Breeding Color Combination (Pictures)

[Lenhart]

I recently purchased 2 rabbits for 4-H. I first bought my black rabbit, Jasper I am not sure on his age he may be 6 olds. He is a purebred black Holland lop. He has the tattoo, but I never got his pedigree. I got him in the first place to do 4-H with, but the first meetings are coming up and he still has a bit of work needed on him (He likes to nip, and has a bit of a temperament problem). Yesterday, I bought another purebred Holland lop, Glory born 6/16/10. She is a Broken Black Tort and also has the tattoo. The lady didn't have the pedigree, but may send it if she contacts the previous owner that has them. She is involved with 4-H, and a 4-H leader I believe.


My question would be; I was just curious if I were to breed the two of them what color combinations I would get, and if the kits would be showable. I have read a bit about the breeding process, and know the right age to breed, etc. So I am not clueless and wouldn't be irresponsible. I am just curious it doesn't mean that I will. I would wait until next year. The main reason I might is because I know a few people who would love to do 4-H with a rabbit.


Here is Jasper. This was taking about a month ago, he is a bit bigger now.

And here is Glory taken today. She is quite a bit smaller then Jasper.

 

[TheSheepGirl]

The color combinations would all depend upon the genetics of the pair. If you had the pedigrees it would help you to know and even then it would only be guessing.

When I bred my hollands I had a broken tort buck and a black buck and also a black doe and a broken blue doe. When I bred my black buck to any of my does I would get all blacks and broken blacks. When I bred my broken buck to my does i would get all broken torts.

I had one doe that would produce entire litters of chestnuts every time she was bred.

Whether or not the babies would be showable depends upon the babies. The colors would most likely be blacks or torts because tort is a fairly common color and is often dominant. These colors are showable.

It comes down to markings and body type. Breeding a broken to a solid rabbit is a good way to go if you are after showable brokens with the corect ballance of color to white. I can also add white to solid rabbits that shouldn't be there and scattered white hairs in black rabbits.

The key point to a holland is the large blocky head and ears. They should have a wide crown and a big boned round body. Many of the show breeders take the head to the extremes and away from the small proportionate heads that were once the norm.

Not to shoot your rabbit down or give him a bad name, but temperment is a genetically carried trait. If he is nippy and prone to biting then his kids might be too. Temperment should be a big factor shen selecting breeders. If I have a nippy rabbit I don't breed it.

Your tort has a nice ratio of white to colored and your black is nice and black, so I would go ahead and breed them and see what you get. Hollands are very popular and there is a nice market for anything that is unshowable.

 

[Bunnylady]

The most obvious problem that I see with Glory has to do with her crown (the place at the top of her head, between her ears). You see how her ears go forward, looking a little like the blinkers on a driving horse bridle? They do that because her crown has slipped a bit too far back on her head (a fault, not a DQ). The ideal position would have the ears going straight down the sides of her face. Her head looks like it might be a tad narrow on the top too. At 4 months old, she's pretty close to as big as she will get, though her head will probably improve some as she matures. (Of course, she may have been a bit tense when the pictures were taken, that can throw off the ear position on juniors).

Jasper's ear position is better, but then, it would be. It looks to me like Jasper's ears hang down more than 1" below his chin, exceeding the maximum in the ARBA breed standard. He is most likely a "false dwarf," and will probably wind up going over the weight limit for show rabbits (a DQ). I don't know what the 4-H requirements are, do the rabbits have to meet the ARBA standard? To someone who shows in ARBA sanctioned shows, there are a lot of things besides color that go into making a rabbit "showable."

I know you didn't ask to have your rabbits critiqued, so I will stop with what I have already said. The reason I mentioned what I did, is because the Holland Lop is a very popular breed, and there is a big difference between "show quality" and "free of the things that will get it DQ'd." Biting is a DQ in ARBA sanctioned shows, no judge wants to get chewed on by the animals in the class he's judging! Since temperament is at least partly inheritable, I'm having some doubts about the wisdom of using Jasper as a breeding animal for this reason; I would hate to sell a rabbit that turned out mean to anyone (rabbits can be really vicious - I have the scars to prove it!)

