Breeding of Dogs with the Recessive Gene for Long Hair...

[Carol Burke]

[You cannot eliminate every recessive gene while maintaining genetic variability, so I would rather concentrate on keeping the occurance small for cosmetic faults while working hard to eliminate structural and temperament and health defects instead[/quote]

I agree with Diane. If you start removing every dog that has or may have a recessive gene for a cosmetic fault pretty soon there will be no gene pool.

Lucky has a litter brother with a long coat. He has been bred 13 times and never produced a long coat. His daughter did produce one long coat. Out of other children of his that have been bred, no long coats.

I think when we eliminate hip dysplasia, poor temperaments and poor structure, then it will be time to worry about the ocassional long coat or white spot.

[spidey]

I'm finding this topic very interesting, since I've been having a very comparable discussion with fanciers and breeders of my breed. Since my breed is quite rare, the gene pool is quite limited. Now we're lucky in the sense that up until now, we haven't had any common genetic problems in the breed, but we're starting to see a couple of eye issues raise their ugly heads and so discussion about how to select breeding stock has been a "hot topic". The general consensus among the more experienced breeders is what Diane and Carol and others have been saying about Rottweilers: you should not eliminate a dog from the breeding pool for a minor fault, especially if the dog has other qualities which are desirable, as long as you are careful with your research into a given fault a dog may have (i.e. so you do not double up recessives). The research I've done also suggests that a good "work around" is to breed one litter from a dog with a fault (but otherwise a good example of the breed), and then select the best puppy (or puppies) from that litter to continue breeding from. I'm quite pleased to see that this thinking is prevalent in other breeds as well.

[Judi W]

We are exceedingly fortunate in this breed that it is not a choice between this or that. We have a very diverse gene pool and it is not necessary to choose between say a strong potential for HD or a strong potential of a DQ fault.

I would differ on one point however in that a disqualifying fault should certainly not be labeled as "minor" without total disrepsect for the standard. If anything not deemed functional is labeled as minor, then there is no reason for a standard

[MARYDVM]

But is it truly non-functional, or just an appearance flaw that doesn't conform with what the Rottweiler is supposed to look like? A long coated Rottweiler can do everything a short coated one can.

[Judi W]

So can lots of mongrels. A very large portion of breed type described in the standard is not functional but rather has to do with what physical characteristics are identified with the breed. As I said, if doing one's best to breed in the interest of the offspring meeting the standard is not important to a breeder, so be it. Then just have it be "meeting good temperament and health".

[MARYDVM]

Well, it's obvious that different people place a different amount of weight on various traits and flaws. There are so many Rottweiler lines carrying the long coat gene out there, including top sires in recent and not so recent history, that I, personally would not use it as a total disqualification for consideration in breeding.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by MARYDVM

Well, it's obvious that different people place a different amount of weight on various traits and flaws. There are so many Rottweiler lines carrying the long coat gene out there, including top sires in recent and not so recent history, that I, personally would not use it as a total disqualification for consideration in breeding.

But I don't believe that is what JudiW is saying.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Judi, but this is what I got from what you said:

The description or look of the breed also designates it as such breed. While developing the breed, these physical attributes were chosen for a reason (i.e. short hair for a working dog, less maintenance, less chance of mats or burrs getting imbedded in a coat compromising the dogs ability to move). To disregard those attributes, is to disregard the standard.

I'd also counter with the fact that we are NOT in the situation that Spidey's breed is in. We have a very diverse gene pool. Our dogs are not rare. Therefore, it would serve to purpose that since we have such a large gene pool that we should also be able to cut down on the 'minor but still disqualifying faults' just as we are the larger problems such as HD, SAS, etc. Just because we haven't succeeded in removing the major issues doesn't mean that we should ignore the minors.

I'm sure there are comparable animals (hopefully more), with just as strong, desirable traits WITHOUT the longhaired gene as there are with it. So why not simply choose them to breed? With a gene pool as large as ours, it shouldn’t be that much of a problem (although, the same can be said about our major problems as well…. ).

