Oh to live in a perfect world where everyone gets everything right, and perfect matches are always made... some peoples halos' are obviously choking them !!....

Jemima, the damage you did was immense... The good breeders in the pedigree dog world are still suffering from the sweeping comments you and your crew made...

On this board you will find a site mentioned that is promoting some totally unsuitable crosses... mixing breeds that should never be crossed because of the temperament they produce amongst other issues.. Your 'energies' would be better off sorting messes out like that and stopping puppy farmers who are now doing a roaring trade.... but I forget, that wouldn't be anywhere near enough sensationalism for you would it....

Gabrielle

Daisy I agree absolutely you get a dog you have a responsibility for life and that starts the very first day you get it.

> And I'm really not doing it to trash pedigree dogs, although I know people think that

Jemima, sadly this is the way your articles read.  If that is genuinely not your intention then please ask for some editorial advice as it's coming out wrong :)

One group of people that have attempted to be genuinely open with you, and regularly engage you in debate are the bunch of posters on Champdogs.  If you continually use them as cannon fodder for your articles, and knock them for returning to the subjects they care passionately about then you are losing the opportunity to influence people who might be on your side.   Reading the replies you get when you come on here should be enough to tell you that many readers don't think you are completely wrong (although they may rightly condemn you for going about it in a clumsy and ill mannered way)

Take the time to read the advice regularly given to those considering mating their 'really nice' pet dogs, or 'studding out' their boys, or buying from the nice lady at no 10 with the fluffy white dog accidentally mated, or to potential puppy buyers.  Perhaps if you took the time to give credit where it is due then you might win a few more followers...

My main problem with crossbreeds and mongrels, is not the dogs themselves.  Though I would not want such unpredictability in what they will turn out like when getting a puppy, which is what the purebred dog gives me..

Good health apart, it is that they are the product of irresponsibility (other than the few for purpose bred ones) and nowadays with the fashion for them 'greed'.

They rarely have a breeder who cares about them past them going out the front door.

This they have in common with the irresponsibly bred purebreds (often in name only) and those bred purely for commercial gain.

Your program and articles have largely played into the hands of such breeders with your pedigree dogs bashing, and have alienated good breeders.

So your aims are not going to be realised if you antagonise the very people who actually give a monkey about their breeds.  The rest don't care anyway, they just want to sell puppies.

she is arguing with herself

I am wondering whether she can win an argument with herself. All this "on the one hand", "on the other hand" "it's rubbish but there may be some truth in it" must win a prize for loop logic

Jemima

What do I want?

I too want to see an improvement in the heath of pedigree dogs.

why would anyone breed a dog which so many deep wrinkles her skin is sore and infected underneath the folds?
Why breed a dog with a coat so heavy he can not enjoy a good run or enjoy the work he is bred to do because he becomes to hot.
Why breed a dog whos eyes are prond to infections and so prominate they are easily injuryed.
I have seen all this myself and more, people are still buying pups like this, it makes me wonder if the health tests they come with are worth the paper they are printed on.

Breeds are in danger of extinction
This is true, gene pools are becoming to small, isolated specis die out naturaly unless new genes are brought in.

We (humans) have made this mess and we need to put it right the sooner the better.

Please don't anyone take this personaly, I am not taring all breeders with the same brush and I'm sure some are responsable, but it needs highlighting, it has to start somewhere.

On this board you will find a site mentioned that is promoting some totally unsuitable crosses... mixing breeds that should never be crossed because of the temperament they produce amongst other issues.. Your 'energies' would be better off sorting messes out like that and stopping puppy farmers who are now doing a roaring trade.... but I forget, that wouldn't be anywhere near enough sensationalism for you would it....

Taken the words right out of my mouth. For someone who runs a rescue, I am shocked that she hasn't put her job to good use and broadcast a hard documentary about the obscene puppy farms and crosses that she supports (especially in Ireland), but it does make you wonder if there is another agenda..... bashing the truly good breeders (of which there are many) really helps support the many bad breeders out there. Thankfully the general public do seem to follow Champdogs and trust it to be a website where they can find the type of breeder that they trust to purchase a good puppy from.

