http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/library.cgi?action=detail&id=7942
Not a lot of info at this time on the website but they are due to get this up and running very soon. Should be interesting for not only breeders but for potential puppy owners too.
What they are hoping to add to this should be great for the future of all our breeds :-)

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=2947&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=242&f=0

Think there is more here

:) looks very good!

Yet to see what it will do in practical terms, how will they identify potential mates (will studs be listed once they sire a litter or any male on record that may not be available or entire even) and why local area, not a lot of use in a numerically small breed looking local, when you often need to look overseas ;)

Went to a seminar and it's going to be fully open on all KC reg dogs. Will also have their health test results too.
All dog which have a foreign registered dog will need a 3 generation pedigree to be reg anyway so that'll be on there too.

There was loads more info which I can gice

it was heavily discussed at a KC roadshow I went to recently, and whilst it might be useful for the average pet breeder (and should we be even encouraging them I ask??) I fail to see how its of any use to anyone serious.

> it might be useful for the average pet breeder (and should we be even encouraging them I ask??) I fail to see how its of any use to anyone serious.

Those were my thoughts, other than I would like to be easily able to calculate inbreeding COI's for a given pairing.  I think the COI of a dog should also be on it's registration document.

The COI was the main point to it, make it easier to check pedigrees and then also any health tests which have been done but aren't part of the requirements can be put on. It's going to be all health issues and also they're going to make contact with kc owners of any dog to find out if any problems, makes it easier to deal with health problems in a line etc, think it'll be good in time once it starts getting all the relevant information in.

Give it time and I think it'll be a very useful tool

This was discussed by Jeff Samson at a seminar I attended earlier in the year. I still think that most "pet breeders" won't have a clue or interest in COI.

Also I would like to know how many of the members on here, with more common breeds, would be interested in a stud enquiry from somebody who has just got their details from this list and wants to breed their pet bitch? Jeff Samson's argument was that it was to help people, wanting to breed their bitch. find an alternative to the "dog down the street".I can't see this stopping BYB.

He did our seminar, and tbh it was to try and make the breeds healthier by assisting breeders when looking at potential studs, he also said this may actual stop certain dogs being prolific studs and tying up the lines.

BYB's and also puppy farmers aren't going to care about this, but the least we can do with caring and responsible owners and breeders is to have another tool to help by improving the future of our breeds.

He said that the good breeders will possibly have a small handful of possible males they would use, he said this would be the way to keep type by that and then using this tool for health and COI. The breed EBV which is being calculated at the AHT will also be put up so you can also see what you don't want to be going above.

Also its good to know what is in the lines and if pet owners of KC reg dogs can add to this, so if they have or haven't had any problems this can be added. Any problems will need to be certified by vets or specialists depending on the nature of health issues.
Also some breed clubs do certain health tests which currently aren't added to the site, permission is being sought now from breed clubs in the hope that the information can be shared and be open to all.

I'm all for it, some breeders will snub it, but I think many will certainly be interested in the long term future of their breeds. :-)

Now if it will list the health results of siblings and offspring already produced then I can see the benefits for all :)
and it might encourage people to get more dogs tested to provide more data if it will be easily seen by everybody.Obviously such data will be pretty useless if only few random results are provided as dogs are not being tested.

I don't like the idea of listing dogs by the location as to me if the location of the dog is one main consideration it is not good, I don't think KC should not be supporting such an idea...

I hope they will look in to nordic databases as an example :) :)

> I don't like the idea of listing dogs by the location

That was never something which was mentioned yesterday at all, so don't know if its something they have removed.
Also it was highlighted that some health tests are bringing up reg numbers, we made sure he listened and he said it shouldn't be happening, so fingers crossed something is done about it.

Apparently its being trialled by some breeders who will then say what needs changing if anything. Due to go live Dec/Jan time.

I can just hear the old timers  who bred the dogs who put their stamp on their breed by sheer knowledge   and love of the breed allowing us to imrove on our breeding and breed  better examples of the breed we love   for the future  thinking oh great :-( 
Sorry i dont buy it .

