wondering................

[Hobbit]

Thanks K ---

Science Doc --- we have manipulated genetics to produce better goats, swine, cattle, horses and even people. Why not dogs?

Would someone rather have the mind set, so closed minded that they would be willing to ignore the possible outcome if breeding is continued on the path that it's going down?

To produce better meat goats, outcrossing is sometimes necessary. For example: breeding a Boer to a Myotonic, then crossing back to a Boer. Or, breeding a Boer to a Spanish, crossing back to a Boer, then crossing to a Myotonic.

Same with cattle: Brahma to Short Horn, crossed back to a Brahma. Several combinations of cattle have been tried and proven to yield better cattle, more disease resistance, better production, etc...

I know someone will scream that I'm comparing the beloved dog to livestock. Not really ---- just the same manipulation could be done to produce better offspring. Even within the same breed.

[Pennynewf]

Hobbit
what breed is in your avatar, he/she is handsome.
also just curious, do you breed or have you?

[science_doc]

Hobbit,
The reasoning you give for livestock breeding is the very thought that made me start the thread. I suspect that people must not have a clear understanding of the inherent value of genetic diversity, and I think that perhaps because there are fewer dogs bred than livestock, dog breeders are just a bit behind in learning? This is the only explanation I can think of........there just haven't been enough overwhelming issues, because relatively fewer animals are being bred? For example, beef cattle must be born at a higher rate than great danes? So dog breeders just don't get to see the problems appear as quickly within their lines? Also perhaps as long as a "few" champions are produced, the dog breeders are willing to take their losses with the other "pet" quality animals? Farmers and ranchers should couldn't afford these type of problems in their herds. I don't know any of this as fact, I'm just wondering out loud how something that is taken for granted in the farming and science could be so grossly ignored by the dog breeding community? I can't believe the rules for getting a dog papers would require the genetics of the gene pool closed, complete non-sense.

[OldGloryReignsSupreme]

Hello all. I was wondering, since genetics is the topic, could one of you post a link to something on it? I'd like to learn a little more so I could maybe join on the thread some.

Also, I read some stuff about inbreeding and just wanted to say, you guys are smart!

[Guest Anonymous]

Im no scientist and dont know a whole lot about genetics but in my breed inbreeding is VERY important. The worst effect I have seen is with my VERY tight Tab bitch. Her pedigree is as such... Tab is her father, bred to Irene III, who is a daughter of Tab. Irene III is out of Jeep bred back to another daughter of Jeep. Tab is a son of Jeep. She is pretty tightly bred and her only defect... an extra tit. Oh, and I bred my Tab bitch back to a son of Jeep bred back to another daughter of his.
I have other dogs bred tighter than she is and not one of them has anything wrong with them. BUT I will not breed a dog with any type of defect and I think that has a lot to do with it.

[Poofy]

You said"
Poofy you are talking about semantics...........you are absolutely right that inbreeding does not CAUSE disease in the direct sense of the word. The exact same thing can be said about smoking. Smoking itself is not going to kill you outright, however it will greatly increase the mutational rate within lung, throat, and mouth tissue which will greatly increase the likelyhood of developing cancer. "


Okay. Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Subjecting one's self to a chemical that may penetrate and change the molecular structure of cells, making them more likely to not under go apoptosis and begin multiplying in an irregular manner, has NOTHING to do with recessive alleles comming into combination through inbreeding.
Yes genes mutate, however generally it is very self limiting as the organsim usually dies before development. HOWEVER molecular mutations are the mutations that happen most often and are carried on for multiple generations...etc..etc...and eventually can combine to create a pro or con.




A mutation does not need several generations to cause a problem.


No it does not.

A mutation in DNA often causes an errant protein which can have an immediate effect within the organism or in their off spring.

