Inbred lab mice are so healthy you only have to keep them in a sterile bubble and wear biohazard getup just to watch them.
The Pure Blood Brigade™ (licensed for use from Jess Ruffner) will sometimes invoke laboratory mice as the go-to example of a perfectly healthy inbred population. Here’s a quote from NSDTR-apologist and accomplice to Dr. Claire Wade, Dr. Danika Bannasch:
I don’t know if you are familiar with inbred mice. There are 100s of laboratory strains that are completely inbred- ie homozygous at every locus. They breed prolifically and are healthy. They are not living in the wild but neither are domestic dogs.
To verify the health of laboratory mice I went to Jackson Laboratory–the “most important supplier of lab animals to science“–and viewed their “Breeding Strategies for Maintaining Colonies of Laboratory Mice.” The manual claims that the breeding strategies that are used to create inbred lab mice are:
“safe, reliable, economical, efficient, and ensure that the mouse strains produced are genetically well-defined.”
Notice that they don’t claim that the mouse strains produce healthy mice that live long and have good temperaments, they are just genetically well-defined (highly homozygous). Here are snippets which hint at the deep underlying dysfunction that is found in inbred lab mice:
• Reproductive life span. Typically, laboratory mice can breed for about seven to eight months, producing four or more litters (Table 1). However, some strains produce only one or two litters, usually because strain-specific characteristics or mutant phenotype affect their fertility. AKR/J mice (000648) develop leukemia, and breeders must generally be replaced when they are about six months old. C3H/HeJ mice may stop breeding early because they have a high frequency of ovarian cysts and tumors. NOD/ShiLtJ (001976) females may develop diabetes when they are 12 weeks old, but their reproductive lives can be extended with foot pad injections of Freund’s Adjuvant.
• Fertility. Fertility of inbred strains varies. For example, whereas nearly all breeding pairs of C3HeB/FeJ (000658) mice are fertile, less than half of C57L/J (000668) breeder pairs are fertile.
Wild mice breed for up to 24 months. Laboratory mice can breed for only 7-8 months.
Wild mice can have 5-10 litters per year, so 10-20 litters over their two year reproductive lifespan. These lab mice have 1-6 litters, the most popular strains average 3-4 litters.
Average wild mouse litter size is 10-12 pups. The mean litter size of the top 12 most popular lab strains are: 5.4, 5.2, 4.5, 5.0, 5.6, 4.0, 4.7, 7.3, 7.7, 5.8, 6.4, 4.9; so about 5 pups.
• Birth defects in the pups. C57BL/6J (000664) mice tend to have more pups with hydrocephaly than do other strains. A/J (000646) mice tend to have relatively more pups with cleft palates, the incidence of which can be influenced by the uterine environment.
• Hybrid vigor. Hybrid mice tend to have more, larger, and healthier litters than inbred strains.
• Strain-specific behaviors. The aggressive behaviors of some strains and the poor mothering instincts of others affect breeding performance and pup survival. For example, SJL/J (000686) males are aggressive and attack their mates and offspring; NZB/BlNJ (000684) females are poor mothers.
Here we have pretty much the death knell for using lab mice as an excuse to inbreed dogs. Aggressive behaviors and poor mothering are deal breakers for almost any decent dog breeder. Birth defects in many breeds are at epidemic levels, and yet many breeders are so jaded they consider it normal. We should not consider it normal and those of us in healthy breeds should steel our spines against becoming such moral sellouts.
Oh, and hybrid vigor is real. We can reverse this.
Don’t let outcross breeders tell you otherwise, small litter sizes are actually a bonus! Who needs those extra offspring, they are just a hassle.
• Mutations and transgene effects. Some mutations are embryonic lethal; some cause infertility or reduced fertility; some affect mammary gland function. For example the Tg(SOD1*G93A)1Gur transgene (also found in several strains) induces neurodegeneration. The severity of such effects depends on strain background.
If you’ve been reading this blog for any amount of time you should be well aware of the embryonic lethal mutations that are prevalent in certain breeds of dog. Many of these have been identified because they associate with a marked phenotype change of interest such as merle or bobtail. How many more exist that do not have a visible phenotype?
• Feed. Some strains of mice have bad teeth, no teeth, or other phenotypes that affect their ability to eat grain pellets. These mice need special foods, such as ground or dampened grain.
Does this remind you of the poor dentition we see in several toy breeds and especially hairless dogs?
Females of some strains are poor mothers (e.g., NZB/BlNJ, 000684) or cannot nurse, and a few mutations, such as toxic milk (Atp7btx) and lethal milk (Slc30a4lm), render the mother’s milk harmful to her pups.
I wonder if those toxic and lethal milk mothers were intentionally bred to have harmful milk or if those are just known side effects of strains used for other kids of research.
Some strains are so screwed up they are only viable by transplanting the ovaries of the inbred mice into healthier females:
Some strains are best maintained by ovarian transplantation. Homozygous B6C3Fe a/a-Csf1op/J (000231) females fail to lactate, and homozygotes of both genders are extremely fragile. Therefore, we transplant ovaries from a homozygous (op/op) female into a recipient female of a histocompatible strain. To quickly expand the colony, the donor ovaries may be quartered and each quarter ovary transplanted into a ovariectomized recipient female. We also maintain B6.V-Lepob/J mice (000632) by ovarian transplantation because, though the females produce functional gametes, they cannot sustain a productive pregnancy. Additionally, we maintain colonies of B6CBA-Tg(HDexon1)62Gpb/1J (002810), B6CBA-Tg(HDexon1)62Gpb/2J (004601), and B6CBA-Tg(HDexon1)62Gpb/3J,(006494) by ovarian transplantation to extend the breeding lifespans of the females. Although these females produce viable oocytes for a long time, they develop a progressive neurological disease that renders them physically incapable of mating or sustaining a pregnancy.
Fantastically healthy, no?
Don’t worry, not all inbred lab mice are satanic albino demons, some are really cute! And that makes everything ok.
But all is not lost, the manual provides some advice on how to maintain an outbred colony to turn to if your inbred strain crashes and burns.
Maintaining Outbred Stocks
The genomic diversity of individual outbred mice contrasts directly with the genetic identity among individual mice of an inbred strain. To maintain genetic diversity in an outbred colony, matings between related individuals should be avoided; however, some inbreeding may be inevitable over time in any relatively small, closed outbred colony.
Therefore, the following should be considered when establishing an outbred colony:
• Use numerous, genetically diverse founder mice
• Use a defined breeding scheme that is designed to minimize inbreeding: Several different outbred breeding program have been described (see Berry & Linder, 2007)
• While random breeding — using a random number table or computer program to select breeders — can be used, random breeding will result in occasional matings between closely related individuals
• Keep the colony at a minimum size of approximately 25 breeder males per generation
So if you’re interested in breeding dogs that burn out young, are riddled with disease, have nasty temperament issues, have trouble conceiving, develop horrible diseases young, etc., then believe that you too can develop an inbred strain and it’ll all turn out just dandy, just like those inbred lab mice. Just be sure to buy yourself a nice dog bubble and some bio-hazard gear to wear around your dog while you keep it in a perfectly sterile environment after burying a truck load of its siblings and ancestors who died in the process of making your inbred little mess.
* * *
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.
* * *
I wonder if you can find this same info on the highly inbred strains of laboratory beagles and coyotes.
I saw a documentary years ago about the lions that live inside the Ngorongoro Crater. No new blood has entered that population in decades, and there were several females that had no mothering skills and tried to eat the cubs of their sisters. These females were exiled from the population. Female lions do kill cubs of relatives, usually over fights over kills, but these defective females went out of their way to kill cubs, almost like what happens when male lions take over a new pride.
Retrieverman recently posted..Pelicans and flying devil rays
Observations and experience addressing ROM matador breedings in collies for decades parallel with common denominators to reproduction issues and health issues from my personal studies. Chris makes a great case for the lack of genetic diversity. I see no one coming up with an intelligent argument? KathyBittorf
There are also a ton of studies on inbred and outbred deer mice that show how this stuff works.
This is my fave:
http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Schwartz_and_Mills_mouse_geneflow/Schwartz_and_Mills_mouse_geneflow.pdf
Retrieverman recently posted..Pelicans and flying devil rays
“After three generations of sib-sib matings, offspring from each line (8 lines total) had an inbreeding coefficient of 0.375 (Fig. 1). During this inbreeding procedure five lines stopped producing offspring.”
In just three generations. Interesting.
Jess recently posted..Tazis, Tazis, Everywhere
And in a rodent species that doesn’t travel very far from where it’s born.
I guess, just with everything else, it depends upon which genes are lost.
Retrieverman recently posted..Pelicans and flying devil rays
And which ones they start out with.
What I don’t understand, is why dog breeders are sooooo cautious about adding new genes (what if outcrossing brings in diseases, oh noes!) but so cavalier about losing genes. There are so many examples of problems with gene loss due to close breeding. How many examples are there of bringing a ‘new’ disease into established lines? Is it just clinging to what they know? It is denial because to admit that we should be cautious means they’ve been doing something that is potentially harmful?
Jess recently posted..Tazis, Tazis, Everywhere
I have read that PRA in flat-coated retriever came from someone clandestinely crossing with Labradors.
I don’t know if I believe it.
I don’t know if flat-coats have the same variant as Labrador retrievers.
And you’d have smooth-coated dogs in your first cross with a Labrador. They would all likely be smooths.
But that’s one argument I’ve had thrown at me for keeping flat-coated retriever pure, even though they fit within the golden retriever breed in terms of their DNA.
Retrieverman recently posted..Pelicans and flying devil rays
That’s moronic. You know why? Because Goldens have prcd-PRA.
And Flatcoats are a subset of Goldens.
The problem I have with this kind of ‘ooooohnewdiseases’ thinking, is we have no way to quantify the risk. What is the risk of inbreeding depression? What is the risk of higher rates of disease due to contraction of the gene pool? What is the risk of bringing in a problem with an outcross? Chris is the numbers guy, maybe he will chime in with what he thinks.
I think if you look at breeds with an open studbook (those that accept COO dogs are a prime example, and it isn’t just Salukis) you will see that the risk of bringing in ‘new’ disease is probably very small. If you are crossing into a breed with known disease you can avoid those for the most part by carefully picking breeding stock. Stack the deck, exactly as we do with a ‘pure’ breeding.
But, we have no way to know how contraction of the gene pool is going to play out. This, to me, is a bigger, and scarier, unknown than new diseases, simply because once genes are gone, YOU CANNOT GET THEM BACK. You cannot pick and choose all the genes you are throwing away. Which is the most rational choice? Avoid outcrossing, or avoid gene loss?
Jess recently posted..Tazis, Tazis, Everywhere
I think one reason breeders refuse to outcross is all because of the “game” of breeding.
After all; someone will have an unfair advantage by bringing in a dog of completely different lineage into their line. They should have to achieve a perfect specimen from the same stock everyone else has. It’s only fair. /sarcasim
Pennypup recently posted..Happy Holidays!
One theory of mine is that they can’t understand the difference between infectious disease and inbred disease.
Another is that they are penny pinching test Nazis and that having something else to test for, even if it’s very rare in the breed, would be a burden they don’t want. I think these people are going to have to change their minds as more tests become available. They’ll never be able to keep up unless a company starts offering a comprehensive test for a reasonable price.
One-gene tests are not economical.
They mention a protocol for outbreeding. Has anyone seen that Barry and lindnor 2007 protocol? How could such a thing be applied to dogs?
Kate Williams recently posted..Name the Species
This is what you are looking for:
Berry ML, Linder CC. 2007. Breeding Systems: Considerations, Genetic Fundamentals, Genetic Background, and Strain Types.
In: Mouse in Biomedical Research, 2nd ed Vol 1.Fox J, Barthold S, Davisson MT, Newcomer C, Quimby F, Smith A (eds.), Elsevier Inc, pp 53-78.
Jess recently posted..Tazis, Tazis, Everywhere
This may also be of interest:
http://www.criver.com/sitecollectiondocuments/rm_gt_r_genetic_management_outbred_rodent.pdf
Jess recently posted..Tazis, Tazis, Everywhere
where a test exists, it’s possible to avoid a problem in bringing in dogs outside a registry into a breed. And it’s actually been done (Malamutes following WWII being an example). Probably one of the reasons Belgians survived is that the registry was “open” following WWI & WWII. Now most of the dogs “brought in” were probably off color or otherwise of known pedigree but some weren’t. The problem is that when you DON’T know or Can’t test, you can in fact bring in a problem and then, if the registry is thereafter closed again, you get stuck with whatever was brought in. The “silken windhound” (or “longhaired whippet” is the result of crossing whippets to shelties. And they got the MDRI gene by sheer bad luck. Now there is a test for MDRI so it can be reduced/eliminated over time, but one cannot assert that this doesn’t happen, as it does.
Would it be possible to simply have “generic retrievers” and lump all goldens, labs, flatcoats, curly coats, etc together? sure. Ditto for spaniels. But I suspect some might resist, not because they are “kennel blind” or ignorant, but because they do in fact find the various individual characteristics of each breed worth preserving. I think the issue is finding 1. what are the issues for the given breed 2. is the mode of inheritance known? even better, is there a DNA test? 3. Is there a minimum size gene pool that would be reasonably “stable” following a cross? It would be much easier to create a healthy population of German Shepherds (really. The conformation dogs are not the only ones out there and there are a lot of German Shepherds, including “grade” German shepherds, that would be useable to establish a viable gene pool with a reasonably low COI). Maybe not so easy with say, Briards. There will always be those who want to maintain “status quo”. But there are also those who would, if assisted, be happy to use “grade” dogs (I’m using the term as “looks pretty much like, no papers, same as grade sheep breeds or horse breeds) or do a cross. The trick is to find a way to avoid the kind of delay that the LUA Dalmations had or the kind of “it’s not the same breed” that one sees in racing/show greyhounds.
Peggy Richter
This concern is so over-stated it’s ridiculous. If you bring in one new sire who has some new deleterious recessives, the only time they are going to show up is when you INBREED on him. This is a problem of inbreeding, not of outcrossing. The entire point of outcrossing is to promote heterozygosity.
Something like this could very well happen in Isle Royale, where the new wolf might have some deleterious recessive that isn’t in the island population and since he totally dominated it and then they went right back to inbreeding, they will likely get doubled up on. This is, again, inbreeding stupidity. Not outcrossing stupidity.
You don’t make your breed healthy by only cutting out genes. You first make it larger before you go about the cutting. This is only logical.
The example with the Silken Windhounds is totally off point. The MDR1 gene didn’t take over this new breed because of one unlucky outcross, it happened because it was endemic in one or both of the parent breeds, and I imagine that if I looked at the documentation on how this breed was made we’d find horrible amounts of inbreeding and really stupid selection criteria. Few founders who already highly related with very high rates of this MDR1 gene anyway. I’m in no way surprised that it showed up in this breed, but I’ll bet that the rules of genetic dilution still apply. If it was only the Sheltie half that had MDR1 and it wasn’t selected for and the shelties in the breed were representative of the greater sheltie gene pool, I’ll bet MDR1 isn’t as big of a problem in the hybrid than in Shelties.
Solutions for example to high number of collie population with CEA. Now–
Studies revealed on micropthalmia, catracts, and colobomas are grouped into severe expressions of CEA calling them “merle ocular dysgenesis” Polygenetic!!!
This leads to CEA in more severe expressions being the results of a polygenetic expression not a simple deleterious autosomal recessive postualtion. It would seem in some breeds such as collies the marker is not totally proven to be 100% affective breeding tool?
Now how many are aware the gene marker might not be holding for them?
As Optimologist examination for the conditions of merle ocular dysgenesis inheritance issues should be practiced every year or two year has been my answer to inquiry at Optigen a few months ago. Kathy Bittorf
christopher said: This concern is so over-stated it’s ridiculous. If you bring in one new sire who has some new deleterious recessives, the only time they are going to show up is when you INBREED on him. — then please explain to me the MDRI genetic trail which ended up being rare in BCs but common in Aussies. is the one more “inbred” than the other? Or was it simply the case that the dogs that were used in pre “studbook” Aussies just happened to have the bad luck to carry for MDRI? And then, once the stud book was essentially closed (actually, ASCA had “hardship registry” off and on until quite recently), you are stuck with, if not “inbreeding” then “linebreeding” for a “Founders effect” situation, even if the COI is at acceptable levels. It does NOT take close inbreeding. It takes time and a closed gene pool. And no test (who knew before the advent of ivermect and some of the anesthesias that MDRI even existed?)
“You first make it larger before you go about the cutting. This is only logical.” — yes. How large is “large enough?” The 49 per year dogs of the Sealyham terrier? the 1000 or less per year Belgian Sheepdogs? Do you need to combine Briard and Beauceron back together to have a large enough sustainable gene pool — or a constant, if limited, “appendix” / “open” registry?
The Silken Windhounds got MDRI from one or more shelties that were used to get the coat and some of the other characteristics. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/32/11725.long
A high frequency in the Collie and the Longhaired Whippet suggested a founder effect for each breed — which is my point. It didn’t need “inbreeding”. It need several dogs which carried for the MDRI gene to be involved and then whose offspring were kept in the gene pool and used over several generations. as for “stupid decisions” — so who is going to decide which decisions are smart and which aren’t? The LHWhippet has a higher incidence of MDRI than whippets (who may have zero). Did the breeders INTEND for MDRI? heck no. It came “along for the ride”. When I looked into crossing Belgian Sheepdog with Altdeucher, I was warned that several crosses of Altdeucher with other breeds had resulted in higher incidence of epilepsy, temperament issues and structural problems even though the dogs in question had been tested prior to crosses being made (no test for epilepsy obviously, but hips, etc were done). My point is that you cannot improve health in breed A by simply going out and using breed B once or twice (or even combining breed A and B — say, recombining Goldens and Flat coats) and expecting this sort of thing to “work”. You need to be more careful than that. And THAT requires either someone who is an expert in the genetics and tests available for both subject breeds or a good solid relationship with a university willing to help track and test. AND it requires more than one or two crosses. This is why I tend to prefer the idea of “appendix” registries than “open registries” or just asserting that an outcross or so will solve the problems of a given breed. IMO you first need to know what you are trying to eliminate (or reduce), and how it is transmitted. If you are trying to eliminate a cancer and it turns out (as it did with cats) that it is an enviornmental thing (such as vaccine-associated sarcoma (VAS) you are wasting time. If it is something like reducing “Merle Ocular Dysgenesis” eliminating the merle gene would solve any issue of ever having homozygous merle dogs. Or for that matter, any of the heterozygous merle problems. But if there is no way to detect the problem either visually (merle) or DNA (PRA tests), I still think one is premature in doing crossings. You have to know what the heck you are doing before you go forth and do it. There is no 100% solution, but I think the push must be to encourage universities to work WITH breeders(as is happening with some like the Finn spitz) to develop a test and do careful, limited outcrosses and to find homes for those who are excluded from future use. The LUA Dal and the NBT boxer examples both had a number of “excluded from future use” dogs — and in this day and age of mandatory spay/neuter of mixes (or even non “trial”/”show” dogs in some areas), you’d want to be sure and have some means of doing this right. If it were SIMPLE, I expect at least some would have done this stuff clandestinely as I’m certain some “the dog on the pedigree isn’t the real parent” has gone on for non health issues.
Peggy Richter
MDR1 mutant/mutants in Collies as well have been alarming high. The original studies were from the results of ten collie breeders that ultimately led to gene marker. The senitivity testing group was bred from collies to test postulations.
Remember when Lassie was on the package?
Bob Weatherwax, cooperated when he learned Collies were dying in great numbers from Ivermectin. His bloodlines had no problems with the chemical. If I remember correctly more than 50% of all collies were either normal/mutant or /mutant.
Eliminating white merle registrations in collies could likely effectively reduce merle ocular degenesis. Another solution that DNA marker and eye exam accompany any registration of white merles since old theory breeding claims. Heavily used stud ROM’s being tested could likewise bring solutions to CEA, MDR1, and merle ocular degenesis, It seems that an eye structure deletion in breeds with merle affected of tapetum lucidum is commonly seen by opthalmologist from my personal studies. This is the refective surface of back of eye and can result in night blindness and some breeds recording issues of the colon with condition? We understand there is relationship to a sub-albinism, but reported as a condition of in merles. Thus far there seems not much will to change. kATHY Bittorf
“A high frequency in the Collie and the Longhaired Whippet suggested a founder effect for each breed — which is my point. It didn’t need “inbreeding”.”
A founder effect is analogous to inbreeding, since you can’t get one *without* inbreeding on one or more founders.
“This is why I tend to prefer the idea of “appendix” registries than “open registries” or just asserting that an outcross or so will solve the problems of a given breed.”
An appendix registry is an open registry. How open depends on the registry. Some cat breeds have accepted outcrosses. This is still an open registry, the window just isn’t as wide as if all outcrosses were accepted.