"As a hen keeper I can tell you that pure bred hen's tend to have a longer and healthier life span than the hybrids, the hybrids are bred for maximum egg production and " burn out " quite young. Pure strains on the other hand have a lower egg production but they also tend to lay for longer and subsequently live longer, so the hen comparison doesn't really hold any water."

http://poultrykeeper.com/hybrid-chickens.html

"There are a number of benefits of using hybrids instead of pure breeds. Since the blood lines are so different from the parents, the offspring are usually very fit and healthy."

Jemima

> "There are a number of benefits of using hybrids instead of pure breeds. Since the blood lines are so different from the parents, the offspring are usually very fit and healthy."

Hybrids are often preferred for factory and intensive farming methods, where the birds are not meant to be kept for longer than their laying life, or destined for meat at the earliest opportunity. Meaning they are not bred from themselves....

Which means there must be a healthy and populous stock of parent breeds from which to breed the hybrids in the first place.

I have a pedigree and a cross breed..both are fed the same, treated the same, vaccinated the same, got to the vets when needed and are both insured..no point having them if Im not going to look after them properly.
I chose to have them, my responsibility is to keep them healthy , well fed and loved.

For someone who runs a rescue, I am shocked that she hasn't put her job to good use and broadcast a hard documentary about the obscene puppy farms and crosses that she supports (especially in Ireland),

Hmm. In what way do you think my rescue supports "obscene puppyfarms".

Jemima

> The PDSA should be for people who have been made redundant etc,

I have never used the PDSA or any other animal charity, so I am not sure why you asked me that?
I am and always will be rubbish at saving, but I am and always will be fantastic at finding the money to pay my pets vet bills :)

jemima, you may have missed my question earlier, so I'll ask it again,

Why does the size of a giant breed aversly effect it's health?

> For someone who runs a rescue, I am shocked that she hasn't put her job to good use and broadcast a hard documentary about the obscene puppy farms and crosses that she supports (especially in Ireland),

Hmm. In what way do you think my rescue supports "obscene puppyfarms".

>

That's not what Alison said.

jemima, you may have missed my question earlier, so I'll ask it again,
Why does the size of a giant breed aversly effect it's health?

Because it impacts on longevity and it puts extra strain on joints (and probably the whole body). Because the rapid cell-division that leads to the fast-growth to a great size sometimes doesn't switch off (osteosarcoma is most common in large and giant-sized dogs).

In fact, dogs break the species rule - in general, large animals live longer than small ones. But this is not true in dogs.

Perhaps you can tell me about your mastiffs, but a lot of giant breeds (Great Dane/Newfie/Wolfhound) have got bigger - a LOT bigger in some instances. The breed standard for the St. Bernard now specifies a minimum shoulder height of 75cm for dogs and 70cm for bitches (and they are often a lot taller)  and they weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approximately 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg (Ref: Nussbaumer, 2000).

Have a look at this paper for more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16788896

Its conclusion: "Artificial selection for extremely high growth rates in large breeds appears to have led to developmental diseases that seriously diminish longevity." (I can email you the whole paper if you'd like to see it).

Given the negative correlation between size and lifespan, I think if you bred big dogs smaller (as, indeed they used to be) they would live longer, healthier lives.

Jemima

> Hybrids are often preferred for factory and intensive farming methods, where the birds are not meant to be kept for longer than their laying life, or destined for meat at the earliest opportunity. Meaning they are not bred from themselves....
>
> Which means there must be a healthy and populous stock of parent breeds from which to breed the hybrids in the first place.

This was the situation with commercial Meat Rabbit keeping.

You kept pure strains of New Zealand Whites and Californians and mate them to each of the for the meat Rabbits only.

What has to be remembered though that when breeding for maximum production the selection criteria is based on number of offspring, how well they do per amount of food fed (food conversion to dress out weight) etc.

We all know that individuals vary as to how much food is needed to maintain their weight and condition.  the same is with other animals.  With my show Rabbits who got about 4oz of dry food a day their needs could vary by an ounce either way.

