Elsewhere on Champdogs (on a thread currently locked so can't continue there) I've been soliciting opinions about inbreeding/genetic problems for a TV documentary on the issue.

A point raised on the other thread was the judge's role in shaping future generations and this morning I found this:

http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Editorials/0606_Judges_Judging_Nature.asp

What's the reaction to it here? Do you agree with this author - both in blaming the judges and in her description of genetic problems in "high-bred" dogs?

Jemima

You can't tell by looking at a dog whether they have any problems.  Let's face it many of us have seen dogs with hip scores of around 0/0 move terribly and ones with scores over 50 move like a dream :d

Yep there are some dogs that look nothing like what many of us would think the breed standard says but having said that we all interpret things differently :d

Very true SWD, my dog with a 48/48 score moves lovely!

>my dog with a 48/48 score moves lovely!<

And you would be happy to breed from him?

Jemima

    >my dog with a 48/48 score moves lovely!<

And you would be happy to breed from him?

I think you have misunderstood Marianne. She was not saying she would breed from the dog only that it moved correctly.

I had a BC dog with severe HD(34:34=68) he was not bred for his looks but to do the job the breed was developed for-ie working sheep he was from ISDS(International Sheepdog Society) registered sheep working parents so breeding the the Australian based KC breed standard was not involved. His father & mother were born active working dogs all their lives & he never had a moment of pain/problem with his hips. His movement was excellent & he conformed to the KC breed standard & he was an extremely active dog. Would I have considered breeding from him-certainly not even though I had loads of requests from some"pet"bitch owners who weren't bothered about testing their bitches

BTW the rest of his litter were scored & were all under the breed median/mean/average as were his parents!

Thanks MM. :)

:rolleyes: For goodness sake, I'm not totally insane......... The reason for hip scoring in the first place is of course to make sure you ONLY breed from acceptable scores and don't just go on what the dog moves/looks like...... That's the puppy farmers/backyard breeder's excuse: if the dog looks healthy it must be so  no need to health test.

Don't make the mistake of looking too far into the AMERICAN show and breeding scene as you really CANNOT compare that to the UK. There's literally a world of difference. So many journalists make this mistake. I recently read a newspaper article which bemoaned certain breeds of dog and cat as being unhealthy, unnatural etc -and some of those mentioned don't even EXIST in the UK.

>I recently read a newspaper article which bemoaned certain breeds of dog and cat as being unhealthy, unnatural etc -and some of those mentioned don't even EXIST in the UK.<

I think was probably the CAWC report - reported in last week's Sunday Times as here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200134,00.html

And here's the actual report:

http://www.cawc.org.uk/documents/CAWCModifications.pdf

It's a British report. Which breeds did it mention that don't exist in the UK?

Jemima

It's worth remembering that, under UK civil and religious law, it's perfectly acceptable for first cousins to marry. That degree of genetic closeness is actually quite uncommon in dog-breeding - the relationship is more usually a couple of generations back.

I'm not sure you are right on this (and the experts on the Canine Diversity website dispute it).

First-cousin inbreeding is only 6.25% COI. Now obviously there's huge variation between and within breeds, but surely the COI is often much higher than this in much purebred breeding?

Jemima

Jemima, you seem to hold a very black & white view of dog breeding and genetics or perhaps I've mis-read or misinterpreted much of what you've written and links you've directed us to.

While there will be a variation within different breeds as to the amount of line breeding done, it will not be "huge" - quite simply because line breeding, i.e. breeding back to a high quality, healthy and good tempered dog appearing in most commonly the third or fourth generation of a pedigree, is the most widely recognised and accepted method of stamping correct breed type, soundness, health and character into a line.

There are, far less commonly, more closely related dogs bred together but by and large this is done only by highly experienced breeders who know from personally meeting the dogs and their ancestors in the pedigrees, what are safe routes to follow and which will not compromise on the above mentioned requirements.

Using terminology such as "purebred breeding" is a sweeping generalisation encompassing far too many variables to make accurate comments on.

regards, Teri :)  

>line breeding, i.e. breeding back to a high quality, healthy and good tempered dog appearing in most commonly the third or fourth generation of a pedigree, is the most widely recognised and accepted method of stamping correct breed type, soundness, health and character into a line.<

Recognised and accepted, maybe, but the canine geneticists argue that although this is a good way to establish a breed, it is not the best way to continue once the breed is established.