Its just like the KC puppy register they will allow most litters who are bred from KC reg parents as I may be wrong but dont think they have to adhere to the health schemes to be on the list

Mattie,

For me and what the KC said about this is its a tool for those to use if they want to, its not compulsary. But you have to admit with some breeds these so called old timers have tied up the lines, so yes they may look good, but what about their health? I just feel its about time we moved forward, looked at science and used it alongside the art of the knowledge of these breeders. If you don't want to work with the EBV and COI then there is nothing to make you do so, so these old timers will carry on regardless anyway..

As for compulsary health tests for any litter to be registered, this was raised in the seminar and it was thought by the KC that they'd loose a lot of breeders to another registry or they would just go underground. They don't want the breeds to loose their lines and these breeders, so they are treading carefully and slowly.
It's a step in the right direction along with max of 3 litters a bitch.

With the right promotional skills, a TV programme say from Marc Abraham spelling out where to get a good puppy and what to look for then the KC website is going to be a good place to start.

It is good news that the three litters  rule will come in but like with many it cannot be policed without routine microchipping or DNA there will always be the Ghost bitches .

When I came into Labradors in 82 I am pretty sure there wasnt the health problems there are now .
I mainly deal with rescue these days and have to say I hardly ever see anything in rescue from reputable breeders just the ones from other  "Breeders" .
I agree its a start lets hope a way is found to  have less health problems in the future  but we will never stop puppy farming and mass produced dogs will appalling health issues. :( 

> It is good news that the three litters  rule will come in

four litters.

Have never personally bred more than 3 litters from any bitch, but I have an outcross bitch where I am still trying to work out what will suit her best, and may well take a fourth litter if her third does not produce the puppy I wish to keep.

I will be waiting to see how the first two litters mature before I decide, and I have to space my dogs out, and will already have kept a pup from her half sister..

> When I came into Labradors in 82 I am pretty sure there wasnt the health problems there are now

I find this comment interesting.
Where do you think these health problems have come from if they were not there in the eighties as I would think most have some inherited factor(or could feeding have an effect to such things as hips/elbows??)? 

Could it just be we did not used to hear about them and many dogs were not tested for such things?
This is definately the case with my breed with some issues we are now dealing with.
Having spoken to people who have been in to my breed since sixties, they say yes issues that are now talked about are not new or suddenly appeared in the genepool, they were there in the sixties as well but as word did not spead so fast and the vetinerary care was not what it is now etc. people just did not know or hear about them.
Of course there are illnesses caused by a gene mutation etc but I would think most have not appeared in the last few years...

Even very recently such media as Facebook makes you hear for example of sudden deaths of young dogs all over the world (something that occasionally happens in my breed) where before we would not hear about them, this now makes it look like we have a new problem but do we really?
Or do we just now hear of tens of such deaths where as before you would only hear of the few that have happened in much smaller circle around you.

By the way I'm not getting at you, just some thoughts I have had around this and your comment made me think about it again :)...

> Having spoken to people who have been in to my breed since sixties, they say yes issues that are now talked about are not new or suddenly appeared in the genepool, they were there in the sixties as well but as word did not spead so fast

Also people didn't speak ill of their dogs did they? If there was a problem it was never spoken about, where now to a certain degree its a bit better.
As far as Lab's go, thinking of the eye testing, maybe people just didn't think about it, one of those things that happen etc. But really when you think about it, its come from somewhere and its a simple gene to be able to do those tests, which is it not hereditary.
They say that Lab's stem out of only 114 different dogs.

Also this other thing they are hoping to do, if there is a problem of some kind in a breed to trace back to which dog had the problem, so by doing this breeders can then be mindful of this and hopefully breed out this dog from the lines rather than back to it.
Genetics is really fascinating and i'm off to find some more books on it in dogs, Malcolm Willis being top of my list!!

My breed comes from less than 10 dogs surviving after the wars... (with little bit of other breeds mixed in "secretly" over the years)
so very little genetic material to play with really.

> (with little bit of other breeds mixed in "secretly" over the years)
>

I suspect the little bit of something else may well have been GSD as Anal Furunculosis seems an issue brought in.

Couldn't agree more. I cannot see that it will be of any use to serious breeders. In my breed which is a vulnearable native breed we already work closely and are fully aware of any health problems. Speaking as a co owner of a promising young dog I would not allow him to be used by any body who had just looked on the Breed Mate site.

Interesting...border collie breeders already have a fantastic, worldwide, data base which looks at progeny, health tests, in-breeding, colours etc etc and which is a great tool, I wish there was an equivalent for shelties and GSDs - however, I don't think that the KC will offer anything like this one.  Additionally (and important for a lot of collie breeders) you can also add non KC reg collies to the database (as long as they don't stray too far from KC reg) unless they're ISDS reg (and therefore eligible for KC registration).  I think restricting it to 'local' dogs will be a disaster...I'm considering driving to Poland or Holland for a sheltie so would like to include Europe at least in any database.  The important aspect though, it's a tool, and you need to have the knowledge of the lines and temperaments etc in order to successfully breed.

>I suspect the little bit of something else may well have been GSD as Anal Furunculosis seems an issue brought in

Yes, both being German breeds I would think it is very likely or at least share similar ancestors.
Having met few GSD Leo mixes from different litters over the years they have all looked very Leo like so I would not think many generations would be needed to "hide" the GSD parent...
There has been reports of few other breeds over the years too and at least one newfie that I believe can be traced in the pedigrees too :)

Sorry gone bit off the track now with the original post...

As for compulsary health tests for any litter to be registered, this was raised in the seminar and it was thought by the KC that they'd loose a lot of breeders to another registry or they would just go underground. They don't want the breeds to loose their lines and these breeders, so they are treading carefully and slowly.

I think they are so wrong here. A. If the pups couldn't be registered it would only affect PET puppies and PET breeders anyway (i.e. the sort of person you don't want to breed to start with!), and the general public would perhaps learn that KC registration actually meant a guarantee of health tested parents -hence it's better for everyone to buy registered pups. Shouldn't be too hard to release those news as a press release and spread the word. B. Would we really want untested lines in any breed? What breed could there possibly be that would be THAT desperate for blood, when in a small breed like mine (3 or 4 show line litters born every year, that's all) we manage?

> Would we really want untested lines in any breed?

No we wouldn't and I would like a shift to have only health tested animals registered. I know plenty of breeds which should be health tested in which certain breeders don't do it, why? Well thats the question, but people still buy puppies because they are doing well in the ring.

The fact that the KC are bringing in a free way of finding out the COI is brilliant, I know plenty of breeders(Well established, long time breeders) who have been paying for the software at around £60 to find this information out. As for foreign dogs, who are registered abroad, if you contact the KC they can get that information for you, at no cost to you.

It'll take time for information to be added and also numerically small breeds which haven't been in this country for too long, it might not be as useful than say a Labrador breeder who has their eye on say 4 possible dogs. By putting in these dogs you can compare the COI, EBV, pedigrees and health test results.

Sorry but the dog world does need a change and anything which helps to protect the health of them should be very important. Clearly some people on here disagree and many people at the seminar did, I do wonder why?

I am confused with the talk of COI in association with the Mate Select system as when I chatted to Mr Samson earlier this year I was told it was not based on COI at all ?

I was told it would give details of stud dogs health tests, and test results of progeny, from which a EBV would be made. I felt this was rather flawed as a popular stud with multiple progeny had greater chance of a good EBV in comparison to a dog with only a couple of matings, especially if one or two pups from each dog had a high hip score for example. Both dogs may be of equal merit but the more prolific stud could look to be a better bet to a novice and thus do nothing to improve genetic diversity.

I was told the KC felt most breeders would not understand COI and wanted someting more simple !!. I will wait and see how this works but it seems to me that this may prove an expensive mistake but I would be delighted to be proved wrong. 
K

Seminar was on sun and he said it would work put COI. The more details they have on dogs the more reliable the EBV is too.
As he said it's been rolled out to a number of breeders who are curretly testing it to see if any changes are needed before it goes live. It'll be continually updated as and when more information is gained.

