It was only a matter of time before the purebred dog debate spilled over into the much less-familiar world of cat breeding. In this piece from the Mail, the ''inbreeding'' of pedigree cats is blamed for a variety of health concerns related to felines including cancer, sensitive skin and monorchidism.
It really bothers me how the word ''inbred'' is being used as the catchphrase for any illness or negative trait connected to these animals. Of course I'm not suggesting that the potential outcome of a father-daughter or brother-sister mating could be anything less than disastrous if the genetic slot-machine lands on 3 unlucky stars (the chances of which obviously increasing in such a mating if those predispositions exist.) But journalists are using inbreeding as an easy and over-simplified explanation to draw readers in. Its a highly charged word that strikes an emotional chord with people, but realistically cannot be the one-size-fits-all answer for everything. Consider how outcrossed the human race is and the growing number of genetic problems we face.
A similar story ran in the Telegraph, seen here. It finished with a quote from the owner of a pet website who said on the subject of purebreds ''It is man imposing his idea of what a cat should look like. It is the tyranny of breeding." I hope that the readers of those comments consider the many great things that the tradition of breeding animals for purpose,function and even appearance has afforded us . To describe it as tyranny is absurd, but then again the absurd makes for great headlines.
Posts
I would agree in parts if the Genetic diseases in dogs were not on the whole breed specific.
ReplyDeleteif the incidence of any one disease was the same as that of the general dog population then OK but it simply isnt the case. if for example the incidence of say FN in Cockers was the same in all dogs then we could look to other causes but it isnt. The way purebreds have been line bred for generations means that the diseases at first present in just a few, probably the same number in all dogs, become widespread and much higher than in other breeds. If as in immune mediated diseases a trigger which may be environmental, is needed for the disease to affect the dog, the predisposition to develop it MUST BE THERE.
Looking at this issue logically it would be hard to refute the facts that breeding in the way we have has resulted in terrible illness being common in many breeds, call it line breeding if it makes you feel better it simply gets you to the same place a little more slowly but get there you will
Its going to be a long long time before DNA testing will be available for all disease in order to help in its irradication, how many dogs will have to suffer the consequences before breeders look to change? As responsible breeders we should ALL be lobbying the KC for action NOW, changing standards and the banning of close matings ( admitted by a KC spokesperson to be, a PR exercise) is simply not enough, a somewhat mystical plan to stop further erosion of genetic diversity appears as far away as ever, other countries have already tackled this issue 10 years ago, will it be another 10 before our KC sees fit to act ? If we as breeders keep on and on defending the indefensible then that is exactly what will happen, NOTHING !!!!
The problem with imposing rules about inbreeding is that there is no 'one size fits all'.
ReplyDeleteFor every close breeding that has produced genetic disaster you can find another that has resulted only in good. IF THE GENES FOR DISEASE ARE NOT THERE, NO AMOUNT OF INBREEDING WILL INTRODUCE THEM.
The most widely used stud dog in my breed in the UK is from a brother/sister mating, who were in turn from a half-brother/sister mating. Shock horror! Yet that dog is now 11 years old - fit and healthy (never been to the vet since he arrived in the UK 10 years ago, apart from routine boosters and once for an ear infection), just had a sperm count done - still fertile. He has been mated to his own daughters, and one of those was RBB at Crufts last week - she's now 4 yrs old, and equally healthy.
What it comes down to is having an IN-DEPTH knowledge of the blood lines that you are working with.
The truth to this argument is definitely somewhere in the middle, making an exact solution all the more evasive. There are breeds who have experienced no major trends of genetic health disorders despite being closely inbred and linebred for generations....while the last post'er may well have one of those breeds, to carry out the same scenario he describes in his breeding program in other breeds (including one of my own, the American Cocker) would be considered very risky.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, while we can agree that there are examples to prove and disprove every theory, whether it scientific or applied, the majority of breeders would not recommend brother/sister matings.
The idea of COI data is interesting, assuming that with genetic diversity there has been a marked decrease or elimination of these conditions/illnesses.
An in terms of regulating popular sires...surely there is not a one size fits all answer to that either....when you consider that some breeds are more genetically vast already than others.
It all rather depends on your criteria for a successful litter, if it is simply to produce a Champion then success will probably come your way, but at what cost ? If we take a look at the study done by Imperial College into 10 of the most popular breeds in the UK, the only study of its kind we find breeds numbering many hundreds of thousands with genetic variation so small there may as well be less than 100 individuals. When selecting for particular traits we cannot help but lose some genes altogether from the population, we cannot see them, we do not know their function, the immune system genetic material is not randomly distributed but inherited in groups, if both sets from each parent are the same the puppy will have a less efficient immune system. it could be a simple instruction that turns a particular protein on or off, science does not know the functions of all genetic material how can breeders who simply select for the things they can see or test for possibly know ? " I know my lines " just isnt enough, if it was there would not be the problems we have now.
