Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'breeding'.
-
This article highlights DogWellNet content and resources that can assist puppy buyers, new or existing owners, dog breeders, breed managers and veterinarians to answer basic questions that pertain to health, welfare, management and breeding of dogs. And to find link to international resources. Do you have a question about a breed - about a breed-specific health condition - about health screening or genetic tests? Are you looking for guidelines or example programs that can enhance practices that improve the quality of human and dog interactions? Through collaboration and working with our partners and breed experts we are continually compiling and collating information that may be helpful to you. Check into DogWellNet.com often... bookmark this page for a list of resources. DogWellNet.com - so much better than a Google search or social media post: Impartial, accurate, evidence-based data, information, and commentary from IPFD consultants and global experts In collaboration with our partners - kennel and breed clubs, academics, specialists and veterinarians; international resources The Big Picture - how the complexities of health, welfare, and human-animal interactions come together. For all dogs.
-
In 2004, I got my PhD on the subject 'Breeding against hip and elbow dysplasia in dogs'. My conclusion was that it is possible to breed against these traits and that not much has happened though. The reason was that no systematic selection has in practice been made against these defects. Now, 11 years later, I am glad to see that Finnish breeders have managed to achieve genetic as well as phenotypic gain. St Bernards have also increased their lifespan, as their health has been improving. The Finnish Kennel Club started to estimate breeding values (EBVs) for hip and elbow dysplasia in 2002 for 11 breeds, and during the years, new breeds have been included. At the moment somewhat 55-60 breeds have EBVs for hip dysplasia. It is possible to achieve genetic gain if the breeding dogs are systematically chosen from the better half of the population. There is no need to breed only from animals from the very best hips; just those that are better than the breed average. Progress will be slower, but doing it this way helps maintain genetic diversity.
-
Horizon Topic paper: A new future for dog breeding
Katariina Mäki posted a blog entry in New Research
Helle Friis Proschowsky, from the Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Copenhagen University, has just published a Horizon Topic paper with Maja Arendt, Brenda Bonnett, Camilla Bruun, Irena Czycholl, Merete Fredholm, Dan O'Neill, James Serpell, and Peter Sandøe. The title of the paper is "A new future for dog breeding". The paper presents a review of modern dog breeding, outlining the current situation and suggesting improvements to enhance the health and welfare of dogs in the future. The authors view this paper as a call to action, providing a framework for driving meaningful change. Overview of the Current Situation The authors begin with an overview of the current situation: The modern idea of purebred dogs has come under increasing critical scrutiny in recent decades. In light of this critical focus and other developments in society, new trends in how companion dogs are bred and acquired have emerged. This means a diminishing influence from traditional kennel clubs – with more dogs being sold without a pedigree, stricter legal restrictions on dog breeding, growing popularity of deliberate crosses of established breeds (i.e., so-called 'designer breeds'), and growing hype around the benefits of mixed-breed dogs. They then provide an overview of these trends and discuss the extent to which they will facilitate the promotion of dogs that are innately healthy, enjoy good welfare, and function well in their various roles in today's world. The authors contend that newly created designer breeds and mixed breeds also exhibit concerning health and behavioural issues. They posit that the predictability of purebred dogs with respect to body size, fundamental behaviours, known grooming requirements, disorder profiles, and other attributes may confer benefits for a mutually satisfying human-dog relationship. What Would Be the Solutions? The optimal future seems to lie in the middle ground, the authors state. The future organised dog world (i.e., kennel and breed clubs or their successor organisations) will need to: re-open the breed registries remove wording from breed standards that currently promotes extreme conformation support selection against disease-predisposing genotypes and phenotypes, and refocus dog showing and breeding to promote health and appropriate behaviour IPFD 5th International Dog Health Workshop Discussed These Same Issues Discussions on this subject also took place at IPFD’s 5th International Dog Health Workshop in June 2024. There was widespread agreement on moving away from extreme conformation and inbreeding, and towards accepting crossbreeding as a legitimate tool for breeders – as well as towards following scientific evidence on canine genetics and health. It was agreed that these principles should become priorities for welfare-minded organisations at the national and international levels. A better education of puppy buyers, breeders, show judges, and other stakeholders was identified as a recurring priority across all four workshop themes. Read the Horizon Paper View/Download the Horizon Paper Here -
This article provides an abbreviated listing of DogWellNet resources and content that may be of particular interest to dog breeders. This is not a comprehensive listing - it is a starting point for finding relevant resources. Please visit the various areas of the site using the navigation bar and/or the Search function. The following resources offer information to serve as a foundation for development of well-conceived breeding strategies designed to enhance individual dog's and breed's health and welfare.
-
New breeding tools from Wisdom Panel and Embark
Katariina Mäki posted a blog entry in Breeding and Genetics
Wisdom Panel and Embark have new features in their tests that may be of interest to dog breeders and owners: Wisdom Panel’s new Behaviors feature Wisdom Panel Premium test has a new feature called Behaviors. The feature includes these 15 analyses related to dog behavior: Nesting Crossing paws General fear and anxiety Splooting Propensity to gain weight Pointing Avoids getting wet Friendly towards strangers Hesitant toward strangers Anal sacs need expression Reverse sneezing Motion sickness Panting Sleeps on back Separation anxiety Behavioral traits are complex, with hundreds of gene variants at play, as well as the environment that further shapes the traits. That is why Wisdom Health's Behaviors feature uses complex statistical models to analyse hundreds of genetic variants, rather than just one, as most disease tests do. With this new feature, dog owners will be able to better understand their dogs and help them grow and develop into the most balanced adults possible. For example, if a dog has a genetic likelihood of developing separation anxiety, the owner can take proactive steps to help the dog feel calm and confident when left home alone. Or if a dog has a genetic likelihood of being anxious, the owner can focus on socialising the puppy carefully so that the puppy grows up to be as confident and fearless as possible. Read more about the Behaviors feature here >>. New Embark for Breeders Pair Predictor Tool Embark has a new, automated Punnett Square calculator called Pair Predictor that helps breeders understand the potential health risks for puppies produced by a particular sire and dam. Using Pair Predictor, breeders can compare the genetic health results of a potential sire and dam, which have Embark test results. After choosing the mating, Pair Predictor will show the probabilities of producing at-risk, carrier, and/or clear puppies for each genetic condition. In addition to the potential genetic health risks for each litter, Pair Predictor includes the genetic eCOI for a planned litter, and the coat colour predictions for litters. Pair Predictor works with all breeds and all breed mixes. Read more about the Pair Predictor here >>. Additional Genetic Testing Resources IPFD's Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) resources include a searchable database of Genetic Test Providers (labs); genetic tests, and tests by breed, along with Genetic Counselling resources. -
New breed-specific breeding norms in the Netherlands
Katariina Mäki posted a blog entry in Breeding and Genetics
IPFD Partner, The Raad van Beheer (RvB), has published the first five ‘foknormen’ (breeding norms) for breeding. The first breeds to have breeding norms are the Borzoi, the Beagle, the Manchester Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Breeding norms are mandatory pre-mating tests and/or screening results for a dog and bitch. These may include eye examinations or screening for hip or elbow dysplasia, or a minimum breeding age or a (positive) result of a behavioural test. The RvB consults with breed clubs about which requirements should apply to their breed(s). All published breeding norms can be found on this page >>. The link will take you to the breed information page where the breeding norms for the breed are published. You can find more information and resources for several of these breeds in IPFD's Pedigree Breeds Database here on DogWellNet: Borzoi | Beagle | Staffordshire Bull Terrier -
Breeding for health in pedigreed dogs Wageningen University in the Netherlands has completed an interesting project ‘Breeding for health in pedigreed dogs’. An excerpt from the project page: The “Science shop” of Wageningen University has set up this project in response to questions from three breeding organisations, with the aim to provide knowledge on how to better breed for healthy dogs and use the latest insights from scientific developments. Next to dealing with health problems, genetic management to preserve genetic diversity and prevent high inbreeding rates is essential. A high inbreeding rate caused by using too few and too related dogs in breeding will harm the health of the dogs. Consequently, excluding too many dogs for health reasons will restrict the genetic pool and may cause a too high rate of inbreeding with subsequent health problems. A balance between breeding for health and restricting inbreeding must be found. This has led to the central question of this research: How to set up breeding for healthy pedigreed dogs? A healthy dog is the aim both of dog owners, breeding organisations and society in general. In this report 4 questions are treated: How to deal with a multitude of hereditary health problems in a breed? Can breeding value estimation help to reduce health problems in dogs and how to design it? What is the value of DNA genotyping for estimation of kinships and inbreeding and thereby improving the health of dogs? When and how to set up an outcross, and what does it contribute to the health of the dogs? Tackling health problems is not easy, because the problems are complex and knowledge of genetics is often scarce. Although the task ahead is considerable, there are clear starting points. To manage inbreeding rates the use of mean kinships is most effective and recommended. Additional to that, this report provides specific recommendations on how to deal with the four subjects mentioned above. The project has produced four publications: a full report on the project (in Dutch) by Rita Hoving and Jack Windig, downloadable from the project page (link below) an e-book ‘Het fokken van rashonden - Omgaan met verwantschap en inteelt’ (Breeding of pedigree dogs: dealing with kinship and inbreeding) by Kor Oldenbroek and Jack Windig. The book was developed as part of the Kinship Project, which is an initiative of the IPFD partner Raad van Beheer, together with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. The Kinship Project is part of the Raad van Beheer's sustainable breeding policy: Towards the healthy purebred dog. a paper in the proceedings of the 12th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) 2023 by Windig, Margarita and Doekes: Inbreeding and litter size in Dutch pedigreed dogs a poster at the 7th International Conference of Quantitative Genetics (2024) by Jack Windig and Rita Hoving: 'How to genetically manage inbred populations with a multitude of genetic diseases?’ A pdf of the poster can be downloaded from the project page at the link below. Read more about the project here >> Breeding wisely - Infographics on inbreeding To facilitate all levels of the animal breeding sector, the Centre for Genetic resources, the Netherlands (CGN) at the Wageningen University & Research has developed three infographics to explain the concept of inbreeding, its consequences and how to deal with it. The infographics are aimed specifically at owners and breeding organisations. The infographics have been translated into English in cooperation with the European Regional Focal Point for Animal Genetic Resources (ERFP) network. In 2024, in collaboration with the European Reference Centre for Endangered Animal Breeds (EURC-EAB), the infographics have been translated into French. Futher translations into other languages will follow. You can read more and download the infographics here >>
-
IPFD's Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) Project Director, Aimée Llewellyn-Zaidi, joined Laura Reeves for four episodes of her highly-acclaimed Pure Dog Talk Podcast! About the Pure Dog Talk Podcast With more than 600+ episodes, 2 million downloads, and 300+ five-star ratings on iTunes, the Pure Dog Talk show is the only leading purebred podcast in the world. Every week, Laura talks to the legends of the sport and gives you the tips and tools to create an awesome life with your purebred dog. #PureDogTalk
-
In this article: Recording of Webinar and Summary of Q&As Session Overview Presenter Bios About IPFD and Embark
-
Antimicrobial resistant infections can be lethal to immunocompromised dogs such as puppies and seniors. It is important that we use antimicrobials properly. The purpose of this article is to: Provide strategies to help prevent development of resistant infections while keeping your dog’s health as the number one priority. Highlight special considerations organized by life stages of the dog - from breeding and whelping to puppyhood to senior years. Let's not be breeding super bugs when we are breeding dogs!
-
DogWellNet Digest: Issue #52 - 28 February 2023
Dave St. Louis posted a article in DogWellNet Digest
In This Issue: News & Highlights IPFD Virtual Meetings: Workshop 3 - Theme: Parentage Profiling for Kennel Clubs Make a Donation Stay Informed! -
The Downside of Inbreeding - It’s Time For a New Approach by C.A. Sharp First published in Double Helix Network News, Winter 1999 I am pulling together a presentation for the Embrark Canine Health Summit and came across an article I have cited before... an oldie but a goldie! This article is by the very knowledgeable C.A. Sharp, expert and person behind ASGHI (Australian Shepherd Genetics and Health Institute) and one of our collaborating partners. Good news - she gives a great coverage of this important topic. Of concern - this was written in 1999 and it is still a hot topic today. READ it here: https://www.ashgi.org/home-page/genetics-info/breeding/breeding-genetic-diversity/the-downside-of-inbreeding Embark has been regularly publishing Coeffiecients of Inbreeding (COI's) on genetic samples from various breeds on its Embark for Breeders facebook page. These are genomic NOT pedigree based COIs (learn about the difference here) and understandably but unfortunately we do not know how many dogs were included in the calculations. Presumably it is an international sample. Notwithstanding this limitation, these are useful to consider. Firstly, remember that a brother-sister mating results in a COI of 25%. That is inbreeding. Look at these values from Embark, as examples. Both the German Shepherd Dog and the Bulldog have average COIs above that level... meaning that many of the dogs have values that are higher still. On average, dogs with a COI >25% share more genetic material from common ancestors than would arise from a brother-sister mating. Results for the Cattle Dog and the Husky below show lower values for COIs. Not surprisingly, perhaps, given a focus on performance in these breeds? Protecting the future of your breed depends on Genetic Diversity. Make sure you understand how breeding practices like line-breeding result in reduced diversity and over time may create health problems like poor reproductive capacity, lowered longevity and more. Other reading: Linebreeding vs. Inbreeding – Let’s be perfectly clear.
