Hello,

I've been on the waiting list for a puppy from a particular breeder for 6 months or so. I really like this breeders dogs for their looks and temperament. Today I was told the bitch has been successfully mated and I am first on the waiting list for a puppy. Great!

However, having checked on the KC website these puppies will have an inbreeding coefficient of 24.1 percent. I am really worried about any health implications this will involve as I had a dog previously with a similarly high COI and he had lots of health issues that lasted his whole life and cost a fortune to treat.

Does it necessarily follow that such a high COI will lead to health complications? Would it be rude to ask the breeder about this, and maybe ask to wait for another litter that wont have such a high COI?

Thanks!

PS I am looking for a pet, not show quality, puppy.

Inbreeding has been shown to cause two potential problems; smaller litter size and smaller adult size. It does not create problems, but it brings out to the fore what problems already exist in the line (which may have been carried unseen until then). So no, there is nothing that says that this mating will definitely produce unhealthy puppies. But it could do. The questions that springs to mind for me is above all, is this a reputable breeder, somebody who does the relevant health testing for the breed, somebody who is involved in dogs (showing or working, not just breeding), somebody who takes care to choose good homes for their puppies? If it is such a breeder, then most likely they will have good reasons for doing the mating.

Do you know what health problems occur in the breed, and have both parents had satisfactory results?

You're definitely entitled to ask (nicely) about the COI. It is high. The highest I have ever owned was 20.3 %. Back then we had no internet tools to check before buying. That was a fantastic dog in every possible way, and she remained healthy until just over 13, lived until 14. The highest mating I have done was 17.6 %. That was an uncle to niece mating. I knew some puppy buyers would be concerned so I made it very clear before the mating how high the COI would be. I had reasons for planning the mating. There were 7 pups and this was 6 years ago. Touchwood, so far none of the pups have had any health problems. Well, one had cruciate ligament problems (she's okay now) -she competes in both agility and obedience. I am in contact with the 6 owners (last pup lives with me) and it is regular contact. 5 of the pups do agility and/or obedience. I bred one litter from the bitch I kept and that litter came out at 6.8 % COI, i.e. I made sure to make it lower.

In other words, there is no simple answer.

What is the annual breed average?

Thank you for your response Goldmali. It’s interesting to hear your experience.

The breeders are well known in the breed community and are KC assured, in fact they have been involved in breeding for almost 50 years.

It just seems so high, almost the equivalent of parent child mating!

My last dog cost at least £15,000 as a result of all of his treatments, cruciate ligament disease; spinal issues; numerous eye and skin disorders; allergic to nearly everything hence why I am so hesitant. He had to have eye drops every day of his life at least 4 times a day!

Would it come across as rude to ask to pass over this litter?

Thanks again!

Hi, according to the KC it’s 9.7

It sounds like knowledgeable breeders working the old fashioned way, so to speak. A fair amount of the very top winning UK showdogs have a higher COI and are perfectly healthy, as their breeders know what is in the pedigree -in depth knowledge. However, you as a buyer have to feel certain that you are going for the litter that is right for you, so don't feel bad if you decide to pass on this particular one. Explain that the problems with your previous dog have made you extra cautious. That's perfectly reasonable.

The only downside to the lovely KC EBV and CoI tools (like a lot of the health test results as well), is that they are used like an absolute tick box tool.  They are part of the big picture, and need to be considered with all the other information, some of which will be knowledge a breeder has gained during their time in a particular breed.

If this breeder is known as reputable and experienced, I see no reason to be unduly concerned BUT if you are, buying this puppy may not be a good idea, for you, whether or not the litter goes on to have 'problems'.    There are times when, having done a few outcross matings, a breeder will feel the need to do a close(r) mating to see where her programme is.   I did this twice, doing uncle to niece and aunt to nephew matings.   Whilst not outstanding (and the aunt to nephew mating only produced one puppy, a bitch) nothing dire showed up.     Most long-standing breeders know first hand the dogs involved and going back for a number of generations too.

I have to say my current boy, who came from a breeder I'd known for as long as I've been in my main breed, has a pedigree that is as open as you could get, including a number of imported hounds.   Never have I had one with so many problems!!   I always said it's a good job he's such a nice boy, great looking too, or he'd have gone back.  As it is, he's cost me a fortune over the years.  So although it is relevant, I'd not set too much score by numbers.  Just if you don't feel happy about taking on a pup from this litter, you don't have to!

I would not go anywhere near a litter with a COI that high.

I've owned a dog with a high COI before and it was no coincidence that, just like yours, it resulted in huge vet bills and a dog which was pretty much, off and on, sick throughout their lives with a series of different ailments.

