Pedigree Dog Segment On The 7pm Project

[toy dog]

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.

yes it is very complex!!! the testing system is not fail safe either. Some have said in the past that they believe it is polygenic as well. When you have a theory going and you think you may be starting to understand it, there is always something that pops up that discounts it.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Well someone has their knickers in a knot about inbreeding! Inbreeding is not the root of all evil, it is only a tool for selecting genes you want. You can inbreed two closely related animals and if they are both free of a particular gene then their offspring won't have it. Similarly, you can take two animals that are not related in any way and if both carry a gene the offspring can develop it. You wouldn't blame inbreeding then would you? The solution to the problem is be selective in matings with knowledge of what your lines carry. It is well known that if you outcross you risk introducing genes you don't want.

So shortstep, how do you account for all the diseases arising in crossbreds that aren't produced by those horrible people who inbreed purebred dogs?

[shortstep]

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.

Ok can you tell me the COI on your dogs?

This is a mathmatical (and goodness knows how) calculation that tells you how inbred your dogs is.

Just a quick look at Mate Select shows me that Smooth chi in the Uk on avearge are almost 7% inbreed and long coat 5% and that number is based going back to the begining of Chi in the Uk stud book (have no idea how far that goes back but I am guessing pretty far).

There is no breed in any stud book that is not inbreed (unless it is a new breed). The current definition of purebred means inbreed.

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Are You Serious Jo]

COI is useless unless you know what genes you are dealing with, it isn't a magic cure all number. What do you think about the colonies of highly inbred lab mice that healthy?

[shortstep]

Well someone has their knickers in a knot about inbreeding! Inbreeding is not the root of all evil, it is only a tool for selecting genes you want. You can inbreed two closely related animals and if they are both free of a particular gene then their offspring won't have it. Similarly, you can take two animals that are not related in any way and if both carry a gene the offspring can develop it. You wouldn't blame inbreeding then would you? The solution to the problem is be selective in matings with knowledge of what your lines carry. It is well known that if you outcross you risk introducing genes you don't want.

So shortstep, how do you account for all the diseases arising in crossbreds that aren't produced by those horrible people who inbreed purebred dogs?

Can you tell me which genes you are throwing out when you inbreed?

[shortstep]

COI is useless unless you know what genes you are dealing with, it isn't a magic cure all number. What do you think about the colonies of highly inbred lab mice that healthy?

Its an estimation of how many genes have been lost, so that should make it easy to tell me what genes are left and what they are doing and which genes are now lost and what they did?

And when we know this for all those millions of genes being tossed about in and out, then we can inbreed safely (until there is another mutation).

[Are You Serious Jo]

You throw out the genes you don't want by mating animals that don't have them, don't you know how it works? The offspring will have whatever you select them to have, outcrossing is a bigger risk than informed inbreeding. Do you know what artificial selection is?

I don't think anyone can make any impact on you though because you believe all breeds and every individual of those breeds are carrying every deleterious gene. You are clearly anti purebred and I don't know why you are on this forum

[shortstep]

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.

I do not think so, I think you can have a breed and with some frequecy outcrossing and not loose your breed.

But look if people are happy to take it to the wire withthe governments and the animal welfare groups then go for it. I think you will loose and I think the UK kennel club making all these changes is a direct reaction to the notion that this topic is no longer a dicsussion, it is now a matter of changing or not having kennel clubs at all.

I also think that even if the kennel clubs are shut down, even if they ban many of the more extreme breeds, that there is still time then to reorganize and try some different ways to breed dogs.

I really do have to leave now for a Dr appointment.

Edited July 4, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

What about how closely Inbred some endangered species will end up as a result of humans trying to bring them back from the destruction we caused?

Exactly as we now know that inbreeding has a detrimental effect on threatened species.

Our results have important conservation implications. First, ignoring inbreeding depression will substantially underestimate extinction risk. http://www.ecologyan...ml#relationship

Inbreeding is a big risk for threatened animals.

Thank goodness domestic dogs as a species are not threatened!! And thank goodness dog 'breeds' are not separate species. We can open our stud books (a model only in our minds) and cross bred to another breed of dog to reduce COI, remove or control a genetic disease, to modify an extreme trait or to remove defect traits which are wide spread in a breed and many other uses, in any of our breeds. Tthere is no reason to skirt the dangerous world of inbred threatened species with our dog breeds.

If we allowed it, there is no problem keeping genetic diversity in any 'breed 'of dogs. But we do no allow it and currently there are more than few dog 'breeds' that are considered threatened. We just have to use this current science and cast aside the ideas and science of 100-150 years ago. We have moved on and now we need to bring our dog breeding practices up to date.

I don't disagree with this in principle; however, as wheaten terrier people found, crossbreeding to another breed is not a magic bullet to remove or control genetic disease.

A controlled outcross is not the answer for every disease in every breed, but it certainly could be the answer for many of the diseases in many breeds. That is the real point and not that it may not work for some disease.