Had I been keeping them for meat I would have bred from the best food converters.

Interestingly though wolves can vary quite widely in size and be pretty large:

DimensionsGray wolves are the largest extant members of the Canidae, excepting certain large breeds of domestic dog.[24] Gray wolf weight and size can vary greatly worldwide, tending to increase proportionally with latitude as predicted by Bergmann's Rule.[45] Adult wolves are 105-160 cm (41-63 in) in length and 80-85 cm (32-34 in) in shoulder height.[46] The tail is ⅔ the length of the head and body,[47] measuring 29-50 cm (11-20 in) in length. The ears are 90-110 millimeters (3.5-4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220-250 mm.[46] Wolf weight varies geographically; on average, European wolves may weigh 38.5 kilograms (85 lb), North American wolves 36 kilograms (79 lb), and Indian and Arabian wolves 25 kilograms (55 lb).[48]

Females in any given wolf population typically weigh 5-10 lbs less than males.[49] Wolves weighing over 54 kg (120 lbs) are uncommon, though exceptionally large individuals have been recorded in Alaska, Canada,[49] and the former Soviet Union.[46][50] The heaviest recorded gray wolf in North America was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939 and weighed 79.4 kilograms (175 lb),[49] while the heaviest recorded wolf in Eurasia was killed after World War II in the Kobelyakski Area of the Poltavskij Region, Ukrainian SSR, and weighed 86 kilograms (190 lb).[50]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Dimensions (yes I know it's wiki) ;)

Thanks Jemima,

> Artificial selection for extremely high growth rates in large breeds appears to have led to developmental diseases that seriously diminish longevity."

I gather by 'developmental diseases' they mean things like ED, HD & OCD?

As giant breeds can reach teenage years, allthough this is not the average or 'expected' age, some do get there, thier size alone can not be what is responsible for the lack of longevity.

Developmental diseases can effect any size of dog, so perhaps rather than trying to get giant-breeds smaller, (or small breeds larger) concentrating on erradicating the actual health problems would get more support form breeders?

> Because it impacts on longevity and it puts extra strain on joints (and probably the whole body).

Is the above from the article?

> Interestingly though wolves can vary quite widely in size and be pretty large:

Yes, and they defiantely have to be 'fit for purpose'!

Not contradicting, Yvone - qualifying. From the available data (and more is always needed, of course), crossbreeds - ON AVERAGE - are healthier and live a little longer that the average purebred.  But the picture gets more complicated when you drill down:

- large dogs are ON AVERAGE less healthy and live less long than smaller dogs
- some small pedigree breeds live longer than the AVERAGE crossbreed
- but if they are size-matched, the crossbreed advantage shows up again.

This is as science predicts.

What do you find hypocritical about my having flatcoats?

..semantics Jemima !!- you may call it 'qualifying'...but believe me it reads like contradiction ! - whats hypocritical about you choosing to live with pedigree dogs   is that those dog will have been produced within a restricted gene pool ( just as every pure breed of animal is ) - there is NO way that pedigree dogs can be maintained by using any other method - if we cross bred for 'hybrid vigour we would have to do so every 3-4 generations to maintain that 'vigour' - would your Flat Coats still look and behave like the dogs you love if they were regularly crossed with Golden retrievers or Labradors ?

...and if YOU believe this nonsense then why have you chosen to live with dogs produced by using the closed registry system that you so despise - I would certainly call that hypocritical  !

the truth is that the show world may have some breeds that have become over exaggerated ( and we're not blind most of us can acknowledge this ) but it also is populated by breeders who care passionately about their breeds and who do everything in their power to breed sound healthy good tempered dogs ( over whelmingly it is this section of dog breeders who regularly heath test etc) ..and yet ..over and over again the message you send out is that we are to be avoided like one of the seven plagues of Egypt !!-

Any puppy buyer reading this latest blog will rush headlong into the arms of those producing  Puggles or Maltipoos or whatever the latest designer cross breed is firmly believeing that they will be getting a heathier dog - how responsible is that ?

