Jump to content
BC Boards

Color Genetic question


DeltaBluez Tess
 Share

Recommended Posts

This was sent to me from a friend. Since I am not a color genetic person, perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the area can anwser this question

 

 

#########################################################

 

Black tri female ( red dam and tricolor sire) bred to black tri male (color of parents unknown)

Offspring, all black tri.

A male pup is bred to a black/white female (red dam and blk/white ) produced black/white and red/white pups.

It would be my understanding that both parents here are carrying a red gene.

My question is: would all of the offspring from the initial litter carry a red gene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The first litter as in "Black tri female ( red dam and tricolor sire) bred to black tri male (color of parents unknown)"?

 

I'll give it a shot.

 

If the male's parents were both black and white or tri then statistically 50% of the litter would carry the red gene and all would be black and white.

 

If the male had a red parent then statistically 25% of the pups would be red, 50% would be black carrying the red gene and 25% would be black with no red gene.

 

I think that's correct...

 

Olivia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diane,

Since red is recessive and requires the gene from both parents, the best chance of not getting red (if the status of the one dog is uncertain) is to make sure the other dog has no red dogs in its background. Though of course if it were me, I'd just choose the best mate possible and take my chances on the red. It's unlikely all the pups in such a litter would be red, and I'm sure buyers could be found for any red pups....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im trying :rolleyes: I get the letters wrong but roughly

 

 

 

 

Dam Red(rr)

------------------------------- Dam Black (rb)

Sire Black(b?)

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pup black (r?)

 

 

Dam (??)

-------------------------------- Sire black (??)

Sire (??)

 

 

since the pup is producing red pups IT must have the red gene from somewhere

Since all the pups are black it is most likely that the only red gene is comming from the dam

 

 

Dam Red(rr)

------------------------------Dam Black (rb)

Sire Black(b?)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pup black (rb) Pup breeds some red pups (rr) and some black (rb) or (br)

 

 

Dam (??)

-------------------------------Sire black (bb)

Sire (??)

 

 

I hope thats about right and it kind of makes sense

So statisticaly it is most likely that roughly 50% of the pups will have the red gene but the male that has been bred from has one red

For a dog to be red it needs two red genes, one from each parent, black can have two blacks or one black and one red

 

I wouldnt bother breeding for colour tho (or lack of it) thats only statisticly speaking, a black dog could have a red gene but not produce any red pups but still pass the red gene on to some of its pups so you can not be 100% sure there is no red there

and red dogs are lovely and can do just as good a job

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diane,

 

The answer to your question is yes it is a recessive gene - b is red which is actually liver red (brown) and B is non-brown. In order for pup dog to be liver red (brown) it must have the bb genotype. A liver red (brown) puppy can be born from black parents if both are carriers of the liver red (brown) gene which means their genotype is Bb. One in four puppies will be bb (liver red). With the exception of the brown (bb) puppy- there is no way to know which puppies have inherited a copy of the b gene unless tested. [see links provided below]

 

Here are some links to reliable information on the genetics of canine coat color:

 

http://www.vetgen.com/canine-coat-color.html

 

http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/ColorGen.html

 

http://homepage.usask.ca/~schmutz/dogcolors.html

 

http://www.ashgi.org/articles/color_coat_p...inheritance.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only sure way to have all the pups in a litter carry for red is if one of the parents are red.

Statistically speaking, it is slightly possible for all the pups in a litter to carry red if neither parent was red but both carried for it, but it is highly unlikely.

My Twist is out of a litter where both parents were B&W but carried red. She had two red littermates (out of five pups total, so not an insignificant number, and I think it's possible they all could have carried red). I bred Twist to a dog who I know carries red because he had sired red puppies (I wasn't breeding for color, but because I thought they were a good working match) and none of the pups was red, so I took that to mean that Twist herself didn't get a red gene from either parent. But then again she could have, and perhaps neither she nor the sire of the litter I got from her happened to both contribute red to any single pup in that litter. The only way to know for sure would be to do test breedings with red males, and there's really no point in that. (Interestingly, they both carried the gene for ticking, and while some pups had no ticking, others clearly got a double dose as they are so heavily ticked as to appear grey.)

