# satin gene discussion again....



## drafteventer

If it exists...i wish my horse had it haha


----------



## TheSeeker

Never heard of it, but if it is real then I know all the breeders I know would LOVE their horses to have it! Would save a lot of cost on show sheen 
If its real I wish my two had it!


----------



## Chiilaa

I know they have it in cats - it's called "glitter" and it's that the end of the hair shaft is actually hollow. 

I think it has to be something, because Akhal Tekes don't have champagne.


----------



## Eastowest

Yes, in rabbits it is a well documented gene causing pigment distribution in the hairshaft to be finer, and translucent, meaning it reflects/refracts light differently. Not only are they 'shinier' looking, the color appears deeper and richer. I believe in rabbits it is a simple recessive-- so it can be "set" in populations. 

Here is an angora rabbit with "normal" wool vs. a satin Angora--










And in a short haired rabbit--

















It would sure be interesting to examine the hair shafts of "metallic" horses under a microscope in comparison with horses who do not have the metallic glow, to see the difference.


----------



## candandy49

I'm referring here in these two pictures the one of my Red QH mare in the bottom picture. She had this shine/bloom to her most of the time, but not always. It was more common for her to look like this in the warm Summer months after she shed her Winter coat. She never got supplements of any kind, just grain and hay. I did groom her a lot, she is on a regular worming schedule and I used to ride her nearly everyday. Now that she is retired at 23 years of age and I'm laid-up after back surgery with more surgery to come she does not have that shine to her, but she is just as healthy.









I am another one that has never heard of a "satin gene" in horses. Not debating the possibilty though.


----------



## anshorsenut88

Haha... dang ... sorry that 1st rabbit pic makes me think of "Poof!!" LOL. I think of that lil girl in "DESPICABLE ME" movie. :-D "Its sooo fluffy!!!" 

...very cute.... ok back on topic lol...

Thanks everyone for the comments. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cfralic

I think it's very neat. Anyone know if it can be hereditary?


----------



## dunfold

I have met an appy stallion with that shine, and the owner does nothing to get him shiny. It is natural. Very beautiful horse. And being new here I dont know how to post pictures...


----------



## anshorsenut88

dunfold - you go to the button below named "Go Advanced"...Than in the "Additional options" section below the text box where you type...you click on "Manage attachments" and there you can upload them from your computer or off the web.  Hope this helps!


----------



## TheLastUnicorn

I've wondered if there's something... didn't know there was any investigation into it though.

I've seen a lot of Saddlebreds with a natural "sheen" that just reflects light. My Pally colt and chestnut mare both have a high sheen, and I've been told my cremello colt does too (I haven't seen it yet... he's always muddy due to the time of year).

I was wondering if it was caused by something similar to the Satin gene in rabbits (I used to breed them). Neat information!


----------



## CessBee

I would be very interested to know if it does exist. If it does I think my mare could well have it as she ALWAYS has this coppery shiny glimmer to her coat.
She is chestnut. Its hard to capture the brilliance in pictures. But when in the sun her coat just dazzels with copperyness.
Cant find a picture that kind of shows it, will try the next brilliantly sunny day, then our little point and shoot camera may pic it up.


----------



## hflmusicislife

I do think it exsists. However, I think a lot of "examples" of it are just the horse's plain ol' coat though. Like, cream horses (pally, buckskin, perlino, smokey black etc.) tend to have a natural sheen to them. My mare is a palomino, and in the summer she gets pretty darn shiny! I've also seen that in a bunch of chestnuts. I think it's more likely there's something with chestnuts, because not all of them have it and it's just less likely with them. I'll have to take some pictures of my sister's new chestnut QH in the summer because he's gonna be like that.... 

I'm sure a lot of you have seen this picture already, but this is probably the best example of it in the Akhal-Teke breed. As far as I know, this photo hasn't been photoshopped... Google Image Result for http://www.horseartcollection.com/images/akhal-teke1.jpg
If you just google "pictures of akhal-teke horses" a ton like this come up.
Anyways, it's a very interesting idea. I'd love to see if they can prove it.


----------



## LilacsGirl

I have two horses like this. I always get blown off when I point it out, by someone saying "Oh, lots of palominos have that" ... SO WHAT!! That doesn't explain what it is! I'm glad someone else is also interested to know how this happens!


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

My old TWH gelding had that same look. He was a chestnut/sorrel. Very beautiful, he positively sparkled, especially in the summer.


----------



## LilacsGirl

Hi Tiger ... would love to see some pix of your sparkler!


