poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 To me the full story is that inbreeding and closed stud books are at the root of the need to do health testing. Health testing is looking for defective genes which are now wide spread enough in the breed as to be commonly found, which now require some sort of screening or testing for. That is ass backwards. Good breeding, ethical breeding, should mean that we are not making breeds that end up with wide spread health problems that need to be tested for in the first place. The whole system is geared to make health problems. Starting with the concept of purebred, which madates inbreeding forever on a small number of ansectors. The Kennel Club moto really should be 'Keep it all in the Family'. Inbreeding is with out question removing a wide selection of genes from each dog and eventually the whole breed, most of these genes we have no idea what they do or that we are removing them. Closed stud books force contiuned inbreeding even for those breeders who want to reduce inbreeding levels in their pups. This goes far beyond being ethical because we health test. It is the very foundations of how we breed dogs in the kennel club system, it needs a very close and honest review. I think the Uk Kennel club is starting to do this, I think they know they have to, it is no longer a debate or an option. Now we need to start talking about it, from the ground up, not from the top down. Just a small selection. But SS is apparently part of this whole thing, unless they outcross their ANKC dogs, which means they aren't ANKC breeds anymore. Or SS is doing the same thing that they condemn above. And what terrifies me is that this assertion that purebreds are by their very pedigree status "unhealthy" can gather momentum and be viewed uncritically by reasonable and rational people. The solution to an assertion based more on perception of a few breeds than facts about ALL breeds reminds me of the famous statement made (at least allegedly) at Ben Tre. We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Shortstep is applying Ben Tre logic to the issue of "saving" purebred dogs - whether they need saving or not. And some wonder why we aren't very calm about the notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryan_mannix Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Maybe you haven't read all the same posts we have, because it is all there in black and white if you read them all. Perhaps I haven't or can I humbly suggest you are both bringing your own lenses through which you view posts hunting for minutiae to pounce upon and be outraged. On a different front... while observing this bickering I am watching the First Tuesday Book Club and have come across I Shall Not Hate. Looks like a compelling read and perhaps puts our discussions in perspective.. By turns inspiring and heart-breaking, hopeful and horrifying, I Shall Not Hate is Izzeldin Abuelaish's account of an extraordinary life. A Harvard-trained Palestinian doctor who was born and raised in the Jabalia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip and "who has devoted his life to medicine and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians" (New York Times), Abuelaish has been crossing the lines in the sand that divide Israelis and Palestinians for most of his life - as a physician who treats patients on both sides of the line, as a humanitarian who sees the need for improved health and education for women as the way forward in the Middle East. And, most recently, as the father whose daughters were killed by Israeli soldiers on January 16, 2009, during Israel's incursion into the Gaza Strip. His response to this tragedy made news and won him humanitarian awards around the world. Instead of seeking revenge or sinking into hatred, Abuelaish called for the people in the region to start talking to each other. His deepest hope is that his daughters will be "the last sacrifice on the road to peace between Palestinians and Israelis." Off to hunt for it on www.booko.com.au Edited July 5, 2011 by bryan_mannix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 No, I'm not over reacting or looking for things to be outraged over, I just can't stay silent while the same ill informed opinion continues to be posted. If the subject matter weren't so serious then I wouldn't care. I'm not the only person here who sees what I see BTW. You try talking to someone who has an extreme view but refuses to concede when they are actually wrong. Why the buggery would anyone want to open a studbook for a breed that has no health issues, it's madness, yet that is what SS is saying. SS is overreacting and taking what is happening in a few breeds and applying it to all, which is baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Maybe you haven't read all the same posts we have, because it is all there in black and white if you read them all. Perhaps I haven't or can I humbly suggest you are both bringing your own lenses through which you view posts hunting for minutiae to pounce upon and be outraged. Or my outrage has a basis in an oft repeated pattern of behaviour from Shortstep that denigrates purebred dogs and would see the breeds I love changed forever because without any factual basis, they were condemned as unhealthy and sentenced not to "genetic rescue" but "genetic extinction". There is no hate in my arguments Bryann but real and genuine fear that such perceptions gather momentum and again ignorance will shape legislation that sees the future of dogs become less and less promising. Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) The dog genome project showed that many breeds are highly inbred. In some breeds, there is little question that this is linked to diseases that are widespread in the breed. Where the founding population is small, all dogs are inbred, regardless of what is on the three or five generation pedigree. See, eg, http://genome.cshlp....15/12/1706.full Here's an key extract from the paper. . . .which is neutral on the disease question, other than seeing canine breeds as an opportunity for genetic research on human diseases / syndromes, which in many cases have analogies in the canine population Common to the origin and development of many breeds is a founder event involving only a few dogs and, thereafter, reproductive dominance by popular sires that conform most closely to the breed standard. These restrictive breeding practices reduce effective population size and increase genetic drift, resulting in the loss of genetic diversity within breeds and allele frequency divergence among them. For example, in a genetic study of 85 breeds, Parker et al. (2004) showed that humans and dogs have similar levels of overall nucleotide diversity, 8 × 10-4, which represent the overall number of nucleotide substitutions per base/pair. However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%). Furthermore, in some breeds, genetic variation has been additionally reduced by bottlenecks associated with catastrophic events such as war and economic depression, making them analogous to human populations of limited genetic variation used for disease-mapping studies such as the Finns, Icelanders, and Bedouins. As a result, the unique pattern of LD in dogs provides an exceptional opportunity to study complex traits that are relevant to human biology using robust approaches that would not be possible in human populations. The popularization of this information is often bad science, and the degree of inbreeding varies hugely between breeds, and within different lines within a breed. But there IS a problem. In most cases it can be addressed without cross breeding. Hopefully, genetics will provide guidance in avoiding hereditary diseases for dogs and people alike . . . and we can work through the problems without sacrificing the breeds we love. Edited July 5, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) The popularization of this information is often bad science, and the degree of inbreeding varies hugely between breeds. But there IS a problem. No one's denying it. But its not uniform across all breeds and the proposal of complusory crossbreeding to solve it is not a proven solution. Witness the Labrador x Poodle. It has TWO sets of inherited health conditions, now - more than either of the parent breeds. Health issues resolved? None that I know of. Indeed, it doubled up the chance of inherited PRA. At the very time where advances in reproductive science have allowed breeders to access breeding dogs anywhere in the world, outcrossing seems to me to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem where it does exist, let alone where it doesn't Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Bullbreedlover Why should I seemingly waste my time educating you. Because you're the one who suggested that I don't know what I'm talking about - because I'm not a bulldog breeder or a genetic scientist. The person who pointed the specific problem with the bulldog breed standard (which may or may not be being followed by bulldog breeders) has these qualifications: BVSc, PhD, MRCVS, MACVS (Animal Welfare), Cert CABC, Grad Cert Higher Ed. RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine He also helped set up the genetic database at University of Sydney to track gene lines in the hope of getting healthier puppies because the genetics of the parents could be matched better. I don't think you're qualified to say what it takes to know what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I am a Whippet owner who fails to see why new breeds need to be introduced to the Whippet blood line to solve problems that don't exist. Agreed. There may be some breeds hwere opening up the studbook is beneficial. But in my breed there is no need at this point. So yep I do take offence in the notion that all pedigree registred dogs are inbred and need to be "fixed" by crossbreeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryan_mannix Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I am a Whippet owner who fails to see why new breeds need to be introduced to the Whippet blood line to solve problems that don't exist. Agreed. There may be some breeds hwere opening up the studbook is beneficial. But in my breed there is no need at this