Ditto Barbara.  I put mine on all my pedigrees.

> Ditto Barbara.  I put mine on all my pedigrees.

I'd love a simple way of calculating COI's for my pedigrees. 

Presently I find it useful when looking at particualr pairings to use a sort of shorthand of the degree of potential influence of any given ancestors in a pedigree.

For example a dog repeated once in the third, then fourth and again the 5th genrations I add up as 12.5%, + 6.25% + 3.125% = 21.875%, this tells me that statistically their influence is brought forward to almost that of a grandparent of the litter, so a pretty major influence for good or ill.

Maybe when the KC one comes out it will help.

I have freind in the US that started building up one and I bought the program then got a copy of her database, from then I just keep adding and filling.

Thing with doing the short term is as you know it is a loose guide as you may have a dog as the grandfather that has a 20% co-efficient that makes a massive impact and then one at 0.04% that has very little but as a guide you thinking probably helps.

Be interesting to see this new KC program up and fully running.

Will also have their health test results too

All my dogs are eyetested as per breed club recommendations - but KC do not publish the results on the website - as breed are not Schedule A, the number of puppy enquirers I have had that are totally confused by this! About time KC published all results and let puppy buyers decide whether they would rather buy from someone who ensures as far as possible their puppies are free of health problems or from someone who has their head firmly stuck in the sand.

I went to the breeders' seminar at RVC last Sunday, and I'm sorry to say that I wasn't convinced about the EBV's promoted by Jeff Sampson.

I was concerned that if you had a blip in your health results (maybe  a genuine accident resulting in unilateral high hip score, or some such) that the effect of damage was going to reflect all the way down through any progeny for some generations.     Also concerned that the suggestion was made that it made it easier for  bitch owners to choose stud dogs within 20 miles or so of their home (yes, this was said).

There was great emphasis put on outcrossing (within a breed, not inter-breed), and the use of as many stud dogs as possible.        Although I see the basic logic in this, I too can see dog owners jumping on the bandwagon and offering dogs of dubious breed quality for stud simply on the merits of hips and eye tests.

The scheme doesn't link into foreign databases such as Rasdata, which is a shame, as it is an obvious route for many of us with limited gene pools to use quality dogs from abroad.

Jo

In other words it will make breeding for casual breeders easier, and won't be much use for those of us with limited gene pools that need to regularly import bloodlines from abroad.

> Also concerned that the suggestion was made that it made it easier for  bitch owners to choose stud dogs within 20 miles or so of their home (yes, this was said).
>

To be fair, the KC do know that this will only be a useful tool for the casual breeder who may chose by distance, their family members dog, neighbourhood dogs or other such convenience.
It has to be said that these people make up the bulk of all puppies bred in this country.

'Serious' breeders can untick this facility (distance from proposed mate) if they wish to use the service but many experienced people will not want to make use of this anyway.......this is a blunt tool at present.

Mate Select will be tapping into the EBV database but many workers who are concentrating on the field of genetic health in pedigree dogs cant wait for the breed specific stuff which is in the pipeline.
At present we have little in the way of ability to tap into families and clusters of healthy dogs because they are often scattered, and in some cases, for the breeders information only.

In the case of testing blips, unless it is in a very small gene pool, the computer program irons this out. It is searching for patterns and trends and as long as it has a large enough sample to work with, anomalies should not skew results.

> and whilst it might be useful for the average pet breeder (and should we be even encouraging them I ask??) I fail to see how its of any use to anyone serious.

I can't see that this would be any benefit to the serious breeder either, but I doubt that it is aimed at them.  They would already have that information to hand.

Where I think it will benefit is the pet breeder, and although you say 'should we be encouraging them', where are the majority of pets going to come from?  In a popular breed, the show breeders could not breed enough for the demand, should they go to puppy farmers?  There are many very nice dogs in pet homes whose owners may want to breed them and want to do it properly.  I think this is were it is aimed and will certainly help them.

