Chocolate Yorkie 3

[wayne2075]

Hi, again. I had many requests to continue and share about genetics of the Chocolate yorkie. Maybe we can start over without the negative comments that disrailed the thread. You may not agree with people raising fox or mink for fur this is not the issue. They have learned many things about genetics that the dog people do not know. I believe the color genetics are the same for the fox as it is for our yorkies. We can learn what they have learned without rejecting all of their knowledge because we disagee with what they are doing. What I am going to share will benefit those breeding the parti, goldens, chocolates etc. even though some disagree with those who are doing so instead of the standard yorkie.

I stated in my previous treads that the Chocolate had to be a mutation color and had many dissagree. I am still trying to find the cause of the mutation and still believe it to be chemical or virus. Wild fox in nature are red with white markings. When a western red and a eastern red fox [ two different lines] are bred together they produce some offspring that is a red fox with a black sholder and back with more black markings than white. So when we mix two different lines of the Yorkshire terrier some color changes may happen also. This is some of the reason that yorkie breeders are careful to breed within their lines. There are also a possibility that breeding off line will increase size. Many yorkie breeders have developed their own line and will not breed off this line.

The wild red fox also produced the black fox or silver fox. These were captured and developed in the fur ranching business. Over many years the Black fox became the dominate gene for ranch fox just as our standard yorkie has become the dominate gene. Over the years a mututation would occur such as the pearl fox [a blue gray] and the cinnimon fox [the chocolate]. When the chocolate or pearl was bred back to a black the offspring would be black but would be a recessive gene for chocolate and pearl. This is the simple genetics most understand. They are now carriers. What my question was what caused the color to mutate in the first place. There were no brown or blue gray red fox in nature.

Developing colors from the Chocolate and Pearl gene: a black or standard yorkie that is a carrier for chocolate bred to another black carrier of chocolate will produce about 50% chocolate. A standard non carrier of Chocolate bred to a carrier gene chocolate will produce 25% chocolate offspring. When the Chocolate and Pearl are bred together both mutated colors there is a wash in the colors. It produces Amber. Amber then bred to a Red can produce a washed out cream with a red stripe which can be developed into a strong gene when bred together. There is the leathal gene factor for white. Those who are breeding yorkies for chocolate or golden need to be very careful not to inbreed to establish their line as they may cause other genetic defects as some of the standard yorkie lines have. I am still looking for the answer to why I would have 2 chocolate puppies from lines that have no chocolate carriers. I know that this a true mutation but what caused it. I have been reading a lot of info on what causes mutation. When I stated in my first thread about plastic or rubber from ai could have been the reason. Could be chemical or virus? I probably won't find the real answer. Wayne

[chloesMama]

I have never seen a chocolate yorkie! They sound very cute. Do they have tan faces and the body chocolate or are they all chocolate? They sound really cute. I'm new to yorkie's , I have only had mine for 4 months, so i'm not sure what different colors they come in. But I would like to see a chocolate one.

[diggy4]

Originally Posted by wayne2075

Hi, again. I had many requests to continue and share about genetics of the Chocolate yorkie. Maybe we can start over without the negative comments that disrailed the thread. You may not agree with people raising fox or mink for fur this is not the issue. They have learned many things about genetics that the dog people do not know. I believe the color genetics are the same for the fox as it is for our yorkies. We can learn what they have learned without rejecting all of their knowledge because we disagee with what they are doing. What I am going to share will benefit those breeding the parti, goldens, chocolates etc. even though some disagree with those who are doing so instead of the standard yorkie.

I stated in my previous treads that the Chocolate had to be a mutation color and had many dissagree. I am still trying to find the cause of the mutation and still believe it to be chemical or virus. Wild fox in nature are red with white markings. When a western red and a eastern red fox [ two different lines] are bred together they produce some offspring that is a red fox with a black sholder and back with more black markings than white. So when we mix two different lines of the Yorkshire terrier some color changes may happen also. This is some of the reason that yorkie breeders are careful to breed within their lines. There are also a possibility that breeding off line will increase size. Many yorkie breeders have developed their own line and will not breed off this line.

