In her published paper, A Genealogical Survey of Australian Registered Dog Breeds, Claire Wade would have you believe that looking at 4.1 generations of Toller data is enough to get a good idea of what the level of inbreeding is in the breed. I went ahead and looked at ALL the pedigree data available for her own dog, “Burn,” so we can decide if looking at just 4 generations tells us the true story of what’s going on with this dog’s inbreeding.
This is a chart of what I found as I looked at Burn’s COI from 1 Generation all the way up to 12 generations.
Claire Wade's NSDTR "Burn" has a COI of nearly 30%. If you're a fool you might pretend it's lower than that by looking at only a few generations.
COI is a measure of inbreeding in an individual and it’s almost always denoted with the number of generations that are being looked at in the calculation. For example, a COI5 or COI(5) is looking at 5 ancestor generations and only calculating the inbreeding that is seen within those dogs. It ignores consanguinity of any dogs further back in the pedigree for the sake of calculation simplicity. A COI of rank N is intentionally blinded to all dogs in generations N+1 and beyond. Some pedigree software packages treat generation 1 differently, so it’s wise to confirm just how many dogs are being looked at if you’d like to compare COIs calculated by different software packages (some count the individual as generation 1, others count the parents as generation 1).
Why would someone want to intentionally blind themselves to more information? First, the COI calculation is not trivial and doing it by hand is time consuming and arduous for most people. Second, the calculation requires extensive pedigree information that is not always available for many generations. Third, looking at lower N COIs will measure recent inbreeding versus deeper inbreeding.
Am, NSDTRC-US CH Edlyn Seastar Dodge N Burn WC CGC CCD JD "Burn" A Nova Scotia Duck Trolling Retriever owned by biologist Claire Wade.
But let’s not fool ourselves that lower N COIs are better or more accurate or that higher N COIs are trivial. COI calculations are meant to predict the level of homozygosity (doubled up alleles) in an individual due to the same ancestors showing up multiple places in the pedigree. No matter how many generations you look at, the dog’s pedigree and ancestry doesn’t change. Consanguinity has created a certain level of doubling up on alleles in the dog and that will not change if you blind yourself to more distant generations. The more generations you look at, the closer your calculation will approximate the real level of inbreeding present in your dog. That’s why a COI calculation of N+1 is in general always superior to COI(N). More information is always equal to or better than less information.
In practice though, we run across both pedigree collapse and a limit to how far back our knowledge extends. Once we start hitting founder dogs, going back any further generations on those dogs won’t actually give us more information because that information is lost or unknown. If the oldest known ancestor is at most 10 generations back from our current dog, taking a COI(15) won’t really tell us anything that a COI(11) will. But how do we know when our COIs are giving us diminishing returns? Well, we can keep taking higher N COIs until they stop changing much. They might stop changing because we’ve taken into account all known inbreeding or they might stop changing because we’ve run out of useful information, or both.
To illustrate this, I’ve graphed Claire Wade’s pet Toller Burn’s COI over N generations from N=1 to N=12. You can see this chart at the top of the post. Notice how as we look at more generations the COI quickly rises and it doesn’t start to stall until the 10th generation and we don’t see significant change only two generations after that. If you asked me what this dog’s COI was, I’d say at least 28%. There’s really no reason to look at fewer generations as none of those numbers would tell you anything of value.
A pedigree chart of Claire Wade's Toller "Burn" showing pedigree collapse
Now if we look at Burn’s graphic pedigree again, we can see why the COI peters out at 12ish generations: there’s really no more information after that point which can move the COI significantly. Every dog on Burn’s complete pedigree can be traced back to Burn in 11 generations or less. In the following chart, the “Min Gen” column shows the first generation a given ancestor shows up in and the Max Gen shows the last generation they show up in. Count records how many times they show up in the pedigree total. As you can see, all the ancestors show up in 11 generations or less as 11 is the largest number in the Min Gen column.