The Holland Lop is one of the breeds that employs the dwarfing gene to get the compact animal described in the breed standard. Without going into too much detail, some Hollands will get the dwarfing gene, some won't, and will grow oversized. Breeding a "false dwarf" to a "true dwarf" will give each kit a 50/50 chance of becoming an oversized false dwarf, but at least all of the kits do have a chance of surviving (true dwarf x true dwarf breedings yield approximately 25% mortality rates). If 4-H doesn't have a problem with oversized animals, great. If they require that the animal fit the breed standard, you will need to learn to recognize true vs. false dwarf type, to be sure that you sell your friends rabbits that they can actually show with.

Now, to answer the question that you asked!

Black and Tort are both self-based colors, so all of the babies would be selfs (in other words, no agouti- or tan-based colors). Broken is dominant; since the doe is a broken, each of her babies has a 50/50 chance of being a broken (not the same thing as saying half of her babies will be brokens, they may not). The likeliest color to get from this cross is black, either solid or broken. The doe is a tort, so she will give the non-extension gene to all of her babies. If the buck carries the non-extension gene, they could have tort babies. Depending on what other recessives the parents are carrying but not expressing, a couple of other likely possibilities are blue and blue tort. If the parents are carrying shading genes, you might get siamese-type shadeds, or even sable points. Pedigrees often help to clue you in on what may be lurking in the gene pool, but sometimes colors (like REW) can hide for generations, popping up when you least expect them! There are a few possible colors that might turn up (like Pearl Point) that wouldn't be showable, but the colors that you most likely will get shouldn't be a problem at all. Clear as mud?

 

[Bunnylady]

tort is a fairly common color and is often dominant.

Ummm, no, tort is recessive, not dominant. It is very, very common in Holland Lops (I'd estimate that 80% of the Holland Lops that I have seen have been either torts or broken torts). With so many animals being that color, even those that aren't that color have a high likelyhood of carrying the non-extension gene; put two carriers together and you have really good odds of getting tort babies!

 

[Lenhart]

Thank you both for replying to my questions, and giving so much information I really appreciate it. A reply about Jasper: That is good to know, thank you. I was trying to sell him before I got Glory in the first place. He really only bites when I try to look at his teeth, and when I sit with him he bites our clothes, and doesn't stop. Alot of people were saying I had to work with him but he is really just starting to bite harder! I just went out and measured his ears and they are about 1 1/2 an inch below his chin. I may or may not keep him. Reply about Glory: The pictures I took of her earlier, I recognized her ears in the pictures were a lot in her face. (She was playing in the garden when I was taking the pictures, the other was in her cage) I went out and took a few more pictures of her when she was more calmed down, and saw the change in her ears.

(I love Glory, she is such a sweetheart. There is no way I'd get rid of her, even if she isn't perfect show standard). The woman I got her from DID mention she was a little small, and a few other faults. But said she was still show quality. I will not be breeding her to Jasper. Thank you guys so much for the information with the rabbits. I still have quite a bit to learn about the breed!

 

[TheSheepGirl]

Her ears look a bit better in these pictures. You would really have to feel the position of the crown in some cases to get a good feel for it. Feel her crown. It should be right in the center of her head and not positioned back or forward very far. Her crown should also be wide, as many fingers between the ears as possible.

Her ears may look better in those pictures because the was older. The crown can sometimes take a while to mature.

There are different versions and opinions on what the term "show quality" means. To me it means that the animal is able to be shown without getting kicked off the table. In many cases, though these animals, though they are free of DQ's will not win the show.

I have found that the way people have been breeding their hollands to look has changed a lot over the years. When I started 7 years ago hollands weren't as common as now. They had considerably smaller and less blocky heads than those you would see today. Holland lops have been bred now to have what I believe is an extremely large and mostly disproportionate head. Their size has also gone up. Holland breeders used to pride themselves on producing rabbits that were 2 pounds and now they are all edging up toward 3.5 pounds with some pushing the limits of the top weight.

