Colour Not To Standard?

[OutOfSightHound]

Now your just baiting and have closed your eyes to whats actually going on in the KC world. Just go out and get health insurance quotes for your breed and then a cross of your breed. Purebred dogs will ALWAYS cost more to insure becasue there is more risk of the insurance company having to payout. It's how insurance works Has nothing to do with the orginal cost of the dogs (especially since designer X's can cost more these days.)

When a Purebred dog costs less to insure than a mongeral we will have achieved the aims of what pedigree dog breeding is all about. Breeding BETTER dogs.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that "hybrid vigour" is a principle that needs careful application to achieve desired outcomes. Most studies I've read on it also say that beyond an F1 cross, any general improvements in heatlh are lost.

There are heatlh statistics carefully gathered on a range of pedigree dogs. Why? Because of their known ancestry. Few, if any health researchers gather statistics on the incidence of inheritable conditions in crossbreds. That does not mean they don't occur. Incidence? Pure speculation.

Insurance generally relies on statistical analysis. My vets on a number of occasions have told me that they see Whippets for vaccinations and skin tears. Pretty damn healthy for the most part although some issues are starting to rear their heads.

However, I will say that you should NOT aim to improve the health of a breed by outcrossing to stock where there are no records about heatlh issues. That is, quite simply, gambling. And you don't always win.

Bellumori TP, TR Famula, DL Bannasch, JM Belanger, & AM Oberbauer 2013 Prevalence of inherited disorders among mixed-breed and purebred dogs: 27,254 cases (1995-2010). J Am Vet Med Assoc 242: 1549-1555.

There is a very good study done recently compaing Xbreeds to Purebreeds. 27 000 dogs were compared whichis a goood number from a statistical point of view.

The study by Bellumori et al (2013) used medical records from the veterinary clinic at UC Davis for more than 27,000 dogs and compared the incidence of 24 genetic disorders in mixed versus purebred dogs. The abstract of the paper is included at the bottom of this page.

Here is what they found:

1) The incidence of 10 genetic disorders (42%) was significantly greater in purebred dogs.

2) The incidence of 1 disorder (ruptured cranial cruciate ligament; 4%) was greater in mixed breed dogs.

3) For the rest of the disorders examined, they found no difference in incidence between mixed and purebred dogs.

MORE IN PUREBREEDS

Aortic stenosis

Dilated cardiomyopathy

Elbow dysplasia

IVDD

Hypoadrenocorticism

Atopy / allergic dermatitis

Bloat

Cataracts

Epilepsy (total)

Portosystemic shunt

MORE IN MIXED BREEDS

Ruptured cranial cruciate ligament

NO DIFFERENCE

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Mitral valve dysplasia

Patent ductus arteriosus

Ventricular septal defect

Hemangiosarcoma

Lymphoma

Mast cell tumor

Osteosarcoma

Hip dysplasia

Patellar luxation

Hyperadrenocortism

Hypothyroidism

Lens luxation

Epilepsy (confirmed)

Epilepsy (probable)

Epilepsy (suspect)

An interesting thing to note is that with the exception of one disorder, patent ductus arterioles, the odds ratios are higher for purebreds, but these failed to meet the criterion for statistical significance (hence no asterisk). This does not mean that the incidence in purebreds and mixed breeds was the same, only that they failed to find a statically significant difference in this study. This might be because they had inadequate data to detect a difference, or that in fact purebred and mixed breed dogs are the same and the differences in these data can simply be an artifact of sampling. (They incidentally found a significantly higher risk of being hit by a car in mixed breed dogs, which of course is not a health disorder and presumably not genetic.)

his study found that purebred dogs have a significantly greater risk of developing many of the hereditary disorders examined in this study. No, mixed breed dogs are not ALWAYS healthier than purebreds; and also, purebreds are not "as healthy" as mixed breed dogs. The results of this study will surprise nobody who understands the basics of Mendelian inheritance. Breeding related animals increases the expression of genetic disorders caused by recessive mutations, and it also increases the probability of producing offspring that will inherit the assortment of genes responsible for a polygenic disorder.

