Champdogs Information Exchange
Hi everyone , i have been looking at a nice litter and after speaking to the breeder the litter is from grandson to grandmother mating. I know close breeding is frowned upon these days and probably for very good reason but do you see this mating as too close or not?
I think it depends on the rest of the pedigree to be honest. It's only recently that the KC have stopped registering father/daughter mother/son matings, they still accept half brother/sister registrations and the litter that you're looking at. Without knowing the rest its difficult to say. I had an accidental father/daughter mating and all the pups were great.
30.12.10 19:29 GMT
30.12.10 19:31 GMT
If the quality of the shared ancestors is known to be good with no serious health problems, then the pups would be doubling up on good genes. :)
It's always quality that is more important than the closeness of the mating for me. Much better to have good genes doubled than a hotch potch where the quality and health of all the ancestors and siblings is unknown and the breeder may have doubled up on horrendous shared problems without knowing it. :(
I don't frown upon close matings. The most important thing is to actually KNOW the dogs in the pedigree. :)
30.12.10 20:00 GMT
My last litter was grandfather to granddaughter mating, got a lovely even litter and just what I had hoped for re quality. Have a bitch from the litter. As others have said IF the dogs in the pedigree were sound mentally and physically, with no hidden problems then the match fine. A close mating doesn't "cause" problems it will however potentially demonstrate genetic health problems IF genetic problems the in the lines that are doubled up .
I'd have a chat with the breeders and ask them why they did this mating. If I'm asked why I chose a particular dog, I'd be more than happy to explain my choice :)
> It's always quality that is more important than the closeness of the mating for me. Much better to have good genes doubled than a hotch potch where the quality and health of all the ancestors and siblings is unknown and the breeder may have doubled up on horrendous shared problems without knowing it.
> I don't frown upon close matings. The most important thing is to actually KNOW the dogs in the pedigree
Good post WestCoast :) I'd much rather have a line bred dog where I know all the ancestors and they are all of good quality than have a 'hotchpotch' pup.
Too true. My best litters have been from grandfather to granddaughter matings. One outcross mating I did was a disaster. Makes me worried/scared to try again.
Can you see both parents of this litter? Have they done this mating before - any older siblings to look at?
As the others have said it's the reasoning and the individuals involved that are important.
Even before the kennel club banned them rarely did anyone responsible deliberately do full sibling and parent offspring matings, half sibling and grandparent to grand offspring was usually the closet most breeders would go with a specific aim in mind.
When one breeds that close one limits ones options in the next generation, so there would have to be a good reason to do it.
well thanks for that, they are both champions and all dogs in the lines have very low hip scores. They are both real quality dogs. he breeder said she did this mating because in her opinion it is the best related mating you can do for the best results. thanks everyone oh an happy new year
I'd want to know that this was thought out more than as an old timers formula.
Why these particular two dogs were best suited, what had the grandparent produced that wants the breeder to step back in time. Are the present dogs deteriorating have had a negative trait introduced since the grandparents generation etc., that they want to go back to what they had before.
For example when I mated my two Jozi kids it was because both litters had produced quality, but were out-crosses, when I further out-crossed with the bitch I was in danger of loosing the type I wanted to retain. I had tried mating my Jozi daughter to the sire of Jozi son I used, but the dog was getting on and she missed, and because of wanting to retain the type of the grandparent Jozi I mated half brother to half sister.
This is the sort of answers you need to be looking for, not simply that grandparent to grandchild makes a good mating.
This kind of thing is illegal for humans, ask yourselves why. I wouldnt touch any interbred animal with a bargepole.
I wouldnt touch any interbred animal with a bargepole.
I'm not sure what interbred means but each to their own! :)
31.12.10 13:50 GMT
Can you explain what you mean, lots of mated pairs have some of the same ancestors it has always been thus and in a breed with small numbers it would not be possible to do a total out bred mating they just do not exist.
All my hounds have different mothers but they all have sires from the same lines and the dams have at least one relative in common.
Can't understand the idea you are putting forward at all unless you are suggesting all dogs should be mongrels with the only thing the breeder need check would be that there was not common ancestry - not possible as there would be no way of checking.
31.12.10 17:56 GMT
31.12.10 18:00 GMT
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
interbreed/WordReference.com English Dictionary
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
;verb (past and past part. interbred)
breed or cause to breed with an animal of a different race or species.
I think you mean 'inbred'
url=]Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
;verb (past and past part. interbred)
breed or cause to breed with an animal of a different race or species.
I think you mean 'inbred' [/url]
Not necessarily. If you look at the link below the term interbreed has more than one meaning and in the case of the close relationship between the OP's post of grandson to grandmother and to others mentioning close breeding between father/daughter, mother/son etc then I can see why it would not be incorrect for the poster to use that terminology here.
In addition the Oxford Dictionery defines 'Inter' as meaning 'between or amongst' so breeding between members of the same family certainly comes under this heading.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interbreeding
01.01.11 12:15 GMT
It was not the use of the English language that I was questioning but exactly what was meant - felt this is important as the poster is suggesting that the result should not be touched with the proverbial barge pole.
Nova, it wasn't your post that was being referred to over the terminology.
I appreciate what you are saying in that some breeds, where numbers are low, that there would have to be a some close/inbreeding but this is not the preferred method of breeding. Any faults are set in the offspring of any such mating just as easily as any good points. In addition, there can often be reccessive genes which do not show up at certain stages but will later. Neither does inbreeding add anything 'good' to a line that isn't already there, it just 'sets what is already present.
Linebreeding is therefore the more preferred option. And I can well understand the poster not wanting a pup that has in-breeding rather than linebreeding in its lineage. Even when the reason for in-breeding is to increase the numbers and enlarge the gene pool for vulnerable breeds it has always been recognised that the breeder should expect to have to 'cull' (not my term) a large number of in-bred pups to avoid passing on the 'faults' from any such breeding programme.
Any that are not kept by the breeder(s) for the breeding programme but passed on as pets, without full knowledge of their heritage and of the reccessive genes, which may emerge anywhere down the line, should never be bred from. But how can any breeder responsible or otherwise ensure this? You can't force a new owner to castrate or spey the pup they take on several months down the line even if they agree to it at the time they take the 8 week old pup. Neither can the breeder be expected to keep all pups for several months until they are old enough to be castrated/neutered to ensure no breeding takes place when they go to new homes at a later date. In-breeding is fraught with problems and any potential new owner of a pup from in-breeding matings should beware. I think that is the point the poster was making in saying she wouldn't touch one with a barge pole.
01.01.11 13:38 GMT
This kind of thing is illegal for humans, ask yourselves why.
Please understand I am absolutely NOT making a case for human inbreeding, but to respond to Jocelyn's post, our objections tend to be culturally rooted, not because they are based on genetics. It's illegal for humans largely because of social, religious and moral conventions, but there are many historical examples of cultures that relied on incest for dynastic succession.
Some canine breeds have depended and still do rely very heavily on line breeding because of a small gene pool. If we were to apply a black or white approach to inbreeding and line breeding, we would have lost many wild species by now: Pere David deer, Chillingham cattle and Scimitar oryx are just a few of the animals that survive today because of our intervention. Surely the real test is whether the desired results (including health and fitness for purpose, not just conformation) can be achieved by any other means. Every breeder will be aware of the limitations and risks involved for future generations as well as the potential advantages for the current litter(s).
01.01.11 13:39 GMT
It was not you either Susleque :-) it was Jocelyn that made the statement and as it makes no or little sense I wished her to enlarge as what she said can and I think has been misunderstood but until she clarifies we just don't know.
Ethical breeding is not something to be sneered at or dismissed and I want clarification and qualification for the comment made so there are no misunderstanding.
I agree that ethical breeding is not to be sneered at or dismissed, but I am not talking about ethical breeding.
I have studied genetics to advanced dipoma level, this does not make me an expert, but my reseach has come from books written by varius people who are.
I will try to explain in a nut shell-
Inbreeding causes homozygotes to increase, so heterozygotes get fewer and fewer. It means there is no variation.
This causes the apperance of hereditory problems in some animals. Deafness in Dalmation dogs is a result of generations of inbreeding. This is just one example.
Inbreeding causes some alleles to show up more and more, because a male dog for example sires many pupppies who are then mated to each other.
Nature has her own way of dealing with inbreeding, small isolated comunities of animals will die out as a result of inbreeding.
Scientists watched an isolated poplation of grey wolves in Scandinavia, all the wolves were very inbred, all desending from the same pair. This caused a very low birth rate and the population was becoming very small.
Then the Scientists noticed an increase in numbers, it was because a male wolf had migrated 500 miles and had joined the pack and fathered cubs. That animal had brought new genes to the pack and saved it from extinction.
In familys of dolphins the males will leave the pod at around five years old, otherwise they would be breeding with their sisters or mother.
In dometic dogs breeds of very small numbers are not allowed to become extinct, humans intervene with hormome's and caesaean births.
Inbreeding goes against nature, its wrong and thats why we have dogs with problums, such as deafness, long backs, short noses so they have breathing problems, cleft plaletes, uneven bites, and a thousand others.
Some of these you can see and some will come out in future generations.
Its unethical, there has to be a better way.
If people are breeding animals then they such have some basic knowlegde of genetics.
Personly I have never bred dogs, I feel there are more dogs than homes at the moment.
>Deafness in Dalmation dogs is a result of generations of inbreeding.
No it isn't. It's due entirely to the lack of pigmentation (which causes the white coat) which means a lack of pigmentation cells in the inner ear which is intrinsically linked with the development of hearing receptors. The exact same condition exisits with white boxers, white staffies, English setters etc. It's nothing to do with inbreeding.
> No it isn't. It's due entirely to the lack of pigmentation (which causes the white coat) which means a lack of pigmentation cells in the inner ear which is intrinsically linked with the development of hearing receptors. The exact same condition exisits with white boxers, white staffies, English setters etc. It's nothing to do with inbreeding.
Completely agree Jean - it is also seen in species other than dogs with certain white spotting patterns, even in random-bred animals. Nothing at all to do with inbreeding... in fact a certain degree of inbreeding may help reduce the ocurrence of deafness.
02.01.11 14:29 GMT
02.01.11 14:34 GMT
Quote from Jocelyn: inbreeding is "why we have dogs with problums, such as deafness, long backs, short noses so they have breathing problems, cleft plaletes, uneven bites, and a thousand others."
I'm sorry Jocelyn but you are wrong! Selective breeding has lead to dogs with long backs, short noses etc, not inbreeding! ie people have selected dogs that show these traits and bred them together - they don't need to have been related at all.
>deafness, long backs, short noses so they have breathing problems, cleft plaletes, uneven bites, and a thousand others.
Look around in a crowd of people and you'll see all those conditions. Human beings are the most randomly-bred species on the planet, but have the highest incidence of imperfections and hereditary health problems.
02.01.11 14:38 GMT
You seem to have misunderstood, I wished to know what you
meant by interbred or inbreeding - we need to know what you personally mean before we know if we agree or not. For instance what are you thoughts if the same name appears of both sides of a 5 generation pedigree, would a pup from this sort of mating be subject to the barge pole treatment.
I can't understand these all embracing statements things are not that straightforward, each mating has to be looked at individually and the bargepole attitude does not allow for that.
no I have not missunderstood. I have explained what interbred or interbreeding means. This is not something I have made up is it not even my personal opinon, my personal opinon does not matter, I am not going to question scientific research.
no I am not wrong, I have used a wide range of books on genitic studies for my answer. So are you saying they are wrong?
What scienific research have you done?
Selective breeding has ALSO caused it, and selective breeding can also stop it. The problem is with some breeds the gene pool is so small that selective breeding is very limited.
Jocelyn - you are not using the terms that breeders would use, although the dictionary definition may match up to what you mean.
Breeders would talk about "inbreeding" whereas you are labelling it as "interbreeding". To most dog breeders, they would not mean the same thing at all. ie I would take inbreeding to mean the mating of close relatives, and would probably say line breeding when talking about dogs a bit further back (though I fully realise that they are just degrees of the same thing!) and I would think that "interbreeding" would mean mating animals of different breeds.
I think that is what people are trying to say ...
>I have used a wide range of books on genitic studies for my answer. So are you saying they are wrong?
>What scienific research have you done?
I'm not aying what you've read is wrong, I'm saying you've totally misunderstood it. I suggest you read this article
, which explains the deafness issue very well.
When discussing dog breeding (the terms are slightly different with cats, confusingly), inbreeding
means breeding together very closely-related individuals, outcrossing
means breeding to an unrelated (or only distantly related) individual of the same breed, and inter-breeding
means breeding together two individuals of different breeds, ie cross-breeding.
There are levels of inbreeding.
Some people will only count a pairing as inbreeding if they are parent to child and full siblings.
