Interesting liver pups - Page 3

I did this once before, didn't I? Confused you with someone else? [insert embarrased smiley] No, acutally, I was wrong on two counts: 1) the person I was thinking of was KCzaja, and 2) she's not a vet tech, she was just at the vet's for an ultrasound on one of her dogs! Sorry for the error. Hopefully, next time I'll double check my source!

In theory, simple recessives like the gene that produces blues and livers can be bred out in 5 generations assuming no other carriers or blues or livers are introduced. It's the same with longcoats and solid whites. So if a blue or liver (or coat or white) results in a litter, both parents are carriers. We get blues and livers in Malamutes, simple recessives too. As far as I know, in that breed, those colors are not detrimental to the dog. However, blue Dobes do seem to have a tendency toward skin problems. Not sure why. BTW, although no one has mention it in this thread, there are no dogs that carry recessive genes "stronger" than others. I often hear GSD breeders say - so and so produces a lot of coats/livers/blues, but that's not accurate. Either the dog carries the gene or it doesn't, the number of effect pups in each litter is a random thing and just the way the genes pair at the time on conception, so avoiding breeding to a specific dog because it "produces a lot of livers/blues/coats" is not correct thinking.

BTW genes are inheritted in pairs, one half of each pair coming from each parent. The pairing is random.

Blitzen: "avoiding breeding to a specific dog because it "produces a lot of livers/blues/coats" is not correct thinking." True--at least, in theory. However, Korry of Waldesruh tended to produce whole litters of sables (granted a dominant gene--in that it takes one to get one. Perhaps many B/T fetuses are resorbed--who knows? I have also heard of many studs (as always, the implicated sex) who tend to produce a preponderance of coats. OTH, I know of a LC female bred to a LC carrier who produced 50% coats in one litter. When the breeding was repeated, there were no coats. Go figure... I am also aware of two coated parents who produced no coats (in an accidental breeding). Similarly, consider that I am aware of a bitch who has never produced a female pup. Seems that there is an immune issue that causes her to resorbed any females conceived. We know, for fact (with ultrasonography), that she has resorbed fetuses. In vivo genetics and in vitro genetics don't always mesh--so it appears.

Thank you, just now I understand it. But what will happen if the breeder separate out the liver puppies - before anybody knows it. This way nobody can know who is the carrier of liver colour. And it can happens every time with every GSD - because nobody knows what the parents produced in past. The same could happen ( and happens ) with other genetic defect. My opinion ( only opinion! ) is that this liver - special liver - is a genetic defect, not a special colour, isn¿t? From where it should come? Otherwise the black and tan may be is coming from the grey gsd.

I believe that the disparity between theoretical genetics & actual distribution of certain traits has a lot to do with the interaction between genetic input & enviornmental influences, sometimes referred to as 'the hand of God'; & that is why I personally find genetics so facinating. I am always at least lurking when these discussions on genetics are started. I think that when we talk about genetics, medical conditions, etc., both in humans & animals, we often focus on only one set of influences, & tend to overlook the miriad stressors that can contribute to any particular outcome. A more holistic approach to breeding, or any aspect of our stewardship of the breed, in my humble opinion, is warranted. I do believe that every little action,(or inaction) affects something, somewhere, & also believe that theory is no where more manifest than in breeding! jackie harris

BTW- Sunsilver, it's very nice of you to think of me, but I would be too embarrassed to claim any expertise I did not possess..I can make a fool out of myself pretty well on my own! I hope you have a very Merry Christmas & a safe & prosperous New Year! jackie harris

Louise, if 2 coats did not produce any coats, then it cannot be a simple recessive unless the progeny were plushes that today would test postive for being coats. Did you see the pups? It is possible to breed a LC to a carrier and get a normal sized litter without any coats. Repeat the breeding and the entire litter could be coats. Those are the extremes and just the luck of the draw at times. However, if 2 coats really have produced genetic stock hairs, then there is something very wrong with the assumption that the long coat gene is inherited as a simple recessive. Interesting....

I would guess that the supposed long coats were really the longer version of the stock coat, like this dog here: Erko vom Haus Tchorz. I really can't believe that two coats could produce a litter of non-coated pups, unless another stock coated stud managed to get to her somehow. Just ain't possible...

Good point, Sunsilver. A dog with a "borderline" coat might DNA test as a carrier and not a coat. If Louise saw the parents though, I'd have to think they were both coats if she says they were. At any rate, something is wrong - either one or both were not coats, or the pups were plushes that would test positive for being genetic coats or the parentage is not correct or it's really not a simple recessive mode of inheritance. Duh.....I'm really confused now.