Usually no. Usually a mutation that will cause a great enough effect to alter the viability of the organism dies....usually before it is born. Those that do not express the problem later on, hopefully though selective breeding will not be bred. Such traits would be dominant, and would need only one mutant gene to be expressed, there for phenotype would be genotype. In a case where you are dealing with a recessive allele, those "diseases" are usually not the result of a spontanious mutation on both sides of the pedigree of the same gene at the same loci. Those problems are the result of a hidden gene that will be there wether you inbreed or out breed. By inbreeding you can reduce your possible variations and therefor bring to surface any problems and eleminate them.
Its a tool, that when properly used is very valuable.


Just ask someone with muscular dystrophy how long their single mutation took to change their life.

MS is not the result of a sudden Mutation. It is the result of a recessive allele, that yes was created from a mutation, but that mutation occured mutliple generations ago, and has been handed down and passed on, waiting to pair up with another like allele. You do not LOOSE genes when you out cross...they are still there. They don't disapear, the mutations don't go away...you will have to deal with them...no matter how much you out cross. It doesn't work that way I am sorry.
Muscular dystrophy, at least the two forms I am familiar with are not even the result of two alleles. They are sex linked and carried on the X chromsome and there for you don't need two to have the problem. There for inbreeding is not the cause. It is not the cure. And out crossing won't do you a HILL of beans to prevent the problem.


You are using words like "molecular" and "anomolie" to make it appear like you have deep scientific understanding of genetics, which it is clear that you do not.


No I do not have a deep understanding, I am only a student. My molecular genetics sucks. However you need not lower yourself to insulting another person's intelligence, or at least making insinuations.


When the frequency of a recessive mutation within a population is 0.01% a first cousin mating has a 7 fold chance of producing a homozygous recessive offspring. Basically if the mutation is there inbreeding will bring it out for sure "

And that would be what? .7% less then 1%? I could be mis understanding your mathmatical question there...but with those odds....I think I will stick to inbreeding.


Finally: You talk about mutations as if they are all bad. They are not. Mutations are the source for new alleles that allow for adaptation and betterment as well.

Yes. inbreeding can combine potentially dangerous alleles together...but those alleles are going to exsist in some frequency in ANY breed, within any species. The only thing you are going to do by continiously out crossing is to put yourself in a genetic pit with no where to go when there is a problem. Inbreeding also allows for a breeder to find and remove problems as well as find and keep better representations of the breed.

[Poofy]

You said:

Continue breeding dogs from the same lines to the same lines and you are going to produce deeply inbred strains with some very common genetic problems.


Yes. I will agree. You will produce a breed of dog, with a few, breed specific problems. I will take narrowing down my "problems" to 5 or 6 possibilties rather then thousands that most mix breeds have. Including temperament aspects with no way to guage them.



The ONLY way to eliminate those alleles from the population is by outbreeding, mutations don't really fix themselves very often.

You are very wrong. The only way to eleminate those alleles is not allow them to be passed on. Out crossing does not get rid of them. You cannot "get rid" of a gene or combination of genes by simply continiously mixing the genetic marbles.... You can only eleminate the organism that carries them.


Sure you can pick up some problems with genetic screening and I have no idea how good the screens are for canines, but for humans they can't detect too many disease by screening yet and we have the entire human genome at our finger tips."


There is a very big difference in comparing human genetics to animal husbandry. First being that due to religious reasons, most people do not beleive in limiting the human population. There are no steps taken in pairing one person to the next with reguard to health and type and even temperament. When you are dealing with animals...where the next generation is selected for betterment, then you have an entirely different set of rules in selection of parents. Animals are also, usually, not kept alive as infants to the great extent humans are. Animals are often left to die or humanely euthinized when there is a severe problem...incredible medical steps to insure that that an affected animal gives birth are usually not the case as they are in humans. Diseases such as Adrenal Leukodystrophy (sp?) used to never been seen in women....but thanks to medical advancements that allowed for the young affected boys to grow up and procreate, now the disease is found in both sexes and there is now the possibility for recessive homozygotes to exsist.

Animals breeders, the good ones, have higher standards for production then even the most contentious human parents.

