems are not due to INBREEDING but have much more to do with the ever diminishing diversity of the genepool of our captive bred Kakas. DoC people have been trying to tell you this but it seems to me that you just do not want to listen to an opinion that differs from your own, no matter how well it can be qualified.
If "we are here to discuss problems, and argue the issues and opinions, NOT to set out to make personal attacks" then I think that you should not be so selective with whom you take to task. Either it applies to us all (including yourself) or it applies to none of us.
If you identify a person to the extent that other people know who it is (even without actually naming them) still makes you legally responsible under libel laws.
I realise I am new to the site and have probably introduced myself with quite an explosion, but I have been in the hobby for 50 years, have lectured rather extensively on genetics as they apply to Laypeople and general aspects of the bird breeding hobby as well as being a qualified bird Judge for more than 30 years. I am the first to admit that I do not tolerate fools and hypocites well. But whatever my predjustices I abhor injustice even more and will always rise to challenge such instances vehemently.
All that said, I think your site is of great benefit and offers breeders great oppurtunities to learn within the widest reaches of our hobby. But one must learn with integrity, and members must ,at all times, feel free to challenge inaccuracies and injustices otherwise the forum only becomes a vehicle for dispersing mundane and sometimes inaccurate information, and this benefits none of us.
The reason for editing my earlier posts is simple. I do not want to get involved in personal attacks with anyone. If you feel I have wronged anyone Mike I would be happy to defend myself in any court. I suggest you be VERY sure of your facts before going too far as the breeder I refered to is a very close friend of mine. Perhaps partners is a better term, so by all means take from that what you will. He is also smiling at the thought of me cornering the market. I have VERY little to do with the sale of any birds and so would be interested in how you present that to a judge.
My last comment in regard to this matter is simply this. I am disapointed that the original post was made by a person whom I considered a friend. The manner in which you have deliberately hijacked the thread has made me question the ethics of your intentions. It has highlighted to me that there is a vast difference between passion and ego. I have been considering whether the effort is worth the agro and perhaps you have answered that question for me. I am disgusted that you have questioned the morals of Steptoe in his fight with Docs. It saddens me to be called an Aussie when I read that sort of rubbish. You claim integrity and yet question the rights of other individuals to have an opinion. If you continue to carry on in this vein I will gladly remove myself from the site in the hope that your personal vendetta against me is not thrust upon every other member. I think I speak for EVERY MEMBER on this site when I say Steptoe HAS DONE MORE FOR KAKARIKI THROUGH THIS SITE THAN ANY OF US COULD HOPE TO ACHIEVE IN A LIFETIME.
As for your theories on genetics I wish you luck. Perhaps one day you to will recieve the recognition you deserve.
I will make things quite clear....
I created this site
I coded this site
I own this site
I own and run the web servers
I pay for this site, the domain, servers and BW.
Other than casino/porn spamers I and the moderators have never used the Ban functions, nor have I (we) ever had to edit delete or edit the context of posts as happens on so many sites.
I do not want to have to start.
I have never had to make a post of this nature before.
I do not like having to do so
Please keep that in mind
At the end of the day. Im the closest thing to god here.
Keep to the subject and Discuss the subject.
Admin. _________________ My Spelling is Not Incorrect...It's 'Creative'
OH SHIT WISHED I NEVER ASKED LOL. truely thanks for all the replies i think in there i got the answer i was after. just shows how passionate we get over this great little green bird i think we all need to read cattscapes thread again and take abig deep breath and stop taking ourselves so serious shit its only a hobby.
Mike after reading your reply it jogged my very poor memory of a phone conversation i had with one of the Adelaide zoo bird keepers some 15 odd years ago his name escapes me. we were discussing the yellow kaks that had appeared in odd nests at that time. none of these particular birds got to fledge stage they all died . he described it as a lethal gene seems very similar to what you have described if not the same gene. regards brett
Sorry to but in, but ..... here in the uk there is so little information on these great birds and any you do find is pretty useless or mis-informed guess work. Finding this site was a real godsend for me and hundreds of others. At least Steptoe and a few others are helping to further other peoples knowledge based on facts that they have discovered and discussed with other breeders, Vets etc. I think they deserve some recognition for the work and effort they put into this site to make it what it is, A great site.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum