Labrador colours, a guess anyone? Discussions

There are a lot of fault colours in labs and IMO its getting worse with people not doing their homework enough or in fact not really caring anyway.

Ive seen some shocking examples of mis marking lately on labs (last 4-5yrs) much more of the "splashing" up the legs, white legs on black dogs, yellow legs on chocolate dogs and very poor coloured chocolates right across the board.

There's a lot of myths as well about the colours, hence starting the thread, I've even heard of a couple that put a black dog and yellow bitch together thinking they'd get chocolate pups, because obviously chocolate is more saleable to pet buyers.

Another myth, a black dog with a red/brown undercoat, carries chocolate, there's actually no way you can tell exactly unless you dna test or unless you know the breeding of the dog.

And yet another myth, you need to breed back to black every few generations when breeding chocolate, to keep correct eye colour - coat and eye colour are carried by different genes, so putting back to a black dog won't affect eye colour simply because of the coat, but if it has a better eye colour then it may help.

Borderdawn, I've seen some shocking poor eye colour with chocolates, as someone else I know once posted, I think it makes them look more like goats, but people are drawn to this sort of fault because it's unusual.

An AWFUL lot of very experienced breeders and exhibitors will disagree strongly with you, the proof is in the pudding as they say!

Continuously breeding chocolate to chocolate produces horrible pale pigmented dogs and light coats. of course the quality of the dogs themselves play a part, but people who breed solely to produce colour alone will breed from rubbish anyway, some people think a hip and elbow score is everything!

And I know a few experienced breeders who would completely disagree with the disagreeing ;-) But then I don't know one reputable breeder, that would breed solely chocolate to chocolate time after time as well, no-one I know breeds for colour alone. But if they aren't linked genetically, then surely the coat colour and eye colour shouldn't affect each other, just poor breeding decisions will.

I think it's important that puppy buyers know that actually, a pale chocolate, is just that, chocolate, nothing special about it. Fox reds are suddenly becoming very popular, and I see more posts about people wanting them all the time on forums. At the moment, you see a majority of chocolate ex-breeding stock from puppy farms going through places like Many Tears, with the occasional yellows, very infrequently, blacks, it will be sad if they see the demand for fox reds is rising and start exploiting them.

There was an interesting article in one of the sporting magazines recently, I'll see if I can find it, brought up some good points and related to mismarks.

I do, plenty, just look for those that produce chocs and rarely keep one!

Again, there are plenty.

There is no mention of a "pale" chocolate in the standard, its not there, it should be liver or chocolate, unlike the yellow which is given a range, there is no range or shades for chocs, meaning a "pale" one is not of an accepted colour, IMO its wrong. Blues in Borders were getting lighter, almost silver, it was seen as wrong and now you never see it.

They have always been popular in working circles, some show kennels too, like the "Wynfaul" one for example, Tobasco was a lovely dog.

Please do.

I know the fox reds have always been popular amongst some working folk, I think the meaning of my post has been lost a little; it seems that they've been discovered by the puppy buying public, and because there is a misconception that they are rare or unusual, or simply because they're new, they seem to suddenly have become a fashionable colour to buy, which is always a dangerous thing for any breed of dog, I think.

I completely agree with you about chocolates, again, think the meaning has been lost a little, no-one I know who breeds ethically breeds for colour alone, but obviously puppy farmers churn out chocolates because they are a popular, so much more saleable. I'm not sure if you think I'm suggesting there is a pale chocolate or should be within the breed standard? :? Certainly not, but then there's no mention of dark chocolate or mid chocolate either, the breed standard merely says wholly black, liver/chocolate or yellow. Unfortunately it doesn't come with a colour swatch, and I'm not trying to be funny there, or with this next point, but when you have a dark liver/chocolate capable of producing lighter shades, what's wrong with having a lighter shade, which is just as capable of producing darker shades genetically? Aren't they inextricably linked??

Had a quick peek and couldn't see that article, but will dig it out for you, I was sure I knew which magazine it was in but it's disappeared, as these things always do when you're looking for them

Very sad - I may be but I looked at lab colours a while ago. And found some things on the web.

http://www.labbies.com/genetics2.htm
Feel like a long read - read the above!

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/mismarks.html

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/mismarks2.html

http://greenstonelabradors.com/understanding-mismarks-in-the-purebred-labrador/

http://www.ashgi.org/color/Aussie_somatic_mutations.html

I must say even though they are mismarked, them mosaic labs look amazing.
So If I didnt know Louie's mum was a springer I could get a way with saying he was a mismarked lab... someone did come up to me not long back and say "Awww what a lovely choc lab, too bad he's mismarked" I was like he's a springer cross, I totally forgot to look it up afterwards so great thread

I agree with that entirely.

This is where you are wrong. There is definite description of yellow in the standard, it states ranging from pale cream to fox red. That covers a whole range, but liver is liver, chocolate is chocolate. There is no dark or light, milky or anything else, thats like saying dark black and light black! When an unacceptable colour is produced, any ethical breeder will not breed from that dog definitely, nor its parents again, obviously it was an unsuitable match for whatever reason. Thats not to say both animals couldnt be mated to different dogs and never produce that problem again, but if you want to breed acceptable colours and good quality, you do what is best and morally correct. I dont agree with the breeding of colours to colours with you as its been proven so many times. Specifically yellow to chocolate produces awful pigment and eye colour, brown/pink eye rims and noses and often yellow eyes, if breeding colours were not linked like that then surely it wouldnt matter what you mated to what?