----------



## KDW

I will look it up tomorrow I have a very updated book on colors and genetics and it has a lot of information on colors that I had no idea about, maybe it has something on a "satin gene"


----------



## LilacsGirl

Okay - I look forward to it. Did your horse ever have times of the year when the coat was not as iridescent as other times? My boy was VERY shiny before he started getting his winter coat ... or maybe there is just less sun to make it shimmer...?


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

I'll have to look and see what I have. I didn't have a camera for most of his life so not a ton of pics..


----------



## LilacsGirl

MN Tigerstripes said:


> I'll have to look and see what I have. I didn't have a camera for most of his life so not a ton of pics..


I know. So many great shots I've lost because my camera was full, or the battery was dead ... or I just plain forgot to bring it!!


----------



## HowClever

There's a big difference between a horse who shines particularly brightly and the metallic shine the "satin" gene brings in to play. The only horse I have seen posted in this thread that has that metallic shine is the Akhal Teke that was linked.

As far as I am aware satin is only present in Akhal Tekes.


----------



## LilacsGirl

HowClever said:


> There's a big difference between a horse who shines particularly brightly and the metallic shine the "satin" gene brings in to play. The only horse I have seen posted in this thread that has that metallic shine is the Akhal Teke that was linked.
> 
> As far as I am aware satin is only present in Akhal Tekes.


Yes, well. As far as we were aware, there was also no silver gene in Quarter Horses, nor champagne gene, nor pearl gene ... until there was. 
Would it have been helpful for us to stop discussing, stop sharing observations, and stop searching for theses genes because so many people dismissed what observant breeders said they were seeing? I doubt it. 
I'm glad to be one of those breeders who is not afraid to consider new possibilities, who records observations, and who listens to other people's observations with a view toward piecing together bits of clues and information about possible causes for things we observe. I, for one, am very grateful for people who share their observations and ideas here.


----------



## HowClever

If I had seen another breed of horse who looked like it could legitimately be carrying the gene I would have no problems saying it was present in other breeds.

I am yet to see a photo of anything other than an Akhal Teke that even comes close to looking like the "satin" gene.


----------



## LilacsGirl

HowClever said:


> If I had seen another breed of horse who looked like it could legitimately be carrying the gene I would have no problems saying it was present in other breeds.
> 
> I am yet to see a photo of anything other than an Akhal Teke that even comes close to looking like the "satin" gene.


Okay, fair enough. Consider though, that the Silver gene is very loud on some horses, and very subtle on others. Also, notice that the sheen is not as pronounced on rabbits as it is on Akhal Teke - and it is PROVEN in rabbits, although not in the Akhal Teke. Consider that while satin is recessive in rabbits, what we see in horses may not be the same gene entirely, but a similar, incomplete dominant, which would have double the effect when homozygous. Consider that in a breed like the Akhal Teke, where the sheen is endemic, there is likely to be a preponderance of homozygosity ... you can't just rule out every horse that isn't exactly like the Akhal Teke on conjecture. Science demands that ALL the evidence be considered. Not dismissed out of hand. I may not have been able to photograph it adequately - but I am stating, here, that I have a horse that I have seen shining every bit like that Akhal Teke - to the point where traffic was stopping to marvel at it. And that first horse up at the top, with the red glow is definitely not to be dismissed either. 
What you do with my observation is entirely up to you. 
Thank goodness when people said, "oh, that horse's mane only looks sunbleached to me" we continued, nonetheless to map for silver.


----------



## Poseidon

Regardless of whether it does or does not exist, research to determine such a gene probably will not happen for years. So when that happens, you can come back and sit on your high horse and pull the "I told you so" card.


----------



## LilacsGirl

Poseidon said:


> Regardless of whether it does or does not exist, research to determine such a gene probably will not happen for years. So when that happens, you can come back and sit on your high horse and pull the "I told you so" card.


Research is trying to happen right here, right now. But people need to free to share ideas, and speculate, knowing their contributions would be received with at least some consideration. Before labs can search for something under the microscope, breeders and owners must bring it to light, in all its possible aspects and degrees, so it can be identified. This is the natural first step in such research. Can you imagine what they must have said, when that first guy went to Washington and said, "I think I can put a man on the moon" ?? 
Personally, I don't care a fig about being 'right' - there isn't enough information yet known for anyone to be 'right' or 'wrong' ... I just want to encourage people to share their observations, so i can learn from their breedings and their ideas. It means I can learn from hundreds of breedings, instead of just mine. I just don't think we should rule anything out of the equation before there's even a test for it.


----------



## kctop72

Just a question, We have 4 yo gelding that looks like he's got glitter on his coat that you can wipe off, but you can't. Would ya'll consider that shiny? He has very fine hair and is a sorrel. I do not have any good pics of him to share at this point.


----------



## LilacsGirl

kctop72 said:


> Just a question, We have 4 yo gelding that looks like he's got glitter on his coat that you can wipe off, but you can't. Would ya'll consider that shiny? He has very fine hair and is a sorrel. I do not have any good pics of him to share at this point.


Sounds interesting! What color is the glitter?


----------



## kctop72

It's gold with a red tint. If that makes sense?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NdAppy

The horses in question, other than the Ahkel Teke, all look to have the pearl gene and not satin in my opinion. There is a big difference between the metallic glow of the ahkel teke and the horses pictured here. Also it is very easy to get pictures that make a horse appear to be "shinier" or "glowing" when they do not. It all comes down to light play. In low lights Ahkel Tekes still have that glow. I am betting that the horses pictured so far do not in low light conditions...


----------



## LilacsGirl

kctop72 said:


> It's gold with a red tint. If that makes sense?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, based on your description, I couldn't rule out some metallic thing going on - of course pictures would be very helpful for any meaningful discussion ... I have seen a fair amount of this iridescent metallic glow on mostly reds and yellow horses - and some bays - so i don't think it's 'extremely rare' as such ... just that we've taken it for granted as merely "shine" for a long time, and have not identified it as a mappable, and consistently produceable phenomena. It's definitely different from the silver shine of a dazzlingly clean horse, though. Get some pics if you can!!


----------



## LilacsGirl

NdAppy said:


> The horses in question, other than the Ahkel Teke, all look to have the pearl gene and not satin in my opinion. There is a big difference between the metallic glow of the ahkel teke and the horses pictured here. Also it is very easy to get pictures that make a horse appear to be "shinier" or "glowing" when they do not. It all comes down to light play. In low lights Ahkel Tekes still have that glow. I am betting that the horses pictured so far do not in low light conditions...


Actually I think that's a very good observation - especially since they all seem to be palominos! Unfortunately, none of them have the barlink bloodline ... so it remains to be seen if there is another pearl line within the QH - it's amazing how reluctant a lab can be do declare a new color line ... their reputation is very much on the line in that situation!


----------



## kctop72

I'll try to get some good o.es this weekend, thanks!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LilacsGirl

kctop72 said:


> I'll try to get some good o.es this weekend, thanks!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Will look forward to seeing them!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

LilacsGirl said:


> Research is trying to happen right here, right now.


A bunch of horse owners on the internet talking about sparkly photos does not equal gene research.


----------



## LilacsGirl

Alwaysbehind said:


> A bunch of horse owners on the internet talking about sparkly photos does not equal gene research.


I concede the point. I realize now that there's no point, really, in speculating about anything, or finding out how anything works. Everything this planet is ever going to know is obviously already known by you three clever individuals. It clear that people with open minds, and a desire to learn more than what they can discover from their own herds, are not welcome to participate here. Forgive us, please, for sharing ideas. This is clearly not what this site is for. Score one for planet earth. Status Quo rules! Ignorance rocks! YAY


----------



## Alwaysbehind

LilacsGirl said:


> I concede the point. I realize now that there's no point, really, in speculating about anything, or finding out how anything works. Everything this planet is ever going to know is obviously already known by you three clever individuals. It clear that people with open minds, and a desire to learn more than what they can discover from their own herds, are not welcome to participate here. Forgive us, please, for sharing ideas. This is clearly not what this site is for. Score one for planet earth. Status Quo rules! Ignorance rocks! YAY


Wow, you are one of those always and never people, hu?


Maybe you are not aware but there is a HUGE cavernous difference between having a discussion with people about something and doing gene research.

Pointing out that there is nothing scientific about this conversation does not mean this conversation can not exist.


----------



## DrumRunner

lol Really? Looking at pictures of your shiny horses is not "research" on color genetics. "Research" are proven facts, not opinions. The forum is more than welcome to open minds and sharing ideas, which we all support. Don't try to say that people are researching the "Satin" gene with pictures of their horses and by pointing out about how shiny their horses are.


----------



## LilacsGirl

Alwaysbehind said:


> Wow, you are one of those always and never people, hu?
> 
> 
> Maybe you are not aware but there is a HUGE cavernous difference between having a discussion with people about something and doing gene research.
> 
> Pointing out that there is nothing scientific about this conversation does not mean this conversation can not exist.
> 
> But if you like drama and flying off the deep end because someone does not agree with you, so be it.


No, it wasn't your post. Sorry about that. It's been a concerted refusal to consider that there could be a cause for iridescence in horses (possibly totally unlinked to Akhal Teke) other than good health. I have shiny horses, and I have horses with metallic sheen - they are not the same. So it's like - the position here seems to be that if a horse is not as iridescent as an Akhal Teke, it should it can't be counted as being iridescent or metallic AT ALL. 
What I'm saying is that nobody finds anything in a lab unless serious breeders come to a consensus and agree that there is something to be found. They do that by comparing notes, and gathering each other's experiences. It's PART of the research process - it's not separate from "research". What do you'all think research is? What are you going to put under the microscope if you don't do any trials - and how will you do trials if you don't know what you are going to try and isolate? 
Actual geneticists and authors on the subject are so open minded when you talk to them - eager to consider possibilities - but when you bring those ideas to the average horse owner, it's like a brick wall. People don't want to learn - they just want to tell you what they think they already know. 
So ... yes, I'm frustrated. Look, sorry if I took it out on you a bit ... I think I'm just wasting time here, I'm afraid. I was eager for people to tell me about their horses, and their colors, and see their pictures ... but who will want to post those when they just get shot down and dismissed? I'll probably just go back to the scientific sites. 30 years' color breeding experience and extensive involvement with other genetic researchers doesn't seem to count for much here.


----------



## xRhiax

Alwaysbehind said:


> A bunch of horse owners on the internet talking about sparkly photos does not equal gene research.


'Horse owners' isn't the same as 'breeders'. Did you even read the post? 

The 'sparkly photos' you have so astutely pointed out are actually exhibiting what looks like reflective hairs on the horse's coat that imitate such that has been _scientifically proven _in rabbits to be a gene that causes hollow shafts of hair prone to reflect light in that kind of sheen - you know, the actual _subject _of this forum?

Research |ˈrēsərch; risərch |
noun
1 The devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject.


----------



## LilacsGirl

xRhiax said:


> 'Horse owners' isn't the same as 'breeders'. Did you even read the post?
> 
> The 'sparkly photos' you have so astutely pointed out are actually exhibiting what looks like reflective hairs on the horse's coat that imitate such that has been _scientifically proven _in rabbits to be a gene that causes hollow shafts of hair prone to reflect light in that kind of sheen - you know, the actual _subject _of this forum?
> 
> Research |ˈrēsərch; risərch |
> noun
> 1 The devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject.


Rhiax - I was hoping to put a trial together, by gathering together people with actual iridescent horses, to establish parameters for testing. Doesn't look likely here, I don't think I can get enough horses to come forward.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

LilacsGirl said:


> I don't think I can get enough horses to come forward.


I would guess you need the horse owners to come forward. I doubt the horses have much say in the matter.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

xRhiax said:


> 'Horse owners' isn't the same as 'breeders'. Did you even read the post?


Welcome to the forum X.
I did read the post(s). Did you?
(bolding below mine)




LilacsGirl said:


> Research is trying to happen right here, right now. But people need to free to share ideas, and speculate, knowing their contributions would be received with at least some consideration. Before labs can search for something under the microscope, *breeders and owners must bring it to light*, in all its possible aspects and degrees, so it can be identified. This is the natural first step in such research. Can you imagine what they must have said, when that first guy went to Washington and said, "I think I can put a man on the moon" ??
> Personally, I don't care a fig about being 'right' - there isn't enough information yet known for anyone to be 'right' or 'wrong' ... *I just want to encourage people* to share their observations, so i can learn from their breedings and their ideas. It means I can learn from hundreds of breedings, instead of just mine. I just don't think we should rule anything out of the equation before there's even a test for it.


----------



## xRhiax

*What a genius.*



Alwaysbehind said:


> I would guess you need the horse owners to come forward. I doubt the horses have much say in the matter.


Really, LilacsGirl, I think for that to work, you'd need a lab akin to those that we send mane hairs to for genetic testing. It wouldn't be too hard - just get a few horse owners with iridescent horses to send in some mane hairs alongside you and request the technicians try to find something in common with the horses, other than the known genes, i.e. Agouti, Black, Cream, Champagne etc. that they don't seem to be finding in horses without that iridescent shine.

It would be interesting to put some coat hairs of one of those shiny horses under a microscope to see if there really is a hollow shaft in the coat.


----------



## LilacsGirl

xRhiax said:


> Really, LilacsGirl, I think for that to work, you'd need a lab akin to those that we send mane hairs to for genetic testing. It wouldn't be too hard - just get a few horse owners with iridescent horses to send in some mane hairs alongside you and request the technicians try to find something in common with the horses, other than the known genes, i.e. Agouti, Black, Cream, Champagne etc. that they don't seem to be finding in horses without that iridescent shine.
> 
> It would be interesting to put some coat hairs of one of those shiny horses under a microscope to see if there really is a hollow shaft in the coat.


