Why breed for coat color?

[DarkBayUnicorn]

Oh, I have color preferences too, don’t get me wrong.

For example, as much as I love the look of a grey horse, I have owned and campaigned three grey hunters and I simply don’t want to spend that much time at the washrack anymore. Since I will only ever breed for myself, that means no grey stallions.

When my very chestnut mare was pregnant I used to tell her she better give me a bay colt or I was going to shove it back in and she could try again.

She did give me that bay colt, but EVERYONE was surprised at the shade of bay, and the lack of bling. I bred my almost-sabino metallic-chestnut mare to a truly-sabino bright bay stallion known for throwing bling and got a plain little mid-brown package. His body coat is the color of a monk’s robes, he has not a white hair on his face and only three little white coronets with ermine spots.

If I were to repeat the cross, I’d likely get a metallic-chestnut filly with bling out the yin-yang. These things happen.

More importantly to me, I think I got the athlete I wanted from breeding my mare. And the temperament.

My coach and I considered a LOT of stallions, and luckily for me, she was shopping for a young horse for a client that winter, so was out at a lot of the breeding farms and saw hundreds of progeny. We thought we’d settled on a stallion (and I will admit I liked that he was black and had a lot of black babies, because my best-ever horse was black) until she saw a bunch of his offspring (beyond the one we already had in the barn) side-by-side with a bunch of offspring from our second-choice stallion. We changed our minds, and the thought of not getting that black foal I wanted never occurred to me for a second.

[mvp]

@NoDQhere;8505866

As tough as the market is I think “most” people are well aware that quality has to come first, then color. Plus with all the advances that have been made in genetic testing for colors, it is “pretty easy” now to breed for the color you’d like.

Not so, or so the history of genetics says.

Coat color (and texture) have quite simple genetic recipes in comparison to more complex conformational- and mental characteristics. So, from the Mendelian era on, when physiological geneticists were trying to understand the heritability of characteristics they wanted, coat color was one of the first well-understood topic of discussion for people who wanted to breed animals with known coat patterns and pedigrees so as to infer the number and interaction of genes involved. Google “Sewall Wright” and “guinea pigs” and see what you get.

When livestock breeders were studying the much-touted power of selective breeding at America’s expanding land grant ag schools (during the Progressive Era that just adored applying science to all topics, and when Mendelism plus Galtonian biometry were getting very sophisticated), the favorite textbook argument for the value of selective breeding was coat color.

The argument went this way: You all should try to breed for complex, commercially-valuable characters (like rapid growth, or good mothering in cattle) because we already know that those things might be heritable. Look how selective breeding works with another character, coat color. Yay!..And theoretically, what works for coat colors works for those more important, more complex bits, too. Future generations will work this all out, but we’re on our way.

So the topic isn’t new, at all. And I’m not a fan of color-based breeding. IMO, folks will compromise on a heck-of-a-lot in terms of even decent conformation in the name of a “loud” color pattern. I won’t name the heritable problems that come in some color-centric breeds or tell you about the crooked legs I see with stunning regularity in another color-centric breed. But that, plus my knowledge of this history of color and selective breeding and genetics, makes me suspicious of color-based breeds. I could be wrong, but I assume that what I’m looking at in those horses is a history of badly-chosen selection criteria, as well as some significant inbreeding done so as to “fix” in a lineage those genes for coat color… and not the other kinds of characteristics you’d want.

It gets impossibly difficult very quickly to select for two or more features at a time. And in a slowly-reproducing organism like a horse, that means its prohibitively expensive. The fact that Paints, for example, have grown so much as a population and a breed since the 1950s suggests that one should be thorough-going in thinking about the selection criteria and breeding system (patterns of inbreeding, outcrossing and selection) those breeders used.

Take what you like and leave the rest.

[mvp]

@D_BaldStockings;8507174

While we are on the ‘appearances’ subject:
How many prefer a certain head type or profile and think less of horses with ‘other’ types of head.

-Because we ride the head, right?

IMO, even head conformation has genetic causes that are more complex, and less well-understood than coat color.

