Hi,

By now all the breed clubs have had their new breed health plan given to them. I was wondering how you all think about your breeds plan? My breed already had most of th things in place, but when the committee met with the KC thay asked for HC and PRA to be added to the eye test list, even though it is not known in UK bred flatcoats. The KC has agreed to this so we ended up going one step further.

We have also got our code of ethics adopted taking inot consideration the KC CoE.

How many people who are not on committees, would even know their breeds plan at this early stage? And those of us who do sit on the committees are hardly likely to talk out of school!!

The flatcoat Society has already changed the CoE to include the points in the health plan and this is on the website. Our Society has asked for PRA and HC to be part of our health plan and it was accepted by the KC, even though UK bred flatcoats do not have PRA or HC. Perhaps we are just faster at getting our results out there?

Red and whites are a step ahead having askd for vWD and Clad herditary clear puppies only to be registerd. :)  This was done last year!!!!!!!

I think many breeds though still haven't had commitee meetings.....

Polly, I see this line is in the new flatcoat C of E:

"Members should not mate siblings, half siblings, mother to son or father to daughter."

Very good news in my book of course, although am surprised not to see any mention of grand-daughter/grand-father and uncle/niece or aunt/nephew matings which of course would produce the same COI (12.5 per cent) as a half-sib mating? And what about matings which, although not obviously between close relatives, are the COI equivalent? Is 12.5 per cent going to be the limit now in flatcoats - and if so over how many generations?

Jemima

For someone that has no time to answer the questions that are ever directed at you, Jemima, it is quite surprising that you always seem to be around whenever this subject comes up.  You will find a few here.

Well if that was the rule in my breed my latest pup (that is looking to be just what I hoped for) would not exist (half sibling mating on my very healthy 9 year old bitch who has produced 3 quality litters and has proved herself fit and healthy as are her 8 siblings.

The sires of her offspring that were mated were complete outcrosses to her and each other, one being a US import and the other Norwegian.

The bitch mentioned is herself the result of a half Uncle to niece mating (her dam was mated to her own dams half brother), but again the line breeding has been to outcrosses to better incorporate the traits brought in by them.

The point of any breeding method is to ensure the animals used are compatible, of superior quality and proven health and vigour down the generations, especially if those individuals are linebred on..

Isabel, I am happy to answer any question from  anyone genuinely interested in the answer but see no point in fuelling those who only want to pick fights.

I am interested in this particular question because flatcoats are my breed.

Jemima

I don't think they are picking fights.  I think they genuinely wish to know.  You did not make your programme just about flatcoats but about all pedigree dogs.

In the "at risk" breeds, it would be better gene pool management to limit the inbreeding rather than ban it (due to the genes lost and gained over each generation it would be safe to say 1 case of inbreeding for every 3rd generation).

shame the fcr society  did not but into action patella as well as a test for the future ?

How many people who are not on committees, would even know their breeds plan at this early stage?

I do, the health of my breed comes first so I like many others in my breed are very interested and are following/asking what is coming up in the future in terms of health testing etc. Why shouldn't we know? I feel we have the right.

There are many ways in which to maximise available genetic diversity apart from restricting inbreeding - limiting popular sires for one, and making sure you breed from more dogs per generation. The Imperial study featured in the film showed that all 10 breeds they looked at had lost over 90 per cent of their unique genetic variation in the past six/seven generations. This is very worrying.  Incidentally, if you don't outcross, you can never "gain" genes. Within a closed gene pool, I'm afraid it's only ever a one-way street in the opposite direction.

Jemima

that why i gone aboard to bring in new blood line.

> Within a closed gene pool, I'm afraid it's only ever a one-way street in the opposite direction.
>

Not necessarily as long as the genes are good one.  The Chillingham Wild Cattle have had a closed gene pool for centuries, since the 13th I think, with numbers in existance at any one time generally 30 to 40 animals.  They are left to choose their own matings of course but careful breeders can replicate selective breeding I believe.

