[JBandRio]

I think this got lost in DB's thread on Kippur

Does anyone have any feel for how the appy patterns affect the foal's color? We already know that as they age, the appy genes can really, really s.crew with the normal presentation of colors. But are the foal colors "pure" enough for the appy patterns to not be affecting them yet?

[doublebarr]

LOL, I have NO clue, LOL

[Top Dun]

I beleive that the foal coat is for the most part a fairly accurate guide. for example the Grulla mare that now looks almost orangish definately LOOKED like A grulla as a foal.

Originally Posted by JBandRio

I think this got lost in DB's thread on Kippur

Does anyone have any feel for how the appy patterns affect the foal's color? We already know that as they age, the appy genes can really, really s.crew with the normal presentation of colors. But are the foal colors "pure" enough for the appy patterns to not be affecting them yet?

[Horsefeathers3]

I'm like TD, I tend to think that the foal coat is usually pretty good to base the true color off of. But then again, I sometimes think "why would age be a factor in how their coats turns out to be?". If, say, there was a cream gene and LP in play (such as in Kippur's case) WHY would age make any difference in how the base color appeared? I know that patterns grow and change the appearance of a horse, but would age do that to the base color? The grulla filly in the other thread changed a lot in color as she aged, which confuses me even more.

My whole post is basically a bunch of questions. I'll give major credit to whoever ends up truly figuring out appy genetics oneday.

[accphotography]

I have seen lots of really crazy App colors, but every time I've ever seen a foal photo, they were fairly normal looking. I've yet to see a weird foal color, unless Kippur is really EE, he'd be the first for me.

Haas your friend smokey black... does she have baby photos?

I am going to do some research on this when I have time and ask a few friends who are App. breeders. I'm intrigued...

ACC

[doublebarr]

If we're talking "foal coats" being true indicators of their "base coat", then what about most black foals? Aren't they "usually" (but not always) born much lighter than their "true black" base coat on aging? Usually a "mousey" black without being true grullo, color?

And look at buckskins. Many are born looking "palomino" without any obvious dark points. Is that cream affecting the "color" of the black pigment in the hair? I believe I have seen this more in "buttermilk or soft buckskin foals.

Just throwing that out there, haven't really thought it through before in depth. It is interesting to start "reviewing" past foals in my head, LOL.

[accphotography]

Well I think JB is more talking about comparisons to non app. foal colors. Ala do a palomino non app. and a palomino app. look the same at birth? If not, what is it that is different and when does it become noticeable?

ACC

[JBandRio]

Originally Posted by doublebarr

If we're talking "foal coats" being true indicators of their "base coat", then what about most black foals? Aren't they "usually" (but not always) born much lighter than their "true black" base coat on aging? Usually a "mousey" black without being true grullo, color?

But that's the thing - we KNOW that blacks are born largely with that mousey color, so that is a true indicator of the actual color. And, if they are also going to gray out, then most of the time they are actually born with the adult color - they ARE black, they ARE bay w/ black points. etc. So yes, the foal coat in your example IS a pretty reliable indicator of the true color.

And look at buckskins. Many are born looking "palomino" without any obvious dark points. Is that cream affecting the "color" of the black pigment in the hair? I believe I have seen this more in "buttermilk or soft buckskin foals.

IME the buckskin foals do have black at least right at the crest of their mane, even if the majority if their manes are "palomino" looking. The tails are often the same way too. And, their cute little fetlocks, assuming no white, are often "shaded", giving the indications of black. But to your point, I have seen a few buckskin foals who didn't appear to have any black on them at birth, though it did become apparent within a couple of months.

Just throwing that out there, haven't really thought it through before in depth. It is interesting to start "reviewing" past foals in my head, LOL.

yep, that was my purpose It's already been said that the adult colors get screwy, but when your Kippur came along, all the questions about "but his foal color doesn't indicate this" came up, hence my question

[JBandRio]

Originally Posted by accphotography

Well I think JB is more talking about comparisons to non app. foal colors. Ala do a palomino non app. and a palomino app. look the same at birth? If not, what is it that is different and when does it become noticeable?

ACC

Yep, exactly, I didn't read this before I replied to DB

[Mutrok]

This is my gelding who I can't figure out his true color and likely because of Lp. I plan on getting him tested because I want to repeat the breeding and I am just curious. I will try to pull hairs tomorrow and send them off....pushes me to get it done, lol.

Mom is EeAa. Dad is bay and EeA? Everyone either tells me they think he is liver chestnut or bay...I personally (not saying it isn't possible ) have never seen a liver chestnut or bay look so gray as a baby. Definitely the Lp affecting his coloring....as a baby and now.

Here he is at 1 wk old




Weanling


Yearling


And a picture of his eyes