CockersOnline Forum
Cocker Specific Discussion => Genetics & Breeding => Topic started by: Eceni on May 27, 2008, 10:06:08 AM
-
Seemed to me like the Optigen thread was becoming full so I'd start a new one
this paper was just brought to my attention. If followed, it could revolutionise (for the better) dog breeding:
http://www.siriusdog.com/genetic-health-dogs-bragg.htm
happy reading ;)
e
-
Wow! Someone as revolutionary as me, but having the genetic background to be authoritative, and the discursive skills to make new ideas accessible.
Two sentences stood out in this long, brilliantly argued paper.
"A breed's gene pool may be likened to a bank account; one cannot go on making withdrawls without the occasional deposit."
And
"Deep structural change cannot occur without widespread debate among fanciers."
Forums (fora?) like Cockers on Line are brilliant for introducing different ideas and debate. And many COLers are new to the breed, and can be influenced before the old 19th Century rules of thumb like "two generations of breeding in, then one out" can take hold. With modern genetics we understand so much more!
I am sure serious breeders on this list will have much food for thought if they can find the time to read it. Thank you Eceni for sharing.
John
-
I've seen this article before and found it incredibly heavy going and certainly not that accessible for the average breeder. Yes there's food for thought there although this constant blaming of all that's wrong in dog breeding on the show ring seems to miss the point that (in the popular breeds anyway), most puppies do not come from show breeders (meaning breeders who actually show). Maybe things are different in Canada (or they were when this article was first written back in the 1990s) but you only have to look at the quarterly breed record supplements to see that genuine show litters make up a relatively small percentage of all Cocker litters registered in the UK. So many puppies are now coming from commercial breeders or BYBs who have no interest or knowledge of the things discussed in this article & who are far more likely to breed more closely than the average show breeder (either through ignorance or because they're trying to get currently popular colours like liver/chocolate). I looked up a pedigree recently of a dog who's currently in rescue and he's the result of a BYB mating a half brother and half sister together :o This sort of breeder couldn't care less about genetic health and diversity but he's also the type of breeder many (perhaps most) owners end up getting their Cockers from.
The small kernel of breeders who do care about these issues will already be thinking along some of the lines discussed in the article (and other articles) which is why some are importing from overseas or are using AI to bring in different lines but these kind of serious breeders are in the minority - there's a whole different world out there away from the relatively small world of the dedicated "fancier".
-
I printed this off, for a bit of bed time reading but found it very heavy going... ;) It does give food for thought but agree with Jane - commercial breeders & BYB have more to answer to.
-
I printed this off, for a bit of bed time reading but found it very heavy going... ;)
A good cure for insomnia though. :lol2: The aim seemed to be to impress his peers with his intellectual prowess rather than state his points in a clear and concise manner for the average reader to understand - which is never a good thing. By the time I'd waded my way through to the end I was too busy sighing in relief to care what he had to say. ph34r :lol2:
-
It's good to know that Jane thinks that a kernel of thoughtful breeders are beginning to think along these lines.
I don't think that anyone is blaming or even suggesting that show breeders deliberately caused genetic disease like PRA or FN, although some breeders fought for a long time, denying that their dogs were responsible, sometimes blaming vaccination for inherited kidney disease. But now that greater genetic knowledge is available, breeders cannot continue inbreeding with heads in the sand. Jane has stated before that responsible breeders are Optigen screening, eye testing, and hip scoring to ensure stock is free from genetic disease. This is great for the disease that we already know, but not great for the next lethal mutation which will rear its head if the old breeding practices are continued.
Show breeders are not always whiter than white though. I am aware of a "fancier", a breeder/exhibitor and judge, who supplies a commercial kennel with surplus stock. And I was recently benched near a dog which lunged and snapped at other dogs passing its cage. The dog has recently won a high show award and will possibly become a champion and be offered at stud. No doubt it will be screened, tested and scored, but may still pass on its poor temperament to its puppies most of whom will go into pet homes, some possibly with children.
I have had three different back-yards in my breeding career. I have known many caring breeders of quality show stock who have reared puppies under the sink, in front of the fire, or in the garden shed. Most people probably start as back-yard breeders.
I agree with Jane that there is a problem with commercial breeding establishments. Perhaps the Kennel Club must address the problem before registering puppies from such places. The Kennel Club's own geneticist, Jeff Sampson, has only recently contributed to a paper on the problems arising from inbreeding. Here's the introduction:
Population Structure and Inbreeding From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs
Federico C. F. Calboli, Jeff Sampson, Neale Fretwell and David J. Balding
Genetics, Vol. 179, 593-601, May 2008, Copyright © 2008
Dogs are of increasing interest as models for human diseases, and many
canine population-association studies are beginning to emerge. The choice of
breeds for such studies should be informed by a knowledge of factors such as
inbreeding, genetic diversity, and population structure, which are likely to
depend on breed-specific selective breeding patterns. To address the lack of
such studies we have exploited one of the world's most extensive resources
for canine population-genetics studies: the United Kingdom (UK) Kennel Club
registration database. We chose 10 representative breeds and analyzed their
pedigrees since electronic records were established around 1970,
corresponding to about eight generations before present. We find extremely
inbred dogs in each breed except the greyhound and estimate an inbreeding
effective population size between 40 and 80 for all but 2 breeds. For all
but 3 breeds, >90% of unique genetic variants are lost over six generations,
indicating a dramatic effect of breeding patterns on genetic diversity. We
introduce a novel index for measuring population structure directly from
the pedigree and use it to identify subpopulations in several breeds. As
well as informing the design of canine population genetics studies, our
results have implications for breeding practices to enhance canine welfare.
