Hi, Im just looking for your views on grand father to grand daughter mating? is this too close for some people if so why?
Ive heard alot of people feel this to be the best productive mating?

Thanks in advance to all your replys.

Like all matings, it depends on the respective qualities of the dog and bitch. You can't make a silk purse out of two sow's ears!

I would not want to go any closer than this & if possible go one step further back.
They do say this is supposed to be quite a good mating & if the other side of the ped is in NO way related it MAY work.
I'm not sure that I would want to do this mating with all the bad things that have been highlighted in breeding now.

Assuming that you have good reasons for doing it, this can be one of the best matings to do.

Good reasons would be:
that both grandfather and granddaughter are of excellent type - ie the type you are hoping to see in the pups,
that both have excellent health results,
that both have excelent temperaments.

Assuming these conditions are met there is no problem - you will cement the excellent type that you have in your bitch.

With grandfather to granddaughter you are putting getting 50% of this dogs influence by using him, plus 12.5% of his influence through the granddaughter into the resulting litter, meaning the pups will in theory carry 62.5% of his bloodline, which if you are trying to skew the influence to that side of a pedigree you are most likely to achieve that.

Personally half brother to half sister on a desired ancestor giving 50% of their influence is as close as I would go.  Somehow having a dog with more than half the influence on potential puppies doesn't seem right to me, this is more than in his direct offspring to an unrelated bitch.

I would sooner use a half uncle to niece mating where the dog being used is half brother to the dam of your bitch.  This skews the odds in favour of the dog I want without going too far.

This has worked well for me with two litters.

One view here that may not have been considered: today, especially after PDE, it may be rather difficult to sell pups to pet buyers if there is any obvious linebreeding in the immediate pedigree. This is the main reason for why I myself would not do the mating mentioned. It's hard enough at the moment to find buyers as people are spending less and of course it's rare to be able to sell an entire litter to breeders & exhibitors that know better than pet buyers that have been told by their vet to stay clear from anything inbred......

> One view here that may not have been considered: today, especially after PDE, it may be rather difficult to sell pups to pet buyers if there is any obvious line breeding in the immediate pedigree

Most pet buyers cannot read pedigrees and don't realise that the dog who is the sire and appears in the third generation on the other side is a grand-sire to granddaughter mating.

My recent half brother sister litter none of the owners picked this up, I had to explain it to them.

Have to admit that hasn't been my experience Barbara.

You must have more pedigree savvy puppy buyers, LOL ;)

Having spoken to few people about the pedigrees of their dogs...
When I pointed out the lines dogs being used and the same names popping up they were in horror!
They just could not understand why somebdoy would breed close relatives and bring together same lines on both sides of the pedigree!
They had had a look and seen the pedigree but so trusting a respectable breeder who breeds for health would not do such a thing as "inbreed" they did not question anything(the trust people lay on the breeders is somewhat amazement to me)

These pedigrees did not have close breeding as such, just when going back over few generations few same names started to pop up and this was enough to make them really worried their dog will have some nasty inherited illness!

I would deffinately not do half brother/sister matings.
How can this be better than grandfather/grand daughter, as it means dog & bitch have the same father!! Far too close in my opinion, I would strugle to do G Father to G daughter mating as I have already said.

Half siblings mating will have two "fresh lines" coming in, the lines of the unrelated mothers of the siblings.
G.daughter to G.father will have less fresh genes coming in.

Not necessarily.

No not necssasarily but with a breeder that knows what they are doing they are just as likely to have.

True not necessarily, but most of the time I would hope people would have sense to pick some unrelated lines in the breeding when they chose to breed close relatives like this.

I see no need to do close breedings like this.
Yes, you will get very strong type etc but is it really necessary to have all dogs coming from one kennel looking like copies when there is a risk of getting some dodgy inherited illnesses too?
Most breeds have been around for long enough for a breed type to be there without having to breed so close relatives together.

My opinion only, based on having looked after my own dog that had an inherited illness and pretty closed pedigree...
Her illness was said to be not inherited but surprise surprise people who continued from those lines (line breeding)have the same illness popping up few generations later...

Personally, if I was happy with the research I had done over the pedigrees involved (As I have always done anyway), I would have no qualms about such a mating.    The proof of the pudding.........  If the grandfather is a dog that has proven winning progeny then it could stamp his excellent type thoughout the litter.