What I find really frustrating is even in the case of the Dalmatian, where the work has been done and successfully, most breeder would rather breed dogs with disease than use a dog with a cross some 10-13 or more generations ago and prevent the disease in their dogs. It boggles the mind. Personally I think any breeder who refuses to bring the healthy genes into their Dals should be banned. I guess it will take the RSPCA to make it a welfare issue and get a government law made first.

It may take a new generation of dog breeders to effect some of the needed changes. I just hope that breeding for 'breeds' is not totally banned by then and that most breeds are not already lost or are too far gone before we start to see the needed changes happen.

Yes shortstep but advocating for a more diversified management plan for some breeds isnt quite the same as advocating for a ban on in breeding until its considered safe in humans across the board.

Whats more sometimes in breeding may even be the answer to eliminating a problem rather than just bloody spreading it further and wider.

My family has a blood disease which is caused because I had 6 kids with someone who was a carrier and I was a carrier. It is not a test which is given to the general population yet everywhere I go I meet people who have this disease. Im not related to him in at least 8 generations. If I had known we were both carriers and I wanted to save my kids being affected and some of my grandkids it would of been safer for me to mate with my brother who is not a carrier . It depends what you are selecting for and as long as we are selecting for better health and fertility there is no problem. AND we should be able to use all of the tools at our disposal including in breeding to do that - Its that which needs to be pushed not a drum being banged on about in breeding

[shortstep]

You throw out the genes you don't want by mating animals that don't have them, don't you know how it works? The offspring will have whatever you select them to have, outcrossing is a bigger risk than informed inbreeding. Do you know what artificial selection is?

I don't think anyone can make any impact on you though because you believe all breeds and every individual of those breeds are carrying every deleterious gene. You are clearly anti purebred and I don't know why you are on this forum

Every breeding is affectiing millions of matching genes, every time you inbreed you potnetially throw out one side of any of those matches. No one has a clue what you are throwing out when you inbreed. Nor do you know what all the genes you are fixing in the breed do, only the ones you can see or the next disease that shows up in the breed. Surely you know this. A dog is much more than the few traits you can see.

[WreckitWhippet]

You throw out the genes you don't want by mating animals that don't have them, don't you know how it works? The offspring will have whatever you select them to have, outcrossing is a bigger risk than informed inbreeding. Do you know what artificial selection is?

I don't think anyone can make any impact on you though because you believe all breeds and every individual of those breeds are carrying every deleterious gene. You are clearly anti purebred and I don't know why you are on this forum

ain't that the truth

[Are You Serious Jo]

Unless you are prepared to do a full DNA profile before every mating you won't know the exact outcome of a mating for every one of those millions of genes. I give up, you are closed minded on the issue and are armed with internet articles without the knowledge of how to understand them. To think I used to defend you.

[Steve]

The other side of the coin is that many of the litters produced for that elusive winner end up in pet homes. The question here is : Is it fair to inflict a dog with many health or even one health problem unto a family, who will bond with that gorgeous puppy, and than see it over come with health issues. Where is the fairness there, for the dog or the family.

an ethical breeder strives to breed a healthy litter, by doing tests and using healthy examples, researching a bloodline viewing as many of that bloodline as possible to ascertain if there are any genetic problems that will be passed onto the produced pups. however, some genes being recessive doesn't rule out that we get that odd one that might be slightly affected with a genetic problem. All you can do as a breeder is inform the buyer of these problems, get the dog desexed so it does not get used in the gene pool. what else can you do? all dogs no matter what their breeding is has potential to be affected with a genetic problem whether we know the bloodline or it is not known (cross breed bitsas).

just my thoughts.

it just continually gets up my nose how these people are reporting on genetic problems when they are not reporting on the full story of what is actually going on here.

To me the full story is that inbreeding and closed stud books are at the root of the need to do health testing.

Health testing is looking for defective genes which are now wide spread enough in the breed as to be commonly found, which now require some sort of screening or testing for.

That is ass backwards.

Good breeding, ethical breeding, should mean that we are not making breeds that end up with wide spread health problems that need to be tested for in the first place.

The whole system is geared to make health problems. Starting with the concept of purebred, which madates inbreeding forever on a small number of ansectors. The Kennel Club moto really should be 'Keep it all in the Family'.

Inbreeding is with out question removing a wide selection of genes from each dog and eventually the whole breed, most of these genes we have no idea what they do or that we are removing them. Closed stud books force contiuned inbreeding even for those breeders who want to reduce inbreeding levels in their pups.

This goes far beyond being ethical because we health test.

It is the very foundations of how we breed dogs in the kennel club system, it needs a very close and honest review.

I think the Uk Kennel club is starting to do this, I think they know they have to, it is no longer a debate or an option. Now we need to start talking about it, from the ground up, not from the top down.

Come off it.

You know as well as anyone that because dogs are the same species the chances are sooner or later these issues may show up in any dog. Is it better to know you have say- the chance of seeing 20 genetic disorders in your dogs most of which you can avoid if you know your pedigree lines and if you test than have dogs which are bred with fingers crossed that any old thing may turn up?

