# Bay Roans with frosting- not rabicano!



## TexanFreedom (Apr 2, 2012)

I'd just like to note, that a lot of bay(or brown, if that's what they _really_ are) roans have this white frosting on the base of their tails. My gelding has it, and he is not rabicano. Just because a few white hairs are present in the tail, doesn't mean they have to be a rabicano. 


















I don't mean to sound rude by any means at all, but I see many people that think a bay roan(and sometimes sabinos) with this frosting has the rabicano gene because of it. Maybe the horse _IS_ really showing a minimal expression of rabicano(and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I see roan horses with this frosting in pictures, in person at public events like rodeos, and in my own horse.

Is this horses [tail] frosting due to rabicano or 
roan? Or maybe even Sabino? 








_Instant Romance, [reportedly] chestnut roan. _​


----------



## Kayella (Feb 11, 2012)

Has your gelding been tested for rabicano? If there is a test for it, that is. How can you say 100% that he does not carry rabicano?

And for the record, not just roans carry rabicano. It can happen in any color. I'm not really sure what the point of making an entire new thread about this was, when you could have simply just replied to the blue roan thread with this information.

Also, I wouldn't call any of those horses you posted rabicano. Like you said, base white tail hair does not indicate rabicano, it just happens sometimes.










That is a very obvious rabicano, however there is no roaning in the flanks or any other indication of rabicano besides the skunk tail.


----------



## ThirteenAcres (Apr 27, 2012)

I believe the thread was made because of a pointed out possibility of rabicano in the brown roan thread...

I'm also not sure what the point is in saying "if that's what the horse REALLY is".

No, it isn't a 100% solid thing without genetic testing for the gene. There is a not a rabicano test offered by UC Davis but there is ONE test for brown and you can test out the zygosity of roans as well as the agouti factors.

Rabicano is not 100% a 'skunk tail' or roaning in certain areas. It can also present and be confused as brindling because it can also cause striping in the roan pattern as well as the white in the tail as posted above.


----------



## ThirteenAcres (Apr 27, 2012)

Also, to clarify, rabicano is not as evenly distributed as roans. So if a horse is not an evenly distributed roan, has a "frosting" in the tail, then why wouldn't someone wonder if the rabicano is not present in that horse? I don't think that's a silly thing to wonder or discuss.


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

Kayella said:


> Has your gelding been tested for rabicano? If there is a test for it, that is. How can you say 100% that he does not carry rabicano?
> 
> And for the record, not just roans carry rabicano. It can happen in any color. I'm not really sure what the point of making an entire new thread about this was, when you could have simply just replied to the blue roan thread with this information.
> 
> ...


I see roaning in the flanks of that particular horse. And I also agree with the others in that I'm not sure why this called for a new thread.


----------



## ThirteenAcres (Apr 27, 2012)

Bridgertrot said:


> I see roaning in the flanks of that particular horse. And I also agree with the others in that I'm not sure why this called for a new thread.


I think she meant farther up and into the hindquarters.


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

ThirteenAcres said:


> I think she meant farther up and into the hindquarters.


Hm alright. I definitely wouldn't say it has "no roaning" at all though.


----------



## Kayella (Feb 11, 2012)

Well there is definitely minimal roaning, but nothing drastic enough to lead me to believe that the horse was a roan instead of a bay with the rabicano gene.


----------



## ThirteenAcres (Apr 27, 2012)

Agreed. You couldn't mistake that horse for a roan, which I believe was the original point? Yes, there is roaning so that statement was a little off, but the intention was clear and true.

I still don't see the point of the OP's making this a new thread.


----------