You can never regain lost genes, Isabel. Once they're gone, they're gone  - unless of course you outcross. 

The Chillingham Cattle are an interesting case. The difference between them and the way we breed dogs is natural selection. In the Chillingham Cattle, the males have to prove their worth to mate. The weak, the infertile, or those incapable of mating naturally would never get to pass on their genes.

I think under these circumstances, it IS possible to occasionally purge a population of deleterous genes and for a population to be healthy.  I know of one giant schnauzer breeder in the US who is incredibly tough with his dogs - very strict selection for health and function; no breeding from any dog with any fertility problems; the bitches get to choose thier mates; no intervention at all when the pups are born etc. He argues that this allows him to linebreed successfully and I believe him.  But the price is reduced diversity and diversity is important (indeed, it's the very basis of sexual selection), particularly as regards immune function.  A single bout of cat flu could wipe out an entire group of cheetahs because they are so genetically similar. There is no variety of immune response that in a more diverse population would ensure that some would survive.  If we had been as genetically similar as some dog breeds, the Black Death could have wiped out the entire population of Europe.

Jemima

> In the Chillingham Cattle, the males have to prove their worth to mate.

I would say responsible breeding replicates this and we generally have a much larger choice than 40 animals.  But, whatever, they do demonstrate how a closed gene pool is not necessarily curtains.

>I know of one giant schnauzer breeder in the US who is incredibly tough with his dogs - very strict selection for health and function; no breeding from any dog with any fertility problems; the bitches get to choose thier mates; no intervention at all when the pups are born etc.

So if a bitch is mated to it's father that would be OK.

Bitches do not"chose"their mates in captive breeding, they will be mated by the most dominat male they encounter. This is the "natural"course of events with stray dogs, yes a bitch could object, but with the"survival"of the fitter, the most dominant male will drive off the other males & therefore be the only male available. To prevent father to daughter or brother to sister matings these male they would have to be removed from the breeding group & this would mean the human was intervening

If dogs are so similar & lacking in diversity, why when one of my BCs contracted Kennel Cough(& nearly died)didn't my other dogs contract it ??? especially the one who was very close to him genetically.

With the best will in the world, no amount of responsible breeding can replicate the rigours of natural selection. Nature chooses mates on the grounds of health, fitness and ability. The strongest. The best hunters. The best fighters. It's how it ensures healty, vigorous and capable subsequent generations. Nature also goes to considerable lengths to avoid inbreeding and there's increasingly good evidence that, when forced into inbreeding because of the lack of available mates, wolves are able to choose mates that are the most genetically different from themselves.

How could this ever compare with us deciding which dog to breed to whom, often on the grounds of looks, and in some breeds with totally artificial assistance (to both mate and whelp)?

We ignore the lessons of nature at our peril.

Jemima

> If dogs are so similar & lacking in diversity, why when one of my BCs contracted Kennel Cough(& nearly died)didn't my other dogs contract it ??? especially the one who was very close to him genetically.

Because your BC's have enough diversity to prevent it.  Keep inbreeding, though, and sooner or later they won't have.  You probably have longer than most with BCs - they have not been KC recognised for that long and they were bred primarily for function before the showring adopted them.

Dogs that are close genetically may in reality be quite genetically diverse from each other.  Statistically, one would expect them to share 50 per cent of their genes. In reality it could be 85 per cent or only 15 per cent. All depends on how the genes are handed down. This is what was interesting about the wolves I alluded to elsewhere. This is a populaton on the Swedish peninsula. There were no neighbouring packs for the young males to disperse to (the way nature maximises genetic diversty), so they were forced to inbreed. But when they looked at the DNA, the wolves were much less inbred than they "should" have been. The reseachers' conclusion was that they were able to choose the mates most genetically different from themselves.

Jemima

> Dogs that are close genetically may in reality be quite genetically diverse from each other.

Why such a big fuss in your programme about closely related dogs being mated then?

