I'm trying to figure out how I managed to be "in the breed" for 20+ years and never heard about the long hair gene until the last year or two.

Since I know at least one prominent sire carried the gene I'm wondering if producing a long hair puppy is akin to a black & tan or brindle ... hide it so no one finds out about it. There has to be way more in existence than the few that have been mentioned here.

I think I have one here right now and the breeder is testing the dam and the litter mate for the gene. I have to say she is very cute. I'm surprised this trend hasn't caught on for pet sales like the silver Labradors.

It really has not been seen in the States until fairly recently. It is conceivable that we might see more of it in the future. However, the battery of tests from InGen includes the test for long hair. Since most people are now using InGen for PRA, they will also learn the status of their dogs in regard to the long hair gene. Most breeders will know when their dogs carry the gene and can easily avoid it.

I had it in a litter at least 6 years ago..oddly, all the boys had it, none of the girls-they looked more coated than Golden Retriever puppies. When they grew up the hair was so long they looked like a mixed breed. It actually was out of a litter by my boy, he never produced it again but the dam from that litter did.

Saw an AKC registered long haired yellow lab at an AKC obedience trial 30 years ago. The judge questioned the entry being a purebred and asked for an assessment of the dog in order for it to compete...so that one didn't come from any recent imports.

There was no Labrador Club 100 years ago in this country, and there were many Interbred retrievers on both sides of the pond. Again, see the parent club histories in US and UK, and the wins by an interbred at Crufts back in the teens. Then there were post-war crossings, some more clandestine than others. I believe that the Labradornet website names names on the Flatcoats, Interbreds, and Chessies he could find in research. This isn't news. True purebreds are rather new, though!

I just got results back from Ingen that indicated 2 of my bitches have the long-coat gene. I don't necessarily plan to screen any potential stud dogs for that yet as not very many have been tested, but I supposed if it shows up in a litter, I'd probably be more careful next time!

I think you might also find that silver breeders have introduced the long hair gene by bringing in Weimaraners to the Lab gene pool. Weimaraners come in a long hair variety.

Many GSD breeders would brag if their stud dog carried the long coat gene. I am assuming it is the same or similar gene as being discussed here. They need to be open about it because you don't usually want to double on it, or at least be aware if you are. However, many breeders love to take their bitches to a male who carries the long coat gene because carrying it can give the offspring a really plush coat. It is a different coat from what labs should have but a coat that GSD people generally love.

This is very intriging to me. I have a rescue yellow girl that has a longer softer coat and with some curl on her back leg feathers. As she is a rescue I thought she might have a mutating gene of some kind or that something not quite lab had tip toed through her mothers dreams. Interesting all the way around to know about the fluffy gene. Makes no difference to her, She was able to ILP easily and she is all lab in personality, just interesting

The puppies on this website look just like Golden Retriever puppies.....not "Long-haired Labradors"
Pretty bold throwing out Big's name....wow.

OK....guessing is fine but we do not seem to be discussing the science of it. Is the long coat gene a simple recessive gene? Is it the kind of gene where if you carry it (heterozygous) then you will have a really nice coat (by today's definition of nice)?

So for the long coat to show up, is this passed on like PRA? Both parents have to carry the gene for it to be expressed?

It would seem to me just because there is a long coat gene does not mean it would necessarily be a long coat like a Golden retriever. It could be a better coat than most Labradors have.

Pedigrees with some questionable breeders may not be worth the paper written on. There might really be a golden in the woodpile.

Just as important as picking a stud dog is picking a breeder.

Why don't people just READ the available info on this gene - it's no big secret how it's passed on and its presence in the Labrador gene pool:

http://www.vetdnacenter.com/canine-long-hair-test.html

I think your choice of the word "better" is incorrect, just as the long coat would be incorrect.

Just because a coat on one Labrador might be longer than on another, even with all other things being equal, that does not make it a better coat.

A SHORT, straight, dense, harsh coat with undercoat is a perfectly correct coat! A slightly longer, harsh, dense coat with undercoat AND a slight wave down the back is also perfectly correct!

And it is exactly this type of hesitation that keeps the really detrimental things in lines (or individual dogs) a big dark secret.

You know, it's not a personal slur against someone to have it known that their dog carries the gene for, or produces, any sort of less desirable trait or problem. Is it really any different than saying "Brood X" or "Stud B" carries the gene for, and has produced, thick thighs, or thick tails?

Dogs are what they are, and carry what they carry. Better to know of the genetics and use that knowledge to produce either what you want to see, or don't use it so as not to produce what you don't want to see. Both dogs mentioned have contributed good things to the breed; if you know your bitch doesn't have the gene for long hair -- go for it! If she does, then it becomes your decision whether or not to go for it, and chance producing long haired pups.

Either way, knowledge is power. There is nothing wrong with disclosure when it's going to benefit the breed. All genetics disclosures ARE for the good of the breed!

