Crufts 2010: Has the pedigree dog breeding problem been sorted?

By Pete Wedderburn UK Last updated: March 15th, 2010

Yogi, the magnificent Hungarian Vizsla who won "Best in Show" at Crufts yesterday, had been recognised as a prize-winner since his arrival in the UK in the summer of 2005. During the following four years, he produced 827 descendants - 517 (1st generation), 299 (2nd generation) and 11 (3rd generation). In the same period a total of 4977 Vizsla puppies were registered. This means that Yogi sired more than 10 per cent of the newly registered Hungarian Vizslas in the country. His story provides a good example of the way that over-use of the "best dogs" in the pedigree world can end up contributing to a narrow genetic pool, with an increased potential for inherited disease.

The future of Crufts? (Image: Dogs Today)

In fact, the Hungarian Vizsla Club is deeply committed to tackling these types of problems. The club takes a serious and responsible stance, recently expelling a member for breaking their code of best practice and even writing to non-club members if they spot that someone has bred a dog under-age or bred from a bitch on consecutive seasons.  Such dedication to the health of the breed is admirable, and if other breed societies had the same attitude, the health of the nation's dogs would dramatically improve. The rapid turnover of generations in the dog world means that changes can happen surprisingly quickly.

The Crufts dog show is over for another year, but the heated debate about breeding pedigree dogs is showing no sign of going away.  While I was attending Crufts myself on Saturday,  I met both Jemima Harrison (the producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed) and Jeff Sampson, the Kennel Clubs Senior Canine Geneticist, so I was able to hear both sides of the discussion for myself.  In the April edition of Dogs Today magazine, Jemima has written an open letter to the Kennel Club, with nine specific questions. I put these questions to Jeff, and his answers are worth repeating:

1. Outline a broad genetic diversity action plan with specific time-targets. The Kennel Club has recently announced its innovative Mate Select website, which is due to be launched later this year. This will allows breeders to do hypothetical breeding and to assess the impact of a particular mating on the breed and individual, with respect to the level of inbreeding. Each female dog will be submitted independently and the system will work out which available male dog is most genetically compatible, within a selected geographical area. The system will have a "traffic light system",  with red,  amber and green coding to clearly indicate the advisability (or not) of going ahead with breeding between two specific animals.

2. Look at the population structure of every single breed and publish the results. We need to know how bad things are so that the breeds in the most trouble can be prioritised. The Kennel Club has already done this for ten breeds, in a project with the Imperial College in London. The Effective Population Size for each breed was calculated, and was found to be less than fifty for seven out of ten of them.  The Kennel Club seems to take the view that there's little point in focussing resources on more of this work: they know that there's a problem, and the Mate Select system is the way forwards, regardless of the details of each breed.

3. Consider outcrossing as a matter of urgency in very compromised breeds. The Kennel Club maintain that they have accepted outcrossing since 1998 for exceptional cases when genetic diversity is needed. They work with population geneticists at the Animal Health Trust, and they believe that for most breeds there is already enough genetic variation to change problem areas. The Kennel Club feels that it's more important to change the pattern of breed usage. Fewer than 20% of dogs registered go on to breed, so it should be possible to choose from the remaining 80% to deal with genetic issues.

4. Take particular care when taking on new breeds - they should not be accepted onto the Kennel Club register without a broad and sustainable genetic base. Jeff agreed with this point, stating that it's an area where the Kennel Club is paying particular attention.

5. Introduce a basic limit on the percentage of puppies in a breed that any one dog can sire (around five per cent would be reasonable).  However beautiful a Champion sire is, you can have too much of a good thing. Jeff believes that an absolute number would not be appropriate, because breeds vary so much. He  feels that the new Mate Select system will solve this problem, because the so-called "optimum contribution"  will be factored into it. The more a dog is used, the more it will drop down the rankings, moving it from green to amber to red. This system would  be advisory in the beginning, but later the aim would be that it would become mandatory for puppies to be registered.

6. Commission a study looking at litter sizes and other telltale indicators of inbreeding depression. Have litters reduced over time? This is another area where Jeff says work is underway. A Kennel Club scientist is visiting Finland in the near future to research new ways of setting up breed health surveillance. A planned answer includes a questionnaire that goes out to named dogs throughout their lifetime, taking information every year.