No problem.

What about the brindle black and tan ones too, I've also heard of brindle labs, I think that they are more in the states though, have to say though the only time I've wanted a lab was after meeting two lovely red labs, they were the best labs I've ever known .

http://puppyintraining.com/brindle-and-black-and-tan-labrador-retrievers/

ohh any photos?

This might be for a different thread, and I'm not trying to be obtuse, but how am I wrong? Colour genetics is a lot more, as you'll be aware, than chocolate plus chocolate equals same colour chocolate, there are all sorts of variations and genetics with the different alleles, lighter and darker tones can crop up from the opposite end of the scale, so in the nicest possible way, I really don't agree, but do agree as it states in the breed standard, it should be wholly this colour. And indeed the links show that mismarks can crop up from anywhere, including show champion breeding. And whilst I agree yellow to chocolate can produce awful pigmentation, if you actually dna test, and know what you've got, it is avoidable, so this type of mating shouldn't be avoided entirely, it would depend on the rest of the dog and whether they're a good match in other ways, imo.

I haven't said anywhere that there should be milky, pale, other terms for chocolate, so I'm not sure why you're telling me, in fact the whole reason I started this thread was to get the correct knowledge of the colours out there, and try and show some of the different variations that can happen, including mismarks.

I used my bitch because she's chocolate, to try and show how people can either mistake colours, or some may even try to mislead people into believing other colours exist. I've seen adverts on some of those awful free ad sites, for anything from treacle, toffee, fox cream, white, charcoal, etc, etc, etc.

Will still try and dig out that article, I'm fairly certain you'll disagree with the content, but that's not to say you won't enjoy reading it ;-)

No, if you are breeding to better or maintain a high standard, especially in such a massively produced breed like the lab, you do not need to use inferior stock at all whatsoever. Using animals with pale eyes, pale coats (choc) poor pigment will inevitably breed more of the same, whether it skips a generation or not. Same as crap coats will breed crap coats, and those black and tan Labs have coats like Dobermanns! THAT thin!

Yes, genetics are complex, but the basics are very very simple. Breed from rubbish thats what you will produce.

Yes that's what i thought too.

Yes fox red is a shade of yellow.

When my first boss had his first Lab it was a choc, they were culled at that time as nobody wanted them!

I must admit i am not up on the genetic side of things
But i have seen different shades of the yellow with pink noses, and some horrible chocolate coats, my bitch lab doesn't have the greatest of coats....very patchy.

Is there any truth in the working abilities of differing colours or is it purely down to the success in the field and breeding from that dog?

I know you mentioned that the pet market prefer choc labs and i've heard it said many times that choc labs make rubbish workers so is it because their working instinct is being diluted?

The shooting fraternity seem to be obsessed with black labs followed by fox red labs. I'm just wondering why that is...? Solid black GWP's are highly undesirable and a fault according to the breed standard. Part of that reason is they would be difficult to see whilst working but why would the same reasoning not apply to black labs? (having said that my solid liver pointer is also extremely difficult to see in dark conditions or cover but solid liver is allowed).

I wouldnt mind a fox red lab but never a chocolate (not keen on liver/brown in any breed).

I think its down to the dogs entirely. As you say working folk concentrate on black and do like a dark yellow, rarely a chocolate. There are not too many very good typical quality chocs about, and in 18yrs of boarding we certainly see the most variation in type and temperament in that colour.

I perceive that you are not particularly a fan of any other type of Labrador other than the ones that do well in the show ring, and I know the show ring prefers darker chocolate, with only a few medium or pale coated dogs I'm aware of getting anywhere in the ring, but to state a dog is 'rubbish' because of the shade of chocolate, is wrong to me. What difference to the conformation and working ability of a dog, would the shade of chocolate make?

Out of a dark chocolate, you may get paler pups thrown, and out of a paler chocolate, you may get darker pups thrown, so which would you go on to breed from, only the dark pups from the dark chocolate, even though they may still carry the genetics to produce paler chocolates? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand that kind of view, and so will have to agree to differ, because I don't think you or I will ever agree on that one. ;-)

The black and tan Labs are featured in this blimmin' article I can't for the life of me find, and are doing very well at competing by all accounts. They didn't ask to be born into this world, so I'm not sure why it's such a crime that they're here and doing well.

Funnily enough had the discussion about chocolates being 'nuttier' than other Labs on another forum recently, where it was pointed out by several people that in no way is coat colour genetically linked to behaviour, it's down to breeding, and the fact that a lot of people buying them are inexperienced owners, they are popular as pets. There are a few more chocolates being worked and competed with now, they are definitely on the increase, but they are still not popular amongst the hardened working/competition folk.

harvey, working yellow lab

he has a pink nose and yellow eyes, it does'nt affect his ability as a gun dog




we took him as the people who had him did'nt want him anymore :-(

he's a great dog x

You percieve wrong, I am a fan of the "correct" colours and correct "type" of any dog. You will find the darker chocolate is favoured in the ring because it is the correct colour and no other reason than that.

None, but when you are breeding pedigree dogs you breed from the best which includes ALL aspects of that breed, not just then bits you happen to like.

Id breed only from the correct coloured ones in order to massively increase my chances of NOT producing any more incorrect lighter coloured ones.

Yeah, amazing though how they just "popped" up

Yep, Id agree with that.