Coat Outcome Calculator — Predicting Doodle Coat Genetics | Stokeshire Designer Doodles
Stokeshire Breeder Tools

One pairing.
Eighty-one coats.

Two parent dogs, four coat genes, and the number of genetically distinct outcomes runs into the dozens before colour is considered at all. Enter any two dogs below and see every outcome the pairing can produce - including the ones that look identical and are not.

The Method

How a Punnett square
actually works.

Each parent carries two alleles at every locus and passes one of them, at random, to each puppy. A Punnett square lays the sire's two alleles down one edge and the dam's two down the other, then fills the grid with every combination the two can make. Four cells, four equally likely draws.

The grid to the right crosses two furnished carriers at RSPO2. Each parent carries one furnishings allele and one unfurnished allele. Three of four cells produce a furnished puppy. One produces an unfurnished puppy from two furnished parents.

That 25% is the number most families do not know exists, and it is the single most common reason a family ends up with a coat they did not expect.

Run one square per locus. Because these loci sit on different regions of the genome and assort independently, the outcomes multiply rather than add. Three genotypes at one locus and three at another is nine combinations, not six. Four such loci is eighty-one.

Two furnished carriers

RSPO2 · F/I × F/I
FI
FF/FF/I
IF/II/I
25% F/F furnished, two copies, cannot produce an unfurnished puppy in any future pairing
50% F/I furnished, carries unfurnished, looks identical to F/F
25% I/I unfurnished, from two furnished parents
The Calculator

Enter two parents.
See every outcome.

Four loci, four squares, one running total. Set any locus to "not tested" and the tool will tell you plainly that no honest prediction can be offered for it. That is not a limitation of the tool. It is the actual state of any pairing where the testing was not done.

Load a real Stokeshire pairing
Enter the parents

Sire

Dam

Every square, gene by gene
What this pairing can produce
81

genetically distinct coat outcomes across four tested loci

Visible coat types
24
How many outwardly different coats could actually be standing in the whelping room.
Hidden behind each look
3.4×
Average number of genotypes producing the same visible coat. What you cannot see, and what carries into the next generation.
Loci tested in both parents
4 of 4
An untested locus is not a neutral gap. It is an outcome nobody in the transaction can predict.
0

Coat genetics alone: 81 distinct outcomes.

This calculator applies standard Mendelian inheritance to four independently assorting coat loci. It reports what a pairing can produce and in what proportion. It does not predict which outcome an individual puppy will receive and it is not a substitute for testing the puppy. Proportions describe a whole litter, and small litters routinely deviate from them. The colour multiplier assumes three genotypes per heterozygous locus and is offered as an illustration of scale, not as a prediction for any specific pairing. Note also that KRT71 and MC5R both report as C and T while describing unrelated traits, and FGF5 reports a T as well. Always read the gene name beside the genotype.

What It Is Really For

The most valuable answer
is impossible.

A Punnett square is usually taught as a prediction tool. For a working breeding program its more important use is exclusion. It proves which outcomes a pairing cannot produce, and that proof is what lets a breeder rule out a mating before it happens rather than explain it afterward.

Prediction gives you proportions across a litter. Exclusion gives you a hard boundary. A pairing that cannot produce a double merle is safe from that risk regardless of how the individual draws fall, and no amount of bad luck changes it.

A litter of seven samples the possibility space seven times. It does not represent it. Proportions are what the pairing can do, not what any single litter will show.

This is also why carriers matter more than appearances. A dog that looks furnished may be F/F or F/I, and those two dogs behave completely differently in a breeding program even though they photograph the same. The square is how you tell them apart on paper before the test results confirm it.

Merle to merle
Two merle parents produce a 25% chance of a double merle puppy, associated with significant risk of auditory and ophthalmologic developmental defects. This is the clearest case where the square is used to forbid a pairing rather than plan one. Stokeshire makes no merle-to-merle pairing under any circumstances, and merle status is confirmed by DNA on every breeding dog rather than assessed by eye.
Two unfurnished parents
Cannot produce a furnished puppy. Neither parent carries a furnishings allele to pass. Every puppy will be unfurnished, and marketing any of them as low-shedding or allergy-friendly is not a matter of opinion, it is a contradiction of the pairing's own arithmetic.
Two homozygous parents
Produce exactly one genotype at that locus, in every puppy, with no variation. Load the fully predictable preset above to see what a pairing looks like when every locus behaves this way. One outcome. This is what a closed, consistent line eventually reaches, and it takes generations of testing to arrive at.
Any untested locus
Produces no prediction at all. Not a rough one, not a probable one. If neither parent has been tested at a locus, every outcome at that locus is unknown to the breeder and to the family, and any claim made about it is a guess wearing the clothing of a fact.
Why We Publish This

You cannot develop a breed
you cannot predict.