7. Calculate co-efficients of inbreeding (COIs) on Kennel Club registration certificates and pedigrees. This is a useful measure to show breeders how inbred their dogs are, and is a service offered automatically by the Swedish and Finnish Kennel Clubs, who allow their pedigree database to be accessed freely via the internet. Jeff believes that the "Kinship Co-efficient" is a more useful measurement than the "Inbreeding co-efficient", and this will be calculated as part of the Mate Select programme.

8. Discourage the mating of second-degree relatives (grandfather/granddaughter, uncle/niece and half-brother to half-sister), as this is still too close. Rather than setting specific limits like this, Jeff believes that the Mate Select system will deal with multiple complex relationships, which will be more detailed and more effective at preventing problems.

9. Ensure that the Kennel Club website, literature and breed health plans contain broad information/guidance regarding genetic diversity, inbreeding and the dangers of popular sires. Jeff believes that all of this information is already on the Kennel Club website.

So Jeff answered all of Jemima's questions with confidence. Can we all breathe a sigh of relief, secure now in the knowledge that the dog breeding problem has been sorted out? There was one proviso with Jeff's answers: most of them involved the future tense: the Mate Select system "will be" etc.  As I said in a previous blog, it can be difficult to judge when changes are really happening, and when the Kennel Club is merely making sounds that are pleasing to the ear. It's only the passage of time that will clarify this.

Source:  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterwedderburn/100029885/crufts-2010-pedigree-dogs-inbreeding/

He had that on his facebook page too. To be honest I think like others we could all mention he is a critic, but nobody offers genuine criticism, which would come with advice and a genuine offer to help. It is easy to be a critic but very hard to put "your money" and for that matter your time "Where your mouth is" or pen/keyboard for that matter.

Most of the critics have never bred a litter of any kind, they do not know and I suspect do not want to know the amount of time and work that goes into getting the dogs health tested, sorting through the pedigrees, the mating, the wait to see if a litter is successful and then the full follow through of the birth, the rearing of the pups, seeing them settled in their new homes and keeping in touch with every puppy they have produced. Rehoming or taking back a dog when things go wrong. So for them it is very easy, because they are "armchair critics" they do not have the worry, the responsibilty or the care of anything, (and I suspect the full knowledge of what a breeder puts into every litter they produce).

I asked Pete if he had learned anything at Crufts and he said he had, but has clearly chosen to continue to sit safely "on the bandwagon" with out offering anything new.

I do find the number of pups sired by this dog alarming considering that the Viszla population is quite small in the UK. Is there any move in progress by the KC to restrict the number of stud services a dog is "allowed" a year?

> So for them it is very easy, because they are "armchair critics" they do not have the worry, the responsibilty or the care of anything, (and I suspect the full knowledge of what a breeder puts into every litter they produce).
>

Oh dont start me off about that group.

There are whole forums writing reams of opinions of what should be done, how it should be done and who is all to blame.
None of them breed dogs, have ever bred dogs and do nothing practical at all....just theorise and critisise.

WOW that is a lot of  bitches that he must have sired??  He may be extremely healthy but how do they know in such a short space of time that his pups will be and especially with different bitches being mated to him?  Hope no problems crop up in the next few years or the breed could have a problem.

We do not breed or choose to rear a litter and well understand the time, involvement and hard work that goes with it - does that make me an 'armchair critic' - and therefore any comments that I might have any less warranted than yours. Yes I might be less informed,  but in the breed we own and love it is unusual to come across a 'healthy' dog that does not have problems including our own. How do you justify that.
The large majority of dog owners are not breeders, they love, choose a breed or heinz 57 and take them into their heart and family, if they then find out the hard painful way - especialy for the dog - the concerns and in many cases the on going problems are we less valid than yourself to raise concerns?

> We do not breed or choose to rear a litter and well understand the time, involvement and hard work that goes with it - does that make me an 'armchair critic'

No it does not make you an armchair critic.

I was referring to the people who rush into print or tv films and do not look at everything that goes into breeding and owning dogs and more usually do not look at what is being done to help breeds like the one you own which has problems.