-
In This Issue: News & Highlights IPFD and Pedigree Dogs - You want leadership? We are ready. Make a Donation Stay Informed!
-
Also see Brenda's Blog
-
The Embark Canine Health Summit, was a free, virtual conference held April 27-28, 2022 for breeders, veterinarians, scientists, or anyone with an interest in the intersection of canine health, genetics, dog breeding, and veterinary medicine. Registration was free. All sessions will be recorded and available to registrants after the event. Among the speakers at this Virtual Summit was IPFD's own Veterinary Science Officer, Dr. Brenda Bonnett. Her presentation is available as a video and a PDF. Video link: https://youtu.be/zMo_VUlTOZ0 PDF Version: Embark seminar 2022 12 April 2 voice over Final for pdf.pdf Embark's Health Summit Speakers included: Carlos Alvarez, PhD -Associate Professor - The Ohio State University Colleges of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine Jon Ambrose, MBA -Professional Services Organization - Embark Danika Bannasch, DVM, PhD - Professor, Maxine Adler Endowed Chair in Genetics School of Veterinary Medicine - University of California Davis Marty Becker - Adjunct Professor, Research Center for Human-Animal Interaction - University of Missouri's College of Veterinary Medicine Brenda N. Bonnett, DVM, PhD - CEO, International Partnership for Dogs Ryan Boyko - Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Embark Veterinary Adam Boyko, PhD - Founder and Chief Science Officer, Embark Veterinary Victoria Cussen, PhD, CAAB - Senior Director, Applied Behavior Research, Behavioral Sciences Team - ASPCA Autumn Davidson, DVM, MS, DACVIM - Clinical Instructor School of Veterinary Medicine - University of California, Davis David Dieffenbach - Veterinary Product Strategy - Embark Veterinary Jenna Dockweiler, MS, DVM, DACT, CCRT, CVAT - Veterinary Geneticist, Embark Veterinary Inc. Jacquelyn Evans, PhD - Assistant Professor, Baker Institute for Animal Health - Cornell University Hille Fieten, DVM, MSc, PhD - Director of the Expertise Centre of Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine - Utrecht University Marty Greer, DVM, JD - Co-Owner Veterinary Village || Director of Veterinary Services, Revival Animal Health Celine Halioua - Founder & CEO - Loyal Samantha Hauser, PhD - Research Scientist II - Embark Veterinary William Hendricks, PhD - Founder and Chief Scientific Officer - Vidium Animal Health || Assistant Professor, Integrated Cancer Genomics - TGen Heather Huson, PhD - Associate Professor of Animal Genetics, Cornell University Department of Animal Sciences Antti Iivanainen, DVM, PhD - Professor of Veterinary Anatomy, Director of the Bachelor Program in Veterinary Medicine - University of Helsinki Joanna J. Ilska, PhD - Genetics Research Manager, The Kennel Club (UK) Brenda S. Kennedy, DVM MS - Vice President of Health and Research - Canine Companions Greger Larson, PhD - Professor of Evolutionary Genomics - University of Oxford Larry Letsche, DVM - Small Animal Veterinarian - Remrock Farms Veterinary Services Benjamin Lewis - Co-founder - The One Health Company Christina Lopes - CEO & Co-founder - The One Health Company Zachary Lounsberry - Product Analyst - Embark Gail Miller Bisher - Director of Communications - The Westminster Kennel Club Lisa Peterson - Senior Content Strategist, Breeder/Veterinarian - Embark Veterinary Mariana Serao - Director of Canine Science and Technology - Retrieving Freedom Inc. Robin P. Smith, PhD - Product Team - Embark Learn more at embarkvet.com/breeders or join Embark at Facebook
-
Dystocia (difficulties in giving birth) frequently requires veterinary intervention. Breed-specific characteristics can impact breeding and whelping ability; dystocia occurs more commonly in some breeds of dogs than others. Elective caesareans are not uncommon; neither are emergency caesareans, especially amongst large-headed/narrow-pelvic breeds and many toy breeds. A May 2017 paper, Canine dystocia in 50 UK first-opinion emergency-care veterinary practices: prevalence and risk factors (https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1136/vr.104108) published in the Veterinary Record provides evidence and insights. (See more information on this latest VetCompass research below as well as an overview of BVA, BSAVA, RCVS and The Kennel Club's initiatives to gather evidence-based information to be used in creating welfare-conscious breed health management strategies.)
-
https://youtu.be/CpsvYZMXcZM See the Blog Post
-
International Challenges for Dog Breeding: How do Veterinarians Navigate the Complexities of Health, Welfare, and Owner Attachment? And make sure to check out the upcoming webinars: https://awc.upei.ca/webinars/ By Prof. Candace Croney and Rowena Packer! Here is the pdf: Bonnett_International Challenges for Dog Breeding Webinar 15Mar2022.pdf See the talk...
-
The Irish Kennel Club promotes the responsible ownership and breeding of dogs throughout Ireland through education, registration, training and support schemes and events. article reviewed 2-2022
-
Norwegian Lawsuit on Dog Breeding - A Step Back or Can it be a Step Forward? We wrote an artilce last year - Norwegian Lawsuit on Dog Breeds and Breeding - The "First" But Not the Last? . In that article we describe that "The Norwegian Society for Protection of Animals (NSPA) is suing selected breeders, clubs, and the Norwegian Kennel Club for not following the country's animal welfare law; the Norwegian court has agreed to hear the case. " The NSPA issued an update to this issue which indicates that the Norwegian government has changed the wording in their act. "The new wording is a clarification of the current legal text so that the intention of the law becomes clearer." And "The law now clearly states that the Norwegian Kennel Club and other parties can be held accountable for violations of the breeding provision." Unfortunately there is no link to the actual wording of the act or the government's intentions. And now, January 2022, the initial ruling of the court has been rendered. And it is against the Norwegian Kennel Club (NKK) and the breeders. Let me make it clear that I have NOT read the 60-page decision. I am commenting on what each of the opposing sides have said is their interpretation of the decision and on the possible fallout from it. In their announcement, the NKK states that the decision is "A step back for dog welfare". They base this on the fact that the ruling takes away the oversight of the kennel club, which has and continues to work for dog health and welfare. We have written in other blogs that the challenges of the controversies and legislation arising around extremes of conformation and especially about brachycephalic dogs have arisen to some extent because of the perception that kennel clubs' attention to the issue (worldwide, not just in Norway) has been too slow and too little. Regardless, as the NKK states, "If the good work that is done today through NKK [recognized apparently by the court] and the breed clubs must be stopped for the breeds English bulldog and cavalier king charles spaniel, we fear that it will have a negative effect on dog welfare". This will happen because "Irresponsible players will be ready to take over the market, with the production of dogs from breeding that are not subject to any form of control". [Google translation] As we have also written, these forms of legislative control rarely consider the potential for undesirable consequences. In other words, okay, punish some KC breeders. But then what will happen? Non-affiliated breeders, breeders with likely less interest in health and welfare will take over to satisfy an ongoing demand for these breeds. We have repeatedly discussed that this is a complex issue, requiring collective actions of many stakeholders, but still wonder Why do legislators address the supply side and not demand? The NKK will appeal the ruling and no doubt ask the court to consider the wider consequences. However, the court will likely simply focus on the law as written. On the other hand, the welfare group (NSPA) who brought the suit, proclaims loudly: Full Victory for the Dogs saying that "Oslo District Court has today ruled in the trial on unethical breeding. A unanimous verdict concludes that it is contrary to the Animal Welfare Act § 25 to breed the dog breeds English bulldog and cavalier king charles spaniel in Norway today." Again, even taking their position at face value one wonders... will this help ALL the dogs of these breeds? Will eliminating all KC breeders of these dogs fix the problem? Will people in Norway stop buying and owning these dogs or simply find ways to buy them from other breeders? I guess time will tell. And confusing to me is the statement, ""A conviction does not imply a ban on serious breeding of Bulldog or Cavalier, as serious and scientifically based cross-breeding could be a good alternative." So, you can still own these dogs, and breed them, as long as it is done in a 'serious' and not 'unscrupulous' manner? And yet the NKK has found to be at fault, not simply specific breeders. Personally, after a long history of working on these issues, I am not sure whether this is a step back or whether it might possibly lead to a step forward. Will this approach serve to eliminate the 'worst bred' dogs? Will it help to define health and welfare