Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[poodlefan]

Claire Wade, a professor of animal genetics at the University of Sydney, said that genomic studies are helping to improve the health and welfare of all dogs, not just those of specific breeds.

The Australian National Kennel Council has promised to adjust breeding standards to improve animal welfare if scientific evidence suggests a link between a disorder and a characteristic that is standard for the breed. The Shar Pei breed standard was recently adjusted in 2009 to discourage breeding dogs with heavy wrinkling.

“There is a strong commitment by the pedigree dog community to breed healthier dogs. Dog breeders are very good at applying tests relevant to their breeds as they become available,” said Wade.

Now there's a statement by a person of credibility that needs to be picked up and run with. Don't expect Mr Burke will acknowledge that any time soon though. Wouldn't suit his purpose at all.

[shortstep]

Now there's a statement by a person of credibility that needs to be picked up and run with.

I do not think anyone denies that, I certainly do not. I believe ANKC breeders care greatly and want to breed healthy dogs.

However being committed to health and good at applying test to diseases, is not the same as addressing the underlying issue of why so many diseases have become so common in our breeds that is necessary to develope all these tests in the first place.

Again, it is closing the barn door after the horse is long gone.

If the above breed had not been bred to fix the wrinkle gene across the population and then inbreed every generation on that defective gene, it would not have the fever disease in the first place.

Edited July 3, 2011 by shortstep

[Bullbreedlover]

What a frustrating response. It just seems to be attacking the "man" rather than playing the ball. Why not explain? Can you put up some of the links to the research. I'd love to have a read. As to C sections and AI.. an article from over 20 years ago that deals with it.......... Eugenics or Dysgenics.... I suspect there must be others.

That article is totally laughable.

A paragraph I have included below.The rest of the paragraphs are just as bad. If this is what your breeding bible is like then good luck.

To muzzle or restrain fearful or aggressive dogs to get them to mate is just too silly for words. Who on earth would want to mate a dog to one with obvious temperament problems? Moreover, I can think of only one acceptable reason for artificial insemination — when dogs are separated by large distances. It is often much cheaper and more convenient to transport semen than the dog. However, unless we are talking about an extremely rare breed, it would be a mite pompous to assume there is not a good mating prospect within driving distance. Artificial insemination is not wise if the male dog is injured, diseased, or dead. Perhaps the dog has an inherent disposition for injury (e.g., weak bones or joints), disease, or early death. In any case, why inseminate an extant bitch with sperm from an extinct male. If the purpose of selective breeding is to improve genetic stock, why use old-fashioned and out of date sperm?

[poodlefan]

Now there's a statement by a person of credibility that needs to be picked up and run with.

I do not think anyone denies that, I certainly do not. I believe ANKC breeders care greatly and want to breed healthy dogs.

However being committed to health and good at applying test to diseases, is not the same as addressing the underlying issue of why so many diseases have become so common in our breeds that is necessary to develope all these tests in the first place.

Have you ever considered the possibility that one partial reason for this is improved veterinary diagnostics that can both diagnose specific conditions and identify genetic components for them.

A classic comment from my vet in an issue I experienced with one of my dogs.. "he's a purebred so there's probably a genetic component for this".. You know what, there are genetic components to many issues in dogs regardless of whether or not they're purebred.

Amazes me somewhat that with all the changes in nutrition and the chemicals dogs are exposed to, any issue a purebred has is generally considered to be inherited. Not always...

[shortstep]

Have you ever considered the possibility that one partial reason for this is improved veterinary diagnostics that can both diagnose specific conditions and identify genetic components for them.

A classic comment from my vet in an issue I experienced with one of my dogs.. "he's a purebred so there's probably a genetic component for this".. You know what, there are genetic components to many issues in dogs regardless of whether or not they're purebred.

Oh no question that is why so much DNA research is going on using pruebred dogs as the lab rats, and explains why they do not use mix breeds. You would be very unlikely to find collie eye in your poodle and you would also have to look long and hard to find it any mix bred unless it was made up of the collie breeds or tollers. So if you want to finde collie eye, look at dog breeds in a closed stud book where CEA is noted in the breed, you'll then find it easily.

But I do not consider that bragging material at all. It is proveing that inbreeding, closed stud books and a few other factors that go on to make the word purebred, are the basis of the reasons that diseases spread through purebred breeds is such frequency. You can almost ID a breed by listing it's diseases, not a good sign.

