Where did this come from? How did we introduce the Long Hair Gene in Labradors. Did someone cross with a Flat coat? Is there a test for this?

Yes, there's a test for it through DDC. There were some long-haired dogs (St. Johns dog) that went into the development of the Labrador. Some of these gene can sneak through the gene pool and suddenly it pops up when someone unknowingly doubles up on it. Similar to the brindle marking or other mismarks.

The "fluffy" gene (that's what its called) has always been in the breed. The original standard, re: coat, was written to emphasize short, straight, dense free from wave, etc. to hopefully breed out the long coat of the St. John's dog, and then later, the Setter & Flat Coat infusion during the 30's and 40's.
The "fluffy" gene is recessive, and yes, there is a test for it.

If their is a test for the "FLUFFY COAT" will some one please tell me were
the test is being done??????

The only test that is available concerning Labradors is the LONG HAIRED COAT
GENE TEST, however there is a test available for the "Fluffy Coat Gene" if you are breeding Pembroke Welsh Corgi's !!!!!!!

It is very important that we do not confuse people in to thinking that they should
be testing for the FLUFFY COAT GENE as it does not apply to the Labrador.

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

Actually, it is the same test. The gene for coat length was isolated on PWC, where those long-coated individuals are affectionately called "fluffies." In many other breeds that have the SAME gene that can be determined with the SAME test, the breed term is "long coat" or "long-haired". So, whether you are referencing Labradors, Vizslas or PWCs, it is all the same gene with different terminology

Several laboratories offer the "fluffy" test. DDC was one of the first to use it for Labradors to verify that it was valid on our breed. Using this DNA screening test can help to avoid some surprises in the whelping box. Of course (editoralizing now), if you can't even get breeders to test for PRA or EIC, how can you expect them to test for long-coat?

Calm down, "Breeder", stop shouting, learn to read and to listen.
It is called the "fluffy" gene, and there is a test for it, (not "their" is a test). The test does not only apply to PWCs, no matter how many exclamation points you use. Perhaps if you phrased your inquiry differently, you could get some useful information rather than asserting that people who are informed are trying to confuse others. It seems to me that you don't need much help in that that department as you appear to me to be confused already.

If the long haired gene was commonly handed down to all our dogs from the breed's origins then we would see more fluffy puppies in our whelping boxes. I have seen brindle markings and/or black and tan markings in a number of unrelated litters over the years but this is not the case with fluffy puppies.

Instead I have seen several long haired "fluffy" puppies and they all have ONE particular dog in common in their pedigree either once or when he is doubled up on it's even more likely. We all know which dog I'm referring to but I won't name names even if this is a relatively benign issue.

Does anyone know of any fluffy puppies produced from a pedigree where he is not present at all?

There is a popular stud dog right now producing fluffy puppies who is a grandson of this particular dog so we will continue the line going.

It depends on the mode of inheritance, which may be very complicated. ( I know that the particular "fluffy" gene is a simple recessive, but there are many factors involved whenever two individuals "combine" their genetic material, aka mate.)
It is not surprising to see the expression of certain genes, in this case, the fluffy or long coat phenotype, when certain individuals appear in pedigrees, in some cases, multiple times. Fortunately, this is a "benign" trait and easily identified for breeding purposes.

Got a litter of 2/3 long-coated puppies this year - check out my website (Long-coated page) for pictures if you're interested. I kept one of the long-coated girls as she was the best structured puppy in the litter. I've already had a number of stud dog owners willing to test their boys for me (obviously mom is a carrier, as is her litter sister, and the litter sister's daughter) so I can be sure not to produce any more, though they are very cute.

Thank you Patty for sharing your experience. If everyone were as upfront and honest as you, we could eliminate more problems.

The gene is much more prevalent than most breeders realize and it did not originate with one particular sire in the pedigree. He had parents and his parents had parents, etc etc. He therefore has many cousins who are also carriers. There are many pedigrees that do not include this particular individual (so long as we are not naming him) because the gene originated many generations prior. If you have European origins in the pedigree most all of us do then we may have the gene right under our noses and dont realize it.

Looks more like a witch hunt to me.
I think it's awful you put that on your website. There are other individuals besides yourself involved here and the information could have been shared in a better way than plastering someone else's dog all over your site and pointing fingers at him.
If that was my dog I'd be after you legally!
Shame on you.