of dogs in a way that will promote healthier breeds and breeding? I have to agree with a further statement in the welfare group's article, however: "The ruling clarifies the need for change Animal protection Norway has, among other things, proposed the introduction of ID marking and the systematic use of temperament, traits, health data and kinship data in breeding." If this ruling can lead to even better practices for breeding promoted by the NKK - and other kennel clubs - good. If breeders of specific dogs of specific breeds take close stock and evaluate their breeding decisions more on the potential health of the offspring and less on any human concerns and desires that would be a good thing for the dogs. I have compassion for the owners and breeders, and the NKK as this is a very challenging situation to work through. As we have said elsewhere, it is crucial that breeders of ALL BREEDS - not simply those identified as compromised - speak up for a strong approach to breeding healthy dogs. The NSPA says "It is possible to breed healthy dogs if you only use today's science and today's technology". Do they truly imagine that this will be practiced by commercial breeders or those that are not committed to a kennel club or some other registry? How will we know? It would be nice for this to proceed without legislation and courts and conflict, but with a focus on dog health, well-being, and welfare. And again - time will tell. NOTE: This blog can be shared, with recognition of the source. If you need assistance, contact [email protected].
-
We Need to Focus on Breeding Healthy Dogs While We Await Technological Advances This blog is stimulated by, but is not really a review of this paper: Advancing Genetic Selection and Behavioral Genomics of Working Dogs Through Collaborative Science, Frances L. Chen, Madeline Zimmermann, Elinor K. Karlsson, et.al. Front. Vet. Sci., 06 September 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.662429. The authors make it clear that their focus is on working dogs, and the need to increase the supply of dogs that are fit for the desired functions. The paper highlights collaborative work, something IPFD certainly applauds. The goal is to work towards development of a technical, genomic, science-based approach to dog breeding. They describe the potential for massive data collection efforts to support analyses that will achieve this. It is an ambitious project, and they are to be recognized for their efforts. However, I will leave the discussion of the application of these advancements to working dogs to those more experienced in this area. Here I wish to pick up on some of the comments in the paper that can be applied to the wider breeding of dogs. For example: “The ancient partnership between people and dogs is struggling to meet modern day needs, with demand exceeding our capacity to safely breed high-performing and healthy dogs.” This is certainly true. “New statistical genetic approaches and genomic technology have the potential to revolutionize dog breeding, by transitioning from problematic phenotypic selection to methods that can preserve genetic diversity while increasing the proportion of successful dogs.” Also probably true. However, the limit to application of this potential relates not to science, or genetics, or genomics, or to the availability of data, but to human behaviour change. Breeders supplying the recent increase in demand have focused on a quick increase in the supply to benefit from the sudden desire for more pets. Their priority for creating healthy puppies and supporting breed level issues like genetic diversity have likely dropped off – even among those breeders who might have once focused on these things. For those breeding for the popular market or for dog shows focus is specifically on phenotypic selection – they do not consider that as being ‘problematic’. Even in breeds where phenotype/conformation/appearance has been increasingly associated with health and welfare problems there is strong opposition to moving away from breeding for those attributes or to changing the breed standards (or their application in the ring) that ask for them. So, without a strategy to change either the attitudes of show breeders, judges, and commercial breeders or revolutionizing the consumer demand away from a focus on appearance, the achievements of the science will fall short. The authors go on to say: “Today, dog breeders struggle to apply even the tools available now, stymied by the need for sophisticated data storage infrastructure and expertise in statistical genetics.” No doubt this is true. But again, for the majority of dog breeders this is the major stumbling block. “The goal of selective breeding is to increase the average genetic merit of a population, thereby increasing the likelihood that, in the next generation, more dogs will be higher-performing than dogs in the current