The authors of this study tackled a very important question that is difficult to address because collecting the "perfect" data set is impossible. Using data on clinical occurrence of disease is fraught with difficulty because of many sources of potential complication - perhaps purebred dogs are more likely to receive veterinary treatment than mixed breeds, and comparisons among groups (e.g., afflicted vs not, purebred vs mixed) are confounded by unequal sample sizes or differences among groups in the age, sex, etc of animals. It's a statistician's nightmare. (In fact, a highly regarded statistician, Thomas Famula, was involved in the study.) In fact, the "perfect" comparison will never be done. But this study presents a large compilation of data and a thorough analysis that is the first (and might be the only) attempt to explore differences in predisposition to disease in purebred and mixed breed dogs.

[Salukifan]

Can breeders here foresee a time when outcrossing might happen with their breed?

and

I think whippets are getting more and more problems. I have a friend who woke up to find her puppy dead on her bed, heart problems. It was from a well known breeder. Retained testicles, heart problems, epilepsy, auto immune diseases, CDA and probably lots more I've never heard of.

I think part of it is that veterinary diagnostics are improving and diagnosing more problems.

However to return to your previous question. Can I ever see a point at which ANKC Whippet breeders seek approval for an outcrossing program to resolve a particular issue?

With the population of available Whippets here and overseas, I'd have to say "no, unless a serious and widespread condition is diagnosed and an appropriate breed is identified to resolve it".

Our breed is relatively young in pedigree terms - 150 years or there abouts. There's a mix of breeds in its ancestry and popularity brings genetic diversity.

I have just done a mating where the COI is less than 1%. The ONLY way I could get it lower is to mate to another breed. So there is great potential to outcross to unrelated Whippets. To go to another breed, I'd need a serious answer for the "why".

In other breeds, the issues are different. I leave it to those involved in those breeds to answer the question for themselves.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Steph M]

I want to know more though, were the dogs studied from reg breeders or "My gumtree Golden retriever is a purebred" types. Big big difference.

I am sorry, I just don't buy hybrid vigor, perhaps in a situation where only the healthiest dogs grew to sexual maturity it would make a difference but in a situation where we can offer veterinary intervention and our dogs are sheltered it makes less of a difference, IMO.

[Keshwar]

Here is the entire note from the bottom of the report on this study. ;)

NOTE - This study received considerable press because of controversy among breeders and the public about whether purebred dogs are more afflicted with genetic disorders than mixed breed dogs. The study demonstrated that for 10 of the 27 disorders examined, purebred dogs were significantly more likely to be affected than mixed breed dogs (see the first graph above). For one disorder, ruptured cranial cruciate ligament, mixed breed dogs were more likely to be afflicted, and they were also more likely to be hit by a car. For the remaining 17 disorders, the study failed to find a difference between mixed and purebred dogs in the probability of being affected. The statistical statement of failure to find a significant difference between mixed and purebred dog populations is not the same as saying that a particular disease is "equally common" in mixed and purebred dogs, which is how it was generally interpreted by the press and also apparently many breeders.

"A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, indicates that mixed breeds don’t necessarily have an advantage when it comes to inherited canine disorders." UC Davis press release

"A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog." (Quickfall 2013)

"It has been publicly discussed for years that hereditary disorders would be a direct consequence of the strict selective breeding of pedigree dogs and that for this reason the purebreds would have a much greater risk of developing hereditary disorders than mixed breed dogs. According to the latest research by Bellumori and his group, this assumption does not seem to hold. Indeed many diseases seem to be as common in mixed breed as in pedigree dogs" (Moller)

"A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog" (Quickfall 2013).

It is true - a mixed breed dog is not "always healthier than a purebred dog". But it is the case - as this study showed - that purebred dogs have a greater risk of developing some of the hereditary disorders examined in this study than mixed breed dogs. And certainly in the case of genetic disorders caused by a single recessive mutation, purebred dogs should be far more likely to be afflicted because they are also more likely to inherit two copies of the defective allele as a consequence of inbreeding. Most of the disorders examined here are likely polygenic (i.e., involve complex effects of multiple genes). For the dozens of genetic disorders afflicting dogs that are caused by single recessive mutations, purebreds will surely exceed mixed breed dogs in frequency.