Don't let this discourage you, though. It takes years and years and generation after generation to get animals that are of the highest quality. Or it just takes lots of money to buy animals like that.

You also have to decide why you are breeding and raising your rabbits and if you want to be a big breeder with a hundred rabbits that keeps them under artificial lighting to prevent sunburned coloring and wins all the shows, or if you want to be a small breeder that may not always win, but has fun showing and enjoys breeding their rabbits.

 

[TheSheepGirl]

Ummm, no, tort is recessive, not dominant. It is very, very common in Holland Lops (I'd estimate that 80% of the Holland Lops that I have seen have been either torts or broken torts). With so many animals being that color, even those that aren't that color have a high likelyhood of carrying the non-extension gene; put two carriers together and you have really good odds of getting tort babies!

If you breed rabbits carrying the gene together and have a good chance of getting babies with that trait, doesn't that make it a dominant. If it were truly a recessive, then you wouldn't stand a good chance of getting that trait from breeding rabbits that carry it.

I should think that if it were a true recessive then the number of hollands that are tort wouldn't be as high as 80%. If something is common, then I sould think it is a dominant and not a recessive.

True recessives are things like BEW that only occur rarely.

No matter what you do with a tort or a rabbit that has tort in its background you are going to get at least one tort if not a whole litter. I have found that no amtter where I get my torts or rabbits that carry tort, I get tort babies.

We had to learn all of this stuff in Science class and it is all part of 4-H.

 

[Bunnylady]

TheSheepGirl, you seem to be a little confused about what the terms dominant and recessive mean when used in a discussion on genetics. They have nothing to do with how common a color is, nor with how likely the color is to be inherited.

Rabbit coat color is a complex business. There are two pigments involved, Eumelanin (black/brown) and Pheomelanin (yellow/red). There are a bunch of different genes that control how much of each is produced, and precisely where each pigment appears on the rabbit's hairs. Add the influence of all of these genes together, and you have the color of that rabbit.

Many genes have more than one form they come in, called alleles. For example, the "B" gene has two forms, one that codes for black, one that codes for brown (chocolate). Like most organisms, rabbits have two complete sets of genes, one that came from the mother, one from the father, though the alleles that the parents have may or may not be identical.

A dominant allele is one that, if it is present, will show itself. It cannot hide; you will see the influence of the dominant gene for sure. If a rabbit inherits an allele for black, it will be black, so the allele for black is said to be dominant and is symbolized by the letter B (dominant alleles are given capital letters). When you have a fully dominant allele like black, it doesn't matter if the rabbit got the black allele from both parents (BB), or one (B) from one parent and one for chocolate (b) from the other, both situations give you a black rabbit.

A recessive allele "takes a back seat" to the dominant allele. The allele for chocolate is recessive to black, so it is designated with a lower-case letter (b). The only way you will see a recessive color is if there is no more dominant form present. A chocolate rabbit has to have inherited the chocolate allele from both parents (bb) because if it had even one black allele, it would be black. If a pair of black rabbits produce even one chocolate baby, you know that both parents are carrying a chocolate allele (Bb), either that or the parents of that bunny aren't who you think they are!

REW occurs in the C series. There are several alleles in the C series:

C - full color (both black and yellow pigment produced, in the largest quantity possible)

cchd - dark chinchilla (most of the black pigment possible, and almost no yellow)

cchm - medium chinchilla (some people don't believe that this allele exists)

cchl - light chinchilla (no yellow pigment, a lot of black pigment on the "points" and less on the body, giving Siamese-type shading)

ch - Himilayan (black pigment on the points only, red eyes)

c - full albino, no pigment produced. (white rabbit with red eyes, [REW])

That ^ is called a "ladder of dominance," each allele is dominant to the ones below it, and recessive to those above it. Although there are 6 possible alleles in this series, any particular rabbit has only two of these genes (one from the mother, one from the father), they may be two of the same allele, or two different alleles. As you can see, REW is on the lowest rung, it is the most recessive in the series. You can breed REW's together until the cows come home, and you won't get any other color, because the only allele they have is the most recessive (c). The New Zealand White is a REW (cc), there are millions of 'em, but the gene is still the most recessive in the series. Just because one particular allele happens to be common (or in the case of NZW's, the only allele in the entire population) doesn't change the fact that it is recessive. If you breed a REW to any other color, and you get even one REW baby, that means that the colored parent is carrying the REW allele. If both parents aren't carrying at least one REW allele, you will never, ever get REW babies, because REW hides behind every other color. A rabbit will only be a REW when there isn't a more dominant allele present in that rabbit's genes.