People! This isn’t merely a question of people with bad taste in Fur Wallpaper. There is some actual biology behind the ease- and difficulty with which one can select for various traits.

And another bad thing: The way we carve up a horse into phenotypic units, might not be the way genes and ontogenetic development does it. Just because I can isolate something like neck shape or the eye’s size and softness (e.g. “The horse got his daddy’s short neck and his momma’s unfortunate pig eye”) doesn’t mean that necks and eyes are genetically-discrete characters in the horse’s growth.

Also, y’all should know that mythology of “one gene to one character” is just.so.misleading, and its origins. Despite what Time magazine might tout on its cover, (a gene for alcoholism; a gene for religiosity, a gene for depression), even the very good geneticists of the early 20th century knew this wasn’t true… except of a very, very few characters. In fact, Gregor Mendel chose things like seed coat texture in pea plants (his exemplar breeding organism) in part because of their genetic recipe’s simplicity. That being true doesn’t mean you can extrapolate to other biological bits. At. All.

[kcmel]

I bought my pinto in spite of his color. Unless you have a full time groom, or can clean your horse’s stall after every poop, I don’t know why anyone would actually seek out a pinto. But perhaps mine is especially dirty…

[beowulf]

[QUOTE=DarkBayUnicorn;8507831]
Oh, I have color preferences too, don’t get me wrong.

For example, as much as I love the look of a grey horse, I have owned and campaigned three grey hunters and I simply don’t want to spend that much time at the washrack anymore. Since I will only ever breed for myself, that means no grey stallions.

When my very chestnut mare was pregnant I used to tell her she better give me a bay colt or I was going to shove it back in and she could try again.

She did give me that bay colt, but EVERYONE was surprised at the shade of bay, and the lack of bling. I bred my almost-sabino metallic-chestnut mare to a truly-sabino bright bay stallion known for throwing bling and got a plain little mid-brown package. His body coat is the color of a monk’s robes, he has not a white hair on his face and only three little white coronets with ermine spots.

If I were to repeat the cross, I’d likely get a metallic-chestnut filly with bling out the yin-yang. These things happen.

More importantly to me, I think I got the athlete I wanted from breeding my mare. And the temperament.

My coach and I considered a LOT of stallions, and luckily for me, she was shopping for a young horse for a client that winter, so was out at a lot of the breeding farms and saw hundreds of progeny. We thought we’d settled on a stallion (and I will admit I liked that he was black and had a lot of black babies, because my best-ever horse was black) until she saw a bunch of his offspring (beyond the one we already had in the barn) side-by-side with a bunch of offspring from our second-choice stallion. We changed our minds, and the thought of not getting that black foal I wanted never occurred to me for a second.[/QUOTE]

if you are omitting all grey stallions from your breeding criteria you are breeding for color. you’re doing the very same thing you griped about in your OP.

[MysticOakRanch]

[QUOTE=mvp;8507860]
The fact that Paints, for example, have grown so much as a population and a breed since the 1950s suggests that one should be thorough-going in thinking about the selection criteria and breeding system (patterns of inbreeding, outcrossing and selection) those breeders used.

Take what you like and leave the rest.[/QUOTE]

Paints WERE selectively bred for specific physical traits - WE don’t agree with those traits, but the straight hind leg, downhill build, huge jowl, tiny feet - those were all selectively bred ON PURPOSE. But that is what WINS, so that is what they breed for. My theory when it comes to ANY breed where the focus is “halter showing” is that the horse’s functionality goes to hell. It isn’t just color, look what happened to Arabians. QHs. Morgans. So I don’t blame that on color breeding, I blame it on “in hand” desire for something totally unnatural and non-functional. Then add to that, anyone with MONEY can get into it (after all, you don’t have to RIDE the horse), and it gets even worse.

The Indians bred for color - pinto and appaloosa were highly desired. BUT - the horse must also be able to function. Perhaps we should have taken some lessons from them on genetics.