generation.” How far does this statement apply across all dog breeders? Consider the authors’ preceding statement: “Modern dog breeding started in the mid 1800s, and historical records and genomic studies suggest modern dog breeders predominantly favored form and pedigree over function”. One must question whether increasing ‘the average genetic merit’ of their breed is really the primary goal of most breeders, especially those breeding to satisfy demand or for success at shows. And one might also question whether modern selective breeding, in many breeds, even has the goal to maintain and sustain the current genetic merit of breeds. Even where stated goals might reflect these high standards, breeders and breed clubs need to determine the extent to which actions taken in breeding and showing dogs work to support those goals. The paper offers a detailed description of the use of Estimated Breeding Values and proposes a plan to use these and other technical calculations to improve selection of dog for mating. In the short term, this approach will be impossible for most breeders to either comprehend or apply. But there is much that can be done now! We will be coming out soon with a simple format for breeders to consider their own goals and the techniques and tools they are using to achieve them. With links to existing breed-specific tools breeders can assess how well their practices reflect their priorities. These tools focus on the Big Picture of breeding and encourage breeders to contemplate how what they do relates to the health and welfare of their puppies and impacts their breed. Stay tuned!
-
Inbreeding has proven negative effects for health, says a new study in dogs
Ann Milligan posted a blog entry in New Research
Inbreeding has proven negative effects for health, says a new study in dogs by Katariina Mäki A recent study by an international team led by veterinary geneticist Danika Bannasch is a welcome wake-up call for all of us in the world of pedigree dogs. While it has been well established that closed studbooks cause inbreeding to accumulate, the special importance of the study lies in the bond between inbreeding and health: the results in 162 breeds show that inbreeding contributes to an increase in disease and health care costs throughout the dogs’ life. Again, a known biological fact, but very important to once again have been proven also in dogs from an actual data. A wide consensus based on studies in other animal species is that negative effects start to show when inbreeding level exceeds 10%. In the Bannasch et al. study, the accumulated average inbreeding based on genetic analysis across 227 breeds was close to 25 %, which is the level if mating together parent and offspring or full sibs. Inbreeding levels in dog breeds have formerly been calculated mostly using pedigree data. It is however difficult to calculate the true coefficient of inbreeding (COI) from pedigrees unless the data reaches all generations – from the most recent ones to the founders of the breed. That’s what makes genotype-based methods so important. You can read more about the difference between pedigree COI and genomic COI in a DogWellNet Blog 'Ask Aimée' here. Few studies based on complete pedigree information are available, one in Leonbergers by Letko et al. (2020), and another in Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers and Lancashire Heelers by Mäki (2010). Both studies reported levels of inbreeding similar to Bannasch et al. Even more important than the level of inbreeding itself is the rate at which it has been reached. This rate defines the effective size of the population, which is a good indicator of the future viability of the population regarding inbreeding and genetic diversity. To my knowledge, Bannasch et al. is the largest study showing the negative effects of inbreeding in dogs. The authors mention that demonstration of direct negative effects of inbreeding within breeds has been limited, one reason for this being the challenges of phenotyping for individual animals. They mention the studies by: Leroy et al. (2015): close inbreeding had a negative effect on litter size and neonatal survival in seven French dog breeds Chu et al. (2019): inbreeding was associated with smaller litters in Golden Retrievers and Schrack et al. (2017): inbreeding in dams was associated with fertility in the Entlebucher Mountain dog. Mäki et al. (2001) showed also that inbreeding was associated with dogs’ screening results in hip and elbow dysplasia. The association was found in the German Shepherd Dog and the Labrador Retriever, but it was quite weak, probably since the multifactorial nature of both dysplasias. We know the situation – we have known it for a long time – how should we move forward? In any breed population, care should be taken to maintain genetic diversity. The Bannasch et al. study shows that most canine breeds are highly inbred, but some