Jess recently posted..CynoAnarchist VS the Dog Fancy, or the Atheist Bitch and the Doggy Creationists
Jess: “A founder effect is analogous to inbreeding, since you can’t get one *without* inbreeding on one or more founders”
==depends on what you mean by “inbreeding”. take 4 founding sires and 100 founding bitches — you don’t need to have a high COI if you have one of those 4 with MDRI. ALL closed registries are “inbreeding” to some degree. All it takes is a small enough # of breeders and insufficent time for mutation of the gene involved. That’s how new species form. A “founder’s effect” (they don’t have to be detrimental. A mutation or gene carried by one of the initial animals that is intentionally or inadvertently selected for. If you inbreed and don’t select against the characteristic, yes, it spreads faster, but it is NOT required to inbreed. Given that virtually EVERY breed has had a smallish number of “founding dogs”, you get a “founder’s effect” in almost all of them. Some are benign (brindle in Dutch shepherds vice Belgians) Some are probably beneficial for a particular need (Morgan horse, Booroola Merino) and some, like MDRI, are eventually found to be detrimental (MDRI probably would have been considered benign in the 1800s since the drugs involved didn’t exist).
I consider there to be a difference between a fully open registry, an appendix registry and a closed registry. In the first, you could register any dog, or any dog that “resembled” the criteria sufficently (registry of merit in BCs and the old hardship registry in ASCA are this type). Once registered, these dogs may be utilized exactly like any other dog in the breed. In an appendix registry, you are restricted (usually 3 generations, but I’ve heard of 5) — your F1 animals must be bred to a registered animal, your F2s must also be bred to a registered animal. This kind of registry exists in a lot of sheep breeds and has been used in Belgians occasionally. A closed registry only allows those whose parents were officially “in the stud book” to be registered. In reality of course, there is the occasional illicit animal used even in closed registries. DNA checks make this harder, but probably not yet “impossible”. If one is not concerned with registries (as with my sheep), of course one can breed whatever to whatever, but it’s pretty much of a challenge to obtain, say, the length, strength and lustre of Cotswold wool in mixed breed sheep. And I suspect that if you achieved it, you’d have a “founders effect” of genes from Cotswolds (one or a number) used in doing it. It certainly seems to be the case in breeds of sheep based on other breeds being mixed like the Polypay.
“depends on what you mean by “inbreeding”.”
All closed populations are maintained by inbreeding. It doesn’t matter that the COI is reduced later on, it doesn’t matter that the dogs are second cousins twice removed, or brother and sister, all breeding within a closed population is inbreeding. Period. The distinction that dog breeders make between ‘line breeding’ and ‘in breeding’ is basically bullshit so it doesn’t sound quite so bad.
In order for a founder to ‘effect’ a large number of dogs with anything other than a dominant gene, HE MUST BE INBRED ON so that he has a large ancestor impact.
Your statement: “A high frequency in the Collie and the Longhaired Whippet suggested a founder effect for each breed — which is my point. It didn’t need “inbreeding”.” is incorrect.
“I consider there to be a difference between a fully open registry, an appendix registry and a closed registry.”
What *you* consider doesn’t matter. Whether a registry will accept and register any dog that looks like a breed, or has a process like SPDBS where it takes a few generations for full registration, the registry is still ‘open’ to new blood.
You seem to be putting a strange personal spin on terms that are already well-defined.
Jess recently posted..Cooking with Jess: Make a Purebred in Four Easy Steps
The ABCA and ISDS are not fully open registries. They are not even moderately open and the data reflects this. ROM dogs do not make a significant impact.
One you have a large enough population of dogs there’s minimal impact anyways unless the dog is heavily inbred on, and that would rather defeat the purpose behind introducing new blood, wouldn’t it? Look at the LUA Dals, they could have produced lots of LUA dog very quickly but that would have involved inbreeding on the initial dogs.
I look at open registries as opportunities for the individuals that go ahead and use them.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
A bottleneck effect is still inbreeding. Why? The option of bringing in other dogs into the gene pool is and was always there.
The choice to close the studbook is a cultural choice; biologically, we would call the after-effect of closing the studbooks: inbreeding.
So Ashkenazi and Cajuns are “inbred”?
http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/tay-sachs.htm
In average humans, taysachs is 1 in about 250. In Ashkenazi, it’s 1 in 27. There are similar disorders among various cultural groups. Some are “inbred” (like the Amish) but many would probably have what is considered a reasonable “COI”. They have, as it were, a “closed studbook” because of yep, cultural choice. Research has indicated that people tend to make such “cultural choices” — choosing among those physically and culturally similar more often than not. So we do the same in animals. We select for “desired traits”. On one of the other blog articles, the issue of Dilated cardiomyopathy(DCM) in Dobermans was mentioned and several breeds were stipulated to have a “higher than average” incidence than “random bred dogs”. Yep. Do racing greyhounds have a higher than average DCM or a lower than average incidence? How about whippets? Both greyhounds and whippets were selected for racing capacity, which generally selects for good hearts. If one claims that purebreds have “more DCM” is one looking at ALL purebreds or only the select group that happens to have that particular disorder? I agree that many purebreds have been breed with little (or no) regard for various health issues. Because they have closed studbooks, any detrimental mutation can become established. But how many “other dogs” need to be brought in to “dilute” the incidence to “average”? 10%? 20%, 80%? If one selects for “function”, you get certain characteristics. Milking cows are bred for “function” of more & longer milk yields. Now there is probably a good deal less interest if they have good hearing, eyesight or even if they can run as well as say, feral Texas longhorns. If you want to have good milk yields, you are going to be selecting (bottleneck) from among those cows, related or not, that have the genetics for good milk and NOT those that necessarily can run well. And a big udder probably precludes running well. I don’t think any Doberman breeder WANTS DCM. The breed club seems to be working pretty hard to reduce the incidence within the breed. And probably MORE Dobermans who are NOT show dogs are out there than ones who ARE, so the bench criteria can’t really be used as the reason for DCM. Could Dobermans breed to Beaucerons, German Coolies or Rottweilers? sure. Would that reduce DCM? maybe. But unless you had “enough” (back to that 10%, 20%, 80% question), you’d have to KEEP doing that to keep the incidence down unless one had some test to eliminate carriers and producers. The question is if the COI of Dobermans is such that it could be done within the breed as easily as without. Dobermans from say, East Germany, or Poland would likely have pretty different ancestors than those in the UK, USA or Australia. And not just “show” dogs — but all those pet dogs that in the US, are being pushed into being spayed and neutered. In fact, breed diversity and low COI is a very good reason to NOT spay/neuter all “pets” but to actually encourage those who aren’t selecting for “the best of the best” in some competition forum to retain genetic characteristics NOT found in the competition dogs.
Yes, Ashkenazi, Cajuns, Fundy Mormons, Amish, Arabs in the UK, etc. are inbred.
Perhaps you’d like to review these posts where I talk about rising inbreeding (specifically homozygosity) without excessive apparent close breeding:
Impending Doom
and
Only 8 Border Collies
and
The BC Bottleneck
and
Virtual Immortality
and others.
Sorry, but you’re wandering around and the brick of text is annoying to parse.
Ashkenazi could be very outbred and have autosomal diversity, but they likely fail one of the many sorts of diversity because they have high rates of inter-community diseases that are very very rare outside. I recall reading that according to some studies they have greater autosomal diversity than other Europeans but they have very poor mitochondrial diversity.
I don’t understand what you’re even arguing about. Are you against outcrossing or for it? Are you part of the pureblood brigade or not?
Dobermans can not solve their problem within the breed. The genes for CDM are saturated. It’s stupid to think that it can be done within the breed as without. Why bother? Getting back to type is very easy, why not use unrelated dogs and bring in a lot more diversity than some silly plan that is doomed to fail. It’s not easy to find any Dobes that don’t have the disease and those that currently don’t have it are likely to get it. It kills what, 50% of them? How many of the others are undiagnosed, carriers, or sub-clinical?
Why do you think that breed boundaries are so special? Why should it be a concern at all to cross them regularly? Why did we get to do this all the time a century ago and now it’s suddenly forbidden?
For what benefit. You can’t tell me a single breed that’s better off for this.
I’ve read them. So are African Americans “inbred”? They have higher blood pressure based on genetics (at least in part). http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/hypertension-in-african-americans. If they are, then what is NOT inbred? All animal species (and sub species) derive from a relatively small group of “founder” animals that were genetically isolated from their near relatives. There’s some evidence that humans went through a “bottleneck” approximately c. 70,000 years ago. Is Homo Sapiens “inbred”? If the bottleneck occurred, and only “15,000 individuals” survived, it would certainly be reasonable to say that at one time they certainly were. If we are not now, it is because time + numbers have allowed for more genetic “drift” and mutations to permit diversity. Not because we, as a species, hybridized with Neanderthals to obtain it. Are those with lactose intolerance inbred? Or those who have the genes to digest lactose? This was a selection mutation for those populations (isolated) who ate/drank milk products.
Most dog breeds have smallish numbers. Most started with a smallish number of “foundation dogs” and yes, many have employed “most popular sire” and other selection tools to reduce variation. I am not asserting that some breeds are not inbred nor that adding some outside animals would not be useful. But again, I ask the honest question: HOW much “diversity” is required? How many animals need to be in a gene pool to maintain “genetic diversity”? If one brings in new blood to reduce COI, is it necessary to do so continuously or what? At what point is something “self sustaining?” Dingos are a feral “domestic dog” that apparently derive from a small number of “founding dogs” http://www.pnas.org/content/101/33/12387 — are Dingos “inbred”? Are they rife with genetic maladies because of a high COI? Or are they the result of a different selection criteria than used in most dog breeds and the result of less use of “matador studs”? why couldn’t a dog breed do the same?
I may fault the selection criteria of some of the breeds. On the other hand, no one is making anyone obtain an animal that isn’t what they want. Retrieverman was talking about saving the Sealyham terrier – but if this breed isn’t popular enough to appeal, why save it? Why cross with “puddin’ dogs”?
If cancer is common in Goldens, do you cross them with Labradors (diabetes and heart disease)? Both breeds live about the same length of time. Or with Chesapeakes?
http://www.amchessieclub.org/survey/index.html (again, longevity about the same). Do you just combine ALL retrievers? That would certainly “mask” current specific issues, it would make for a larger gene pool. Should Border Collies be bred to German Shepherds (it’s the rare GSD that has CEA)? Or combined with Engish shepherds, Aussies and show collies?
It’s easy to point out where excesses have created problems. It’s easy to point out where ignorance has created problems. It’s even easy to show that closed registries do often create an environment that promotes excesses. It’s a lot harder to come up with a solution beyond “generic dog” (and “generic people” still have populations that are, as you say, “inbred” or with group specific health issues).