Dr. Sampson will surely be influencing Kennel Club policy about breeding practices over time. With computer records and co-efficients of inbreeding it should not be beyond the bounds of fancy for a Kennel Club to refuse to register puppies from commercial kennels which indulge in thoughtless breeding practices from unscreened stock.
Finally I think the whole paper by Jeffrey Bragg neatly summarises and brings together a lot of threads that have been affecting my thinking about dog breeding. And he offers a way forward for dog breeds to progress, instead of to regress, in this present century. Some people obviously found the article too long or too contentious, just as I found Peggy Grayson's "History of the Cocker Spaniel" too dense, and too much like a list. Other people on this forum think of Peggy's book as cocker holy writ. It takes all sorts ......
John
-
I didn't find the article particularly contentious - it doesn't really contain anything I haven't read before. It's just too long and not written in a way that it will be widely read and understood by most breeders which should surely be the aim of any article aimed at changing the way breeders think.
Show breeders are not always whiter than white though.
I have not claimed that all show breeders are whiter than white. The article clearly lays the blame for poor breeding practices on the show ring and my point was that show breeders form a minority of breeders out there and therefore their influence cannot possibly be as great as stated in the article. You also might have misunderstood what a backyard breeder is - I was not referring to breeders who breed litters in the home or in "front of the fire" and I can definitely guarantee that none of the breeders I respect ever started out as BYBs in the way this term is used these days.
Perhaps the Kennel Club must address the problem before registering puppies from such places.
I'm sure most good breeders would like to see the KC taking a stronger line and refusing to accept registrations from puppy farmers/commercial breeders but while they rely on the income they get from such breeders, it's never going to happen.
-
To be honest, if you're going to write something which is a) less than the size of a telephone directory and yet b) details the nature and causes of the current crisis in dog breeding, I don't think you can get any less dense than this paper. I doubt very much if this author was trying to impress anyone, what he was doing, in my opinion, was bringing together in one place - in a way that accessible to professional and amateur breeders - the current (at the time of writing) science of population genetics. It was concise, thorough and yet covered all the major bases.
and yes, most dogs are not bred by 'professional kennels' but almost everyone I've ever spoken to who breeds has got their ideas of what's 'A Good Plan' from speaking to the professional breeders in their chosen breed - and almost all have been encouraged to line breed.
A recent letter in 'Dogs Today' - which is about as generic as you can get - was from a woman who wanted to breed her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (we could ask why, when the world is hardly short of Cavaliers, but that's a separate thread, and not for here). I think she could safely be characterised as a conscientious backyard breeder because she went back to the professional who had bred her bitch and asked for advice on which dog to use. She was advised to use the bitch's own grandfather.
In reply to her query of whether his was wise (sane woman :)) - Malcolm Willis, the KC's geneticist said that it wasn't wise at all and that in choosing a stud, she should make sure she didn't have an in-breeding co-efficient of greater than 10%. He went on to say that most KC breeds kept their coefficients under 10 which is wild wishful thinking, but interesting that he wants people to believe it.
I have looked at a number of breeds now, and trying to find a coefficient under 10 is challenging in the extreme. There are some working cockers, but not a huge number, and it does rather depend on how far back you go in your calculations - the original gene pool was small. (but there are some, which is why I'm here. If I find another breed as diverse, that has minimal inherited defects, I'll let you all know.)
So someone, somewhere has to convince the professionals who are certain that their Victorian breeding methods (which were fine then, truly) are no longer applicable in the 21st century - and these people have to start educating down the line or 20/30 years from now, the next generation of breeders are going to be very unhappy people, with even more unhappy dogs.
that was the gist of his paper. I think it bears reading and understanding - only with solid science have we any chance at all of convincing the vested interest that it's in their greater interests to learn and change.
every breeder practices genetic science at each mating. I'd say there's a moral and professional obligation to understand the latest science, or if not, to listen to those who do.
what we need also, is to achieve this without creating the backlash of people who feel as if they're being personally insulated and assaulted. What he's saying, clearly, is that the 19th Century techniques were right at the time and were the peak of understanding. It's just that understanding has moved on, and dog breeding has moved on and we're in a different situation now, which we need to approach with different ideas.
It's not that hard, I think?
e
-
It's not that hard, I think?
You're not taking into account the fact that breeders come from all sorts of backgrounds - very few have the sort of training you've had and many will struggle with the concepts you're discussing here. Others will have no difficulty in understanding and will happily research & read widely into genetic issues but they're not necessarily going to accept things are as black & white as some make out - they'll make up their own minds which is as it should be. Many sensible, intelligent breeders do see the merits of a wider gene pool and will be looking at ways of achieving this and still have the kind of dogs they want to live with but they won't like being told what to do, especially in a way which comes across as patronising or hectoring - not saying this is applies to you at all but it certainly does apply to some writers I've come across (in dog magazines and online).
PS Malcolm Willis is not the KC's geneticist - this position is held by Dr Jeff Sampson. Malcolm Willis is no particular fan of the KC (having fallen out with them quite publicly a few years ago) so I would presume he must believe his statement that most KC breeds keep their coefficients below 10 (whether this belief is mistaken or not).
-
PS Malcolm Willis is not the KC's geneticist - this position is held by Dr Jeff Sampson. Malcolm Willis is no particular fan of the KC (having fallen out with them quite publicly a few years ago) so I would presume he must believe his statement that most KC breeds keep their coefficients below 10 (whether this belief is mistaken or not).
Heck... that must've been when I was looking the other way... apologies...
e
-
For those who find the original paper too dense, this is written by a geneticist who came late to the dog world, but understood the need for change. It's more or less the same information, but written in metaphor and so might be more digestible? (the tribute to the author from his daughter on the main page, is very touching)
the article is called 'The Poodle and the Chocolate Cake' - if you can do a mental search and replace switching 'poodle' for 'cocker spaniel' (or other breed of your choice) it'll be even better ;)
http://www.canine-genetics.com/cake.htm
m
-
Yes that article is much more accessible. I also like this one on Popular Sires from the same site :-
http://www.canine-genetics.com/Popular_sires.htm
-
"New and revolutionary ideas"? Hardly. This is at the heart of the debate that has been going on for a very long time in many many breeds. And yes, even show going folk are upset at the exaggerations and loss of working ability, among many problems and genetic defects suffered by all breeds.
The problem is so multi-faceted that it would require huge changes at all levels; the breed clubs taking a stronger stand and having more power on the directon of their breeds; a complete restructuring of the various kennel clubs functions, rules and organization; stronger judges education, including genetics as well as a general dog knowledge, in addition to breed specific education; and much much more.
At least we in cockers are in a rather unique position, having basically 3 lines running within our breed: partis, solids and working, not to mention the diversity of pedigrees afforded internationally, and as dog breeds go, ours is a very healthy, hearty breed. Having come from, and observed, many breeds who are in serious trouble, I am happy with what is available to us in cockers
Genetics is still a very inexact science (and a bit of an art). Many experienced breeders can tell you what looked good in theory didn't work in practice and vice versa, and outcrossing, either within lines, or out of the breed alltogether is not a magic bullet, and not without it's own set of problems
-
There are some working cockers, but not a huge number, and it does rather depend on how far back you go in your calculations - the original gene pool was small.
Not too sure what you mean by this - the root gene pool was the same but by selective breeding for differents traits we are where we are with our 2 types...
The genetic conditions we inherited - nobody caused them. Dr Sampson thinks the gene mutation predates the 'land spaniel' and Optigen have said to me that the same pra mutation is found in many other breeds (cant remember the number without finding the paperwork). All we can do is now use the genetic tests but not ignore other breeding criteria. The fact is that most people on the forum are here out of a genuine love of the breed/want to learn more etc and are probably the most likely to use these tests as breeders/future breeders.
In breeding co efficients are something I keep an interested eye on
Many experienced breeders can tell you what looked good in theory didn't work in practice and vice versa, and outcrossing, either within lines, or out of the breed alltogether is not a magic bullet, and not without it's own set of problems
I agree totally with this.
-
PRA occurs in other breeds of course, but isn't FN a cocker confined mutation?
You can look up FN pedigrees and follow the lines almost to where and when the mutation occurred, and where and when the disease crossed over from the particolour show lines into the solids.
John
-
The broad point remains that the act of line breeding - of striving for a notional 'breed purity' - in and of itself causes physiological weaknesses in the dog. .
how and when they arise is less the point than accepting the concept that at some point, if the breed registries don't open their stud books and allow some heterogenicity to reappear in the blood lines (more recipes in the cake to use the poodle and the chocolate cake analogy) then the health of all breeds will deteriorate.
PRA, hip dysplasia (which seems to me to be increasingly prevalent, and the failure to test for it because there are 'no physical signs' is strange to say the least -by the time any one of us can see it - even if we spend our lives looking at lameness and can pick out a 1/10 lame dog at a distance of 50 yards - it's late in the day to start doing something about it), Familial nephropathy, the entire allergy spectrum from auto-immune disease to reactions to vaccinations to the flip-side of the dysfunctional immune system which is the failure to mount an adequate immune response to infections - all of these are enhanced, increased and multiplied by the practise of close generational breeding.
the point of the paper is to endeavour to put that across - worrying about specifics is good and laudable, but won't hold back the flood for any significant length of time. Rather like global warming and peak oil, we can change our lightbulbs, which isn't a bad thing, but what's needed is a radical change of lifestyle. So with breeding - the foundations need to change. There is no 'magic bullet' but genetics is far more science than art, and can be incorporated in the art-more-than-science of dog breeding to the betterment of the individual puppies produced. (and yes, we need to educate prospective owners in diet, animal behaviour and basic first aid, that's a given, but breeding for soundness must be the start).
e
-
PRA, hip dysplasia (which seems to me to be increasingly prevalent, and the failure to test for it because there are 'no physical signs' is strange to say the least -by the time any one of us can see it - even if we spend our lives looking at lameness and can pick out a 1/10 lame dog at a distance of 50 yards - it's late in the day to start doing something about it), Familial nephropathy, the entire allergy spectrum from auto-immune disease to reactions to vaccinations to the flip-side of the dysfunctional immune system which is the failure to mount an adequate immune response to infections - all of these are enhanced, increased and multiplied by the practise of close generational breeding.
But many of us do test for these things and take the test results into consideration in the cake mix!! If you read back some of my previous posts over the years and those of others, we have voiced concern many times about popular sires etc, the value in testing etc.
How would you propose to open up the gene pool? I for one do not want an official split in the KC register between the 2 types - we may need each other in the future, but what breed do you propose that we went to for more genetic material? It would be a minefield of more genetic probs - for example if we crossed with WSS we could bring in epilepsy which the mode of inheritance hasnt been establised as yet, a higher degree of HD and incidence of glaucoma, if we went to ESS they have their form of pra and im sure I read somewhere that it was suspected that 80% were carriers or affected based on a sample group. Field spaniels are a no go as they have such a tight gene pool which has been enhanced by ESS blood in the past, Sussex are in much teh same boat ditto clumbers - so I think the specifics are actually very important!! I cannot see the point in bringing in fresh genes if they come with more baggage than we have already!! If we were to use these breeds, then it will be a long way down the line to wait until all teh DNA tests have been developed, used and then selecting only clear dogs to use in a breeding programme and some of course are conditions which are not straight forward gene mutations (HD). I dont see this happening 'soon' or even in my lifetime to be honest
PRA occurs in other breeds of course, but isn't FN a cocker confined mutation?
You can look up FN pedigrees and follow the lines almost to where and when the mutation occurred, and where and when the disease crossed over from the particolour show lines into the solids.
John
Yes - I am aware of this and the dog in question where the mutation is thought to have occured. It was thanks to the show fraternity and their efforts (and one in particular) that raised funding and provided samples for the scientists to find the mutation. The test has only been available for a short time. Without breeders pushing, fund raising and providing DNA, these tests would not be here so quickly.
I attended the KC/BVA symposium 2005 and asked questions when the speakers were talking about genetics and the genome project - I cant remember specifically what I asked but the answer was from the time of the split of the breeds to the current day was just a blink in the eye in the lifetime of a gene..
-
Have to say I am finding this thread really interesting... :D I do not have the scientific knowledge that some of you have (doing an A-level in Biology which included a big chunk on genetics helps) and I am certainly learning all the time. I do agree with the points 'workingcocker' makes..
What do you propose, we start crossing show type cocker's with workers or other spaniel breeds?? That could bring a whole host of other problems aswell as losing type.
Cocker Spaniels are the 2nd most popular breed in the country, with the huge numbers registered every year there is going to be a higher proportion of problems... a Huge amount from those BYB's and commercial kennels.
The average Heinz 57 isn't without problems either, many cross breeds suffer with hereditary conditions despite not being line-bred.
I think line-breeding has it's place but should be done with extreme caution taking great care on which dogs you double up on....
-
..what do you propose, we start crossing show type cocker's with workers or other spaniel breeds?? That could bring a whole host of other problems aswell as losing type.
but that is happening more and more and more ....look at all the 'unusual' colours now appearing more commonly in show lines - particularly the liver ones....that isn't happening without a good dollop of working cocker along the way... :-\
I'm not saying that this is from 'good' breeders, but it is definitely on a sharp increase....
-
I went through a phase of beating this drum loudly (about 25 years ago), coming out of a breed that had a very small gene pool (Doberman Pinschers--most American Dobermans can trace back to about 8 original dogs brought out of Germany before the war) By scientific definition, this breed, and many others with equally small or smaller gene pools should have died off by now due to the effects of "inbreeding depression". However this is not the case, they continue along, and while the breed certainly has it;s share of genetic problems, it continues to function and even flourish. There are many many other breeds in the same boat, and some with an even smaller gene pool.
There is a group of lions in Africa that have been much studied, they live in a huge valley created by an extinct volcano and are genetically cut off from the rest of the lion population. They are what we would call heavily linebred, with quite a bit of inbreeding thrown in--all by Mother Nature--and by "scientific" standards they should not exist anymore, let alone continue to dominate their little corner of the world. Nature has not seen fit to have them decide to breed to leopards. Cheetahs are in the same boat, and by genetic science should be dying off of all sorts of genetic defects; this has not happened with them either.
I have also worked with dogs in a professional capacity (as a vet nurse and a professional groomer) that I don't buy the theory of hybrid vigor ("mutts are healthier") I've seen many mixed breeds, coming from many generations of mixed breeds, with problems that would be considered genetic in a purebred.
The problem is not with the practice of linebreeding, inbreeding or outcrossing in themselves; They are valuable and necessary tools; it's where the focus of those practices lie. Is it to make money? Is it just to produce bench or field winners?
We are fortunate in cockers that we do have a diverse gene pool, what with partis, solids and workers, they represent 3 distinct different pedigrees (and in no way do I support splitting them into separate breeds!) We can weave outcrosses in our pedigrees without having to go out of the breed, and we are certainly not a breed that is in such trouble that it is necessary to go out of the breed to bring in "new fresh blood". And where would you go? As has been stated before, springers have genetic problems in common with cockers, plus a few of their own that would inevitably come along for the ride. And in strictest genetic terms, any of the spaniels would not be a true outcross, as they were all the same breed till the late 1800s, with smaller puppies used for heavy cover and wookcock (hence the cocker) and larger ones designated for springing birds and game (springers). And it's only been about 60 years since the breed that we know split in half--into English and American Cockers (due to an internal dispute about type and heads).
Combine our diverse gene pool with the wonderful testing available to us now through Optigen, (and I'm sure more new breakthroughs in the future) and we have a good amount of tools available to us to keep our breed strong and healthy!
-
I'm finding this interesting too, as a complete lay person, with no breeding experience or scientific background..