ReplyDeleteSo ok you say " one size dosnt fit all" lets say we have a level of inbreeding acceptable for the least diverse breeds, what is wrong with applying this to the more diverse breeds too? What do we think can happen ? It certainly wont make them unhealthy so why would anyone have an issue? It may give the more diverse breeds a better chance to stay healthy, we wont start to produce breeds that look like aliens, their type is already fixed by the generations of breeding before, we will not breed labradors that look like salukis or anything else but labradors, we can still breed a sire to complement a bitch, we can still look to the relatives to see the likelyhood of reproducing a particular trait but we can also look to the future and choose the sire that reduces the COI from that of the Dam. If we all did this with the help of the KC we would give our puppies the BEST genetic material for long term health, longevity and overall fitness.
And im sorry but "i know my lines " relies on complete knowledge of every puppy ever bred, not just the ones kept by the breeder, and every puppy produced by the stud dog, I have breeders constantly saying this very same thing to me when I know their dog or bitch that they may have sold on has produced more than one puppy with immune mediated disease. I am not blaming them as the owners never thought to inform them, the vet didnt think it could be hereditary, any number of reasons the breeder did not get the information
If the tests are available then fair enough but for many many diseases they are very far from being available And please dont tell me every breeder is 100% honest if their dog has a problem or has produced one, in my breed every single stud dog has produced nothing but entire litters, the top breeders tell the novices not to mention the lack of testicles
I would say with some experience that it is extremely common in the breed, If breeders arnt honest about that what are the chances of them being honest about any other issues
These are all reasons why we should now be looking to the KC for help in trying to educate breeders that what may have been ok in the past may not be good for the future
Surely genetic diversity in these breeds is greater today than 20 years ago? 40 years? With the advent of frozen semen, importation, and now the Pet Passport, the UK has probably never seen such an increase in foreign stock than in the past 2o or so years.
ReplyDeleteShould show breeders be the target of programs like the pedigree dog expose when they are the only ones with any interest in seeing positive change?
If genetic Diversity was less 20 years ago than it is now those breeds would probably have in bred themselves to extinction !
ReplyDeleteLine Breeding has a cumulative effect, what was ok 40 years ago is no longer good practice now. The report states in the generations studied which is eight ALL BUT 2 OF THE TEN BREEDS HAD LOST A STAGGERING 90% of their genetic variation
Im sorry but i cant see any signs of many show breeders wanting to change the habits of a lifetime, its easier not to,it will upset their carefully laid plans, above all they do not want anyone telling them what to do, or having the temerity to suggest things may need a re think.
Some breeds WILL have to use a cross into other breeds if they are to survive at all
even in the equine world crosses are allowed to produce 3/4 bred animals which are then crossed back to pure breds and can be registered as such.
All i am saying is learn the lessons from those who have already done the research, in agriculture COi s have been in use for years to aid the diversity of breeds and keep them fit, it has had to be done as any failings due to inbreeding will result in less PROFIT and ability to feed the country, this has never been an issue in dog breeding so the research is in its infancy, BUT the genetic principles
are the same for all mammals
Lets face it we havnt had a decent Health Survey even, the last one the Show Breeders couldnt even be bothered to reply, what does this say about wanting to change,
Sorry but when the KCs own spokesperson admits the banning of close matings was simply a PR exercise then as a Show Breeder I just despair!
Right.....doesn't the fact we are having this discussion suggest I am open to your views and willing to give you information credence and merit? If I were a puppy farmer I would not bother with such unimportant issues. Therein lies my point: why alienate the show breeders who obviously have a major interest in health and welfare of their dogs? Without them you are left with a crowd who at best won't engage you in any sort of reparte, and at worst tell you to f*** off. Keep the show world on side, and if your message and its truth are convincing enough you may see a sway in the way we do business.
ReplyDeleteOk, I agree with the sentiments, if I didnt want to keep the Show Breeders on side then I simply wouldnt be bothering and would go and buy a parrot, I can only take on board the reactions I have had from from the majority in my breed, they simply do not want to know or try to understand, what i really want is not for people to say im right but for them to ask me why i have come to beleive things should change, ask me where to find the information,
ReplyDeleteask me to explain , in fact anything but the complete apathy and in a few cases hostility i have encountered so far, And i am not a person that enjoys being unpopular and neither am i tactless or accusatory. I would like to be proven wrong actually, I would like someone to convince me we can carry on as before and all will be fine. It would be so much easier to just carry on enjoying the showing than trying to get a message across that no-one wants to hear