Just because a dog is blue is it bully

This is incorrect. Dilute black (i.e. blue) is a simple recessive (as is red) so either color be easily reproduced simply by breeding parents who either display or carry the recessive allele. You don't have to add in new breeds to make the color "dominant."

dd = blue
Dd = black carrying dilute
DD = black not carrying dilute

dd x dd = All blue litter
dd x Dd = half black - half blue litter
dd x DD = All black litter carrying dilute

Of course we're simply considering dilute acting on black here. Other colors could occur depending what other alleles the parents carry.

 

If i breed two dog that are not blue in color could i get an entire litter of blue puppies?

 

Yes. Just as long as both parents carry dilute & the black allele is present. I once bred a black & white male to a red/blacknosed bitch & 5 out of 10 pups were blue.

 

Not half, not some, not most... ALL. 11 puppies all of them were Blue with white flash.
Sire- Black from a Black sire and a fawn dam
Dam- Blue brindle.

I fully expected brindle pups but there wasnt a single one which floored me, normally brindle is next to unescapable.

 

Once again - Yes. Just as long as both parents carry dilute & the black allele is present. If this is the case you can get 1 blue pup, 2 blue pups or all blue pups. So long as the genetics are there. The number of blue pups you get is the surprise. In my case it was half the litter. In your case it was all the litter.

A well known breeder likened it into reaching into a bagful or marbles. One grab you might get 2 blues out of 10. Another grab you might get 5 blues out of 10. Another grab you might get 10 blues out of 10. How many you get is simply luck of the draw. But if black x dilute is there you will get blues. (or I should say CAN get blues. If you're breeding Dd x dd as you did there is also a chance you can get all blacks!)

As for brindle, it's not a color but rather a pattern & is thus far considered a recessive (ebr). If the male didn't carry brindle you won't get it. Unluckily for me, almost all my dogs carry brindle so I get it all the time. :rolleyes:

 

class is in session. lol great posts abk

 

Oh, I'm so glad someone here understands canine genetics!

 

Thanks all of my questions have been answered

 

i have seen a few mutants ...lol in some game dog bloodlines GR CH JACK HAMMER had a grandson that weighed 95-100 lbs ..i seen & knew this dog ,his name was max ill look for more info & post it later all his other littermates were normal sized dogs ...but he was a genetic freek ...:cool: gothard's & wards stormy was his reg name http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=62961 he was massive like i said a freek

 

I had to clarify as per the very interesting chart you posted the litter should have been half and half and it wasnt. side note- it was not my breeding. Good information none the less.

i dont disagree with you (in fact i cant because it makes sense), but on a partially related subject. From past discussion involving the merle color and dogs you have said many times that you belive that the merle dogs can be legit APBTs with no mixing. from what you know about genetics and the recessive merle coloring (and how "rare"it is to naturally occur if ever) how does that tie into the "kennels" that are (or were) putting out litter after litter with nothing but merle pups. Even taking non-merle dogs (neither in color nor pedigree) to merle dogs and getting entire merle litters. Does that point to dominant trait mixing or does that still fall under the pull of marbles scenario?

 

i personally dont think they should be called "pitbulls" at all either, because they're not, they're pitbull/mastiff/AB/etc MUTTS

 

Diesel: Sorry for the late reply, I had an errand to attend to.

Yes, if one goes by the general rule the litter should have been 50/50. But there are never general rules in predicting litters. You can get some, none or all, just depends on how the dice land on that particular breeding.

As for merles - and let me say openly I am loathe to even address this since all convos concerning these dogs go down hill. But for your sake I will address your questions.

I have never said merle dogs can be purebred (folks always seem to miss this). I say SOME merles can be purebred. Some can be mixed too. I have said this more times than I can count on my fingers & toes. I don't know why people insist on overlooking that.

But to get back to your comments, there is no "recessive" merle. However, there are several types of merle - lightly marked, heavily marked, cryptic & those borne of spontaneous mutation. Merle may *appear* recessive in the case of those that are lightly marked, cryptic or those borne of mutation. But genetically merle is dominant to non-merle. "Recessive" merles are just a case of phenotype differing from genotype.

As for those getting litter after litter of all merles, that is simple. You take a double merle (MM) & breed it to a non-merle (mm). Since all the double merle has to pass on is it's the merle allele (M), the whole litter will be Mm merles.

Ceasar: I don't think AmBullies should be called pit bulls. But I don't think ASTs, SBTs & staffs from the UK should be either. I think only one type of dog should be called a pit bull, that being the APBT. But that is JMHO.

 

while i do agree they are mutts, i still think they are a "pitbull" just in the same way a APBT/boxer would be called one on the news. having a questionable heritage makes them a "pitbull" automatically as its not really a breed. its a group of breeds

 

I agree. American "Pitbull" Terrier is the only breed of dog that should be called a "Pitbull". The governments definition is alittle bit different.

 

i respectfully disagree, i think the mixes as you describe are or should be known as "bully breeds" (apart from the AMERICAN bully, although they would be included in this grouping, as well as APBT's). The thing we need to fix though, is the damn media calling ANY "bully" breed a pitbull in the news, because when these backyard bred mutts go unstable and bite someone then everyone puts it as a tally against the real pitbulls who have been bred for more than a hundred years NOT TO BITE HUMANS (which is the BIGGEST misconception the public has about our dogs). I mean how often does a lab or golden retriever who attacks someone get in the news? Not anywhere NEAR as much as any type of dog, purebred or not, that is CALLED a "pitbull". I think the name "pitbull" by itself should be reserved for the American "Pit Bull" Terrier. JMHO

 

I don't know where they get this umbrella "pit bull" thing. All it does is hurt our breed b/c when a pit bull mix or even an unrelated breed such as an American Bulldog bites, it's automatically a "pit bull" bite.

I mean when I had German Shepherds I called them German Shepherds even though there is technically a shepherd "family" out there (i.e. Belgian Shepherd, Dutch Shepherd, Australian Shepherd, etc.) most of whom share the same physical characteristics.

 

I think pit bull belongs to the APBT only as well.As history tells it,the Staffy Bull and APBT share at least some common ancestry.Many years later they are two distinct breeds.The AST came about because the AKC didn't want to be associated with a name including pit.To then lump all these breeds back together seems a little backwards.

 

EXACTLY thank you abk

 

my logic is im not gonna try to teach someone what all the different "pitbulls" are, but ill tell em what an American Pit Bull Terrier is.

 

dave wilson was the first to breed the "ambullys" he has an whole book on it...he founded the "re" line 20yrs ago...he says he had gamedogs for a while but was forced to move cause thaey "banned" a.p.b.t whre he lived..he admits he had an old tombtone/bolio/redboy dog that was "fat" and out of shape and made him wonder what these dogs would look like "bigger" so he carefully selected a.p.b.t and breed them to larger "amstaffs" and after alot of time and effort he got the style dog he was lookin for..."cairo" was the first "bully" he owned and is still living till this day..his vision as he says was to produce a dog with a large "blocky" style head,wider in the chest,without being overdone liike they are to day low to the ground but still functional and #1 great temperment..he owns these dogs such as lil ro,lil rizzy.etc..but there is other nreeders out there crossed them with mastiffs and god knows what else..personally i like the dogs that dave wilson owns...not the whole "re" line but i dont like "gottiline" dogs there is so much mastiff,american,english bulldog in that "bloodline" they should be slapped!! Highly disfunctionly and most dont live but a couple years...jmo:d