Tort is a similar situation. Tort is a non-extension color, meaning that it is caused by the non-extension allele. The non-extension allele occurs in the E series:

Es - Steel

E - Normal coloration of both black and yellow

ej - harlequin allele; black and yellow in separate patches

e - non-extension (black pigment is pushed to the very tip of the hair shaft, so not "extended" into the rest of the hair)

There is some debate over whether there may actually be another even more dominant allele (dominant black) at the very top of this ladder, but it really doesn't matter, the non-extension allele is still at the very bottom of the pile. If you have a tort, or an orange, or a sable point*, you know they are ee, because there is no allele lower on the ladder. A black rabbit may be EE, or Eej, or Ee, you can't really tell by looking, but if it is bred to another rabbit and produces torts, you know it is Ee.


*Tort is the result of a combination of self(aa) in the A series, normal pigment (C_) in the C series, and non-extension (ee) in the E series. Orange is the same as tort, except combined with agouti (A_) instead of self (aa). Sable point is self (aa), shaded (cchl_) and non-extension (ee).

No matter what you do with a tort or a rabbit that has tort in its background you are going to get at least one tort if not a whole litter.

Sorry, but this is not true. You will probably get torts, but there is no guarantee. A case in point: I had a Holland Lop doe that was playing the rabbit named "Chester" on One Tree Hill. She was a broken tort. When she started, she was 3 years old, and I know that the life expectancy of an unspayed doe isn't a great deal longer than that. As previously noted, tort is dead common in Hollands, and I knew that I had torts behind every Holland in my rabbitry, surely I could breed an "understudy" for her, right? No such luck! During the years that she played Chester, my rabbits gave birth to blues, blacks, Siamese sables, brokens of all of those colors; even the odd REW, but no broken torts! When Cupcake died more than a year ago, I still hadn't managed to replace her. The studio didn't like the only broken tort that I managed to buy (spotted rather than blanket pattern; they didn't think she was similar enough) so they have a rabbit that belongs to someone else in the role of Chester now. I have had several broken blue torts born to some of the same rabbits, and still, no simple torts or broken torts!

 

[TheSheepGirl]

Apparently you seem quite intent upon your theories for proving me wrong, so I won't argue with you any further, but you seem to be contradicting yourself upon every chance you have and every time you post a reply.

You said that dominat does not necessarily mean that it is likely to occur. You then stated later that a dominant trait can't be hidden and will show itself, doesn't that mean it is likely to occur, since, according to that, it will appear over a recessive.

All you did was repost what I said and just use fancier and more precise language. A simple reply would have been sufficient instead of stating an entire essay's worth to prove your point.

When I posted before I didn't use the science to back me up, which perhaps I should have.

Tort is not simply do to the ee recessive, but to an entire list of capital letters that are ahead of it. Though the ee which gives it the black to be a tort is recessive, the entire strain is comprised of dominants aside from ee.

Due to the fact that the e occurs twice it makes your chance of getting at least one tort pretty likely. This is all according to a Punit Square. I used one to figure it out.

I didn't need the entire run down on what is aquired from the parents and what letters represent what and all the other things you posted. I have studied genetics before and I just read the wrong chart of genetics.

I paid attention in Biology and even got an A on all of the papers regarding punit squares and genetic series. We even used as many as four combinations of capital and lowercase letters at a time.

Were there any torts that were close up on the pedigrees or were they pretty far back? If they were at the end of the generations or if they weren't on the pedigree and you were simply assuming they had it in them, then the ee had most likely been out ranked by a dominant, but when it is close up or the rabbiot is a tort, then the double e gives it a good distribution in the genetics or in a punit square.