> The large majority of dog owners are not breeders, they love, choose a breed or heinz 57 and take them into their heart and family, if they then find out the hard painful way - especialy for the dog - the concerns and in many cases the on going problems are we less valid than yourself to raise concerns?

The majority of dog owners do love their chosen dog/breed the same as breeders love their breeds. An example of what I am talking about is on Petes facebook site right now. He says the cats pictured on there were delivered by c section, if this had been a dog there would have been an endless stream of people and I suspect he would have said it first, commenting on the fact that the dog needed to have a c section and they would claim it was because of poor breeding, however as it is a couple of cats all the comments including those from Pete are how lovely and pretty and Pete says they are par excellence! Whats the difference between a pedigree cat having a c section and a pedigree dog?

With regard to the breeding of the vizsla I think the breeders are wrong to over use a popular sire, but I do not go about passing judgement on them. If it were my breed I would be working quietly and with knowledge to persuade the breeders to consider their choices and to breed their dogs with the long term in mind. I definitely would not rush off to slag the breeders off on film or in a magazine or newspaper, as I know these people are doing more harm than good. They create a them and us approach to breeding, which should not be there.

Pet owners and vets have a role to play, but all too often when a breeder has sold a pup and it becomes ill the pet owner hears the vet say "Oh this is the work of the evil dog breeder" What the vet should be saying is, "Ok this is what is wrong now tell the breeder of your pup, so that they can have this vital information to help them re-evaluate their breeding plans and decide how to change that plan to ensure the future health of the breeding lines they are using".

In every litter there are a number of pups who are going to pet homes, and will not be bred from. If a breeder keeps a pup which passes all health tests, but there is a pet puppy which fails and fails badly the breeder will often not know, either because the pet owner does not want to upset the breeder, or the pet hears the vet saying how awful the breeder is to produce this puppy so they do not feel confident to go back to the breeder. In an ideal world every dog born from every litter regardless of whether it is to be bred from, a pet, a show dog or a working dog should be tested and the results recorded where they are accessible to everyone. This would be much more useful to a breeder, a pet owner or a vet, but no good to the "armchair critics" who rush into film or print!

So since my earlier comments were clearly mis-interpreted I hope this clears up a few points, and if you are a pet owner and have a dog which develops a problem that you will always tell the breeder.

I think it's shocking how many times Yogi has been used. I'm not fully aware of what the health problems are in Vizslas, but in certain breeds, some inherited health problems don't show up until the dog is much older. When there is a dog that has been used large amount of times in a short space of time, children from his first litter are still too young to show any problems. If the children from that dog then go onto have their own children and a health problem then shows up, it has a huge affect on the breed. I think there should be measures to control the amount of litters a dog can sire, as this may encourage more selective breeding. If people were limited to 'X' amount of bitches, it might also improve the quality of some breeds as people would turn down those bitches that they feel are not going to produce quality puppies.

Interesting to hear about the mate select system. In our breed, we have a lady who has developed her own database with over 45,000 Wheaten pedigrees on, which you can buy for a small donation toward the Wheaten Health Initiative. This is an excellent tool for planning matings, working out the COI, common ancestors etc..

It would be nice to use those dogs that are in pet homes, but the reality is, it's very difficult to find out what they actually look like if they aren't being shown! I always think there must be a good amount of potential champions that are curled up in front of the fire!

in my breed many breeders use dogs from overseas -  does anyone know if will the KC's 'mate select' will cover this ?

Yvonne

> With regard to the breeding of the vizsla I think the breeders are wrong to over use a popular sire, but I do not go about passing judgement on them.

The thing that people need to remember the dog may have sired around 10% of the current puppy population, but unless his semen is stored and over used (well it can't as it's finite) then he will not continue to sire at that level.  Maybe the Kennel club in the BRS could annotate on each litter showing that it is the 2nd from the bitch the 15th from the dog, so that breeders planning ahead can see which are being used and how often.  Actually they already do regards the bitch, as in brackets it has her DOB, Date of last litter and total number of puppies, so they should put the same for the sire, and it should go on the pups registrations too, so those using the offspring will know too.

Most studs will sire over a couple of years only, often having a Renaissance in senior years as the next generation of bitches not related to him become available.