My friend Lynn Harrison and I can put something together with the lab in AZ if we can get a big enough study going. They would be able to factor in results for specifically brown horses, rather than just lumping bays in together. I got the idea when someone (maybe Jeanette) pointed out that just because the Andalusian Balitor carries pearl, and is clearly iridescent, doesn't mean the iridescence is from pearl ... especially since he is bay, and pearl is recessive. So we thought we'd find out - then I discovered this rabbit research and thought we'd have a go.


----------



## xRhiax

Alwaysbehind said:


> Welcome to the forum X.
> I did read the post(s). Did you?
> (bolding below mine)


You didn't say 'breeders and owners,' you said 'owners'. There's a difference. Horse owners have a lot less to bring to a genetics discussion than breeders do, because genetics is a vital part of breeding. You kind of need to know about it, for example in quarter horse breeding, where if you breed two HERDA carriers together, the resulting foal could be homozygous and would suffer accordingly, etc. There are certain things breeders are required to know that owners are not.

That's not to say owners have nothing to bring to this discussion. After all, a horse that is not specifically used for breeding can exhibit this sheen, and it only makes the owner a good one to want to know what it is.

If you don't agree with the sharing of knowledge and experience, why are you on a forum in the first place? Just curious.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

If she only wanted breeders then she should have specified that. She does not. I can see how you can twist what she posted into that, I suppose.

I am all for sharing information.

I am not for pretending discussing photos that show shine means you are having a research study.

HUGE difference last time I checked.


----------



## damnedEvans

Here's another horse with that satin gene :lol: so I'm sure that it's not something that rare. Guess any healthy horse is so sparkly with the exception of grays.


----------



## xRhiax

LilacsGirl said:


> My friend Lynn Harrison and I can put something together with the lab in AZ if we can get a big enough study going. They would be able to factor in results for specifically brown horses, rather than just lumping bays in together. I got the idea when someone (maybe Jeanette) pointed out that just because the Andalusian Balitor carries pearl, and is clearly iridescent, doesn't mean the iridescence is from pearl ... especially since he is bay, and pearl is recessive. So we thought we'd find out - then I discovered this rabbit research and thought we'd have a go.


I'm all for a brown study - because I'd like specifically to breed browns to blacks more often. A bay - let's say Aa, Ee & (single recessive) At - can be carrying brown while not exhibiting it, while a brown can't possibly have an Agouti gene, else it would overpower the brown, whether or not the brown showed through. If you had a brown mare and bred it to a black, the only two possible results are black and brown - assuming there is no Cream or other dilute present to complicate things!

Also, I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what this pearl gene is. Is it actually scientifically proven, or is it just assumed to be the reason some horses are a bit shinier than others?


----------



## LilacsGirl

Alwaysbehind said:


> If she only wanted breeders then she should have specified that. She does not. I can see how you can twist what she posted into that, I suppose.
> 
> I am all for sharing information.
> 
> I am not for pretending discussing photos that show shine means you are having a research study.
> 
> HUGE difference last time I checked.


It doesn't matter. These are not the subjects I'm looking for - I will probably just put an ad in Horse & Rider or something, or maybe Horse and Hound, gather the pictures, select candidates, and then do the study here in the UK. Can you PM me, Rhiax, if you know of any iridescent horses that would definitely qualify? Pictures of three generations if possible, to start with.


----------



## LilacsGirl

xRhiax said:


> I'm all for a brown study - because I'd like specifically to breed browns to blacks more often. A bay - let's say Aa, Ee & (single recessive) At - can be carrying brown while not exhibiting it, while a brown can't possibly have an Agouti gene, else it would overpower the brown, whether or not the brown showed through. If you had a brown mare and bred it to a black, the only two possible results are black and brown - assuming there is no Cream or other dilute present to complicate things!
> 
> Also, I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what this pearl gene is. Is it actually scientifically proven, or is it just assumed to be the reason some horses are a bit shinier than others?


They think Pearl is linked to Creme and that a horse can have one of each - but can only pass on one or the other - that they exist at the same locus. So theoretically you could not have a perlino pearl, if you see what I mean - can't have two creme and one pearl - it's one or the other. It's recessive, and only appears when either homozygous, or accompanied by Creme (incomplete dominant effect). PM me if you want - I want to get off this site now. Thanks.


----------



## Speed Racer

LilacsGirl said:


> Pictures of three generations if possible, to start with.


Wouldn't DNA be more useful than pictures? After all, pictures would hardly be a good basis for actual scientific research.

I have no dog in this fight since I'm neither a breeder nor owner of a horse with a suspected satin gene, but I do know if you're doing _serious_ genetic research, pictures won't cut it.


----------



## kitten_Val

I have to agree with SR here - test is the only proved way to be sure what you have. Pics are nothing but guessing. 

And I'm just wondering... How much would such DNA test cost? Anyone had experience?