Stokeshire is developing a distinct type, the Golden Australian Mountain Doodle, from Bernese, Golden Retriever, Australian Shepherd, and Poodle foundation stock. A breed in development is not a marketing phrase here. It is a commitment to a specific, uncomfortable piece of arithmetic.

Every generation of a developing type starts wide. Foundation dogs are heterozygous at most loci, which is exactly what the calculator above shows as eighty-one outcomes. Consistency is not achieved by choosing prettier dogs. It is achieved by knowing every genotype in the program, tracking which combinations narrow the range without narrowing the gene pool, and accepting that this takes generations rather than seasons.

The temptation in this business is to promise consistency you have not earned yet. The arithmetic on this page is the reason we publish the full panel instead.

Anyone can photograph two beautiful parents. The work is knowing what those two dogs can produce, publishing it before the litter is born, and being right.

01
Test every dog at every locus
Full Embark panel before a dog enters the program, not after. Coat loci, health conditions, and diversity together. A dog with an appealing phenotype and an unknown genotype is not a breeding prospect, it is a pet.
02
Publish the panel, including what is unflattering
Carrier results, elevated COI on acquired foundation stock, and untested loci are published alongside the clear results. A program that only publishes its good numbers has told you nothing you can verify.
03
Run the pairing before the pairing
Every outcome is calculated and written down before breeding. Families see the expected split on the pairing page rather than a description of how the parents look. Where a pairing produces an outcome we would not want to place, we do not make it.
04
Narrow the range without narrowing the pool
Consistency and diversity pull against each other, and the honest version of breed development holds both. Coefficient of inbreeding is calculated per pairing and published per litter. Never a program average, which conceals more than it reports.
Go Deeper

The panel behind
every square.

Every Stokeshire breeding dog is published with its full Embark results. Every planned pairing is published with its expected split. Check our arithmetic.

References

Cadieu, E., Neff, M. W., Quignon, P., Walsh, K., Chase, K., Parker, H. G., VonHoldt, B. M., Rhue, A., Boyko, A., Byers, A., Wong, A., Mosher, D. S., Elkahloun, A. G., Spady, T. C., Andre, C., Lark, K. G., Cargill, M., Bustamante, C. D., Wayne, R. K., & Ostrander, E. A. (2009). Coat variation in the domestic dog is governed by variants in three genes. Science, 326(5949), 150-153. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177808

Hayward, J. J., Castelhano, M. G., Oliveira, K. C., Corey, E., Balkman, C., Baxter, T. L., Casal, M. L., Center, S. A., Fang, M., Garrison, S. J., Kalla, S. E., Korniliev, P., Kotlikoff, M. I., Moise, N. S., Shannon, L. M., Simpson, K. W., Sutter, N. B., Todhunter, R. J., & Boyko, A. R. (2016). Complex disease and phenotype mapping in the domestic dog. Nature Communications, 7, Article 10460. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10460

Bauer, A., Hadji Rasouliha, S., Brunner, M. T., Jagannathan, V., Bucher, I., Bannoehr, J., Varjonen, K., Bond, R., Bergvall, K., Welle, M. M., Roosje, P., & Leeb, T. (2019). A second KRT71 allele in curly coated dogs. Animal Genetics, 50(1), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12743

Salmela, E., Niskanen, J., Arumilli, M., Donner, J., Lohi, H., & Hytonen, M. K. (2019). A novel KRT71 variant in curly-coated dogs. Animal Genetics, 50(1), 101-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/age.12746

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals. (n.d.). OMIA:002750-9615: Reduced hair shedding, MC5R-related in Canis lupus familiaris. University of Sydney. https://omia.org/OMIA002750/9615/

Veterinary Genetics Laboratory. (n.d.). Curl (C1, C2). University of California, Davis. https://vgl.ucdavis.edu/test/curl