Colour Not To Standard?

[YOLO]

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism?

Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!?

I am 150% in favour of rigorous Hip/ Elbow/ Eye/ DNA testing of all available ancestors before breeding. Which for most breeds and most genetic problems, has naff all to do with colour.

There are a few, where either the genetic issues are present in the same bloodlines, or the skin pigment is itself a symptom of a skin type that can lead to other problems. But even there why not rely on the actual science rather than guessing?

The horrible irony is that by arbitrarily excluding dogs simply on colour, we further concentrate the gene-pool and make it that much harder to breed out the undesirable genetic problems.

[Maddy]

Been thinking about this a lot lately (don't know why.)

I feel the number one goal in breeding should be health. Then temperament.

After that, breeding to a standard is obviously the desirable outcome.

But I am starting to wonder about the fixation on colour.

I have owned two Chocolate Flat-Coats. Neither would have done well in the ring, and theoretically should not be bred (never an issue) because Chocolate is not an accepted colour.

The accepted colour is Liver, and mine are definitely NOT Flat-Coat Liver. I have seen other dogs called liver that were close to chocolate, but in Flat-Coats Liver is redder with an almost plum tinge.

I have also owned two Black Flatties, however in dogs with a close ancestor who is Liver, it is common to get liver flashes. Ralph's Dam was Liver, so he had a fair bit, and whilst I don't know Chloe's parentage, she also has flashes. These also would make a dog struggle in the ring and be "unsuitable" for breeding, as the black is meant to be solid.

Lastly, despite what we think we know about the genetics, it is still possible for Flatties to have golden pups. I have seen it more often in very large litters, but I guess that would just be a function of the numerical odds being small. Why should such a dog be excluded, just because of the colour of their coat?

Aren't the words "liver" and "chocolate" just two different words to describe the same colour?

For instance in GSPs brown is referred to as Liver and with Labs brown is referred to as chocolate, but ultimately they are just two different names to refer to dark brown?

You could be right, I'm not so sure what passes for "liver" these days... We had a "Liver" GSP and I too believe that she was in fact very close to the "Chocolate" of say a Labrador. Our Flatties were/are Chocolate, which is not an accepted colour. My first Flattie's Dam was Liver, there was much more Red in it, almost plum like.

Now, I don't show my dogs, so its possible that judgement on this topic may have eased. I have certainly seen photos of "Liver Flatcoats" that appear to be chocolate not Liver.

I know that in the past there were certainly those who viewed Chocolate Flatties as the equivalent of say "Silver Labs." But perhaps opinion has changed on this.

Which is another interesting point. If the judges and breeders are now going to accept what is effectively a (gradual?) change in the colour, why insist on the colour in the first place?

(And why get so shitty when I point out that my Flatties are in fact Chocolate Brown and not "Liver.")

It's not just the issue of Breeding and/or Showing (although that is clearly what drives it.) I know of a case in which it was strongly rumoured that a Golden Flattie pup in a large litter, rather than being celebrated as a rare occurrence, was PTS.

Chocolate is not a separate colour from liver. Liver (or chocolate or brown or whatever you want to call it) is a recessive that dilutes black to brown. A chocolate dog is a liver dog is a brown dog. If the dog has a brown/liver nose, it's bb. Liver can vary somewhat in shade but as it's genetically all the same thing.

This dog is liver (called dun in greyhounds)

And this dog is liver.

It's no different from the normal shade variations in other colours, such as fawn.

[Kirislin]

I love that liver greyhound

[raineth]

Been thinking about this a lot lately (don't know why.)

I feel the number one goal in breeding should be health. Then temperament.

After that, breeding to a standard is obviously the desirable outcome.

But I am starting to wonder about the fixation on colour.

I have owned two Chocolate Flat-Coats. Neither would have done well in the ring, and theoretically should not be bred (never an issue) because Chocolate is not an accepted colour.

The accepted colour is Liver, and mine are definitely NOT Flat-Coat Liver. I have seen other dogs called liver that were close to chocolate, but in Flat-Coats Liver is redder with an almost plum tinge.

I have also owned two Black Flatties, however in dogs with a close ancestor who is Liver, it is common to get liver flashes. Ralph's Dam was Liver, so he had a fair bit, and whilst I don't know Chloe's parentage, she also has flashes. These also would make a dog struggle in the ring and be "unsuitable" for breeding, as the black is meant to be solid.