It is not unusual for an imported dog to be used a fair amount simply because he is new blood at the time.

In my breed for example in 2008 only 55 pups were registered, (and 98 last year), so even my litter one litter of 7 would be more than 10% of the population of that year. 

Harm can only be done if that dogs genes are over sued in line breeding, or if the owners of his offspring have left themselves nowhere else to go.  Also it depends on what proportion of the offspring of a dog/bitch go on to be bred from themselves.  A dog may sire few but very good litters that go on to be sued in the gene pool, where another may sire lots but few breed on, and at the time no breeder knows which will happen.

The male I imported into this country born in 2001 sired 8 litters (litter average 6) in the UK.  If you look at the dogs in the ring at the moment a great many of them will be his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. 

In the future a few people may put two of his descendants together (last year two that both had him as a grandfather were, but both had Imported sires from a different country to him, and their half cousin relationship (the ancestors in the pedigree that had him as sire were only half siblings), is less than is allowable in humans in this country to marry.  Those who have to choose different bloodlines when they come to breed.

I think most breeders with any knowledge do not inbreed over and over again, choosing to do so every few generations to set desired characteristics, usually from an out cross in the first place.

My closely bred young champion bitch (half brother to half sister) has parents both with imported sires from different countries/bloodlines, she will now go out to other bloodlines abroad for her first litter, and any subsequent litters will be by dogs as distantly related to the doubled on bloodlines as available.

> in my breed many breeders use dogs from overseas

Ditto, we have to as our gene pool is about a third of yours, even though the breed was established here in the 1870's

I don't think a journalist is quite the same as an armchair critic.  That's a bit like saying Jeremy Paxman is just an armchair critic of politicians and not a professional in his own right with his own professional standards to be judged by - he doesn't work in the houses of parliament or experience the pressures of a politicians job  because that is not his job, his job is to give them a good kick up the back side when they need it on behalf of Joe Bloggs. 

A journalist has an important role to play in society, their job is to inform the public accurately and also to act as a mouth piece of sorts for the public - it is their job to ask the difficult questions that the public would like answered and also to act as conduits of public pressure. 

A few puppy buyers on their own, or even good breeders it would seem, could not influence the Kennel Club to make the changes it needed to make.  How many breeders could see problems in certain breeds being allowed in the show ring and do nothing about it because the Kennel Club, the breed clubs and the judges were allowing it?  Now that public pressure is being put on the institution of pedigree breeding in this country there should be beneficial changes that could not have been brought about without it.

I for one welcome the information the public is being provided with and the pressure for change being put on the Kennel Club to stand up and be more responsible.  Pedigree dog breeding will benefit in the long run and the temporary competition from "designer breeds" will pass and hopefully some breeds will be saved from serious genetic depression.

There will be very little change for the dogs most people purchase as a pet as so few of them are within the influence and jurisdiction of the Kennel club.

For years hip status among the stock bred by good breeders has been improving, but there are still countless of the most susceptible breeds suffering from HD being bred from untested stock, and the loving owners suffer along with the poor dog.

We have lots of laws that should protect dogs from being overbred in bad conditions,b ut the very people who should be stopping this are giving them licenses to breed.

No-one controls the Back Yard casual breeders, who the Good Dog Bad Dog program called 'Hobby breeders'.  To those I know Hobby breeders are those involved with showing, working and competing with their dogs and who breed to further their canine interests,  Producing puppies just for the pet market isn't hobby breeding.

Otherwise an excellent program and more like it are needed regularly so that people stop buying badly bred puppies.

Until people stop buying the badly bred pups they will continue to be bred as it costs a lot of money and is unprofitable to do it properly.

Don't you think that it is breeders of yesteryear that have made all the health problems to much inbreeding if there had been more outcrosses them maybe the pedigree dogs would be more healthier. I do beleive in health tests.Why do judges allow unhealthy dogs into the show ring. Until the powers that be stop that happening  all the writing about it. Allow show dogs to be bigger them maybe they maybe healthy.

> there should be beneficial changes that could not have been brought about without it.
>

Changes where needed, and development of health testing breeding information etc has been ongoing,a nd the best breeders and breed clubs have been availing themselves of the best practises always.