| Toller Name | COI | Count | Min Gen | Max Gen |
| Edlyn Seastar Dodge N Burn | 28.245% | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Fionavar Javahill Topgun | 25.5433% | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Edlyn’s Picture Perfect | 30.4383% | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Berdia True Blue to Kirchoff | 22.5485% | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Edlyn’s Just In Thyme | 28.0725% | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Landew KD’s Prince of Tides | 29.5426% | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Renarder’s Regina Reverenca | 22.9474% | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Harbourlights Salty Dog | 24.4761% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Westerlea Coast’l Tradewinds | 21.8847% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Lonetree G’s Parklake Sailor | 34.9038% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Fairchilds Nikita | 19.9141% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Westerlea’s Canadian Rockies | 28.9524% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Landew’s Cinnamon Star | 25.136% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Edlyn Secondchance at Roslyn | 31.314% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Westerlea Superstar At Berdia | 29.7271% | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Harbourlights Big Splash | 28.7842% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Landew’s Blue Boar Inn | 31.8234% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Springvale’s Roy’ll Flush | 32.2447% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Harbourlights Im Just Ducky | 24.3835% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Sagewood Copper Prospector | 29.6278% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Danbury’s Southern Fancy | 30.2959% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Westerlea’s Fine and Dandy | 32.9486% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Landew’s Cinnamon Delight | 23.9786% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Drogstas Mio Pa Fairchilds | 23.1443% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Ricky | 32.0734% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Sagewood’s Lonetree Auburn | 34.982% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Benili’s Ghats | 21.56% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Westerlea’s Jane Eyre | 28.9524% | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Boo-Evil of Harbourlights | 24.5239% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Glenmaurs Casey of Elias | 23.9786% | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Cinnstar’s Johnny Walker Red | 23.0059% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Aspen Gold’s Southern Rose | 31.5823% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Jalna’s Zealous Zephyr | 28.0798% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Cinnstar’s Westerlea Redhead | 28.4433% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Westerlea’s Echo of Shelley | 43.612% | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Westerlea’s Digby Schooner | 18.812% | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Sagewood’s Silver Shadow | 34.982% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Ravtassens Micmac | 24.3446% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Riverduck of Drogsta | 24.3835% | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Flyingtollers Ronja | 27.5743% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Drogstas Pomperipossa | 23.0251% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Jalna’s Candida Daniell | 30.443% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Dobirstein’s Golden Dazzle | 21.3002% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Westerlea’s Sagewood Admiral | 35.4466% | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Spike of Harbourlights | 29.3945% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Rip Tide | 22.0001% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Westerlea’s Mountain Echo | 32.4885% | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Westerlea’s Sprig of Holly | 35.4466% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Cinnstar’s Ian of Little River | 28.4433% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Cinnstar’s Western Ptarmigan | 31.8391% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Westerlea’s Audacious Wave | 39.0105% | 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Westerlea’s Tippy Micmac | 