You can health problems amongst 2 unrelated animals.    

But then I do matings that I want to do.

If doing either of these matings one would hope the rest of the pedigree was outcrossed.

My half brother sister mating had two imports for the sires of both the mates, one from Scandinavia and one USA with no common ancestry probably in 10 generations.

Half sibling mating will give you 50% of the line-bred dog whereas grandsire to granddaughter gives you 50% from him as sire plus 12.5% from his granddaughter, so is closer.

First cousins that marry will have a set of grandparents in common so not the same as a parent in common but the same proportion of common ancestry.

My problem comes from the fact that people keep quiet about illnesses (in my breed they do and I would think it is same in most breeds).
So how ever much research you do you might not find out about something that is not tested for.
I can see very few long time breeders having deep enough knowledge of the lines to try something like this...

It is very true you can put together two totally unrelated animals and have problems.
But then individuals in one breed are very likely to come from the few chosed dogs if you go down the pedigree.

Can anybody say that narrowing down the genepool will not increase the risk of inherited illnesses to be more likely?
Especially if it is done generation after generation and these dogs already come from few dogs that carried certain defects in the first place?

In brainlesses breeding for examle it sounds she has really looked into it with unrelated mates etc.
In my breed I think you would seriously struggle to find dogs that have 10 generations of unrelated dogs behind them!

My half brother sister mating was on one of my own bitches. 

At 9 years old I obviously knew here health status, and having kept in touch with many of her litter-mates, theirs too.  I had bred her mother maternal grandmother and owned the maternal great grandmother.

This bitch had produced 3 litters and I was utilising her daughter (owned by me) from her first litter and a son from her last litter.  Her daughter had already produced healthy offspring and so had a full brother and sister.

I felt I had enough knowledge of bitch I was inbreeding too and her relatives to do this breeding, in fact far more than I could possibly have on the ancestors of the two unrelated imports who were the sires of her two children.  they in fact are far more the unknown quantities, but one had already produced 3 generations of descendants and the other two.

As you say often information is not given out or known especially negative.  It is in fact the reason many breeders stay within their own 'known' lines as very often bringing in something new brings in some undesirable traits, which don't show up for a generation or two.

It is one reason some breeders will do a half brother sister breding on a new line so if there are skeletons in the close t they are exposed sooner than later when it can be impossible to get them out of the gene-pool.

If a bitches father is the  stud dogs grandfather and both do not share the same mother what reationship are the dogs to each other ?

are they half sister/brother or is the dog the bitches  uncle ? or am I getting it totaly wrong ?

> If a bitches father is the stud dogs grandfather and both do not share the same mother what reationship are the dogs to each other ?
>
> are they half sister/brother or is the dog the bitches  uncle ? or am I getting it totaly wrong ?

Half brother sister mating is the dog and bitch have the same father or mother.

If the bitches father is the dogs grandfather it is not the uncle.

In the past, with 30 years' knowledge of a specific breed and lines, this is something that we would/have done.

However in the present economic climate AND with the aftermath of That programme, I feel that unless one had a guaranteed list of knowledgeable prospective puppy owners, it could well prove to be unwise.   

To the uninitiated, the mere kennel name can make a pedigree look in-bred!

Margot

Margot said
However in the present economic climate AND with the aftermath of That programme, I feel that unless one had a guaranteed list of knowledgeable prospective puppy owners, it could well prove to be unwise.

Quite frankly, I WILL NOT bow down to that programme.  Our last litter was a grandfather/grand daughter mating and produced 7 lovely puppies - 3 of whom are shown and have done very well.  If we do what THAT programme want us to do and use any old dog just because it is the remotest outcross possible then they will have won.

And - IF (and I do STRESS IF), I decide that our next litter will be half brother/half sister mating then Ms Harrison and her cronies are not going to stop me.  The fact that the KC may have stopped it by then might do but I am not going to be told what to do with our lines (that have been established for nearly 50 years) by a bunch of amateurs.
Becky

> And - IF (and I do STRESS IF), I decide that our next litter will be half brother/half sister mating then Ms Harrison and her cronies are not going to stop me.  The fact that the KC may have stopped it by then might do but I am not going to be told what to do with our lines (that have been established for nearly 50 years) by a bunch of amateurs.
>

Agree, we should not allow a programme to affect what we do. Line breeding and inbreeding are very different which unfortunately is not always understood by vets much less puppy buyers. I have recently been talking to the BVA about this subject, and sent them information about this. I think the BVA are more open to line breeding than most of the so called experts like Mark Evans, who appeared in PDE.