The ONLY way forward is to adopt a collaborative approach - (and would it hurt to acknowledge publlicy that most of us are doing a good job ? ) - there is absolutely no ground to be gained by continuing this war of attrition - breeders, vets ,and  geneticists  should be pulling together to develop breed by breed solutions so that we can continue to have the wonderful variety of pedigree dogs we currently enjoy . 

>The breed standard for the St. Bernard now specifies a minimum shoulder height of 75cm for dogs and 70cm for bitches (and they are often a lot taller)  and they weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approximately 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg (Ref: Nussbaumer, 2000).

I feel in the interest of fairness and balance you should quote the whole sentence about size in St Bernards:

"Minimum height: dogs 75 cms (30 ins), bitches 70 cms (28 ins). Size is desirable but only is combined with quality, correct balance and absolute soundness.

(My emphasis, their typo!)

"..semantics Jemima !!- you may call it 'qualifying'...but believe me it reads like contradiction ! - whats hypocritical about you choosing to live with pedigree dogs   is that those dog will have been produced within a restricted gene pool ( just as every pure breed of animal is ) - there is NO way that pedigree dogs can be maintained by using any other method - if we cross bred for 'hybrid vigour we would have to do so every 3-4 generations to maintain that 'vigour' - would your Flat Coats still look and behave like the dogs you love if they were regularly crossed with Golden retrievers or Labradors ?"

Can I just ask, would that actually increase genetic diversity all that much, since all these breeds have been used together to develop a particular breed in the first place?  Apologies if it's a daft question, but as many types of dog were used in the creation of a specific type, which then became a pedigree, many breeds will be closely related in any case? 

> I have never used the PDSA or any other animal charity, so I am not sure why you asked me that

Sorry - was in reply to Boody :)

> I am and always will be rubbish at saving, but I am and always will be fantastic at finding the money to pay my pets vet bills 

If a family saved £15 per week for a year that would amount to nearly £800 - plenty for most pedigree dogs :) £15 is not much compared to the runnng costs of a dog, so why not save ?? Saving used to be something that everyone had to do to get anything :) Doesn't seem to be done much now :) :)

I feel in the interest of fairness and balance you should quote the whole sentence about size in St Bernards:

"Minimum height: dogs 75 cms (30 ins), bitches 70 cms (28 ins). Size is desirable but only is combined with quality, correct balance and absolute soundness.

If I read this right, it seems to suggest "the bigger the better". Is there anyone on the board in St Bs who can confirm that being bigger than the minimum is considered a good thing? And if so, why? Unless there's an explanation I haven't thought of, that's a phrase I would like to see gone from the standard as it encourages bigger dogs and there is a clear welfare cost to breeding them bigger. And sure, it stresses absolute soundness, but this is harder to achieve the bigger the dog gets.

Jemima

> I feel in the interest of fairness and balance you should quote the whole sentence about size in St Bernards:
>
> "Minimum height: dogs 75 cms (30 ins), bitches 70 cms (28 ins). Size is desirable but only is combined with quality, correct balance and absolute soundness.

To me, this means bigger is better ONLY if the size is of detriment to the dog.

    > I feel in the interest of fairness and balance you should quote the whole sentence about size in St Bernards:
    >
    > "Minimum height: dogs 75 cms (30 ins), bitches 70 cms (28 ins). Size is desirable but only is combined with quality, correct balance and absolute soundness.

To me, this means bigger is better ONLY if the size is of detriment to the dog.

Yes it does indeed say that, but it IS still saying that bigger is desirable and we know that bigger dogs suffer more and live shorter lives (in general). Don't forget that the showring is just a snapshot of a dog most likely in his or her prime where it may be possible to produce a bigger sound dog. It takes no account at all of what happens once a dog is retired from the show-ring.

Again, I would like to see a slow and steady reduction in size of the giant dogs to the size many of them used to be. I do not think we are doing them any favours at all by breeding them bigger and I can't really see the reason for it.

Jemima

> Don't forget that the showring is just a snapshot of a dog most likely in his or her prime where it may be possible to produce a bigger sound dog

But you point out that it's 'developmental diseases' that are the cause of 'diminished longevity'.