The wild red fox also produced the black fox or silver fox. These were captured and developed in the fur ranching business. Over many years the Black fox became the dominate gene for ranch fox just as our standard yorkie has become the dominate gene. Over the years a mututation would occur such as the pearl fox [a blue gray] and the cinnimon fox [the chocolate]. When the chocolate or pearl was bred back to a black the offspring would be black but would be a recessive gene for chocolate and pearl. This is the simple genetics most understand. They are now carriers. What my question was what caused the color to mutate in the first place. There were no brown or blue gray red fox in nature.

Developing colors from the Chocolate and Pearl gene: a black or standard yorkie that is a carrier for chocolate bred to another black carrier of chocolate will produce about 50% chocolate. A standard non carrier of Chocolate bred to a carrier gene chocolate will produce 25% chocolate offspring. When the Chocolate and Pearl are bred together both mutated colors there is a wash in the colors. It produces Amber. Amber then bred to a Red can produce a washed out cream with a red stripe which can be developed into a strong gene when bred together. There is the leathal gene factor for white. Those who are breeding yorkies for chocolate or golden need to be very careful not to inbreed to establish their line as they may cause other genetic defects as some of the standard yorkie lines have. I am still looking for the answer to why I would have 2 chocolate puppies from lines that have no chocolate carriers. I know that this a true mutation but what caused it. I have been reading a lot of info on what causes mutation. When I stated in my first thread about plastic or rubber from ai could have been the reason. Could be chemical or virus? I probably won't find the real answer. Wayne

I think that is an issue as you say it's not, this is a yorkie website and i think i speak for most here when I say not only are we passionate about yorkies, but animals in general. To raise ANY animal for its fur is digusting to many. Im sorry, but it's very hard for me to take anything you say seriosuly after finding out your ethics when it comes to animals. What if yorkie coats/fur were the next craze???? Sorry but I really really really super disagree with what you do. Im just gonna leave it at that before i say something i should not.

[Bhikku]

I think that is an issue as you say it's not, this is a yorkie website and i think i speak for most here when I say not only are we passionate about yorkies, but animals in general. To raise ANY animal for its fur is digusting to many. Im sorry, but it's very hard for me to take anything you say seriosuly after finding out your ethics when it comes to animals. What if yorkie coats/fur were the next craze???? Sorry but I really really really super disagree with what you do. Im just gonna leave it at that before i say something i should not.

I have seen video from fur farmers.

So in other words, ditto.

[medusa512]

come on everyone...he's trying to make peace in the forums. at least he's giving it a try.

it's not like he's trying to sell us any of these furs or force meat on us, he's just saying the reason he has some knowledge about fur color is life experience!

in the words of thumper:

"My momma always says....If you can't say something nice....don't say anything at all...."

[Bhikku]

I don't know anything about the genetics of fur, so I couldn't say whether a certain color was a mutation or a "chocolate in the woodpile"...although I think to say there is no cinnamon or blue fox found in nature is probably not true. Natural mutations in color occur across the board, regardless of species...I'm sure there are "off-color" foxes out there running around. Most just don't survive long enough to propagate their genes.

[diggy4]

Originally Posted by medusa512

come on everyone...he's trying to make peace in the forums. at least he's giving it a try.

it's not like he's trying to sell us any of these furs or force meat on us, he's just saying the reason he has some knowledge about fur color is life experience!

in the words of thumper:

"My momma always says....If you can't say something nice....don't say anything at all...."