Some include half siblings, grandparent to grandchild and first cousins.
Some will call looser relationships than this inbreeding some will call it line breeding.
As to humans some levels of inbreeding are quite acceptable in human culture, even if ti has gone on for generations.
One first cousin marriage is unlikely to cause an issue, but if this is repeated in successive generations and there are health issues in the family liens the chances of them being passed on are higher.
We rarely look at the health or other traits of a couple before they marry and have children. With our animals we are able to.
An ethical breeder should only mate related animals if they know an awful lot about the individuals that are being lien bred to/inbred and then only use this tool occasionally.
As jocelyn stated mating related animals reduces variability,a dn when we are breeding for a set of characteristics we seek to establish this is what we want to a certain extent that within a certain set of parameters the animal looks and acts as it's breed.
What has to be realised that we must not take this too far, and the reason we out-cross to unrelated or less related individuals of a breed to keep the breed traits but introduce genetic variation.
My full brother fell in love with my older half sister's daughter, so his half niece, even worse they have gone on to have a child, which is perfectly healthy (they did seek genetic counselling). It is actually a very popular mating within dogs, and one I have used very successfully.
Needless to say for Moral and religious reasons the relationship and child have caused a great deal of anguish in the family.
Jocelyn: Having studied Biology to A level and beyond at University, and having been involved with breeding pedigree dogs for over 25 years, I do believe that I am entitled to an opinion.
You can selectively breed for any trait without inbreeding. Fact.
I am not saying that inbreeding is right or wrong (and what degrees of inbreeding are you meaning anyway, ie coefficients?) but not all problems can be laid at the door of inbreeding
Just goes to show that you can have an 'ology' (remember Maureen Lipman?) and still not have any understanding ......... :(
02.01.11 17:07 GMT
Hear hear Westcoast an 'ology' can be a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.
02.01.11 17:26 GMT
no I have not missunderstood. I have explained what interbred or interbreeding means.
No you have not explained, you have tried to state what you think others say it actually is and I did not ask that, I know what I mean but wished to know what you meant when using the term as you did.
No one who is interested in genetics and breeding would make such all encompassing statements so I wished you to explain what exactly you meant.To say I am not going to question scientific research
is an extremely surprising statement from someone stating they are a scholar in genetics were you not taught to think and experiment for yourself, when studying a subject the first thing you do is to question and discuss.
I did not say that I am a scholar in genetics, and said I am not an expert on the subject, no one needs to be to know that close breeding as the question was is not good.
As for experimenting myself I have not got the time or the money its not practical, that is why I read many books on the subject written by people who have.
If you still dont understand what I mean after I looked into it and wrote it down then I'm not going to do any more.
>I did not say that I am a scholar in genetics, and said I am not an expert on the subject
At least now you know that canine deafness is absolutely nothing to do with inbreeding, so that's a bonus for coming on this site. :-)
Have you understood the difference in terminology as well?
Deafness can be due to the pie-bald and merle gene as a result of generations of inbreeding. Its not the only cause.
I havent looked at you link yet.
02.01.11 18:40 GMT
02.01.11 18:42 GMT
I suggest you do. It's very good, and will correct your misunderstanding, because there simply haven't been 'generations of inbreeding' in the mongrels that are affected. The merle gene isn't connected to inbreeding at all.
02.01.11 18:45 GMT
02.01.11 18:52 GMT
> Deafness can be due to the pie-bald and merle gene as a result of generations of inbreeding.
No, it is not! It is caused by lack of pigment in the ear nechanism as jeangenie said before, and can occur whether the parents are related or not. It is as common in cross-bred piebald and merle animals as it is in purebred ones. I suggest you listen to those who have studied these genes in practice
as well as theory, for decades.http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm
02.01.11 19:17 GMT
Sorry Jocelyn, from the all encompassing statement that you would not touch with a barge pole I thought you had full knowledge and experiance I did not realise you were just commenting and making decisions based on things you had read without personal experience. I did not understand why you would say what you did nor what you meant by the term you used.
>I did not realise you were just commenting and making decisions based on things you had read without personal experience.
things that she's read, unfortunately. :-(
02.01.11 19:38 GMT
Incorrect things that she's read, unfortunately
And that is not her fault but it does show the dangers of jumping to decisions and making statements when you have no personal knowledge. It confused me and I am sure it would those with less experience than I, must admit to finding any dogmatic all embracing comments irritating because they are so very often wrong when considered in an overall situation and at best are unhelpful and they can be disastrous.
