Lab coat colors and health risks?

interesting article...


https://www.foxnews.com/science/dogs-col...rious-illnesses

Recently read that..

Here is the problem I have with that article.

We know the inbreeding COI of a lot of the labs being bred so we can control a lot of that. This just took 33,000 random dogs.

Any time you breed for color only you are going to have issues. On top of that you have all the silver "labs" who are categorized under chocolate who are known for having health issues. The silvers do have a limited gene pool and the breeders are breeding only for color with little regard for health.

On top of that this was a study done with dogs from the UK where there are fewer chocolate labs so the gene pool there would be significantly smaller than here.

We know what is a safe COI (coefficient of inbreeding) and can weigh the positives and negatives of breeding with a high COI.

I think it's inaccurate to say that there is a higher chance of getting a dog that is going to die early and have issues just because of coat color.

With a little research and homework you can be confident in the health of your dog no matter the color.

interesting because I know of someone who purchased a silver lab and it's had lots of health issues... LOTS. Great dog though.

I agree to an extent with you. But if your willing to step back and consider how chocolates came about, I think it makes sense that there are issues.

Well in the beginning of any breed you have the same thing.

It's very easy to outcross if you are concerned. My point is that the article is stating that these issue are overall due to genetics because there are less chocolates.

High bred FT dogs which are predominantly black are way more inbred than your typical BYB chocolate.

Exactly. I understand the concept. It seems how you get there matters more than most account for.

I agree with you, Leonardo, very strongly.

Most chocolates are bred to be chocolate, regardless if they're going to run competitively or if they're going to be pets. The same could be said for yellows and blacks as well.

I like black dogs, so when I'm looking for another puppy in 4 years, I won't even consider a chocolate or a yellow, unless the breeding is exceptional and even then it would be a hard sell.

We can do all the COI comparissons that we want and all the clearances, but the fact remains that chocolate coats stems from a recessive gene. And with recessive genes, come greater risks for health issues/complications. They're not definitive or certain, but the likelyhood of them being present is greater. The very same thing holds true in human beings.

I think it's also important to note that the vast majority of people who breed and buy dogs don't pay much, if any, attention to the clearances, be it in the UK or USA. Most people don't take the time to do the research that those in the competitive scope or show rings do. Most dogs come about because every "John Doe" thinks his dog is the best ever (see the "would you sell your best dog" thread) and "John Smith" thinks his little girl is special and they're friends so they're going to have puppies so they have keep one and sell the rest for $300 because they come from "Proven Hunting stock" and they want to keep the bloodline going...

I agree with some of what you said about breeding
practices but..,

If you are buying from proven FT litters you are most likely buying a pup with a higher than average COI. There is no greater risk of health problems in a chocolate vs black or yellow IF you know the breeding stock and health of the line. That's just a fact.

Sure if you are buying a dog for color that's been bred for just color there are risks and I strongly advise against that.

Most of the chocolate pups from proven HT or FT stock with all health clearances typically have a lot of black dogs in their pedigree.

There are just as many black litters being put together with little thought as chocolates.

All in all don't buy or breed for color. If all things are equal then color can be a tie breaker but not a priority.

I’ve heard most chocolate labs are closet homosexuals and practice deviant unprotected sexual behavior.

Well that's true...

[/quote]

I agree with some of what you said about breeding
practices but..,

If you are buying from proven FT litters you are most likely buying a pup with a higher than average COI. There is no greater risk of health problems in a chocolate vs black or yellow IF you know the breeding stock and health of the line. That's just a fact.

Sure if you are buying a dog for color that's been bred for just color there are risks and I strongly advise against that.

Most of the chocolate pups from proven HT or FT stock with all health clearances typically have a lot of black dogs in their pedigree.

There are just as many black litters being put together with little thought as chocolates.

All in all don't buy or breed for color. If all things are equal then color can be a tie breaker but not a priority.
[/quote]


I disagree fully with with your second statement of no greater risk. Everything else is certainly agreeable.
And I think you're missing my point as well as Leonardo's.
I'm not saying that chocolate dogs are inferior to blacks and yellows, but there are simply more risks with recessive genes being present, not necessarily carried.
Period and end of story.
Again, human beings are a great example.
People with red hair and light eyes(both recessive traits) have a higher chance of getting skin cancer than do people with dark eyes and dark hair (both dominant traits).
Does that mean that all red heads with light skin are going to get skin cancer? Absolutely not.
Does that mean that dark headed and dark eyed people are immune? Again, absolutely not.
Rather, risks are simply increased or decreased by the traits that some have, or don't have, regardless of the "line" they come from.