..what do you propose, we start crossing show type cocker's with workers or other spaniel breeds?? That could bring a whole host of other problems aswell as losing type.
but that is happening more and more and more ....look at all the 'unusual' colours now appearing more commonly in show lines - particularly the liver ones....that isn't happening without a good dollop of working cocker along the way... :-\
I'm not saying that this is from 'good' breeders, but it is definitely on a sharp increase....
Bracken is a complete example of this and she is liver roan. Her breeder made the decision to breed liver to liver purely with the intention of getting a litter of liver roan pups which I guess are more fashionable/ saleable. We didn't realise this at the time.
IMO - I think it's the larger commercial breeders/puppy farms who are doing a lot of this cross-breeding. Bracken also has a fair amount of common relatives in her pedigree and I very much doubt this was because they were excellent examples, more likely they had the right colour, were easily available etc. What have I ended up with - a gorgeous cocker who is nowhere near breed standard, looks like a mixture of worker and show (she certainly wouldn't stand a chance in a proper show..).
From my impressions of the breeders that I have spoken to on this site, they are caring breeders striving to improve breed standards and maintain a healthy gene pool. But like someone said, the majority of cockers out there come from puppy farms, commerical breeders and BYB's who often care little about these factors. I wonder if we'll get to a point where the cockers that are shown look quite different from those from the above mentioned places, especially as more mixes of working and show appear. It's amazed me how many more liver roans have appeared on the boards since we got Bracken, they seem to be becoming more and more available and I wonder if that is because some breeders are choosing colour over other factors...
-
Hi - this article is related to Australian Shepherds, but I think you'll find it answers the 'cheetah' question rather effectively and continues to ask the questions that we're asking here...
http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_incest.htm
good luck, all
m
-
so..... is FN in the working lines yet? I haven't come across it, but then perhaps I don't look hard enough
thanks
e
-
like someone said, the majority of cockers out there come from puppy farms, commerical breeders and BYB's who often care little about these factors. I wonder if we'll get to a point where the cockers that are shown look quite different from those from the above mentioned places, especially as more mixes of working and show appear.
This is something i have often wondered. My mother in law who loves KCS said to me a couple of weeks ago after visiting the cheshire dog show, that the ones she seen there are the ones she likes - someone she kinda knows breeds them and she thinks his looks nothing like them, his have long bodies and their heads arnt as nice. Same with my partner not wanting another cocker spaniel earlier in the year because the ones he always sees out and about have long bodies and quite long faces and look nothing like our old cocker Rosie.
-
I find everyone's comments here fascinating!!!
As a genetist myself I have felt torn between my love of this breed and what I know about the damaging effects of inbreeding.
I found a few anomalies in the article but I think thats due to it being written so long ago and the fast pace of research.
I have to admit I did not know that some people actually recommend inbreeding of close relatives......while I understand the desire to have consistency in breed standard, breeding a bitch to her grandfather etc is just asking for trouble and in my opinion this sort of partice should be banned. Dogs after all are mammals like us, their DNA is structured the same as ours, made up of the same 4 bases and functions in the same way therefore the laws of inbreeding (for planned litters anyway) should apply to them also. I apologise if this offends anyone and I accept in the past people didn't know about such things but to do this now is wrong in my eyes.
I for one would take a dip in breed standards for an increase in health and temperament quality anyday. More international matings would go along way to helping the situation also as the different populations will have had time to diverge (a little at least) in the time they have been apart.
It would be nice to see potential breeders going on courses, not just for genetics but for health issues etc.....this would be in my ideal world ;) After all puppies aren't going to die from a breeder having too much knowledge!
I do not think the situation, for spaniels, at least, is dire at the moment, we have a large breeding population and nature has a way of 'reshuffling' the genes through recombination of chromosomal locations in the gametes and producting de novo (new) changes in each generation which will help a little.
There are some very good, sensible breeders out there both those that show and those that dont but unfortunately there are also lots of bad or naive breeders who dont know or dont care about these sort of issues. Personally I think that if we capped the price a pup could sell for we would discourge those breeders who are in it for the money and are more likely to use any stud/bitch regardless of their genetic relationship/temperament or health issues.
But then I don't breed dogs this is just the opinion of someone who has studied genetics for 7 years, I realise the practice of it may be quite different.
-
Thank you - that's one of the most refreshing posts I've read in a long time. As a vet, I'm not as fully up on genetics as you are, and am frantically trying to catch up, but am horrified by the breeders (not in the working cockers so much, more in the first breed I looked at) who are adamant that father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister matings are perfectly normal and in fact constitute good breeding practise. There's also a common practice of breeding a sire to two related dams - usually sisters, then taking bitch puppies from both litters and mating them back to their father, then taking a bitch and a dog from the resulting litters and breeding them together. It's not hard to find pedigrees where this has been done not just once, but several times in a 10 gen pedigree.
In that particular breed, we're beginning to see auto-immune diseases, but because they're so hard to pin down and there are often many differing environmental factors, it's difficult to prove that they're related to the breeding practice.
there's a constant tension between 'good genetics' and the ability to breed to type. I haven't found anyone who has a solution yet - given the entire concept of dog breeds, I'm not sure there is one, but would be interested to find out what ideas are out there.
thank you all for your input
e
-
Thank you - that's one of the most refreshing posts I've read in a long time. As a vet, I'm not as fully up on genetics as you are, and am frantically trying to catch up, but am horrified by the breeders (not in the working cockers so much, more in the first breed I looked at) who are adamant that father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister matings are perfectly normal and in fact constitute good breeding practise. There's also a common practice of breeding a sire to two related dams - usually sisters, then taking bitch puppies from both litters and mating them back to their father, then taking a bitch and a dog from the resulting litters and breeding them together. It's not hard to find pedigrees where this has been done not just once, but several times in a 10 gen pedigree.
