View Full Version : tricolour bred with ruby

29th January 2009, 12:57 AM
Hi there, just wondering if anyone can help me. My mum is trying to buy a ruby. We have come across one whose sire is probably the most responsible breeders in our country and are well respected international judges etc...My question is why have they bred a tricolour with a ruby? The ruby pup has some white markings on its chest and a small one on its head. The breeder assures us that these will disappear however, we have spoken with other cav breeders who are doubtful that these marks will disappear especially the one on its head. I just don't understand why they bred a tricolour with a ruby when they have many other black and tan sires that they could have used hence avoiding the white mismarkings. My mum may be interested in getting started in showing so we're just not sure what to do. It just seems to be so difficult to source rubies. I would really appreciate if anyone might have any insight into why the breeder may have chosen to breed a tricolour with a ruby? Many thanks

29th January 2009, 01:25 AM
My breeder stated that the reason she will breed a whole color with a parti-color (black and tan or ruby with a blenheim or tri) is to improve the overall dog. She says you do run more risk of mismarked puppies, but you can get your best offspring from those breedings. Additionally, depending on the genes that the parents were carrying (the recessive ones) you can get all four colors from the breeding of tri to ruby. If you have ever had the opportunity to notice, there ARE differences beyond color in the different colors. For example, tri's and Black and Tans seem to have more ear leather and a different texture of ear feathering than ruby's and blenheims.

Your breeder is right that the white may completely fade. My breeder has a ruby puppy right now that is 6 months old. I saw this baby at a week old and it had a white snip on it's nose that went into a blaze all the way up on top of it's head. She also had a white spot on her chest. By 4 months, there was NO white left on her head and the chest white was down to a few hairs.

29th January 2009, 06:03 PM
Brotymo, thank you so much for that mine of wonderful info. I have actually just put the phone down with a different breeder who has told me much the same as what you have just said. Thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it!! Now I can just focus on making sure it has a good chance of being a healthy pup which is the most important thing (obviously)! :flwr:

29th January 2009, 07:07 PM
Hi, I don't understand about the ways of breeding, but my b&t had white markings and he still has white markings and he is almost two years old. It makes no difference to us though as we love him anyhow.:luv:

29th January 2009, 07:14 PM
It is very common for wholecolours to have white markings. The wholecolour gene pool was very small at one point so it would be hard now to find wholecolours that don't have some particolours in their lineage. That can produce white markings. It makes no difference for a pet and makes no difference for some show dogs, either. The absolute least important element a breeder breeds for, and a judge looks at (in almost all cases), is the markings.

It is impossible to know whether a puppy's white markings will disappear -- it's a matter of waiting to see :). It isn't the the white fades, what happens is that the solid colour spreads and fills in the white areas. Black spreads far more than red. A narrow blaze on a tri puppy is almost certainly going to disappear. A blaze on a ruby may or may not.

29th January 2009, 07:25 PM
Thanks Karlin, I appreciate the info. It doesn't seem to really matter whether or not the white mismarkings disappear or not I guess. What I had really just been curious about is why someone would breed a tricolour with a ruby when given the choice of numerous B +T potential sires. I think I understand now that it is actually for the overall good of the breed as a whole. :lotsaluv:

29th January 2009, 07:39 PM
Have PM'd you

29th January 2009, 09:43 PM
Yes, Nicola, a good breeder will be breeding for the whole dog (health, temperment and conformation), not for color. Color is a lottery. It is always exciting to see how they are marked, but it is never (or shouldn't ever be) the goal.

30th January 2009, 03:16 AM
when given the choice of numerous B +T potential sires.

Actually this wouldn't necessarily be the case -- my understanding is that it is very hard to find B&T sires and there'd not really be any reason, outside of the colour options they might want from a litter and the strength of a given sire, why anyone would feel they'd need to use a wholecolour rather than a tri (or any other colour). many breeders do not care to use their own sires as the dogs end up too closely related and inbred.

Given that responsible breeders are trying to use sires that are fully health checked -- eg cardiologist tested, over 2.5 years old, with cardio'd and heart clear parents; and increasingly, also MRId, this would further greatly reduce the pool of potential sires. Plus a dog might be a wonderful dog but because of its lineage be the absolute wrong match for a given bitch. The litter could end up too inbred, there could be potential health issues by crossing those lines; there could be a physical feature that would be likely with the two lines. In general, breeding responsibly is extremely complicated with many ethical issues bound up with the choices made so finding a good sire is never easy to start with, and much harder for wholecolours as they are less popular. B&Ts are the hardest to find and least popular colour of the four options. Some breeders find it very hard to place B&T (and ruby) litters as well so all these things influence breeding decisions.