[poodlefan]

But I do not consider that bragging material at all. It is proveing that inbreeding, closed stud books and a few other factors that go on to make the word purebred, are the basis of the reasons that diseases spread through purebred breeds is such frequency. You can almost ID a breed by listing it's diseases, not a good sign.

What is suggests to me is that we don't have a clear understanding of the links between breed characteristics and other genetic issues. What's where in a DNA chain is still a big unknown.

We do know that there are links between some colours and health issues. We could reduce a lot of health conditions by banning all black, black and tan and white dogs.. is that somewhere we should be heading?

[shortstep]

But I do not consider that bragging material at all. It is proveing that inbreeding, closed stud books and a few other factors that go on to make the word purebred, are the basis of the reasons that diseases spread through purebred breeds is such frequency. You can almost ID a breed by listing it's diseases, not a good sign.

What is suggests to me is that we don't have a clear understanding of the links between breed characteristics and other genetic issues. What's where in a DNA chain is still a big unknown.

We do know that there are links between some colours and health issues. We could reduce a lot of health conditions by banning all black, black and tan and white dogs.. is that somewhere we should be heading?

That is why inbreeding is not working. We have no idea what genes we leave behind and what they would have done. Nnor do we have any idea what recessive genes we are doubling up, it all goes on while we look at something like coat or rear legs or stops. It can go even to the point that every dog in the breed now has only those 2 genes for a disease (like the Dals). The system is broken.

I do not think this means that we cannot have breeds. I think we can but how we breed them and what we select for has to change. Starting at the very core, the word purebred.

[quoll]

I get what shortstep is saying.............the pedigree dog world should never have gotten to the point where mandatory health testing should be necessary at all. But it's there now and it's time to try and undo some of it.

Yes how true, and that would need a long hard look at the dogs and some of their health problems. For instance dogs that have problem with breathing, in consultation with breeders and health professionals ( I am saying this as an example only ) it may be possible to reverse some issues.

This may have already been covered I have not read every post, but a lot of people confuse genetic issues with confirmation breed standard issues.

If a dog faints because it can not breath due to his face skeletal and air ways been soo altered that is a breed issue and not a genetic issue.

Just like a dog having epilepsy or PRA that would be genetic or inherited or congenital issue, in anycase it is a trait that will be passed on by breeding.

In the case of DDs I have often heard the hybrid F1 debate, in short to this I would reply 2 wrongs don not make a right.

[Dracdog]

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it already in place that you cannot breed imediate family. mother son, father daughter, brother sister? I am pretty sure it has been in Qld since about mid last year and is being taken up nationaly this year.

[shortstep]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it already in place that you cannot breed imediate family. mother son, father daughter, brother sister? I am pretty sure it has been in Qld since about mid last year and is being taken up nationaly this year.

What they (the ANKC) have banned is called 1st degree in breeding. I would also like to see 2nd degree which extends it out a bit further, half sister/brother or cousins and so forth. These sorts of rules are to prevent the most concentrated forms of inbreeding. (the offspring will loose more genes the closer the inbreeding is)

Then there is the other (perhaps we can call it non intentional) inbreeding and that is caused by the system. Which is a closed stub book system. All dogs in the stud book, usually starting from a few founder dogs, are then all bred to each other and then all related to each other (given a bit of time). So every breeding is then inbreeding back on those dogs or their decendents. This can also be compounded (made worse) if there are lots of close intentional inbreeding (as in 1st or 2nd degee as above)happening in the closed stub book too.

Another term you may hear is Popular sire syndrom. This is when a certain dog is used alot and his offspring are then also chosen to use. This popular sire dog can become quickly represented in every dog in the stud book. It may be back several generations and go unobserved to the breeder at the time. Then very time we breed (any dog in the closed stud book) were are breeding back on this same dog, each generation gaining the totaly number of times he is in the pedigree. Some popular sire dogs can appear 20, 50 or even hunderds of times in every dog in the stud book today. We can now see how if this dog carried a recessive gene for a disease, that that gene is now likely spread through the whole population of the breed. This is why you will hear for calls on limiting the number of litters a sire can produce. It is an attempt to slow down inbreeding and slow down the spread of recessive genes. (BTW all dogs, every single one will have unknown recessive genes.)