----------



## xRhiax

Alwaysbehind said:


> If she only wanted breeders then she should have specified that. She does not. I can see how you can twist what she posted into that, I suppose.
> 
> I am all for sharing information.
> 
> I am not for pretending discussing photos that show shine means you are having a research study.
> 
> HUGE difference last time I checked.


I never said she only wanted breeders. I repeat, horse owners can also contribute to this study. I'd like to hear more about how the pictures are pointless, because I really don't understand. Why don't you _share _some information with me; tell me what I'm missing.

You have a point, the fact that the pictures show shine may not be directly related to this Satin gene, and it could just be a glare or something. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibility.

Do you think a person would upload a picture showing a glare, knowing full well the horse didn't actually have a shine to it and yet claiming it did? I don't think so. Why ask a question if you already know the answer?

A lot of the pictures are misrepresentations of the sheen this forum discusses. A horse might not - in actuality - have the sheen the picture puts on it. But notice how I use the word 'might'. As I said before, there is no harm in theorizing.


----------



## LilacsGirl

Speed Racer said:


> Wouldn't DNA be more useful than pictures? After all, pictures would hardly be a good basis for actual scientific research.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight since I'm neither a breeder nor owner of a horse with a suspected satin gene, but I do know if you're doing _serious_ genetic research, pictures won't cut it.


Ah ... the images will assist in determining which animals will be invited to submit DNA .. it would be a little silly to collect DNA from animals which clearly do not satisfy the parameters. Also, it will enable a cross-section of color types to be selected. It saves on airfare to inspect the animals physically.


----------



## xRhiax

Speed Racer said:


> Wouldn't DNA be more useful than pictures? After all, pictures would hardly be a good basis for actual scientific research.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight since I'm neither a breeder nor owner of a horse with a suspected satin gene, but I do know if you're doing _serious_ genetic research, pictures won't cut it.


I agree. It's not genetic research, it's just some horse owners and breeders comparing notes on what they've noticed, but the big guns with the machines to do that kind of stuff aren't going to research it until we tell them we want it researched.


----------



## Speed Racer

xRhiax said:


> As I said before, there is no harm in theorizing.


No, but it's also pointless without actual genetic testing.

This isn't exactly the Theory of Evolution y'all are discussing. I imagine the gene could be found if it actually existed, like the cream gene.

Scientists tend to do research on things for which they've received funding. If you can provide funding, I'm sure they'll do the testing. But then, you need to have more than one set of tests done by different labs, so as to not skew the results. I imagine that would be fairly expensive, and I don't know how many breeders really care enough to put money on the line for something like that.


----------



## xRhiax

LilacsGirl said:


> It doesn't matter. These are not the subjects I'm looking for - I will probably just put an ad in Horse & Rider or something, or maybe Horse and Hound, gather the pictures, select candidates, and then do the study here in the UK. Can you PM me, Rhiax, if you know of any iridescent horses that would definitely qualify? Pictures of three generations if possible, to start with.


Sure, if I come across them. I only know of my own as of yet, but I'll certainly tell you if I happen upon any more.


----------



## xRhiax

Speed Racer said:


> No, but it's also pointless without actual genetic testing.
> 
> This isn't exactly the Theory of Evolution y'all are discussing, now is it? I imagine the gene could be found if it actually existed, like the cream gene.


Pointless without, true, but helpful during.

If the gene exists, it'll be found, eventually. This satin gene isn't actually wholly too important, if I'm honest. Cream, however, was pretty important. I'm pretty sure that's why nobody's bothered looking for this Satin gene yet.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

xRhiax said:


> I never said she only wanted breeders. I repeat, horse owners can also contribute to this study.





xRhiax said:


> 'Horse owners' isn't the same as 'breeders'. Did you even read the post?


Are you being obtuse, contradictory, and confusing on purpose?


----------



## xRhiax

Alwaysbehind said:


> Are you being obtuse, contradictory, and confusing on purpose?


The point I was trying to get across was that the discussion was neither _only_ for owners, nor _only _for breeders.


----------



## Poseidon

FYI, there has been genetic testing on brown and there is a test for it. 

Pearl is a known gene that is cream-activated, meaning it will only show up on a horse with cream and acts as a further dilute.

And just a note: There is no need for fancy vocabulary, xRhiax and Lilacsgirl. Although we are perfectly capable of understanding what you are saying, it's just annoying to try to read and makes you sound rather arrogant. 

Lastly, this is my mare. I guarantee you she does not have the magical "satin gene". She's just kind of shiny and it was sunny outside.