I did ask if 'developmental diseases' reffered to ED, HD & OCD, you didn't answer so, as developmemental orthapedic problems are a big concern in the giant breeds, I will assume that is what is meant.

As these things are developmental, they show up very early - (early as 25 days for OCD, 3-8 months for HD and from 4 months for ED) and will be detectable before a dog has reached it's 'prime'. It may be a case of mild cases only being detectable by x-ray, but surely rigerous health screening of dogs - to ensure only the most fit & healthy dogs - are shown & bred from is the way forward, rather than trying to change the breed standards of dogs to fit an ideal that doesn't actually exist.

Developmental diseases are more common in giant breeds, but can effect ANY breed of dog, therefore simply by making giant breeds smaller will not get rid of the problem.

>If I read this right, it seems to suggest "the bigger the better".

I read it the opposite way; that a sound, smaller dog should be preferable to a larger, unsound dog, which is surely the healthier way to go? The fact that soundness is emphasised as being vital stresses that bigger is not automatically better.

Then the wording needs to be changed to: "A smaller, sound dog is more desirable than a larger, unsound one."  But, either way, it definitely needs to drop the "Size is desirable" clause as it encourages people to breed for bigger dogs.

Jemima

However that might encourage the miniaturisation of the breed, which the standard rightly is actively against.

http://www.canine-genetics.com/Default.htm

General reply to the thread, not JG.  Just found this while searching background on a new trainer I'm about to start with.  Fascinating reading and a lot of it, I've only read a wee bit.  Thought it might be of interest to everyone on this thread.  I think it would be interesting to know who is already familiar with some of this?

I would like to ask, if two large breed dogs are in the showring are both the same, both healthy. both sound, but one is bigger.If the judge picks the bigger one because the breed standerd says size is desirable.
Would the breeders who want to win prizes and sell puppies of show standard; breed dogs that are bigger knowing the protential  health problums, or smaller to prevent protential health problums although their pups may not be winners?

In response to Jocelyn... not all breeders of large breed dogs breed for the size, you will find many breeders will not use the very big dogs even if they are made up to CH. The judges choice is only an opinion and at the next show the smaller dog may win, of course some breeders only breed for size but you just keep clear of them.

> I would like to ask, if two large breed dogs are in the showring are both the same, both healthy. both sound, but one is bigger.If the judge picks the bigger one because the breed standerd says size is desirable.
> Would the breeders who want to win prizes and sell puppies of show standard; breed dogs that are bigger knowing the protential  health problums, or smaller to prevent protential health problums although their pups may not be winners?

Making a dog smaller does not erradicate health problems! Every size dog can get the 'developmental diseases' that giant breeds suffer from - even toy breeds can. Developmental diseases are not restricted to giant breeds.

Making giant breeds smaller is only going to result in smaller giant- breeds.
Breeding a giant breed for health & soundess will result in more healthy & sound dogs.

"The heritability of hip dysplasia (assessed using both hip scores and the major components) was significant, particularly from dams. Our research emphasizes the need for both sires and dams -- particularly dams, to have zero or small hip scores. Tested parents have been used increasingly in recent years, but greater reduction in offspring hip score will require stricter selection of potential breeding stock." (from here)

There is NO mention of size being a contributing factor to this developmental disease - but the hereditity factor is undeniable.

HEALTH sceening, not SIZE screeing is the way forward.

I've had x breeds for decades and have always insured them.  Maybe though, pedigree owners could be more likely to insure. Plus it may be possible to predict the likelihood different breeds may need vet/3rd party insurance.
I have had more than 3 collie x's, one definitely with FCR, another GSD, my existing one I'm not sure with what she's mixed.  Of the 3, the GSD X had to be pts at 12 and suffered HD and  thyroid for some years;  the others had/have no health problems though the FCR got into some trouble at times [broken toe playing with the horses I used to look after!].  I also had a terrier type [absolutely unknown origin - ran like a whippet though] who had to go to the vets for lots of injuries - he too, was into all sorts.
Insurance is about gaining money so the more likely the breed is to cause/incur injury/accident the greater the premium.  In my experience breeds such as Labradors will eat most anything - that could make them need vet treatment more often. etc. 