There is only one direction dog breeds can go in a closed stud book and that is more and more inbred. The best one can do in a closed stud book is try to slow it down. Another method to slow down inbreeding is by looking for breeding combinations that are the least related. This is what the new 'Breed Mate' in the UK Kennel Club is all about and I expect we will have one here soon too. This program will tell you what the average inbreeding is for your breed and what the inbreeding level is for your dog. You can then put in your dog and choose other dogs in the program and work out what the inbreeding on these two dogs would give to their pups. This allows not only for the breeder to do their homework on inbreeding prior to breeding the litter, but it also allows the buyer to look into the inbreeding level in the pup prior to buying it. This may be followed with a directive such as, you can not breed a litter with a higher than the breed average COI or the litter has to be equal to the lowest parents COI.

The only real answer to address the prevention of increasing COI is to open the stud book, which is also what the Kennel club in the UK has done. I have to say, I found this some of the most shocking news I had heard in a long time. I am not saying I like exactly what they have done, but done it they have.

What they have done is to allow any dog, that looks like the breed and passes any mandated health tests, to enter the stud book as an apendix. After 3 generations all of it's offspring will be fully registered. The dogs does not need to have a pedigree or known background. So a cross bred could enter this way, as long as it looks like the breed. They will also allow working judges to look at working breed dogs so as to not disallow working dogs of the breed which usually look rather different from the show ring type. The only reason to do this is to stop the sprial of ever increasing rates of inbreeding inherent in all closed stud book systems.

I do not know what folks think is happening, but when I see The Kennel Club, the first and founding kennel club in the world (and I think they still set the standard of pratice for the world) makes changes like this, then we need to reading, learning and talking about it. It is big news and change is happening, like it or not.

Edited July 3, 2011 by shortstep

[poodlefan]

That is why inbreeding is not working. We have no idea what genes we leave behind and what they would have done. Nnor do we have any idea what recessive genes we are doubling up, it all goes on while we look at something like coat or rear legs or stops. It can go even to the point that every dog in the breed now has only those 2 genes for a disease (like the Dals). The system is broken.

I do not think this means that we cannot have breeds. I think we can but how we breed them and what we select for has to change. Starting at the very core, the word purebred.

I can tell you right now that the genetic lottery is no more certain in an outcross. Mate two dogs of different lines and recessive genes can still deliver a whammy.

[shortstep]

That is why inbreeding is not working. We have no idea what genes we leave behind and what they would have done. Nnor do we have any idea what recessive genes we are doubling up, it all goes on while we look at something like coat or rear legs or stops. It can go even to the point that every dog in the breed now has only those 2 genes for a disease (like the Dals). The system is broken.

I do not think this means that we cannot have breeds. I think we can but how we breed them and what we select for has to change. Starting at the very core, the word purebred.

I can tell you right now that the genetic lottery is no more certain in an outcross. Mate two dogs of different lines and recessive genes can still deliver a whammy.

Well sceince and maths tell us you are wrong. The more you inbreed, the more genes you remove or you can say instead the more likely you are to have 2 matching genes meet up. That is why purebred dog breeders do it, you see the results every day in physical traits reliably found in the breeds, for example the breed poodle have been inbred on a curly coat gene. This same process also applies to and means you are also more likely to have to 2 recessives for a disease meet up (the breed poodle have been (unknowingly) inbred on a PRA gene, and when 2 dogs that have one copy of the PRA genes meet up you can get a poodle puppy with 2 PRA genes and has the disease). It is not theory it is math applied to the science of DNA.

Edited July 3, 2011 by shortstep

[toy dog]

None of these dwarf disorders exist without other health complications like luxating patellas, arthritis, cataracts, and shortened lifespans. But, none of these disorders can be removed from breeds without fundamentally altering the breed itself. The Miniature Dachshund would simply be a Dachshund if you removed the pituitary dwarfism, but most of the other dogs no longer have a perfect corresponding wildtype breed.

For that reason, if the disease is to go, the breed is to go. I won’t count on that happening any time soon, if ever.