----------



## Speed Racer

LilacsGirl said:


> Ah ... the images will assist in determining which animals will be invited to submit DNA .. it would be a little silly to collect DNA from animals which clearly do not satisfy the parameters. Also, it will enable a cross-section of color types to be selected. It saves on airfare to inspect the animals physically.


Not necessarily, since photos can be altered or taken in a way such as to show something that might not be there. 

If someone suspects their horse of having this particular gene but the DNA testing proves it doesn't, how is that silly? Pictures aren't going to help you, since a horse may _have_ the gene but it's not displayed.

A horse who might appear to have it may not, and a horse who appears not to, just might. So in order to do actual _research_ and not just take a tiny sampling of horses you think_ might_ have the gene, the only way to prove it is by DNA testing.

Pictures of shiny horses prove nothing, and may in fact lead you on a wild goose chase.

Besides, why would _you_ need to go anywhere? I'd think any breeders/owners interested in the testing would be more than happy to send DNA to the various labs. 

You seem to think the rest of us are backwards hicks who don't understand how genetic testing works. I for one am rather insulted by your arrogance. :?


----------



## Poseidon

I'm not sure what the argument about breeders and owners is about.. I'm a single-horse owner and I would venture to say that I know more about color genetics than the average horse owner. Many breeders aren't color experts. There are some that breed OLWS positive horses together and the good breeders should care far more about quality than color.


----------



## tinyliny

Is this what people call "Chrome"? There is a thoroughbred at our barn who most definitely has chrome. He shines no matter the light, weather or grooming. He is chestnut.


----------



## NdAppy

No "chrome" is white. Such as socks, blazes, etc.


----------



## HowClever

It certainly doesn't look like an objective scientific discussion in here to me. It looks like two people who desperately need to believe their horses are super duper speshul!

Oh and as to the jab about horse owners not knowing anything about genetics. Please. I have devoted a heck of a lot of time to reading all that I can about equine genetics, colour and otherwise, and consider myself to be quite knowledgeable on the subject. I know that there are several people on this forum who have done the same and are more well versed in it then I am.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## smrobs

Wow, how fascinating. Some of mine carry the satin gene but I never knew it :shock:.


----------



## corinowalk

Oooh Froggy too! Never mind his brindle mark on his shoulder or the fact that his entire flank is now greying out (true story)


----------



## Wheatermay

My gelding does it oo. He looks like a brand new penny. He always has me re-researching buckskins in the summer, lol... His bother does it too, but the brother is more of a golden tint under the dark bay.


----------



## Gillian

Healthy horses are just shiny. This is my old lease horse pulled straight from the pasture. No coat supplements or extensive grooming there. Just a healthy horse. Until it is proven in the lab testing the genetics of such a thing, there really is no argument. Surely it is interesting, but outside of the Akhal-Teke's, I just don't see it.


----------



## KDW

There is no "Satin gene" but there is a "Pearl gene" which also produces a nice sheen/shine to most colored horses


----------



## Allison Finch

Horse color genetics is something I have absolutely no deep knowledge of. I have to bow to others who have taken it upon themselves to do the book work to figure it all out.

However, I have seen horses who have had a metallic sheen that was very different than the usual "shiny" coats. I have seen this mostly on palominos. It really resembled what I have seen in Akhal Teke horses.

Is it a satin gene? Who knows. Has there been extensive research on all horse breeds that precludes the very possibility that it could exist? I just don't know. I just stand and appreciate a lovely coat when I see it.

I hope detailed research will, someday, prove the possibility that it may exist.


----------



## faye

TBH I dont realy care and I hope that the DNA research is never done!
All it will do is kick off anouther craze where breeders will breed anything with the gene irrigardless of the quality of the horses. 5 years after the finding of this gene there will be thousnads of unwanted, ill bred and ill conformed but mettalic horses.
It started with coloureds, then with pally's now Duns/buckskins.
With coloureds it has caused all sorts of issues (OWLS being the worst).
There are now so many coloureds and pallys that they are 2 a penny and still they are being bed!


----------



## stevenson

good nutrition and grooming will put a shine on the hair.


----------



## CessBee

This is kind of what I was getting at with Cessna and her coppery shine particularly on her neck and around her flank.
Excuse the horrible position, the saddle did not fit me.


----------



## HowClever

Looks like a regular chestnut with a healthy coat to me.


----------



## CessBee

I'm not fussed if she isn't or convinced she has satin, just in person she has an incredible metalic copper shine.


----------



## HowClever

A lot of chestnuts do.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

tinyliny said:


> Is this what people call "Chrome"? There is a thoroughbred at our barn who most definitely has chrome. He shines no matter the light, weather or grooming. He is chestnut.


Maybe things are different where you are.

Anyone I have ever met considers chrome as white markings. Lots of chrome means socks and a blaze, etc. Nothing to do with how shiny or sparkly the horse is. 