I don’t know why you’re caught up on the word “inbred.” You can slow cook and egg or fast cook it, it still ends up cooked. There are many paths to the same end, and that end is frequency of alleles within a dog and within a population. Allele frequency directly leads to rates of disease expression.
All the issues you mention with groups of people have to do allele frequency in some form or another. Founder effects, popular sires, selection bias, close breeding all affect allele frequency. It doesn’t really matter where you draw the inbred line really, or if high COIs play a part or not.
A slow cooked egg might never get a high COI(10), or you might take a perfectly outcrossed animal and get inbred mess in 3 or 4 generations of close inbreeding on the same dog who had a number of nasty alleles with fast cooking.
Within an individual animal, you can get allele frequency problems that occur in one gene while the others are not very homozygous. This is possible, but not probable and it’s really what we see with many low frequency genetic diseases. Carrier rates are low and so affected rates are even lower.
Dog breeds suffer from all sorts of allele frequency disorders. For one, they are closed and throw away huge percentages of what diversity they even started with a century ago. Breed-wide tendency towards disease is likely due to founder effects and decades of throwing away diversity and over-emphasizing certain lines. Cardio-Myopathy in Dobes is probably a good example of this.
Two, popular sires and inbreeding throw away more diversity and also bring deleterious alleles to the forefront very quickly. The “omfg we never saw this before, now it’s everywhere” sort of diseases are likely due to much more recent breeding practices and inbreeding. TNS in Border Collies is a good example of this.
CEA in Border Collies could be an example of either. While it was likely founder effect and already at a ~3% level before Cap, if Cap were affected by a brand new mutation (something in his recent ancestry that he as then doubled up on), it could explain the entire incidence we see in the breed.
That’s how powerful a popular sire can be to a breed, he can single-handedly pollinate a bad gene across an entire breed, one that already had type, one that already bred true, one that didn’t even have that mutation. Beyond any brand new mutations, popular sires also push the levels of other crap alleles that are higher incidence in them than in the rest of the population.
We have some of the least genetic diversity among all hominids and we are not exceptionally diverse compared to other species:
“Genetic diversity in human populations is low relative to that in many other species, attesting to the recent origin and small size of the ancestral human population”
Beneficial genetic mutations are very rare, so it is certain that if we have recovered from a bottleneck, we have not recovered much. We *still* have low diversity vis-a-vis other species.
That’s incorrect. Hybridizing with Neanderthals is absolutely a source of diversity. And not all of us have it. With differences between the races being so small mathematically, having 2-3% Neanderthal vs. 0% is probably a significant source of difference.
Go find an answer. More than we have now, for sure. A century and some of improvement and dogs are a mess. There are so precious few who are doing anything to halt and reverse the damage.
That’s wrong. Not on the principle of FORCING people to buy an animal, but that’s not the point. It’s wrong because dogs are being sold according to their past merits, not their present merits, they are sold easily because they are cute and nice to us and we all have fond memories, but breeders are creating defective products that are increasingly poorly made. The notion that people really want cancer-bags and nasty dogs, and tens of thousands of dollars in vet bills is unsustainable. A reckoning is coming and it will not end nicely for well meaning pure blood breeders.
The dog world is NOT producing what the buyers want. Consumer demand is not judged in a ring or on a field.
I don’t think you understand the concept of slow and consistent outcrossing to bring in new blood. You don’t have to use a close breed at all, you could use a chihuahua. And no, if you do it right, you’re not going to just “mix” or double or add in the diseases from the source breed. The goal is NOT to first create an entire gene pool of half-and-half dogs and just call it the original breed. Nor is it to breed one outcross and expect it to refresh an entire gene pool/breed. That’d be unproductive.
Outcrossing should be like bathing. Lots of water, but most of it ends up down the drain taking some dirt with it. You might very well bring in unwanted deleterious recessives, but the entire point is to NOT then inbreed on them. If they are rare in the rest of the breed, they will likely never be doubled up on again, and if they are it is very rarely… just the way we want it. If you can test for them, you can easily eliminate them because you have plenty of dogs to breed to that won’t produce affecteds and only one or a few that are even carriers.
If you use outcrosses like you use salt in a food dish, then you will see the high incidence diseases in your breed drop and become low incidence and you will see the smattering of potential other diseases remain rare and like they are in dogs in general.
No it’s not. That’s why there are so few of us who do it and even fewer who do it for long. There are huge institutional pressures against speaking out, there are rich and powerful lobbies to keep things the way they are, there are indoctrinated pure blooders and indoctrinated “work shall set us free” types who deny science, deny reality, and deny reason. There are those who are satisfied that “at least we’re better than X breed and that’s good enough” and those who just don’t want to bother to answer the hard questions or attempt solutions.
So no, it’s not easy at all. I’ve been doing it on this blog before there was PDE and there are a handful of others who have been doing it for much longer, and even following PDE there is still not a large enough lobby to fundamentally change things.
And from the sound of it you’re such an outcross skeptic it really seems like you think the problem is that too many people are outcrossing and that the pendulum is too far in the “make a genetic dog” direction. Sorry, but if there is a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is “breeds are species” and 1 is “wolfs, dogs, coyotes are all the same, we should make grey soup with them and nothing more” .. the pendulum is in the 90s.
Oh my god, the “generic dog” thing is dumb. Who is advocating that? Please. That’s a stupid straw man put out there by the Pure Blood Brigade and I don’t even think they believe it to be true, and if they do, they’re idiots.
No one is suggesting we turn breeds into dog-soup. This is as inane. You can restore plenty of genetic diversity to breeds and maintain type over time. There are only a precious few genes which control the vast majority of “my dog is special and different” and they will not be lost or buried permanently in the process.
The AKC and the breed clubs need to wake up, and *grow up,* and start making an effort to address welfare problems caused by closed registries and conformation, or someone else is to tell them how to conduct their business:
From Can the Bulldog Be Saved?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
“While the British Kennel Club, in addition to changing its breed standards, has banned the registration of puppies from closely related parents, the A.K.C. has refused to follow suit. Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society C.E.O., told me that if the A.K.C. and breed clubs won’t act, it’s inevitable that animal welfare groups will push for legal standards addressing inbreeding and the physical soundness and genetic health of dogs. “Breeding certainly has a place in the world of dogs, but this mania about achieving what’s considered a ‘perfect’ or desirable outward appearance rather than focusing on the physical soundness of the animal is one of the biggest dog-welfare problems in this country,” he said. “And the emotional and financial cost of these sick dogs to their owners is enormous.”
Unless these problems are addressed on a national level by AKC and breed clubs, with good health surveys so we have a better idea of disease incidence, and DNA testing to know the true state of homozygosity/heterozygosity, WE WILL ALL BE GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET.
I WILL NOT HAVE WAYNE FUCKING PACELLE TELLING ME HOW TO BREED MY BLOODY DOGS. It is a sad state of affairs when an obscure crossbreeder knows more about genetics than long time breeders and ‘breed experts.’
Letting Wayne Pacelle and his anti-breeding ilk into MY whelping box is NOT inevitable, not if we are HONEST AND PULL OUR HEADS OUT OF OUR ASSES.
Jess recently posted..CynoAnarchist VS the Dog Fancy, or the Atheist Bitch and the Doggy Creationists
Indeed Jess gets to the realality issue. We will either govern ourselves or be governed. Present attitudes feeds with fuel to the fires of PETA. Kathy Bittorf
I believe the key here is not to create laws regulating dog breeding, but to educate the dog-buying public, so that they know which types of breeders are more likely to have healthy, well-tempered puppies, and which types of breeders are best avoided. We need to move past the idea that breeders who breed for conformation are automatically *reputable*, and that they are the only breeders who can possibly be *reputable.* It is a lie that the dog fancy is desperate to perpetuate (look at the frantic responses to Jemima Harrisons blog), but times are changing and people are catching on quickly! And the show breeders themselves, by continuing to create sick dogs, are helping the process along. No one enjoys owning a sickly dog which costs them thousands of dollars in veterinary bills and breaks their heart in the process. A dog with an unstable temperament or low intelligence is not optimal either. After having a bad experience owning a cast-off show dog, people are likely to rethink where they got their last dog and look for something different. And that is where an entirely different type of dog breeder can step in and provide a better product to the puppy buyer!
Indeed – I don’t even like the term “reputable” because it assumes that the people with the best reputations are the best breeders.
I do agree with you that things are better now than in the past – more information and easier access to that information. Even though PDE was alarmist and sensational, it got people to start thinking and start asking questions.
The trouble is, those are the breeders that are the easiest to buy from – they advertise widely, breed frequently, and sell to anyone with money. Finding a good dog – a really good dog that will be an indispensible companion for the next 15 years – takes some effort.
All the issues you mention with groups of people have to do allele frequency in some form or another – sure. And when it occurs in a group of people, one is discussing some kind of “genetic isolation”. My point is that you can probably find the same thing in wild animals. Pandas have some unique genetic issues compared to other bears. Polar bears are different from brown bears – I expect one would find some health issues if one looked hard enough. Pandas can’t ‘taste” meat. They’ve lost the gene. So is this evil? Or natural? If everything is “inbred” then nothing is. If all inbreeding (isolation) is evil then all species, subspecies and every breed of dog (and dogs themselves since they are modified “isolated” from wolves) is “evil”. That is, IMO, absurd. So the issue is, what is “inbred”? What size gene pool, what level of COI is “acceptable”?
You and I may not like English Bulldog conformation or Pugs with “no profile”, but clearly, others do. Changing the conformation on these animals is pretty much a simple matter of encouraging/rewarding those who have a conformation you (or others) feel more normal. You can do it by regulation or the marketplace. I’m not a fan of doing it by regulation. After all, any dog that isn’t a wolf has SOME modification and there ARE those who would assert that ANY modification is a bad one. There have been those who have advocated eliminating merle. MM isn’t an “inbreeding” problem. It’s an issue of selection. My issue is – I’m happy to promote “don’t buy” MM, don’t buy pups from MM parents. I’m NOT happy to go with “don’t allow Merle”. I don’t support regulations because that is, in my experience, where these things do tend to go. So my question with you is “what problems are acceptable?” You’ve stated an acceptance with Merle and NBT in heterozygous form. That guarantees the occasional homozygote – people make mistakes or do wrong things. You’ve indicated a “reduction in epilepsy” in Finn spitz is good – I want to eliminate it as thoroughly as one eliminates PRA. But I certainly don’t want to see some regulation or law requiring “generic stockdogs” to accomplish it.
