My dd (in USA) has a springer spaniel who is absolutely lovely.   She's now 8 years old, and they are going back to the same kennels,(Sunrise) in NY state for another springer - and I'm surprised to see that the kennels have a newly-born litter "Yankee pups. Yankee sperm is about 25 years old and he is the top spaniel stud of all time" from their website. 

My concerns are about testing - I'm trying to remember which tests I was doing (with labs) 25 years ago - and wondering how many problems might be overlooked by using sperm of such an age.

They are obviously working dogs, and appear to do well in field trials/shows.

What do others think about using sperm of this age?   I'd welcome others views.

 

I think its great.  Friends in Australia had a litter of 7 Large Munsterlanders this year born by AI from a dog born in 1990 and they bought his frozen semen in 1993, had a couple of litters not long after that.   They have had a couple of failed attempts and then this years success.     As he was probably HUU clear and the dam of the puppies is (The whole litter tested clear) it could be valuable.

Thanks Christine!

he is the top spaniel stud of all time

This is what would concern me, surely if this male was the top stud of all time in the breed he must have sired alot of litters right? If that's the case he could be in alot of pedigrees already. So why keep adding him back into the gene pool.
As you have said about what health tests were around back then, if there were less tests back then who is to say he was not a carrier or had something genetic, add that to him possibly being used alot allready I'd be worried about what the pups could inherit if there are any genetic health problems in the breed that do not have tests yet.

I can see it being usefully for studs who havnt been used alot or at all to help keep genetic diversity. Especially in breeds that have low numbers.

This concerns me too. Why should a popular stud need to be' resurrected'? Surely his genes have contributed enough  during his life time. There are problems in many breeds with over use of popular studs. Why compound the problem ? And why increase the possibility of inheritable disease. Genetic testing has improved enormously over the last ten years. Surely we risk regression by reintroduction of untested stock. So what if he was a popular sire in his time. We need more genetic diversity , not less. Maybe some breeds have tiny gene pools and this becomes a necessity. I've only heard of this in a popular breed and am unconvinced of the reasons for doing so.

It was done in Golden Retrievers years ago with breed record holder Camrose Cabus Christopher -it was in the dog papers at the time. Must be around 20 years ago now.  The litter had to be born in Norway and some of the pups put through quarantine in the UK as at this time AI was not allowed here under KC rules. I think it is a great way to bring back some good lines -as it was so long ago it was effectively new blood, without being new blood.

Just looked it up on MyKC -turns out he had another litter born later as well. Christopher was born in 1967, the first AI litter was in 1988, the last one in 2004 (now here in the UK). So his last pups were born 37 years after he was born.

>as at this time AI was not allowed here under KC rules

The use of AI was much stricter but was allowed.  I remember the litter being announced.

> I think it is a great way to bring back some good lines -as it was so long ago it was effectively new blood, without being new blood.

I'm of the same opinion..... in theory at least, as I don't breed dogs (but breed/have bred other species). How often do we hear people bemoaning the loss of certain features in breeds that have gone a certain way due to fashion, or popular sire syndrome? Gene pools that have narrowed for many reasons? While a former popular sire may well have contributed to the gene pool already, he will be long back on the pedigrees after 20 years, and could potentially revive certain features - or even health, if the breed was free from certain issues during his lifetime.

I don't think it's much different to people using older sires (still alive and still fertile). Longevity plays a part there too... if the dogs lived longer 20 years than they do now, then using sperm from a long-lived dog however long ago he died, has to be an advantage.

This is the very reason why we have The National Seed Bank for plants. Preserving the past in case we have need of it.
Storing semen from a long dead dog must have been important to those who preserved it and presumably using it now will be of similar importance.

I'm all for freezing semen from young dogs to give us the benefit of hindsight. A luxury many of us wished we'd had at some time in our breeding career.

There a several males I sorely wish (knowing what we now know) I could use today.

It was done in Golden Retrievers years ago with breed record holder Camrose Cabus Christopher -it was in the dog papers at the time. Must be around 20 years ago now.

You beat me to it. 

It certainly is a way of reducing genetic drift,(increasing generational age helps, which is why it is also a good idea to mate young dogs bitches to older ones, (this also increases the odds that at least one half of a pairing have proved long term health) but as has been said if this was a popular influential sire then it can equally cause harm.

>I'm all for freezing semen from young dogs to give us the benefit of hindsight. A luxury many of us wished we'd had at some time in our breeding career.

I do wish that the Kennel club would set up storage facilities so we don't have to rely on purely commercial concerns to store.  who knows whether the companies offering services now will still be around later.

With good breeders breeding less often, fewer new breeders joining our ranks, and fewer individuals contributing to gene pools it is perhaps a good idea to store semen from as many dogs as possible with DNA profiles with each, so that in future with serious bottlenecks or health issues found their genome can be utilised.

Also with breeds with late onset diseases being able to use dogs that have lived a very long time, well past their reproductive life, can be helpful.

In my own breed we have a serious lack of potential sires.

Such a bank could enable breeders to have semen stored even from dogs they have bred and homed into pet homes (assuming that the owners will keep them entire long enough).