point. So yep I do take offence in the notion that all pedigree registred dogs are inbred and need to be "fixed" by crossbreeding. Then I have good news... you don't need to be offended...below is a quote from SS I never said that all purebred dogs were sick, I do say they are all inbred by the very nature of closed stud books.I never said that outcrossing was a magic bullet for all health problems and infact said several times I did not say or believe that When I read this I cannot see how you have interpreted this as an assertion that new breeds need to be introduced to the Whippet blood line to solve problems that don't exist ???Can you?? Here is a picture of perhaps Australia's best looking whippet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) When I read this I cannot see how you have interpreted this as an assertion that new breeds need to be introduced to the Whippet blood line to solve problems that don't exist SS said precisely that in his/her other thread. He/she wants "all stud books open" and that means allowing other outcrossings into every breed. The example of the UK Kennel Club has been repeatedly trotted out despite several reminders that only a fraction of British dogs are registered with the UKKC. In the other thread I pointed out that the statement that all purebred dogs were inbred was a no brainer. Inbreeding is how you establish breeds in any animal. SS's assertion that such inbreeding is the root cause of health issues facing all dog breeds is where we part company. I asked SS several times to identify the health issue in Whippets that would be resolved with outcrossing but no response was given. SS uses the example of the Kelpie to justify opening all breed stud books. Yes, there are plenty of purebed non ANKC kelpies that might be added to the stud book to expand the breed. That is not the case for all breeds. If SS wants to see working line Kelpies incorporated into ANKC blood lines then she can go for her life convincing Kelpie people to make it happen. The mechanisms exist to do it already. I fail to see why that desire should fuel a general free for all in other breeds with healthy populations and no identified genetic health issues. Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Shortstep. Thanks for the Wolf article... an interesting read. I will have a think about it. Oh and I am not a breeder (other than of two delicious children) so everything can I suppose be discounted Though I have just checked with Mrs Mannix Re: my breeding credentials and she replied "Performance or Product????....both above average but one much higher than the other" upon further discussion she is very much in favour of opening the stud books "if they contained Pat Rafter, Aidan Turner and Ewan Mcgregor"!! I agree with your wife, open stud books can have real positives! But you are right about your credentials. But even more damming, gossip has it you are the gardener! Anyway, my mind is now back on these new DNA tests which compare the genes in potential breedings, they are used to increase the diversity in a certain area of the DNA known to be involved in the immune system. They have also been use as a breed survey, to assess this area in the breed. This is sort of like trying to do anti-inbreeding while doing inbreeding in a closed stud book. My first reaction to the test was very negative, but I am starting to think it might be worth exploring. I guess a lot of people are already using these tests, purebred dog breeder in Europe and the US. It would be too soon to see what they feel the results have been in their breedings but certainly there is a big interest in this new pre breeding screening. The idea is you try to avoid crosses (don't panic... I mean crosses of 2 dogs of the same breed and both with ANKC registration done by an ANKC registered breeder) that would reduce the number of different genes and to look for crosses that will increase the number of different genes (select as much genetic diversity as possible) in this area of the DNA. I would personally like to think I am doing every thing I can to help my dogs have the best possible immune system. So am troting off to discuss this subject with another group of dog breeders. Here is a bit about it from one the complanies now offering these tests. http://www.genoscoper.com/in_english2/gene_tests/gene_tests/dla_diversity/ DLA diversity DLA diversity test to follow and maintain heterozygosity at MHC II locus Much of the genetic diversity of dogs is dimished or lost in many breeds due to aggressive breeding programs and closed inbred populations. Loss of genetic diversity threatens the welfare and vitality of dogs and may predispose them to various diseases. An important part of this genetic diversity is related to genes, which are responsible for the effective and functional immune defense against viruses, parasites and other foreign pathogens in dogs. There are probaly hundreds if not thousands of genes involved in the functionality of the immune system in mammalian genome. One of the most important such gene cluster is called major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in