Diseased Dwarf Dog images provided courtesy of Cartoonize My Pet.

okay, i want to back up a little. the above quote is that something you cut and pasted or are you stating this?

i need something else cleared up, when you and others are discussing "inbreeding" what i term as inbreeding is close breedings, mother to son etc etc. I think what others are terming Inbreeding could mean they are referring to the interbreeding of pedigree dogs of a certain breed. Sometimes certain breeds have no choice but to inbreed as there are very few examples around.

the above summary is based on what? experience experimenting breeding test matings with the above breeds?

this has been the excuse that many breeders put up "if we get rid of the disease we get rid of the breed"....what rubbish.....if we start eliminating affected individuals in the gene pool we decrease the gene pool some said behind their computer screens and behind my back. So they carry on placing affected dogs in the gene pool sometimes secretly because this is their big excuse.

When i debated testing their dogs for patella luxation. At first and it is still the status quo that many don't test so therefore the disease is still rife in our toybreeds. it is common not because the breed will go, but it is common because many breeders do not test their stock before breeding them or sometimes not interested in knowing whether a dog is affected or not so just chuck it in the gene pool. For the past 6-7 years i have been collating any info i can on the disease and reporting to my club members and other breeders. For the last 25 years i have been testing out theories and applying them with my own dogs and so far have been fairly successful.

It doesn't make me too happy that someone comes along with their big theories cuts and pastes others theories and basically says that my work for the last 6-7 years is a wasted effort. a wasted effort is what i've been writing about, talking to breeders is it???? sharing info and trying to suggest maybe we should start testing for this condition to try and reduce incidences out of the gene pool. After all i am doing this not for humans but for the dogs themselves and the breed we can all then enjoy healthier dogs.

you can have sound little toy dogs in those breeds, i've seen with my own eyes, i've tested out this theor, i've applied and i have won in the past..

i saw asking me a question about something else changing the subject and then posting up an article to prove me wrong and dismiss what i was saying abiout my own breed based on my 25 years of breeding/owning and exhibiting this breed, totally rude.

i know there is a problem with some breeders not willing to recognise when we have a problem in a breed and coming together for a common goal, been there done that with my PL articles for many years! As i say becuase i was doing what you are doing now shortstep 6-7 years ago on this very forum, writing about what i found and posting it up and asking questions etc. i got alot of threats, i got talking behind my back as up to no good, in the end i believe breeders are starting to open up but in the beginning they were very much in denial and very closed. Not any more.

so please dont' start preaching to the already converted. Asking questions getting breeders to talk about it is a good start don't get me wrong, getting them to think about it and how high incidences are in a breed is a good start too. But also listening to their experiences and concerns is vitally important too its a key to moving forward - together.

one more thing: the statement i made that you dismissed so readily, inbreeding is not the only cause of genetic problems, i will elaborate a bit more for you.........

dogs can have recessive genes and carriers that appear normal and sound and healthy and then you either double up on these genes if you place two carriers together or even if you only put one in the gene pool. it certainly does happen with patella luxation with some breeders, as we have found testing out this theory many times, this is why it is so hard to reduce the incidences. But a dog cross breed or not (pedigree) can inherit a genetic problem from its ancestors or any one of its relatives in the bloodline. it doesn't have to be Inbred (mother to son, father to daughter, sister to brother) in order for it to have a genetic problem. This is what im meaning. I'll say it again for the upteenth time.

it doesn't always come about that some breeders only use the best and soundest individuals in a gene pool sometimes they may use a dog because of its type, because it wins alot etc. many other reasons and forego soundness (seen this done a few times over the years) therefore they are now embedding that genetic problem to come out another time in the progeny or the bloodline. They can't look at the big picture of what it is doing to the breed as a whole they are only looking in their own backyard. Then those same bloodlines are used and we get spreading of a genetic problem.

so a vet to say (when a vet of all people should know how it all goes but sadly some don't know the first thing) it is because pedigree dogs are inbred that they have genetic problems is not correct. Any dog can suffer from genetic problems, it doesn't have to be pedigree. So they should have been more truthful and elaborate more but because they don't know about dog breeding and get their info from other sources they are running with it all.....

[shortstep]

None of these dwarf disorders exist without other health complications like luxating patellas, arthritis, cataracts, and shortened lifespans. But, none of these disorders can be removed from breeds without fundamentally altering the breed itself. The Miniature Dachshund would simply be a Dachshund if you removed the pituitary dwarfism, but most of the other dogs no longer have a perfect corresponding wildtype breed.