Because although individuals may vary considerably, ON AVERAGE, the progeny of, for instance, a full-sib mating will produce puppies who share a quarter of their genes  - producing a COI of 25 per cent.

To put that in perspective, the Swedish KC encourages breeders to not venture above a COI of 6.25 per cent (over 5 generations) - the equivalent of a first cousin marriage. The mating of first-degree relatives is banned.

The fuss about inbreeding is because of the overwhelming evidence that inbreeding causes all kinds of problems.

Wikipedia spells it out simply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Jemima

>A single bout of cat flu could wipe out an entire group of cheetahs because they are so genetically similar.

There's another species which has had a limited and closed gene pool for thousands of years (they're described as being genetically so close as to be the descendents of a single mother and her litter that emerged from a cave at the end of the last Ice Age). Like the Chillingham cattle, they don't seem to be on death's door.

>Wikipedia spells it out simply:

A word to the wise - because Wikipedia is written by anyone with an opinion and no need for knowledge, it cannot be taken seriously as a reference source. In university courses you'd be marked down if you cited Wikipedia as a source.

"in the registered dog population, the onset of large numbers of casual breeders has cooresponded with an increase in the number of genetic illnesses of dogs by not understanding how, why and which traits are inherited. The dog sites indicate that the largest percentage of dog breeders in the US are casual breeders. Therefore the investment in a papered animal,with an expected short term profit, motivates some to ignore the practice of culling. Casual breeders in companion animals often ignore breeding restrictions within their contracts with source companion animal breeders. The casual breeders breed the very culls that a genetics based breeder has released as a pet."

If you want to use Wikipedia, Jemima, how about this bit?  Again - I emphasise my distinction between the ethical and knowledgeable breeder and the "puppy producers" out there - a distinction that you failed to make in your programme.

Were the figures used purely from British dogs?  As bringing over foreign blood will improve this statistic dramatically.  Classic example of inbreeding gone wrong is the Tazmanian Devil.  Devils from the west coast were taken over to the east coast as there was a virulent cancer spreading through the population.  The Devils are such an inbred species due to being nearly wiped out early this century that the cancer could not differentiate between hosts so it spread via bites.  The only way to stop it was to introduce west coast devil's who, due to being in a different location, were genetically different enough that the cancer could be wiped out after a couple of generations.  It was a fascinating programme shown on 5 a while back.  This however is very unlikely to happen to dogs as the Pet Passport Scheme has opened up many gene pools (each country has it's own gene pool).  And the occaisional inbred litter will not do much harm if both parents have been well selected - it may even do some good! 

Indescriminate breeding has caused more problems than inbreeding I think you will find.  And the only inbreeding that may have immunity problems is successive inbreeding over each generation for several generations and on both sides of the family tree NOT the odd one here or there.

ETA: When I say indescriminate I do mean ANY breeding from unhealthy stock (so it can be outcrossing, inbreeding or linebreeding).

So inbreeding is fine, then? Really, the level of denial and self-interest on this list is shocking.

I spent two years exploring the scientific literature on this. The Wikipedia article is accurate enough and keeps it simple. But by all means furnish me with peer-reviewed articles which support an opposing view.

Jemima

I think you are missing the point, Jemima.  You are focusing on the very uncommon practice, as you were told by the KC, of very close inbreeding rather than looking at the more usual practices of responsible breeders who have maintained the majority of breeds in very good health.  Although it would appear that when good stock is used small gene pools do thrive as we have seen in the cattle and cheetah examples given.  You also seem to muddle close breeding with selection of exagerated features which again does not involve most breeds.

>So inbreeding is fine, then?

Not per se. But then, nor is out-crossing fine, per se. It all depends on the genetic and physical health of the individuals concerned.

Close inbreeding, in the pedigree dog world, is very rare.