the dog’s genome. MHC complex includes a large number of genes and lies in canine chromosome 12. This MHC complex includes genes that are responsible for the recognition of the species own tissues from foreign material. Recognition is related to the genetic diversity and some of the genes in this region contain particulary hypervariable areas in their coding regions to maintain them as diverse as possible. The loss of diversity in the MHC region or inheritace of particular allele combinations may result in increased susceptibility to autoimmune diseases such as diabetes, atopia, hypothyroiditis and different forms of inflammatory disorders. Many canine autoimmune disorders have been already associated with risk haplotypes in the MHC locus and homozygosity to risk alleles or haplotypes seems to increase the disease risk. Heterozygosity is preferred in the MHC locus in wild population too. Several studies in both natural and domesticated populations underline the importance of heterozygosity rather than the numer of different haplotypes in the MHC region. We have now tools to type your dog’s MHC II genes (DLA typing) so that you can follow the diversity of your dogs and lines and use this information while planning new breedings. It is useful to have a DLA-profile from your breed in differnet countries since the frequency of the alleles in the MHC genes may vary a lot between populations. Once the DLA-profile is established you could compare your dog's profile for the overall breed' or line's profile and take it into account while planning new breedings. The aim is to maintain the heterozygosity of the MHC region as much as possible in the breeding lines. This should reduce the risk for autoimmune or other diseases. As a general rule it may be wise to avoid increasing homozygosity in the MHC locus containing a large number of important genes. There is a growing body of evidence that homozygosity in the MHC locus increases the risk for autoimmune disorders. Many of the published studies include rather small sample numbers. This has effects on the strength of the risk factors and significance levels. Larger studies in future should give more accurate risk estimates not available yet. However, it may be wise to choose a breeding partner that has different haplotypes to maintain heterozygosity and diversity in your litters and lines. Since MHC locus is functionally important it is not a neutral locus and lies under a selective pressures. Certain MHC haplotypes may not be allowed at all or may lead to inviablity. DLA-typing analyzes only the MHC locus in one chromosome, and although it provides important data that may also reflect the overall diversity of the breed, it is recommended for breeders to test also other markers from other chromosomes for comparison to better reflect the overall diversity of the breed. Due to selective pressures the diversity of the MHC locus may turn out to be more heterozygous than other part of the dog's genome. It is important to remember that several factors needs to be considered in breeding decisions and DLA-results are only one thing among many others. Breeding plans should never be based on only DLA-types or any other genetic tests. Breeding decisions needs to be made case by case. This is an increasing challenge in future with the growing number of genetic tests. Breeding against one locus may cause troubles in the other loci which are not known yet. Maintenance of the genetic diversity in the breed should be the key consideration in breeding plans. A good choice for this is to avoid inbreeding and keep the inbreeding coefficient as low as possible. This should also maintain the MHC locus heterozygous. DLA test can be only made from blood sample due to the complexity of the analysis that requires high quality DNA. DLA profiling service for Breed Clubs Before typing individual dog's it would be useful to have a public DLA-profile from the breed. Different breeds have different numbers of MHC II haplotypes based on the origin and history of the breeds and used breeding practices. The current DLA-profile of the breed can be known only by DLA typing. We provide DLA-profiling services for Breed Clubs. We suggest to type about 50-100 unrelated dogs provided by the owners or the Club. After the analysis, the Breed Club will get haplotype profiles and frequencies. This information can be used to advise better and healthier breeding habits. The DLA-profile service takes usually at least 2-3 months to complete. If your Club is interested in this service, please contact our Customer service. Several Clubs have already successully profiled their breeds with us. Edited July 5, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) The popularization of this information is often bad science, and the degree of inbreeding varies hugely between breeds. But there IS a problem. No one's denying it. But its not uniform across all breeds and the proposal of complusory crossbreeding to solve it is not a proven solution. Witness the Labrador x Poodle. It has TWO sets of inherited health conditions, now - more than either of the parent breeds. Health issues