Lastly, despite what we think we know about the genetics, it is still possible for Flatties to have golden pups. I have seen it more often in very large litters, but I guess that would just be a function of the numerical odds being small. Why should such a dog be excluded, just because of the colour of their coat?

Aren't the words "liver" and "chocolate" just two different words to describe the same colour?

For instance in GSPs brown is referred to as Liver and with Labs brown is referred to as chocolate, but ultimately they are just two different names to refer to dark brown?

You could be right, I'm not so sure what passes for "liver" these days... We had a "Liver" GSP and I too believe that she was in fact very close to the "Chocolate" of say a Labrador. Our Flatties were/are Chocolate, which is not an accepted colour. My first Flattie's Dam was Liver, there was much more Red in it, almost plum like.

Now, I don't show my dogs, so its possible that judgement on this topic may have eased. I have certainly seen photos of "Liver Flatcoats" that appear to be chocolate not Liver.

I know that in the past there were certainly those who viewed Chocolate Flatties as the equivalent of say "Silver Labs." But perhaps opinion has changed on this.

Which is another interesting point. If the judges and breeders are now going to accept what is effectively a (gradual?) change in the colour, why insist on the colour in the first place?

(And why get so shitty when I point out that my Flatties are in fact Chocolate Brown and not "Liver.")

It's not just the issue of Breeding and/or Showing (although that is clearly what drives it.) I know of a case in which it was strongly rumoured that a Golden Flattie pup in a large litter, rather than being celebrated as a rare occurrence, was PTS.

Chocolate is not a separate colour from liver. Liver (or chocolate or brown or whatever you want to call it) is a recessive that dilutes black to brown. A chocolate dog is a liver dog is a brown dog. If the dog has a brown/liver nose, it's bb. Liver can vary somewhat in shade but as it's genetically all the same thing.

This dog is liver (called dun in greyhounds)

And this dog is liver.

It's no different from the normal shade variations in other colours, such as fawn.

Oh interesting. I knew blue was a dilute of black, but I didn't know liver was as well.

[raineth]

And Maddy, you did a much better job of saying what I was trying to say!

[Steph M]

Just as an aside, I don't know a decent breeder in Aus who PTS yellow puppies or would dream of it. Yellows pop up and they go off to new homes like the rest.

There are quite a few yellows in homes, they're not actually that common of an occurrence, mainly the really large litters and only one, maybe two in my experience cooing over litters (don't judge, its a big job!)

Its such a small circle, if someone were knocking yellow pups on the head, everyone would know. Everyone knows everyone else's business as is!

As I said, large litters, perhaps pup was PTS on medical grounds, seeing as it appears to be a single pup you're talking about?

Also in saying that, there are few born, so the gene pool widener you're talking about is very very small, assuming dog has good structure and all the rest, odds shrink again.

Also liver is very much a recognised colour, and many breeders breed from livers, certainly not discouraged...

Hawksdale just imported the most fabulous liver dog from Sweden, I doubt they would spend so much money doing so if not to show/breed him.

I have heard judges can overlook livers sometimes, but that's as close to discouraged as I've heard. Most kennels seem to have a liver or two in their program.

There is also sun bleaching in livers, those who work their dogs or spend lots of time at the beach the fur can gradually bleach in parts. It happens in blacks to to a lesser degree, I believe?

This could account for some of the coat changes you may have noticed too.

Can I ask, you say you're unsure of your dogs parentage, are they actually from a reg. breeder? I know one kennel breeding FC's that's been problematic for some time. I think everyone knows who! Haha.

Not to say the dogs wouldn't make fine pets, but I'd hesitate to use those dogs as an example.

[Kavik]

In Kelpies

Black/Brown is on one locus/gene ( so dog can be either black or brown/chocolate) - B locus

The dilute colours (blue - dilute black, fawn - dilute brown) are on a different locus/gene - D locus

Cream (e/e red) is on E locus. (masking gene - dog appears cream, genetically is still either black or brown)

http://www.hnrworkingkelpies.com/Coat_Colors.html

Edited May 12, 2015 by Kavik

[Salukifan]

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism?

Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!?

.

VETERINARY science has established quite a few genetic links between colour and inherited health issues.

Lets start with the best known - dilute COLOUR alopecia

We also have studies noting the increased incidence of certain cancers in black dogs (those I thought might be of interest to an FC owner)

Then we have the multitude of issues that can arise with blue dogs - thyroid, skin issues etc.

White pups? Deafness, thyroid issues...

Merle to merle matings - the "lethal white" issue.

I'll save the garlic for my cooking thanks.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[_PL_]

We also have studies noting the increased incidence of certain cancers in black dogs (one I thought might be of interest to an FC owner)

Haredown, sorry but do you have a link to veterinary studies or papers? PM is fine, I'm very interested now you've brought it up. Long story and very off topic. :)

[Salukifan]

We also have studies noting the increased incidence of certain cancers in black dogs (one I thought might be of interest to an FC owner)

Haredown, sorry but do you have a link to veterinary studies or papers? PM is fine, I'm very interested now you've brought it up. Long story and very off topic. :)

Let me google. :)

This website looks like a good start I see white dogs rate a few mentions for cancer too.

Another

Edited May 13, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[mita]

An important thing to remember about colour is that it is a VERY breed specific issue. To understand colour, its effect and its issues in one breed does not mean the same things apply to another. We should be very careful about applying a broad brush to the issue of wether 'unaccepted' colours should be accepted. In some breeds it may be a good idea due to issues relating to the breeds history and genepool. In other breeds the totally opposite may apply. For example, in some breeds, a colour may be present in the genepool and unrelated to health issues or issues relating to other traits. For example, while 'hailstone' colouration/pattening may be something that has appeared in Labradors and would be interesting to see occur again (See mary roslin Williams' book for great info on 'odd colours such as this), the same could not be said of 'Silver' Labradors which are highly likely from a recent Weimaraner cross (and look it). You would never expect to see a merle Schnauzer as the colour does not occur naturally in the breed. Same with black on a Pyr - with no recorded incidences of registered purebred Pyrs which have markings of black hair to the root, any dog claiming to be purebred and having this colouration would be looked upon with extreme suspicion. It is about knowing the gene pool, distinguishing what does and what might occur based on known occurrences in the genepool, knowing if there is a particular reason associated with not wanting that colour (and in many cases for many breeds that reason is historically valid and needs to be accepted) and knowing what could not occur based on knowledge of the genepool too. Colour is not a 'black and white' issue.

Well said (as you usually do). You've explained with far more knowledge & experience why I couldn't automatically extend the 'all colours & mixes' standard for tibbies to all other breeds.

[_PL_]

We also have studies noting the increased incidence of certain cancers in black dogs (one I thought might be of interest to an FC owner)

Haredown, sorry but do you have a link to veterinary studies or papers? PM is fine, I'm very interested now you've brought it up. Long story and very off topic. :)

Let me google. :)

This website looks like a good start I see white dogs rate a few mentions for cancer too.

Another

Excellent! Thank you :) :)

[Rebanne]

Chocolate is not a separate colour from liver. Liver (or chocolate or brown or whatever you want to call it) is a recessive that dilutes black to brown. A chocolate dog is a liver dog is a brown dog. If the dog has a brown/liver nose, it's bb. Liver can vary somewhat in shade but as it's genetically all the same thing.

This dog is liver (called dun in greyhounds)

And this dog is liver.

It's no different from the normal shade variations in other colours, such as fawn.

I'm not really sure why you are so adamant that you dogs are chocolate and not liver. They are one and the same colour to me, just labelled differently in different breeds. I've seen a dun greyhound in the flesh and she would be called chocolate if she had been a lab.

[WreckitWhippet]

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism?

Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!?

I am 150% in favour of rigorous Hip/ Elbow/ Eye/ DNA testing of all available ancestors before breeding. Which for most breeds and most genetic problems, has naff all to do with colour.

There are a few, where either the genetic issues are present in the same bloodlines, or the skin pigment is itself a symptom of a skin type that can lead to other problems. But even there why not rely on the actual science rather than guessing?

The horrible irony is that by arbitrarily excluding dogs simply on colour, we further concentrate the gene-pool and make it that much harder to breed out the undesirable genetic problems.