35.4466% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Nedgewick | 26.7151% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Birdcherrys Nova | 25.762% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Perky Peppy | 27.4994% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Westerlea’s Golden Glory | 24.6086% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Sheeba | 42.1631% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Jalna’s Gentle Giant | 25.4484% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Jalna’s Tia The Teal Tracker | 25.8635% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Jalna’s Fire Fox | 33.2932% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Jalna’s Onolee Over The Ocean | 19.3871% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Jalna’s Personality Plus | 15.5945% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Laddie Buck | 26.7151% | 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Misty Blue | 17.6758% | 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Foxy Amber | 21.7468% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Chin-Peek Kitt’s Barney | 42.1631% | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Harbourlights Foxy Tawny | 22.8516% | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Mighty Mike | 11.7188% | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Sandycove At Westerlea | 35.7401% | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Fundy Pal | 18.457% | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Fundy Gal | 19.9219% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Harbourlight’s Village Sire | 15.625% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Westerlea’s Bonny Bluenose | 28.599% | 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Nova Nipper | 29.3945% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Hilan Lad of Harbourlights | 22.3022% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Sandycove’s Gold Horizon | 35.7401% | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Ala Gatter | 13.0859% | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Solidaire of Jeffery Coldwell | 20.047% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Westerlea’s Cinnamon Teal | 21.3737% | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Chin-Peek Kel’s Happy Toby | 16.748% | 4 | 6 | 7 |
| Jalna’s Oneka The One N Only | 19.3871% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Liscot’s Turn The Page | 25.4517% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Wabanaki’s Village Vixen | 21.3257% | 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Jennella’s Breton MacNamuir | 25.4517% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Jalna’s Quillo Quest | 15.5945% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Westerlea’s Vital Spark | 35.7401% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Westerlea’s Flying Fox | 21.3737% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Westerlea’s Voyager of Jalna | 21.3737% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Jalna’s Eager Boots | 37.915% | 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Jalna’s Legendary Love | 15.5945% | 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Jalna’s Brazen Brat | 19.3871% | 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Harbourlights Fundy Star | 12.5% | 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Harbourlights Tilly The Toller | 11.7188% | 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Harbourlights Miss Molly | 22.8516% | 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Harbourlight’s Golden Tammie | 19.9219% | 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Westerlea’s Coast To Coast | 29.1992% | 11 | 6 | 8 |
| Harbourlights Red Kali | 27.9297% | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Jalna’s Elegance In Red | 37.915% | 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Tahgahjute of Jeffery Coldwell | 11.8164% | 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Chin-Peek Kel’s Kitty | 35.1563% | 8 | 6 | 8 |
| Westerlea’s Summer Sunset | 21.3737% | 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Westerlea’s First Lieutenant | 24.6586% | 12 | 6 | 8 |
| Sproul’s Earl of Jalna | 18.3594% | 4 | 7 | 8 |
| Jalna’s Enchanted Red Ember | 37.915% | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Jalna’s Red Emperor | 37.915% | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Sproul’s Jennifer Jalna | 22.4976% | 4 | 7 | 8 |