[spidey]

Yes, but assuming the longhaired gene is autosomal recessive, then it's possible to breed it out while still using dogs who carry it for a couple of breedings - if it's recessive and you breed to a proven non-carrier, you should get at least some puppies who are not carriers (and if you breed to a non-carrier, you should get no coated puppies at all, unless it's a mutation - basic Mendelian genetics) - that way you can keep the lines from the carrier dog without keeping that gene, and if you're careful, you should be able to breed it out fairly expediently. There are already genetic tests for some traits, I assume one could be developed for this one (although the priority is normally, quite rightly, on genetic problems which affect function). This is of course only worth it if the carrier dog is worth it, of course, but since most puppies go to pet homes anyway, it doesn't seem like that much of a problem to just sell carrier puppies on spay/neuter contracts.

[TrishB]

Please also know that I'm very well aware that SAS is MUCH more important to eliminate in our breed than a long coat. I just don't feel that we have to compromise the standard to do it. We have the gene pool, it certainly won't kill us to NOT breed a few longhaired carrier dogs. Isn't there a similiar dog that doesn't have have the gene?

[BostonRott]

Without test-breeding, you don't know which puppies carry the gene and which don't. So how do you make your decisions?

[Brooke&Ryan]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

Without test-breeding, you don't know which puppies carry the gene and which don't. So how do you make your decisions?

Exactly, that was my other question I was just about to ask.

[BostonRott]

Right, you can't say that because a pup in a litter has a long coat, that they all carry the gene. They might, they may well not. And even if they do, the first litter bred may not show it (see my example with Froli).

And, getting back to what Diane and Mary were saying, even if I knew the dog carried the gene, if everything else was in place, and I wasn't finding "the package" elsewhere, I'd go ahead and roll the dice with a breeding. It's a cosmetic fault, not a life-altering one. When you have health, temperament, structure and type in the bloodline you want, how many would throw away the "package" because of "what if" ??

[frontierrots]

As more food for thought, the Rottweiler gene pool is NOT as broad as you might think. Sure we have lots and lots and lots of Rottweilers

BUT the majority go back tothe same handful of dogs.

There is a good article on this fact on maybe, the Darkstar Rottweilers website?? I "Think" Steve and Theresa researched this genetic bottleneck in the breed awhile back

And also it is not "a few" dogs that carry long coat, it is a LOT of them. I see long coats all the time from widely different pedigrees with "name brand" pedigrees

And to answer a question I was asked, no I have never produced a long coat. Heavy coats, yes, long as in a DQ? no. BUT I know lots of breeders who have. My Xena's grandsire (A Barry v Hertener Wappen son) produced quite a few. But I bred Angelica to him and no long coats. I bred her son to Molly (Angelica's 1/2 sister) and got no long coats.

[Dans2Rotts]

Well just from what I gather here this is something farely rare and usually detected before the pups are homed. And as stated this breeds gene pool is fairly large why doesnt the breeder spay or neiter the pups B4 they are homed, or since this is some what debated how early to alter a dog is healthy do as Spidey sudgest and make it contractual.

[Judi W]

Well, you can go back to the beginning of dogdom as well, but influence greatly diminishes the further back you go. Now I've only been involved in the breed since 1971, so my knowlege of historical might be limited. No place did I say that relatives of dogs who have ever thrown a trait should not be used. I did say however, that one should be careful as much as possible so that selection will minimize the combinations where expression of disqualification faults is known.

Regardless, I don't think the standard should be ignored in breeding selection simply because the fault is "cosmetic". An example might be if you had a bitch whose mother had produced yellow eye, or long coat or excessive white. In selecting a breeding partner would you take her to a dog that had been producing the same fault in multiple breedings? I hope not. Ugly might be cosmetic also, but I feel that breeders bear the responsibility of attention to breed type. Pet breeding is not limited to health issues.