I do think there are breeders who have bred quality horses founded partly on color. But I also think color appeals to people, so you do get more of the KKBs (Krazy Kolor Breeders). It is the same with “hair horses” (Friesians, Andalusians, etc), there are plenty of good breeders out there, along with the “Magical Fairy Dust Breeders” (who even dress up as fairies and do photo shoots on their horses, yup). Every breed/registry has its quality and its crazy:lol: Even the Warmbloods.

[Beentheredonethat]

I love, love, love color. I really love spots. I love the smaller ones, but love the big ones, too. It’s just cool.

What I have right now are three plain bay/black horses-mom bay, both daughters bay/black. I tried to breed a third with a Knabstrupper with all of the qualities I wanted in a performance horse. Two perfect tries never worked.

It would have been wonderful to breed my super loud Appy gelding. I got snarky replies about why I would want to do that. Well, why is because even though he wasn’t ideally built for dressage, he started late in life, competed I-1 respectably until 28 (and didn’t stop because of any issues) and died at 31 with the best looking legs of any horse I’ve ever seen and no soundness issues. Like Mystic says, the color can come with a lot of really good things, like strong character, toughness, soundness, athletic ability, and a long, useable life.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=MysticOakRanch;8508038]
Paints WERE selectively bred for specific physical traits - WE don’t agree with those traits, but the straight hind leg, downhill build, huge jowl, tiny feet - those were all selectively bred ON PURPOSE. My theory when it comes to ANY breed where the focus is “halter showing” is that the horse’s functionality goes to hell. It isn’t just color, look what happened to Arabians. QHs. Morgans. So I don’t blame that on color breeding, I blame it on “in hand” desire for something totally unnatural and non-functional. Then add to that, anyone with MONEY can get into it (after all, you don’t have to RIDE the horse), and it gets even worse.[/QUOTE]

True what you say about the enormous fallacy of breeding for in-hand competition. And I have such a hard time wrapping my mind around the selection for downhill and post-legged.

In addition, some of the most cold-blooded/SOB/“I’ll only do it if you make me… go ahead and try. Show me what you have because it takes a lot to inflict a level of pain or fear that I care about.” minds I have met have been in American color breeds.

So I won’t blame the color group, per se, for creating the bad selection criteria that comes from breed organizations creating shows and the invention of the in-hand competition as something that attracts money and attention.

But it also seems to me that picking winners there is really hurt by making coat color the initial criterion for entry (as happens more or less). Think of a Venn diagram: You’ll pick the best performer (or conformation) from the limited set of horses who have the right coat color… and while you were selecting for that, you admitted some crooked legs and other conditions. I just don’t see how superb performance animals are going to come from breeding within a population where that criterion was secondary.

[beowulf]

breeding for color (or lack-there-of) begs another question… there have been studies that report close links between temperament and color, as the hormones and neurotransmitters responsible for temperament also play a role in pigment production…

so i wonder, are paints more docile? piebald patterns and pigmentation are linked to domestication – one need only look at cows and foxes to see the surprising result when you breed for temperament alone… and in rats and cats, black or melanistic coat patterns usually boast the most docile or placid animals.

would be interesting if a study was produced on coat color / temperament in horses.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=beowulf;8508101]
breeding for color (or lack-there-of) begs another question… there have been studies that report close links between temperament and color, as the hormones and neurotransmitters responsible for temperament also play a role in pigment production…

so i wonder, are paints more docile? piebald patterns and pigmentation are linked to domestication – one need only look at cows and foxes to see the surprising result when you breed for temperament alone… and in rats and cats, black or melanistic coat patterns usually boast the most docile or placid animals.[/QUOTE]

Or, if we are venturing into “Just So Stories” about selection or adaptation, it would be that lineages of animals who got domesticated started out docile. (There are some recent arguments that the animals we selected for their temperament have under-developed adrenals… so the wild animals chosen were a tad less wild.)

In any case, if you are going to have lots of white, you’d better be domesticated and cared for… because you would be quite the target for predators.

With respect to Native American breeding successfully for color and performance, remember that the ordered rounds of selection were the reverse of that mid-20th century Venn diagram I mentioned. Native American has a population of horses naturally selected for soundness first… .they selected for color, second.