| Westerlea’s Tru Ray Red Rebel | 21.3737% | 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Liscot’s Crown Jewel | 26.0345% | 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Liscot’s Scotia O’ The Glen | 26.0345% | 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Alexander of Schubendorf | 25% | 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Harbourlights Village Sire | 15.625% | 16 | 6 | 9 |
| Harbourlights Scotia Boy | 12.3047% | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Westerlea’s Spring Melody | 21.3562% | 12 | 7 | 9 |
| Green Meadows Buttons & Bows | 15.625% | 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Marlynbar Chukie | 27.3926% | 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Contessa of Jeffery Coldwell | 23.6328% | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| Sproul’s Lady MacGregor | 21.6797% | 4 | 8 | 9 |
| Sproul’s Tantramar Toby | 17.6514% | 4 | 8 | 9 |
| Chin-Peek Tamie | 20.3125% | 8 | 7 | 9 |
| Harbourlights Fundy Bell | 12.5% | 11 | 6 | 9 |
| Harbourlight’s Forever Amber | 19.9219% | 6 | 8 | 9 |
| Westerlea’s Copper Vixen | 21.3737% | 13 | 5 | 9 |
| Sproul’s Angus MacBeth | 16.6748% | 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Schubendorf’s Mandy | 0% | 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Harbourlight’s Happy Hooker | 19.9219% | 4 | 7 | 9 |
| Liscot’s Foxy Lady | 30.4688% | 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Westerlea’s Windsor Lad | 18.8889% | 12 | 7 | 9 |
| Harbourlights Foxy Nisku | 0% | 10 | 6 | 10 |
| Marlynbar Chick | 24.6094% | 2 | 9 | 10 |
| Westerlea’s Scotian Gold | 23.1201% | 12 | 8 | 10 |
| Sproul’s Merry Dancer | 14.0625% | 4 | 9 | 10 |
| Sproul’s Kinsman’s Cedar Fox | 16.6748% | 12 | 8 | 10 |
| Sproul’s Argyle Angel | 35.9375% | 3 | 9 | 10 |
| Westerlea’s White Ensign | 27.3926% | 48 | 6 | 10 |
| Sundrummers Seawitch | 25.3601% | 42 | 6 | 10 |
| Green Meadows Candy Kisses | 15.625% | 10 | 8 | 10 |
| Sproul’s Highland Commander | 35.9375% | 54 | 7 | 11 |
| Sproul’s Tawnee Princess | 16.4063% | 19 | 9 | 11 |
| Shelburne of Jeffery Coldwell | 11.6211% | 60 | 7 | 11 |
| Sproul’s Highland Lassie | 22.8516% | 42 | 7 | 11 |
| Chin-Peek Majour Tyrol | 18.75% | 2 | 10 | 11 |
| Chin-Peek Fancy Red | 20.3125% | 2 | 10 | 11 |
| Crusader of Jeffery Coldwell | 32.6416% | 59 | 7 | 11 |
| Bellboy of Jeffery Coldwell | 24.5605% | 12 | 9 | 11 |
| Alexander MacTavish | 12.5% | 20 | 8 | 11 |
| Sandy MacGregor of Sproul | 14.0625% | 68 | 7 | 12 |
| Danny Boy of Harbour Lights | 15.625% | 75 | 7 | 12 |
| Schubendorf’s Kellie | 0% | 18 | 7 | 12 |
| Bo Diddley of Jeffery Coldwell | 35.9375% | 62 | 8 | 12 |
| Mary Anne of Harbour Lights | 0% | 23 | 8 | 12 |
| Rapunzel of Jeffery Coldwell | 26.3672% | 59 | 8 | 12 |
| Happy Holly of Harbour Lights | 12.5% | 42 | 8 | 12 |
| Chin-Peek Sue Buff | 0% | 10 | 8 | 12 |
| Robie Surf of Glencoe | 18.75% | 87 | 7 | 13 |
| Buff Coldwell of Jeffery | 18.75% | 62 | 9 | 13 |
| Nick’s Foxy Snooper | 15.625% | 75 | 7 | 13 |
| Harbour Lights Autumn Fancy | 15.625% | 129 | 8 | 13 |
| Red Rock Star | 0% | 72 | 8 | 13 |
| Chin-Peek Sandy | 25% | 10 | 9 | 13 |
| Rusty Jeffery of Kemptville | 18.75% | 62 | 9 | 13 |
| Jeffery of Port Williams | 23.6328% | 119 | 8 | 13 |
| Chin-Peek Wee Lady Susan | 18.75% | 71 | 9 | 13 |
| Joggins Foxy Duke | 0% | 87 | 8 | 14 |
| Blond Wokwis of Golden Tessy | 12.5% | 87 | 8 | 14 |
| Tusket Isle Heatherton | 12.5% | 124 | 10 | 14 |
| Schubendorf’s Kitty | 0% | 73 | 10 | 14 |
| Red Russel of Jeffery | 15.625% | 199 | 8 | 14 |
| Florette Jeffery of Overton | 40.625% | 128 | 9 | 14 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Lucky Kim | 0% | 285 | 6 | 15 |
| Green Meadows Golden Tessy | 0% | 87 | 9 | 15 |
| Chin-Peek Star’s Lady | 25% | 199 | 7 | 15 |
| Betty of Schubendorf | 25% | 507 | 7 | 15 |
| Green Meadows Scot of Acadie | 0% | 124 | 11 | 15 |
| Green Meadows Molly of Acadie | 0% | 124 | 11 | 15 |
| Chin-Peek Chip Bar-Mar Car | 31.25% | 130 | 9 | 15 |
| Green Meadows Lac-a-Pac Pal | 0% | 477 | 7 | 15 |
| Green Meadows Tawnee Wakon | 0% | 601 | 8 | 16 |
| Chin-Peek Lim-bo | 25% | 209 | 8 | 16 |
| Chin-Peek Lady Susan | 0% | 258 | 10 | 16 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Star | 25% | 209 | 8 | 16 |
| Chin-Peek Lucky | 25% | 285 | 7 | 16 |
| Pat of Schubendorf | 25% | 756 | 7 | 17 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Belle | 0% | 209 | 9 | 17 |
| Chin-Peek Ginger Julie | 25% | 543 | 8 | 17 |
| Chin-Peek Shep | 0% | 494 | 8 | 17 |
| Schubendorf’s Sandy | 0% | 1432 | 8 | 18 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Taffie | 25% | 543 | 9 | 18 |
| Chin-Peek Golden Kim | 0% | 752 | 9 | 18 |