Line breeding to mediochre stock is not a good idea, but if you have really good dogs like Becky has then it is a good thing to do.

I think the economic climate has more to do with puppy buying than breeding. The public may not understand breeding but those who want a dog on the whole do understand that they have a responsiblity to care properly for a dog, so may not at this time be prepared to buy a pup.

I have found that as long as you support your puppy buyers, they will return to you when they want a new puppy and ask for your help to find one suitable to their lifestyle.

Becky/Polly

I am sure you go to every length to ensure you breed from stock that are as healthy as possible.

A grandfather/granddaughter mating produces puppies with a COI of 12.5 per cent - and that's presuming no other inbreeding within the pedigree which of course with flatcoats (and many other breeds) is never going to be the case. There is a risk with that that needs to be weighed up against the advantages - something I am sure you have done.  I'd be interested (genuinely) in hearing what the rationale was for this mating and how you weighed up the pros and cons. I do realise it's complex.

It's not THAT programme that suggested that high COIs are a problem - it's a wealth of scientific knowledge that has documented the deleterious impact it can have on health.  That's the reason why the Swedish KC now advises against matings that produce puppies with a 5-gen COI higher than 6.25 per cent (the equivalent of first cousins) - and why livestock breeders now go to considerable lengths to keep COIs around this level or below, too. 

I'm pleased the KC has banned the mating of first-degree relatives (mother/son, father/daughter + full-sibs) which every expert we talked to believes can, genetically, only very rarely be (if ever) justified. Over and above that, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all. What's appropriate in one breed may not be in another.

I see Cesky Terriers (which are very inbred) are proposing to use DNA profiling to help them select the more genetically diverse mates. There's also some terrific work being pioneered in Finland which will give breeders a chance to choose mates which are genetically different in an area of the genome called the MHC (which looks after immune function). This could be useful for flatcoats as immune-function is of course implicated in the ability to fight cancer.

Polly, when we first approached the BVA, the then-president was shocked that the KC still reg'd the progeny of first-degree-relative matings and committed to an interview advising against it. By the time we did our BVA interview, there had been a change of president to one who was a little more reluctant to condemn this level of inbreeding. Since then, there has been another change of presidency. There will, of course, be a variety of views within the BVA but I doubt they would go against the prevailing scientific view that inbreeding needs to be controlled.

>> Polly, when we first approached the BVA, the then-president was shocked that the KC still reg'd the progeny of first-degree-relative matings and committed to an interview advising against it. By the time we did our BVA interview, there had been a change of president to one who was a little more reluctant to condemn this level of inbreeding. Since then, there has been another change of presidency. There will, of course, be a variety of views within the BVA but I doubt they would go against the prevailing scientific view that inbreeding needs to be controlled.

Since I did not say why we were discussing inbreeding or line breeding, your comment bears little relation to what I was disucssing with the BVA, although they are passing the information to experts who are looking at health issues in breeds. I used FCR pedigrees simply because I know more about them than other breeds although the same principle applies.

When I first got a flatcoat and decided to breed a litter I was advised that I should line breed no closer than a common grand-parent or grand-parent, who also appears as a great-grandparent. I was also advised that if I bred closer to outcross every few generations.

Pedigrees aside there have been many very successful breeders, who have line bred their dogs much closer than anyone in FCRs does and have no major problems with health. Equally there have been breeders who have outcrossed at every generation who have had health problems and their stock is not typical in looks and they look like little brown or black dogs infact they could be any mongrel off the streets! Line breeding is about keeping type and health. When you line breed you get a dog which is typical of it's breed and because you are working in lines you know and understand you know what if any health issues you may have to cope with. Out crossing leaves you wide open to producing untypical stock with unknown health conditions coming through.