And by the way, I am not an “outcross” skeptic. I am, however, a skeptic period. I recognize the value of outcross. “Salting” a breed is something an appendix registry would allow — which I’ve advocated for some decades now. But yes, I have seen some wholesale assertions of “better” dogs with assertions that mixes can “do anything a purebred can do” and “doodle” claims. And nope, KNPV dogs (who are a landrace) are CAREFULLY selected for the genes for working military dog characteristics. Nope, they don’t seem to think adding a Chi or pug would be useful. KNPV “malinois” don’t, however, seem to be significantly healthier than FCI/AKC malinois. The KNPV isn’t selecting for healthier. They are selecting for “high % of working protection/military dogs”.
I don’t agree with the extreme relativism you’re espousing here. The bit about everything/nothing being inbred is simply not true. We can get very precise definitions of what is inbred and what is not, what is harmful and what is not. As this applies to dogs, there is little value in being overly forgiving of breeding practices simply because they are common or other breeds are worse. There is NOTHING preventing every single breed from being too inbred. This doesn’t simply make them not inbred. Inbred is not a relative definition, we can define it using absolute terms and measures.
There you go back to the generic dog / wolf thing again. I’m not and don’t see anyone rational suggesting that we need to strip all our dogs of their uniqueness. Most of the unique elements in dogs are harmless and we can preserve them while bringing back some diversity in the areas that aren’t so visible but which we have screwed up. There ARE unique elements which are detrimental by their nature and this is a moral question that the community will struggle with (the Lethal semi-dominants, shar-pei skin, etc.).
MM is a homozygosity problem, inbreeding is a homozygosity problem.
I’m not a fan of Merle, I don’t think I’ll own a merle dog. A single copy is probably ok as long as you admit that your color fetish does lead to hearing and vision issues, even in a single copy. I do not like NBT in any form, it’s a useless mutation. “Guarantees the occasional homozygote” is the problem with over emphasizing these genes and I’ve said this over and over again. Breeding them together is not ethical to me and so you don’t get to breed the dogs you want. That’s the price you pay and some breeds where they have made a fetish of the allele can thus be tricky. If you’re unable to keep a good breed with the no Merle x Merle rule, then your breed sucks on a fundamental level.
“You’ve stated an acceptance with Merle and NBT in heterozygous form. That guarantees the occasional homozygote.”
This is moronic. Banning the breeding of merles x merle and nbt x nbt, which has certainly been done in other countries, guarantees that you will NOT get homozygous pups.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
Are you against outcrossing or for it?
== I’m for doing it in more controlled situations than apparently you are.
Are you part of the pureblood brigade
==define your term. I’m not fond of labeling folk one disagrees with.
Dobermans can not solve their problem within the breed.
==so you KNOW that East German Dobes have the same issues? those from out of Russia? You mentioned “salting”. Ok, how many outcrosses?
No one is FORCED to use registered dogs. That’s the whole concept behind the doodle dogs. Jess mentioned collies –one can obtain English Shepherds, farm collies, even working type Aussies. Apparently these aren’t as popular as the other types despite their issues. Yes, some of it is false advertising. (show type Aussies do not herd as well as field type.) I’m all for pointing that out. But I am against forcing anyone who likes show collies to HAVE to breed for “farm collies”. I am interested in the issue of “how much modification” is acceptable and when some find it “too much”, what should be done about it? I’m a libertarian in much of my views. I’m not in favor of any Government dictating what can/can’t be done without a really obvious benefit and clear constraints on how much Govt interference.
Why did we get to do this all the time a century ago and now it’s suddenly forbidden?
== it is? No one can breed a dobie to a Beauceron? No one can do it with a Rottie or smooth collie? Someone will arrest you if you do? Or do you mean the dogs can’t be REGISTERED in those very organizations you decry for their selection criteria? AKC seems to be happy to accept any new registrations they can lay their hands on. No one is precluded from creating a new breed out of an old one (Saarloose Wolfdogs being a great example). And there are alternative registries in the US. There is nothing, in the US to stop anyone from creating a better mousetrap. For that matter, even AKC has (Malamutes, Basenji, Dals) accepted dogs from “outside” on occasion. The problem is that their rules are more restrictive than you think they should be — so do I. The difference is that I don’t feel that it necessarily has to be as “open” as you seem to think. Nor do I think that anyone should be forced. So if one is going to use persuasion, it helps to have clear definitions of what is “inbred” what level of COI is good, what kind of “outcrossing” is sufficent.
So it seems that you’re against laws or rules on the other end of the inbreeding scale, so why should there be more “control” on the outcrossing side and who has this power and what is acceptable and how many hoops must be jumped through? Why are BREEDERs not smart enough to be able to breed to what they want for the purposes they want? And why should they not be given the tools to outcross regularly and without incident or burden?
Do you, for example, feel that a registry should allow a breeder to breed Merle x Merle or Brother x Sister or Sire x Daughter, but not allow a breeder to breed to a non-registered dog of that breed.
No one is FORCED to use LUA Dals or outcrossed dogs in a registry which has an appendix either. No one is FORCED to drive on public streets. The issue is not force, the issue is convenience and infrastructure which promotes or at least allows greater outcomes. If “force” is about power and persuasion, then the biggest registries have a lot of power and they can be very persuasive in how they handle registration and what behaviors they reward and which they limit.
For many breeds that’s the AKC. For Border Collies, it’s the ABCA and ISDS.
“No one is FORCED to use LUA Dals or outcrossed dogs in a registry which has an appendix either. ”
I own two breeds with open registries, open to COO dogs. NO ONE is forced to breed to these dogs or their progeny. Any breeder worth their salt can avoid those lines, just like they can avoid breeding to lines that may produce type they don’t like.
To suggest otherwise is completely moronic, because we already have numerous examples of open registries. Why, even the venerable KC has re-opened their B registry. Oh dear, I guess it’s going to be all mutts over there, and forced breedings at gun point.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
“I’m for doing it in more controlled situations than apparently you are.”
You’re being a moron again. Have you seen Christopher or anyone else on this blog advocate throwing away the concept of purebred entirely? No. Have you seen anyone advocate opening the studbooks willy nilly? Nope.
I own two breeds with open studbooks. Both use a three generation plan. There are numerous other examples in both livestock, dogs and cats of open registries. The fact that you can’t seem to wrap your little head around the implication that yes, open registries exist, and no, they don’t result in all animals becoming mutts, tells me everything I need to know about what you really think. Or perhaps don’t think would be a better term.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
The stupidity of deploying the libertarian card and accuse of someone who is attempting to loosen the regulations by accusing them of being an authoritarian is a short straw to draw.
I too, have an element of libertarianism, but you see, the difference between you and me is that I recognize there will always be a group of people who will try to seize power and force themselves upon everyone else. It is job of the libertarians to ensure people without a voice are not shut of society.
To deploy “everyone should do what they want” and “if people do not like it, they should move” tactics is inane; no, asinine.
I may not agree with Christopher on many political subjects; but I rarely argue with him because Christopher has no interest in telling me what to do with my life. In fact, he is an ally because he fights for my freedom. In effect, he is also fighting for the individuals who do not agree with the elitists controlling the breed clubs.
To say “let give breeders the tool to introduce new blood int their kennel-line” is not being a dictator at all. The true libertarian approach would be: “if you do not like the blood I am introducing into my kennel, you do not have to buy from me and breed them to your own dog.”
“To deploy “everyone should do what they want” and “if people do not like it, they should move” tactics is inane; no, asinine.”
This tactic is guaranteed to get breeding legislation passed.
“To say “let give breeders the tool to introduce new blood int their kennel-line” is not being a dictator at all. The true libertarian approach would be: “if you do not like the blood I am introducing into my kennel, you do not have to buy from me and breed them to your own dog.””
Which actually doesn’t change the status quo at all, as that is already the modus operandi of breeding within the closed system. I liken open registries to gays in the military. We have multiple examples of gays being allowed to serve openly, yet we still get dire predictions of the sky falling in if it’s allowed in the US. People are very fond of selective vision.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
Sometimes on long comment threads like this I like just to ctrl+f “Jess”. So I can skip to the good stuff right away.
Thank you, thank you, I’m here all week 🙂
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
http://www.tierkardiologie.lmu.de/downloads/studien/Prevalence%20of%20Dilated%20Cardiomyopathy%20in%20Doberman%20Pinschers%20in%20Various%20Age%20Groups%20JVIM%202010.pdf
or use tiny url
http://tinyurl.com/6tnls2b
J Vet Intern Med 2010;]]:1–6
Prevalence of Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Doberman Pinschers in Various Age Groups
indicates DCM is about equal in Europen Dobes. But I note that it mentions that the tests in Germany for under 3 gave false assurance of lower incidence — points out my view on having accurate tests. DCM is postulated as being a DOMINANT gene in this article. So if there were a DNA test, this might be pretty easy to eliminate. Would outcrosses be good? Your F1s may be at equal risk if it’s a dominant and one doesn’t have a test- you have a 60% chance that the Dobe parent is affected. If homozygous, all your F1s will be affected. If Hetero, 50%. Is a 10% reduction worth it? especially if you can’t tell WHICH F1 has it or not. So, IMO, you need a test FIRST, then do the outcrossings. As a skeptic, I find 412 dogs to be a pretty small sample group for making absolute conclusions. I’d want to see something more like 2000, equally selected from E. Europe, W.Europe and US.
If you are saying that H. Sapiens is “inbred” because we have less genetic diversity then I think I’m not being unrealistic in coming back and asking what your criteria is for what is and what isn’t inbred. I’m aware that H. Sapiens is less diverse than say, Chimps. I don’t think that by definition makes us inbred. I don’t think the fact that people with red hair and fair skin are more susceptible to skin cancer makes this a characteristic of “inbreeding faults”.
Christopher said: “We can get very precise definitions of what is inbred and what is not, what is harmful and what is not.” – good. I’m happy to be educated. Let me know what those definitions are
Chris: There is NOTHING preventing every single breed from being too inbred.
== Then there is nothing to prevent every single species and subspecies from the same. All have “limited gene pools” in one way or another. Why save Amur tigers? Why not just go for generic combined (and thus less inbred) tigers? Why worry about polar bears? They’re just a freak subset of brown bears anyway. At what point does one say, ok, these ARE NOT “inbred” and have enough diversity to sustain themselves within the set population? If it’s never, then you have, IMO, an unrealistic goal as all dogs become “inbred” by that definition (being derived from a limited number of foundation wolves), and so are all wolves (being reduced to semi isolated groups). If there is a number, I’m asking you to provide it.