:o :o :o :o
-
I have to admit I did not know that some people actually recommend inbreeding of close relatives......while I understand the desire to have consistency in breed standard, breeding a bitch to her grandfather etc is just asking for trouble and in my opinion this sort of partice should be banned. Dogs after all are mammals like us, their DNA is structured the same as ours, made up of the same 4 bases and functions in the same way therefore the laws of inbreeding (for planned litters anyway) should apply to them also.
Of course, the main reason that humans do not closely "line breed" is because it is socially unacceptable ;)
If you consider wild "pack" animals, then their social organisation requires either the male or the females to "transfer" from one pack to another when they become sexually mature, to prevent close inbreeding - but within these natural, dynamic hierarchical structures, the "co-efficient of inbreeding" is still far higher than western humans would consider socially acceptable in their own species ;)
Consider a pack species where the males *transfer* when they become sexually mature - this prevents them mating with their siblings and half-siblings - but once established within a new pack, they will sire offspring with the females, and may well mate with their own female offspring some years later ;)
Of course, close inbreeding over many generations is genetically undesirable for many reasons, and is naturally selected against in the wild - but many of the "laws" that apply to humans (particularly in Western society) are based on social pressures that have developed as a result of the horror felt towards babies (born to close relatives) which are suffering from conditions that could well have been coincidental, or at most, statistically unlikely :-\
-
Of course, the main reason that humans do not closely "line breed" is because it is socially unacceptable ;)
If you consider wild "pack" animals, then their social organisation requires either the male or the females to "transfer" from one pack to another when they become sexually mature, to prevent close inbreeding - but within these natural, dynamic hierarchical structures, the "co-efficient of inbreeding" is still far higher than western humans would consider socially acceptable in their own species ;)
Consider a pack species where the males *transfer* when they become sexually mature - this prevents them mating with their siblings and half-siblings - but once established within a new pack, they will sire offspring with the females, and may well mate with their own female offspring some years later ;)
Of course, close inbreeding over many generations is genetically undesirable for many reasons, and is naturally selected against in the wild - but many of the "laws" that apply to humans (particularly in Western society) are based on social pressures that have developed as a result of the horror felt towards babies (born to close relatives) which are suffering from conditions that could well have been coincidental, or at most, statistically unlikely :-\
Roslyn will have more data on this, but line breeding doesn't happen in people because it's catastrophic in very few generations. The Amish are having huge problems and according to a friend of mine who's an ophthalmologist, they're beginning to see ocular catastrophes in some of our immigrant cultures where cousins are marrying for lack of more 'outside' blood. It's socially unacceptable because people down the generations for thousands of years have realised it's immensely detrimental to the children.
and my understanding of pack dynamics is such that, unless humans restrict the environment, or a small number of individuals becomes cut off by geography (such as landing on an island where there are very few others) there is almost no inbreeding at all. If you have data to the contrary, I'd be very interested.
the point with all wild-type inbreeding when it occurs (which is rarely) is that nature exerts a particularly efficient culling system and there's always a danger of wipe-out if the genetically uniform population that results is afflicted by an external pathogen or influence to which they have no defense.
m
-
and my understanding of pack dynamics is such that, unless humans restrict the environment, or a small number of individuals becomes cut off by geography (such as landing on an island where there are very few others) there is almost no inbreeding at all. If you have data to the contrary, I'd be very interested.
Robert Sapolsky has spent his life studying Baboons in the wild; his observations (which I confess I have not read in depth) indicate that even this successful and unthreatened species do naturally inbreed to an extent that does not threaten their long term survival ;)
TBH, I think too much emphasis is placed on the risks associated with inbreeding when you consider that all domestic animals of all species are the result of selective inbreeding - and accidental sibling matings were commonplace between domestic pets even a generation or two ago ;)
-
The occasional accident isn't the point (look at the Ptolemies, they survived 3 generations before they began to degenerate) the point is that when it's sustained, so that the CoI of a dog is routinely over 25%, then you begin to store up trouble - if for no other reason than the fact that the dog's immunity depends on its genetic diversity. I can dig out the basics on Major Histocompatibility Complexes if you want, it makes sobering reading - the essence is that the diversity of MHCs is directly related to genetic diversity. High CoI == low genetic diversity == reduced numbers of MHCs == reduced ability to withstand infection. If you take it to its logical limits, you get the lab mouse which has to live in a sterile environment, or at least be protected from known antigens to which it no longer has the immunity that was a given in the wild type.
short term accidents are not a disaster, just unfortunate. Long term, protracted reduction of genetic diversity is just plain daft.
e
-
the point is that when it's sustained, so that the CoI of a dog is routinely over 25%, then you begin to store up trouble -
I agree with this - but how many dogs do you actually know with a CoI this high? :huh: :o
I would hazard an educated guess that the type of breeder who produces puppies with this level in inbreeding are the type that COL advises people to avoid for all sorts of other reasons - commercial breeders, puppy farms and backyard breeders, not knowledgable breeders who research and plan their breeding programme.