One interesting thing is that two inbred litters that I am aware of, one full brother/sister and one son/mother mating has not produced any health issues so far. Human beings who are as mongrel bred as you can get have several inherited health problems, if we didn't our hospitals would be virtually empty. When a puppy is taken to the vets, nobody asks is it pedigree? No one asks "Who bred this puppy?" No one asks "Is this puppy from health tested parents?" When working in a vets I did ask several of our clients about their dogs, for the most part the owners had no idea whether the pup had been bred from health tested parents. When I asked them had they asked they all said,"No I didn't. What health tests should I have asked about?" Of course nobody ever health tests mongrels so on that score we'll never really know the truth.

As to the breeders and vets, if it looked like a westie and the owner said it was, then that would be the way the pup was registered with the vets, regardless of whether it had come from a puppy farm, or from a local pet shop or a responsible breeder who had a good track record for producing typical dogs with good health.

Polly, I know a dog from the brother/sister mating I think you are talking about, who has multiple health problems, an unlucky dog or as a result of her breeding who knows?

Jemima
I am not going to explain the reason or justification behind any of our breeding to you.  It would be a complete waste of time and energy because you would twist it like you twisted your "programme".
All I would say is that having spent a lifetime (in my case nearly 45 years) with Flatcoats I know full well that there are just as many Flatcoats that are outcrosses which get cancer (just as an example) as those that are linebred.
My mother is one of the trustees of the Flatcoat Tumour Survey.  For every sample that is submitted a pedigree of the dog is attached.  So we have a HUGE dossier of pedigrees of EVERY flatcoat whose sample was sent to Cambridge.  As an exercise we (my mother and I) sorted the pedigrees into two piles - those which were line bred and those which were outcrosses.  The result was even.  This may surprise you.  However I am telling you a FACT - not something that I dredged up from thin air - or made up for sensationalism.
Another FACT that you might like to take on board is that ONE of the reasons that Cancer is so well known in Flatcoats is because of the many thousands of £££s and hours of research that has gone into its study.  Bermese Mountain Dogs have done a similar study.  No doubt if EVERY breed did the same research you MIGHT find that they all have this problem.
Becky

> Polly, I know a dog from the brother/sister mating I think you are talking about, who has multiple health problems, an unlucky dog or as a result of her breeding who knows?

I would doubt that you know the dogs I am talking about, since they were bred by a person I know and not registered with the KC.

the one I know is from a registered litter where the same kennel has also had a mother/son litter

How did you measure the inbreeding in the flatcoat pedigrees, Becky? Presumably by working out the COI - and if so over how many generations? This would be really interesting data to see (allowing for anonymity, obviously).  Presumably as you saw the pedigrees in your mother's capacity as a Trustee of the Flatcoat Tumour Survey, the Cambridge researchers have this data?

If correct, of course, it also indicates that linebreeding has not protected flatcoats from cancer, either. But then given the population genetics and the incidence of cancer in the breed, that's no great surprise.  Flatcoats all go back to a handful of dogs and it's very likely the root of the cancer is in one of these founder dogs or to a popular sire or two that lurk in almot every flatcoat's pedigree.

Absolutely, flatcoat breeders and owners have contributed hugely to flatcoat cancer research and I very much hope the genetics is unravelled soon. Matthew Breen sounded hopeful last time I talked to him. (Although I remain pessimistic about the chances of breeding away from it given the incidence of cancer and the small gene pool).  But I dont understand the point you're making. Forty-two per cent of flatcoats develop cancer by the age of 7/8.  I don't care if other breeds are similarly or worse affected and keeping it quiet or not. It's too many, too young.  And, as you know, I would love the flatcoat community to be doing even more to tackle it such as making an effort to contact pet owners, giving info about the research in puppy packs, open health databases etc.

I was not aware that every flatcoat tumour survey sample was accompanied by a pedigree. I've submitted twice, via vets,  and not been asked for a pedigree on either occasion. But perhaps I'm getting mixed up?

Jemima

> I was not aware that every flatcoat tumour survey sample was accompanied by a pedigree. I've submitted twice, via vets,  and not been asked for a pedigree on either occasion. But perhaps I'm getting mixed up?

I would assume this is the result of miscomunication between either Cambridge and your vet or you and your vet. When a flatcoat living close to me was diagnosed with cancer the vet contacted Cambridge who requested the pedigree if the owners had one.

"why livestock breeders now go to considerable lengths to keep COIs around this level or below, too."

Hi Jemima

I'm just interested to know to which livestock breeders you are referring.