02.01.11 19:38 GMT
02.01.11 19:43 GMT
Just goes to show how dangerous information on the internet can be. If there wasn't anyone here with knowledge to correct it, then anyone who didn't know better would believe it. :( :(
None of my information comes from the internet.
What can be disastrous is inbreeding dogs, I havent read anything incorrect, I get my information from relieable sources.
No I dont have personal knowlegde of breeding, but I do'nt need to have to know that inbreeding animals causes defects, that will come out eventally.
As for jumping to decisions how can you justifi that statement?
> As for jumping to decisions how can you justifi that statement?
Quite easily, as you yourself said earlier that inbreeding causes deafness in Dalmatians and Merles, when it clearly does not... it is a pleiotropic effect of the patterning gene/s.
Inbreeding cannot cause anything
> but I do'nt need to have to know that inbreeding animals causes defects, that will come out eventally.
other than eventually after generations (as done experimentally in laboratories, not in real life breeding programs) if repeated constantly lead to a decline in vitality and fertility.It will
make it more likely that common traits and recessive traits have more chance of showing up if both animals carry the same genes
(which they are more likely to do if related).
It is often used as tool to check what has been brought in with an out-cross before it is inextricably woven into a gene pool. When you bring in new blood you also bring in the bad traits as well as the good, but it will take longer to find out what they are, unless some inbreeding is done to check.
Theoretically you can have two litter mates or siblings in any species that do not share any genes with their sibling. They will of course share genes with their parents, but may inherit (and pass on) totally differing sets one from another.
There is the theory and then the practise, and practical application is often dependent on circumstances, a dog being available, a bitch available for breeding etc.
02.01.11 21:01 GMT
inbreeding animals causes defects
Again I must ask you how, what have you read that leads you to that conclusion.
02.01.11 21:05 GMT
02.01.11 21:07 GMT
>I havent read anything incorrect, I get my information from relieable sources.
What sources are these?
> but I do'nt need to have to know that inbreeding animals causes defects
Inbreeding cannot create problems, it exposes what's already there
, but is hidden.
>As for jumping to decisions how can you justifi that statement?
Because what you've written so far has been proven by science to be wrong.
Completely agree Jean
Can't see the post you are referring to but if the whole point is that it is the pigmentation that makes white that then destroys the hair folicles that carry sound waves down the ear to the 'working' parts then I too would agree.
HOWEVER, I also believe the old breed standard as laid down by the KC had a lot to do with the problem.
I have masses of old photos of Dallies and it was quite common to see black ears - solid coloured black ears in the breed.
The KC spec said that colours should be 'spots' surrounded by white and no bigger than 50p pieces. Breeders started to breed religiously to this and eventually the black ears disappeared and became white, occasionally with the odd 'spot' and instances of deafness increased with it.
This is the problem with laying down a 'blueprint' which is too defined in its approach or not understanding enough about the biology of genetics when laying down breed specifications. The more breedres try to breed closer and closer to breed the 'perfect' dog that will do well at shows the more limited is the gene pool. While selcting for one thing, other less desirable faults are developing.
I too studied genetics years ago and posted on here about the problems of following too close a 'blueprint' and got slated. A couple of years down the line came the biggest expose of the problems in dog breeding and the KC were shown to have played their part in it along with breeders who suffered from 'tunnel vision' and could not see what problems would become inherent in their breeds through following such programmes of breeding.
Well, it was out there for years before the TV expose. Biologists and scientists had been researching it and writing about it for yonks and I remember quite clearly someone posting a link on CD to a research paper on the subject. But the KC, and breeders, either didn't know about it or chose to ignore it.
I honestly do not see why anyone should be allowed to operate as a breeders, responsible or otherwise wihtou a Degree in Genetics but any tom dick or harry can set themselves up as a 'breeder' and think if they get certain health checks done, vaccinate their pups, micro-chip and vet homes then they are 'responsible'. I don't want to upset anyone but as far as I can see that is nowhere near enough. Doctors, vets and surgeons can't set up in business with being proved to be highly qualified in their 'trade'. Breedres, at any level, should be proven to be qualified in what they do also. Otherwise problems will continue.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.6 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill