Labrador colours, a guess anyone? Discussions

how on earth can someone 'define' an exact colour of chocolate? chocolate could be light brown (as in milk chocolate), dark brown as in dark chocolate, or almost black as in a very high quality chocolate.

It is fair to say that the less than scrupulous breeders undoubtedly breed for colour rather than temperament and health.

As for breeding 'back to black' - where does that come from?

A chocolate dog can never carry or produce the black gene in it's own right - and will only produce it when mated to a black, or a yellow not carrying chocolate.

Yellow and chocolate are recessive genes and can only be produced if both parents carry it - black can be produced if only one parent carries it.

A good breeder uses the best dog for the bitch irrespective of colour.

My last litter - chocolate mum, black dad, chocolate grandmother, black grandfather - and we have, oops, light chocolate.





Another litter - mother is grandmother of the above litter - but third generation chocolates - and dad carries yellow





Both sire lines and grandsire of the first litter are from very good (and similar) showlines.

Just thinking aloud, from a genetic viewpoint.... There is a huge range os acceptable shades in the yellow Lab - from off-white through to 'fox-red'.

Presumably it is modifying genes which are responsible for lightening or darkening those shades. In that case, it's possible the same modifiers responsible for yellow variation would also affect the shade of Chocolate, if the Chocolate dogs inherit them.

I know from experience that breeders of some breeds of rabbit (Dutch especially) breed Blue to Black a great deal, to increase the depth of colour of the Blue and vice versa. Hundreds of years have gone into selecting the Blacks to be the deepest, richest blackest black possible, and in the Blues, they too have been selected for the darkest Blue possible. The modifiers working in each case to deepen the shade, are carried over.

Great first post, did Tarimoor ask you to join? Perhaps you could stick around?

I do not agree that a good breeder will use the best dog irrespective of colour, Id like to see how many show breeders breed yellow to chocolate. Chocolate is chocolate, a bar of dairy milk isnt that light brown colour is it, but the "dark" chocolate is darker still, Ive yet to see a bar of chocolate the colour of those light puppies. See the "calflicks" on a couple of those pups, that comes through breeding too.

My first boss's, Arthur and Peggy Kelley had superb chocolates, with dark brown eyes and pigment, never after a choc to choc mating would they do that again, always back to a black carrying choc, now whether you agree with that or not (you must do you say you did it) is of no interest to me, but they still bred champion chocolates and blacks and yellows, still the only kennel to do so. many people who wanted a choc came to them, their breeding still very evident now.

If you have light coloured stuff in the background OF COURSE it may crop up, but Id certainly NEVER ever breed from it if I were breeding to maintain good quality. Same as white markings behind the feet, NOT acceptable, and excessively large white patches on the chest, or any other mismark for that matter.

I'm going to show my ignorance now... whats a "calflick"?

Sorry, people call them different things. Its that ridge of hair growing the wrong way up a dogs nose.

Thanks Dawn, something new I've learnt!!;-)

Great thread folks - I've enjoyed reading through it.

Not in the least - curious what would give you that idea

I have four chocolates who are all various shades of dark chocolate and one black carrying chocolate and a rogue yellow who is unrelated - my dogs are shown regularly and also undergoing gundog training.

Show me where in the breed standard it says a chocolate must be dark? nowhere does it say that - a good example of an element of the standard which is open to interpretation.

It is no secret that the majority of people prefer darker chocolates with an equally dark eye - and hazel eyes are treated by some judges as a fault - yet they aren't - as stated in the breed standard.

I used black dogs for two of my litters because I wanted certain features that both dogs put on their pups - it wouldn't have mattered what colour they were - likewise, when I used the chocolate.

So SH CH Bradking Bridgette of Davricard didn't have a yellow grandfather on her dams side then

Or a yellow great grandmother on her sire's side

Yellow Am Can CH Bradking Rangeways Mr Chips didn't have a black carrying chocolate great grandfather ???

Yes - and if you breed Labs, you will know where it comes from and the white chest flashes

Please pick away, but they NEVER EVER produced pale chocolates, nor did they ever mate chocolate to yellow, and the proof is in the pudding, QUALITY, not pale pigmented animals with pale coats and light eyes!

Please show me in the standard where is states the chocolate can be "varying shades?" Chocolate is chocolate however you dress it.

If you want to talk about Bretts GREAT grandfather, I do believe we are talking MANY moons ago! Still, as I said, quality shines though.

