Yes Melissa,
I understand. But HOW do you know that odd coat isn't the tie that binds?
After all it's in all the pups.....someplace.

Would you really extinguish it in the breed if you could?

That's what I'm wondering too. I know that the general idea would be to extinguish it if it's not correct. But are there consequences? I sort of gathered that there are from this thread but it's been a bit confusing for me

This was posted on a Corgi forum I'm a part of. It's pretty interesting but for the most part is only on show quality color except this short piece about Dalmatians and Pointers. Thought it was interesting as it could be that the genes for color and uric acid genes and/or concentrations in dogs are linked, though it has no scientific support yet.

http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/white-spotting-cont/

" As an example of this phenomenon, Dalmatians as a breed have a big problem with uric acid; they have a gene that prevents them from breaking it down and excreting it. Dalmatians have been bred to Pointers to attempt to create Dalmatians with normal uric acid metabolism. This experiment has been a resounding success in terms of cutting the rate of the bad uric acid mutation, and the “new” Dalmatians with some Pointer blood look like perfectly normal Dals and are of high quality in all respects. All, that is, except for the sacred spots. Dalmatians with normal uric acid production have smaller spots than the Dals with high uric acid. The low-acid dogs don’t have the half-dollar-sized perfectly round spots that are the holy grail of Dalmatian color; they’re more dime-sized. You can see this beautifully illustrated in the “I” litter here. So what’s going on? Is the uric acid gene also a pigment-controlling gene? Or does a higher concentration of uric acid in the dog lead to larger spots? Can breeders push the low uric acid dogs to have larger spotting without abandoning the positive health effects?"

Extinguish... no... breed for as a common accepted trait... no.

I approach retaining a dog as a set of balances where I look at a group of puppies at 6, 8, and 10 weeks and ask myself who here is another step closer along the lines to my vision of a perfect papillon. No puppy is perfect so I look at who is the most perfect union of traits and go from there. Having an incorrect coat is a pretty big strike against it because I take the idea that form should equal function into my decisions.

Maybe in some working dogs you can take the stance that wrong coat is purely cosmetic and in some dogs I'd agree with you. A ridgeless ridgeback can run and bay just as well as one with a perfect ridge. However when you start adding maintenance time and that keeping that dog would increase the recurrence of that trait, it would have to be a pretty drop dead awesome puppy in all other ways to be worth keeping that in a line.

Once I have bred a pair of dogs if I get the results that tell me a trait will occur that I don't want with that pairing. Why would I ever repeat that breeding? It's not like my breed is rare or that different pairings are particularly difficult to find. We throw the dice again until more information becomes available, then we step left... and throw the dice again based upon the best information we can.

 Quote: randy allen

As I seem to be the instigator of the long hair/puffy coat tied to the over all well being of a breed tangent this thread has taken..............
I still feel that original question is still up in the air.

So for the breeders that have breeds that 'spontaneously' blossom an off coat, do you really want to get rid of that odd pup? For good? Everyone of your dogs carry that gene for good, bad or indifferent.

My opinion, is that if the trait only affect aesthetics, why "get rid of it." Breeders may see things differently. But no, all pups from a dog which throws an odd coat, will not necessarily be carriers.

Lets take the coat length factor as an example. To produce a long coat pup, each parent must carry the allele for the recessive long coat.

1) If both are ll, which means they not only carry the trait but exhibit it; all pups will be ll and homozygous recessive for the trait.

2) If one is ll and one Ll (one coated and one short hair) each pup has a 50% chance of being heterozygous (short hair but carrying the coated allele), and each pup has a 50% chance of being homozygous recessive (long hair).

3) If both are Ll, each pup will have a 25% chance of being homozygous recessive for long, a 50% chance of being heterozygous with short hair but carrying the allele for long, and 25% chance of being homozygous dominant for short hair. So some pups might not be carriers.

 Quote: randy allen

And for the people here that think they have some support for the contention that longer hair equals 'mellower' temperament, be that support come from other trainers, handlers, or sometimes yes sometimes no breeders, please provide links to them or for the conversations of all these agreements on the low key personalities of the fluffer dogs.

If during a training discussion on another group or forum on the pros and cons of marker training, I might say that I knew of several trainers who advocated marker training. I certainly wouldn't name anyone personally on this forum or give links to them without their express permission. Nor will I do so in the reverse.

I never claimed that there was definitive proof that such a link exists. In fact, I gave several possible reasons why I personally have seen this; including that it could have been coincidence or my imagination. Some others on this thread have noted differences, others have not. I think the question on differences is still as up in the air as when I first suggested the possibility.

I hope that my response has satisfied you, as I doubt I will find anything definitive on the subject. Anecdotal information for each side of the issue is all I have found.

 Quote: Melissa Thom

A ridgeless ridgeback can run and bay just as well as one with a perfect ridge. However when you start adding maintenance time and that keeping that dog would increase the recurrence of that trait, it would have to be a pretty drop dead awesome puppy in all other ways to be worth keeping that in a line.

This thread has gone in all manner of directions, and I'm sorry if this veers off yet again, but since you brought up Ridgebacks ... there is actually a genetic link between the gene that causes that hallmark ridge (without which a dog is automatically disqualified from even showing) and a gene that causes a potentially life threatening congenital defect called dermoid sinus. While the particulars aren't entirely understood, it is known that ridgeless ridgebacks do not carry the gene. We've come a ways since the days when all ridgeless pups in a litter would be culled, rather than adopted out as pets, but there are scarce few breeders around today that would even consider including a ridgeless in a breeding program, no matter how stunning the individual was in all other aspects, or how impactful the inclusion of the (recessive) ridgeless gene could be - expression of that ridge is rather paramount. It's all too easy to put the blinders on and breed toward a specific visual standard, and until we have the capacity to read DNA like the instruction sheet it is, cosmetic and structural goals will continue to drive most breeding decisions, because they're obvious.

I like that dalmation example - the Bark magazine did a nice piece on the subject last spring, from a slightly different angle.

~Natalya

That is absolutely fascinating to me! All of this is. I'm going to have to look more into it and for that article in the Bark magazine. I'm so glad I started this thread. I've learned so much!

Melissa,
I'm not talking about someone actually breeding off coats, if that's what your thinking. I'm wondering if breeders really do want to extinguish that odd dog from the lineages at this point in time, no one really knows what will go away with that gene.

Okay, lets say you make a pairing and you get six pups that in the end become absolutely stunting, just magnificent, everything you'd want.......but.....there was a seventh.....an off coat.
Would you repeat that breeding?

Natalya,
I'm kinda dense, are you saying the gene carrying the deadly recessive is the same one that handles making the ridge?

And yes Melissa, the seventh dog was just as nice as the rest, it just had this 'funny' coat.

Well if my stars aligned in such a way that a papillon managed to produce seven puppies instead of the usual 2-4 and all the puppies in the litter were quality then yes. I'd consider it although I'm not sure why I would need to rebreed that group if I got six pups (or even two) that were quality.

I guess the bigger question for me is that when the day comes and I'm given a gene readout on my dogs that tell me which coat type percentiles I will get from a projected cross where will my cutoff point be, where would it need to be for an off bite, or an eye condition? To be honest, I'm not sure yet.