25 years ago were the annual registration figures any larger?  I am not saying it could not be the case, Jemima, but on a scientific basis the statistics are very skimpy.  Blips happen.  If we looked at this for another hundred years you are almost certain to see another random increase somewhere along the line and this remains the case even if you do find others who believe the same as you :-).  A couple of repeats of the experiment would give us a much firmer conclusion.

Yes, that could be the case too. As said, it could be any which way. Hence the need for a randomised survey if you want the findings to be representative.

In my experience, however, I think Becky's stance (who said she would rather concentrate on the positives rather than, like me, "harp on" about the negatives) is fairly typical. We found that breed club members on the whole tended to downplay ill-health. I have to say that I have yet to find a  breed club webiste which states "As a breed, we suffer from more genetic health problems than most..." ;-)

It's understandable.

>I have to say that I have yet to find a  breed club webiste which states "As a breed, we suffer from more genetic health problems than most..."

I've found that the breed clubs tend to have a more balanced attitude - they neither 'harp on' about the negatives not accentuate the positives. They accept that there are problems (as will always be the case with complex organisms) but very few breeds have 'more' problems than the others. Different ones yes, but it's usually a case of swings and roundabouts.

Isabel said: "25 years ago were the annual registration figures any larger?  I am not saying it could not be the case, Jemima, but on a scientific basis the statistics are very skimpy.  Blips happen.  If we looked at this for another hundred years you are almost certain to see another random increase somewhere along the line and this remains the case even if you do find others who believe the same as you :-).  A couple of repeats of the experiment would give us a much firmer conclusion."

I think you have to look at this in context, Isabel. Cesky Terriers are very inbred. A very well-documented feature of very inbred populations is inbreeding depression - one sign of which is smaller litter sizes. After an outcross, larger litter sizes were documented. This accords with scientific expectation.

So while it certainly could be just a blip, the most likely explanation really is that the outcross introduced some much-needed vigour into the breed (and, indeed, that is pretty much accepted within the breed, I think).

As for a couple of repeat outcrosses - yep, I think this should be done.  The parent breeds are available. The issue is that both suffer from genetic problems that are not apparent in the Cesky.  The dilemma, as with any outcross, is whether it's possible to bring in much-needed diversity without an accompanying health problem.  I'd argue that it should be tried because I think that otherwise the breed is headed for a genetic cul-de-sac, but others are not so keen. That's understandable.

Jemima said
In my experience, however, I think Becky's stance (who said she would rather concentrate on the positives rather than, like me, "harp on" about the negatives) is fairly typical. We found that breed club members on the whole tended to downplay ill-health.

So you are say that just because we belong to a breed club we downplay ill-health?  That is NOT true Jemima.  However, you can not build a breed on negatives.  Lets take hips for example - now, I have a bitch who has a hip score of 11 - slightly higher than average but not a disaster - her father was a total score of 4 and her mother has a score of 8.  Rather than fret about the fact she was slightly over average I mated her to a dog with a low hip score.  That is building on a positive rather than not breeding from what is a good example of the breed in every other respect.  I would rather breed from a bitch who was a good example of the breed with a hip score of 11, than something with straight shoulders, light eyes, short muzzle, no depth and too long in second thigh which we seem to be treated to constantly in the ring nowadays.  Breeding is not JUST about health - it is a MAJOR consideration but it is not the be all and end all of everything.  That having been said I would NOT breed from any dog with a SERIOUS health defect. 

So - why were you not at the Flatcoat show having your dog's patella's tested - I assume your Flatcoat has had all the health checks? Even if a dog is not going to be bred from this is a responsible thing to do surely?  My young bitch was tested - and it was witnessed by none other than Polly herself and one of her friends.  Was I worried - NO.

Quite honestly in this day and age I would be more worried about some of the humans that are bred together than some of the dogs.

Becky

> I think you have to look at this in context, Isabel.

And I think you need to look at it in a scientific way :-), not influenced by what you expect to be the "most likely" explanation on just one piece of data.

Isabel wrote:   "And I think you need to look at it in a scientific way :-), not influenced by what you expect to be the "most likely" explanation on just one piece of data."

What is it you are so uncomfortable with? That an outcross might have had a beneficial effect on the health of a breed?

Cesky Terriers have been under considerable genetic scrutiny. It's not ME saying the outcross was beneficial - it's the breed experts. Did you have a look at the ceskyterrier.co.uk website?

The impact is one that one would expect - scientifically. Sure, the 'experiment' bears repeating but as the beneficial effect of outcrossing on yield/litter sizes has been shown to be predictable in everything from corn to pigs (again, there are masses of data on this), it is,indeed, the injection of new blood that is most likely the reason for the increased litter sizes. 