What that awful program did was not say that there are SOME breeders, and SOME breeds that have become exaggerated and unhealthy (some breeds by their very nature are exaggerations of what is natural), they portrayed every pedigree dog and breeder as being so, and pushed the pet buying public straight into the arms of the very people who most often produced sick,a nd certainly poorly socialised puppies of often doubtful temperament and breed characteristics.

> Allow show dogs to be bigger them maybe they maybe healthy.

I don't understand your reasoning here????

if there had been more outcrosses them maybe the pedigree dogs would be more healthier.
Allow show dogs to be bigger them maybe they maybe healthy.

Definitely not if all the ancestors carry the same problems.  Outcross does NOT mean healthy - nor does large mean healthy. :(

The most unhealthy dogs that I've seen were produced by pet breeders who had no idea what they were doing other than mate a 'pedigree' dog to a 'pedigree' bitch.

I believe the Lowchen breed shows this point well.  It is a pretty healthy breed that stems from very few, but healthy founders.

I was there for the Terrier and Hound day and I must say, I was quite taken aback by some of the Bassets and Bloodhounds as well as some of the Otterhounds. I have Otterhounds which are neither giants nor are they fluffy (fit for function comes to mind, fluffy Otterhounds drown as the coat soaks up the water). I also noticed that alot of judges seem to favour the fluffy giants over the much fitter and oily coated Otterhounds (I've been to quite a few Hound shows not just Crufts).

So perhaps a change of attitude in the judging world would be of help to promote healthier dogs?

I've no idea but maybe the larger, fluffier ones were structurally better and sounder than the smoother smaller ones?  Perhaps the smaller smoother ones had greater faults that weren't apparent from the ringside.  Who knows without putting their hands on the dogs? :)
Although I would look for a correct coat, I would certainly place a sound dog with a fluffy coat above an unsound dog with a correct coat.
I don't criticize judging without asking the judge why they did things, especially if I haven't gone over the dog myself........... there are many problems that cannot be seen from the ringside.

Ahm, the last Hound show I went to, 16 OH's were entered, one of them was fluffy, and he went on to win BoB. ;)

Edited to say: Before anyone thinks I am jealous :-p, I do not show - I was there as an observer purely.

> A journalist has an important role to play in society, their job is to inform the public accurately

And there you have it... Not all journalists are accurate or honest. Most will not report fairly from all sides of a debate, they prefer to simply jump on a bandwagon or simply slag off a group of people who are trying to do something good rather than reporting there are good people and not eveyone is bad.

Bad reporting is bad reporting at best it is sloppy, and at worst it is dangerous, for example look at the media led rants requiring the government to bring in the hideous Dangerous dogs Act legisation.

>if there had been more outcrosses them maybe the pedigree dogs would be more healthier.

Or maybe not, if the outcross wasn't a healthy dog. Outcrossing doesn't create good health, just as inbreeding doesn't create bad health.

I do also I know that bathing can alter a dogs coat texture, and the breed has often been criticised for putting dogs into the ring in a smelly dirty condition.

So could exhibitors efforts to present their dogs in a more acceptable condition actually be at fault and in another week or two the coats would be perfectly fine and weather proof, though untidy and fragrant ;)

I have a breed with an easy care coat, and unless they get very dirty or stained they do not require much bathing.  IN the USA though most exhibitors would.be horrified at the idea of not bathing their dogs the day before or even the day of the show, and doing a lot more to the coats (trimming, chalking etc) than we would find acceptable.  The dogs have often appeared to have incorrect coats, even when they are correct, though of course some do have the wrong coats, because of the wish for them to have more glamorous jackets.

I well remember that post Crufts photo of the Bearded collie Cassie absolutely soaking wet and bedraggled but happy, that appeared in teh Dog Press.

Ahm, the last Hound show I went to, 16 OH's were entered, one of them was fluffy, and he went on to win BoB.
I would make him BOB if he was constructed better than the other 15. :)  To me conformation is far more important than coat - but I'd hope to find good conformation AND a good coat too.  Sometimes that's not possible and the judge can be disappointed.