Again, I post this link:

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

I know I do sound like I'm being very black and white. Please know that I have taken what I've learned here and bounced it back to the geneticists to challenge them. One thing is that I imagined COIs to be generally far higher than they seem to be, at least here in the UK (although doubtless they are higher in some breeds). That's really encouraging.

Brilliant to hear you've read some of the links. What did you think? I'd love to get everyone's feedback on them as it's this material that forms some of the basis for the film.

Jemima

In that link I found:

>A sire will be "progeny-tested" by being bred to a group of his daughters.

Very, very rare amongst general dog-breeding. In fact in 30 years in a breed I've never come across it.

Thank you - that's really useful feedback. I will challenge CA Sharp on this. I wonder if it's more common in the US?

The reason I'm here is to be able to challenge beliefs/preconceptions elsewhere if they are not right.

Jemima

It's the sort of thing that would happen when a new breed is being developed, but that doesn't happen very often - with 400+ to choose from there's one that exists already that'll suit most people! The ones who're most likely to mate father to daughter are puppy farmers/commercial breeders, because it means the dog's 'earning his keep', not idling his time away ...

That would apply to farm stock, but not to cats and dogs.

Hi Jemima,

I've skimmed the article for now as I'm not able to fully concentrate on it - but will read it later :)

Picking up on the point JG has made re "sires being progeny tested" - I am not aware of this being a widely used mating although I have a son from a sire who was the result of a father x daughter mating.  Were this common sire still alive he would be around 20 + years old.  He was only mated to one daughter as far as I know and his resulting progeny certainly stamped an easily recognised type which comes through generation after generation - he is in the pedigree of all but one of the breed that I have ever owned, although only in two from his mating to his daughter.   He is considered one of the breed greats and is somewhere in the pedigree of a huge amount of the breed and often line bred back to.  For my own part, I will not line breed back to the progeny of his father x daughter mating as that IMO would be irresponsible - to my knowledge everyone has outcrossed where this combination exists.

I only wish I had the programme to work out the COIs in my own dogs most closely through that in-bred line!  I have no idea how it would come out :(

regards, Teri

I have seen it quoted quite recently that the vast majority of linebred dogs have a COI of less than 3%, now anyone able to find a UK reference?

> have seen it quoted quite recently that the vast majority of linebred dogs have a COI of less than 3%<

If that is the case, it is indeed encouraging. But I'm a bit confused.

The COIs work as follows:

Brother-sister 25%
Parent-offspring 25%
Half-siblings 12.5%
Uncle-niece 12.5%
Grandparent 12.5%
First cousins 6.25%

Line-breeding means just that - breeding to relatives n the same line. So how can a linebred dog have a COI of less than 3 per cent?

Also, if the dog you breed to was themself the result of line-breeding, the COI rises alarmingly.

But I have to admit, I'm still struggling with COIs and how to work them out!

Jemima

Depends o how far back the dog is in the line.

Yes, second-cousins three times removed are pretty remote, but still related.

My pedigree program tells me the COI for the dogs I have entered in it. For my 2 Golden Retrievers, one is 0.8% and the other 7 %. The Malinois are higher as there we have a breed with such a small genepool -they seem to lay at around 12 %. Of course, overall the Malinois as a breed is a lot healthier!

You haven't an easy way of doing the calculation, as I would be curious about my girls?

Sorry Barbara, I'm useless without the programme doing it for me.:)

Well that seems pretty good! How many generations back do you go to work out the COI for your dogs?

Jemima

8 generations but the prpogramme can go further too or less.

I've just gone through 207 dogs in my dogs' pedigrees (for 8 generations COI) and only 2 were above 12 %: one of 19.5 % and one of 25%. When doing just 4 generations there was only one more dog above 12.

Do you have data going back beyond eight generatons?  If so, do you get different results?

I understand that the more generations you include, the more accurate the COI. But, of course, it doesn't always follow that the more generations you include, the higher the COI.

Jemima

No I don't have enough for that (more than 8 generations) -my breed has only been in the UK for just over 30 years. (I have Golden Retrievers as well but don't have as many dogs in my database for them.) But really the further you get back the LESS the COI will be as you will get so many more dogs.