I have two "line bred" dogs - their pedigrees would probably make you shudder - but their CoI are nowhere near as high as you suggest ::)
-
In the last breed I was looking at seriously - and to which I had good access to a lot of pedigrees - a friend who's a geneticist did a bunch of CoIs for me
none were less than 15%, several were in the 40s - and actually, this is a diverse breed, not over-bred with performance/working strain and show strain like the cockers. If I had access to cocker pedigrees up to 10 generations (less than that's largely irrelevant), we could get the CoIs done but I don't have the software. If you look at a 5 gen pedigree, and there are more than 2 or 3 repeats, then you're looking at a CoI of nearing 20%.
e
-
that's really interesting - I'd say even without looking at the peds on the board that more than 2 or 3 repeats is very common...
-
It is so sad that the very people who need to read these comments (i.e. the 'bad' breeders) are exactly the type of people who would not be interested in loggin on to these sites! >:D
I just really wish that breeders needed a licence and could be vetted and then maybe we would hear less of the heartbreaking horror stories resulting from cash orientated breeders. I also wish that breed standards could be relaxed alittle and a limit put on littler numbers per dog to avoid the temptation for inbreeding amongst the overly ambitions show kennels.
Wolf packs have an alpha male and female....and only this couple will mate in a given season, subordinate females don't even come into season and as said before the males usually join another pack on maturity so they effectively prevent the whole pack from inbreeding. It has been said that dogs are wolfs that never grow up, we have been breeding in desirable juvenile behavioural traits in the domestic dog for thousands and thousands of years, resulting in an animal which is similar in temperament to a wolf puppy, so selective breeding it's necessary the problem, it's the inbreeding which is..............
>90% of unique genetic variants are lost over six generations with inbreeding (Calboli et al. Genetics Journal 2008 179(1):593-606)
Increasing the inbreeding co-efficient of puppies by just 1% led to 0.06% increase of still birth in dachshund puppies (which is actually very large for just 1%) (Gresky et al. Berl Munch Tierztl Wochensch 5005 118(3-4) 134-9.)
Pedigree dogs are so homozygous that they are now been used as genetic models for autoimmune diseases such as Addison's disease in the Portuguese water dogs ( Chase et al. International Journal of Immunogenetics. 2006 33(3): 179-84)
I think we have been really lucky with the cocker's so far, partly though responsible breeding and partly due to their large population numbers.....I shudder to think what health problems await certain over breed lap dogs in 50 years!
But I would urge anyone not to breed/buy puppies from this 'inbreeding' practice, yes I know there have been many puppies which seem to be unaffected by this buy how many of their littler mates weren't so lucky and why would you knowingly want to take such a high risk? That fancy pedigree might get awfully expensive in vet bills!!!!
It is interesting that the Amish Jews were brought up, I remember attending an ethics seminar as there is an extremely high incidence of Tay Sachs diseases amongst this group, marrages are arranged and the marrage maker wanted the results of everyones genetic tests so as to not match two carriers together. In human terms this disease manifested itself very quickly compared to the level of 'inbreeding', it's all to do with 'penetrance' and a huge complicated issue of allele selection, which means a little inbreeding could be enough to see BIG problems . So while I think the cocker spaniel population isn't going to shrivel up and die tomorrow I think it would be wise not to get complacent.
It is good to do whats best for the breed but better to do whats best for the individual dogs. But then I think everyone here already does, otherwise they wouldn't log on...........just wanted to get all that all my chest really! :005:
-
If you look at a 5 gen pedigree, and there are more than 2 or 3 repeats, then you're looking at a CoI of nearing 20%.
that's really interesting - I'd say even without looking at the peds on the board that more than 2 or 3 repeats is very common...
.....interesting, but not always the case - in his 5 gen pedigree, Molo has one bitch that appears 4 times and another four ancestors (2 males, two females) which appear twice each - but his calculated CoI is not even close to 20% ;)
This is why, as Roselyn says, it is not productive to generalise like this, and to look at individual breeders practice and the background to the individual litters. ;) It would be a shame if prospective owners ignore reputable breeders because a litter is linebred in favour of a litter from a less informed BYB who has mated their bitch with the dog down the road with no consideration give to compatibility or health :-\
The academic ideals are fine on paper, but the realities are very different, and with the calls for a ban on all breeding on one end of the scale, and illegal commercial mills churning out puppies at the other end, I think that these issues around the CoI pale into insignificance :-\
If I had access to cocker pedigrees up to 10 generations (less than that's largely irrelevant), we could get the CoIs done but I don't have the software. If you look at a 5 gen pedigree, and there are more than 2 or 3 repeats, then you're looking at a CoI of nearing 20%.
Well, as it happens, we might be able to help you out there...... ;)
http://www.tenset.co.uk/downloaddemo.html
http://www.cockersonline.co.uk/discuss/index.php?topic=11772.0
-
"But I would urge anyone not to breed/buy puppies from this 'inbreeding' practice, yes I know there have been many puppies which seem to be unaffected by this buy how many of their littler mates weren't so lucky and why would you knowingly want to take such a high risk? That fancy pedigree might get awfully expensive in vet bills!!!!"
How would the average person know this kind of information when looking a buy a puppy?
-
I just really wish that breeders needed a licence and could be vetted and then maybe we would hear less of the heartbreaking horror stories resulting from cash orientated breeders.