The whole thing will go to hell and we will have nothing but generic dogs unless this is reviewed by looking at artificial selection for a breed standard as a prority over health and fitness.

[Steve]

By the way, this international cooperation allows for widening of gene pool, too.

So what is the COI for 10 gen in Australia and what is the COI of your dog/s?

Who cares and why does it matter if they are healthy? What is your COI in your 10 generations of humans?

[toy dog]

the breeding of dogs is not an exact science even if you do test.

as i was asking before SS what is your experience with breeding dogs? you have said you've owned poodles when young and an eskimo dog. thats a bit more information.

i have an a dog that is a product of inbreeding on the mothers side. my ex bred this lovely line, the mother was also very nice, she is the product of father to daughter mating i bought this dog well grabbed him becuase i know all of the dogs and how sound they right back to about 7 generation and beyond. i know this line inside and out and the dogs are very sound producing very sound typey dogs. he is not deformed.

i also inherited an ooops girl from someone she came to live with me this dog, result of son to mother.

she is not deformed. so inbreeding can bring out very good traits. as well as bad as Peter higgins said from ANKC. but no one is listening....

Edited July 4, 2011 by toy dog

[shortstep]

What about how closely Inbred some endangered species will end up as a result of humans trying to bring them back from the destruction we caused?

Exactly as we now know that inbreeding has a detrimental effect on threatened species.

Our results have important conservation implications. First, ignoring inbreeding depression will substantially underestimate extinction risk. http://www.ecologyan...ml#relationship

Inbreeding is a big risk for threatened animals.

Thank goodness domestic dogs as a species are not threatened!! And thank goodness dog 'breeds' are not separate species. We can open our stud books (a model only in our minds) and cross bred to another breed of dog to reduce COI, remove or control a genetic disease, to modify an extreme trait or to remove defect traits which are wide spread in a breed and many other uses, in any of our breeds. Tthere is no reason to skirt the dangerous world of inbred threatened species with our dog breeds.

If we allowed it, there is no problem keeping genetic diversity in any 'breed 'of dogs. But we do no allow it and currently there are more than few dog 'breeds' that are considered threatened. We just have to use this current science and cast aside the ideas and science of 100-150 years ago. We have moved on and now we need to bring our dog breeding practices up to date.

I don't disagree with this in principle; however, as wheaten terrier people found, crossbreeding to another breed is not a magic bullet to remove or control genetic disease.

A controlled outcross is not the answer for every disease in every breed, but it certainly could be the answer for many of the diseases in many breeds. That is the real point and not that it may not work for some disease.

What I find really frustrating is even in the case of the Dalmatian, where the work has been done and successfully, most breeder would rather breed dogs with disease than use a dog with a cross some 10-13 or more generations ago and prevent the disease in their dogs. It boggles the mind. Personally I think any breeder who refuses to bring the healthy genes into their Dals should be banned. I guess it will take the RSPCA to make it a welfare issue and get a government law made first.

It may take a new generation of dog breeders to effect some of the needed changes. I just hope that breeding for 'breeds' is not totally banned by then and that most breeds are not already lost or are too far gone before we start to see the needed changes happen.

Yes shortstep but advocating for a more diversified management plan for some breeds isnt quite the same as advocating for a ban on in breeding until its considered safe in humans across the board.

Whats more sometimes in breeding may even be the answer to eliminating a problem rather than just bloody spreading it further and wider.

I never said that, I said I think 1st and 2nd degree inbreeding should be banned, same as is law for humans. I think we need to show a real intention to slow down deliberate inbreeding. That is not same as banning all inbreeding, as we know all of are inbreeding in closed stud books, but we can reduce the level of inbreeding.

I would be fine in doing a very close inbreeding project for particular reason if that was the best way, but only under direction a panel of experts. Just my opinion.

[Steve]

Shar Pei are now in the spotlight and sadly for good reason. The gene that causes their wrinkles has now been proved to be linked to Shar Pei fever and amyloidosis. http://www.drjwv.com...swer+Continured

Yes a very good example of how inbreeding gets us in trouble and also touches on breeding for extremes.

Rubbish its a good example of how selection gets us in trouble. In fact Ive had a pretty good look at some of these pedigrees and I promise in breeding is the least of the issues..

http://www.mdba.net.au/component/content/article/65.html

[Steve]

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.

Clare Wade told me that in breeding wasnt the problem - that selection was. She also told me that one of the worst things you can tell someone who has done generations of line breeding is to outcross.

[stormie]

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.

For sure, but if done correctly, could also produce some great results? I think the low uric acid Dallies are a great example. I believe that one of the Neurologists also believed that Syringomyelia could be removed from Cavs with the introduction of another breed like a Jack Russel, to improve the skull structure?

[Steve]

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.

But if it had been in bred to set something good? The problem its what you select for when you in breed.