I spoke to a judge at Crufts and they told me that in some classes they struggled to find what they were looking for - and that was Crufts!

I do also I know that bathing can alter a dogs coat texture, and the breed has often been criticised for putting dogs into the ring in a smelly dirty condition.
Good point Brainless!  Not all exhibitors are good groomers! :)

> Bad reporting is bad reporting at best it is sloppy, and at worst it is dangerous, for example look at the media led rants requiring the government to bring in the hideous Dangerous dogs Act legisation.

True, oh so very true - I had a reporter from the Guardian, he spent ages here, met the dogs, took notes and his photographer took pics. When the article was published, I nearly fainted with anger - I got misquoted at every turn and made me sound like a complete nutter who has filled her house from basement to rafters with Pit Bulls.

Surely if no good dogs are present on the day it would be possible to withhold BoB?

Actually placings and CC's RCC's etc can be withheld, but a BOB must be declared.

See there you go, goes to show how much I know :-p.

To me that makes no sense.

> Actually placings and CC's RCC's etc can be withheld, but a BOB must be declared.

Seriously though I really think it more likely that the dogs coats have been bathed and groomed so that they do not temporarily have the characteristic oiliness which would serve them best in the field, but which is unacceptable to many in the livingroom or the show ring.

Brainless I meant If some of the small dogs have larger heads that may help to make them healthier.
I know outcrosses can have unhealthy ones too. But if you go back in the pedigree and find the have a 6th or 7th ancestor in common & all are healthy & have larger pups isn't better to do outcrosses.

But if you go back in the pedigree and find the have a 6th or 7th ancestor in common & all are healthy & have larger pups isn't better to do outcrosses.

How would you know that all the dogs (and their siblings because if a brother/sister have a problem, then it's possible/probable that the dog in the pedigree will be carrying the same gene) in a 6 or 7 generation pedigree were all healthy?  Unless the breeder had been around the breed or showring for 15 or so years, they wouldn't actually KNOW the dogs at all?

Outcrosses are only as good as each of the dogs involved...........  They may be good in health and type, or they maybe not.  JUST outcrossing doesn't make healthy dogs.  And large also doesn't mean healthy.

>If some of the small dogs have larger heads that may help to make them healthier.

Breeding for larger heads can create whelping problems, which would be highly undesirable.

>> If some of the small dogs have larger heads that may help to make them healthier.

> Breeding for larger heads can create whelping problems, which would be highly undesirable.

Exactly the problem that has occured with some bull breeds for example.

> Changes where needed, and development of health testing breeding information etc has been ongoing, and the best breeders and breed clubs have been availing themselves of the best practises always.
>

Agreed, and this is a good thing.  However, more change and more education is needed in some areas.  Of course there are many good breeders out there who not only care about their breed as a whole but importantly have a sound understanding of genetics and things like genetic bottle necks and the need for diversity. 

However, there are many short-sighted breeders out there who are primarily focused on all the titles they can win with their line. Unfortunately the system of competitive dog shows where only the phenotype of the dog is rewarded has made this attitude profitable (not necessarily in monetary terms but in glory and reputation as well). 

As far as out crossing goes, genetic health is not always about diversity because that can increase the variety of diseases as well as decrease it.  It is about selecting for the right things and dog shows with the emphasis on selecting for phenotype do not always promote selecting for the right things. 

Take the primitive breeds like the Canaan dog, the Tibetan Mastiff and the flock guardian breeds - all of these breeds have recent connections to their natural settings where nature and functionality rather than the look of the dogs has produced long lived healthy breeds with relatively few genetic problems.  This may not be down to genetic diversity as they could have developed in isolated geographic areas because there were no breeders willing to export stud dogs or travel miles with their bitch.  The genetic health is down to dogs being selected for their function and their health because that was what benefited their human partners.  Nowadays the look of the dog plays a significant part in which pedigree dogs are selected for breeding and this has not always produced healthy dogs.

An example of selecting for phenotype being actually harmful I think would be the "correct" coat for Dalmatians, selecting for the spotted rather than just a flecked coat has produced a breed where all dogs carry a recessive gene for high Uric Acid.  I'm not massively well informed on this topic and I'm sure there a Dal breeders here who will correct me on this if I'm wrong but I'm fairly sure the situation is something like this.