Carina

I am sure you WOULD love to see the data but you DON'T need to - you just need to know the numbers.  My mother was asked by the other trustees to do the exercise and she requested PERMISSION for my assistance as she is not too sharp on a keyboard!.  And we used SIX generation pedigree's.  Also I did NOT use the word INBREEDING.  I used LINE BREEDING - there is a DIFFERENCE.

And your statement that you "don't care about other breeds and whether they are keeping it quiet or not" - that is rather in contrast to your "programme"  - I thought one of the whole points of that was to show how much you DID care! 

As for your statement about cancer going back to a popular sire or two - that is a VERY dangerous assumption.  If a Breeder has say twenty litters in a 10 year period and in an ideal world every puppy was health tested they would get more "bad results" than a breeder who had say two litters in the same period.  Yet, people after sensationalism will say "oh did you know Mrs X bred 20 dogs with high hip scores but Mrs Y only had 5 with a high score" - this may be true but compare it with the number of litters they bred and the percentages would come out the same.

You say 42% of Flatcoats get some form of cancer between 7 and 8 - where are you getting that figure?  To get such a figure surely EVERY flatcoat in existence would have had to have been tested?  This is an impossibilty.  Therefore what you actually mean is 42% of TESTED Flatcoats contract a form of cancer - that is a big difference!!!

You might also be surprised to know that the Flatcoat community do a great deal for their "pet owners" - every county has an "Area Rep" who can be contacted for advice and help.  Lots of the areas arrange activities and the Society runs "Open Meetings" where even non members can come and participate. 

As for an open database - you may not be aware of a publication called the Breed Record Supplement which is available from the Kennel Club which records all health records for all breeds.  It really is very good.

Becky

Becky, I do not want to see any material that would betray any confidences. By data I of course just mean the numbers - and I would very much like to see the breakdown of those figures if possible. Who would be best to ask?

Linebreeding IS inbreeding - just a lesser degree of it. (Although not always as it's cumulative - several generations of linebreeding can result in a COI far higher than a one-off very close mating in an otherwise outbred pedigree). After all, there isn't a coefficient of linebreeding.  I'm using the term as a scientist would, not to cast aspersions.

I did not say I "don't care about other breeds and whether they are keeping it quiet or not". Of course I care. A lot.  What I said was that the extent of their suffering was a separate issue and a deflection from the subject in hand which was flatcoats.

I didn't "state" that cancer goes back to a popular sire or two - I said that cancer could be due to either a founder or the impact of a popular sire.  (As, indeed, the Cambridge researchers have told me.) Given the presumed-genetic nature of the soft-tissue sarcomas in the breed, the cancer has to come from somewhere. Pedigree analaysis should give some clues, of course.

The 42 per cent cancer figure comes from a Cambridge study which followed a cohort of flatcoats from birth.  More studies are needed (perhaps the Flatcoat Retriever Soceity could instigate one?), but it's a scary enough figure.  No, you do not have to test every flatcoat to get to a reasonably accurate figure for disease incidence/prevalence. If that was the case it would be impossible to come up with figures for anything. You just need to ensure that your sample is random and large enough to give you statistically relevant results.

I know about the Area reps. I'm merely suggesting that there would be some benefit in being even more proactive in attempting to reach non-breed-club members.

As for the BRS, there is terrific data there. But if, say, I wanted to know about cancer or luxating patellas or thyroid problems in flatcoats, where would I find that out?

Becky, I really do love flatcoats as much passion as you do - and I've had them for 20 years now. Of course you think I am "obsessed with/paranoid about health" but it's hardly unfounded. We lose too many of our beautiful dogs too young and I think there's more to be done to tackle it. Particularly, I believe that knowledge is power - hence the call for more health information more readily available to everyone.

Jemima

Carina asked: "I'm just interested to know to which livestock breeders you are referring."

I was think of Holstein-Friesians in particular. Here's one ref (see "Conclusions" at end):

http://cgil.uoguelph.ca/pub/Miglior/105.pdf

Fred Lanting (a name I hope will be considered acceptable here) makes some livestock comparisons in his writings, too: (see "More on Inbreeding" about half way down:

http://www.siriusdog.com/inbreeding-linebreeding-diversity-genes-5.htm

Jemima

>(Although not always as it's cumulative - several generations of linebreeding can result in a COI far higher than a one-off very close mating in an otherwise outbred pedigree).

It was explained to me recently by a geneticist that it's theoretically possible (though statistically unlikely) to have a litter brother and sister who are almost totally unrelated to each other genetically.

Because each sperm contains a random half of the dog's genes, and each ovum contains a random half of the bitch's genes, littermates might develop from 'opposite' halves, as it were (easier to explain with a diagram than words!). They'll be equally genetically related to the parents, but not to each other.

Just another aspect to confuse the issue. :-)

Jemima
I think your memory is failing - read your earlier post - you definitely state that you "do not care about other breeds or what is being swept under the carpet" - just scroll upwards!!!!!

I don't deny that the cancer incidence in Flatcoats is high - but you can not catergorically say it is due to line breeding (or in breeding) any more than you can say it is due to out crossing - it is too sweeping a statement.

I do not doubt you care about the breed - however - we look at it from different angles - I work on the positives and you harp on about the negatives.  I try and build on the positives - you still harp about the negatives.  I took my one of my Flatcoats to be patella screened at Flatcoat CH Show - were you there with yours??? helping to bring further info into the breed - I don't recall seeing you.

Remind me again -how many litters of flatcoats have you actually bred?  Just for the record my parents (who founded our kennel in 1961) and I have bred circa 30 litters in that time.  I could count the number of puppies bred by us in that time that died before 5 years old on one hand - how do I know?  Because my mother and I keep a book of every litter we have bred, and who we sold to.  We keep in touch with all our owners.  More often than not our owners come back to us for their second, third and fourth Flatcoat.  I think you will find this is the same of most GOOD flatcoat breeders.

anyway - I am not going to argue the point anymore - because my much loved dogs - who are also show dogs, and working dogs, and my best friends are waiting for their "good night biscuits".

Becky

Jeangenie said: "It was explained to me recently by a geneticist that it's theoretically possible (though statistically unlikely) to have a litter brother and sister who are almost totally unrelated to each other genetically."

You're absolutely right. And on the same basis the reverse is true, to - they could be virtual clones of each other.

I don't think we're far off being able to look at the actual DNA to help us make breeding decisions regarding diversity.  There are, in fact, already breeders doing this already on a limited basis.

There's a very inbred isolated population of wolves on the Swedish peninsula which, when they look at the wolves' actual DNA, were not as genetically similar as they "should" have been on paper. The researchers concluded that the females, when faced with, say,  two brothers to mate with, were able to choose the one that was most genetically different from them. The result was that overall, more genetic diversity has been maintained than expected.  There's a bit of evidence that other mammals can do this too - including us.

Jemima

Becky wrote:"My mother is one of the trustees of the Flatcoat Tumour Survey.  For every sample that is submitted a pedigree of the dog is attached.  So we have a HUGE dossier of pedigrees of EVERY flatcoat whose sample was sent to Cambridge.  As an exercise we (my mother and I) sorted the pedigrees into two piles - those which were line bred and those which were outcrosses."

The FCRS website states clearly: "Should your Vet recommend the removal of a lump or bump from your Flatcoat, you might like to consider helping the ongoing research at the Cambridge Veterinary School by asking your Vet to send ti for pathological investigation. Cambridge will report their findings direct to your Vet.  All the information given to the Oncology Department is competely confidential. "

Elsewhere, you said that permission was asked from the other Trustees for you and your mother to go through these pedigrees.  But surely it was not up to them?  Surely, permission should have been sought from those who have donated tissue and pedigrees who thought the information would be kept confidential and not handed over by the researchers to one of the top flatcoat kennels in the UK?

As it happens, I'm all for total transparency. I'd like to see a fully open database listing cancer and other problems. But others do not feel the same.

Jemima

The FCRS website states clearly: "Should your Vet recommend the removal of a lump or bump from your Flatcoat, you might like to consider helping the ongoing research at the Cambridge Veterinary School by asking your Vet to send ti for pathological investigation. Cambridge will report their findings direct to your Vet.  All the information given to the Oncology Department is competely confidential. "

Yes - and it IS confidential - to the Researchers and Trustees!  However, ~Jemima I have to apologise because I have gone back and checked a couple of things with my mother.  It appears that the pedigrees were were sorting out were NOT those which had samples sent to cambridge.  It was a different project which related to the tumour survey.  Basically what Cambridge wanted - and it was ALL advertised and asked for - was pedigrees of Flatcoats who were aged 7 and upwards.  It was quite clearly explained what they would be used for - and it was TEN years ago that this was done.  The pedigrees were actually sent by the OWNERS to my mother who once she had them submitted them to Cambridge and they used them as a comparison with the pedigrees they had been sent which obviously we had NOT seen.
I am sorry for the confusion - I remember doing it I just could not remember how it came about.
i should add that the Tumour Survey is independant from the FCRS - but supported by them.