What a shame Mr Rolly eyes no longer exists.

Ever heard of colour dilution alopecia ? I'll highlight the important bit for you . Now you tell me why colour doesn't matter

[espinay2]

As for those digging up the ole "links between colour and genetic faults" chestnut, I imagine this can be overcome by hanging garlic (or crystals) over the kennel, and/or getting a priest to perform an exorcism?

Or maybe we could actually catch up a couple of centuries and use MEDICAL SCIENCE?!?

I am 150% in favour of rigorous Hip/ Elbow/ Eye/ DNA testing of all available ancestors before breeding. Which for most breeds and most genetic problems, has naff all to do with colour.

There are a few, where either the genetic issues are present in the same bloodlines, or the skin pigment is itself a symptom of a skin type that can lead to other problems. But even there why not rely on the actual science rather than guessing?

The horrible irony is that by arbitrarily excluding dogs simply on colour, we further concentrate the gene-pool and make it that much harder to breed out the undesirable genetic problems.

What a shame Mr Rolly eyes no longer exists.

Ever heard of colour dilution alopecia ? I'll highlight the important bit for you . Now you tell me why colour doesn't matter

I would add that medical science has yet to find the genes responsible for behaviour traits such as prey/play drive (noting that low play/prey drive as a behaviour trait is required for a LGD and its nature is fairly unique to this type of breed - crossing with breeds with higher prey/play drive can create a large powerful independent dog who does not respond to commands easily and has an increased desire to chase and grab. And when the breed does not carry a colour in its gene pool - and yet other breeds such as the herding dogs also on the farm do - you can pretty well say that a pup carrying that undesirable colour has a high chance of carrying other undesirable traits, such as behaviour, in addition to colour. When these traits can put a persons livelihood in jeopardy, there is a good reason to be sure they are excluded).

[dragonwoman]

What a shame Mr Rolly eyes no longer exists.

Ever heard of colour dilution alopecia ? I'll highlight the important bit for you . Now you tell me why colour doesn't matter

I would add that medical science has yet to find the genes responsible for behaviour traits such as prey/play drive (noting that low play/prey drive as a behaviour trait is required for a LGD and its nature is fairly unique to this type of breed - crossing with breeds with higher prey/play drive can create a large powerful independent dog who does not respond to commands easily and has an increased desire to chase and grab. And when the breed does not carry a colour in its gene pool - and yet other breeds such as the herding dogs also on the farm do - you can pretty well say that a pup carrying that undesirable colour has a high chance of carrying other undesirable traits, such as behaviour, in addition to colour. When these traits can put a persons livelihood in jeopardy, there is a good reason to be sure they are excluded).

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

[WreckitWhippet]

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

I couldn't agree more.

[JulesP]

Excellent response, the founding fathers of my breed who drew up the first standard (and they were all working dog men) were specific in their colours because they knew that anything else hinted at impurity..............a standard is a standard, why not stick to it instead of suggesting changing it to suit whatever people have in their yard

I couldn't agree more.

Well in the case of the border collie we want to change the standard so it is in line with the country of origin.

It is Australia that has a weird standard. We had a facebook page about and people from other countries were totally baffled by our standard.

[OutOfSightHound]

When "colour" becomes irrelevant to some breeders, what's next ? It starts the slippery slope to "generic" dog.

No it doesnt and thats a fact. Dog breeds have been around longer than kennel club and that didnt make a dog "generic" Working registries on the whole don't specify colour and many dont even have a "standard" in the form that KC's do. the standard is work so your argument is bunk.

[OutOfSightHound]

I think the first thing that jumps out at me here is health, temperament first and standard last. To be honest, if we cross standard out we open ourselves up to dogs who are not fit to work, which is what the flat coat is bred for. I have had many healthy, lovely mutts but with no standard to breed to or even traceable genetics, I could end up with anything.

Standard is important, not just colour but weight, height, shape of skull, feet, gait etc. Where do we draw the line? I wouldn't ask a pug to retrieve in icy water, little guy isn't generally built for it.

KC standards at no time specify working ability. If that was the case then for a dog to title it would have has to past some sort of working test, like retrieving, hunting herding, or for companion breeds the therapy dog test. Form does not determine function. If it did I think most show dogs would never title.