I neither said it was right or wrong.  Naturally it should be left to the professionals.  It can be done responsibly if there is a need to do it.  And I say again, it is indiscriminate breeding that has caused problems.  Now we have the technology and the know-how to put that right.  I'm not a breeder and I don't show.  I was at one point a Junior Handler though.  But I am very concerned by what I see going on in the dog world at the moment and I feel very much for the good responsible breeders.  Yes there must be health testing, absolutely.  But where on earth did the talk for reducing the number of breeds come from?  That is pretty scary stuff.  So please, do not say I am in denial when it was your programme that denied Joe Public the FULL picture.

And scientific articles are not available to Joe Public - I assume you must be registered and paying a fee to have the access to the papers that are worth the ink they are painted on?  University students have free access due to the license the Uni holds also.  Scientists publish for other scientists to review, the papers and research are owned by the institution that funded the research.  Scientists can't even agree on global warming.  Why are protesters grounding planes at Stanstead when they should be corcking and gagging cows?

Jemima - you do seem to be rather obsessed by in-breeding - a practice that not very many of us actually indulge in! 

In my personal opinion, a degree of inbreeding, done by intelligent, knowledgeable and caring breeders, who have knowledge of the dogs in their dogs' pedigrees, using health tested dogs is probably less of a threat to a breed than indiscriminate breeding done by people who don't health test and have no knowledge of their dogs' ancestors. 

Having said that, it isn't something I've done with my dogs.

Of course I am concerned about inbreeding - and with very good reason. I am aware that only a small number of puppies are born from the actual matings of first-degree relatives but there is, depending on the breed, quite a lot of grandparent/grandchild matings which produces a COI (presuming no prior inbreeding which there almost always is) of 12.5 per cent - twice that recommended by the Swedish Kennel Club. And of course, while there may be few actual first-degree relative matings, there are many more breeding that produce the COI equivalent (i.e. a COI of 25 per cent or more). 

COI is only one measure of potential health and it needs to kept in perspective. A low COI doesn't guarantee a healthy dog and a high COI doesn't guarantee an unhealthy one.  But I do think inbreeding co-efficients should be considered carefully when breeding - ideally worked out over at least five generations (and preferably 10).  I think the perception of this is beginning to change - and I was delighted to see in the FCRS's Code of Ethics that they advise against very close matings. I believe others will follow suit and that will be a good thing overall.

Jemima

Very close matings are advised against anyway as far as I am aware?

Also, I've had it from an inside source that the Swedish Kennel Club is having problems right now, so will see how that pans out in the near future.

> COI is only one measure of potential health and it needs to kept in perspective.

If only you had, Jemima :-)

> Because your BC's have enough diversity to prevent it.  Keep inbreeding, though, and sooner or later they won't have.  You probably have longer than most with BCs - they have not been KC recognised for that long and they were bred primarily for function before the showring adopted them.

my BCs were closely related & line bred to two dogs so that knocks your theory on the head

As for comparing them to wolves-wolf packs are closely related if you had read any of David Mech's research & studies, you who know that the Alpha bitch prevents(not physically obviously but biologically) the lower bitches from ovulating & hence conceiving. The whole wolf pack are the Alpha pair & their offspring. New packs are formed when females & males leave their family pack & it's not just the males that leave it is the females too, they then form a new pack as the Alphas. Not really interested in a one off pack, but in the wolves in North America & Russia certainly do not in breed to any extent. However they are wolves & dogs are not wolves whatever you believe, they split from the ancesters from which dog evolved many 1,000s of years ago. Bitches can only"choose"their own mates if they have unrestricted access to to a wide number of males-if this pack is isolated then the bitches have a genetically limted pool of males to"select"their mates from & as with the street dogs, the strongest & most dominat male will pass on his genes.