Becky

Thank you for the clarification, Becky.

So that means that there is NO data to suggest that flatcoats with cancer are any more inbred (or indeed any less) inbred than those without?

This is, in fact, quite possible given that cancer is so common in the breed - although as there is a link between high COIs and impaired immune function (and indeed longevity), it is also possible that dogs with higher COIs might be less able to battle cancer.  It would be a really interesting study to do and as the pedigree info is available perhaps it is something the Flatcoat Tumour Survey could do?

A study in standard poodles found that dogs with COIs less than 6.25 per cent lived almost four years longer on average than SPs with COIs of more than 25 per cent - a whopping difference. There could well be other/linked reasons for this effect  that are unique to SPs, but it's something that I think every breed should be looking at - as is the monitoring of litter sizes/puppy mortality.

Jemima

A fascinating discussion.
The terms line breeding and inbreeding are for the layman. The difference is the degree on closeness of the relatives. The reason that inbreeding/line breeding may cause problems is that over many generations the degree of homozygosity increases. this means that an offspring may carry more double doses of a particular gene. If this gene happens to be for a fault then there would be no counterpart to balance it. On the other side the breeder may double up on a sought-after characteristic. On checking tables the degree of doubling up does not increase markedly after 15 generations of for example 2nd cousin matings, but after 15 generations of brother/sister matings it is almost 100% homozygous.
So to respond to the original post, the odd close breeding will not do any harm generally. BUT and this is a big but, the common ancestor had to be a fine specimen of the breed and had healthy litters without genetic faults. The common ancestor is the one you need to look at closely.

No problem Jemima - I just apologise for giving inaccurate information.  I knew it had something to do with the study but basically what Cambridge wanted to compare was "well dogs" - ie those who had never had a submission (and those were the pedigrees that Mum was collecting on behalf of Cambridge at their request) and the pedigrees that were submitted to them in confidence.

I believe they did give out the results at the time - obviously they were just "numbers".  You have to appreciate that the Flatcoat Tumour Survey is independant from the Society although supported by them.  Their research is done on their terms.  The Society gets a report which is read out after the AGM (because obviously it can't be read in the body of the meeting) and they report their findings etc.

I expect if the Society wrote and asked them what % of submissions had a COI of more than say 6.5% they could work this out but it something obviously only they could do.

I am not convinced that the actual breeding of a dog is the whole story when health problems arise.  I think that environment plays a big part as well. 

Also - these studies that show dogs of a COI of a certain amount lived longer are not really worth the paper it is written on because it depends what dogs had the study done on them - unless it is ALL of them it means nothing.  It is a bit like these government polls which show one party is miles ahead of the others!  They just ask the right people.  One hears on the News that 99% of people think Gordon Brown should be removed - super but who did they ask - probably the Young Conservatives Club!

Anyway - I digress - at the moment you can NOT prove that Flatcoats with Cancer are anymore or anyless line bred or outcrossed because the data has not been published.  I will NEVER deny that Flatcoats have a high incidence rate - it is something I tell EVERYBODY who is new to the breed or thinking about a Flatcoat - it is surely up to them then to make the choice as to whether they have one.

Becky

Louise wrote
So to respond to the original post, the odd close breeding will not do any harm generally. BUT and this is a big but, the common ancestor had to be a fine specimen of the breed and had healthy litters without genetic faults. The common ancestor is the one you need to look at closely.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell from where I sit Louise!  We have line bred and outcrossed over the years with equal success and disappointment!  Sometimes what looks great on a pedigree does not turn out as good as one expects and others which don't look so good at first glance turn out very well!!  That is why I NEVER rely totally on the pedigree.  I was once told it was better to use a dog you liked rather than a pedigree you liked!  I like to stack the two dogs up side by side and compare their good points and bad and try and visualise what each MIGHT bring to the party as it were - both on the good side and the bad.  Some things I believe you can improve in a generation - eg heads.  Other things - such as decent shoulders seem to take longer if you start with a bitch lacking in that area.  Some things seem to be easier to "keep" than others.  It is just something that I have noticed over the years of being raised with the breed.
Becky

Louise, so what would be the COI after 15 gens of second-cousin matings? (Maths not my strong point...!).

