WG SL males at stud that do not carry the LSC gene? - Page 2

I've got one on the East Coast thsat has yet to produce a coat and he's not at risk for DM.

I've always been told that having the recessive LSC gene is necessary to produce the desired plush/show coats.  Without it you tend to have shorter, tighter coats, more along the lines of what many of the working lines have.  I have to believe this is true or it would have been very easy to breed the trait out in just a few generations.  When a recessive gene remains so abundant it there's usually a reason.  (Example: sickle cell gene in humans is debilitating when two are present, but only one results in protection from malaria, hence it's continued existence).  Personally, I don't breed or show the LSC but I don't mind having them in my litters, I always have buyers waiting for them.

Danbee, 

I can tell you that my three females that have DNA tested clear for the LSC gene do all have shorter tighter coats, I had them tested the same time I did their DM tests, and my other female that wasn't tested for the coat gene hasn't produced one in 14 puppies also has a shorter tighter coat.  There may be some truth in what you posted above, although we can't base it on my dogs alone LOL. More people would of course have to test for it or post the results of their litters from tight coated females to see if they've had any long coats. It is definitely interesting though to think about and watch for.

Barbie

It is true in at least one other breed I am familiar with that losing the LC gene will cause the loss of the fuller coats with the substantial undercoats (ie the plushes and "show" coats).  It's good to know which dogs carry the LC gene recessively but if I were to breed a litter of GSD's it wouldn't be high on my lists of things to avoid. I'd be a lot more concerned about not doubling up on the gene for DM for example and selecting for a family history of producing good working dogs. We expect so much from this breed that coat length seems almost immaterial and, for me,  ranks right up there with selecting for/against specific colors  (other than white).

Danbee, IMO the gene remains in the gene pool because carriers are being bred. As we all know, every dog that has produced a genetic LC must carry the gene. If every GSD  breeder would specifically select against longcoats based on DNA, then there will be no more long coats or plushes. Breeding to and from plushes will keep it going too since as far as I know they will test as carriers of the LC gene or as LC's. The gene is so deeply ingrained in the breed because plush/show coats are desired in the show ring. Shorter, tighter coats are probably more utilitarian and serve tending dogs better than a longer, softer coat (assuming those dogs also have good undercoats). Also, texture is almost as important as length.

Blitzen,  That's exactly what I meant.  If there wasn't a reason to keep it, it would have been easy to breed out generations ago & likely would have happened because (especially prior to the SV rule change) most breeders would prefer to have all normal coats.

I misunderstood part of your post, Danbee. Sorry.

Can someone post  a link to a picture of a true long coat and a true plush coat.  Thx  Nan

PS:  Sorry Barbie I thought Zamp did NOT carry the LC gene.  My mistake.  Got confused.Nan

Not sure I agree that dogs that do not carry the LC gene cannot produce a plush coat.

Youre saying these puppies are plushes from parents that don't carry the LC gene? Can you tell for sure in puppies this age or do you need to see what their adult coats look like?