The authors of this study tackled a very important question that is very difficult to address because collecting the "perfect" data set is impossible. Using data on clinical occurrence of disease is fraught with difficulty because of many sources of potential complication - perhaps purebred dogs are more likely to receive veterinary treatment than mixed breeds, comparisons among groups (e.g., afflicted vs not, purebred vs mixed) are confounded by unequal sample sizes or differences among groups in the age, sex, etc of animals, and many other things that are a statistician's nightmare. In fact, the "perfect" comparison will never be done. But this study presents a large compilation of data and thorough analysis that is the first (and might be the only) attempt to explore differences in predisposition to disease in purebred and mixed breed dogs.

Moller F Mixed breed dogs are not protected from breed disease heritage. MyDogDNA website. (pdf)

Quickfall L 2013 Kennel Club welcomes study looking at health of all dogs. Dog News, Vol 29(30): 134, July 26, 2013. http://issuu.com/dognews/docs/072613/134

UC Davis press release (4/2/2014) Purebred dogs not always at higher risk for genetic disorders, study finds. (pdf)

Wood R 2013 Prevalence of genetic disorders compared in purebred and mixed-breed dogs. CABI VetMed Resource. http://www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/news/23088

[OutOfSightHound]

Can breeders here foresee a time when outcrossing might happen with their breed?

and

I think whippets are getting more and more problems. I have a friend who woke up to find her puppy dead on her bed, heart problems. It was from a well known breeder. Retained testicles, heart problems, epilepsy, auto immune diseases, CDA and probably lots more I've never heard of.

I think part of it is that veterinary diagnostics are improving and diagnosing more problems.

However to return to your previous question. Can I ever see a point at which ANKC Whippet breeders seek approval for an outcrossing program to resolve a particular issue?

With the population of available Whippets here and overseas, I'd have to say "no, unless a serious and widespread condition is diagnosed and an appropriate breed is identified to resolve it".

Our breed is relatively young in pedigree terms - 150 years or there abouts. There's a mix of breeds in its ancestry and popularity brings genetic diversity.

I have just done a mating where the COI is less than 1%. The ONLY way I could get it lower is to mate to another breed. So there is great potential to outcross to unrelated Whippets. To go to another breed, I'd need a serious answer for the "why".

In other breeds, the issues are different. I leave it to those involved in those breeds to answer the question for themselves.

Popularity doesn't bring gentic diversity. Once a studbook is closed the genes you will ever have are there and they can only get lost (unless you add new blood which is outcrossing). Also unless breeders breed widely and all healthy dogs breed equally (which doesn't happen as popular sires are rampant in show pedigrees) you WILL lose genes in every generation. Especially with so many dogs on limited register and in pet homes on spay neuter contracts only about 10% of the population is getting bred. In my breed on average 11% of males and only 14% of females continue onto the next generation thats A LOT of lost genes.

Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations (which breeds in Australia are and not many people can afford to import dogs).

Population bottle necks occur when a populations size is reduced for at least one generation. Because genetic drift acts more quickly to reduce genetic variation in small populations, undergoing a bottleneck can reduce a population’s genetic variation by a lot, even if the bottleneck doesn’t last for very many generations. This is illustrated by the puppies represented as 'X''L''O' shown below, where, in generation 2, an unusually small draw creates a bottleneck.

Gen 1

XOLOXLOXLO

XOLXOLOXLO

LLOXXXXXLL

Gen 2

LL

XL

XX

Gen 3

LLXLXLLXL

XLLXLXLLX

XLXLXLLLL

That O gene could have been a gene for something important like proper uric acid or a colour. Ineffect by having such a small part of the population breed each genration you are pushing breeds through a bottle neck each generation even if your breed had a huge founding population.

In Fact our breeding culture is bottlenecking our breeds into genetic impoverishmnet.