Dogs have been a human influenced breed for millenia not just a 100 years or so. I have never been convinced by very close inbreeding(siblings & parents to offspring)but take my breeding ideas from an older generation, grandfather to grand daughter, being the closest I would consider & then outcross with the next generation. This way you can fix the working ability & "type"(referring to Border Collies). Mine have not been bred for looks, but for temperament, health & ability. If I like the "show people"you allege only breeed for looks alone(never met many of them TBH)were only interested in looks then I would own any of my dogs, two of my BCs would be classed as"mismarks"& my older boy, thought classically marked, is smooth coated & therefore not as "chocolate box"as the rough coated dogs & I am not alone in my breeding plans & choices of dogs to own. Sup Ch Wisp was not a classically marked dog(split faced)yet he has many offspring bred because of his ability to pass on tractibility & work drive-he's behind an awful lot of the KC dogs you so despise.

Border Collies will always have a bigger gene pool than KC only breeds because they will always have the ISDS gene pool to dip into-which is my plan-breed my young dog to an ISDS bitch & then breed her daughter to an ISDS dog(subject to complete health testing)

You should to have produced a balanced documentary, shown at least one breed(the Border Collie for example whose breeders do health testing to probably a greater extent than any other breed(inside or outside the KC register))but no it was all bad because that is much better for the TV ratings & resale of your program to earn you money.

BTW the BC may only have been KC recognised in the UK for a few years, but they have been a KC breed in Australia & NZ for much much longer & they inbred their dogs(& still do)to fix the type they require for the showring.

In this country very very close breeding siblings/parents is very rare(in most breeds)by show breeders, the closest would be the half brother & sister. You need to do more reasrch into the Kennel Club databases before announcing to the world that show breeders frequently breed litter mates together-pet breeder, BYB, Puppyfarmers don't give a toss who they mate to who just as long as they get puppies to sell the health tests & pedigrees are of no interest.

The Kennel Club has been doing a lot of unseen( by Joe Public) develpoment of tests both genetic & phyiscal  by proving the funding & the databases.

Let all dogs have a choice of mate & you  will end up with no breeds at all & only dominant dogs would get to breed-truly dominant dogs/bitches are very hard to live with.

I've been watching a fascinating series which included Hyenas. It was interesting that the closest relationship between human & Hyena was with the Omega males & females that had been reared in the facility. The more dominant females would not allow him near their cubs like the bitches he had been involved with since birth

> Wikipedia spells it out simply:

OMG you use wikipedia ????????? anyone can write entries & some are very very inaccurate, can we have some non internet based studies ? from independant scientifical research & not funded by PETA or the likes

> If you want to use Wikipedia, Jemima, how about this bit?  Again - I emphasise my distinction between the ethical and knowledgeable breeder and the "puppy producers" out there - a distinction that you failed to make in your programme.

Very good point & your reply is Jemima ? Not good TV I presume

bertbeagle i was refering to those breeds where it is still in the committee stage and not at the "membership" stage, hence the rest of my paragraph referring to only committee members knowing the details at the early stages!

At Uni if I ever used the word Wikipedia my research was an automatic fail.

>A single bout of cat flu could wipe out an entire group of cheetahs because they are so genetically similar.

Unless they'd been vaccinated against it, of course. Resistance to disease is down to the immune system, not genes. The last flu pandemic didn't only kill people who were genetically similar, and some close family members died whilst others recovered ...

I remember when when parvovirus first struck. Dogs died in their thousands not because they were so close genetically, but because this was a new disease so there was no natural resistance. Vaccination gave susceptible anuimals the level of resistance they needed to survive.

Excellent point JG!  I mentioned the tazmanian devil in another thread which gave a better example of extreme levels of genetic inbreeding and how the damage can be corrected.

"COI is only one measure of potential health and it needs to kept in perspective." quoted from your post, Jemima.

I agree with you there, Jemima, but that is not the impression that your programme gave to the general public.  I don't deny that your programme showed some disturbing scenes that will have disturbed anyone who cares for dogs, but I really don't think that the programme was at all balanced.

My breed (rather obvious from my username) came under attack in the programme.  As a matter of interest, I have had RRs for nearly 25 years (I have been a very successful exhibitor and breeder), and neither I nor any of my friends have ever culled a ridgeless puppy.  You must have spoken to someone in the breed who doesn't cull, but the views of myself and my friends, and I'm pretty sure that we are in the majority, were certainly not reflected.