In the case of testing blips, unless it is in a very small gene pool, the computer program irons this out. It is searching for patterns and trends and as long as it has a large enough sample to work with, anomalies should not skew results.

As I see it, the data will only be as good as the proportion of dogs who are actually health tested in a population.   In many breeds with a high population the bulk of dogs are never tested.    So the data can never be accurate, especially as people are not always sending in high scores.

Jo

But should it be made so easy for a pet owner to just breed puppies?  Part of the whole proper way of doing it is research.

So many breed so casually thinking it is so easy.

>But should it be made so easy for a pet owner to just breed puppies?  Part of the whole proper way of doing it is research.

Then could  this be a good start towards educating those pet breeders about what health tests to do and what to think about in selecting a stud dog?
Whle I don't want to see any Tom Dick or Harry churning out puppies with no thought at all, with the best will in the world the best breeders like here on champdogs, cannot hope to breed enough puppies to supply the demand. We don't like the way puppy farms keep their dogs and as much as people here look down on pet breeders, a lot of them do rear their pups with a lot of care. If  we can educate them about how to pick a better stud dog and health test then that has to be a good thing.

i agree! thers always going to be bad breeders but this could help after all i know of a few in my breed that have stud book numbers and are letting their dogs be used and havnt even had any health tests done ,its so wrong!! hips elbows and hemo test is so very inportent in this breed! so imo and from only what ive seen some pet breeders are more responsable then SOME! show breeders xx

Then could  this be a good start towards educating those pet breeders about what health tests to do and what to think about in selecting a stud dog?

Do you really think so?  I really have my doubts.  I don't think anything will stop some people using their dogs for breeding.  I have just seen an advert for a dog at stud who came to my puppy classes - they had never had a dog before so how can they know about using him at stud - and you've guessed right - no health tests done yet has already sired two litters.  People like this will still make contact with others and ignore any advice given or available.

> But should it be made so easy for a pet owner to just breed puppies?  Part of the whole proper way of doing it is research.

I don't see it as making it easy for them, but helping to educate them.  The pet breeders that I suspect this is aimed at are usually well intentioned, love their pets and WANT to do it right, but don't show or work their dogs so don't have access to all that information.  They THINK they've done their research, but could clearly have done a bit more.

Breeders come in all shades of grey - it's not just pet breeders that have good and bad, let's face it, there are show and working breeders who churn out puppies without too much thought too. 

Would it be good if anyone thinking of breeding had to serve their 'apprenticeship' in showing/working/breeding before embarking on it themselves.  Yes, but I can't see how that can be enforced so surely it's much better to educate those willing to listen and learn - even if they don't fully understand why, than just disapprove of them and let them flounder in the dark.

> Do you really think so?  I really have my doubts.

It will make a difference to some, sadly no difference to others, but putting anyone who breeds unless they show/work their dogs is not realistic.  I completely agree with Helensdogz - there are pet breeders who put a lot of care into breeding their bitches and their are nice bitches in pet homes.  So it only makes sense to educate and support them.

What would the alternative be - only breed and kc register dogs that are showing/working that have had all their health tests.  Not a bad thing to aspire to, but in reality call I can see is that depleting the gene pool - not a good thing.  It may be fine for a few decades, but how will it leave breeds for future breeders?

> As I see it, the data will only be as good as the proportion of dogs who are actually health tested in a population.   In many breeds with a high population the bulk of dogs are never tested.    So the data can never be accurate, especially as people are not always sending in high scores

In many breeds, mine included, show specimens and pet specimens are like apples and oranges. Apples will only be mated to apples but oranges can and will be, either aquired from apple breeders or bred from orange to orange....BUT Apples will almost never be mated intentionally to an orange.

So show breeders are interested in the results of apples but EBVs -for the first time -will factor in any orange results and the siblings/relatives in the wider population of other orange/apple matings.
OK these dont get tested much but the few who do can be linked to our show population by their relationships.