resolved? None that I know of. Indeed, it doubled up the chance of inherited PRA. At the very time where advances in reproductive science have allowed breeders to access breeding dogs anywhere in the world, outcrossing seems to me to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem where it does exist, let alone where it doesn't No one is denying it? PDEII = "Burn the witch?" I agree that outcrossing is a a blunt instrument and unnecessary except in a few cases. But in cases where it is necessary (Dalmatian) it has been fought pretty hard. I'm with you on the labradoodle. Both Labs and poodles are pretty broad genetically, as classed by the dog genome, although I can't speak to all three sizes of poodles. I have not seen that Lab X Poodle doubles chance of PRA, nor do I understand why it should. It is interesting that both Lab and poodle are better than Labradoodle in OFA stats. Personally, if I wanted to outcross Labs for Australia, I'd work toward something that increases tolerance of hot weather and decreases the propensity to obesity . . . perhaps kelpie, maybe even dingo . . . and it might take many generations of back crossing to get back to true Lab temperament and conformation. But I think outcrossing and back crossing might be faster than selective breeding within the breed. I find it annoying that the pedigree world is SO SO down on outcrossing that working toward an Lab suited to tropical and subtropical climates (or other breed redefinitions) would be treated as blasphemy. Double coat, schmubble coat. There are no icy waters to swim in, the proper coat means lots of shedding, and the poor dogs are miserable in summer. Not to mention high vulnerability to being killed by kindness. Edited July 5, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) [No one is denying it? PDEII = "Burn the witch?" Personally, if I wanted to outcross Labs for Australia, I'd work toward something that increases tolerance of hot weather and decreases the propensity to obesity . . . perhaps kelpie, maybe even dingo . . . and it might take many generations of back crossing to get back to true Lab temperament and conformation. But I think outcrossing and back crossing might be faster than selective breeding within the breed. I find it annoying that the pedigree world is SO SO down on outcrossing that working toward an Lab suited to tropical and subtropical climates (or other breed redefinitions) would be treated as blasphemy. Double coat, schmubble coat. There are no icy waters to swim in, the proper coat means lots of shedding, and the poor dogs are miserable in summer. Not to mention high vulnerability to being killed by kindness. There are plenty of slim Labs in this country - in working and sport homes. If you want a slimmer style of gundog without a double coat, there are plenty of breeds on offer. Slim Labs owned by people who don't feed them like feed lot cattle don't suffer in summer. What do you think introducing a breed that has low bite inhibition and a low bite threshold would to do soft gundog mouths? Will we see ball obsessed Labs with no off switches start to populate pounds because people got something other than what they were expecting from one? What would happen to the "culled" animals? Why wouldn't you outcross to something like a Hungarian Vizsla to resolve bulk and coat issues? I am NOT down on outcrossing where need and a purpose can be identified. Its been done in breeds in the past and it should WHERE NECESSARY be done again. What breed fanciers deem necessary for their breed is one thing. Forced outcrossing is another. You know what I CAN identify an issue in Whippets that some new blood might assist. It's size. Plenty of small non-registered Whippets out there. But introducing an Italian Greyhound to solve it - nope for a whole range of reasons that I don't need to go into here. One breed at a time, done carefully is one thing. Flinging open the doors of stud books for experimentation by people with a half baked idea about "fixing" an issue... no thanks. It might also do wonders for purebred dog genetic diversity if people weren't indoctrinated with the mantra that every purebred dog that's not destined for the show ring should be desexed by the age of six months. Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Open stud books would be a disaster for breeds where the mode of inheritance of a disease is unknown. I can point at any old dog that looks like a wheaten and go, 'That's a wheaten' and sure it might be. If it is and it's pedigree is unknown, I might well be introducing a protein-wasting disease into a line that previously did not have it. The only tests for protein wasting diseases show that the dog doesn't have it on the day of the test. Open stud books are not a magic bullet where a mode of inheritance is unknown and it behooves you to acknowledge it. Shortstep has notably ignored this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryan_mannix Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 OK perhaps one last try Poodlefan incorporating an illusion to gay marriage My understanding of grammar means that allowing other outcrossings into