Christopher: I’m not and don’t see anyone rational suggesting that we need to strip all our dogs of their uniqueness
== that uniqueness comes from unique genes for set characteristics. And those require, to one degree or another, selection FOR those characteristics at the exclusion of others. Which ultimately, means selection that is not random and therefore subject to COI issues. The racing long legs of a greyhound are not compatible with the short “go thru the underbrush” legs of a Beagle. Consequently, one is ultimately reducing “diversity”. Dogs are more diverse than wolves – we’ve kept and selected for variations that in Nature do not survive (and may not occur). But that’s because humans have more or less created little sub sub species which we call breeds.
Christopher: So it seems that you’re against laws or rules on the other end of the inbreeding scale, so why should there be more “control” on the outcrossing side and who has this power.
==I’m against laws or rules forcing anyone. No law (yet) prevents you or anyone else from outcrossing as much as you please. The only rules regarding outcrossing are those of a private (AKC is not government) group of people who are engaging in breeding what they want (as opposed to what you or I or anyone else may think they “should”). I’m willing to agree with competing with them with a better product. I’m willing to agree to persuading them –and sometimes as with the LUA dogs, they are in fact persuaded; but I am NOT interested in forcing anyone. I happen to think, personally, that controlled outcrossing will yield better results long term. You have not convinced me that this is incorrect. I’m not saying you (or Jess or anyone else) can’t do what you want as a breeder. I’m saying I don’t support you or Jess or Wayne Pacelle deciding for me what I should or shouldn’t want.
I personally want a line of dogs that are functional in their traditional role. I personally want to improve health in the dogs. I am (and have said publically several times) that I’m willing to do cross breeding to get it (myself or supporting others). But I also know that the KNPV dogs aren’t any healthier. So I prefer to be cautious about implementation until I (personally) feel enough data is available to make intelligent decisions. My opinion is irrelevant to the KNPV folk. AKC happens to accept any FCI accepted dog out of KNPV.
I’m saying we don’t have a lot of genetic diversity. Genetic health vs. genetic diversity isn’t a binary choice despite your insistence that you want a black and white metric. I don’t see how any of this is relevant or specific, your demands for information don’t seem to be getting at any specific argument. If you’re curious, go find out the information, it’s out there. Get an education in it.
I have a long standing draft called “Measures of Genetic Diversity” that you’re welcome to wait for. But here are few places to start your investigation: pedigree analysis and COI, observed heterozygosity using DNA sequencing, y haplogroups, mitochondrial haplogroups, individual gene allele frequencies, MHC/DLA, Founder Genomes, Effective Population Size, specific disease frequencies, etc.
There are wild species preservationists which belong to the pureblood brigade and would actually rather see their precious species go extinct versus bringing in outside blood when they can. There are some species where there is nowhere to turn, they are a true species that has no one to breed with except themselves and which have too few numbers to exist much longer. This is the fate of 99% of all species that have ever lived, to go extinct for some reason or another.
I haven’t looked at Amur Tiger’s numbers, but it’s easily possible that their genes could be saved in a living and more viable population by mixing with other breeds of big cat (call them species if you want).
Same with Polar Bears. They are perfectly interfertile with Brown Bears, so let them be. As their own niche disappears, they will either move further into more traditional Brown Bear zones and interbreed or they will die out. Environmentalists can rush up there and fan the ice cubes all they want, their niche is changing and that’s usually enough to force change or extinction. If man wants to preserve those genes he has three choices, save some samples in cryofreeze, let them mate with other “species,” or try and bolster pure-blood strategies with $ and human efforts in zoos and tampering in the wild.
I don’t see what your point is with dogs though. Their niche is pretty assured, it’s their genetics that are a mess. It’s rather the opposite with Polar Bears.
Duh. And no one is complaining about humans actively seeking to intentionally throw away diversity where it’s not wanted. This has already been done. This is how breeds were formed. This is why there are fast slim dogs and robust slow ones. But breeders still use the jackhammer breeding strategies to refine minute and stupid things that no one else cares about and they do so for shallow reasons and the result is that they cripple the dogs in the process.
The issue is that beneficial and benign diversity has been and is still being thrown away and dogs are suffering because of this.
You can have your dog and it can be healthy too.
As DOGS. As a combination of numerous breeds. Individual breeds are not in good shape. So a purebred you can BUY is not very diverse at all.
Well gosh! And this is small comfort. Do I really have to list the number of benefits one might find by working within a system than outside of it? Do you really think that destruction is preferable to reform? And competition! Good luck, you go start a registry and gimme a call when you get the AKC’s market share.
Of course I’m welcome to take my ball and go home, and you’re welcome to move to France if you don’t like the politics in your state. People who make such claims never seem to leave the country.
And it matters not that AKC is a private organization and has every right to suicide itself on principle.
There’s a reason people don’t up and move countries every time that a crap political regime comes into power and there’s a reason to work within the existing system and to make it better versus running off and starting your own.
Plus, as Jess can tell you, letting the established idiots keep doing what they are doing is going to have huge collateral damage that DOES result in laws which screw over more than just them. Ever care to read any one of the many crap bills that keep coming down the sewer pipe from Washington?
Why don’t you go read up on HR 835 “Pups” and tell me that there’s no collateral damage from the biggest and most visible breeders doing stupid things.
Where do you get off putting me and Jess in the same sentence as Wayne Pacelle? And what the hell are you talking about… I’m not being authoritarian in the least nor am I arguing against outcrossing in the least.
It is not authoritarian to argue against authoritarianism. It’s not limiting of others to argue against limits. And adding an appendix registry to the AKC is NOT in any way impinging on anyone who currently uses the AKC. You don’t have to use it and you don’t have to breed to dogs that do.
“I’m saying I don’t support you or Jess or Wayne Pacelle deciding for me what I should or shouldn’t want.”
Do you not get it? Christopher and I aren’t trying to force anyone to do anything BUT THINK. Or maybe you missed my comment above?
The ‘dog fancy’ NEEDS TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. They need to do the work, do the breed surveys, get as much as information as they can, so that when Pacelle and his cronies start making the rounds with their new bills, the ‘dog fancy’ won’t look like a bunch of complete buffoons that want to keep their little heads in their complacent pile of sand. The ‘dog fancy’ NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS INTELLIGENTLY, THEY NEED TO ANSWER ACCUSATIONS THAT THEY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HEALTH, AND THEY NEED TO BE HONEST ENOUGH TO SAY ‘well, we don’t know’ about certain things.
The UK KC is trying to play catchup. I still think you’ll probably see legislation over there. The AKC hasn’t even cracked the textbook yet, they are a BIG FAT FAIL.
The ‘dog fancy’ needs people like Christopher, who understand the science and the numbers, and can lay it on the line clearly and concisely. What it doesn’t need is circular reasoning, blathering arguments that go nowhere, and so called philosophical doublethink that is really just a bunch of mental masturbation.
When the shit hits the fan, and someone is needed to stand in front of the legislature and speak for *me* against laws about the minutiae of dog breeding, I would choose Christopher.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
Christopher said: I’m not being authoritarian.
== You want to force AKC /KC to your point of view. You don’t seem to want to just ignore AKC/UKC and do your own healthier breed using your concepts. And as for competition with AKC — there are already several competitive registries out there that would be happy to take your money and give you the applicable piece of paper. There’s nothing to stop you.
See second & fourth paragraph in this article: http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogsinreview/dogs-in-review-akc-fees.aspx
Christopher: “adding an appendix registry to the AKC is NOT in any way impinging on anyone who currently uses the AKC.” — yes, and I think I’ve said several times that I support that. You can do that now with some of the FCI breeds in some of the European countries.
no one is complaining about humans actively seeking to intentionally throw away diversity where it’s not wanted.
==could have fooled me. And who decides who wants or doesn’t want? Clearly some (not all) pug breeders WANT that no face profile. I think it’s abhorrent, but obviously some don’t. If everyone did, then there wouldn’t be any. It’s not like breeding away from it would be that hard. IMO, one could even do it within the existing registry – just start selecting for more muzzle using more of the dogs currently discarded as “pets”. Some (not all) apparently LIKE the very hairy Pekes. AKC isn’t forcing anyone to breed according to the breed standard. It’s just that most people who belong to AKC happen to WANT to. I think pointing out the worst harms to dogs of those “wants” is a good thing. I think there is some glacially slow movement in the direction of reducing the worst offences. I think you and I agree that it isn’t fast enough.
Christopher: you want a black and white metric
==no. I want YOUR opinion on what COI level is “ok” what amount of diversity you feel is “correct”. For example, do you agree with this site: http://www.czerwonytrop.com/inb/index.php?full=ok&lng=en “A general first rule is: IC should be under 3% in a considered mating; AVK should be over 85%” if a breed had this for most of it’s members, would you consider it inbred or not? this one is for cattle: http://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/755/inbreeding-in-cattle it appears to talk about up to 5% in some livestock lines. So are these unacceptably inbred to you?
“Why are BREEDERs not smart enough to be able to breed to what they want for the purposes they want?” –most aren’t degreed in medical fields or with the math background to do calculations. they may or may not understand the genetics (I know a number who have trouble following the color genetics which are pretty straightforward). Add to that the issue that most have only a few dogs (most have less than 10 animals) and it gets hard to get folk to make what is to them a leap of faith. But they do occasionally do so, as with the LUA Dals & COO Basenjis. I think many need the science and math made “easier” for them.
Now you’re just being obnoxious and making crap up. I’m ADVOCATING a point of view, I’m not forcing the AKC or any other registry to do anything. I have dogs registered in the AKC and the ABCA and thus I have a particular investment in being able to do what I want to do within those registries. My positions on this blog are bigger than the AKC or the ABCA, they are arguments that speak to the culture of purebred dogs and of intentionally bred dogs.
This is an issue that is not trapped or limited to any one registry, country, or culture. I don’t particularly care what happens to the AKC but I do care what happens to the dogs and breeders that make them that I enjoy and that I might want to deal with in the future. If I had some specific maniacal plan to change the AKC or ABCA in some self-serving manner for political reasons, I certainly wouldn’t go about my criticism as I have.
I’d play the game, kiss the right asses, buy the right dogs, compete in the right venues and spend a lifetime trying to claw my way up into some position of “Authoritahy” and then push my weight around. This seems to be the way that it is done. I don’t see a lot of benefit in that, rather I feel that the power of my ideas is enough to effect cultural change. I’d rather change the minds of those who have their little political power or to make those systems irrelevant.
I do have every right to not use dogs that are not in the AKC or ABCA, but I’m not naieve, it’s much easier to make good choices when you have access to the greatest number of dogs and I’d rather take advantage of the benefits of being within the system than being outside of it. I’d like for my puppy buyers to have the easiest chance at doing what they want with their dogs and that means access to purebred venues. I want to have a good record of health and fitness and performance data and that means dogs that are registered.