 

If the person Diane is asking for doesn't want red pups, then their best option is to choose a male who has no red littermates or relatives for as many generations back as they can follow, but that still won't be a guarantee. And as I said before, not everyone dislikes red dogs--one of my open dogs, a red tri, is quite nice and has been a good partner for me.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie,

 

You are correct in that one pup in four will be liver red / brown (bb). A liver red puppy can be born from two black parents if both are carriers of the brown gene (both are Bb). Unless an individual is red there is no way to know whether it has inherited a copy of the brown gene without testing prior to breeding. Several labs offer canine coat color tests for the b or brown locus:

 

"This test analyzes whether an animal has 0, 1 or 2 copies of the mutations typically responsible for brown, which is also known in some breeds as liver, chocolate, sedge, and less frequently, red."

 

http://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/services/coatcolordog.php

 

http://www.vetgen.com/canine-coat-color.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only hope that if I'm able to breed MOTH & Drama that I get some reds out of the litter. Both work well on sheep, flyball, disc, etc etc. I prefer the red color however. :rolleyes:

I'll apologize in advance but I just couldn't let these statements stand without a response.

 

Firstly, have you read the "Read This First" to understand the philosophy (including the breeding philosophy) of these boards? If you did, you would have realized that there is absolutely no reason to breed Border Collies for anything but "the work" - which is defined as stockwork. It doesn't matter one iota whether a dog is good in agility, flyball, disc, the showring, or any other performance, appearance, or pet/companion activity or aspect. What has made the breed what it is is selection for stockworking abilities, instincts, and those physical and tempermental traits required for stockwork. Not appearance, not performance sports, not any other cosmetic or fun activity abilities.

 

Secondly, just what have your dogs (and this can be a generic "you" because it applies to any Border Collie owner who anticipates breeding) done to really prove stockworking ability? Do they work on the farm/ranch in real life, accomplishing genuine and challenging work? Have they done consistently well at the Open level of trialing? Has an experienced, successful, and highly-regarded working Border Collie trainer/handler/breeder been convinced that your dogs are worthy of breeding, and might even like a pup? In other words, what is your justification and reason for breeding?

 

Thirdly, all other things equal, it makes no difference if anyone prefers a particular coat color, coat length, ear set, and so on. But the operative phrase is "all other things equal" because cosmetic aspects should never be a criteria for breeding. Now, one could argue that there are many experienced working Border Collie breeders/trainers/handlers who don't want a particular color (red, merle, white-faced, blue-eyed) and one would have to know their reason for that to say if it was arbitrary (there are strong feelings among some that certain "appearances" are not associated with as effective a working dog as others - I can't say if there is any basis in that but you don't see many red or merle dogs proving themselves as outstanding on the trial field or farm/ranch - dogs "of color" are apparently much more popular among the sport/performance folks than the working dog folks).

 

So, not to be particularly critical of you, but I didn't think this statement should stand without comment, lest other folks feel that the sentiments echoed in it were justification for breeding. For more and better reasoned arguments, you may wish to use the "search" function at the top of the page. Others have discussed this much better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I guess it's because it's Feb, and I am BORED, but I have a few points to make...

 

Regarding Sue's second paragraph. One thing I have seen, and really have to comment on, is the number of Border Collie litters existing at any given time with many of these litters (I am solely talking working purpose bred here) derived from pro-novice sires and dams. Many of these dogs are owned/handled by experienced handlers. That said, this does not fall in line with working at open level, for the parents of said litters. How then, if we follow this logic, of "doing consistently well at the open level of trialing" do these dogs (by pro-novice parents) fit in?

 

Many very good dogs are never bred. Many so-so dogs are bred, because they have what is considered great breeding, or breeding that is "hot" now.

 

There are no absolutes. As to "improving the breed" while, I commend that as a lofty goal, I doubt very much that this is foremost on the mind. Rather, that the dogs in question are solid working dogs, and should produce, with hope, pups with the same traits. The truly great dogs, I believe are not just a result of good breeding, but good training.

 

 

 

 

I'll apologize in advance but I just couldn't let these statements stand without a response.

 

Firstly, have you read the "Read This First" to understand the philosophy (including the breeding philosophy) of these boards? If you did, you would have realized that there is absolutely no reason to breed Border Collies for anything but "the work" - which is defined as stockwork. It doesn't matter one iota whether a dog is good in agility, flyball, disc, the showring, or any other performance, appearance, or pet/companion activity or aspect. What has made the breed what it is is selection for stockworking abilities, instincts, and those physical and tempermental traits required for stockwork. Not appearance, not performance sports, not any other cosmetic or fun activity abilities.