I disagree fully with with your second statement of no greater risk. Everything else is certainly agreeable.
And I think you're missing my point as well as Leonardo's.
I'm not saying that chocolate dogs are inferior to blacks and yellows, but there are simply more risks with recessive genes being present, not necessarily carried.
Period and end of story.
Again, human beings are a great example.
People with red hair and light eyes(both recessive traits) have a higher chance of getting skin cancer than do people with dark eyes and dark hair (both dominant traits).
Does that mean that all red heads with light skin are going to get skin cancer? Absolutely not.
Does that mean that dark headed and dark eyed people are immune? Again, absolutely not.
Rather, risks are simply increased or decreased by the traits that some have, or don't have, regardless of the "line" they come from.
[/quote]




But lighter skinned people are at higher risk due to the lack of melanin. There is nothing about brown hair vs black hair that make them more susceptible to a disease,

[/quote]

But lighter skinned people are at higher risk due to the lack of melanin. There is nothing about brown hair vs black hair that make them more susceptible to a disease, [/quote]

You're exactly right and just proved my point.
The lack of melanin is a by product of the recessive trait.

Not to mention the fact that there are tons of recessive genes that we dont even know are present that any color dog carries.

The risk of producing a puppy with a genetic disorder is directly affected by the COI...the higher the COI the greater the risk.

That's a fact

There are recessive genes in every dog.

The presence of a recessive gene for the color chocolate in labs does not indicate a high risk for a genetic disorder.

Unless that color has an inherent trait that makes the dog more prone to a disease like a person with light skin is more prone to get skin cancer.

Brown coat vs black has no inherent trait that makes them more prone to a disease.

Again, you're continuing to prove my point.
Just because the COI is low, doesn't mean they're not going to have trouble and just because it's high, doesn't mean that they are going to have issues.
Every dog has recessive genes, but they're not all present/showing. Recessive genes CAN have adverse side effects.

Like it or not, according to the article, the brown coat does have inherent traits that cause the dogs genetic disorders.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's not true.

The article did not say that nor provided any actual genetic study showing that.

Blonde hair is recessive but I'm not aware of any genetic disorder linked to blonde hair..

Like it or not you have no idea what you are talking about...

The COI is what tells you the probability of producing dogs with genetic disorders...

You aren't making any sense.

The article is saying that they have issues due to inbreeding not just because they have brown hair.

The COI tells you how inbred a dog is..,

Get it yet???

COI estimates the level of inbreeding that would result from a particular cross so breeders had a quantitative way of evaluating both the risks and benefits.
That means the traits they inherit. It does not specify/give probability of genetic disorders. So you're wrong there.

And again, just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it's not there.
Blondes actually have a higher risk of getting cancer than most except for red heads. They're also prone to eye issues, just to name a few.

It actually tells you the probability of how genetically similar they are which is directly tied to the probability of inheriting a genetic disorder...


Again this isn't a color issue it's an inbreeding issue. The article is saying the problems exist due to inbreeding not that the coat in brown...

The COI tells you how inbred they are...

Show me the genetic disorder linked to brown coat color??

The article isn't saying that there are genetic disorders linked to brown coat color but that because of the smaller gene pool and inbreeding they have genetic problems.

You can tell how inbred they are with a low COI reducing the probability of unwanted genetic diseases.

You're right.
COI is tied to, but does not specify only genetic disorder as you've said is "fact" over and over again. It includes ALL traits, both good and bad, and genetic disorders fall under that umbrella. Right?

I've not spoken in any absolutes. I'm not running down chocolate dogs.
My point has been the whole time that the chocolate dogs were a "no no" for a long time, a long time ago. They were taboo.
For a long time they were killed because a chocolate coat was recessive.
Recessive traits, just like dominant traits, come with both risks and benefits.
And that it MAY BE possible that recessive trait makes them more susceptible to things that can shorten their life.

What are your thoughts on yellow coat color being that it is also recessive?

AMEN!!!! hahahaha

The other point I was inferring is that no matter what you believe, I know your a chocolate advocate, they exist in their current state primarily due to color. Genetics, ability, health issues weren't a consideration as that color was being promoted. It is a huge hurdle to overcome and in my humble opinion there hasnt been enough time. They were created based on recessive genes for color and the rest came with it.

I will take a purple dino the dinosaur if I can compete and win so I am not against owning a chocolate. I anticipate there being some issues with all these designer and size specific breeds in the near future. They too are going after recessive genes at an alarming rate.

Yes, they're recessive to black. However, by about 75-85% based off of the numbers I'm seeing, they're far more dominant than chocolate.
Fewer recessive traits equates to fewer recessive trait by products.

Color-dilution alopecia is by definition of a health risk related to coat color.

Color-dilution alopecia

Yes, related to dogs who carry the dilute gene specifically.

Again, there is no genetic disease or disorder directly linked to the chocolate coat color.

The fact that certain genetic traits are related to coat colors proves the idea that coat color can be tied to genetic problems.

Since this is the first study showing chocolates tend to live a shorter more disease prone life I can understand the hesitation to 'believe' the study's conclusions. But just because the study didn't conclude there was a specific disease identified or disorder doesn't mean the conclusions are false.

I agree this study will need to be replicated in order to add to the validity, but based on the sample size and who conducted the study, I wouldn't be surprised if this study will be replicated in several other countries.

They concluded that the issues were due to a limited gene pool in that area not due to the coat color specifically...

Are you familiar with the concept 'founder effect'?