[JB]

@beowulf;8508101

breeding for color (or lack-there-of) begs another question… there have been studies that report close links between temperament and color, as the hormones and neurotransmitters responsible for temperament also play a role in pigment production…

Do you have a link to any of those studies?

I have heard rumors of that, but all I’ve really heard as the most logical explanation is that the color selection inadvertently brought the temperament traits with them, or vice-versa, so the became homozygously linked, as opposed to, say, the eumalin pigment being responsible for a given mental trait.

Pigment is a matter of genetics - chestnut doesn’t end up bay because of hormones, it is chestnut because of the forms of the Exension gene are both “e”.

so i wonder, are paints more docile? piebald patterns and pigmentation are linked to domestication – one need only look at cows and foxes to see the surprising result when you breed for temperament alone… and in rats and cats, black or melanistic coat patterns usually boast the most docile or placid animals.

Paint is a breed, and as a whole tends to be more “docile” than, say, a Spotted Saddle Horse.

Pinto is all the various non-appaloosa spotting patterns, and the temperament runs the gamut based on breed, lines within a breed, and of course the individuals.

[JB]

[QUOTE=NoDQhere;8505866]
Plus with all the advances that have been made in genetic testing for colors, it is “pretty easy” now to breed for the color you’d like.[/QUOTE]
Not really.

With some, yes - breed cremello to chestnut and you get pali every time.

But breed bay to bay, if they are both EeAa, and it’s a crapshoot whether you get black, bay, or chestnut.

Bay EeAa x Chestnut eeAa is the same crapshoot.

Black is the hardest to breed for, which is why some covet it a great deal, and why far, far too many black and black/white stallions are kept intact.

It’s true that given certain known genetics, you can guarantee a certain color. EEAACrCr x black or brown or chestnut gives you buckskin every time, for example. But start putting hetero genes together (which is most horses, unless someone starts breeding for homozygous traits, which is where unwanted issues often arise) and there are a variety of possibilities that cannot be controlled.

[NoDQhere]

Which is why I put “pretty easy” in quotation marks :lol:. For instance, our Appaloosa stallion is Ee Aa and LP LP. From 10 foals so far, 9 from non-appaloosa mares, we have: All 10 with appaloosa characteristics, bay, black and chestnut. And everything from no coat color to leopard. And the loudest color of all is from a homozygous black mare without a speck of white.

[JB]

Well sure, with LP/LP, all foals will have at least characteristics That’s because you have a trait that is homozygous, so will always be passed on, and it’s also a trait that expresses in the heterozygous form

The black/red thing regarding white expression applies to appies too The black ones show the least white, on down to red showing the most.

[DarkBayUnicorn]

[QUOTE=beowulf;8508022]
if you are omitting all grey stallions from your breeding criteria you are breeding for color. you’re doing the very same thing you griped about in your OP.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think I was griping so much as trying to start a discussion. I’m learning a LOT from the posts here, especially the ones linking to scientific studies and the history of color genetics.

That said, you are quite correct that in eliminating all grey stallions from my selection, I am breeding for color, or lack of a specific color in my case. But I’m also breeding strictly for me – not for sale. If circumstances were to change and I were to breed my mare for for commercial purposes and I found a grey stallion that checked off all my other boxes, then that’s great! Bring on the 50/50 chance.

But I’m unlikely to choose a cremello stallion simply because I’m pretty much guaranteed to get a palomino baby. I have to see a lot more from any stallion I would consider, including success in the ring I’m breeding for, and offspring with success in the ring I’m breeding for. Conformation. Compatibility with my particular mare. Temperament…there is a HUGE list to check off beforehand.

[mvp]

@DarkBayUnicorn;8509074

I don’t think I was griping so much as trying to start a discussion. I’m learning a LOT from the posts here, especially the ones linking to scientific studies and the history of color genetics.

That said, you are quite correct that in eliminating all grey stallions from my selection, I am breeding for color, or lack of a specific color in my case. But I’m also breeding strictly for me – not for sale. If circumstances were to change and I were to breed my mare for for commercial purposes and I found a grey stallion that checked off all my other boxes, then that’s great! Bring on the 50/50 chance.