 

Secondly, just what have your dogs (and this can be a generic "you" because it applies to any Border Collie owner who anticipates breeding) done to really prove stockworking ability? Do they work on the farm/ranch in real life, accomplishing genuine and challenging work? Have they done consistently well at the Open level of trialing? Has an experienced, successful, and highly-regarded working Border Collie trainer/handler/breeder been convinced that your dogs are worthy of breeding, and might even like a pup? In other words, what is your justification and reason for breeding?

 

Thirdly, all other things equal, it makes no difference if anyone prefers a particular coat color, coat length, ear set, and so on. But the operative phrase is "all other things equal" because cosmetic aspects should never be a criteria for breeding. Now, one could argue that there are many experienced working Border Collie breeders/trainers/handlers who don't want a particular color (red, merle, white-faced, blue-eyed) and one would have to know their reason for that to say if it was arbitrary (there are strong feelings among some that certain "appearances" are not associated with as effective a working dog as others - I can't say if there is any basis in that but you don't see many red or merle dogs proving themselves as outstanding on the trial field or farm/ranch - dogs "of color" are apparently much more popular among the sport/performance folks than the working dog folks).

 

So, not to be particularly critical of you, but I didn't think this statement should stand without comment, lest other folks feel that the sentiments echoed in it were justification for breeding. For more and better reasoned arguments, you may wish to use the "search" function at the top of the page. Others have discussed this much better than I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly where we live there aren't much chances to get our dogs on sheep. However that is to change in the spring when Moth's breeder is getting his pens in place and having some knowledgeable people help him get things in place. I cannot wait to get them working on sheep again. Unfortunately the only places around here to work on sheep is with very irresponsible breeders. I have done some lessons with Kate Broadbent at a local farm (which I wish would do herding lessons, etc, but her time is limited) but it's not consistent.

 

I really don't love when people judge by color, however I think it's fair that people have a preference. Certainly Moth's lines are all red on his fathers side and all are working stock dogs and do a great job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie,

Just my opinion, and I'm sure there are way more dogs being bred than my explanation would account for, but there are open handlers/dog people/stock people who I think *can* judge the value of a dog for breeding before they are performing well in open. The rule about not breeding till proven in open, is for the rest of us--those who don't have the knowledge and experience behind us to make those judgements. It's an attempt tp prevent the average *novice* handler from breeding N/N champion Moss to P/N champion Fly when the handler him/herself has never made it beyond P/N. There's a huge difference between that sort of person breeding dogs and some of our top open handlers breeding dogs.

 

ETA: And as for the "truly great dogs" quote, if the genetics (proven parents) aren't there, no amount of training is going to make the dog great. That is, you can't put in through training what isn't already there through genetics (to think otherwise is what keeps the AKC herding program alive and well).

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Sue's second paragraph. One thing I have seen, and really have to comment on, is the number of Border Collie litters existing at any given time with many of these litters (I am solely talking working purpose bred here) derived from pro-novice sires and dams. Many of these dogs are owned/handled by experienced handlers. That said, this does not fall in line with working at open level, for the parents of said litters. How then, if we follow this logic, of "doing consistently well at the open level of trialing" do these dogs (by pro-novice parents) fit in?

 

Many very good dogs are never bred. Many so-so dogs are bred, because they have what is considered great breeding, or breeding that is "hot" now.

 

There are no absolutes. As to "improving the breed" while, I commend that as a lofty goal, I doubt very much that this is foremost on the mind. Rather, that the dogs in question are solid working dogs, and should produce, with hope, pups with the same traits. The truly great dogs, I believe are not just a result of good breeding, but good training.

That's pretty much what I said, concerning someone who is really capable of making that sort of decision. For many folks, "going with Open" is a more reasonable option since many don't have the capability of seeing beyond what is visible. Too many people have a dog that wins at Novice or ProNov, and all of a sudden, it's worth breeding. An expert might be able to tell but the run-of-the-mill person or "hobby herder" sure can't.

 

One can never discount the difference that good handling/training makes.