are still quite diverse, thanks to open studbooks or recent crosses. We have tools to improve the situation in the breeds. These include: Use as many healthy dogs for breeding as possible Don’t overuse any dog the so-called matador breeding creates unnecessary additional genetic bottlenecks and decreases variation. We must remember that every dog, even the best one, carries harmful mutations which spread all around in the population, if the dog is overly used for breeding. To avoid adverse effects of inbreeding in your own breedings, don’t combine close relatives – and remember that also linebreeding is inbreeding (See Brenda’s blog post, Linebreeding vs. Inbreeding – Let’s be perfectly clear.) In breeds where negative effects of inbreeding have started to show, or where it is simply difficult to find healthy dogs for breeding, consider using the old, formerly widely used tool – outcrosses. Planned, well-organized outcrossing is an efficient way to bring new genetic variation into population – a good way forward. Inbreeding and genetic diversity is a challenge the International Partnership For Dogs will address in future work. Stay tuned! References and links Bannasch, D., Famula, T., Donner, J. et al. The effect of inbreeding, body size and morphology on health in dog breeds. Canine Genet Epidemiol 8, 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40575-021-00111-4 Bonnett B. Blog: Linebreeding vs. Inbreeding – Let’s be perfectly clear. Chu ET, Simpson MJ, Diehl K, Page RL, Sams AJ, Boyko AR. Inbreeding depression causes reduced fecundity in Golden retrievers. Mamm Genome. 2019;30(5–6):166–72. Leroy G, Phocas F, Hedan B, Verrier E, Rognon X. Inbreeding impact on litter size and survival in selected canine breeds. Vet J. 2015;203(1):74–8. Letko A, Minor KM, Jagannathan V, Seefried FR, Mickelson JR, Oliehoek P, Drögemüller C. Genomic diversity and population structure of the Leonberger dog breed. Genet Sel Evol. 2020 Oct 14;52(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12711-020-00581-3. Erratum in: Genet Sel Evol. 2020 Nov 18;52(1):70. Llewellyn-Zaidi A. Blog: Ask Aimee: What's the difference between pedigree COI and genomic COI? Mäki K. Population structure and genetic diversity of worldwide Nova Scotia duck tolling retriever and Lancashire heeler dog populations. J Anim Breed Genet. 2010;127(4):318–26. Mäki K, Groen AF, Liinamo A-E, Ojala M. Population structure, inbreeding trend and their association with hip and elbow dysplasia in dogs. Anim Sci. 2001;73(2):217–228. Schrack J, Dolf G, Reichler IM, Schelling C. Factors influencing litter size and puppy losses in the Entlebucher Mountain dog. Theriogenology. 2017;95:163–70. -
(Above photo by Kaisa Huttunen) We published a Get a GRIHP! article on the Finnish Spitz in August 2020. While gathering information for the article, we got to know the work being done in the Finnish breed association Suomen Pystykorvajärjestö - Finska Spetsklubben ry (SPJ). SPJ, together with the other Nordic breed clubs of the breed, has worked very hard to maintain and improve health and genetic diversity in the breed. A very good example of this is the successful work in reducing the frequency of epilepsy - a polygenic disease not easy to breed against. The work done in the Finnish Spitz is well worth checking out. We wrote about it - it became a series of articles which offer in-depth information on development and implementation of the Finnish Spitz Breeding Strategy. Here you are - I hope you like it! Breed-specific breeding strategies to achieve positive outcomes - the Finnish Spitz as an example. Part I. Tackling the main health conditions Part II. Success story regarding epilepsy Part III. Increasing and maintaining genetic diversity
-
Why would a puppy buyer be interested in learning about The Kennel Club's Assured Breeder Scheme? To assist you in your selection of a breed and a breeder, familiarize yourself with approaches to management of dog breeds and get to know more about breeders who implement quality breeding programs. General information (About): https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/dog-breeding/the-kennel-club-assured-breeders/ Check out the available information on The KC's Already an Assured Breeder .
-
This article on Rottweilers is part of a series to highlight the Big Picture of health, welfare, and breeding and to help develop Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles (GRIHPs) for many breeds. See IPFD's Get a GRIHP! on Breed Health Initiative. There are many others doing great work to advance health, well-being, and welfare in this wonderful breed. We reference and link to terrific work, developments, reports, and research from the UK, USA, Sweden, Finland, and more below. Thanks to all of those working on behalf of Rottweilers. This is a 'living document' - so if anyone has more material to share or point us to - please let us know!