Your point about eliminating grays being selection against (one color of many) as opposed to selection for color is well-taken.

I think you can still claim to be putting performance first and having an initial color bias… because there are plenty of non-grays out there to choose from. But decide you must have a particular color first (and I want a buckskin really, really bad)… and then put performance second—that’s what folks are complaining about. OP, that ain’t you. And that should be clear to everyone. I don’t think you can be tarred with the same brush as the Color Uber Alles crowd.

[Texarkana]

I really don’t see a problem in someone saying, “I want a buckskin foal,” and making it a priority in stallion selection, whether this foal is being bred for commercial purposes or personal use.

The problem arises when folks only select for color and take nothing else into consideration.

I don’t think you’ll find very many breeders on this forum who make matches in that manner. While some people here (myself included) may place color high on the priority list, they’re looking for the best stallion out there of that color for their mare to hopefully produce a foal who is better than, or at least as good as, either parent.

But color-only matches unfortunately happen all too often, whether it been in people’s backyards or at the farms of the truly crazy professional color breeders who just don’t “get it” when it comes to breeding.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Texarkana;8509282]
I really don’t see a problem in someone saying, “I want a buckskin foal,” and making it a priority in stallion selection, whether this foal is being bred for commercial purposes or personal use.

The problem arises when folks only select for color and take nothing else into consideration.

–snip–

But color-only matches unfortunately happen all too often, whether it been in people’s backyards or at the farms of the truly crazy professional color breeders who just don’t “get it” when it comes to breeding.[/QUOTE]

All things being equal, there’s not a problem with choosing a stallion who might give you a buckskin. (And I have one I like and would use if I were to breed another horse for myself.) But! That “all things being equal” isn’t quite precise or thorough-going enough, IMO.

That’s because if you or the stallion’s breeders and the breeders of his ancestors put color before performance in their ranked selection criteria, “all things are not equal.” That is to say, he doesn’t bring the “fixed” genetics of performance-based selection criteria with him. That’s true in general. There are some individual purpose-bred horses who get interesting color genes (as has the WB stallion I’m thinking of) by chance. But that’s a vanishingly small set of horses.

OTOH, and to your second point, it’s not backyard or “ignorant” breeders who select for color first and conformation second. Rather, it’s a large, wealthy and more-or-less able group of breed/color enthusiasts who selected for what they wanted. And if that was color first then fine; within that color-ed group, they could select for better performance-related traits.

My point is that their enterprise is purposeful and expert (given the initial commitment to color); these large, well-organized, wealthy breed organizations aren’t “backyard.”

[Texarkana]

I honestly do not understand your reference or what you are trying to communicate. Are you trying to say colored sport horse breeders do not put enough emphasis on performance?

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Texarkana;8509356]
I honestly do not understand your reference or what you are trying to communicate. Are you trying to say colored sport horse breeders do not put enough emphasis on performance?[/QUOTE]

I’m speaking about the technical details of selective breeding. What I say applies to anyone breeding sexually-reproducing organisms.

It’s really hard to select for and “fix” a trait in a lineage. Try to do that for more than one genetically unrelated trait, or traits whose genes fall on different chromosome, or whose products relate differently to development (ontogeny or growth), and you are quite likely to fail.

So, you have to decide which feature you’ll select for first, in chronological order… more or less.

For example, will you choose all piebald horses first and then, within that set, look for horses with, say, short cannon bones? Or will you select for horses with short cannon bones first and be interested in the piebald one that shows up (very rarely) second?

Of course if you wanted both, you’d breed the short cannon bone-ed piebald in the hopes that you’d “fix” both traits in that lineage descended from the piebald. To “fix” a trait means to breed such that all organisms in the line are homozygous for that gene and will always produce it, plus pass it on to their progeny.

But if you wanted both traits AND the color one were genetically more simple (plus the trait obvious and also worth money), chances are that you’ll select for that trait first. It’s easier and the pay-off is sooner. And time is money with these slow-reproducing animals.