There already is a licensing system for breeders who have more than 4 litters a year but as with any legislation, it's enforcement that's the issue. Local councils are responsible for licensing breeders but councils don't always have the resources or the will to ensure all breeders that should be licensed are licensed (hence the number of unlicensed puppy farms that seem to flourish in certain rural areas). If you propose that ALL breeders should be licensed, then as usual it will be the small minority of responsible breeders who will voluntarily comply and the other type will just carry on as normal & use every loophole available to avoid getting caught.
I also wish that breed standards could be relaxed alittle and a limit put on littler numbers per dog to avoid the temptation for inbreeding amongst the overly ambitions show kennels
There already is a limit in place for KC registered litters (too many in my opinion but that's another issue) but huge numbers of litters are either not registered or are registered with other commercial registries who have no limits. I'm not sure why you have decided that it's the show breeders who need limiting to avoid the temptation to have too many inbred litters when the fact is show breeders make up a small percentage of the breeders out there. Any study of litter registrations reveals many, many commercial breeders who produce large numbers of litters ,all sired by one or two resident stud dogs and they will keep doing this time after time,year after year. It gets a bit galling for show breeders to be continually labelled as the bad guys - of course some are but people need to realise that the vast majority of puppies bred (in Cockers anyway) do not come from show breeders.
-
.....interesting, but not always the case - in his 5 gen pedigree, Molo has one bitch that appears 4 times and another four ancestors (2 males, two females) which appear twice each - but his calculated CoI is not even close to 20% ;)
Could you show the working for that?
e
-
Well, as it happens, we might be able to help you out there...... ;)
http://www.tenset.co.uk/downloaddemo.html
http://www.cockersonline.co.uk/discuss/index.php?topic=11772.0
Thank you! <dances>
e
edit - Rats >:( I have a Mac, won't open a .exe file... got any Mac downloads?
e
-
.....interesting, but not always the case - in his 5 gen pedigree, Molo has one bitch that appears 4 times and another four ancestors (2 males, two females) which appear twice each - but his calculated CoI is not even close to 20% ;)
Could you show the working for that?
e
I could, but it might take me a while - I rely on the software to do it for me :) When I have a spare few hours, I'll sit down and do it by hand and PM it to you ;)
-
Any study of litter registrations reveals many, many commercial breeders who produce large numbers of litters
One particular copy of the breed supplements I have shows over 20+ litters in one quarter from one breeder :o
-
it's not just show breeders - at the moment a lot of working cockers are being bred and sold according to the amount of 'red' (FTCH) in their pedigrees.
It's not unusual in a 5 gen pedigree to see repetitions several times - I was offered a pup with an 'outstanding' pedigree, 45 ftch's in it's pedigree....1 dog appeared 5 times, 4 dogs were repeated 3 times, 8 dogs twice...
-
it's not just show breeders - at the moment a lot of working cockers are being bred and sold according to the amount of 'red' (FTCH) in their pedigrees.
It's not unusual in a 5 gen pedigree to see repetitions several times - I was offered a pup with an 'outstanding' pedigree, 45 ftch's in it's pedigree....1 dog appeared 5 times, 4 dogs were repeated 3 times, 8 dogs twice...
This is the kind of thing that needs to be given a bad name... Cobweb's quite right, of course, some line breeding is intelligent and moves the breed forward, it's just that some who know nothing of genetics have got the idea that 'a little bit of shared blood is good,so lots must be very, very good' which isn't the case at all. People who know next to nothing are breeding close cousins/siblings/parents because 'that's what the professionals do'. Until and unless there's a concerted campaign to inform them - and the buying public - not to touch them with a bargepole, it'll carry on.
And the problem with that is that the KC is stuffed with people who will swear blind that line breeding IS a good thing - that the Swedish KC is mad not to allow close related breedings and that they've been doing it for 50 years so it must be OK. The fact that they've been doing it for 50 years and this is exactly why it's NOT OK escapes them....
but small bits of facts get through and there are people in each breed now who are beginning to understand. What we need is to work out a way forward that keeps the breed going without upsetting those who set the trends - who aren't the BYB or the puppy farmers. I don't know what it is, though....
e
-
Jane S- I did not mean to label the show breeders as 'bad'.....far from it!!!! The point I was trying to make was that there are good and bad breeders in both those groups that show and those that do not, and the problems can range from those who know nothing of their dogs pedigrees and just use the nearest stud to those who know everything but still use an unsuitable stud because of his show merits. There are also very very good breeders out there from every walk of life so I did not want or mean to catergorise anyone......sorry if it seemed this way! I have heard about the licencing for kennels with large litter numbers, I suppose I very naive in thinking that if it was extended it would help solve the problem......I live in a world of rainbows and butterflies sometimes! :005:
Tiamaria- thats the question I would love to know the answer to as well! If you know nothing about breeding it can be very hard looking at the pedigrees plus a lot of dogs are sold without them.......and breeders could lie! Puppy farmers get very crafty with placing pups inside homes for viewings so as Jane said, Im sure they could find loopholes in any legalisation that was brought out.
It such a minefield for the new puppy owners and I think it is terrible that there are people out there just out for the money, yes a breeder has to cover their costs but I've seen a litter of 5 Samoyeds advertised for £1500 each!!! ph34r Ive never raised a litter but surely £7500 is a bit excessive? There is just something about using puppies as an income that doesnt sit well with me, or am I being sentimental again?