Metallic Gene Question

[EclipticEnd]

I've gotten a bit confused with the metallic gene recently, particularly on whether the genes stack. By this I mean, do two genes cause a visible difference in a horse's appearance compared to a single gene?

Take these three palominos as an example. The top is very metallic and very golden. The second is also metallic, but isn't as saturated. The last isn't metallic at all. Is the top a color variant, or rather the result of the horse having two metallic genes? If that's the case, would the second have only one gene and as such, retain a more normal color?








I also have these cremellos. The top is metallic, the second is a different variant, and I'm assuming the third isn't metallic. The top one is notably more... contrasted? Around the top of its back. Is that sooty or a result of the metallic gene? It's also noticeably more golden in color than the other two. You can see that at the flank and the top of the neck.








Continuing on this track, look at these buckskins. The top is very golden, as I've noted with the other colors as well, and also has high contrast along the back. The second's a more normal shade, granted the legs are super dark. The third lacks the metallic gene.

[Hidalgo]

I've gotten a bit confused with the metallic gene recently, particularly on whether the genes stack. By this I mean, do two genes cause a visible difference in a horse's appearance compared to a single gene?

I'm fairly certain they all are metallic except for that last buckskin. I looked through their pedigrees, and most if not all of their parents are metallic. However it's kind of hard evaluate the level of metallic they have because the training sheen kind of hides it. I'd say the main difference in their color is from being sooty; the first and possibly the second palomino, the first cremello and the first and second buckskins are all sooty. I think there may extra creme dilution in the middle palomino and buckskin, which would account for the lighter colors. I not sure about whether the metallic gene stacks or not but I'm sure one of the color experts can tell us

[EclipticEnd]

I'm fairly certain they all are metallic except for that last buckskin. I looked through their pedigrees, and most if not all of their parents are metallic. However it's kind of hard evaluate the level of metallic they have because the training sheen kind of hides it. I'd say the main difference in their color is from being sooty; the first and possibly the second palomino, the first cremello and the first and second buckskins are all sooty. I think there may extra creme dilution in the middle palomino and buckskin, which would account for the lighter colors. I not sure about whether the metallic gene stacks or not but I'm sure one of the color experts can tell us

Ah. I'm working through genetics with my turkmenes (which are all of these minus the last buckskin which isn't mine nor a turkmene) and it got me wondering if double metallic genes had an easy tell through appearance. I started getting confused with the cremellos because they're shiny, but some are shinier than others or some have higher contrast in the face than others.

[Hidalgo]

I'm fairly certain they all are metallic except for that last buckskin. I looked through their pedigrees, and most if not all of their parents are metallic. However it's kind of hard evaluate the level of metallic they have because the training sheen kind of hides it. I'd say the main difference in their color is from being sooty; the first and possibly the second palomino, the first cremello and the first and second buckskins are all sooty. I think there may extra creme dilution in the middle palomino and buckskin, which would account for the lighter colors. I not sure about whether the metallic gene stacks or not but I'm sure one of the color experts can tell us

Ah. I'm working through genetics with my turkmenes (which are all of these minus the last buckskin which isn't mine nor a turkmene) and it got me wondering if double metallic genes had an easy tell through appearance. I started getting confused with the cremellos because they're shiny, but some are shinier than others or some have higher contrast in the face than others.

Right I bred Turmenes for a while too and I also wondered if some had more shine than others. My theory (and I could well be wrong) is that the metallic sheen just shows up more easily on mid-tone colors like buckskin, palomino and chestnut, and is harder to see on super dark and super light colors, like black, perlino or cremello. IF my theory is true, then the darkness caused by the sooty might help add just enough contrast to the lighter colors to help the metallic sheen look stronger. But again, I really don't know?

[EclipticEnd]

Ah. I'm working through genetics with my turkmenes (which are all of these minus the last buckskin which isn't mine nor a turkmene) and it got me wondering if double metallic genes had an easy tell through appearance. I started getting confused with the cremellos because they're shiny, but some are shinier than others or some have higher contrast in the face than others.

Right I bred Turmenes for a while too and I also wondered if some had more shine than others. My theory (and I could well be wrong) is that the metallic sheen just shows up more easily on mid-tone colors like buckskin, palomino and chestnut, and is harder to see on super dark and super light colors, like black, perlino or cremello. IF my theory is true, then the darkness caused by the sooty might help add just enough contrast to the lighter colors to help the metallic sheen look stronger. But again, I really don't know?

Sounds like a good theory to me. Since the metallic gene seems to enhance contrast, the added darkness from sooty would make a visual distinction.