There are plenty of other benefits.
And what do you care? Are you deeply invested in the AKC as it is and what do you have to lose if it changes?
Um I have entertained thoughts about breeding outside of the registry system and will probably do so some day. I don’t see what this has to do with wanting to be able to do this within the system instead. I’d pay a dear price for doing this though, as my stock would likely die with me or diffuse out into the unregistered realm (which it already has). I’d also likely face problems finding stud dog service. It’d be more difficult to sell puppies. It’d be harder for my buyers to compete with their dogs. I’d basically be creating my own breed instead of adding to the one I like the most.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Given the time, money, and clarity of focus I’d outcross my lines in a second. I’d probably start with a close breed like an English Shepherd, the puppies of which just might be good enough workers to get ROMd as Border Collies, but I wouldn’t be opposed to more distant crosses. This, of course, requires the old school methods of breeding dogs, i.e. estates and fortunes or the ability to politically arrange other breeders into something similar.
There would be a lot of reinventing the wheel here. A lot more effort put in that would have nothing to do with the dogs and everything due to politics.
You really hit the nail on the head, here. And this is exactly the reason that the last three dogs I’ve added to my family have been collies, not collie/ES or any other farmcollie type.
Dog breeding is a group effort – the days of J.P. Morgan’s enormous kennels are gone. I can only properly raise and train three or four dogs at a time. Even doing five generations of backcrosses would take at least 15 years and involve several co-ownerships to do properly.
So, I’m sticking with my purebred collies, for better, and try to minimize the “worse” by breeding wisely and honestly.
“This, of course, requires the old school methods of breeding dogs, i.e. estates and fortunes or the ability to politically arrange other breeders into something similar.”
Not entirely the truth, is it? Unless, of course, the result has to fit into a pre-defined form. As in, it must look like the popular definition of ?
I know of at least one couple developing a new breed. They do not have an “estate”, etc.
They are developing a breed for a specific niche. The only attributes that matter are size, structure, health, and character. This, shockingly, results in an amazing dog.
What is more, in the years they have been doing this, they have not assigned a “breed” name. They merely breed to two general types. And the people who buy them, love them.
My point; remove the facade of , you are open to develope a line exactly as you envision it.
Or am I mis-understanding, and the acknowledgement you desire is attained only through the establishment?
Well you can create a breed based upon a formula, like the lurchers. But they exist in an uneasy position between the two (or more) parent breeds.
And yes, you can develop a “new” breed, but this is not care free. I don’t want to have the same issues in 50 years that other single, or small-N breeder breeds have due to a rather small founding population and the vision of a singular breeder. I criticize breeds like Vallhunds and Leonbergers (and so many more) that had small founding populations and quickly ended up in closed gene pools, why would I want to create a new breed destined for the same fate?
I don’t know that any of the modern efforts to create new breeds ever used enough founding dogs to have a lasting healthy gene pool (Doodles, Shiloh Shepherds, etc.).
Either way, it’ll take a fortune, an estate, or the political will to recreate this over distributed people. My point stands.
Not to mention moronic because a number of dogs in my own breed, the Vallhunds, were rejected during the founding days because the kennelmen did not understand recessives: so whites, piebalds, fawn were all rejected. Thank goodness they included tan-points, because they realized they could not get their coveted all-grey breed, when the litters keep throwing them.
But still, even out of 15 founders: only two sire lines, and one matrilineal line still exist; and the second sire-line is in danger of becoming extinct. Why? There is some mythical element to having an “Adam” and an “Eve” for some bizarre reason.
It would take mandates of a registry to reverse the damage done over sixty-some years.
Lurchers are not a breed. They are basically a type (sighthound and herding blood.) Longdogs are also a type. Multigenerational breeding produces a fairly recognizable type in these dogs. Coyote hounds, stag hounds, etc. are all types.
The drop eared sighthound (Saluki/Tazi/Taigan/Afghan/Xigou/etc) is a type. They differ in particulars (general proportions, coat types, tail set, etc.) that are generally used to divide them into breeds.
My own crosses and backcrosses are a type. They are drop eared, fuzzy sighthounds. They will never, ever be a ‘breed’ as the West understands breed, existing in a closed gene pool, because I CANNOT breed enough dogs to have a large enough genetic base to create a ‘breed.’ I also have no desire to do so.
Look at any recently created breed, established within the last thirty years or so, and almost all of them have some problems with disease incidence.
Closed registry ‘breed’ should be an outdated concept at this point.
Jess recently posted..Cooking with Jess: Make a Purebred in Four Easy Steps
You’re really jumping around on issues here that really have nothing in common except being related to the welfare of pet dogs. There are examples of diversity that breeders are not going to want to entertain: Border Collie breeders don’t want dogs that are upright workers without eye and are afraid of sheep, that are slow and stupid and which have either bald or show afghan coats. Those are all ways to make BCs more “diverse” but they fall outside of the ideal Border Collie.
But Border Collies have been a close pool that have bred as true as anyone wants for over 100 years. Why are we still throwing away diversity in things that we want to have diversity in?
We can’t easily see the genes and the results of the immune system or kidney function or heart function or longevity or intelligence or good temperament, etc. Those are hard to select for or against as they are not immediately apparent upon birth in most cases and the negative outcomes might come 10 years down the line. But what we do know is that we can either preserve diversity in non-shallow and easy to select for traits or we can throw it away and then when the shit does hit the fan, like in UA in the Dals, we have NO CHOICE but to turn to another breed to try and solve the problem that we allowed to saturate our breed 100%.
CM in Dobes can and will not be solved within the breed. There aren’t enough good genes to go around safely. They have passed the point of no return in terms of keeping Dobes “pure” and solving the CM problem. Maybe if gene therapy works sometime in the next century, but other than such a miracle cure, Dobes are done for.
Shar Peis can’t have the fashion and health, the two are now mutually exclusive knowing what we do about Shar Pei fever being the exact same allele that causes the folds. They will never be free of it, so we can either say that it’s a failed breed and needs to die out, or we can show that a moderation in the folds means x% of the disease which is less than with more folds, and that we accept x%. Some people will never accept x%, but it’s not intellectually honest to pretend that x does not exist or that there are magic dogs that if the breeders have just been doing it long enough they won’t get those problems.
“I want YOUR opinion on what COI level is “ok” what amount of diversity you feel is “correct”.”
And you, and everybody else under the sun, HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY that IT DEPENDS ON THE BREED. Information about disease incidence, diversity in haplotypes, average COI, all of that is NECESSARY to make an educated decision that WILL BENEFIT the dogs. EVERY BREED IS DIFFERENT in regards to inbreeding tolerance, genetic load, etc.
When conservation geneticists are consulted to ‘save’ an endangered species, do you think that they have a one size fits all species survival plan? NO. They take all of the things I said above into consideration, draw up a plan, and continually re-evaluate.
One thing that is a part of ANY SSP: prevent further gene loss. Period. Because you DON’T KNOW where the tipping point is and in an endangered species, unlike with dogs, you HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO to replenish a depleted gene pool.
You’re not stupid. Stop acting like it.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
Asking for a # here is like asking “how much alcohol should I drink?” When I point out COI issues it’s almost always when it’s not even a question of balancing desire with risk, it’s when people are passed out on the floor with shit in their pants and vomit in their lungs waiting for an ambulance to come.
Nor do I want you to think that what Jess is saying is that some breeds are magic and you can just abuse their livers with booze for the sake of some pretty points and that breeding brother to sister is just 100% ok in those breeds because they have magic inbreeding immunity. Ask these people WHY they did such close breedings and you’ll get a river of bullshit back.
There’s a difference between doing a 12% COI mating in a breed that has a number of surfacing issues vs. a breed that doesn’t. There’s also the question of what level of risk you are taking vs. what benefit you derive.
To me, there’s NO amount of inbreeding that I would weigh against something like using a close relative to get an ear set or some angle of stop or some placement of the eyes. NONE of those concerns are worth any degree of COI to me. Those things aren’t even that important, but if they were, I’d look to unrelated dogs before I’d look close.
The things I value in dogs are not so esoteric that they are rare or brutally precise. And I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those people who do have such minute concerns that they place above everything else.
If you want a limit on COI from me, then I’ll tell you any number such that you don’t kill your liver and take down good dogs with it. Don’t drink to excess, don’t vomit, don’t drive drunk, don’t use alcohol as an excuse to avoid doing the hard work of actually getting what you want without killing your brain cells and *thinking* it’s what’s perfect, etc.
Moderation. Balance. Health. Hard work. And when you choose to drink and fall off the wagon, admit that it’s the booze and learn to avoid it.
“You want to force AKC /KC to your point of view. You don’t seem to want to just ignore AKC/UKC and do your own healthier breed using your concepts. And as for competition with AKC — there are already several competitive registries out there that would be happy to take your money and give you the applicable piece of paper.”
Stop being stupid. In the US at this time, AKC is synonymous with purebred dogs. Period. They are the most visible element of purebred dogs there is here. If AKC DOES NOT LEAD, and they have seriously dropped the ball since PDE came out, someone else will take the lead. And that will be easy to do, because there is no science supporting the closed registry as the best way to breed healthy dogs.
As long as AKC is big and visible, they will be the main target of breeding legislation. People like Christopher and I will be swept up in the tide. Shutting the fuck up and playing in our own sandbox isn’t in OUR best interests, and the fact that you fail to see that these discussions are in YOUR best interests as well is just bloody sad.
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard
christopher: I have entertained thoughts about breeding outside of the registry system and will probably do so some day.
= try kelpies. Try Finland. There was even a Kelpie that won several USBCHA trials until “disinvited” to attend. But the issues you point out are exactly why some of us are a bit reluctant to go forth and outcross. Getting a group willing to do it and then “appendix list” (try Finland) requires a lot of persuasion. I suspect that the Dobe folk would be more likely to try it than most BC folk. A Beauce/Dobie cross isn’t a big leap outside the “desired qualities”. Even a Rott x would be recoverable pretty fast. But that’s why I was asking “how many” — you’d need several Dobie folk to do a x. And IMO, a good test to identify affected (if it is a dominant gene).
Christopher: examples of diversity that breeders are not going to want to entertain: Border Collie breeders don’t want dogs that are upright workers without eye and are afraid of sheep, that are slow and stupid and which have either bald or show afghan coats.
