Is it correct that if you breed two yellows who carry chocolate that you will get all yellow pups, some carrying chocolate, some not, and some with chocolate pigmentation, but no chocolate pups? I can't make that work in a Punnett Square.

25% Yy, 50% Yc, and 25% Dudley

BBee
Bbee
Bbee
bbee

All yellow. First 3 have black pigment. Last one has chocolate pigment

You could have a few chocolate pups. We have a yellow Dudley bitch out of to chocolates. So I am sure you could have a chocolate out of two yellow.

2 yellows, you get yellows always. You will not get chocolates.

My favorite is when people breed a yellow and a chocolate and get all black puppies! That knocks people for a loop.

Then they sell a Dudley as something rare.

Yes, if you get something other than yellow out of two yellows, please let us know. Then send us the pedigrees and the DNA's on both.

To see it via a chart:

http://www.blueknightlabs.com/color/coatcolor.html

Personally I would stay away from breeding YCs to YCs, or YY to CY or YY to CC unless you really know what you are doing.

Why? I understand why someone would not want to breed a Yc to a Yc, but why not a YY to CY?

Or a YY to a CC ??

We have the color tests today so we know which matches to avoid for dudleys. Yellow to Choc carrying yellow, and pure yellow to pure chocolate are both fine.

Yellow carrying choc to choc carrying yellow creates dudleys too.

Why is having a dudley in a litter such a terrible thing to avoid? 25% is not a huge risk IMO, and pet people really could care less about chocolate pigment vs black pigment. If the stud is a good match for my bitch and there is a small chance of a dudley, I will still go for it. There are far worse things to be concerned about, such as EIC and TVD.

I totally agree with whats the big deal.

Joke was on me. The puppy bitch with the best coat and structure was a dudley!

Why in the world would anyone want to produce a possible chance of Dudley's???? You want to know who? I'll tell you who...PET PEOPLE, that's who!
Make educated choices people, that's why we have testing and are considered REPUTABLE BREEDERS!!! sheesh

I will tell you what making an "educated choice" is- breeding to dogs that are of sound health & temperament and are conformationally complimentary to your bitch. And if that stud is a Byc, Cy or a Yc and I run a low risk of a dudley, so be it.

Claiming breeders who produce an occasional dudley in a litter are "pet people" and insinuating that they are not reputable is ridiculous. People with this sort of narrow-minded thinking are the same ones who feel Yc or Cy stud dogs are sub par and should not be bred to- I am sure those who have used Marty, Baker or Gandhi would disagree.

Add my favorite, Louis Downtown, to that list! I have used Yc, Cy, and Byc's many times, and do not regret it. Ignoring those great boys is very old fashioned thinking.

yes takes a while for people to work it out, but what concerns me is the apparent ignorance of some long term breeders who know nothing of coat colour inheritence (I am not in any way suggesting the op is one of these)
I have a chocolate stud dog who is dominant chocolate does not carry yellow, the number of times long time breeders say to me,"would love to use your boy, just don't want Dudleys" HELLO how are you going to get Dudleys when he doesn't carry yellow.

Chocolate pigment and dudley isn't the same, is it?

http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/yellow-pigment.html

A Dudley and a chocolate pigmented yellow are both genetically eebb

It has nothing to do with "really knowing what you are doing". Unless you just mean smart enough to bother paying for color genetic tests. This is no different than EIC or PRA. Do the test and be educated. Otherwise, color is not a limiting factor in our breedings anymore unless the 2 dogs in the pair you are choosing are not genetically a color match. And what's so wrong with Dudley anyway. It's not like you are going to keep ALL the pups as show prospects. Pet folks LOVE dudleys. From what I hear they are the first to go. Put them on limited reg. with spay/neuter contracts and you will have some happy pet families. Just don't sell them as rare!

I bred my Champion chocolate (Cy) girl to a chocolate that was not yet tested. We did have yellow dudleys (more than one) in the litter so the stud owner no longer had to wonder what he carried. Had I known, I would not have used that particular dog. The dudley yellow girl was the best pup in the litter wouldn't you know? It cuts down on my puppy selelction options. Sure she sold as a pet but I will never again take a chance again of having dudleys in my litter. I don't have many litters and I always keeps something when I do breed. There are pure for chocolate boys out there or BB's and Bc's. Just my personal experience.

For an exhibitor, the best puppy in the litter being eebb is a bad thing, as you would not want to show them. For a breeder, she might still be the one to keep, as it is easy enough to breed her to a dog does not carry either chocolate or yellow and avoid producing eebb's in the next generation.

I've been in this long enough now to realize that if I can't show them I don't keep them. If they are good enough to go into the ring, then they are good enough for me to breed. I breed to keep show and breeding prospects and showing is the best part of it all. My kids also go to field and I have many with two titles. I would never keep a dudley. My kennel space is limited to workable dogs in every aspect. Those dudley kids are happy in pet homes.

To each his own. I am trying to produce dogs that fit my own interpretation of the standard, not maximize the number of championships I win. If I really loved a puppy, I would keep her even if she had a characteristic that kept me from showing her, if I knew I could avoid it in her offspring. Of course, I don't really enjoy conformation and do it only to prove my stock.