>But really the further you get back the LESS the COI will be as you will get so many more dogs.<

I'm not sure that's right, although of course it varies from breed to breed. But many have very small founding stock or have suffered a genetic bottleneck (as many breeds did, including mine, during the second world war) and so the further back you go, the less dogs you will find,  which tends to raise the COI.

Here's a bit on the origins of the golden retriever which points to a single litter as founding stock (although of course others might have made the same crosses to establish the breed)

http://www.rebelcreek.com/GoldenRetrieverHistory.html

Jemima

Haven't read the article yet, but if there is one thing that is extremely well documented it is Golden Retriever history. :) I haven't had the time to input all pedigrees I have access to into my pedigree programme as it is too many and I don't BREED Goldens, just keep them, have done for 25 years), but there have been several books of champion pedgrees published over the years (every single pedigree of every single UK Champion, be it Show Ch, Ch, FT Ch, OB Ch etc), and so it is possible to basically trace any Golden back to the very early days and indeed I have done with mine. However once the creator of the breed had died, and before the breed club was formed and KC recognition gained,  records were not kept for a few years so there is a gap in history.

BUT, it's not really true to say that all Goldens were bred from just a handful of original ones, as several other breeds were crossed in over the years. Some similar looking dogs also appeared from time to time with pretty much unknown ancestry. Of course, back in those days, although Lord Tweedmouth was keeping records of his own dogs (those books now reside in thew KC museum) -the main reason for breeding these dogs was of course to produce a better gundog, and so ancestry wasn't all that important, just ability and looks.

Actually, just read the article and it is incorrect. The breed was originally known as the Yellow Retriever, the word Golden didn't come into it until many years later and the Russian Circus dog theory was  discredited quite some time ago.

Well, to be fair, the article does qualify the history at the end re the Russian circus dog theory.

But the point I was making was that many breeds have suffered severe bottlenecks or originate from just a few dogs (as I think is the case in your Malinois?) and that this makes it very, very difficult to keep them genetically healthy long-term within the confines of a closed registry.

Jemima

That's the problem with articles on the web. Absolutely anyone can put up a site and publish the most extraordinary drivel and inaccurate nonsense (not saying that's a description of that particular article! ;)) and there will always be people who believe it 'because it's on the net'. We really need to research the sources of the articles to discover if they have any validity.

One year at Crufts there was a stall selling a programme that did all this for you, and allowed you to try with your own dog. My line-bred dog had a COI of 2.15, I think.

It's a British report. Which breeds did it mention that don't exist in the UK?

It's not legal here to own wolf crosses without a wild animals license, and the Sphynx cat was rejected by the GCCF for recognition exactly due to concerns of possible health problems. It also mentions "certain types of Cavalier King Charles" -what exactly is that meant to mean? Either a dog is a Cavalier or it's not.

I can only see the article, the pdf dcument won't open

The show scene is very different in America.  Here we have a much smaller country and therefore the number of dogs in competition is usually representative of the breed as a whole and we have far more breed specialist judges, and most people consider the breed ring judging of primary importance and Groups etc are just a bit of fun or the icing on the cake, but not the cake.

Now if you are in USA where there may be small entries of your breed there is less satisfaction from winning at that level and you may well be aiming to do well in the Group, and this is where the generic show dog versus the most typical specimen of it's breed comes in.

This quote may well explain my view of pedigree breeding and it's effects as not being a negative "Hounds and Spitz type have probably changed the least over the last two centuries." as my own breed is a fairly natural one in it's conformation and behaviour. 

The best dogs from decades ago would not look out of place in the ring today, though presentation and handling have improved.

Maybe this is because in the country of origin form and function are not divorced, you can't have a show champion that can't hunt, nor a hunting champion that isn't a good looking typical specimen.

Maybe some breeds that have become exaggerated need to go back to what they were, but in fact the standards are not to blame here, but the judges interpretation.

Just as an example the Golden Retriever says about body 'compact' yet many of the dogs I see in current photos seem very short on leg/long, not compact at all.

Just as an example the Golden Retriever says about body 'compact'

Erm no it doesn't! It says balanced and short coupled.

Oops, Well short coupled thy certainly don't seem to be :D

What's your breed?