Chestnut is a color that shines well. A healthy chestnut colored horse almost always sparkles.

(Versus a grey horse who can groom until you are exhausted and they just never seem to shine.)


----------



## blue eyed pony

My bay is iridescent and I have met a buckskin QH stallion that was SO iridescent it wasn't even funny. The stallion was iridescent even in the shade. Monty isn't, so I consider him to be "just a bay".

I think it could well exist, and from my experience, not only in akhal-tekes. But it's not present in my horses. My foal, I don't know, she's still fluffy and not shiny at all yet, but what's shed out, though shiny and somewhat iridescent in the sun, is nothing on that stallion I met. He was gorgeous.


----------



## LilacsGirl

*Satin Rabbits*



anshorsenut88 said:


> Haha... dang ... sorry that 1st rabbit pic makes me think of "Poof!!" LOL. I think of that lil girl in "DESPICABLE ME" movie. :-D "Its sooo fluffy!!!"
> 
> ...very cute.... ok back on topic lol...
> 
> Thanks everyone for the comments.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think the rabbit post WAS on topic: since the Satin Gene is documented to cause iridescence (for lack of a better word) in rabbits, then there is already a known genetic mechanism for causing this. It is quite usual that once a particular gene is isolated in one species, it can help make it easier to identify it in another species. Good post, Rabbit person!


----------



## BlackCricket

my haflinger mare gets super metallic shiney, it's somewhat even there in the winter when she has her long woolies. The hair shaft looks like it has new copper penny, reds and golds in it. 
The neat thing...I don't think it is just healthy coat and nutrition--she was like this when she was given to me--slightly underweight, wormy and a nasty haircoat. I always likened it to my red satin mice..LOL.


----------



## LilacsGirl

There does seem to be some amount of "satin" effect on certain well kept horses - sometimes even to the point of some iridescence in the sunlight - but then there are some horses that just scream red or gold iridescent ridiculous shimmer. There are so many possible things that could cause this - it could be "satin" or it could be a combination of other things that cause the reflective hollow hair shafts when combined. I don't know what it is - but I know it exists, so if it's there, SOMETHING must be causing it. I would just like to find out WHAT, so I can breed it predictably. If it's recessive (as satin is in rabbits) it should be dead easy to breed. Limited only by one's ability to get two of them together...


----------



## faye

lilacs girl, colour is the crappiest reason ever to breed horses. You've just gone down in my estimation of you.


----------



## bubba13

I just think we should genetically engineer fluorescent horses. They've done other animals, so why not?


----------



## Allison Finch

I'm all for it!!

Just use some jellyfish DNA, like they do in "glofish" and a glow in flourescent light horse. Way cool! I want one.
Imagine, if you will...
A glohorse jumping a GP jump course (that also glows) with the lights of the indoor off and all flourescent lighting!


----------



## LilacsGirl

Sure, why not? I mean, they're already putting tail extensions on them at shows ... how 'bout dying their manes and tails platinum blonde ... and putting a sparkler ... oh ... Maybe that's a step too far ... !!

lol - no, cool post. I'm just running with it for laughs. 
No offense intended


----------



## faye

Lilacs girl, tail extensions are the least of what goes onto a horse in the show ring. False plaits, false manes, masses of makeup. It is routine to die tails black if they have any white hairs or if they are fading in the sun. Dyeing of dark markings on horses legs is also quite common and it is amazing how many horses seem to gain a white star before they go in the ring.
Heck I know a section A who has the most unusual colouring in the ring, however he is a bog standard white grey at all other times.


----------



## christabelle

I am neutral, I just have a question. I know the akhal teke has a metallic coat, and I am sure someone has crossed them to other horses... Has that metallic color ever gone with the half akhal teke foal?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LilacsGirl

I'd say it's no less important than pearl ... which does next to nothing, unless it's helped by cream. And if pearl DOES appear to cause shimmer in horses like Balitor - who carries a single pearl gene and shimmers like wildfire, but is bay - everybody says 'Oh, he's just shiny, it's not the pearl gene, because pearl has to be activated by cream.' ... Stick to the rules, and deny even the possibility of evidence from your own eyes. Sigh. How can science be driven by the refusal to consider anything new?


----------



## Poseidon

I do believe it was stated at the beginning of the thread that nobody was denying entirely, but it is not a priority in the scientific world to find yet another gene that BYBs can reproduce and sell. Research is very expensive and I'm sure those in charge of researching equine genetics are concerned with more pressing matters. 

If you are so concerned with breeding "satin" horses, you might want to try breeding quality horses and feeding them well and grooming them. They get pretty shiny if you do that.


----------