every breed does not equate to new breeds need to be introduced to the Whippet blood line Its as big a jump as the following silly example.... A couple mates and I are training to compete in this years EPIC. We are going out today to ride in the bush. Should an act legalising Gay Marriage be passed before 2pm this afternoon it is unlikely that we will hop off our bikes, pair up, make passionate love to each other and then get down on one knee and propose to each other. My guess would be that if the law is passed Gay people will be able to marry the person they love but there will be no compulsion on anyone else to change sexual orientation. Back to whippets. The vultures are circling. Animal rights groups have the ear of governments. They are perhaps looking to place great restrictions on breeders in the pure bred dog world. One stick they are using to condemn breeders are the closed stud books and practice of inbreeding. Imagine if the ANKC got on the front foot opened all stud books (under conditions, passed by judge, x generations, health tested etc etc). No breed need actually change pratice but (a) it instantly diffuses an argument and places the ANKC in a position of bargaining power "non of our stud books are closed" (b) it is a tool open to a breed if they deem it appropriate as in the Dalmation example. Legalising Gay marriage does not mean we are all forced into homosexual marriage. Opening stud books does not mean whippet breeders must outcross. Shortstep. Thanks for another interesting article. Keep the research coming. Back to open studbooks...my wife did note that her sisters recent attempts to open the stud books beyond the marital boundaries did not end well!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred". SS has not proposed to tell us how opening the stud books might be controlled to prevent utter destruction of hundreds of years of selective breeding, nor, using Sheridan's example, how the introduction of new genes might not bring health issues previously not experienced in a breed. In the other thread (which you really need to read) Steve pointed out scientific evidence and opinion that it is selection of particular characteristics and NOT inbreeding that has led to health issues for some breeds. If inbreeding is not the problem, why "fix" it. In the meantime, I note Howard gets cold in winter. Clearly his lack of body fat is a breed related health issue that needs be fixed by outcrossing. Shall we outcross to a Labrador or introduce the coat of Alaskan Malamute to resolve this? The first example will introduce PRA to Whippets. The second will intoduce Spitz temperament. Who deals withe culls? What will people who just wanted a Whippet do with an animal that might bear a passing physical resemblence but has none of the temperament attibutes of one? The longest running, most public attempt to incorporate the desireable attribute of one breed into another breed is the Labradoodle. Wally Conron wrote it off as an abject failure. That much desired poodle coat coudl not be reliably added to Labrador temperament. Some of the first 'exports' of the breed went blind from PRA. And the much vaunted solution of outcrossing? To how many dogs? If its only a handful and the offspring are linebred to stablise the attribute, how is that expanding the gene pool. We'd be better off putting our hopes into gene splicing. Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryan_mannix Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I think I am going to play with my kids in the sunshine Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred". Finnish lapphund? Yep read the other thread. I can synthesise a range of views. In the meantime, I note Howard gets cold in winter. Clearly his lack of body fat is a breed related health issue that needs be fixed by outcrossing. Shall we outcross to a Labrador or introduce the coat of Alaskan Malamute to resolve this? No. Why would you? That would be silly? Thank goodness you are not a breeder. Oh hang on.... are you suggesting that is what SS is suggesting!!? That's known as a Strawman Argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortstep Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) No one is denying it? PDEII = "Burn the witch?" I agree that outcrossing is a a blunt instrument and unnecessary except in a few cases. But in cases where it is necessary (Dalmatian) it has been fought pretty hard. I'm with you on the labradoodle. Both Labs and poodles are pretty broad genetically, as classed by the dog genome, although I can't speak to all three sizes of poodles. I have not seen that Lab X Poodle doubles chance of PRA, nor do I understand why it should. It is interesting that both Lab and poodle are better than Labradoodle in OFA stats. Personally, if I wanted to outcross Labs for Australia, I'd work toward something that increases tolerance of hot weather and decreases the propensity to obesity . . . perhaps kelpie, maybe even dingo . . . and it might take many generations of back crossing to get back to true Lab temperament and conformation. But I think outcrossing and back crossing might be faster