>Maybe this is because in the country of origin form and function are not divorced, you can't have a show champion that can't hunt, nor a hunting champion that isn't a good looking typical specimen.<

You mean with your breed? (Because, certainly, in other breeds form and function are divorced).

Jemima

In my breed too, correct construction is placed higher (by breed specialists) than decoration - some allrounders can't see past the decoration. However correct decoration is very important because that's one of the reason they were bred! A correct mover with good decoration (and bilateral hearing!) is the aim.

Actually, by limiting the gene pool UK breeders have lessened the incidence of one hereditary condition ...

>Actually, by limiting the gene pool UK breeders have lessened the incidence of one hereditary condition ...<

Have you read Jim Seltzer (Willowind Dalmations) on this subject? You'll find his papers half-way down the page on the link below (along with lots of other related articles - many by those I'm talking to for our film)

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

Jemima

I've saved that article to read properly when I have time; I've only briefly scanned it so can't comment on the details. But apart from names on pedigrees you need also to know the particular traits of each animal (phenotype and genotype). It frequently happens that one dog would be very wrong for a particular bitch, but his littermate would be ideal.

The hereditary condition I was referring to is deafness. In the US the standard accepts blue eyes in the breed; in the UK blue eyes are a major fault, and such dogs aren't bred from. This is why the levels of BAER tested deafness in UK dals are consistently lower than in the US.

It's in my profile.  Though in the UK there is no working for the breed, as the powers that Be have banned it's original purpose, and that of most of the least exaggerated breeds.

I personally do think that the onus is on the judges as far as show ring awards go.  They are the ones who will make up Champions - this is what the exhibitor strives for.  Having said that the judge can only see what's in the ring.  If all dogs are exagerated they still have to judge them.  Of course they can withhold awards but not many seem to be happy to do this. 

Being in an ancient hound breed which has been more or less unless unchanged for thousands of years I can clearly see the exagerations in other breeds.  Mine is still a breed where form follows function.

Bear in mind that the article is american and the dogs are normally more exagerated there than in the UK.  There really is no comparison between the two.  The americans love elongated necks which require upright shoulders and upper arms and hellishly long over angulated hindquarters.  I just hope that trend never takes hold here.

Debs

Umm, think some judges like elongated necks over here too!

My breed had a fun weekend last year.  The judge said that they would never do well over here because their necks were too short and stocky and that we need to breed this out:rolleyes:  This is a main feature of our breed and in our breed standard

Makes me wonder what they are after sometimes?

In the breed I own it specifically states Chest, wide and with good depth of brisket but yet so many are narrow fronted and have absolutely no brisket at all but judges are placing these dogs & awarding them top honours so it becomes the norm.

Firm strong back, short-coupled, slightly higher at the shoulders, sloping smoothly towards the croup and tail  Again, sometimes seen are dipping toplines or over rounded croups.

Well muscled thighs, well turned stifles, hocks well let down.
Yes to the first bit, hardly ever to the second and high hocks are creeping back in again too.

But then I think the steep shouldered, straight upper armed cardboard cutouts from the States are creeping eastwards along with more emphasis being placed on flashy handling...anyone noticed a trend for more white 'sneakers' (Trainers) being worn with suits at shows?  Breed standards are what makes one breed different from the other, and each breed has it's idiosyncracies which are outlined in the Standard and in depth reading of it will make the judge aware but I think some don't want to understand.  They just want another breed under their belt so they can judge groups etc.

And your breed, Debs?

I take the point about the difference between American and UK showdogs. Are you saying the breeds are very different in the two countries? And could anyone recommend an American showdog list I could solicit for views?

Many thanks

Jemima

Hi Jemima

Sent you a site that I go on now and again which is quite good and has people like most of us on here where we try to do our best for the breeds that we have and do the proper health tests etc.  It's an American site but it's wonderful to see that we are not the only group that tries to advise people sensibly re. breeds and breeding etc.

Some breeds are so different in the USA that they are more like different breeds. My own breed is rather different in style (some of it is presentation) there from UK or country of origin though good breeders are trying hard to not to allow this to happen, (the National Specialty always has an overseas judge) but ths is where the judges rewarding the flashy overdone and exagerated specimins do harm as novice breeders especially will breed for that which is rewarded.