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

[Brooke&Ryan]

Hi everyone---

A current thread got me thinking about the subject of breeding a Rottweiler who is known to carry the recessive gene for long hair.

Let's just say it is found out that the sire of the litter carries the gene for long hair & every litter that he sires there are a couple of puppies with long hair. Should this dog be allowed to breed again?

I've read on the boards time & time again that long hair Rottweilers should not be bred. I'm just wondering if there is a chance that maybe two out of the nine puppies have long hair, should the litter still be bred?

If the other pups were show quality or even pet quality, & the sire & dam had many titles & OFA, elbows, eyes, heart cert., etc. would this be a dog that you would want to breed again?

I'm just sort of confused because if a Rottweiler with long hair shouldn't be bred then shouldn't one with the recessive gene not be bred as well?

Sorry if this was confusing. I was just trying to get it all out there.


Brooke

[spidey]

If the gene is truly autosomal recessive, you will only see it expressed if the carrier is bred to a carrier or an affected (i.e. long haired) dog.

[sophie's-mom]

Originally Posted by Brooke&Ryan

I'm just sort of confused because if a Rottweiler with long hair shouldn't be bred then shouldn't one with the recessive gene not be bred as well?

This is my thinking, if you KNOW the dog is a carrier, then I would not risk bringing puppies in that MIGHT carry it and pass it on later. That would go TOTALLY against what I think an ETHICAL breeder should do.

[Brooke&Ryan]

Originally Posted by sophie's-mom

This is my thinking, if you KNOW the dog is a carrier, then I would not risk bringing puppies in that MIGHT carry it and pass it on later. That would go TOTALLY against what I think an ETHICAL breeder should do.

Well that was kind of my thought as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think that long haired Rottweilers are just simply beautiful. BUT...once it is found out that the dog being bred has the recessive gene, & since long haired Rottweilers are not supposed to be bred, then wouldn't that be the case for the carrier of the gene??

[TrishB]

This is the continuing pain in the butt for all breeders. If a dog has a dominant gene that you don't like, you can see it and will see it in the pups - it's easy to decide not to breed because it's consistent.

If it's recessive - it may or may not pop up from time to time. It can skip generations and pop up in 3rd and 4th generations (seemingly by magic).

Therefore, since it is a disqualification, I would have to say not to breed it. Because those who have a short coat could be silently carring the recessive gene - just waiting to rear it's ugly head in a future breeding.

Especially with males - there are so many WONDERFUL studs out there to breed to - I would be VERY hard pressed to be convince to breed one with a known disqualifying recessive gene.

JMHO

[frontierrots]

I guess I look at it a different way.

Long coats are only produced when two dogs that carry the gene are bred together. Pups in the same litter but with normal coats have a 50/50 chance of being totally clear of the gene

Long coats are a cosmetic fault (the same as too dark of markings so that the dog appears black, wire coats, too light of eyes, pink mouth etc.) Meaning that I would not breed a dog that actually HAD this fault but I have no problem breeding their littermates as long as care is used in the choosing of breeding partners so that you don't intentionally double up on it

I approached rear dewclaws (which by the standard MUST be remove) in a similar fashion. I used to get oh, 60 % ish of all pups with rear dewclaws. Rear dew claws are a very common recessive gene, MUCH more common than the long coat recessive. I got tired of removing them because they always seem to bleed more than the front and are attached with a wider piece of flesh but rarely any tendons. So I decided to not breed any dogs that had rear dewclaws at birth and tomake every effort to not breed to a dog that had them at birth. The result? I have not had a single rear dewclaw in the past 4 litters.

If affected dogs are not bred, then the incidence of occurance of long coats will remain small and insignificant as long as breeding partners are chosn carefully. The same can be done with white spots. If dogs that are born with ANY white (affecteds) are never bred then the incidene remains small. If however dogs born with white that goes away, or reduces to a few hairs are bred then the incidence could creep up

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

[stevenc]

Originally Posted by Brooke&Ryan

Well that was kind of my thought as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think that long haired Rottweilers are just simply beautiful. BUT...once it is found out that the dog being bred has the recessive gene, & since long haired Rottweilers are not supposed to be bred, then wouldn't that be the case for the carrier of the gene??

Very good Brooke. This is the problem we have with Disel. In the german style venue a missing tooth is a DQ for show and breeding. In the AKC they say one missing tooth is ok. Is this ethical in your opinion? Now you know why so many breeds have teeth problems in the akc. One judge told us they don't even know how many teeth a boxer should have! I could never breed Disel knowing that he could throw the same problem to a puppy. It is not fair to the buyers. Thank god for strict guidlines in the German style show!

[mmgy]

I don't have an opinion on this......but wanted to comment that I was told that in the US long-haired pups show up every 3rd generation, and that all of them can be traced back to a single male.

[Judi W]

The problem arises when a "very important" dog is involved. With most dogs, if it became commonly known for that dog to throw a disqualifying fault, or serious health fault, breeders would not be so quick to take their bitches to that dog and would be very careful about selecting bitches to go there. The dog owner would also be very selective. When the very important dog becomes known for such, suddenly throwing that fault, whether it is a DQ fault or serious health fault, is decided not to be all that important. Enough out of those litters from that very important dog were quite nice so the risk as to what might be produced was considered to be worth it.

Here is where the problem arises with a dog that is used extensively. It is not the first generation, it is further down the line when you start looking for non-related breeding partners - where do you go? so, it all depends upon how long a view one takes. If the eye is on the short term or long term. Some breeds with less broad a gene pool than the Rottweiler have been so saturated with serious faults that they are put in the difficult position of almost having no where to go. We are not there with the Rottweiler, but there are a couple of dogs that it is almost impossible to get away from.

[MARYDVM]

I think people would be astounded by how many top dogs carry the long coat recessive gene. It is everywhere, including in European lines, and it certainly does not go back to a single male as the source. I would have no problem breeding to a known carrier if all other characteristics were highly desirable. There is no perfect dog, or bitch, and the long coat , while undesirable, is purely a cosmetic flaw. Structural, health and temperament flaws would count much more heavily in my judgement. I strongly doubt that all the bitches, either here, or in Germay, that ever threw a long coat were retired from breeding. Usually the pup gets "the bucket" and no one says anything more. Honest breeders place the pups in pet homes and don't conceal the existence of the gene in their lines.

[rms78645]

Is it predominately a male occurrence? It seems all of the dogs shown are males, as are the 2 that my breeder is thinking are long haired? And there seems to be varying degrees. Do you know how often they are 3 inches long all over the body? I have seen pictures where they look longer than the normal rotts but not all over the body. Then there are pictures where is seems longer in the chest area and ears. Is there a "norm" for long hair?

[Judi W]

I'm sure you will find variations as there are also variations of sorts within the range of correct. Yes, there are bitch long coats as well. The litters I have looked at the long coated puppies were evident right away.

[Dee]

[quote=MARYDVM]

Usually the pup gets "the bucket" and no one says anything more.


What does that mean? Thanks!

[Judi W]

It means the pup is not allowed to live. It is called culling.

[MARYDVM]

Drowned in a bucket of water. Actually a common way for (some) breeders to quietly dispose of unwanted newborn pups.