Two thumbs up for Patty, What's the big deal? A test is available. And if someone happens to produce fluffy puppies, there is no harm to the dog. The only harm might be to the breeder's pocketbook.

Patty is not the first to share information about fluffy puppies on a website. Check the following:

http://webpages.charter.net/lofgren/Fluffy.htm
http://webpages.charter.net/lofgren/ancestor_pages/molson.htm

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Heck, some people might not remember the past because some foolish person thought it was a dirty little secret.

From the pictures there is no mistake the long haired labradors are obviously very different from the labrador breed standard. I have never seen any long haired labs in my area.

I think of this as a history lesson in Labs and the interbred retrievers of a hundred years ago here in one litter. This should not be a witch hunt--especially since Patty is keeping one. She can breed it out really fast. I don't see a problem in this show and tell, as this gene has been around for centuries in Labs and its ancestors, although I am not the stud owner. If that long wavy coat is the worst thing either sire or grandsire carries, the Labrador breed may benefit. I have seen similar curly/very wavy coats on an occasional puppy in both some show breeding and some rescues, with very different American and English ancestry, with correct coats in littermates. To me that coat is very much a St. John's Water Dog coat, and so more of a tip of the hat, and gene pool, to the first Labradors. The perceived relative merits of a top winning sire and test results may allow him to be used judiciously. This is not a lethal gene we are talking about, and as far as we know, it is a gene revealed easily by a simple and cheap genetic test. To me, it is a matter of one's taste and goals. Patty is trying to breed to the standard on coats, so what is the big deal? She can DNA parents to prove that nobody got over a fence in recent generations--something we couldn't do in the bad old days when this would have been hushed up.

As a rescuer, this coat is far less deadly to a dog of unknown background landing in a shelter than splashing or points, where one may presume to have a more guardy breed such as Rottie in it. I know the shelter situation is not likely to happen to these puppies, but I'm just saying. There is no insurance company ban on wavy long coats, but there is one on some pointed breeds such as Dobes, Rotties, and GSDs. We've seen the splashing and points (or tweed) for decades, too, from some very good lines. If breeding for a champion were so easy, more Labs would finish!

I also had never seen a long-coat lab until I got into the show labs. Has anyone ever seen it crop up in the field type American lab or the British field type labs? I don't do any breeding, but I find the long-coat gene very interesting. I guess down the line somewhere they all share some ancestors????? All breeds evolve through breeding. Maybe those areas we would like to improve such as coat...sometime crop up to the extreme.

I do not see a witch hunt at all - just a sharing of information based on personal experience. If more people shared information there would be a lot more productive discussion resulting in better educated breeders out there.

Every dog will produce a variety of qualities - some are desirable and some are not (and what is desirable is subjective). Pretending there are no undesirable qualities is not helpful to anyone and is an inaccurate representation of any breeding specimen. The goal is to mate individuals with complimentary attributes to increase the odds of producing desirable attributes while reducing the odds for producing the undesirable attributes. No one has ever produced perfection.

Bringing issues to light has nothing to do with making any judgments about particular dogs - they are what they are. I think openly discussing EVERYTHING a dog brings to the table is far more productive than bragging only about passing clearances and show wins.

I, for one, find this topic fascinating. I wonder if it's possible that there is a chance that the gene can still come through to some degree as a longer and perhaps thicker coat as seen on some Labs vs. the shorter and tighter of others. What I mean is the "dripping with coat" dog. Clearly it is not the Fluffy gene full force because they actually have more coat than some Goldens I've seen! I bred a girl many years ago to the boy and got some beautiful coats; not fluffy, but very thick and dared not to bathe too often as the coat would "stand out". Also got some very nice bone on these babies. Again, very interesting topic!

One of the reasons that "fluffies" have become more of a concern in Corgi is that carriers of the gene tend to have a denser coat and other "appealing" traits. These carriers have some advantage in the show ring these days. When you breed two of these top-dog types together, you get some fluffy pups. The same applies in other breeds to a varying degree.