— yep. some would resist a kelpiex or a Beardie x (even though Beardies are closely related — they are hairy, upright barking workers, very different from the BC). Scott Lithgow had dogs that were, IIRC, 3/4 BC and a bit of terrier (for grip), kelpie and whatever. A lot of ranch dogs are this way. It’s the very type of dogs that were at risk of mandatory spay/neuter under the original provisions of California AB 1634 and are precluded in Los Angeles.
so we can either say that it’s a failed breed and needs to die out, or we can show that a moderation in the folds means x% of the disease which is less than with more folds, and that we accept x%. Some people will never accept x%, but it’s not intellectually honest to pretend that x does not exist — yes. the question is who decides what x ought to be and who enforces it (either by registration refusal or legally?) You did know the Doberman club tried to ban albinos and were refused? I think if they can come up with a test for what dogs have the DCM or carry for it if it’s a recessive, they will be willing to do some crosses. They have the LUA dogs as a success story example. I just don’t know of many individuals who could recreate the LUA project. Most would have to try for much smaller “bites” at the issues.
Jess wrote: And you, and everybody else under the sun, HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY that IT DEPENDS ON THE BREED. == missed that post, apparently. I don’t see why it should vary by breed. an ideal COI is an ideal COI. it might or might not be achievable, but that is another issue. Why should it vary within breeds?
Jess: When conservation geneticists are consulted to ‘save’ an endangered species, do you think that they have a one size fits all species survival plan? NO. ==actually I did think they had an ideal COI and modified it to what was achievable (and given that some have purity issues. I could never figure out why Texas cougars were used vice California ones for “assisting” the Florida Cougar. It’s one species. You’d think they’d have wanted the largest diversity possible.
Jess: “Banning the breeding of merles x merle and nbt x nbt, which has certainly been done in other countries, guarantees that you will NOT get homozygous pups.” ==because no one EVER EVER breaks laws/rules or has an oops litter? you’re not a moron, Jess. banning may reduce it, it doesn’t guarentee it never happens.
Jess:The fact that you can’t seem to wrap your little head around the implication that yes, open registries exist, and no, they don’t result in all animals becoming mutts ===did I ever say any such thing? I think I mentioned the old hardship registry of ASCA. I was unaware of your breed, but mentioned the opening of studbooks for Malamutes, Basenjiis and Belgians (WWI & WWII). Did I EVER say it made any of these dogs mutts? In some countries, it’s possible to appendix breed Belgians. It’s not a fully “open” registry, but it certainly is the door “half open”, I’m well aware and mentioned KNPV. I consider KNPV dogs a landrace and said so. I never called them mutts. KNPV dogs have gotten FCI recognition, another way into the more restricted FCI studbooks — a door a little open. I also breed sheep, some registered, some not. I have friends who use the “grade registry” for their flocks. I’m well aware of open registry systems and that they don’t create “mutts”. I’ve said that before. If you are going to slam me, please do so for something I actually said.
Recessive disease load varies by breed. What is a safe COI in Dalmatians? What if you don’t want UA problems? There is no safe COI because the disease gene is 100% saturated and homozygous in all dogs in the breed.
This isn’t to say that a 25% breeding is somehow safer in one breed or another in a manner that’s meaningful, that close of a breeding doubles up on 1 in 4 of all the genes and all the recessives and that includes brand new mutations that are in the line only in the last few generations. That’s a lot of risk for me versus MEH reward. Obviously some fancy breeders want that 25% and would say that the risks are not more than their desire to double up.
I’m actually adventurous enough in life not to want a clone, I’d rather have unique dogs that are diverse, and if there are things I want to maintain, it’ll not be minute physical traits, it’ll be something I can find in many different dogs or even other breeds, like solid loving temperament, etc. The best things are not elusive in dogs, they are what other breeders are willing to give up to win at competitions really.
Amen!! To your last paragraph.
Christopher asked “what’s a safe COI” in Dals — what if you don’t want UA problems? — seems to me that you then use one of the REGISTERED LUA Dalmations. COI doesn’t come into it. You can have a LOW COI and breed to LUA Dalmations and you can have a high COI by inbreeding between two LUA Dalmations. Both avoid the UA issue, but one is to be preferred for the COI part of breeding decisions. To me, you are conflating the health issue of breeding away from UA and the COI. The question is, given that LUA Dals are available, can you “improve” (eliminate UA) in all Dalmations without further outcrosses — is their COI low enough to do that kind of breeding program (over decades if necessary) or is it so high that additional outcrosses irrelevant to the LUA issue are necessary. Obviously if one were to outcross with additional animals, one would want a dog without the UA issue, but you could use another pointer, an English Setter, or even a bull terrier. My thought was that one would have an “ideal” COI that one would continue to strive for. As with most breeding, one is trying to balance two (not one) factors — the health factor of LUA and the “avoid inbreeding” issue of COI. They aren’t identical choices. In reality, most breeders are trying to balance multiple factors, not just two. That only makes decisions more complex.
Could you avoid DCM in a Dobe without high COI? probably not without an outcross to a different breed, but IF the 40% of Dobes that don’t have the gene (assuming it is in fact a dominant) aren’t that related, and given that Dobes are a pretty numerous breed, maybe one could. I don’t know the average COI of Dobes. Maybe you should do an outcross with Dobes to get to a reasonable COI even IF one didn’t have DCM to deal with. Obviously any such outcross ought to be one with healthy hearts (racing greyhounds? not as similar to Dobes as Beaucerons or Rotts, but maybe the genetic plus in the heart department would make this a good choice). To me, dealing with the health issues may dictate WHICH kind of outcross one might think best to try and prevelance tells you what your odds are of finding a non affected dog within the registry. COI tells you if you have a diversity issue seperate (or in addition to) from that.
Peggy, now you’re just being contentious for no point. The LUA Dals are not a counter example to my point. You’re asking for what a safe COI is and my point is that there is no single answer, it’s a tool that can tell you something about the environment you’re working in.
Forget LUA Dals exist and tell me what a safe COI is in Dalmatians? What is a safe COI in Dobermans?
Now, if we do consider LUA Dals, I don’t know that you can eliminate UA safely, but at least there is the ability to start diluting it. I’d be much better if there were more outcrosses done though, because as it is now, the LUA Dals are really only bringing in diversity on that one allele and perhaps a few genes around it on that same Chromosome. As long as you’re going to entertain an outcross, why not have the effort combat more than one issue in the breed?
As for conflating issues, look at what you are posting and the actual article I’ve written. You haven’t been on topic on any of these recent posts. There are more than 60 comments on this post and only ONE of them uses the word “mice.”
Re: the “generic dog” strawman from upthread.
I volunteer for a dog rescue that goes to a lot of trouble to find out if our dogs have special abilities we should promote for adoption. To that end, based on the dog’s size, initial observations about temperment/personality, possible breed mix, etc, we’ve sent them to trainers all over the region, or tested them ourselves. for everything from gunshyness, to pointing ability, guide-dog possibility, agility/sporting, retrieving, etc, etc. (Which, btw, we’ve adopted out mutts who become successful hunting/working dogs in fields that supposedly should only belong to the “unique pure breeds”.)
The point is, anyone could figure out that some dogs are better at some things than others. As long as that simple fact is recognized, even if “breeds” were outlawed or something, you’d still end up back where we were hundreds of years ago, with dog ‘types’ suited for different jobs (even if those jobs are simply being pets to suit different types of families). There isn’t now, and probably won’t ever be, any kind of push for turning all of canine-kind into a “generic” dog.
Suzanne, it sounds like you have a very sensible program in place to help your dogs! I wish more rescues could/would go to those lengths. Most of the time, it seems like they just slap on a breed label (based mostly on the color of the dog) and hope for the best.
Christopher: Forget LUA Dals exist and tell me what a safe COI is in Dalmatians? What is a safe COI in Dobermans? — I would presume, from the literature on the subject that it would be somewhere between 3 & 5%. One would then want to try to maintain “that” level either using a large enough pool within a closed registry or employing a system that allowed an outcross to “correct” the percentage occasionally. Presumably at least one of the points of having a lower COI is to avoid fertility issues that come from too high a COI.
But whatever. I bow out of the conversation. we’ve obviously been posting at cross purposes and it’s clearly become unproductive. However, just for kicks and giggles, you all might find the following (on birds) to be interesting regarding Osteoarthritis in birds, which apparently correlates to size and can occur in up to 30% in some species. Sometimes nature is just strange. (you’d think there’d be selection against this, but apparently not) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667111002084 doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2011.12.008 Osteoarthritis in the early avian radiation: Earliest recognition of the disease in birds
Bruce M. Rothschilda, b, , , Zheng Xiaotingc, , Larry D. Martina, Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Dyche Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045, USACarnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USATianyu Natural History Museum, Ping Yi, Shan Dong Province, China Received 22 October 2010; Accepted 13 December 2011. Available online 4 January 2012.
Years ago I questioned the difference between a show dog breeder, puppy mill, and term backyard breeder by AKC definition. I was told a Good Breeder breds for themselves and keeps something from breeding litter? Really is that all to pick the best of a litter for yourself and dump the rest on the market?
Likewise “Reputable breeder” is terminology that can and is misconstrued. There are champions and then their are chumpions.
What is true mark of a champion, or a Good Breeder?
Is it not to be heedful of circumstances and potential dangers with inevitable consequences being sensitive to pet owners and the individual specimens abililty to have a good quality of life span? This takes the ability not to be kennel blind or to omit the inconvenient scientific facts now presented to us. It takes the ability not to be so self-absorbed in personal goals as well in my opinion. Buyer Beware?
I remember getting the glares at a Breed club seminar when a spokeman stood stating “Someone in this room is educating the puppy buyers by selling them puppies with eyechecks”, as their glares were directed straight at my daughter and I.
Indeed the pet owners realistically are
the economic machine supporting pure bred dogs. Buyer Beware is not a success move in the long run. Kathy Bittorf
It took me a while to realize that *pet quality* does not mean the dog would make a quality pet. A better term for such puppies would be *show reject.*
In my opinion, someone who truly breeds ‘for the love of the breed’ would not be so short-sighted as to only care about their personal lines and view all their litters as just a means to win more ribbons.
More on the subspecific origin of lab mice– and exactly how inbred they are:
http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/58189/
If we’re having a hard time figuring out where mice came from, you wonder how much we’re missing when it comes to the origin of domestic dogs.
Retrieverman recently posted..The Canis lupus/Canis latrans species complex
Interesting:
“There are even regions of the lab mice genomes that are genetically “blind,” said Churchill, where there is no genetic variation at all. Without variation, there is no way for researchers to test the effects of different variants. For example, chunks of chromosome 10, where genes implicated in lifespan have been identified, are identical in lab strains. Such regions may encourage researchers to incorporate more wild-derived strains into their work, for allelic diversity at those locations, said Churchill. “You can never have too much diversity.”
Jess recently posted..Afghan Postcard