[Poofy]

You said"
Your answer is sort of what I was afraid I would find within the dog breeding community, otherwise this wouldn't be the problem that it is today. One more question before I give up this discussion as an agreement to disagree: How many truly outbred (real heinz 57 mutt, not the product of an accidental purebred + sneeky neighboors dog) dogs suffer from hip dysplasia, early on set blindness, or seizures (just to name a few of the disease I have heard of)? I just don't understand how things like hip dysplasia can be nearly endemic in almost all the large breeds, but still thought of as independent of inbreeding and genetics. "



To answer your question honestly. I see more mutts with problems then I do *well bred* pure bred dogs. Probably 100 times more problems. You also cannot compare the pet store or byb puppy to those bred by people who know and understand the breed.

HD is not found only in large breed dogs. Its found in all breeds of dogs. the reason why it tends to affect large breed animals more is for several reasons. First is growth rate, second size, and lastly most giant breeds are the result of abnormal amounts of growth hormone that make them large. Its something that has been selected for to increase size. Selection of particular traits, such as dwarfism in the corgie or basset, make it impossible for them to have normal joints. "normal" for large and giant breeds is not the same for smaller breeds. Normal is subjective. Breeders do strive to select phenotypically normal dogs to increase the possible modifiers to better their chances in furture generations to achieve a better dog.

"problems" are produced 90% of the time...by breeding problems to begin with.



As far as human inbreeding, why the heck are all the super inbred royal families of Europe the first thing studied in population genetics? All their gorgeous family trees with the beautiful disease founders passing their problems from generation to generation to generation............


Because, the royal families were some of the few people to keep written documents in reguards to family origin. They are some of the best written records we have in reguards to human inbreeding studies as well.

The most common "disease" was hemophelia. Which again, is a sex linked anomolie, that has nothing to do with inbreeding. Because males only carry one X chromosome if they recieve an affected one from their maternal parent then they will be affected with it. Also, you are dealing with a culture that made procreation desisions based on religion and origion...not based on what pairing would be the healthiest and most likely to lead to a stronger family line. If you breed weak you will only get weak.

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Pennynewf']Hobbit
what breed is in your avatar, he/she is handsome.
also just curious, do you breed or have you?[/quote]


She is an Australian Kelpie. Yes, we do breed --- herding dogs for herding livestock.

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Hmmmm']Im no scientist and dont know a whole lot about genetics but in my breed inbreeding is VERY important. The worst effect I have seen is with my VERY tight Tab bitch. Her pedigree is as such... Tab is her father, bred to Irene III, who is a daughter of Tab. Irene III is out of Jeep bred back to another daughter of Jeep. Tab is a son of Jeep. She is pretty tightly bred and her only defect... an extra tit. Oh, and I bred my Tab bitch back to a son of Jeep bred back to another daughter of his.
I have other dogs bred tighter than she is and not one of them has anything wrong with them. BUT I will not breed a dog with any type of defect and I think that has a lot to do with it.[/quote]


Tell me reason(s) why "inbreeding it VERY important" in APBT.

[Hobbit]

Poofy continued inbreeding WILL cause gene drifts. Most knowledgable breeders recognized this, accept it and outcross.

A breeder can not continue to inbreed for several generations without having detrimental effects on the future offspring(s), whether it be physical or mental.

I don't want to compare human genetics --- because I don't care if humans breed themselves into extinction. :wink: It's ridiculous for someone that is a known carrier or affected for a severe genetic defect to have a child, knowing that the defect would be passed onto the offspring. It's not fair for the child. Adoption is always an option.

[science_doc]

Poofy as I said before by the way that you play with semantics in your responses you are closed minded...... Did you even read the links I posted? Perhaps other scientists can phrase these things in a way that might open your mind. I was not trying to insult your intelligence, but I was trying to point out that you seem to try and speak with authority about topics which in my eyes you have only a very general and outright incorrect understanding. I am simply trying to prevent the dissemintation of misinformation. I have now given 2 sources besides myself with good reasons to eliminate inbreeding, you have yet to demonstrate one source (other than dog breeders, one cow herd, and some rats) where inbreeding has truly improved the health of animals or people. In case you were wondering, part of my job is to create transgenic animals.....so as I said before I know a bit about breeding programs.