Really??? I think I was VERY nice in my post. I said most on this forum will not take what he says seriously due to the ethics of what he does. I have been around this forum awhile and I am just telling him not to get his hopes up. It isnt gonna happen. I could have approached it WAY differently than I did. Saying I super super disagree with what you do is hardly being mean. If you think for one second thats going to be "ok" here, then so be it that's your choice but please dont ask me to give him a break and that he is trying to make peace. Peace is the ethical treatment of animals. Not raising animals to later slaughter them for their fur. My mother also taught me to stand up for what you believe in. I am STRONGLY against killing animals for fur. My mother has a mink coat. I am VERY against it and I dont hesitiate to tell her. Granite it was a gift from her then boyfriend and she was kinda in a spot and chose not to tell him she too is against it, she feels horrible now as it hangs in her closet. I have told her on MANY occasions get rid of it before you pass and dont you dare will it to me unless you want it burned!

We can agree to disagree here as Im not a mean person nor do I choose to fight with you about this. I am just saying I am for ethical treatment of animals across the board. So are many here. So maybe posting a thread the day after your other one was attacked and he was exposed for being a fur dealer MAYBE isnt the best idea. Not many are going to take his thread seriously.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wayne2075

Hi, again. I had many requests to continue and share about genetics of the Chocolate yorkie. Maybe we can start over without the negative comments that disrailed the thread. You may not agree with people raising fox or mink for fur this is not the issue. They have learned many things about genetics that the dog people do not know. I believe the color genetics are the same for the fox as it is for our yorkies. We can learn what they have learned without rejecting all of their knowledge because we disagee with what they are doing. What I am going to share will benefit those breeding the parti, goldens, chocolates etc. even though some disagree with those who are doing so instead of the standard yorkie.

I stated in my previous treads that the Chocolate had to be a mutation color and had many dissagree. I am still trying to find the cause of the mutation and still believe it to be chemical or virus. Wild fox in nature are red with white markings. When a western red and a eastern red fox [ two different lines] are bred together they produce some offspring that is a red fox with a black sholder and back with more black markings than white. So when we mix two different lines of the Yorkshire terrier some color changes may happen also. This is some of the reason that yorkie breeders are careful to breed within their lines. There are also a possibility that breeding off line will increase size. Many yorkie breeders have developed their own line and will not breed off this line.

The wild red fox also produced the black fox or silver fox. These were captured and developed in the fur ranching business. Over many years the Black fox became the dominate gene for ranch fox just as our standard yorkie has become the dominate gene. Over the years a mututation would occur such as the pearl fox [a blue gray] and the cinnimon fox [the chocolate]. When the chocolate or pearl was bred back to a black the offspring would be black but would be a recessive gene for chocolate and pearl. This is the simple genetics most understand. They are now carriers. What my question was what caused the color to mutate in the first place. There were no brown or blue gray red fox in nature.

Developing colors from the Chocolate and Pearl gene: a black or standard yorkie that is a carrier for chocolate bred to another black carrier of chocolate will produce about 50% chocolate. A standard non carrier of Chocolate bred to a carrier gene chocolate will produce 25% chocolate offspring. When the Chocolate and Pearl are bred together both mutated colors there is a wash in the colors. It produces Amber. Amber then bred to a Red can produce a washed out cream with a red stripe which can be developed into a strong gene when bred together. There is the leathal gene factor for white. Those who are breeding yorkies for chocolate or golden need to be very careful not to inbreed to establish their line as they may cause other genetic defects as some of the standard yorkie lines have. I am still looking for the answer to why I would have 2 chocolate puppies from lines that have no chocolate carriers. I know that this a true mutation but what caused it. I have been reading a lot of info on what causes mutation. When I stated in my first thread about plastic or rubber from ai could have been the reason. Could be chemical or virus? I probably won't find the real answer. Wayne

I don't think it was a chemical reaction, but probably a recessive trait somewhere in the line. Remember, you need two recessive traits for the particular characteristic to "show" or display itself. If the other dogs just had one gene, no one would be the wiser. Also, you must remember that color is the result of two genes. There may be other genes that affect that color as well, and I think the chocolate is probably effected by the gene that has something to do with pigment because the dog's nose is also brown. Even a pure white Maltese has a black nose. Remember, on any given trait, there are different genes that determine the final look. For example, with eyes, there are two genes for color, two genes for intensity of that color, or perhaps what's known as pigment, two genes for size of eye, and more genes for shape of eye. So with hair color, it's just not a matter of the two genes responsible for this, but their combination with other genes. Read this link to see how genes are connected to get the final result. Eye Shine