In my experience breeds such as Labradors will eat most anything - that could make them need vet treatment more often. etc. 

Good point and something i hadn't considered.
My cousins 2 labs were both insured to start and within a month of cancelling the policys thinking she was wasting money (she had only had insurance for about 18 months) the naughty one :p ate a battery but luckily after a few nervous days it passed threw and then did her cruciate whilst being very over exhubarent. Hence some very hefty vet bills.

However that might encourage the miniaturisation of the breed, which the standard rightly is actively against.

Not when there's a minimum height set in the breed standard - as there is in the St B.

Jemima

>>However that might encourage the miniaturisation of the breed, which the standard rightly is actively against.
>Not when there's a minimum height set in the breed standard - as there is in the St B.

But that minimum height clause is what you were complaining about in your earlier post when you said: "The breed standard for the St. Bernard now specifies a minimum shoulder height of 75cm for dogs and 70cm for bitches (and they are often a lot taller)  and they weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approximately 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg"!!

Better nutrition has led to bigger animals, just as it has led to bigger humans; the average 21st British human adult is markedly taller than the average 19th century British human adult.

Making giant breeds smaller is only going to result in smaller giant- breeds.
Breeding a giant breed for health & soundess will result in more healthy & sound dogs.

"The heritability of hip dysplasia (assessed using both hip scores and the major components) was significant, particularly from dams. Our research emphasizes the need for both sires and dams -- particularly dams, to have zero or small hip scores. Tested parents have been used increasingly in recent years, but greater reduction in offspring hip score will require stricter selection of potential breeding stock." (from here)

There is NO mention of size being a contributing factor to this developmental disease - but the hereditity factor is undeniable.

HEALTH sceening, not SIZE screeing is the way forward.

No. There is a proven correlation between size and joint problems and other health issues. Absolutely, health screening is important - but size is too. It would be worth considering both.

May I ask what type of Mastiff you have?

Jemima

But that minimum height clause is what you were complaining about in your earlier post when you said: "The breed standard for the St. Bernard now specifies a minimum shoulder height of 75cm for dogs and 70cm for bitches (and they are often a lot taller)  and they weigh 65-85 kg, whereas a typical 19th century dog was approximately 60 cm high and weighed less than 50 kg"

Sure, I think it would be a good idea to reduce it but a minimum size - whatever it was set at - would guard against minituarisation.

Jemima

Bearing in mind that 60 centimetres is smaller than a standard-size dalmatian, how far would you like it to be reduced? What size do you think they should be?

Can't answer that without doing more research than I have time for; but I'm arguing that a slow drift back towards the size of the dogs of yesteryear would be of benefit to the dogs.

Would still be interested in hearing why the size has increased. Presumably there is some reasoning for it, rather than just an accomodation of breeder whim.

Jemima

As I said in my earlier post, better nutrition has caused a noticeable increase in human height; why would that not also apply to dogs in the same way?

Yes, we've got bigger. And nutrition undoubtedly plays a role in growth rate (which is a problem in large dogs). But not sure that argument holds water given that some breeds have got smaller. Nope, they've got bigger because they've been selected to be bigger.

Jemima

In your opinion of course. Where is your proof?

> In your opinion of course.

I think that's a fair comment of Jemima's.... the selection could have been entirely unconscious and been so subtle over a very long period of time that the larger size has become the norm. Perhaps some individuals of the breed excelled so much in other features that a slight height increase was considered acceptable. Or some particular bloodline or stud dog that was used a great deal at one time, was bigger or threw bigger dogs, and passed that onto future generations.

Are the UK St Bernards larger than those bred in The St Berhnard Pass?  I remember tham as giant dogs when I saw them there.....

It could be that the 19th century British St Bernards were undernourished runts ... When correctly reared they've attained their correct genetic size.

Jemima, would you like to see a maximum size as well as a minimum size?

> May I ask what type of Mastiff you have?

English Mastiff.