Edited May 27, 2015 by OutOfSightHound

[Salukifan]

Outofsight:

Popularity doesn't bring gentic diversity. Once a studbook is closed the genes you will ever have are there and they can only get lost (unless you add new blood which is outcrossing). Also unless breeders breed widely and all healthy dogs breed equally (which doesn't happen as popular sires are rampant in show pedigrees) you WILL lose genes in every generation. Especially with so many dogs on limited register and in pet homes on spay neuter contracts only about 10% of the population is getting bred. In my breed on average 11% of males and only 14% of females continue onto the next generation thats A LOT of lost genes.

Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations (which breeds in Australia are and not many people can afford to import dogs).

Perhaps not, but many use them.

You'd be surprised the lengths those irrelevant pedigree dog breeders will go to for stock. In my immediate circle of friends, three have imported dogs (multiple imports in some cases), more have imported semen and I've personally got feelers out for an import.

Both dogs from the mating I have done have imports within two generations - one is the daughter of an import.

Perhaps we move in different circles. My breeder friends are thoughtful, knowledgeable and responsible. They take breeding very seriously and invest heavily in their hobby.

Crossbreeding may be perceived you to be the magic bullet for the ills of the pedigree dog world. I happen to think that careful breeding can produce the same result.

You'll need some data to prove genetic drift from the rest of the world in any breed. The last Whippet results I saw suggested the USA was experiencing it, not here.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[_PL_]

This is really interesting.

So if you outcross, does that mean you just run the risk of doubling up on problems you're trying to get rid of? Like the ooodly dogs. Or is it all based on genetics rater than the condition of the dog itself?

[Salukifan]

This is really interesting.

So if you outcross, does that mean you just run the risk of doubling up on problems you're trying to get rid of? Like the ooodly dogs. Or is it all based on genetics rater than the condition of the dog itself?

If both breeds have genes for a condition (such as PRA), you'll end up with it in the outcross. This is what the oodle farmers don't tell folk.

If one breed has a condition, it may introduce it into a gene pool where it was unknown. CEA and MDR1 in Silken Windhounds is an example. Those two conditions are UNKNOWN in older sighthound breeds.

However if the breed does not suffer from the condition and the outcross is carefully done, when backcrossed with unaffllicted individuals, you stand a chance of lowering the incidence in a breed.

The LUA Dalmation outcross project is an example. As can be discerned from the article, it is not without controversy. I note that the breed used had physical characteristics in common with Dallies and genetic testing was used to verify results. It wasn't a case of "I'll put my X over my Y because I think I might get a handy dog from it".

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[espinay2]

Outofsight:

Popularity doesn't bring gentic diversity. Once a studbook is closed the genes you will ever have are there and they can only get lost (unless you add new blood which is outcrossing). Also unless breeders breed widely and all healthy dogs breed equally (which doesn't happen as popular sires are rampant in show pedigrees) you WILL lose genes in every generation. Especially with so many dogs on limited register and in pet homes on spay neuter contracts only about 10% of the population is getting bred. In my breed on average 11% of males and only 14% of females continue onto the next generation thats A LOT of lost genes.

Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations (which breeds in Australia are and not many people can afford to import dogs).

Perhaps not, but many use them.

You'd be surprised the lengths those irrelevant pedigree dog breeders will go to for stock. In my immediate circle of friends, three have imported dogs (multiple imports in some cases), more have imported semen and I've personally got feelers out for an import.

Both dogs from the mating I have done have imports within two generations - one is the daughter of an import.

Perhaps we move in different circles. My breeder friends are thoughtful, knowledgeable and responsible. They take breeding very seriously and invest heavily in their hobby.

Crossbreeding may be perceived you to be the magic bullet for the ills of the pedigree dog world. I happen to think that careful breeding can produce the same result.

You'll need some data to prove genetic drift from the rest of the world in any breed. The last Whippet results I saw suggested the USA was experiencing it, not here.

In my breed, all but two breeders have imported either dogs and/or semen from overseas. Often multiple times. (and at least one of those two has used imports brought in by others).