| Schubendorf’s Lady | 0% | 756 | 8 | 18 |
| Majour of Schubendorf | 0% | 2789 | 8 | 19 |
| Chin-Peek Lassy | 0% | 752 | 9 | 19 |
| Goldie of Schubendorf | 0% | 2695 | 8 | 19 |
| Digger | 0% | 2789 | 9 | 20 |
| Bidewell’s Flip | 0% | 2750 | 9 | 20 |
| Bidewell’s Lady | 0% | 2207 | 9 | 20 |
| Lassie A | 0% | 2789 | 9 | 20 |
| Gem of Green Meadows | 0% | 3594 | 9 | 20 |
| Autumn’s Cinderella | 0% | 3594 | 9 | 20 |
| Bobo | 0% | 2789 | 10 | 21 |
| Buffy | 0% | 3594 | 10 | 21 |
| Buster | 0% | 2750 | 10 | 21 |
| Butch | 0% | 2207 | 10 | 21 |
| Sandy | 0% | 2207 | 10 | 21 |
| Tootsie | 0% | 2750 | 10 | 21 |
| Flash | 0% | 3594 | 10 | 21 |
| Dilly | 0% | 3594 | 10 | 21 |
| Teddy | 0% | 3594 | 10 | 21 |
| Quinnie | 0% | 2789 | 10 | 21 |
| Sassie | 0% | 2789 | 10 | 21 |
| Gunner | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
| Star | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
| Judy | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
| Laddy | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
| Flossy | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
| Sally | 0% | 3594 | 11 | 22 |
While there’s certainly information after the 12th generation, we aren’t adding any new names to the pedigree after that point, just connections between them. Each generation after we’d need to see twice the level of inbreeding just to begin to make a difference on the COI given that there are theoretically twice as many possible breedings each level. Seeing as most paths going back are already dead ends, there’s no way we can keep that up. The few lines that go to 20 generations or more are likely to have already contributed to for/against the COI in a significant way already.
In her published paper, Claire Wade would have you believe that looking at 4.1 generations of Toller data is enough. What do you think now that you’ve seen the whole truth?
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Anton
Christopher
Lawrence Dillard
Lech
Stephanie
Essere
A dingo ate ya tollah.
retrieverman recently posted..The deer hunter’s wolf
Those COI numbers are unbelievable.
retrieverman recently posted..The deer hunter’s wolf
The average in Afghans is 20%.
”
Jess recently posted..Random Doggage: Punk Rock Girl
While 20% is pretty abysmal, I have to say that at least they understand that you need to look at the COI as deeply as possible until it stops changing. That’s a concept that many other breed apologists either don’t understand or intentionally distort.
I read somewhere that you only ‘need’ to do a COI on five generations. I don’t remember where. Five generations can be very misleading.
The Afghan pedigree analysis I have is very enlightening. It even shows how many offspring of the founders contributed to the next generation, and how many of their offspring did. So you can see that although Sirdar of Ghazni produced a LOT of puppies, not a whole lot carried on. Of course back then you had distemper that would kill a lot of puppies.
It is one thing to say, “Oh, breed X had thirty odd founders,” and quite another to see the actual impact of those founders.
Jess recently posted..Random Doggage: Punk Rock Girl
I’m amused at some of the comments by Toller apologists that insist that they get to inflate the number of founders. Well, is it really substantive to call a dog that only produced one recorded offspring a full founder? It’s more like a half founder as only half their genes were passed on anyway. Several of these Toller founders have only one offspring.
Low impact founder 🙂
Jess recently posted..Random Doggage: Punk Rock Girl
I really like this post and how you visualize the data. Because of that I am wondering what the formula is that you use for COI calculations.
The Finnish database (jalostus.kennelliitto.fi) uses one that I don’t feel is acurate enough and I’d like to do some comparative calculations.
I use Pedigree Explorer by Breedmate. http://www.breedmate.com/
It’s what I use to run both COIs and produce the pedigree diagrams and reports. The downloadable version is $80.
Those are horrendous numbers. Your illustration of pedigree collapse is impressive.
Lindsay recently posted..Why My Spayed Shiba is Awesome
Well done! Was just about to ask how you did that strange digarams but you answerd that in the coment above
Good Job!!! This is the kind of information that took you some work, but it is so clear.
How hard would it be for someone to do for another breed? How did you access the older generations in Burn’s pedigree?
Kate Williams recently posted..Where did dogs come from?
