Has anyone ever done a breeding such as this. Sire chocolate carrying yellow.
Dam coat color yellow (not Vetgen tested ... yet) with black eye and lip pigment, but does get "winter nose" (dam sire & dam both Vetgen By, so no hidden chocolate for coat color).

According to Vetgen chart, percentages are 50/50 for black and yellow, note, NO chocolates. Vetgen chart also goes on to say, any breeding which has the possibility of producing all 3 colors could produce yellow with liver pigment.
So I guess what I'm wondering, not worried that I'm going to produce liver colored yellows, but I would like to better the nose pigment ( re no more winter noses). Would this combination most likely not be the best choice then? But loving all else about he stud dog and really interested in using him, if "winter nose" was the worse I would come up with on some yellows, I can live with that.

Poor black pigmentation does not come from having a chocolate parent. Black pigment can be poor in certain lines regardless of whether or not chocolate is in the pedigree, so it's best to research the lines to determine if the yellows have correct black pigment.

Flesh colored nose, chocolate nose or liver noses whatever you want to call them is when you breed two dogs together that both carry yellow and chocolate and result in the eebb combination. Some consider this a fault or even a dq under the standard depending on the shade, but it should not be mistaken as poor black pigment.

So if you are breeding a Cy with a Yy, then you will have blacks and yellows with black pigment. How strong the black pigment comes through depends on what is behind the parents regardless of color.

I've bred a Cb to a Yc and had blacks and chocolates. The chocolate male from that litter went on to become a champion. I later bred him to a By and had blacks and yellows. The yellows in that litter all had beautiful black pigment.

Hope this helps,

Dianne

Thanks Diane. Yes, I understand that since the breeding can't produce chocolates, I wouldn't get liver pigmented yellows. I know the bitch line well, so I know worst case there is some winternose with deep black eye/lip pigmentation in yellow relatives.
So you're suggesting, look back behind the (chocolate) stud to hopefully find pics of yellows and see how strong their black pigmentation is? I know that can be rough when only looking at pics with the power of photo editing software.

Oh, when I say winternose, I truly mean "winter" nose. Dark nose pigment rest of year (not pitch black, but dark), but not in cold weather months (dark around the edges, lighter towards center). In this scenerio, not talking about a yellow dam with liver liver pigment, but one with winter nose during colder months.

Cy to Yc (did not know he was Yc) & Cy to Yy, all good pigment, all colors. Sheer luck perhaps? It's a crap shoot although she put out great pigment in all of her pups with different studs. Bolo marks on the black boys Cy to Yc.

Thanks "Yes" for sharing!

Now that you mention all 3 colors with good pigment, that reminds me I should clarify that the Vetgen sight doesn't say any litter produciing all 3 colors will produce liver pigment yellows, just that there is the possibility. Thanks for bringing that up about the good pigment!

Just looked at the color chart at the Blue Knight site. Very helpful.
http://www.blueknightlabs.com/color/coatcolor.html

So a yellow (yy) bred to a chocolate carrying yellow (Cy) could produce:

50% (Yc) ; 50% (Byc)

I thought there is a difference between LACKING coloring in the nose (pink/flesh colored) and Liver Pigmentation (typical of the chocolate...what all the pet owners call Dudleys with the yellow/liver combo).

LACKING color is a DQ, but how can liver pigment in a yellow be construed as "lacking" when it's the same color that's in the chocolate has and it's NOT a DQ? No one has been able to adequately explain this to me.

"LACKING color is a DQ, but how can liver pigment in a yellow be construed as "lacking" when it's the same color that's in the chocolate has and it's NOT a DQ? No one has been able to adequately explain this to me"

Yellows should have black pigment (lips, eye rims, nose, etc). This is according to the standard. Those lacking pigment (which perhaps should have been clarified by stating "black pigment") or with a thoroughly pink nose, eye rims are considered a DQ. A thoroughly pink nose is genetically a eebb (yellow without black pigment). Just as with yellows (with the absence of the E allele for coat color), the shade can range from light to dark. Same thing for the pigment from a eebb that allows for different shades of pink or "liver" (like human skin color-it's all colors of the flesh), but without any black.

So while yellows should have black pigment (according to the standard) and some poor black pigment may fade and appear "brown", the dog is still genetically either a eeBB or eeBb. With the "liver" or "pink" noses, the dog is still an eebb-a result of the chocolate and yellow genes mixing with coat and nose color and depending on the shade that it inherits will at best be faulted for NOT having black pigment or at worst be DQ'd for having a thoroghly pink nose. Either way you look at, it's the same gene combination that produces both.

Chocolate, on the other hand, according to the standard, has brown pigment.

Hope that explains it some, but as I interpret the standard if the yellow does not have black pigment, then it lacks pigment whether its is nose pink or "liver". And as I stated earlier, since the eebb combination is a yellow without black pigment, then all should be considered a DQ under the standard. Do I agree with this? No, but then I don't agree with other parts of the standard either, but we have what we have And this is just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree.

Dianne

Thank you so much. That really helped alot. I never thought of it that way. So what you are saying is the "Lacking color" pertains to what the dog is supposed to have given his coat color. And all this time I was thinking literally no color, regardless of the coat color. That makes TOTAL sense! Thanks again Diane!!