I know breed standards are supposed to describe a dogs physical characteristics necessary for its purpose but too much getting hung up on the minutia of the meaning of certain descriptions in breed standards has led to exaggerations in some breeds - GSDs being the perfect example. 

I think it would greatly benefit pedigree dogs if breed standards were relaxed in some cases to allow more otherwise healthy dogs to be considered fit for breeding.  A good thing would be to allow more colours, unless there is a health reason like lack of pigmentation or merle.  Colour really doesn't matter and you can't even use the excuse of it being important in the past function of dogs because bullmastiffs should all be brindle and dark by that standard.  I think it is ridiculous that otherwise healthy dogs are not considered good examples of a breed because they have little white on their chest or their spots are in fact flecks or the black part of their coat is in fact "blue" - this is the really, really stupid side of pedigree dog showing and breeding IMO.

Moving on from the grooming aspect, and how it can change a coat, do you think feeding in a certain can have an affect of a dogs health?

I ask because I have an Africanis, one of the aboriginal breeds. When I first met her she was eating rotten goat skin which she had been hiding for the previous three weeks. Like all her kind she scavenged and ate all sorts of things including rotten meats etc.. So imagine my surprise when bringing her back to the UK she developed allergies and other problems when I fed her the same dried foods my own dogs ate. Changing her back to raw feeding and a mixture of left overs she is now ok again.

Therefore are we causing problems by feeding dogs complete feeds or other ready prepared foods the way we do? Our dogs may not obviously react to the modern highly promoted foods, be it tinned, complete or some other type of prepared food, but could it be that they are being affected with out us realising?

> Our dogs may not obviously react to the modern highly promoted foods, be it tinned, complete or some other type of prepared food, but could it be that they are being affected with out us realising?

I do know that one complete food turned our first Bernese's beautiful black coat orange, looked like a bad henna job! Stopped feeding it and the dog returned to a lovely glossy black!

Polly, interesting - I have tried many many complete dog foods and I 'the dogs' still have the same problem - yeast - I've been told this is due to skin on skin and to complete foods. What are your thoughts. By the way have just got home and read your response to my earlier post and yes we did keep the breeder informed and the answer was always the same - no other problems in the litter - our fault.

> Polly, interesting - I have tried many many complete dog foods and I 'the dogs' still have the same problem - yeast - I've been told this is due to skin on skin and to complete foods. What are your thoughts.

I have very mixed feelings about feeding and do wonder if we have tried to become too scientific in our attempts to find the right balance of vitamins and minerals? When I worked as a kennel assistant in a large breeding kennel (they were mostly like that back in the 1960's, although the standards were very high unlike some commercial kennels today) the dogs were fed on Woffle and something which was a yellowy colour called paunch and Wilsons meal. Most pet dogs if they were lucky had a tin of what ever was handy and some biscuits and of course left overs from family meals. I don't recall seeing so may dogs in the vets with dietary problems back then. Many dogs were "latch key dogs" and obviously raided bins and ate all manner of stuff, we would be desparately worried about (and probably down the vets) if one of our dogs ate the same stuff now. So have we moved too far down the scientific line?

My own dogs get a totally mixed up diet, they have some complete food, some tinned (usually Butchers or one from the vet) they have raw meat, fish, (a favourite being pilchards in tomato sauce) and they have left overs. The only time I have had a dietary problem was when I had a dog who every time I fed him tripe or a food tinned or complete with it as an ingredient he would throw up about half an hour after eating, so I learnt to avoid giving that dog tripe, in the same way I try to avoid foods that I think will make my Africanis sick or have allergy problems.

> By the way have just got home and read your response to my earlier post and yes we did keep the breeder informed and the answer was always the same - no other problems in the litter - our fault.

Seems to me then you had a breeder who was not prepared to help you or look into the problem further. I would be have looked into it, as I want to breed healthy dogs and whether there is a possiblity of it being a breeding problem or an owner created problem I would want to know the answers if possible.

If it did turn out to be a breeders problem then that is something to take on board and follow through treatments as well, simply because it will teach the breeder more about their dogs. If it is a problem created by the owner (this can happen) I would want to know more because I would then advise other owners so that they can avoid a similar situation arising. I would be questioning how good your dogs breeder actually is if they are not interested or not willing to help you with this dog.