All of the Toller data (and that is a complete pedigree) came from:
http://toller-l.org/tollerdata/pedigree.asp?ID=21357
The Border Collie pedigree data came from a variety of sources, there are some open online databases, there are some private online databases, there’s a yahoo group that trades pedigrees, the ABCA can help a little here and there with some of the older pedigrees, and there was extensive old fashioned pedigree work: phone and US post.
One problem I found was that many of the gaps in my BC pedigrees are for breeders who are now dead in registries that are now dead. There’s no reliable backup source. Once you get to the ISDS stock, it’s cake. There are stud books, someone has the information, you can pay Teun v/d Dool for it or whatnot.
But there are chunks of AIBC and NASD pedigrees that aren’t online, the people who had dogs that would have that data in later generations don’t happen to have a the pedigree on a dog that died 35 years ago (some did!), etc.
I have a small list of dead ends, but they are decently far back, more than 10 generations in most cases.
Wow… I really don’t think I have words to describe how I feel right now.
I haven’t read Claire Wade’s paper, but I am definately going to see what she has to say about Burn. =/
The paper actually covers a number of dog breeds and it’s exceptionally misleading in regards to COI, because only one breed had 10 generation equivalents looked at. To illustrate how this can be misleading, I will use the sire of one of my Salukis. Notice how the COI changes with the number of generations.
The COI for his whole pedigree, which goes back twenty-seven generations (these are not complete generations, due to going back to the foundation dogs, and the fact that Salukis have had infusions of COO blood periodically throughout their history in the West), is 32.0%. The average COI for Salukis over twenty-two generations is about 20%, looking at dogs from several representative countries.
Jess recently posted..Random Doggage: Drippy Nose
A friend brought to my attention your blog. I would just like to clear up a couple of misconceptions about this.
First, there is no question of one calculation being right and the other being wrong. Both are correct but very different. The analysis that we did was completed well before the Maki paper was published and Australian tollers were included but were not central. It was designed as a national dog survey and according to standard practice included all registered dogs but did not account for dogs outside of the national registration pedigree. There is no artifice in this. The data are what they are and that was all that we were given to work with. I personally did not tell Dr Shariflou what to do. He was advised in procedure by Professors James and Nicholas. I programmed the kennel behaviour part of the analysis and all breeds were treated equally at every step.
Every toller breeder knows that the dogs have high COI. The high COIs on paper are unavoidable given the founder status. What is shown by our paper is that nobody is out there breeding brothers and sisters together or fathers and daughters. Most modern (>90%) breeders (regardless of breed) follow good genetic practices within the bounds of what they have to work with. The inbreeding is all old. No one is trying to pretend that it doesnt exist.
My review paper on the results of DNA analysis shows that often times what we see on paper doesnt match up with what we observe in the DNA and proposes possible reasons for this. I have spent a lot of time over the past 7 years looking at dog dna.
I guess where I get to with this is wondering what is the point of all this toller bashing? What would you have the breed do? Why do you think that your breed is any better? The DNA shows that they are all much the same regardless of what the pedigrees say. How far back do you know your own human pedigree?
Despite what is said about me I am not a show breeder as I have no kennel prefix, I have one toller, Burn, and showing is the least of my dog Burn’s skills. He is mainly a performance dog and competes most often in agility, obedience and field. He is entered in a field trial this weekend. Yes I care about the breed. No I still dont believe that they should be targeted for a crossbreeding campaign unless the same is done for every breed in a closed registry. Personally I don’t care if other genes get mixed in its just that it won’t accomplish what people claim it will without being done on a large scale. You either have a breed or you dont – that is all there is to it. I say lets do the best we can with what we have.
Greetings Claire,
I think you’re a hack and your Genealogical Survey of Australian Registered Dog Breeds is an embarrassment to your school, your field, and your breed. But that’s just the impression I got from this study, I hope I’m wrong.
I can only imagine that this study designed to make someone feel better about the precarious position most breeds are in and provide “scientific” support to continue the status quo and evidence against the obvious solution to restore genetic diversity: out-crossing.
Your paper was published after the Maki paper was published and you made a special effort to cross-examine the results of the Maki paper, so you were clearly not only aware of the Maki results, you were threatened by them and included additional analysis to cast doubt on the significance of the high level of inbreeding Maki found in Australian (28%) and global (26%) Tollers.