The reality is that most pedigrees in many breeds are somewhere in the middle of inbred/outbred. I'm trying to track down some breed averages. Malcolm Willis cites an average COI of 4 per cent but certainly some breeds have a much higher average than this.

Homozygosity does not just increase the chance of a dodgy recessive being spread - it results in inbreeding depression/impacts on the immune system.  Sheila Atter maintains, for instance, that her Cesky Terriers have very few health problems despite some COIs in the 80s (!). But I think they're seeing - as would be expected - smaller litters. An outcross in the 1980s to one of the Cesky's parent breeds - a Sealhyam - had an immediate impact on litter size (it increased), but I believe the benefit has now reduced.

Sheila says that smaller litter sizes are not a huge problem to her as a breeder as it means finding fewer quality homes for what is a niche breed. But it's not just litter sizes that are affected - it's puppy mortality and general vigour, too.

Jemima

> An outcross in the 1980s to one of the Cesky's parent breeds - a Sealhyam - had an immediate impact on litter size (it increased), but I believe the benefit has now reduced.
>

I don't know how many litters are involved but as there have never been more than 60 puppies registered annually, and sometimes as few as 13, in the last ten years it would take a very incautious scientist to take anything more than a theory for further investigation from a blip in those statistics.

Becky wrote: "Also - these studies that show dogs of a COI of a certain amount lived longer are not really worth the paper it is written on because it depends what dogs had the study done on them - unless it is ALL of them it means nothing."

No, that's not true Becky. If the sample is large enough and random, it is possible to get a pretty good accurate picture of a population. It helps if the findings are then reproduceable, of course, by further surveys.

Let's look at the 2004 KC/BSAVA health survey:

It was sent to breed clubs - so that ruled out a large proportion of pet owners. Additionally, some would argue that it would only be those who had experienced problems who would be most likely to fill in the forms.  Others, meanwhile, might argue that breed club members would more likely than the average pet owner to paint a rosy picture of a breed's health so could have skewed the survey the other way. Still others might argue that breed club members are more likely to be health-conscious so their dogs would be healthier than the overall population. Etc etc. Either way, the results  - while not to be totally dismissed - are unlikely to be very accurate/representative and this has been a major criticism of it.

How would you do it better? Well ideally, to avoid any bias/skewed results and to ensure the results are as representative as possible, they should have sent the forms to a totally random sample of owners. Easy enough to do now, if expensive, given that everything is computerised.

Jemima

Isabel wrote: "I don't know how many litters are involved but as there have never been more than 60 puppies registered annually, and sometimes as few as 13, in the last ten years it would take a very incautious scientist to take anything more than a theory for further investigation from a blip in those statistics."

I believe the outcross was in 1984/5 and so it's 25 years ago now - long enough to draw at least some conclusions.

From the ceskyterrier.co.uk website:

"However, in 1984 and '85 Horák was permitted to make an outcross. The Sealyham terrier bitch Andra z Rastamoru was mated on both occasions to Vanek Lovu zdar (Cedro x Abba) and from these two litters the male, Cent, and the bitches Belinda, Besy, Bora, Cena and Clona were later used for breeding. The Sealyham regeneration brought an immediate increase in fertility and overall health of the puppies. On the down side light eyes, heavy ears, 'winter' noses, high set tails and greater size were introduced to the breed. However, in the long-term this regeneration (given the nomenclature Line 1A) has been beneficial to the Cesky Terrier."

>some would argue that it would only be those who had experienced problems who would be most likely to fill in the forms.  Others, meanwhile, might argue that breed club members would more likely than the average pet owner to paint a rosy picture of a breed's health so could have skewed the survey the other way. Still others might argue that breed club members are more likely to be health-conscious so their dogs would be healthier than the overall population. Etc etc.

Or the opposite could just as easily be true; that breed club members are more 'serious' about their dogs so a) are more likely to notice problems and b) would like to know the worst so will paint a blacker picture than is actually the reality.