Jemima

> > What is it you are so uncomfortable with? That an outcross might have had a beneficial effect on the health of a breed?

Not at all.  It is lack of scientific discipline in the way you present this that makes me uncomfortable.

> So - why were you not at the Flatcoat show having your dog's patella's tested - I assume your Flatcoat has had all the health checks? Even if a dog is not going to be bred from this is a responsible thing to do surely?  My young bitch was tested - and it was witnessed by none other than Polly herself and one of her friends.  Was I worried - NO.

Yes I did watch Becky's dog being tested as I had never seen it done before. After Becky had her dog done I asked Jane Alexander who was doing the patella testing if she could explain what she was doing to test the patella so that I can inform other FCR owners what is involved and hopefully encourage them to get their dogs tested too.

I don't think breed club members play down health issues, we do talk about them and we do raise lots of money to set up research schemes and to fund on going research. As you know, Pete is running in the London Marathon to raise money for the cancer research scheme in flatcoats.

Polly said
I don't think breed club members play down health issues, we do talk about them and we do raise lots of money to set up research schemes and to fund on going research. As you know, Pete is running in the London Marathon to raise money for the cancer research scheme in flatcoats.

Yes - and he has raised £1000.00.  I am sure we will all be wishing him luck when he runs next week to help our beloved breed.
Becky

Louise, so what would be the COI after 15 gens of second-cousin matings? (Maths not my strong point...!).
Sorry, I am not familiar with COI, as I am not involved in dog breeding. the figures given are about 50% homozygosity, not altering much after the 15 generations.

Likewise, am not familiar with the way you're expressing it.

Assumiing what percentage of homozygosity in the first gen? (The COI - coefficient of inbreeding - of the progeny of a second cousin pairing would be 1.56)

Isabel wrote: "Not at all.  It is lack of scientific discipline in the way you present this that makes me uncomfortable."

Then I suggest you learn more about what constitutes scientific displicine.  I said:

1) Cesky Terriers are very inbred
2) A well known feature of very inbred populations is a lack of vigour which often manifests itself in reduced yield/litter sizes
3) Outcrossing in everything from corn to pigs predictably improves yield/litter sizes
4) Litter sizes in Cesky Terriers increased after an outcross in the mid-80s.

My conclusion: the increase in litter sizes could be a blip but is "most likely" due to this outcross (as has been deduced by the breed's own experts and is written in black and white on the breed's uk website).

There really is nothing scientifically undisciplined or intellectually wanting in this conclusion, Isabel.

KC/ISDS BC breeders are totally the opposite to the picture printed of pedigree dog breeders painted in THAT program(wonder why the breed wasn't included ??answered on a postcard) 99% Pet breeders of BCs sadly are typical of non testing breeders.

No one is shy of talking. discussing etc etc the health problems within the breed-a genetic/physical health problem is found & research is strated PDQ

My two youngest BCs are line bred to a line of top quality(workwise)dogs. They are the male line on both sides of the pedigree from the grandfather on the sire's side & great great grand father on the dam's line. My two dogs & a sibling of my youngest dog are all CEA, CL, TNS & MDR 1 normal. My bitch does have poor hips, but this is more related to her feeding & environs before I got her at 14 months old, as both her siblings(ie from the same litter)have been scored & have low under the breed mean/average/median & were reared away from the breeder who my bitch lived with until I got her. A brother to my youngest(from the repeat mating)has been Penn Hipped & has hips better than expected when compared to other Penn Hipped BCs worldwide.

Glaucoma has now been found in both closely related & fairly unrelated BCs & already research & testing is being done.

I was planning a litter from my bitch which is now not going to happen & she will be spayed in due course. I will hopefully be breeding a litter from one or both of my boys depending on their hip & clinical eye tests. I will lbe looking for an ISDS bitch puppy from a line noted for health testing(inculding hip scoring) to breed to at least one of my dogs, if my dogs' hip scores are not good enough I will use a brother who lives in The Netherlands & who will have good hip(the one who has been Penn Hipped)

I have no problem with a Gfather/Gdaughter breeding as long as the health tests are done & the dog is a good producer & would consider it with an ISDS dog/bitch

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.

In my breed luckily we have a large gene pool and I don't need to use very closely related dogs (and also wouldn't want to if it can be helped) However, as for the above I would rather have quality over quantity. I am not looking to breed large litters to sell and perhaps make a profit, I'll leave that to the puppy farmers. We are trying to breed full pedigree dogs and not litter the country with cross matings. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can do that and call them silly names.

Alison wrote: "However, as for the above I would rather have quality over quantity."

It doesn't work like that. Inbreeding depression doesn't just impact on litter sizes; it impacts on viability and vigour, too.  So you get smaller litters AND less vigorous puppies.

Endless reference for this out there but here's one:

http://www.thedairysite.com/articles/755/inbreeding-in-cattle

"Inbreeding does not create undesirable recessive genes, but it does tend to bring to light these unfavorable genetics. This leads to a decline in average phenotypic performance called inbreeding depression. This phenomenon is well documented in all the major livestock species. Inbreeding depression has the greatest effect on reproductive traits, followed by growth traits.."

"If inbreeding builds up, the first economic effect will be fewer calves available to sell. In addition, the calves will have poorer performance and will not be as attractive to customers interested in performance."

I know you all think I'm trying to spoil your fun. But really I'm not. There is a real cost to inbreeding that many dog breeders are very reluctant to get to grips with because it runs counter to a very ingrained culture.  I'm not saying don't inbreed. I'm saying do it with great care and monitor the health of the progeny for the effects of inbreeding depression. Every breed club should be correlating COIs with fertility/litters sizes/puppy mortality/ longevity etc because these are the first places you are likely to see the downsides of inbreeding.

These effects have been very well documented in livestock and because, at the end of the day, income is directly affected (eg fewer, weaker offspring/smaller animals) breeding practices have changed.

Most of the Aberdeen Angus you eat is not purebred any more. It's a hybrid because the yields are better. If fact it only has to be, I think,  50 or 60 per cent Angus to be labelled at such.

I'm not suggesting that we start willy-nilly crossing our dogs. I want my flatcoats to still be and look like flatcoats. But in some genetically compromised breeds a judicious outcross or two could be of real benefit. This is what dog breeders used to do. In the old breeding books, there are whole chapters on crossing to bring in desirable traits (speed/courage/athleticism) into perfectly established breeds or to reinvigorate an inbred line/breed. Indeed, it was well understood that sometimes it was necessary. Somewhere along the line we forgot this; somewhere along the line we became totally obsessed with purity at all costs - to such an extent that some breed clubs refuse to consider outcrossing even when there is likely to be a clear health benefit. 

> Isabel wrote:   "And I think you need to look at it in a scientific way :-), not influenced by what you expect to be the "most likely" explanation on just one piece of data."
>
> What is it you are so uncomfortable with? That an outcross might have had a beneficial effect on the health of a breed?
>

i am confused as to where you found discomfort in isabels post?? i read it that she was questioning the validity of the study, which given the small sample size is perfectly reasonable as it would have reduced the statistical significance of the findings and thus whether the findings could be applied to a general population or might well be a fluke

> Then I suggest you learn more about what constitutes scientific displicine.  I said:
>
> 1) Cesky Terriers are very inbred
> 2) A well known feature of very inbred populations is a lack of vigour which often manifests itself in reduced yield/litter sizes
> 3) Outcrossing in everything from corn to pigs predictably improves yield/litter sizes
> 4) Litter sizes in Cesky Terriers increased after an outcross in the mid-80s.
>
> My conclusion: the increase in litter sizes could be a blip but is "most likely" due to this outcross (as has been deduced by the breed's own experts and is written in black and white on the breed's uk website).
>

jemima while i cannot critisise your comments on chesky terriers as i am not up on the breed but do understand them to be a rare breed and so have a reduced gene pool which will in turn result in all probability in reduced litter sizes i'd suggest you do not critisise others understandings of scientific discaplines with unscientific replies.

simply stating 4 connected concepts does not a supported theory make, data is what supports a theory. Scientific discaplines require appropriately collected data then supporting a theory through showing that the evidence suggests a trend and that the evidence is a representative sample, we were always told to term it "statistically significant at the ....% level"

also, you state

> My conclusion: the increase in litter sizes could be a blip but is "most likely" due to this outcross (as has been deduced by the breed's own experts and is written in black and white on the breed's uk website).
>

are you a geneticist? i can form conclusions and opinions about genetics, about medicine, about computer programming, about chemistry and so on. i however am not in any position to suggest anything other than a conclusion from a sociological investigation is evidence and even then i could not claim to do so without that work being exposed for peer review and publishing.

to make scientific claims without such statistically verified supporting evidence and without peer review is both scientifically undiscaplined and intellectually wanting.

btw. months ago you offered to give me your references from your show, can i get them please? i'm very interested to read them

Also, isn't human fertility reducing?  Due to diet, behaviour and other environmental factors it can take a bit more to get pregnant (not that I'm complaining :p ).  That can't be put down to inbreeding.

Astarte, I am not making a scientific claim. I am drawing a conclusion from the available data. Much of that data is published and peer-reviewed.

1) Ceksy Terriers are very bred - a statement supported by the known history and very high COIs in the breed.
2) A well known feature of very inbred populations is a lack of vigour which often manifests itself in reduced yield/litter sizes  - a statement supported by an emormous amount of published, peer-reviewed studies
3) Outcrossing in everything from corn to pigs predictably improves yeild/litter sizes - a statement again supported by an enormous amount of published, peer-reviewed studies
4) Litter sizes in Cesky Terriers increased after an outcross in the mid-80s - as documented by the breed's guardians. Perhaps they made a mistake? Could be, but that doesn't really matter because then my conclusion would not apply. But for argument's sake let's make my conclusion conditional. It is, therefore, as follows:

If litter sizes did indeed increase after an outcross in the mid-80s it is "most likely" due to the outcross because it concurs with scientific expectation.

Of course that hypothesis should be tested and examined and I never said it should not.  Isabel, I think,  pointed out that it could be a blip and she might, indeed, be right. It might turn out, for instance, that at the same time as the outcross, every CT started eating a different diet, or stopped all vaccinations, or all went to live not-under power lines,  or whatever. But in the meantime, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to put forward.

As for references, Astarte, if you don't think inbreeding is a problem, or that today's pedigree dogs are not very inbred, or that 50 per cent of cavaliers don't develop a heart murmur by the age of five, I would be delighted if you came up with your own citations with which to dispute our findings. That would, perhaps, be the basis for a sensible debate.

The problem is that you're not interested in that. Because if you were, you'd ask me a question like this:

"Why did your film say a third or more of cavaliers are affected when there's so little evidence?" Then we could, perhaps, debate if we did indeed have sufficient evidence in order to make such a claim.

> could be a blip but is "most likely"

> There really is nothing scientifically undisciplined or intellectually wanting in this conclusion, Isabel.

As you wish.

> Also, isn't human fertility reducing?  Due to diet, behaviour and other environmental factors it can take a bit more to get pregnant (not that I'm complaining :p ).  That can't be put down to inbreeding.

indeed

> Astarte, I am not making a scientific claim

well, this

>My conclusion: the increase in litter sizes could be a blip but is "most likely" due to this outcross (as has been deduced by the breed's own experts and is written in black and white on the breed's uk website).

sounds like it.

>1) Ceksy Terriers are very bred - a statement supported by the known history and very high COIs in the breed.

2) A well known feature of very inbred populations is a lack of vigour which often manifests itself in reduced yield/litter sizes  - a statement supported by an emormous amount of published, peer-reviewed studies
3) Outcrossing in everything from corn to pigs predictably improves yeild/litter sizes - a statement again supported by an enormous amount of published, peer-reviewed studies
4) Litter sizes in Cesky Terriers increased after an outcross in the mid-80s - as documented by the breed's guardians. Perhaps they made a mistake? Could be, but that doesn't really matter because then my conclusion would not apply. But for argument's sake let's make my conclusion conditional. It is, therefore, as follows:

as i said alreadyi know little about this breed and am not contesting your statements on this.

>As for references, Astarte, if you don't think inbreeding is a problem, or that today's pedigree dogs are not very inbred, or that 50 per cent of cavaliers don't develop a heart murmur by the age of five, I would be delighted if you came up with your own citations with which to dispute our findings. That would, perhaps, be the basis for a sensible debate.

lol, jemima where exactly in any of my posts have you got the suggestion that i think inbreeding is ok? please quote it because i assure you i do not consider inbreeding to be an acceptable practise. You offered me references to read, very kindly, and i would like to take you up on that offer- is this now a problem? should you provide me with references to study i can see if i agree with your points better (at the moment i do not) and see if their is indeed a need for a debate- how am i to find opposing citations without knowing exactly what i am contesting? the original question was can i have the references that you said were available, can you answer simply and directly yes or no please? rather that trying to twist the topic :)

what exactly do you believe i am interested in if you think i am not interested in seeing the references? why on earth would i ask a question like your

> "Why did your film say a third or more of cavaliers are affected when there's so little evidence?"

if i have as yet to see the evidence? how could i possibly form such a slanted question?

i believe in science and i believe in honesty. I believe your program lacked honesty for many reasons already gone over on many other threads (and i would be obliged if you did not now attempt to twist that comment into saying i am denying these problems exist because they do), i am interested to discover how accurate the science was, (what can i say! i am a geek!) whats wrong with that?

The conclusions/statements made in the film are supported by two years' research stored on two walls of books (on individual breeds, dog breeding and genetics), crate-loads of scientific and other reference materials and a 10TB hard-drive full of digital data.

Clearly, that would be a hard thing to copy and paste here.

I believe I offered references for anything that anyone wanted to talk about particularly and that offer still stands.  The cavalier/SM incidence question was just an example.

> The conclusions/statements made in the film are supported by two years' research stored on two walls of books (on individual breeds, dog breeding and genetics), crate-loads of scientific and other reference materials and a 10TB hard-drive full of digital data.
>
> Clearly, that would be a hard thing to copy and paste here.
>

fair enough. do you have key sources where you started your research from? i know when i work on something i tend to find some principle sources then work out from them.

without reviewing your program and your references the main question that springs to mind is did none of your research indicate the important work being done into preventing SM by good breeders? (i assume not as you decided against including it). ditto the various other conditions you mentioned.

> The cavalier/SM incidence question was just an example.

Of which I'm very well aware.


Firstly please don't make statements like "I know you all think I'm trying to spoil your fun" to include serious breeders like myself with considerable scientific knowledge.

I am well aware of the effects of Inbreeding depression and am hearing and witnessing examples of it in many kennels. I am astounded to see the heavy losses in Cavalier litters - both in uteri and post-natally.
It is basic level genetics (and botany) to understand that a self pollinated plant produces less viable seeds (which go onto produce less vigorous plants) than a plant pollinated from a different plant.The closer the relationship, the lower the statistical likelyhood of vigour. Carry this on over many generations and weaknesses will become evident.
EBVs for Cavaliers are focusing on disease specific traits and I sincerly hope the program and it's users, pay equal attention to COI to increase vigour.
Choosing breeding dogs using only one trait ie MRI scanned clear of SM will contribute to this lack of vigour IMHO and I do feel that your ( moderately) unbalanced programme has contributed to that, by inciting a witch hunt in the breed over SM.
I am sure your intention was to improve the health of the breed but it will be very sad if its effects prove to have an opposite effect.

(And yes I have had my dogs scanned clear as one of the many factors I use as breeding criteria)

The worst litter I ever bred for lack of vigour and mortality rate was a complete ourtcross.

Of 8 pups the bitch carried 2 were stillborn, one was accidentally laid on the first night and one failed to thrive and was put to sleep.  The pups weights and gains were on the low side, the sire was an import and unrelated to her for many generations.

Her previous litter which contained my older champion was by her mother's half brother, so a half uncle to niece mating.  The resulting 9 pups were very god size and gained weight very well and were very vigorous pups and their health has been excellent.

It is the Champion bitch from this litter who I mated to two imports and mated two of the offspring, (half siblings) resulting in a good size litter of 7 pups who were large for the breed and reared exceedingly well.

As you say you need to take note of what you are working with.

I would not have bred from any of the litter that were unthrifty as a whole, though the surviving individuals have been healthy for the last 6 years.

You should not keep poor doers as breeding animals.

> The worst litter I ever bred for lack of vigour and mortality rate was a complete ourtcross

Barbara, anecdotally these examples can always be found but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the idea of high COI - low vigour in a population.

If you want to frighten yourself get a hold of a catalogue from a Cavalier championship show, preferably one which prints pedigrees of exhibits. In one of the most numerous breeds - there is virtually no diversity...... and we do reap what we sow.

The comment about spoling fun was not aimed at breeders whose fun I am not spoiling by "harping" on about health, Toolz... :-)

The film did make quite a big mention of MVD in cavs, so I don't think it was advocating selecting on only one trait.  Having said that, there was a whole other film missing from PDE - and that was one about solutions, or at least possible solutions. Hence the plan for a sequel.

The more research we did, the more aware webecame of just how complex breeding dogs is annd particularly how dangerous it is over-focus on one particular issue - be it COIs or hip scores or the set of an ear. Just look at what happened in basenjis when they hard-selected again hemalystic anaemia and inadvertently caused the proliferation of the arguably more serious problem of Fanconi Syndrome. I know there's some supposition that in cavs selecting against MVD has caused SM to be more widespread. (Not sure this stands up, though.)

Breeders today, more than ever, face some incredibly hard decisions.  It's why I'm anti a one-size-fits all solution and, indeed, anti any new legislation which could end up doing more harm than good. What's appropriate for one breed will not be for another.

I think EBVs offer great hope to cavalier breeders and from what I understand, genetic diversity is very much a part of them. I hope breeders will embrace that hope and at least give them a try.

I was not aware of the heavy losses in cavalier litters (whether in uteri or post-natally). Is this being looked at/collated? COIs are not terribly high in cavaliers (although there are certainly some pretty inbred lines).

Yes, of course our fervent hope for the film is that it will have a beneficial effect.  Time will be the judge.

I do think that, whatever happens, one really positive impact will be better data collection. There's a lot of discussion about this behind the scenes and I believe it will result in a new, veterinary-led initiative which will help all of quantify exactly what we're dealing with in individual breeds (and crossbreeds). I also think the banning of first-degree relative matings - and the new breed health plans - are positive moves.

> I also think the banning of first-degree relative matings - and the new breed health plans - are positive moves.

just so you don't think i disagree with you on principle jemima i must agree with you there. i do agree that the kc needed a kick in the bum to get a shifty on, perhaps not in the way you did it but at least there has been one positive outcome.

>Choosing breeding dogs using only one trait i.e. MRI scanned clear of SM will contribute to this lack of vigour IMHO.

This is a very serious problem IMO and one not just about SM but other problems too across all breeds.  As a direct response to PDE, I've witnessed breeders calling for more compulsary health testing with no apparent recognition that health testing will not make it OK to continue breeding into saturated genetics.  For everyone to exclude dogs that say, test positive for a health issue, that may or may not manifest itself in the off spring across the gene pool, (depending on the health issue, of course), there is a real risk of pigeon holing lines with higher COI's leading to more health problems and loss of vitality. How do you suggest this is addressed, Jemima? 

jemima you stated a better data collection

i totaly agree on this one, like in sweden they have a data base collection www.rasdata.se on breeds over there.

> Barbara, anecdotally these examples can always be found but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the idea of high COI - low vigour in a population.
>
>

Come into the happy healthy world of the Large Munsterlander!?!?  Whatever we seem to do in matings - outline matings or close matings, in the main we seem to have litters of 10+ puppies.......

I was not aware of the heavy losses in cavalier litters (whether in uteri or post-natally). Is this being looked at/collated? COIs are not terribly high in cavaliers (although there are certainly some pretty inbred lines).


That is the thing about COIs where you have to really be smart and thoughtful.  From day one of my involvement in my breed I have always followed or I should say monitored the COIs in any decision I make.  I have been able to get a few good freinds of mine that were already well established in the breed to also look at this a bit closer , I think people have to understand it a bit more and also have the ability to understand it.

I looked at a pedigree today that COI was 11.5% ish  so initially it didn't look too bad but the aunt was 33% that to me would be completely unacceptable and would make me walk away.  We have to not fall into the trap and looking at the final number only.

I hear and read questions , " what is the COI or amount of inbreeding on grand daughter to grand father"... that question has a limited answer unless you have the 10 generations to support it.

I don't misjudge what you are trying to do JH but you delivered a blow of insult to people who are, were really doing hard work already. Your show didn't make it happen it just infuriated people.   I am still not sure just how much damage it has done but it has done damage.   I whole heartedly believe you can't think it was all good that came from it.  I even believe your tone has changed a degree.  I do hope you can do some good and restore some faith from others but it will take a long time.  Yes you have to make a living but for real cause you could have lead the way easier I think.  I do believe the really dedicated dog lovers I personally know would never have be associated with something so one sided no matter what the benefit.   Interesting my two vets thought the show was a tad unproffesional so I do wonder what more of the proffesionals thought.  When professionals fall into the " celebrity get me out of here" catagory it can't be good.   You just have to look at Mark Evans show career to see that.  I don't know anyone that takes him serious to date.

The KC without a doubt need to pull their socks up and take lessons from other countries. We don't need TV shows to tell us that.  You don't think for one minute that Mark Evans involvement was purely for the benefit of the dogs.  If you do your the only one.

Again enough said.. :-)

very well said blue

> Whatever we seem to do in matings - outline matings or close matings, in the main we seem to have litters of 10+ puppies.......

In the words of Malcolm Willis in Dogworld recently " Line breeding or inbreeding doesn't cause problems it merely brings them to the surface."

I would say you're very lucky. We in cavaliers...not so lucky.

I certainly accept that continual inbreeding will cause problems.

Spender wrote: "As a direct response to PDE, I've witnessed breeders calling for more compulsary health testing with no apparent recognition that health testing will not make it OK to continue breeding into saturated genetics.  For everyone to exclude dogs that say, test positive for a health issue, that may or may not manifest itself in the off spring across the gene pool, (depending on the health issue, of course), there is a real risk of pigeon holing lines with higher COI's leading to more health problems and loss of vitality. How do you suggest this is addressed, Jemima?"

Yes, this is a big issue. I think that in many breeds it's going to be desirable - even necessary - to continue to breed from carriers. The worry with excising whole genes is that genes are not discrete entities governing just one trait; the gene for, say, GPRA in labradors may also code for something more beneficial. The example often used is that the gene that predisposes to sickle-cell anaemia in humans also confers resistance to malaria.

So a sensible approach to carriers would be good and, as oft stated, a recognition that in some breeds it might be necessary to boost the gene pool via outcrossing.

Astarte asked: "do you have key sources where you started your research from? i know when i work on something i tend to find some principle sources then work out from them.

without reviewing your program and your references the main question that springs to mind is did none of your research indicate the important work being done into preventing SM by good breeders? (i assume not as you decided against including it). ditto the various other conditions you mentioned."

One of the very first resources I trawled (starting probably in 2006) was the Canine Diversity Project:

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

Some of the links there now don't work or need updating, but there's still lots of useful information there.

Re your second question: at the time of the film, very few cavalier breeders were taking SM seriously, very few of the top stud dogs had been scanned, and many breeders were ignoring breeding protocols. Indeed, many of those in the breed who WERE taking it seriously were being vilified. SM campaigner Carol Fowler was described to me by two top breeders as being "a raving lunatic with Munchausen Syndrome by proxy" (exactly the same terminology both times so clearly something that was being discussed...). Carol says she was accused by the KC of "pet-owner over-reaction" when she first went to them to ask for funding in, I think it was, 2006. And, of course, the breed's SM health rep was in despair at the level of denial she was encountering (although initially was very reluctant to be interviewed about it). So although we found pockets of hope, the overall picture was that nothing like enough was being done to tackle SM. Then, of course, we discovered that the owner of a top winning dog with SM - a dog that the diagnosing neurologist had said should never be bred from - had sired over 20 litters since been diagnosed. Not only that, but she was being supported for doing so by many top breeders. As you saw on PDE, it wasn't the breeder that was sanctioned, it was us for "ruining her day" by challenging her about it. And while I appreciate that there is still much to be unravelled about SM, it seemed to us that those at the top of the breed, the very guardians of the breed, should have been setting an example.

Ironically, we'd actually gone to the Cav Champ Show to redress what we thought was some missing balance from the film (and, indeed, it was partly on that basis that we'd sought permission from the Club).  The whole day had been about asking breeders for a counter view to Carol's and also documenting some of what breeders were doing to tackle MVD (we filmed the heart-screening session at the show). Then I overheard someone ringside mention the winning dog's SM status. Still, at that point we had no idea the dog had been so extensively bred from. When we did, I found that truly shocking. Still do, actually.

Don't forget that even Club chairman Lesley Jupp recently spoke out about her despair re getting breeders to do the right thing re SM. 

> Ironically, we'd actually gone to the Cav Champ Show to redress what we thought was some missing balance from the film

And this is still hanging in the air.
Are you going to re-balance this?

Yes your film may have stirred up a hornets nest and made the reluctant capitulate....but for Joe Public you told them the problem but you didn't offer them a solution.
Despite what you say, the overall 'take away' message from your film was don't buy pedigree dogs because the breeders are all greedy, inhumane and dishonest.

Don't be fooled that JP studied your film and took out the salient points, I was at lunch the following week with my husband and six other people..the conversation turned to your prog, no doubt for my benefit, and the concensus of opinion was...yes you guessed... "breeders are all greedy, inhumane and dishonest". The party consisted of 5 consultant doctors and the remainder science professionals.
One couple also informed me that their daughter, in her final year at Vet school, would only be " treating non-pedigree dogs when she qualifies" as she was so incensed.  A poor vet eh? Well there has to be one I suppose.

A little balance would be appreciated...we don't all have a production company to hand nor a eager and waiting BBC to call upon.

very well said tooolz !!!

> Despite what you say, the overall 'take away' message from your film was don't buy pedigree dogs because the breeders are all greedy, inhumane and dishonest.
>

This is true, even across the pond.  The program airred a few months later over here, and I nervously awaited the backlash breeders would get.  Breeders are seen as people who make lots of money, because we dont test for things.  Even if we do test for health problems related to the breed, it still isnt the right ones. 