The Tollers received more discussion time than any other breed in your analysis, and they are clearly central to YOU and a source for your bias. They are also incredibly inbred and thus are most likely the source of your fabrication of “new” versus “old” inbreeding discussion.
This is standard practice? HAHAHA. Since when? This is stupidity! The registry you used doesn’t appear to be the original foundation registry for ANY of the dogs you investigated and in the case of Tollers and perhaps many of the other breeds, such data could have easily been acquired and included in the study.
You’ll have to agree with me that the name of the registry issuing a pedigree has no bearing on the health or genetics of the dogs, and that several more generations worth of pedigree history are most certainly contained within the ANKC’s database alone without having to contact any other registry (especially the registries of origin). So the distinction you force, to blind yourself to data outside the ANKC, is an artificial and unnecessary one and it CLEARLY taints your results.
Jesus Claire, you barely looked at 4 generations worth of data and you want to make comparisons with entire species! Are you serious?
This is a lame excuse. If your hands were bound, why make such bold claims? Why would you think you could cross examine the Maki study when you’re clearly looking at a fraction of the data? Toller pedigrees are freely available online and I KNOW that you are aware of this because you’ve uploaded your own dog’s picture to the database!
And I’m not questioning the data, this isn’t a case of two researchers doing independent studies and finding different things, this is a case of your methodology being in every way inferior to the Maki methodology. Why throw away perfectly good data? I’m sure if Maki looked at the same subset of a subset that your study pared itself down to, the results would be the same. I looked at 4 generations for your Burn and there wasn’t much inbreeding. Look 3 more generations and you’re almost at 10%, and 3 more after that and you’re knocking on 30%. Do you REALLY think that’s “old” inbreeding and that your dog is going to benefit by a significant level of natural selection benefits against inbreeding depression? Did you even read the Hinrichs study? How on Earth can you make the claim that 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 generations back are old and not applicable to inbreeding depression when Hinrichs said anything less than 25 generations was “new.” There isn’t 25 generations of Toller pedigrees, so how can you pretend that the inbreeding happened deeper than that?
If you wanted to make an argument about “recent” inbreeding versus deeper inbreeding, why wouldn’t you get as much pedigree data as possible and make a chart like I have, showing the inbreeding levels vs. generations looked at?
Toller breeders might know, but how is anyone who reads your study supposed to know what the 5+ generation inbreeding levels are for these breeds? The only one you mention is Tollers and that’s only because you’re trying to shed doubt on that number’s applicability.
So by saying “on paper” are you implying that Tollers are not at least 20% homozygous? That the COIs do not reflect actual inbreeding levels? What are observed levels of hetero/homozygousity in Tollers?
What’s funny to me is that the only thing distinguishing random Toller x random Toller and brother x sister Toller is ON PAPER! Breeding random Tollers results in the same COI levels as breeding brother x sister or father x daughter in any other non-highly-inbred breed! So it’s funny that you’re pretending that the numbers are lying here. Does genetic disease care if you’re 25% COI from a brother x sister mating in a diverse breed versus 25% COI from a highly inbred breed? The genetic mechanics are the same.
And why ignore other pedigree analysis measures like the loss of total genetic diversity over time? Even Calboli did this despite having limited pedigree history, it was still shown how much diversity was thrown away over only a few generations.
Modern breeders have millions of dogs to work with, those from other countries and other breeds. How can you claim that breeding dogs with 25% COIs and a DISEASE THAT IS NAMED AFTER THEM is “good genetic practice” when the only thing preventing an outcross is political posturing and an undue obsession with “purity” of blood.
As a scientist I’d hope you’d agree that there’s no biological definition of breed, just a political one. There’s nothing biological preventing a decrease in Toller disease and an increase in Toller genetic diversity, there’s only the unwillingness of breeders and breed clubs and registries to act according to good science instead of outdated eugenic precepts.
The inbreeding is NOT all old by any definition. And you are actively trying to do damage control to suppress discussion of the inordinately high inbreeding in your breed and you’re trying to manufacture a counter to inbreeding depression that no one has documented exists where you’re claiming it exists. Plus, you just said that the COI was just high “on paper” … so you actually ARE tying to say that it only exists in theory, not in reality.