For that reason, if the disease is to go, the breed is to go. I wont count on that happening any time soon, if ever.

Diseased Dwarf Dog images provided courtesy of Cartoonize My Pet.

okay, i want to back up a little. the above quote is that something you cut and pasted or are you stating this?

i need something else cleared up, when you and others are discussing "inbreeding" what i term as inbreeding is close breedings, mother to son etc etc. I think what others are terming Inbreeding could mean they are referring to the interbreeding of pedigree dogs of a certain breed. Sometimes certain breeds have no choice but to inbreed as there are very few examples around.

First that quote above is not something I said, it was part of a artical I posted about Dwarf dogs written by someone else, you had asked me why I used the word dwarf.

Second, every breed in the ANKC in inbred and every breeder in the ANKC is inbreeding.

I just posted this, and I rather liked it LOL, so please it as it might clear up our confusion about what is meant by inbreding.

Ok here it is again

What they (the ANKC) have banned is called 1st degree in breeding. I would also like to see 2nd degree which extends it out a bit further, half sister/brother or cousins and so forth. These sorts of rules are to prevent the most concentrated forms of inbreeding. (the offspring will loose more genes the closer the inbreeding is)

Then there is the other (perhaps we can call it non intentional) inbreeding and that is caused by the system. Which is a closed stub book system. All dogs in the stud book, usually starting from a few founder dogs, are then all bred to each other and then all related to each other (given a bit of time). So every breeding is then inbreeding back on those dogs or their decendents. This can also be compounded (made worse) if there are lots of close intentional inbreeding (as in 1st or 2nd degee as above)happening in the closed stub book too.

Another term you may hear is Popular sire syndrom. This is when a certain dog is used alot and his offspring are then also chosen to use. This popular sire dog can become quickly represented in every dog in the stud book. It may be back several generations and go unobserved to the breeder at the time. Then very time we breed (any dog in the closed stud book) were are breeding back on this same dog, each generation gaining the totaly number of times he is in the pedigree. Some popular sire dogs can appear 20, 50 or even hunderds of times in every dog in the stud book today. We can now see how if this dog carried a recessive gene for a disease, that that gene is now likely spread through the whole population of the breed. This is why you will hear for calls on limiting the number of litters a sire can produce. It is an attempt to slow down inbreeding and slow down the spread of recessive genes. (BTW all dogs, every single one will have unknown recessive genes.)

There is only one direction dog breeds can go in a closed stud book and that is more and more inbred. The best one can do in a closed stud book is try to slow it down. Another method to slow down inbreeding is by looking for breeding combinations that are the least related. This is what the new 'Breed Mate' in the UK Kennel Club is all about and I expect we will have one here soon too. This program will tell you what the average inbreeding is for your breed and what the inbreeding level is for your dog. You can then put in your dog and choose other dogs in the program and work out what the inbreeding on these two dogs would give to their pups. This allows not only for the breeder to do their homework on inbreeding prior to breeding the litter, but it also allows the buyer to look into the inbreeding level in the pup prior to buying it. This may be followed with a directive such as, you can not breed a litter with a higher than the breed average COI or the litter has to be equal to the lowest parents COI.

The only real answer to address the prevention of increasing COI is to open the stud book, which is also what the Kennel club in the UK has done. I have to say, I found this some of the most shocking news I had heard in a long time. I am not saying I like exactly what they have done, but done it they have.

What they have done is to allow any dog, that looks like the breed and passes any mandated health tests, to enter the stud book as an apendix. After 3 generations all of it's offspring will be fully registered. The dogs does not need to have a pedigree or known background. So a cross bred could enter this way, as long as it looks like the breed. They will also allow working judges to look at working breed dogs so as to not disallow working dogs of the breed which usually look rather different from the show ring type. The only reason to do this is to stop the sprial of ever increasing rates of inbreeding inherent in all closed stud book systems.

I do not know what folks think is happening, but when I see The Kennel Club, the first and founding kennel club in the world (and I think they still set the standard of pratice for the world) makes changes like this, then we need to reading, learning and talking about it. It is big news and change is happening, like it or not.