And all this time I thought people were at least putting on a semblance of breeding to the standard. Now I find out some of you are doing deliberate breedings where you will - not may, but will - get puppies with a disqualification under the standard. NBP (No Black Pigment) is a disqualification. Would you do a breeding which was guaranteed to produce puppies who would grow up to be an inch or two or three under the standard? Or be silver and pass them off as chocolate? And please - do not hide behind this health crap. You should be considering health in ADDITION to everything else, not in place of it.

Are you really trying to put producing a NBP puppy in the same category as breeding "silvers"?

No, I'm not - they are simply both out of the standard, and both are DQ'd. As breeders we should not knowingly be breeding either.

Producing silvers is not the same thing as a NBP for a number of reason. The main reason being is that it is a NATURALLY occuring color combination all through the history of the breed. It can be produced in any blood line when you combine dogs that are EeBb, eeBb or eebb. It is still a true Labrador with a fault. It can be fixed in one generation.

A silver is the result of a non-naturally occuring dilute gene that is not active in the general population of Labradors nor does it have a historical basis. This gene is only found in a handful of lines that started with just one or two lines and started in the recent history of the breed. It is clear that those dogs that carry or express the dilute gene have features from another breed. Silver breeders PURPOSELY breed for the color and the color alone. It is not a color that naturally occurs in the breed, so it is not something I worry about just cropping up, nor is it something I care to introduce into my lines.

Back to the dudleys. It was either because breeders way back when didn't like the fact other breeders were crossing yellows with chocolates or they simply didn't like the expression/look of an NBP on a yellow. Either way, I don't believe that it is a cardinal sin to produce an NBP pup from time to time. Not every pup will be a show dog anyway. I prefer to breed what I like regardless of color. If I happen to produce an NBP along the way, so be it. The quality I keep and show for myself won't suffer one bit and neither will the health and well-being of the dogs I produce.

As I re-read some of this discussion I think what "hmmm" was getting at was the earlier posters that deliberately mated two dogs knowing that statistically they would produce 25% dudleys. That's a little different than coming up with an occasional one that wasn't anticipated. For whatever reason, that bothers some people and not others. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Well, I'm planning a breeding that has a chance of chocolate-pigmented yellows as the chocolate bitch I've leased to breed to my Byc boy carries yellow. It's a good match, all clearances are there for both, BTW -I contacted the LRC a few years ago and they told me (whoever was answering their emails) that chocolate pigment on a yellow is not a DQ as the standard states a dog thoroughly lacking in pigment is a DQ, not a dark-brown-pigmented yellow. That said, I most likely wouldn't run on such a puppy, but you never know.

I agree with Patty. There is no reason to throw out a NBP puppy if it has all the traits you are hoping for. Because we know the way the genes work, we can breed away from it. Unlike all of the problems that are polygenic and we have to guess at. Geez....give me simple genetics to get rid of elbow issues!

I am not a scientist or a geneticist, but I still think there has to be a difference between chocolate (brown) pigment and no pigment at all.

Someone told me to look at the http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/yellow-pigment.html and they said there is a difference.

I've seen both types and there is a huge difference.

"And all this time I thought people were at least putting on a semblance of breeding to the standard. Now I find out some of you are doing deliberate breedings where you will - not may, but will - get puppies with a disqualification under the standard."

Actually, I don't "do" chocolates and have never produced either a chocolate OR a eebb dog. So, no, I'm not "doing deliberate breedings where you will get puppies with a disqualification." In fact, I said that I would keep such a girl precisely because I knew how to avoid producing it in her offspring. And to equate that with breeding silvers - well several posters have already responded to that.

And I agree. We should all be breeding to produce dogs that fit the standard AND have a background of all the health clearances. I'll go further and say that ideally we should all be trying to ensure that our dogs can do the job they were developed to do, ie. proving them in the field or at least in obedience or agility.

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

We also have to remember that the AKC standard is the only standard that DQs for pigment (whether dark brown or a lighter color). The FCI standard is quoted above and is the only color requirement for most countries. You can see there is no mention of nose/eyerik pigment at all. Does anyone know where the AKC's color requirements came from?

The "AKC's" color requirements come from the parent club. They own the standard (true for all breeds). A discussion of the FCI vs. LRC standards will likely result in a spirited (to say the least) thread.... LOL!!!

I know the LRC wrote the standard. I guess my question pertains to wondering about the origin of the pigment requirement on yellows.

Color confusion for sure!!! Go to Google. Click on images. Then enter "dudley labrador" in the search box. You may be surprised by what you see. A yellow with chocolate pigment is not a dudley. The word dudley does not appear in the standard.

The following is from the labrador standard on AKC website.

*************
The nose should be black on black or yellow dogs, and brown on chocolates.
*************

Where did it come from? Probably the people who drafted the original standard years ago. Does anyone have a copy of that standard?

The first LRC standard used by the AKC was the same as the original KC standard developed by the Labrador Club in the UK, which was before the LRC in the USA ever existed. Ironically, considering this discussion, the only difference in the first LRC standard and the original KC standard was the variation of spelling the word color (colour).

As for the FCI, "their" standard is still the one developed and approved by the Labrador Club in the UK. The LRC standard used today by the AKC is...let's see, what is nice way to put this,...overly verbose and propagates disconsent resulting in voluminous interpretations and unfortunately, breed bifurcation.