Edited May 27, 2015 by espinay2

[miss whippy]

Been thinking about this a lot lately (don't know why.)

I feel the number one goal in breeding should be health. Then temperament.

After that, breeding to a standard is obviously the desirable outcome.

Many breed standards specify temperament.

What good is an LGD that is extremely dog social? Similarly what good is a protective and aloof gun dog? (although there is a gun dog that is expected to guard)

I think a solid understanding of the "why's" of a breed standard should inform anyone embarking on the roller coaster of purebred dog breeding.

Colour is immaterial for Whippets. The breed standard says so. But seemingly minor cosmetic issues like foot shape, top line, depth of chest etc all have a WHY. We are lucky to have some extremely wonderful books that spell out the whys for us. Is there a Flatcoat bible?

Ok, lets just hypothetically say with Flatties that yellows were allowed (As this thread was originally flatties). Say to keep the gene pool as open as possible.

If the genetics are the same as labradors, you could put an allowance that you must breed yellows to only Livers and Blacks that do not carry yellow. Therefore all resulting puppies would be liver or black. Yellows will still pop up when livers and blacks carrying e (yellow) come together, but you are not aiming to produce them. But if they pop up, and they happen to have great temperament, and conformation, and retrieving ability and/or whatever else that breeder is looking for, at least the chance of using that dog and carrying on those traits is there?

I don't see how the above situation would be allowing for the decimation of breeds to mutts.

We still don't have an answer for WHY yellow is a disqualifying colour though. That is the most important question of all. You don't go mucking about with an established breed standard based on a whim before understanding PRECISELY what the change will result in. For example, is the coat the same in all three colours??

Based on the history of the breed, it may be that the FC folk wanted to keep the differentiation clear between the Flatcoat and the Golden Retriever. Maybe whilst they acknowledged the need for GR blood to increase the gene pool after WWII but, they wanted to favour the dogs that more closely resembled the 'old' upland retrievers based on the St John's dog and the Newfoundland before their decline. Certainly a black or liver dog would be far easier to see in upland country - important for a working retriever.

A breed standard isn't an opt in for bits, opt out for others kind of deal. If you want a yellow gun dog with long hair there is one available. Given the number of health issues currently experienced by that long haired yellow gun dog, maybe the original Flatcoat people were onto something.

The last thing you want is some cowboy breeding and selling a 'rare' colour in contravention of the breed standard. That seriously is the fast track to oblivion for breed type.

What about the BCs though? Colours that are allowed in other countries, but not here for some reason? And Kelpies, colours that occur in working Kelpies and have from the beginning, but not included in the standard?

Again, we need to answer the WHY.

And if necessary CHANGE the breed standard. It does happen.

Far better than blowing it off because you don't personally agree with it.

.

But that's exactly what I was saying? In circumstances like kavik mentioned, where there is no difference to the dog why not consider it?

It happens. I can think of breed standards that have been changed to include some colours but not others.

But that is a process that is worked through. Lots of consultation and generally that includes overseas folks. Not someone deciding based on a gut instinct that they know better.

Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing.

The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood.

The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

[Kirislin]

Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing.

The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood.

The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

I found myself nodding my head at this statement. Edited May 27, 2015 by Kirislin

[Salukifan]

But that's exactly what I was saying? In circumstances like kavik mentioned, where there is no difference to the dog why not consider it?

It happens. I can think of breed standards that have been changed to include some colours but not others.

But that is a process that is worked through. Lots of consultation and generally that includes overseas folks. Not someone deciding based on a gut instinct that they know better.

Has anyone here suggested that colours that are not currently in the standard should be allowed 'on a whim'? Has anyone suggested that we should just throw out the standard and ignore it? I think anyone here with the view that colours not currently in whichever hypothetical standard should be included, are only suggesting that it should be done with careful consideration of the health implications and the function of the breed. I'm not sure why you are still disagreeing.