Edited July 3, 2011 by shortstep

[poodlefan]

Well sceince and maths tell us you are wrong. The more you inbreed, the more genes you remove or you can say instead the more likely you are to have 2 matching genes meet up. That is why purebred dog breeders do it, you see the results every day in physical traits reliably found in the breeds, for example the breed poodle have been inbred on a curly coat gene. This same process also applies to and means you are also more likely to have to 2 recessives for a disease meet up (the breed poodle have been (unknowingly) inbred on a PRA gene, and when 2 dogs that have one copy of the PRA genes meet up you can get a poodle puppy with 2 PRA genes and has the disease). It is not theory it is math applied to the science of DNA.

And whelpings tell me otherwise.

If you mate two totally unrelated merle dogs or Overo marked paint horses, the result may be lethal white offspring - that happens whether or not the parents are "inbred".

Mating any animal to another which carries a dominant gene will produce offspring that carry and display that gene.

If genetics was easy, we'd have this stuff sorted by now.

I'm not averse to changes in breeding practices by the way. I am averse to the idea that one change (abolish 2nd degree breeding) will solve the issue.

I can tell you that the biggest genetic lotteries of all come with mating two different breeds.You tell me if you mate a breed selectively bred for a low trigger to bite but a very high level of bite inhibition to a breed with a very high trigger to bite but very low bite inhibition which of those qualities the pups will inherit.

The offspring might will be more genetically diverse - and some of them will have very low bite triggers and low bite inhibition. Just what we want to have as family pets? This is a real example by the way.

My personal view is that much of the time we don't know what we're producing with breed hybrids. So the idea of introducing "foreign" genes into breeds can produce highly undesirable results.

Edited July 3, 2011 by poodlefan

[toy dog]

well okay it might clear up somethings SS. but i have alot of breeder friends in our own breed, remember how i told you that our breed has been in existance for over 100 years in its current form and before that they don't really know the origin, some say malta, some say china, some say toltecs which goes back 2000 years IN THE BREEDS CURRENT FORM.

getting back to inbreeding, some of my breeder friends have studied the pedigrees of some dogs going back 30-40 years and none of those dogs have been inbred, since then (last 50 years) none of the dogs have been inbred in some lines. i have studied the pedigrees of my dogs as i have a very old line going back about 30 years i have resurected some lines from the past. Many dogs since then have been imported from UK and now some are imported from Canada, USA, and some in future will be spain and other countries, so our blooodlines don't need to be inbred. First about maybe 30-40-50 years ago it was only UK but not any more.

i would assume that this is not only happening in the chihuahua (all over Australia mind you) have links to breeders country-wide like a lot of breeders today so we source our dogs from all over even New Zealand, i had an import from here not too long ago myself. but it is happening with many toy breeds and has happened for many years.

i wrote an article in DOL here in the breed pages on the first chihuahuas that came to Australia the first 4 chihuahuas but the breed in Australia since then has had many other imports to make up many many varied bloodlines. A breeder thats been with our breed since 1965 has given me more insight to the first chihuahuas in oz that im going to update my article with.

So to say all pedigree dogs are inbred is a bogus statement especially today when you see so many imports from many countries.

Edited July 4, 2011 by toy dog

[Steve]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Yes the RSPCA has a plan to bring in breeding in under the prevention of cruelty to animals laws whcih would make it illegal to inbreed. Rather than the ANKC telling them to bugger off and that they were wrong its about selection and not in breeding they gave in and now have new rules coming in on the 1st of July which restricts close relatives being able to be bred. That gave the RSPCA the leg up.

The fact is that in breeding when used correctly can be a great tool to eliminate genetic health problems and in breeding is what we do - its what makes purebred dogs. There is a big difference between population genetics which are selecting mates randomly and what we do which is sleective breeding after we know our lines and test for known genetic health issues. The breed of dog which has the most genetic diseases is a mixed breed dog.

[shortstep]

dogs can have recessive genes and carriers that appear normal and sound and healthy and then you either double up on these genes if you place two carriers together or even if you only put one in the gene pool. it certainly does happen with patella luxation with some breeders, as we have found testing out this theory many times, this is why it is so hard to reduce the incidences. But a dog cross breed or not (pedigree) can inherit a genetic problem from its ancestors or any one of its relatives in the bloodline. it doesn't have to be Inbred (mother to son, father to daughter, sister to brother) in order for it to have a genetic problem. This is what im meaning. I'll say it again for the upteenth time.

ok lets start with just oeen topic as you have about 6 going on in the post above.

