by 2dapoint » Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:54 am
#ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Well, since we're now getting into the *mis*information portion...#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#IF you have a creme gene - it HAS to show. It canNOT be recessive. Period. ONE parent has got to be (every single time!!!) carrying a creme to get a baby that shows as either palomino or buckskin. Can't happen any other way.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#The most likely scenario is that one of those black parents is hiding a creme gene (meaning they look black but genetically are smokey black). One instance where the gene fools the eye and leads one to believe that there is a recessive gene.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Arabians most certainly DO carry the creme gene!! you CAN AND DO have palomino Arabians - a lot!#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Percherons... probably not (there was a rumour at one time that said they could *only* be black, no other colours - although that does leave grey out there... hmmm)#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#So, for your baby, I'd suggest that the dam is carrying a creme gene that makes her (if she's black as you say and I'm not getting confused here) a smokey black. Bred to ANYthing then, you'd have a 50% chance of having that creme gene passed on. So saying that she's been bred to "whomever" "however many" times and never produced one before means... squat. Genes don't care about percentages - each combination is a crap shoot itself.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#If you're that curious, get them (the parents) tested. UC Davis does it (by pulling hair roots and sending them in - pretty simple stuff) for about 50$.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Just anecdotal (I'm sure that True Colours may pop in here to add some advice/information at some point) a cremello baby popped out of 2 BLACK Tbs at one point! This lead to some genetic testing (IS the foal really by the right stallion etc etc.) and turns out that both parents were hiding the creme gene by being smokey black and no one noticed. And, as luck would have it, this baby got 2 copies of the creme gene (and, from the sounds of it, 2 chestnuts too). This being something that seemed to have come down through several generations... #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#So, if you've got a palomino or buckskin - one of the parents MUST be palomino or buckskin - carrying the creme gene. I'd suggest Kaleena? that since the sire is NOT homozygous black, he's carrying the creme gene and is actually what is considered "smokey black" - but that is different from the gene being recessive. It IS being expressed - but no one can tell.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Roan, now that's different again. If it's there, it's expressed. Very few other genetic combinations could ALSO be expressed that may hide it - early greying being on of them. But I digress...#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Now chestnut - THAT is recessive.#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl#Anyone want a discussion on what recessive is or isn't?#ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl##ed_op#DIV#ed_cl# #ed_op#/DIV#ed_cl#
Due to interpretational difficulties inherent in written communications, I respectfully suggest you refer to your coach for the answer; Imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you, it's quite a lovely feeling to be so appreciated.