On the matter of whether 'pet people' should churn out puppies....well the fact is they do ...far more than show breeders so if its an inevitable fact, you have to deal with it.
I have a show winning stud dog and from time to time I do get a call from a person with a pet bitch asking to use him. When asked, they know nothing about him (apart from his breed and sex) - when asked it was my geographical proximity which sparked the call.
Any KC help which people can get to help with genetic diversity, health background checks and any other info is a good thing in my opinion.

Around 70-75% of all Cavaliers are bred by non showing/breed club owners who probably have very few leads to source the right stud.

> BUT Apples will almost never be mated intentionally to an orange.

That surprises me because in cases that I am aware of, many 'pet' bitches are put to good show dogs.  In fact, pet bitches can account for more matings than show to show.  Obviously nice, health tested bitches, but pets nonetheless. Playing devils advocate, wouldn't it be better for a nice, health tested pet bitch to be mated to a quality show dog than an equally inexperienced male dog owner?

Toolz - just out of interest, would you allow a pet bitch a mating?  (Obviously, with all health tests done and a nice bitch)

>Then could  this be a good start towards educating those pet breeders about what health tests to do and what to think >about in selecting a stud dog?
>Do you really think so?  I really have my doubts.

But we have to start somewhere. And Whilst there are pet breeders who don't health test etc a lot of them still rear their puppys in much better conditions than puppy farmers.

>In many breeds, mine included, show specimens and pet specimens are like apples and oranges. Apples will only be mated to apples but oranges can and will be, either aquired from apple breeders or bred from orange to orange....BUT Apples will almost never be mated intentionally to an orange.

According to the statistics you give Show bred dogs are only 25% of all the cavalier gene pool. We know there are a lot of cavaliers with health problems. If show breeders carry on restricting their breeding to other showlines then the gene pool keeps getting smaller and any problems magnified. In a few years time you might find it useful to be able to outcross to some of these pet bred cavaliers to widen the gene pool a bit more.

> That surprises me because in cases that I am aware of, many 'pet' bitches are put to good show dogs.

I did specify In My Breed.
Almost every pet bitch taken to a show stud dog will be untested, in terms of, not MRI scanned...due to the high cost.
So breeders would just have to 'take the money' and..... No I have never let my dogs be used on pet bitches because I have never had a fully health tested bitch brought to them.
There will be the odd exception of course but someone just wanting to "let their bitch have one litter" will either be unaware of the need to scan or cant justify the cost for " just a pet" litter.

This will slowly change however, many breeders are letting siblings of their chosen puppy go with a view to screen later and use the healthiest individual, not just the one they've kept. We as breeders are losing 80% of every generation to the non breeding market so any effort we can make to keep some of their (potentially healthier) genes in the pool, so much the better.
When I mentioned the apples and oranges analogy I really meant in terms of show breeders ( with Apples) will almost never make use of pet
(Orange) stud dogs.

> If show breeders carry on restricting their breeding to other showlines then the gene pool keeps getting smaller and any problems magnified. In a few years time you might find it useful to be able to outcross to some of these pet bred cavaliers to widen the gene pool a bit more.

Yes indeedy.

That is why may last two litters are by virtually unshown and unused dogs and my next by AI from Scandinavia.

Some of us have woken up and smelt the coffee!

> as much as people here look down on pet breeders, a lot of them do rear their pups with a lot of care.

I don't think anyone looks down on anyone that does things properly, but unfortunately the 'Pet breeders' even if they do look after their bitches and pups well rarely take on the full responsibilities of breeding which include lifetime support for the puppies they breed, taking back/providing for any that need re-homing, and importantly give knowledgeable support to new puppy owners so the homing has the best chance of success.

In then USA and Canada the vast majority of dogs in rescue originate from this kind of breeder (because of course as you say they breed the majority of puppies)..

Ah but is it safer to use the restricted but health tested gene pool, or risk using untested stock from generations of untested pet breeding. 

Even if the actual dogs are health tested, with complex polygenic conditions like HD the best chances of good results are obtained by having generations of health tests in a pedigree.