I do not breed Cavs, and at this time, I would hate to have been a cav breeder with all the backlash, but I have people asking if I test for SM.  Min Pins are not affected by SM, and I dont see a reason to spend all the money on a test that would be useless for the breed.  BUT thats the disease everyone is talking about when it comes to dogs.  The line about Dobermans is back, full force, that their brains are too big for their skulls, and once they hit a certain age, their brains explode and they will turn on you.  For a breed that has gone through a lot, it is a giant step backwards. I have heard that line more, since the program aired, 10x maybe more, each day, then before it hit the National.  

Now breeders have to do much much more to prove that they are not dishonest, greedy human beings.  But when costs of breeding a dog go up (ie people wanting more tests done, instead of just the routine ones associated with the breed) the price of pups will have to go up as well.  When a VWD test went from $195 to over $500 dollars (within the past 5 years or so) the price of doberman pups went from $800 for a pup to close to $2000.  JP see the price increase, and think breeders just want money.  But they dont see what breeders are paying out for the health tests, the care of pups, etc.  And many dobe breeders test for a lot more than VWD.  So if the price of one test went up that much, the prices of other ones went up as well. 

> Are you going to re-balance this?
>

I suspect there may be some balance but something Jemima mentioned earlier in the thread makes me also suspect the JP may be left with the impression that any work that Breed Club Health Committees etc are engaged in will have been as a result of the previous broadcast rather than an acknowledgement of the continually expanding research and health programme instigations that have been going on for many years in many breeds.

I quite agree, I know that Irish Red & White Setters were filmed but not shown & they have removed CLAD affected & carrier dogs from the gene pool with the co-operation of the Kennel Club.

It would be nice to have positive information about KC pedigree dog breeders(as opposed to pedigree dogs bred from non registered parents)like the Border Collie & GSD breeders, who do all the tests available & if a genetic condition arises fund & actively support research into eradicating it's effect from the respective breeds. This would at least give the GP a base from which to start from when looking for a healthy registered pedigree puppy/dog

>a recognition that in some breeds it might be necessary to boost the gene pool via outcrossing.

Very difficult too though, because unless the breeder knows the out crossed lines extensively, who knows what they could be bringing into the gene pool/their lines health-wise.

I can't say I've come across many peds in our breed with outcrosses in the last 10 years in the UK, some more recently though, but certainly some Germans outcross regularly mixing work and show and still do it with success.   Some of their breeding programmes are a complete work of art.

Would it be fair to say that if the gene pool was opened up, more of the population in a breed was bred but less often, we accept that there will be some faulty health genes in there but the chances of expression in the population would be reduced?  I'm looking at the bigger picture here.

I was looking at software that works out an inbreeding co efficient- I do not know what a good number to aim for is- does anyone know?
I have no litters planned right now - just trying to learn

> Re your second question: at the time of the film, very few cavalier breeders were taking SM seriously, very few of the top stud dogs had been scanned, and many breeders were ignoring breeding protocols. Indeed, many of those in the breed who WERE taking it seriously were being vilified. SM campaigner Carol Fowler was described to me by two top breeders as being "a raving lunatic with Munchausen Syndrome by proxy" (exactly the same terminology both times so clearly something that was being discussed...). Carol says she was accused by the KC of "pet-owner over-reaction" when she first went to them to ask for funding in, I think it was, 2006. And, of course, the breed's SM health rep was in despair at the level of denial she was encountering (although initially was very reluctant to be interviewed about it). So although we found pockets of hope, the overall picture was that nothing like enough was being done to tackle SM. Then, of course, we discovered that the owner of a top winning dog with SM - a dog that the diagnosing neurologist had said should never be bred from - had sired over 20 litters since been diagnosed. Not only that, but she was being supported for doing so by many top breeders. As you saw on PDE, it wasn't the breeder that was sanctioned, it was us for "ruining her day" by challenging her about it. And while I appreciate that there is still much to be unravelled about SM, it seemed to us that those at the top of the breed, the very guardians of the breed, should have been setting an example.
>

all of which is deeply concerning but as toolz said where is the balance? my view of a documetary is that it should document evidence and provide as much balance as possible. you could have championed the breeders whos methods are great, instead you vilified all breeders and sent the general public scurring to the puppy farmers.

> Ironically, we'd actually gone to the Cav Champ Show to redress what we thought was some missing balance from the film (and, indeed, it was partly on that basis that we'd sought permission from the Club).  The whole day had been about asking breeders for a counter view to Carol's and also documenting some of what breeders were doing to tackle MVD (we filmed the heart-screening session at the show). Then I overheard someone ringside mention the winning dog's SM status. Still, at that point we had no idea the dog had been so extensively bred from. When we did, I found that truly shocking. Still do, actually.
>

ETA: thank you for the reference i will try and have a look later