You are 100% wrong that outbreeding will not get rid of mutations within the population. When you outbreed you can ELIMINATE the bad allelel from the POPULATION by selective breeding, thereby ELIMINATING the disease. We can breed traits in and out of mice in just a few generations, this is a FACT. I can site peer reviewed liturature from the top science labs in the world. I don't know any other way to phrase that simple statement. This is how natural selection has worked from the begining of time. You try and pretend that mutations take thousands of years to do their damage but that is not true, there are new diseases arising in all species EVERYDAY and most of them are NOT EMBRYONIC LETHAL. Inbreeding will just speed up the rate at which mutations, which as I have said before happen everyday to every creature with DNA (even puppies), and increase the chance of spreading diseases within a population, ESPECIALLY with a CLOSED GENETIC POOL.

As for the genetic math that you did not understand, a first cousin marriage has a 7 fold greater chance of bringing together 2 recessive allelels, even when they are as rare as 0.01% in the rest of the population, than a mating between 2 genetically unrelated individuals.

The royal families of Europe carried WAY more diseases in their pedigrees than just hemophelia...look it up sometime. I'm sure that the CDC now has record keeping that far surpasses anything the European royalty produced, they are studied because they were so full of mutations and DISEASES! There is an eastern jewish population that carries almost every recessive mutation known in genetics and why.....because they have INBRED for hundreds of years.

Your response about muscular dystrophy is pretty good, this can be a sex linked disease in the case of Duchene's muscular dystrophy. This is not the same thing as MS or multiple sclerosis. I was simply trying to point out a disease where one mutation causes a problem with one protein that causes a loss of muscle mass so severe that it results in death. You are correct that in this case because the disease is sex linked it only takes one bad copy for the disease to happen. Howver, inbreeding makes all diseases more common in the population, contiune to inbreed and soon ther won't be any "good" stock to choose from.

Are you aware how scientist established genetic disease models in rodents(before the age of molecular cloning, now we can engineer our diseases)? We inbreed them for generation after generation until something went wrong. That literally ment EVERYTHING and ANYTHING. Those mouse lines are still used today as models of human and animal disease. So if we can create diseased rodent lines by inbreeding why can't you see that is what dog breeders are doing right now to the most popular breeds?

You said that you will choose your five or six "breed specific" problems.
I hate to tell you this, but those problems are going to grow to 500 or 600 if you continue to inbreed. I guess your screening methods don't really allow you to detect genetic problems do they? You suddenly changed
the subject to how human medicine hurting human genetics, and that is a point with which I will agree completely. I was in no way comparing human genetics to animal husbandry I was just pointing out that I doubt enough canine genetic research has been done for breeders to screen for many diesease, because we are certainly not there with human medicine where billions are spent every year.

[Hobbit]

[quote name='science_doc']Hobbit,
The reasoning you give for livestock breeding is the very thought that made me start the thread. I suspect that people must not have a clear understanding of the inherent value of genetic diversity, and I think that perhaps because there are fewer dogs bred than livestock, dog breeders are just a bit behind in learning? This is the only explanation I can think of........there just haven't been enough overwhelming issues, because relatively fewer animals are being bred? For example, beef cattle must be born at a higher rate than great danes? [color=red][b]Yes, millions to supply the demand for food. [/b][/color] So dog breeders just don't get to see the problems appear as quickly within their lines? [color=darkred][b]Yes and no. Sometimes the first offspring experience detrimental effects, sometimes it occurs later in production. [/b][/color] Also perhaps as long as a "few" champions are produced, the dog breeders are willing to take their losses with the other "pet" quality animals? [color=red][b]That's my seeing with several breeders. They are willing to sacrifice a few puppies to get that one champion. [/b][/color] Farmers and ranchers should couldn't afford these type of problems in their herds. [b][color=darkred]Absolutely can not afford to lose a year's production because of sloppy breeding. [/color][/b] I don't know any of this as fact, I'm just wondering out loud how something that is taken for granted in the farming and science could be so grossly ignored by the dog breeding community? [color=red][b]Mostly lack of knowledge, unwillingness to change, and we don't eat our dogs --- usually. [/b][/color]I can't believe the rules for getting a dog papers would require the genetics of the gene pool closed, complete non-sense.[/quote]

[Poofy]

Hobit you wrote:
"Poofy continued inbreeding WILL cause gene drifts. Most knowledgable breeders recognized this, accept it and outcross.