 

Good breeding should, by its very nature, either maintain or improve the breed - whether or not that is one person's particular goal.

 

ETA - What Julie P said!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, I think you are proving my point- the whole notion of the dog has to do well in open trials, is mitigated by the depth, and breadth of it's trainers experience. For instance, I can name a few top handlers who have less experienced dogs, who I would buy a pup from, wholly expecting a good potential to do very well, just based on that handler's d and b of experience.

 

I agree with your ETA :rolleyes:

 

Julie,

Just my opinion, and I'm sure there are way more dogs being bred than my explanation would account for, but there are open handlers/dog people/stock people who I think *can* judge the value of a dog for breeding before they are performing well in open. The rule about not breeding till proven in open, is for the rest of us--those who don't have the knowledge and experience behind us to make those judgements. It's an attempt tp prevent the average *novice* handler from breeding N/N champion Moss to P/N champion Fly when the handler him/herself has never made it beyond P/N. There's a huge difference between that sort of person breeding dogs and some of our top open handlers breeding dogs.

 

ETA: And as for the "truly great dogs" quote, if the genetics (proven parents) aren't there, no amount of training is going to make the dog great. That is, you can't put in through training what isn't already there through genetics (to think otherwise is what keeps the AKC herding program alive and well).

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, I think you are proving my point- the whole notion of the dog has to do well in open trials, is mitigated by the depth, and breadth of it's trainers experience. For instance, I can name a few top handlers who have less experienced dogs, who I would buy a pup from, wholly expecting a good potential to do very well, just based on that handler's d and b of experience.

 

I agree with your ETA :rolleyes:

Well what you asked is where P/N dogs being bred by experienced handlers fit in, so that's what I answered. P/N dogs being bred by experienced hanlders are worlds apart from P/N dogs being bred by folks who have never trialed above P/N and wouldn't know if a dog has what it takes to do open-level work if it bit them in the a$$. They think because their dog(s) has won a novice trial or two (or ten) it most certainly is a great breeding prospect, though the average farmer or open handler wouldn't touch the cross with a 10-foot pole....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should have said my question was rhetorical.... :rolleyes:

 

 

Well what you asked is where P/N dogs being bred by experienced handlers fit in, so that's what I answered. P/N dogs being bred by experienced hanlders are worlds apart from P/N dogs being bred by folks who have never trialed above P/N and wouldn't know if a dog has what it takes to do open-level work if it bit them in the a$$. They think because their dog(s) has won a novice trial or two (or ten) it most certainly is a great breeding prospect, though the average farmer or open handler wouldn't touch the cross with a 10-foot pole....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly where we live there aren't much chances to get our dogs on sheep. However that is to change in the spring when Moth's breeder is getting his pens in place and having some knowledgeable people help him get things in place. I cannot wait to get them working on sheep again. Unfortunately the only places around here to work on sheep is with very irresponsible breeders. I have done some lessons with Kate Broadbent at a local farm (which I wish would do herding lessons, etc, but her time is limited) but it's not consistent.

 

I really don't love when people judge by color, however I think it's fair that people have a preference. Certainly Moth's lines are all red on his fathers side and all are working stock dogs and do a great job.

Amanda,

I think Sue's point is well illustrated by your comments above. You say the two dogs you want to breed are good at stockwork, but the fact is you don't really know for sure just how good they are and if they actually have the depth to go all the way. Now if Kate is working with your dogs and said, "Oh yes, they are well worth breeding," that would be one thing, but *exposure* to sheep, coupled with being good at agility, disc, etc., is not a good reason to breed.

 

If you don't mind saying, what are MOTH's lines? Red is carried in some well-known lines here, but I still don't know of a reason for any working dog's lines to be "all red" unless someone was breeding to get that.

 

I have color and type perferences (just look at all the prick ears and smooth coats in my sig line photo), but I certainly wouldn't breed to try to get them. And unfortunately, there's so much breeding for color going on out there now that it's hard *not* to judge folks for doing that. I think it's quite rare that the best cross for a red bitch is going to be a red stud--the numbers just don't support it. And if you (the general you) did such a cross, you wouldn't have many of the top handlers in this country even *look* at the pups, because there is that much prejudice against red dogs, like it or not. So someone deliberately breeding to get red isn't likely considering the right things at the start.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...