25% is the COI of a mother to son, or a full sibling breeding.  It's insane there are people still doing breedings like this - they are killing the breeds they purport to love by reducing the gene pool in the long-term.  If you ask them for justification of the breeding, it's all about the short term - that particular litter and why physical appearance or traits they want to preserve in that particular generation - with zero understanding of the implication for the breed in the long term.  In other words, they don't give a poop about the breed as a whole and its health, they just want to produce - in that particular litter - what they want to see.   It's a selfish approach to breeding, especially when there is plenty information available now about what breeders are doing, when they do this. 

They are ensuring there are more and more recessive genes doubled up on both parents' sides, leading to recessives not just being things that the dog carries which never manifest in disease, but things which become manifest in the dog.  When this is compounded across a breed, it then becomes impossible to breed to avoid the health issues - as has happened with many breeds now.  Frankly it's inexcusable and I wouldn't be giving a breeder doing this, my money.

You might want to read these links:  https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/coi-faqs-understanding-the-coefficient-of-inbreeding

http://www.dogbreedhealth.com/a-beginners-guide-to-coi/

> Frankly it's inexcusable and I wouldn't be giving a breeder doing this, my money.

To some extent I'd agree with what you say 1234, but a lot of it depends on the overall gene pool of the individual breed.  Thankfully up to recent years when there has been a lot of breeding on one hugely successful stud dog and relatives around him, we haven't had to worry overly about reducing the gene pool.   Of late there have been a lot of importations in my breed - interestingly much of it bringing back old English bloodlines that were exported to Europe years ago.

The dog I have now, would have a very low COI BUT he's kept me at the vet and the vet in business, almost from the time he came to us at 4 months.   Knowing the breeder, there was nothing to send me warning signals, apart from her wanting to pile in the food, at too high a protein level imo, and resulting in big puppies which he was - too much growth too fast.

I'd not fault any breeder for wanting to preserve good traits.   However, the secret is knowing when to do an outcross mating and then knowing to come back in again.  Something new breeders don't always appreciate - as long as they get results in the ring...... 

ps  I am of the view that with an outcross mating, you may get all good, but you may equally get bad.   I always tried to line-breed, apart from the two closer matings I did, to see what I got after a few out X litters.   And if you do out X, for the next litter, to retain type, it's a good idea to pick the puppy who closest resembles your bloodline so you don't end up with a complete miss mash.

It's insane there are people still doing breedings like this - they are killing the breeds they purport to love by reducing the gene pool in the long-term.

I disagree -although again, I would not personally do a mating as high as this particular one. In my main breed, the overwhelming majority are NOT good breeders (we have an extremely bad situation), and these people always seem to outcross. (It's a good selling point after all scaremongering. Never mind the fact that their dogs are not health tested.) As a result our COI is just 3.3%. But all of these outcrosses, more and more imports from a huge number of different countries- nobody knows what is lurking in the background. One day two dogs with really low COI will be mated together and wham, they will both carry the same unknown gene and a new problem appears. Constant outcrossing is like always keeping your dog on a lead rather than teaching it a recall. There has to be a middle ground. That's quite apart from keeping our breeds looking and behaving the way they are supposed to.

My mentor says the old saying was "Twice in, once out."

It's not as simple as 0 % COI = zero problems and 25 % = high problems. Unfortunately! Life would be easy if it was.

> My mentor says the old saying was "Twice in, once out."

Bang on!!

>It's not as simple as 0 % COI = zero problems and 25 % = high problems. Unfortunately! Life would be easy if it was.

No, but statistically you massively increase the risk of problems with the 25% over the 0%.  So why risk it?  Nothing in life is about certainties, we are always making decisions based on assessing risk and frankly there's no need to deliberately produce dogs which are many times more likely to develop health problems.

Importing from other countries shouldn't mean COI is irrelevant, you need to use a database which goes back at least 10 generations - regardless of where the dogs are from.  If the UK MyKC database doesn't do that due to imports, then you need to have your own pedigree software and work out what the 'true' COI is - not just go by artificially low MyKC COIs due to imports... That's just part of being a responsible breeder and using accurate data.

And no, you don't need to breed in this way, to preserve breeds.  In many breeds it is perfectly possible to breed for low COIs and inbreeding whilst also breeding for the phenotype you want to preserve.  With breeds where that is not possible due to a lack of genetic diversity, then put pressure on breed clubs and the KC to permit the introduction of genetic material from other breeds - otherwise you are just breeding towards the death of the breed.  And in this instance in particular, the COI is so way over the average for the breed, clearly the breed concerned is not in this position - or the average COI would be higher.