With complete DNA profiles and samples for any future DNA health testing, would allow us to keep a wider genetic base, especially with the ability to sample a dogs individual heterozygosity/homozygosity, as opposed to only theoretical inbreeding level.  http://www.mydogdna.com/how-it-works

Barbara, you have convinced me of the merit of this. Excellent post.

We are encouraging members of our Stud dog register to consider freezing semen of young dogs ...while they are fully potent...but before we know their full health status.

That way, we store semen until we have mature dogs or even old dogs who's life health history is known to us and around the time when their fertility has dropped off.

If the dog develops or produces problems we can ditch the stored semen.

We looked into having a sponsored scheme (each member could store a set numbers of straws ) but were advised that ownership issues and profiteering from dogs who turn out to be top studs, caused problems for some groups in the past.

Camrose Cabus Christopher was born 1967 & last litter born was 7th October 2004, he doesn't seem to be an improver for HD, the bitch has a fairly good hip score of 10 & her previous litter has better scores than the one by AI. This is the problem with using semen from long dead dogs who were not health tested fully. From the photos I have seen of him, he wasn't a very Golden Golden :-(

The litter prior to that was 1988

From the photos I have seen of him, he wasn't a very Golden Golden :-(

ROFL what on EARTH does colour have to do with anything, especially when it is allowed in the breed standard?!

he doesn't seem to be an improver for HD, the bitch has a fairly good hip score of 10 & her previous litter has better scores than the one by AI. This is the problem with using semen from long dead dogs who were not health tested fully.

He was born before dogs were hip scored, and most of the offspring weren't scored either -born too early. Out of 173 pups only  7 were hip scored -the modern ones. The scores varied wildly from a bad one of 49 to a perfect one of 0 and there is just no way to come to any firm conclusions from such a small sample. However the dog scoring 0 became a full Champion and sired offspring which included two zero scoring dogs and none higher than 8 -although again not many were scored as it is still a long time ago. One of the last AI offspring became a Show Champion and sired many pups, ALL of the scored ones were below breed average. Another was also used for breeding and had ONE pup with a higher than average score, the rest all okay.

So pretty good all told I'd say -and Champions born to him decades after he died. I've had ten Golden Retrievers in my life, every single one of them has had Christopher behind them more than once, and only one had HD -and he came from a mother with a score of 60.

All my Goldens have Christopher in their pedigrees along with the Westley dogs. My first one had him as a great grand sure and she was a great looking dog with a fabulous temperament. I don't show so never had any of my dogs hip scored, but one thing none of them have suffered from was hip problems of any sort.

did the poster mean he wasn't a very good colour or a very good Golden as a breed representative (given that the breed has altered a lot over the years, and tha5t may or may not be a good thing).

The pedigree and photo her do show him as hip scored with a total score of 17, (11/7), he must have ben a half decent dog with 41 CC's and his colour is pretty middle of the road (though I like the deeper shades that many of the working lines are).

His COI according to the KC was 0 but based on only 4 full generations.

I suspect that full hip data for progeny is not recorded in the MYKC database as previously the results were not recorded on a dogs registration.  Just did a check in my own breed and there are missing hip results for dogs I know that were scored.

According to the Standfast database, Christopher sired 1795 puppies from 292 litters!  Don't think there are many Goldens today that haven't got his in their pedigree somewhere...

292 litters, mmmmmmwhat does that mean in stud fees>? Have to say that going back to studs that do not have today's required health tests is a recipe for disaster.

I've no idea what stud fee's were back in the late 50's and 60's - but not a bad little income I'm sure...

Have to say that going back to studs that do not have today's required health tests is a recipe for disaster.

So puppies scoring below breed average as well as scoring 0/0 isn't good enough for you?

I've no idea what stud fee's were back in the late 50's and 60's - but not a bad little income I'm sure...

Don't forget, everything was different back then. You didn't have what we have now, people with one or two dogs breeding litters in their living rooms. You had kennels with staff and lots of dogs. Many breeders were well off to start with. I bought my first UK Golden Retrievers from one such wellknown kennel, that had started breeding in 1938. And yes it was purpose built kennels, very big posh house complete with tennis court, and staff. Tea served from a silver tea trolley. It's just not possible to compare today's situation in any way. There were good and bad points, of course. I'd much rather have puppies born as part of a family indoors. But I'd also like to see a return to the time when breeders were respected for breeding good pedigree dogs, did not crossbreed just for the sake of making money, and not everyone thought it was their right to breed a litter from any pet bitch, just because she hadn't been spayed.

Most DNA testable issues (the dog was hip scored and has scored progeny, and probably generations of descendants health tested) are recessive, so as long as tested clear bitches are used for the AI a long dead dogs use is unlikely to be a disaster health wise. 

At worst some offspring would turn out to be carriers.

If the mating is of a low COI the likelihood of both parents negative traits begin doubled up on are reduced.

Most DNA testable issues (the dog was hip scored and has scored progeny, and probably generations of descendants health tested) are recessive, so as long as tested clear bitches are used for the AI a long dead dogs use is unlikely to be a disaster health wise. 

At worst some offspring would turn out to be carriers.

If the mating is of a low COI the likelihood of both parents negative traits begin doubled up on are reduced.