Really, think about it. If we should be hesitant to discuss this coat issue, which is not life-threatening or painful to a dog, imagine how secretive we should be about painful or detrimental things dogs can produce........NOT! Why should the breed suffer for our egos?????

"A SHORT, straight, dense, harsh coat with undercoat is a perfectly correct coat! A slightly longer, harsh, dense coat with undercoat AND a slight wave down the back is also perfectly correct!"

Is a slight wave perfectly correct or is it an acceptable flaw?

However, carrying the recessive long coat gene may produce a coat that is considered "better" by today's standards. I would like someone in the know to comment on this.

I went to the link posted above. Thanks for the link but no thanks on the attitude. The genetics seem pretty basic to me.

A slight wave down the back is not a fault and is acceptable. Major wave all over the body with whips and curls is not okay.

Are you really calling me a jerk? Cool!!

Someone must be hiding something if I can be in the breed for 20 years with mentors who have been in the breed for 20 years more than me and I've still never heard of them.

Suddenly one is produced that comes down four generations of my breeding and I don't know where it's coming from.

I can't believe I'm the only one to have one. I've heard from three people saying that they've produced it. This isn't a witch hunt. It's an honest need to learn more about the long hair gene and where it may have come from.

If that makes me a jerk ... so be it. LOL

Hey guys..it's time to settle down. While this is an interesting topic, it's beginning to cross the line (i.e. naming dogs, kennels, etc) I've gone through all of the posts and deleted the offensive ones.

You all know the rules...please play by them.

-Jill

I think I am trying to verify that a slight wave is not ideal (not "perfectly correct"). It is acceptable however. So, I would refer to that as a minor flaw???

What I am wondering is if carrying the recessive long hair gene does cause a wave and/or is that other genes???

Quote:
Originally Posted by genetics
Is a slight wave perfectly correct or is it an acceptable flaw?


Answer by Sarah:
A slight wave down the back is not a fault and is acceptable. Major wave all over the body with whips and curls is not okay.

is TOTALLY correct. Not curls, just a wave. You know what they look like. More times than not dogs with that wave have beautifully wrapped tails. Bottle brush tails, tails with feathering and no wrap are REALLY incorrect - Head, coat and tail

(Originally posted by SWF)

A SHORT, straight, dense, harsh coat with undercoat is a perfectly correct coat! A slightly longer, harsh, dense coat with undercoat AND a slight wave down the back is also perfectly correct

Here're a couple of "waves" to those lovely, CORRECT coats!

I am sorry but I have to argue that you both may very well be incorrect, according to both the AKC and English Standards. I absolutely agree that 9 out of every 10 breeders will tell you that a slight wave is totally correct, however. I am not so sure though.

I like a slight wave myself but can in no way describe it as being perfectly or totally correct.

Per the AKC Standard- "It [coat] should be short, straight and very dense, giving a fairly hard feeling to the hand." Later in the paragraph after explaining examples of improper coats, it states that- "A slight wave down the back is permissible."

"Permissible" later in the paragraph is absolutely not the same thing as "perfectly or totally correct". "Perfectly correct" is straight. Slight wave is "permissible" which I would interpret as "somewhat less than ideal".

I would refer to the English Standard, as the country of origin of our breed, to back up this interpretation. The English Standard only describes the ideal Lab which is as follows- "Coat Distinctive feature, short dense without wave or feathering, giving fairly hard feel to the touch; weather-resistant undercoat."

PS My interpretation of the standard is why I ask the question whether carrying the long coat gene might actually "improve" a coat. For example, does the long coat gene cause slight waves too??? I put the word improve in quotes because things like slight waves may be a trend but might be incorrect from a traditional perspective. Therefore, unlike other breeds who like having the long coat gene in their gene pool, we might not want it around.

The long coat and the slight wave are two different things. Generally the coats with a slight wave may be a bit longer on the guard hairs but not a long coat. The coat is suppose to hug the body - it forms a jacket that insulates the skin from the cold. Have you seen dogs with the long coat that hug the body? Or is it longer, straighter and not quite as water resistant because it doesn't wrap the body?

Carrying a gene and expressing it are two different things. There are dogs with EIC and PRA that never express those genes but they carry them.

Exactly..but often a dog carries a recessive allele for one trait but it may be linked with another gene. Or, a recessive gene isn't truly recessive, there may be some degree of co-dominance or incomplete dominance (I am not sure of the proper term) going on.

I just keep wondering if carrying the recessive gene for long hair does other things like cause a coat to be fuller, or have a slight wave, or make it a tad longer than usual. The long coat factor in other breeds definately does these things. For those breeds, this is desired even though being homozygous recessive for long coat, and therefore having that expressed, is a disqualification.

I know enough about basic/general genetics to ask these questions but not enough to know the details. I suspect that the specific genetic mechanisms involved in this for labs may not be known by anyone.