The original 'why' that precluded some colours from some breeds may be lost, but why should we be stuck with that? We are in a much better position now to know the actual ramifications of colour choice or any other visible trait than those who wrote the standard were. A lot of the time these colour choices were simply omissions. Some are just a drift in definition or because at the time the standards were written, the genetics of colour were not understood.

The standards should not be held up as some unassailable document of pure wisdom, they do not deserve it. It is fair and sensible to question their 'wisdom' regularly. Dog breeds are not static. Knowledge is not static. The reliance on 'because the standard says so' is frankly lazy.

Read the bolded part of my response. I'm not arguing what you appear to suggest I am. Breed standards can and are changed to accomodate colours. I have no issue with it.

However, until such time as any breed standard IS altered, then most of us will adhere to it.

Colour me "lazy".

[miss whippy]

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

[miss whippy]

Outofsight:

Popularity doesn't bring gentic diversity. Once a studbook is closed the genes you will ever have are there and they can only get lost (unless you add new blood which is outcrossing). Also unless breeders breed widely and all healthy dogs breed equally (which doesn't happen as popular sires are rampant in show pedigrees) you WILL lose genes in every generation. Especially with so many dogs on limited register and in pet homes on spay neuter contracts only about 10% of the population is getting bred. In my breed on average 11% of males and only 14% of females continue onto the next generation thats A LOT of lost genes.Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations (which breeds in Australia are and not many people can afford to import dogs).

Perhaps not, but many use them. You'd be surprised the lengths those irrelevant pedigree dog breeders will go to for stock. In my immediate circle of friends, three have imported dogs (multiple imports in some cases), more have imported semen and I've personally got feelers out for an import. Both dogs from the mating I have done have imports within two generations - one is the daughter of an import. Perhaps we move in different circles. My breeder friends are thoughtful, knowledgeable and responsible. They take breeding very seriously and invest heavily in their hobby. Crossbreeding may be perceived you to be the magic bullet for the ills of the pedigree dog world. I happen to think that careful breeding can produce the same result. You'll need some data to prove genetic drift from the rest of the world in any breed. The last Whippet results I saw suggested the USA was experiencing it, not here.

genetic drift is the loss of genetic material within the closed genepool due to various phenotypes being bred for or against, and some other genes being unintentionally lost along the way. it applies to the entire breed, not country or population related.

[Salukifan]

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it.

If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification.

[miss whippy]

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it.

If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification.

Somewhere along the line, an individual is going to have to disagree with it to have it changed. Nobody has suggested that the reason why should not be considered, but the genetic health of the breed should also be considered, possibly above whatever reason may have been for the exclusion of a colour.

[Salukifan]

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it.

If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification.

Somewhere along the line, an individual is going to have to disagree with it to have it changed. Nobody has suggested that the reason why should not be considered, but the genetic health of the breed should also be considered, possibly above whatever reason may have been for the exclusion of a colour.

They may disagree with it intellectualy but they'll have to adhere to it while breeding until it is changed. And they are going to have to convince an international community of their fellow breed fanciers to accomplish it. Posting about it on social media or importing an unrecognised colour and then wanting Main Register to breed from it is not the way these things happen.

I get that a lot of folk don't think breed standards are important. All I can say to those folk is that generally the importance of a standard and its contents grows with breed knowledge. They are the iterative product of centuries of breed fancier input - you don't toss them aside because you've bred something outside one.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[miss whippy]

Here is the entire note from the bottom of the report on this study. ;)

NOTE - This study received considerable press because of controversy among breeders and the public about whether purebred dogs are more afflicted with genetic disorders than mixed breed dogs. The study demonstrated that for 10 of the 27 disorders examined, purebred dogs were significantly more likely to be affected than mixed breed dogs (see the first graph above). For one disorder, ruptured cranial cruciate ligament, mixed breed dogs were more likely to be afflicted, and they were also more likely to be hit by a car. For the remaining 17 disorders, the study failed to find a difference between mixed and purebred dogs in the probability of being affected. The statistical statement of failure to find a significant difference between mixed and purebred dog populations is not the same as saying that a particular disease is "equally common" in mixed and purebred dogs, which is how it was generally interpreted by the press and also apparently many breeders.