In Labradors, carriers may exhibit a fuller or slightly longer coat, denser bone, etc. Some have less appealing traits like bushy tails or excess furnishings. It is sort of like having a "slight" dose when only one gene is present Many people who seek those "tons of bone" and "dripping in coat" dogs are flirting with shaggy pups in the future. Breeding to the standard is the best course to avoid extremes of any feature.

Not trying to sound like I am picking a fight - but to "get the facts" where did you get your facts - they sound anecdotal (sp) rather than facts - can you explain where the research was done on labradors with more bone and feathering, I am really curious - because I have a boy that looks just like you are describing. Lots of bone, lots of coat and some (a few) bottle brush hairs on his tail. I plan on having him tested to see if he is a carrier. But would love to read what you read.

Valerie - Bibsmom

To the best of my knowledge (which is not vast) there has been no "research" as in double-blind, rigid measurement, etc. A lot of "empirical" research from observation and experience has been passed on from other breeds. Both Cardigan and Pembroke Corgi breeders and mentors make it clear that carriers are generally more heavily coated and boned. Similar findings have been documented (again by observation) in several other breeds that have both a smooth and rough coat variety. Reserchers at DDC also commented on these specific traits that are often seen on carriers. I don't think you will find anything published in a peer-reviewed journal (my usual gold standard), but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence across many breeds.

Drawing from experience frm other breeds and general observation of some of the known carriers in Labradors, it is pretty clear that these traits are frequently present in our breed as well. The traits commonly associated with carriers of the long-coat gene in some other breeds can also be seen in Labradors of unknown status if you are open minded and observant.

I have been coached to recognize the carrier traits in PWC by a Corgi mentor/educator. I see those same traits in some conformation Labradors. Some popular dogs that exhibit those traits have produced long coats. These facts reinforce what I have been taught from other breeds. You can take as much or as little as you choose from these comments, but that does not change the outcome in the whelping box. Respect for the standard without exaggeration is the only thing that really will.

PS: I will be interested to know the results of the long-coat test on the dog you described. Please share when you receive it. Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.

No snipe or witch hunt here.... just the usual warning to avoid extremes of any trait in general for the best outcomes.

If the mode of transmission is simple autosomal recessive, then carriers do not exhibit the trait.

I was under the impression that if the dog had both copies of the long cost gene, the long coat was expressed. Unlike EIC, when both copies of the gene mean the dog has both copies of the gene, but the condition may never be expressed. I don't know what mode of inheritance that is however.

This is not true for all recessive traits. Probably the most documented of these is Sickle-cell anemia. People with one copy of the sickle-cell gene actually have some differences in hemoglobin. Here is a quote from one journal research article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2093356/pdf/brmedj03376-0014.pdf

So you're saying it's wrong of Patty to have posted the pedigree of the litter? Give me a break. We do it all the time for our youngsters and upcoming litters. You're just upset that she did her homework and posted the results that she obtained on her dogs and shared it with the world. It may leave room for people to draw conclusions, but it's part of research. I see no harm.

That would be recessive with incomplete penetrance. However, there also is something called variable expressivity, in which some individuals with the genetic composition express the trait to a great degree and other express it very little. Possibly the long-haired trait is incompletely dominant with variable expressivity so that some heterozygotes do not show any noticeable effects whereas others have a coat that is longer than that of a dog that does not carry the trait. There is no question that the hair length of some Labradors is longer than was commonly seen when I first got into the breed over 35 years ago. Also the amount of bone has increased to the point that a dog who would have been average in the 70's looks light in bone today. I suppose whether you think this is an improvement or not is open to discussion.

Peggy, would it be correct to say that the long hair gene is not a simple autosomal recessive mode of transmission but a more complex mode with variable expression and/or incomplete penetrance?

Just for reference purposes so that the terminology is not confused, incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity are phenomena associated only with dominant inheritance, never with recessive. So, it would be correct to say that SHORT hair is a dominant with incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity. Long hair is a simple autosomal recessive. The actual appearance of this long hair varies based on other modifying genes. Long hair on a Rough Collie does not look like long hair on a Poodle or a Maltese - but they all have the same simple recessive long-hair gene.

I was taught that being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia makes one more resistant to malaria. This would make carrying it an evolutionary advantage if one lived in Africa.