than selective breeding within the breed. I find it annoying that the pedigree world is SO SO down on outcrossing that working toward an Lab suited to tropical and subtropical climates (or other breed redefinitions) would be treated as blasphemy. Double coat, schmubble coat. There are no icy waters to swim in, the proper coat means lots of shedding, and the poor dogs are miserable in summer. Not to mention high vulnerability to being killed by kindness. Just a note on HD. I have no idea what labxpoodle breeders are saying, but both those breeds get HD, so I would not expect any improvment. Besides HD is complex and even in crosses with Greys, it has not got rid of the HD, so we already know that cross breeding is not a quick fix for HD. I think expections in these conversations have to be inline with what is possible, and not keep using examples that there would no reasons to think that outcrossing whould ever help, never mind solve. For any dicussion to be relevant it has to be within what is possible and not keep using examples that are known as not possible as if this proves the whole idea is without value. Again I am saying that cross breeding or even just outcrossing to less related populations of the same breed (WKC as an example) is not a silver bullet for every woe known to dog. Bbut it can be very effective for simple recessives and in general improving vitality if you dare to believe that increasing genetic diversity and reducing inbreeding in general can only be a good thing as compared to reducing genetic diversity and increasing inbreeding. Note I did not say the anyone has to believe it or to cvhage the way they breed dogs. But for those who want to listen to what many experts are saying, there is no way to do it under a system that is definded by ever increasing inbreeding and ever decreasing genetic diversity. Other topic Here is a nice case history of back breeding. RetievermMan is an excllent blog and yet another example of a purebred dog breeder who can explore differnt ideas. http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/how-backcrossing-works/ I was also just reading today that several purebred breeds have had several unoffical cross and back breedings done over the years. So it would seem that even some of the best kennels in the world have a second round of foundation cross/back bred dogs in the woodpile. Edited July 5, 2011 by shortstep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I think I am going to play with my kids in the sunshine Bryann a purebred animal with an open stud book means "not purebred". Finnish lapphund? Yep read the other thread. I can synthesise a range of views. In the meantime, I note Howard gets cold in winter. Clearly his lack of body fat is a breed related health issue that needs be fixed by outcrossing. Shall we outcross to a Labrador or introduce the coat of Alaskan Malamute to resolve this? No. Why would you? That would be silly? Thank goodness you are not a breeder. Oh hang on.... are you suggesting that is what SS is suggesting!!? That's known as a Strawman Argument. Why would I? Because there are people in this world who view Whippets as inbred (duh), unfortunate skinny creatures whose exaggerated breed features need to be outcrossed to improve their welfare. I mean its not like they could survive in the wild is it? And Shortstep, while clearly very well intentioned, is playing right into their hands. Once you open the door to external control of breeding and breeders Bryann, someone else will be setting the agenda for what breed features are exaggerated, and what needs to be gotten rid of. If, as a Whippet owner, you've not had a visit from the RSPCA about the welfare of your skinny dog, its only a matter of time. And logically it will be the RSPCA (bastions of knowledge about purebred dogs, genetics and breeding that they are) who calls the tune we all dance to. If you want people outside of purebred dog breeders and canine controls to say what can and can't be mated to "fix" purebred health issues, that's we're we end up. And you wonder why we're outraged. "Natural" dogs Bryann.. that's what the animal rights lobby want. Whatever the fark that means. Pariah dogs I suppose. One might accuse me of doing the Chicken Little impression I suggested Shortstop was doing in the other thread. I prefer to think see I can see the writing on the wall and the fatal blow will be struck when the notion that all purebred breeds are inherently unhealthy becomes common perception. Its a crock and it needs to be fought hard and now. Edited July 5, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I was also just reading today that several purebred breeds have had several unoffical cross and back breedings done over the years. So it would seem that even some of the best kennels in the world have a second round of foundation cross/back bred dogs in the woodpile. No revelation there. Numerous examples were given to you in the other thread. Flatcoats, Gordon Setters.. but carefully and only after identification of an issue and controlled crossbreeding to resolve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now