I do have to add, Yorkietalk is mainly made up of members who are not breeders, we do have a breeding forum, but so many times questions such as the one you pose have been a means to selling the new members dogs, and not really a legitimate question. I think on your second thread, several members gave links to scientific articles you could read on genetics. Most universities have libraries open to the public for in-house reading, and there is so much scientific genetic research literature, however, I'm not really sure scientists have found all the answers you are looking for. This is really not about opinions, it's about facts, and I think you are really overestimating what this forum can do for you.

[medusa512]

diggy, i'm sorry if you took it as one, but this was not a personal attack.

t

[QuickSilver]

Does no one here wear leather? I don't wear fur, but I have some snakeskin purses.

Most animals used for milk, eggs and meat are raised in let's say, non-ideal conditions, so I honestly don't know why fur is singled out. Is your dog's food cruelty-free?

This is not to say you can't be against fur unless you are a full vegetarian -- we all have to start somewhere. But let's maybe cut people some slack, even if they have different philosophies on animal rights. You can be against the practice without demonizing the practitioner. In this case, the OP indicated that he is from a different generation and correctly pointed out that attitudes towards animal rights have changed drastically in the past few decades. We can't expect everyone to be on the same page yet.

[diggy4]

Originally Posted by medusa512

diggy, i'm sorry if you took it as one, but this was not a personal attack.

t

Nope not at all. I am just mortified at the thought of an animal being killed for their fur. Seriosuly makes me sick. I want all babies happy healthy and safe. Thats all. I had 2 ferrets and they are the closest relative of the Mink, and the thougth of them being hurt REALLY bothers me. They are highly intelligent critters that stole my heart and were best friends with my yorkie Bella and my kids. When they passed I was crushed (still am) so the thought of whats happening out there and being brought into here hurts me. This is a safe place for animals lovers. Its a warm place with lots of love and helpful info. Its nothing I expected to read about in here. Guess Im naive.

[wayne2075]

Nancy1999, I believe you are right that this forum is not for me. I have studied for many years genetics and also took classes at a uiversity on plant and animal genetics. I am doing an extensive study now on mutations. I am trying to find facts and not opinions. Yes I did help a Fox farm in the early 1970s with their genetics now I am labled a fur dealer. I am not trying to sell yorkies on this forum. I had requests from some of the members of YT to share on genetics after having 2 Chocolate puppies born. Sorry I even posted a thread. I was being honest and thought yorkie owners wanted to learn about their yorkies. Like I said in the last thread, You can judge me if you want it doesn't bother me at all as most do not understand the life and culture I was raised in. I think this forum does not appreciate our past farming culture where we raised our own food and sold milk, eggs and meat for others to survive on. I will share the wisdom and knowledge that God has given me to those who appreciate and respect and want to learn. I will do this some other place where people are not so opinionated. Wayne

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by wayne2075

Nancy1999, I believe you are right that this forum is not for me. I have studied for many years genetics and also took classes at a uiversity on plant and animal genetics. I am doing an extensive study now on mutations. I am trying to find facts and not opinions. Yes I did help a Fox farm in the early 1970s with their genetics now I am labled a fur dealer. I am not trying to sell yorkies on this forum. I had requests from some of the members of YT to share on genetics after having 2 Chocolate puppies born. Sorry I even posted a thread. I was being honest and thought yorkie owners wanted to learn about their yorkies. Like I said in the last thread, You can judge me if you want it doesn't bother me at all as most do not understand the life and culture I was raised in. I think this forum does not appreciate our past farming culture where we raised our own food and sold milk, eggs and meat for others to survive on. I will share the wisdom and knowledge that God has given me to those who appreciate and respect and want to learn. I will do this some other place where people are not so opinionated. Wayne

dear wayne,

i don't think being opinionated is a bad thing and if you truly dislike this forum so much, you can always leave...like you keep saying you are going to do i appreciate what you have to add to this forum and it's interesting to read about scientific/genetic material posted by you regarding yorkies. but i think you need to work on the ability to read other people's posts without internalizing them, and i, for one, appreciate different perspectives whatever issues/topic being discussed.