In order to breed out Patella Suluxation, you first have to know the mode of inheritence and personally it is not a disease in my breed so I know litle about it. I had several poodles as a child that had it and I got my daughter an American Eskimo and it had it.

I am going to guess it is a complex disease. Complex diseases are thought to have direct and indirect factors that lead to expression of the disease.

Direct factors are defective genes that cause the disease or perhaps part of the disease. Indirect factors would be risk factors, these are not defective genes but are instead traits that somehow interact with the defective genes to increase the risk.

For example in some diseases males are more likely to be affected, as in OCD, this is attributed to the fact that male dogs grow faster and have different hormones in play than females and this imparts a greater risk for the the disease to appear in males. So complexs diseases are an interplay of direct genes and indirect genes.

The reason I asked ifs all the toy breeds get PS is because that was just a casual observation I thought I might have noticed. So if that is so then you might be able to conclude that dwarf gene/s has either a direct or indirect effect on the complex disease PS. Does that make sense? Even if this was true which I am not saying it is, there could be be many other direct and indirect genes at play.

So saying that a complex disease that hasd direct and indirect factors does not breed true like a simple recessive disease does, only proves that it is mot a simple recessive. That does not prove that inbreeding has nothing to do with this disease.

Recessives and Complex disease are both inherited and both get spread through a breed by inbreeding, but they are different types of diseases with different genetic make ups and differnt mdes of inheritence. Another words a complex disease is not a recessive disease. But both are inherited and any time you inbreed you increase the risk of increasing the genes for both recessive and complex diseases in a closed stud book.

Hense why some breeds have such high rates of HD or ED, we know these are not simple recessive diseases, they are complex diseases, but they are still atleast in part inherited.

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[toy dog]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Yes the RSPCA has a plan to bring in breeding in under the prevention of cruelty to animals laws whcih would make it illegal to inbreed. Rather than the ANKC telling them to bugger off and that they were wrong its about selection and not in breeding they gave in and now have new rules coming in on the 1st of July which restricts close relatives being able to be bred. That gave the RSPCA the leg up.

The fact is that in breeding when used correctly can be a great tool to eliminate genetic health problems and in breeding is what we do - its what makes purebred dogs. There is a big difference between population genetics which are selecting mates randomly and what we do which is sleective breeding after we know our lines and test for known genetic health issues. The breed of dog which has the most genetic diseases is a mixed breed dog.

yes! in my long roundabout way this is what i've been trying to say. i don't understand why ANKC are bowing down to RSPCA and letting them tell all of us how it is when they don't know the ins and outs of everything to do with dogs. RSPCA aren't the dog authority on all things dog, ANKC are!

[Steve]

Did I hear the right when they said that RSPCA was making moves to have Inbreeding banned? If this is the case, what is being done to counteract that? They managed to steam roller tail docking, what's going to stop them from this little vendetta?

Well all dogs in the kennel club are inbred.

And every breeding of kennel club dogs is doing inbreeding.

By definition pedigree dogs are inbred animals.

However if they made a law that limited the amount of inbreeding to what is considered safe in humans, I would support that across all breeds.

I think that would be a good step in the right direction and would prefer that the ANKC made the change without the RSPCA having to make it a big pulbic welfare issue and a law.

Why would you want to advocate in breeding to be limited to what is considered safe in humans - and who will judge what is safe in humans? We dont have anywhere near the information for breeding in humans we do for breeding in dogs. I have 6 generations of one breed in my yard and I can tell you everything you could ask about them and their health and potential issues which may show up - how many humans have that sort of health info for their human relatives ? We practice selective breeding and we have at our fingertiops pedigree knowledge and genetic testing and scoring which we can use to make our decisions - we are talking about selectively breeding purebred dogs not randomly breeding humans!

The problem with purebred dogs is that some breeders have been slecting primarily for the way the dog looks - the show ring and you can skirt around it all you like but that has nothing to do with in breeding and everything to do with slection.

If you take away the ability for us to in breed all you will get is less predictibility on what diseases might show up and less chance of testing - if you still have such emphasis on how the dog looks and rates in a show ring.