Also, there are other breeds (German Shepherds for example) where a sire who carries the long coat gene is often sought after. Actual long coat bitches are used as brood bitches in top kennels. Being heterozygous for a long coat does improve coat(as described by their standard for their breed)and wise breeders use this fact to their advantage. Producing long coat pups is no problem as many pet owners, and even highly respected show breeders, love them. It is a disqualification for AKC but I think it is only a fault in Germany.

I do want to add that I have argued on this forum in the past that lab breeders may be consciously or unconsciously breeding for the long coat gene. It is my opinion however, that the coat this produces is not correct for labs. I do think that many of the dogs described as "dripping in coat" may actually carry the long coat gene. I have no evidence other than intuition. Linebreeding will settle that eventually.

I guess I can go along with that description, but the genetics textbook (Hyde) I am using now does not specify that these terms are used only for dominant traits. My older textbook (Russell) specifically states that penetrance refers to expression of a dominant trait or a recessive homozygous trait. The question of penetrance or variable expressivity in a gene that is incompletely dominant is not addressed, but I don't see why it couldn't happen. The defining characteristic is if individuals with the same genotype at a locus have different phenotypes.

The reason I suggest that this is incomplete dominance is that the heterozygote is phenotypically different from either homozygote. If a gene has incomplete dominance, then neither allele is dominant, so whether long or short is dominant is not a relevant question. I don't think we are disagreeing on what is actually occurring - it's just a semantic argument.

I personally know of a GSD breeder that produces long coat pups at times. I will say too, they indeed are heavier boned. I've also seen the corgis too, that another poster mentioned as being heavier boned as well.

So it stands to reason that heavier bone does go w/ long coat.

Why are we debating this when VetGen says the inheritance of the fluffy/long coat is recessive and they offer a test?

QUOTED from the VetGen's list of tests available for Labrador Retrievers: "While it is not a color trait, the length of a dog's coat is of interest to many. It has recently been demonstrated that in many breeds, the gene FGF5 is responsible for whether a dog has a long coat (rough or fluffy), or a short (smooth) coat. The test Vetgen offers detects the presence or absence of the recessive allele that results in long coats when present in two copies, and as such allows dogs with short coats that carry a hidden "long coat" allele to be detected."

Seems more like speculation to me.

The referenced website is mine. I also wrote an article for the LRC newsletter on the subject. My intention in bringing attention to this characteristic was that many breeders had been hurt as a result of misinformation about fluffies. I have since heard from people from as far away as Alberta Canada and Austrialia who have benefited from knowing that this gene exists. Sharing information is an imperative for breeders and I am glad to see the conversation continues. The more we know, the better we do, and the safer we are from the dangers of ignorance. btw the protocol for the fluffy gene in Labradors was written by DDC with the information from my litter and Randy Smith there did a lot of research. He found that there is a very large number of fluffy Labs in Europe, in particular Sweden.

Ol' time breeders use the description "dripping in coat" as a way of saying "in good coat" or "in full coat". It is not meant to be taken literally.

Olivia Nankivell

breeder

get the facts

In Labradors, carriers may exhibit a fuller or slightly longer coat, denser bone, etc. Some have less appealing traits like bushy tails or excess furnishings. It is sort of like having a "slight" dose when only one gene is present Many people who seek those "tons of bone" and "dripping in coat" dogs are flirting with shaggy pups in the future. Breeding to the standard is the best course to avoid extremes of any feature.

******************************************************
I'm puzzled . How do you get a witch hunt out of the post from "Get The Facts"?

It may not be meant to be taken literally, but unfortunately these days it is. Too many people consider too much of a bad thing (long, loose, open coats) to be better than not enough of a good thing (short, dense coats with a SLIGHT wave). And because it is being rewarded in the show ring (far more frequently in this country under American Breeder judges than under foreign judges), it seems the vocabulary, along with personal taste, have resulted in perpetuating undesirable traits to the point that a short dense coat is considered out of fashion despite the standard.

Breeder X thanks for posting this:

Ol' time breeders use the description "dripping in coat" as a way of saying "in good coat" or "in full coat". It is not meant to be taken literally.