Im going to show my ignorance now, so where do they come from then please?

I wouldn't dream of picking away at some of the most influential people in the labrador world - my point was your reference to 'back to black' etc etc - despite the clear presence of close yellow relatives to the SH CH in the pedigrees. It also disproves the theory that yellow causes problems.

Show me where in the breed standard it says that liver or chocolate is a specified shade.

When the labs were referred to as liver - was it raw or cooked? I haven't seen many Labs the shade of raw liver.

ETA - I've never said that poor pigmentation or light eyes are correct on chocolates -

but hazel eyes are sometimes treated as 'wrong' when in fact it is correct and documented in the breed standard.

I'm gonna butt back in to my thread, and guess on the chest flash, but perhaps spaniel or collie? No idea where the calflick or zipper comes from though, although I have a bitch here who has had a zipper from birth, and can post a couple of pics as an example if people want to know what they look like?

Another conundrum for discussion, quite a few Labs have, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, thicker coats, thinner coats, as a dog bred to retrieve from water, I do believe the coat is important, that the double coat should be present etc, but what about the wave on the back? Some have this more than others, any thoughts on that? Again, something I've seen discussed on other forums, but nice info to discuss again for the benefit of those on here.

Who decides a certain colour is a fault?? Are their health/temprament/working ability problems associate with certain colours?
Personaly the way I see it is if there are no problems associated with a colour and it is just fashion, preference or the fact the colour wasnt common when the standard was written then I dont see any reason at all why a dog or litter of a certain colour shouldnt be bred from if it is a great example of ability, health and temprament
Its just limiting gene pools imo!

if it does, I've yet to find them, my dbase goes back to the 1870's - a few retriever crossovers during / after the war

The breed standard does say "short and dense without wave or feathering"

the breed standard states the colours for a breed - that is without question - what is being argued here is the shading of chocolates within the breed - there is most definitely a preference by most to dark chocolate and they should have a brown or hazel eye - but there is nothing in the standard to state that a lighter shade of chocolate coat is incorrect.

Just as you cannot intentionally breed to produce the fox red shade of yellow (you can increase the likelihood) - likewise, you cannot intentionally breed to produce a shade of chocolate.

The sad fact is, chocolates of any shade were deemed undesirable, and drowned at birth, chocolates have been undesireable as working dogs for many years, which is why you cannot get them (yet) with proven working pedigrees, just outcrosses for the most part. They haven't been that popular in the show ring either, but, they have been very popular with the pet buyers, and for that reason, as has been said a few times, there are many badly bred examples, with poor conformation, pigmentation and eye colour, and even worse (to me at least) temperament and ability.

At the forefront of any Labrador, I would put temperament, then ability and conformation, combined with health. Nowhere, would I stick shade of any colour, and yes, you do get a different 'type' of black with undercoat, early greying etc, in preference of any other. The only thing I wouldn't count as acceptable, is a mismark, and yet even then, mismarks, can, genetically produce solid colours, and solid colours can throw out missmarks.

I think you're spot on with the word 'fashion' by the way, there is no reason any colour or shade of Labrador should be judged against, as long as it is correct in conformation and it's ability.

harvey has a very thick coat, and has the wave towards his back end. i like it

Apols as I cross posted, the spaniel/collie info, is from working folk I've spoken to, whether it's entirely correct or not, I'm not entirely sure.

One thing you may be able to clarify is the greyhound, I never can remember these things, but there is a pedigree greyhound isn't there, listed within Labrador pedigree records?

Off to go find a couple of 'zipper' pics to post to show what they look like for people....

Very interesting thread, I'm going to point out one thing that bugs me almost as much as the "Golden Labrador" term though! "Fox Red" is not the colour used in the breed standard, it's actually "Red Fox".

"Colour
Wholly black, yellow or liver/chocolate. Yellows range from light cream to red fox. Small white spot on chest permissible"

Pedantic I know, but it really bugs me!

You misunderstood, I have ALWAYS said that to breed good chocs, breeders use a black every couple generations, this is correct regardless of what you say, no ethical Labrador breeder will mate yellow to choc, nor constantly breed choc to choc. Just because a choc dog has yellow in its ancestry (impossible not to have) doesnt meant for one second it was specifically bred for that colour does it? Nor does it mean that in its future a yellow that knowingly carries choc will be used to produce choc on purpose, no ethical breeder would intentionally do that IMO.

It doesnt, thats my point, but when was the last time you saw any chocolate the colour of those pale pups?