 

[Bunnylady]

Apparently you seem quite intent upon your theories for proving me wrong, so I won't argue with you any further, but you seem to be contradicting yourself upon every chance you have and every time you post a reply.

I have not contradicted myself yet, and they aren't "my theories," they are the Mendelian rules of genetic inheritance

You said that dominat does not necessarily mean that it is likely to occur. You then stated later that a dominant trait can't be hidden and will show itself, doesn't that mean it is likely to occur, since, according to that, it will appear over a recessive.

The likelihood of an allele being passed along is exactly the same, whether it is dominant or recessive. If a rabbit has one dominant allele and one recessive allele, the odds of a baby getting the dominant allele from that parent are exactly the same as that of the baby getting the recessive, 50/50. If a rabbit doesn't have a certain allele, it can't pass it along. If all a rabbit has are recessive alleles, then all it can pass along are recessive alleles, they don't become dominants just because they are the only team in the ballpark.

All you did was repost what I said and just use fancier and more precise language. A simple reply would have been sufficient instead of stating an entire essay's worth to prove your point.

Obviously, a simple reply wouldn't have done, since with all that I have said you still don't see the errors in your thought process.

When I posted before I didn't use the science to back me up, which perhaps I should have.

I'd love to see this, really I would, because I suspect you would find out where you went wrong and see that what I have been saying is correct.

Tort is not simply do to the ee recessive, but to an entire list of capital letters that are ahead of it. Though the ee which gives it the black to be a tort is recessive, the entire strain is comprised of dominants aside from ee.

The non-extention gene (e) doesn't give you the black, it removes most of the black from the hair shaft. As I stated, tort is a self-based color, self (a) being the most recessive allele in the A series. That's one set that doesn't have a capital in it.



Due to the fact that the e occurs twice it makes your chance of getting at least one tort pretty likely. This is all according to a Punit Square. I used one to figure it out.

A tort only has non-extension (e) alleles at the E locus, so that is all it can pass along. If the rabbit you are breeding a tort to doesn't happen to have a non-extension allele it can't pass one along, so you won't get any torts from that pairing, no matter how many times you breed them together.

I didn't need the entire run down on what is aquired from the parents and what letters represent what and all the other things you posted. I have studied genetics before and I just read the wrong chart of genetics.

Perhaps, but the OP and anyone else reading this may not have. This is an open forum, after all, and I am trying to keep everyone on the same page. I find talking over people's heads rather rude, so I try to keep it as simple as possible and explain as I go.

I paid attention in Biology and even got an A on all of the papers regarding punit squares and genetic series. We even used as many as four combinations of capital and lowercase letters at a time.

Good for you! But so did I; I once did a paper for a college genetics course on the coat color genetics of mice (graduated cum laude with a major in Biology, minor in Chemistry, as if that matters). So what?

Were there any torts that were close up on the pedigrees or were they pretty far back? If they were at the end of the generations or if they weren't on the pedigree and you were simply assuming they had it in them, then the ee had most likely been out ranked by a dominant, but when it is close up or the rabbiot is a tort, then the double e gives it a good distribution in the genetics or in a punit square.

I don't remember all of the details of all of the rabbits I was working with, because some of them are dead (if I don't keep any offspring, I may not keep the pedigree of a rabbit that has died) and others have been sold, and this was spanning several years. But I do know at least one of the does was sired by a tort, another was herself a broken tort (dissimilar pattern again). One of the bucks (a blue, out of a broken orange) is still alive, and recently gave me a litter of 2 blacks and a blue when bred to the broken tort doe that the studio didn't like (her name is Fantasia). Their second litter was a broken black and a broken blue tort. When his blue son (out of a different doe) was bred to Fantasia's broken tort daughter (also a purchase, not a homebred) they produced a litter of 4 broken blue torts. Their second litter was a blue, a black, and a broken black . As you can see, the non-extension allele is there, it just hadn't been "pairing up" in the offspring!