I posted something similar to your statement above on the "high tailsets and feathers" thread and was shot down and told it was wrong. Thanks for the confirmation, I was fully aware that it is just an expression used to describe "in full coat" and not to be taken literal as a description of a long coated dog.

Let's face it. There are a lot of coats out there that are "over the top". Are they pretty? Well, yes. Are they correct? No.

And that's the key word. 'Serious' Breeders who are serious use proper terminology for one. They don't use the terms dripping in coat/tons of bone. They know what is correct and what isn't. Their dogs win at not only specialties but all breed as well. A good and proper labrador wins at both not just one. They have a true breeding program as seen from the onset with their foundation bitch and coming down to today. One can easily follow that. They don't have a mish mash of pedigrees all over the place either. They are pretty consistent in what they do. You can look at their dog's and have a pretty good idea of where that dog probably originated from.

The problem with "dripping in coat" being misunderstood is that some breeders today are just looking to get into the breed, have a champion and become "famous" before they understand the Labrador Retriever or breeding in general. They look at what's winning in the ring and try to copy. There is nothing wrong in saying "dripping in coat". Learn what is meant by it, learn the history of the breed and take your time in establishing your goals. I love a dog dripping in coat (in full coat) with tons of bone (well boned right down through the feet) and with a carrot shaped tail (wrapped) and I'll be saying it forever.

I find these discussions to be the most interesting when the focus turns to interpretations of "correct." It is just not that simple. I read the standard again for the _th time and found plenty of characteristics that can only be evaluated subjectively.

Please tell me how much bone is appropriate when it is suppose to be in proportion to the dog? What is proportionate? What is it on a 24" male?

What is long coat? The standard states short and dense so what is short? We all agree that a coat with hair the length of a Flat Coat or a Golden is too long. That is easy.

I think it is easy to get in areas of absolute when you have only been doing this 10 years, plus or minus a few. I was there once. I would caution not to give the perception that you are looking down on someone when you are at a show. On this forum...who cares? Nobody will know who you are. At a show your actions and demeanor will give away your contempt so be careful not to act some way that you may regret later.

Just some advice from an "old timer." Take it or leave it.....your choice.

You can get an idea of what is "correct" by looking at pictures of coats when the standards were developed and the breed was still a working dog. Some were more dense than others, but overall, the coat length was more in line than what you see today. There was far less wave.

You can also get an idea of what adequate bone was by looking at pics of dogs when they were still being bred and judged by those who actually had experience working their dogs. They were a moderate solid dog with a nice tight coat, classic clean heads with decent length of muzzle and tight (not droopy) eyes - a very functional dog.

Pictures from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s? Give me some examples if you don't mind. Are they English or American bred?

Just curious.

http://www.digitaldean.net/diamond/History_Labradors.htm

Ok, that is an interesting website. There are pictures there spanning three decades. I had never seen the site before. Thanks for sharing.

I have given hugs to some of those dogs in person including some that lived in England. I hate to burst some bubbles but some of those had as much bone as you see today (if not more) and had a lot of coat which some would say is too much coat.

Ummmm. I looked at A LOT of dogs on that site. My bubble is still intact. You must have found some that I missed. I did not see a bunch of overdone dogs that were dripping in coat.

It really depends on what you consider overdone. I also did not see anything that was overdone but I can promise you that some of those dogs had as much bone and coat as what you see today. One dog in particular on that site had more bone than I have ever seen on a dog even today.

The problem with pictures is they can only show you that percise moment in time and when the dog is at it's best. Nobody sends out a bad picture. How many times have you seen an awesome picture but then see the dog at a show and say, "wow...that is him/her?"

Yes, these dogs all seem to be well-boned but nothing overdone. I do not see any with the longer coats that we see today - and none with the overdone wave. A short dense coat is a good coat and the dogs in these pictures appear to have a more correct coat than we are seeing in the rings today.

Another good source, if you have access to it, is Nancy Martin's book, "Legends in Labradors", which is a series of interviews with and biographies of many of the breeders who were instrumental in the early development of this breed (both in the UK and in the US). At that time, more often than not, breeders had working kennels and many of the same folks who judged field trials judged the Labrador breed - it was much more about breeding a better working dog than breeding for the specific purpose of showing OR intense field competition and there was no extreme difference between the two as they were usually the same dogs.