Well put it this way, if the programme wasnt a sensationalised shock horror story then it would have been put on animal planet or nat geo wild and only us folk would have watched it. There are 2 sides to every story and tabloid jernalism is not the way to go about it. As i see it there are 3 types of breeders.

Breeder A - BYB/Puppy farmer- Breeds father to daughter whatever doesnt care as long as they are puppies produced. No health test nada!
Breeder B - Shows (or not) their dogs, health tests, responsible in puppy placings endorses pups. DOESNT mate bro to sis. I think half brother to sister is the closest i would go whilst being genetically diverse with the rest of the dogs in pedigree. (Champdoggers i hasten to add)
Breeder C - Shows their dogs, breeds them, health tests are irrelivant aslong as more 'show dogs' are produced. They are ignorant of their own doing, dont care about health issues. They may have close breedings again to produce show winner again still ignorant. Very much up thier own backsides and cant possibly be in the wrong!

I think breeder C was highlighted in the programme, this being an old fashioned/outdated and ignorance will soon get the better of her, but whilst she was winning shows and a had a reputation as a breeder i dont think breeder C is the majority of the dog breeders around as you made it out to be. I think maybe it sould be mandatory for the kc to endorse all puppies, and only be lifted when satisfactory health tests have been carried out. After all the majority of pet breeders breeding floss are out to make a quick buck so without Kc you wouldnt get much for them and then KC may now stand for quality. It may have an increase in far more unregistered dogs for a while but when noone buys thier pups because they are not registered aka not quality then they will soon get the idea.
 
(not in reply you GCG i just clicked reply)

> Resistance to disease is down to the immune system, not genes.

And what on earth do you think governs the immune system?

I am surprised by the lack of genetic understanding here. You are dog breeders. You are doing genetics. You need to understand this stuff.

Jemima

Without sounding rude can I ask what qualifications you have on the subjects you mention?

>> Resistance to disease is down to the immune system, not genes.
> And what on earth do you think governs the immune system?

Genes may be a contributing factor but they do not entirely govern it there are a lot more extraneous factors.

> I am surprised by the lack of genetic understanding here. You are dog breeders. You are doing genetics. You need to understand this stuff.

Perhaps you had better offer your qualifications.

> And what on earth do you think governs the immune system?
>
> I am surprised by the lack of genetic understanding here. You are dog breeders. You are doing genetics. You need to understand this stuff.

So all immune system reactions are down to genetics then ?? Nothing to do with being compromized by over vaccination @ all. I not writing of just dogs here, but humans too. In 1969 I had over a very short period of time a cocktail of vaccinations in preparation for me to go overseas to do relief work, along with around 50 others(remember humans are more diverse genetically than dogs)of these people no less that 30 subsequently developed Auto Immune Disease. Does this ring any bells ? I along with the others had horrific reactions to the mutliple vaccinations & have ended up Immune System compromized. Now according to my specializt, my condition is not genetical, but the result of the multiple vaccinations. Does this ring any bells ???

The majority of pet owners religious vaccinate as their vets direct, despite the fact that the Vaccine companies have changed their protocol & advise tri annual vaccinations. My father was one such , person & it resulted in his Cavalier dying within three hours of having his Lepto booster he has compete immune system & organ failure & never left the surgery, dying whilst the vets were helpless nothing at all worked & a subsequent PM directly linked the lepto vax to his death-not his genetic make up at all.

Now according to you this isn't possible so can I ask what medical/veterinary/scientific qualifications you have to come to this conclusion that  only genes affect the immune system

> Nothing to do with being compromized by over vaccination @ all.

and of course vaccinations enhancing the immune system which is rather more to be expected.

Even the genetecists don't all agree on the reason for HD and other illnesses so how do you expect us all to be experts on this?

>And what on earth do you think governs the immune system?

Then how do you explain one identical twin suffering from an immune-related disorder, when the other twin (genetically identical) doesn't?