[BlackOak2]

Right I bred Turmenes for a while too and I also wondered if some had more shine than others. My theory (and I could well be wrong) is that the metallic sheen just shows up more easily on mid-tone colors like buckskin, palomino and chestnut, and is harder to see on super dark and super light colors, like black, perlino or cremello. IF my theory is true, then the darkness caused by the sooty might help add just enough contrast to the lighter colors to help the metallic sheen look stronger. But again, I really don't know?

Sounds like a good theory to me. Since the metallic gene seems to enhance contrast, the added darkness from sooty would make a visual distinction.

You are both not wrong in your thinking.

Generally speaking, I think we have the metallic gene as a 'buildable' style, but not a stacking (like the cream gene). So one or two metallic genes won't change the look. But like some of the other genes (notably pangare and dun) you can make the metallic stronger by breeding together strong metallic parents, or weaker, by breeding together weak metallic parents.
Though this might not be accurate, from previous experiences, this is the style gene that our metallic is.

To go into just a little more theory on your horses that you linked.
And as a reminder note: The metallic is given away by coloring on the face, on all colors.

My opinions only, because the metallic gene is a bit difficult to identify.
First palomino: gentle version of metallic (in my opinion). Much of the sheen is training sheen.
Second palomino: Flaxen and likely dun. Medium metallic (about in the middle of the buildable genes we have).
Third palomino: This horse has pangare. And also, very minimal metallic, almost cryptic.

First cremello: I want to say this horse has some odd combination of dun, flaxen or pangare. But it's very hard to tell. The sooty along her back gives the distinction of stripes that could be dun or sooty dapples. So... I don't know. As far as metallic, I'd say near medium. These light horses are hard to distinguish, as you've figured out.
Second cremello: Medium to heavy metallic. And probably also affected by dun.
Third cremello: This is more like what this color should look like, when not affected by other dilutions like dun and pangare. Much more uniform colored throughout. Also a bit affected by sooty, there around the neck and chest. Probably heavy metallic.

First buckskin: medium metallic.
Second buckskin: medium metallic.
Third buckskin: little to no metallic.

The face gives away the metallic, so that's where I look. It's most obvious when we look at black horses. Here's an example of metallic and not metallic (the second is an AC belgian, a breed that won't carry the gene from the center).

[EclipticEnd]

You are both not wrong in your thinking.

Generally speaking, I think we have the metallic gene as a 'buildable' style, but not a stacking (like the cream gene). So one or two metallic genes won't change the look. But like some of the other genes (notably pangare and dun) you can make the metallic stronger by breeding together strong metallic parents, or weaker, by breeding together weak metallic parents.
Though this might not be accurate, from previous experiences, this is the style gene that our metallic is.

To go into just a little more theory on your horses that you linked.
And as a reminder note: The metallic is given away by coloring on the face, on all colors.

My opinions only, because the metallic gene is a bit difficult to identify.
First palomino: gentle version of metallic (in my opinion). Much of the sheen is training sheen.
Second palomino: Flaxen and likely dun. Medium metallic (about in the middle of the buildable genes we have).
Third palomino: This horse has pangare. And also, very minimal metallic, almost cryptic.

First cremello: I want to say this horse has some odd combination of dun, flaxen or pangare. But it's very hard to tell. The sooty along her back gives the distinction of stripes that could be dun or sooty dapples. So... I don't know. As far as metallic, I'd say near medium. These light horses are hard to distinguish, as you've figured out.
Second cremello: Medium to heavy metallic. And probably also affected by dun.
Third cremello: This is more like what this color should look like, when not affected by other dilutions like dun and pangare. Much more uniform colored throughout. Also a bit affected by sooty, there around the neck and chest. Probably heavy metallic.

First buckskin: medium metallic.
Second buckskin: medium metallic.
Third buckskin: little to no metallic.

The face gives away the metallic, so that's where I look. It's most obvious when we look at black horses. Here's an example of metallic and not metallic (the second is an AC belgian, a breed that won't carry the gene from the center).

I hadn't even considered them having dun, nor flaxen or pangare. I'll have to look through their lineages to check that.

In any case, that's very informative. It sounds like I have a lot of horses to take a second look at, as I may have passed off sooty or dun as an effect of metallic.

[BlackOak2]

I've done such things a couple of times.

Sometimes, returning to 'clean' genes is the best bet, or breeding to 'clean' genes.
Clean Genes = horses that you know for a fact what genes they carry, such as all AC tarpans are bay dun. E/E, A/A, D/D, and except for Lp and To statuses, clean of anything else.

I've been meaning to produce a line of 'clean' gene horses, homo- blacks with nothing else. So I had something to test colors against, but I simply don't think I'll be getting around to it.