It is very upsetting to a good breeder to hear something is wrong with a puppy they have produced, and it is upsetting for an owner too. This is a situation where initally both parties need to be tactful but honest and above all not playing the blame game which sadly I find that is what happens.

A classic example: A friend of mine bred a litter she sold the pups and she always told the new owners to register with a vet and visit with the pup within 48 of getting the pup. The first pup to be sold was taken to the vet who manipulated the pups patellas, then told them they had been sold a puppy with slipping patellas and that this was a a wicked irresponsible uncaring breeder. He further told them to take the pup back and demand their money back. They never questioned the vet.

So they took the pup back raised all kinds of hell over it even though my friend had given the money back and a little extra to pay their vet bill. She then contacted all the other puppy buyers and offered them the choice of having their puppy for free or buying from elsewhere. When I heard about this from a puppy buyer I was very cross on behalf of my friend, because anyone trying to manipulate a patella on a pup of that age is going to cause problems which were not there in the first place.

To reassure my friend I arranged for her to take the whole litter to the Royal Veterinary College to see the specialist there. The specialist looked at the puppies and said there was nothing wrong at all with any of them, but that as one had had it's patella manipulated by a vet who should not have tried to do it on a very yopung puppy, it might have problems.

So the outcome was my friend gave away the litter, and kept the one who had been returned. None of the pups ever had a problem with patellas and the one she eventually kept went on to win in the show ring and as her dogs were primarily working gundogs he also led a very active working life on shoots.

The point being a good breeder will be interested they will just as upset as you are. I don't know what breed you have but I have often found the breed clubs are interested in problems which arise in the breeds. As the KC now require all breeds to have a health committee or health council you should be able to pass back information to them as well, which hopefully will help the breed on a wider scale than just informing your breeder and may even be of help to you and your dog.

Some problems are a 'one off' though so again it might be that the breeder has not had problems and is wondering how or why your pup ended up with problems. I do know some breeders will not face up to their responsibilty but things are changing, the only thing holding them back are the media people who are now doing more harm than good. I read in a magazine one reporter said they were "Keeping watch" how can this be helpful? They have set themselves up as judge and jury, so are not flexible enough to see what is being done and giving praise where it is due. The rule of the 'carrot and the stick' apply to all things, some areas of the media enjoy beating dog breeders and dog owners with a stick, when will they actually learn a carrot is often a better way forward? I suspect never! They are far too well paid and far too self important.

> 5. Introduce a basic limit on the percentage of puppies in a breed that any one dog can sire (around five per cent would be reasonable).  However beautiful a Champion sire is, you can have too much of a good thing. Jeff believes that an absolute number would not be appropriate, because breeds vary so much. He  feels that the new Mate Select system will solve this problem, because the so-called "optimum contribution"  will be factored into it. The more a dog is used, the more it will drop down the rankings, moving it from green to amber to red. This system would  be advisory in the beginning, but later the aim would be that it would become mandatory for puppies to be registered.

A friend has just asked me this:

If a stud dog is restricted then the owners will be more picky, so if you get a top winning dog and he is to be mated he is more likely to mate a top winning bitch. So lesser dogs whose owners want to improve their breeding lines will not be able to and there this could create problems. Pups from the top flight dogs will become more expensive making it a dog only for the richer buyer. It will create a two or more tiered system and in time create further and larger genetic bottle necks in the breeds.

I can see what he means and wondered what everyone else thinks? I have always tried to find the stud dogs not often used in my own breed and do worry that many popular stud dogs in all breeds get used too much. Whether we agree with this or not there are implications which ever way the breeders go.

As I pointed out to somebody once, if you do not allow the owners of less than perfect bitches use your best stud dogs then over time they mate their bitches to lesser dogs and the lesser dogs bad conformation dominates and your correctly made dog is then viewed as being incorrect and you now own the dog whose conformation is considered incorrect and the breeding lines you have denied have dominated the breed and now become the correct confirmation and type. The breed standard is then interpreted in a totally different way with perhaps changes being made to fit the 'new' type.