"A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, indicates that mixed breeds don’t necessarily have an advantage when it comes to inherited canine disorders." UC Davis press release

"A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog." (Quickfall 2013)

"It has been publicly discussed for years that hereditary disorders would be a direct consequence of the strict selective breeding of pedigree dogs and that for this reason the purebreds would have a much greater risk of developing hereditary disorders than mixed breed dogs. According to the latest research by Bellumori and his group, this assumption does not seem to hold. Indeed many diseases seem to be as common in mixed breed as in pedigree dogs" (Moller)

"A new study on the prevalence of inherited disorders among American mixed breed and purebred dogs has negated the common assumption that a mixed breed dog is always healthier than a purebred dog" (Quickfall 2013).

It is true - a mixed breed dog is not "always healthier than a purebred dog". But it is the case - as this study showed - that purebred dogs have a greater risk of developing some of the hereditary disorders examined in this study than mixed breed dogs. And certainly in the case of genetic disorders caused by a single recessive mutation, purebred dogs should be far more likely to be afflicted because they are also more likely to inherit two copies of the defective allele as a consequence of inbreeding. Most of the disorders examined here are likely polygenic (i.e., involve complex effects of multiple genes). For the dozens of genetic disorders afflicting dogs that are caused by single recessive mutations, purebreds will surely exceed mixed breed dogs in frequency.

The authors of this study tackled a very important question that is very difficult to address because collecting the "perfect" data set is impossible. Using data on clinical occurrence of disease is fraught with difficulty because of many sources of potential complication - perhaps purebred dogs are more likely to receive veterinary treatment than mixed breeds, comparisons among groups (e.g., afflicted vs not, purebred vs mixed) are confounded by unequal sample sizes or differences among groups in the age, sex, etc of animals, and many other things that are a statistician's nightmare. In fact, the "perfect" comparison will never be done. But this study presents a large compilation of data and thorough analysis that is the first (and might be the only) attempt to explore differences in predisposition to disease in purebred and mixed breed dogs.

Moller F Mixed breed dogs are not protected from breed disease heritage. MyDogDNA website. (pdf)

Quickfall L 2013 Kennel Club welcomes study looking at health of all dogs. Dog News, Vol 29(30): 134, July 26, 2013. http://issuu.com/dognews/docs/072613/134

UC Davis press release (4/2/2014) Purebred dogs not always at higher risk for genetic disorders, study finds. (pdf)

Wood R 2013 Prevalence of genetic disorders compared in purebred and mixed-breed dogs. CABI VetMed Resource. http://www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/news/23088

Yes, you have highlighted the press' crap interpretation of the results..

[Kirislin]

what are you arguing against? i'm really not sure, that was my point

I'm saying that a breed standard matters. Individual disagreement with it isn't a good enough reason for me to breed outside it.

If you don't like a standard, a process exists to change it. However before you change it, it pays to understand the "why" of colour specification or disqualification.

Some are purely an aesthetic preference. Dark eye dilute whippets in the US. I wonder how many perfectly healthy, beautifully conformed lighter eyed whippets have been lost because of that.

The amount of white on IGs. Europe only allows minimal white. It has nothing to do with the health of the breed. My own preference is also for minimal white too, but I dont agree with it being a requirement of the standard.

There are lots of colours that occur naturally in some breeds, without them being crossed with something else, they were there all along but because they weren't written in the standard from the beginning they aren't allowed now.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Kirislin

[Salukifan]

.

Some are purely an aesthetic preference. Dark eye dilute whippets in the US. I wonder how many perfectly healthy, beautifully conformed lighter eyed whippets have been lost because of that.

Generally the Americans dont' show dilutes at all. Their breed standard speciifies a dark eye and that's impossible in a dilute. Our breed standard follows the English one and eye colour has no impact on hunting ability.

That, a strong preference for parti-colours (a recessive gene) and a higher height allowance in the US breed standard probably account for the genetic drift identified in American Whippets.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Haredown Whippets