Would you care to send me a copy for review? You can upload a PDF in the comments here or e-mail it to me.
Chris thank you for this insight to address how many generations are enough. I have had similiar discussions regarding inbreeding discussions on four generation pedigrees. It may ruffle some feathers but the facts are the facts. A recent pedigree of four generations had a co-efficent of 6.25% however the fifth generation jumped radically. Great work …
Where’s the Toller bashing? I said nothing negative about the breed. Unlike that hack Terrierman, I don’t discount their history or their function or their purpose or their working style. Perhaps you should buddy up Paddy Burns, he even likes your wolf study. ALL of my criticism is about the Toller breeders, inbreeding apologists, and shoddy science. Your persecution complex is rather entertaining, but totally irrelevant to the actual status of your breed.
Outcross.
Um, where have I made any negative comparisons between my breed (Border Collies) and Tollers? If you must know, my breed is larger, healthier, smarter, more agile, prettier, and has open stud books both within the ISDS, the ABCA, and the AKC. But none of that is really relevant. COMPARATIVE health is meaningless, I want healthy dogs, period. Existentially healthy. What good does it do the individual dog enthusiast to have a dog that dies from cancer at 4 years instead of at 2 years old? Is that any way to live? Are you supposed to accept death at 4 years because your breed is comparatively more healthy than another breed? No.
If you take some time to read what I’ve written here, perhaps start with the Health and Genetics category and then read the Border Collie category, you’ll see that I don’t pull any punches in my own breed and when I criticize other breeds it’s often to expose practices that happen (perhaps to a lesser extent) in my own breed for the purpose of preventing my own breed from going down that same road.
If they’re all the same, why not outcross to improve diversity and health outcomes?
You asked the wrong person this question if you’re digging for ignorance. I know my own human pedigree quite far: my paternal line (Haplogroup G2a3) goes back 16,000 years and my maternal line (Haplogroup U4a2f) goes back 25,000 years. I’ve traced my family name line back more than 8 generations to the early 1700s. And here’s the real kicker: I have not and will not have offspring with my sister, mother, or any cousins! Or, anyone who is the genetic equivalent of such.
I agree, every breed in a closed registry should be allowed the use of an appendix registry to bring in new blood: early, often, and all over the gene pool. I have NEVER claimed that small scale out-crossing will be a universal panacea, I have instead stated many times that inbreeding and outcrossing work the same way: you only get as much benefit from it or as much harm from it in proportion to how much you do it. For genetic injections to work they have to start somewhere, they have to be done here and there, now and then, and the only way for that to start is for someone to be bold and lead the way.
I, for one, would NEVER sacrifice the health of my dogs to satisfy the concerns of a registry. My own breeding decisions bear this out, my dogs are an inter-breed but extra-registry outcross between two very different segments of the Border Collie gene pool and I have NO reservations about outcrossing to another breed entirely, and one day will probably do so regardless of the support I get from the AKC or ABCA. I would NEVER demand that I not change just because others are reticent to. I would NEVER subjugate what is RIGHT to what is popular or what is healthy to what is written on some piece of paper in a registry desk somewhere in New York or Sydney or anywhere else.
I’m all for large scale but thoughtful out-crossing for any reason, heck solely for the sake of genetic diversity itself and for all those things we don’t know, all the diseases we don’t have named and all the mutations that are causing health issues under our nose but out of our sphere of knowledge. I’m all for it.
I’m discouraged that you’re pretending that a breed is a species. Not only in your specious comparison to population sizes in your study but in your characterization that “with what we have” implies that dogs are like Cheetahs or Pandas or any of the other inbred and endangered species that have nowhere to outcross too because there are truly no options to bring in new genetic material through natural mating methods. Dogs are in no such predicament. We can outcross at any time.
If not now, when?
Perhaps because I have been associated with (as an active breeder) two rare breeds in Australia – Tollers and Finnish Lapphunds – I was absolutely astonished at one of Claire’s statements, specifically
I know of at least one brother-sister mating with Tollers and likewise with my other breed, Finnish Lapphunds. also with the Lappies, there has been uncle to neice and grandfather to grand-daughter matings.