no, not everyone share the same view as you. we HAVE to agree to disagree. that's just how it works.

i keep reading your posts about how people are opinionated this and that, and i just don't know why you keep complaining. it is a good thing that we all HAVE opinions. if we didn't, it would be SO BORING.

hope you stay around because you are welcomed, i for one, welcome opinions that are different from mine. but if you are so miserable, stop complaining, and do something about it! re-think how you view others' opinions or move on with your life already.

[BamaFan121s]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I don't think it was a chemical reaction, but probably a recessive trait somewhere in the line. Remember, you need two recessive traits for the particular characteristic to "show" or display itself. If the other dogs just had one gene, no one would be the wiser. Also, you must remember that color is the result of two genes. There may be other genes that affect that color as well, and I think the chocolate is probably effected by the gene that has something to do with pigment because the dog's nose is also brown.

Well stated.

Generally speaking, anyone is free to come on here and share what they know and opinions and theories, but other members are just as free to disagree with such statements. So IMO, if you are going to put something out there, in particular if it is sort of a 'hot topic' then be prepared to have responsed disputing what you are claiming. If there is one thing I have learned on YT it's that this is not a "shut up and listen to me and don't question me" type of place. IF that is what someone expects to get, then they are bound to be disappointed. I have found that I learn the most about various issues when there are several, differing opinions and sets of facts being put out there for consideration.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wayne2075

Nancy1999, I believe you are right that this forum is not for me. I have studied for many years genetics and also took classes at a uiversity on plant and animal genetics. I am doing an extensive study now on mutations. I am trying to find facts and not opinions. Yes I did help a Fox farm in the early 1970s with their genetics now I am labled a fur dealer. I am not trying to sell yorkies on this forum. I had requests from some of the members of YT to share on genetics after having 2 Chocolate puppies born. Sorry I even posted a thread. I was being honest and thought yorkie owners wanted to learn about their yorkies. Like I said in the last thread, You can judge me if you want it doesn't bother me at all as most do not understand the life and culture I was raised in. I think this forum does not appreciate our past farming culture where we raised our own food and sold milk, eggs and meat for others to survive on. I will share the wisdom and knowledge that God has given me to those who appreciate and respect and want to learn. I will do this some other place where people are not so opinionated. Wayne

It's not that this forum isn't for you, it's that you expect members to have a through understanding of genetics, and be able to discuss something, that I don't think scientists know yet. The average owner doesn't really care about the genetics of her dog, but wants to know about proper food, training, grooming, etc, and how to find a good breeder. Your genetic questions seem better suited to the breeder's forum, but I doubt if you will get many facts, and if you do, it will be hard to recognize them because so many people pass their opinions as facts. I come from an era that understands that fur farms were once seen as a good thing, and not a bad thing. Trapping was considered the bad thing, and being of French descent, I have a feeling lots of my ancestors were the bad guys, so I don't have a problem with your background, just some of your comments. Your very first post said that for chocolates to be born, "something had to happen to the dna," Then you speculated it was the reaction from the rubber and or plastic, and the gene mutated, you added, "this is not a recessive gene as many think it is, and I hope this helps."


You seemed to be talking with a great deal of authority when you said these things, and you don't seem to have any real facts to back this up, except your years of experience as a fox farmer, and this isn't enough for me to believe what your saying is true. If you had said something like "I wonder, if such and such, or does anyone know if such as such, but you stated it like it was fact, and because of your years of "experience" many people will believe you, and others will not want to hear a word your saying, it just bothers me because there is no proof of what you are saying. It just seemed to me you were trying to razzle dazzle us with your knowledge, but maybe I'm wrong.