A breeder can not continue to inbreed for several generations without having detrimental effects on the future offspring(s), whether it be physical or mental. "


And I have not disagreed with this at all. What I disagree with is blaming inbreeding for the problems, no matter what the breed. Inbreeding is not the problem....bad breeding is the problem.

[science_doc]

Glory,
I posted some links a little further up the thread.....

[Pennynewf]

Poofy i have to say i mostly agree with you, and i find that no two breeders will agree on everything all of the time, it is very diverse, and also hobbit, thanx! i thought it was a kelpie!
i looked for a webpage in your profile before asking, thought you might have a website on your herding.
:)
BTW i mostly outcross.

[science_doc]

Poofy, What is the value in inbreeding? You admitt that there are consequences, why do it at all? How does it improve the genetics of your breeds? Just because you think you can "get away with it" for a few generations phenotypically does not mean you are not doing irreperable harm to your breed genotypically.

By the way INBREEDING is BAD BREEDING!

[Poofy]

You write:
Poofy as I said before by the way that you play with semantics in your responses you are closed minded...... "



Considering you don't know me, nor have you ever looked at the pedigrees on my dogs, nor have you observed my breeding program, you cannot make such a blanket statement.
If you were standing here and saying that outcrossing ruins the breeds that we love, I would argue against that statment as well. You cannot put blame on a system of breeding....the blame goes to what is being bred.




Did you even read the links I posted? Perhaps other scientists can phrase these things in a way that might open your mind. I was not trying to insult your intelligence, but I was trying to point out that you seem to try and speak with authority about topics which in my eyes you have only a very general and outright incorrect understanding.


I am sorry you feel that way. But I could ask you why you think you have any athority in dogs? Have you ever bred a dog? Do you have a line that you breed? Do you compete with your dogs? Do you have any success with your breeding program? Do you know what your dogs carry? What they have produced? What have you done that makes you have any insite into dog breeding?



I am simply trying to prevent the dissemintation of misinformation. I have now given 2 sources besides myself with good reasons to eliminate inbreeding, you have yet to demonstrate one source (other than dog breeders, one cow herd, and some rats) where inbreeding has truly improved the health of animals or people. In case you were wondering, part of my job is to create transgenic animals.....so as I said before I know a bit about breeding programs.


Alright: I can give you a few sources of information if you want it.
Malcolm willis, yes a dog breeder but also a geneticists. George Padgett, author of controlling Canine genetic disease, The gentic connection Lowell ackerman, Heridatry Bone and joint diseases in dogs, breeding better dogs, Guinea pig breeding, Modern Livestock and Poultry by Gillies, and the some few hundred years of experience from the many dog/horse/guinea pig/ Cat and rabbit breeders that I know.

[Poofy]

You wrote:

"You are 100% wrong that outbreeding will not get rid of mutations within the population. When you outbreed you can ELIMINATE the bad allelel from the POPULATION by selective breeding, thereby ELIMINATING the disease. "

No I am not wrong. You will only eliminate the problem by eliminated those who A: Carry the gene or B: affected by the gene.

If you have a bag of red marbles and put them into a bag of blue marbles, it does not matter how many times you divide or dump those marbles, the red ones do not disapear. They are still there.

[Poofy]

You said:
"As for the genetic math that you did not understand, a first cousin marriage has a 7 fold greater chance of bringing together 2 recessive allelels, even when they are as rare as 0.01% in the rest of the population, than a mating between 2 genetically unrelated individuals. "


And agian I ask you. When you say Seven fold. Are you meaning .01%x 7? Which would then equal the number .07% correct? a .07% greater chance at a problem?

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Poofy']
And I have not disagreed with this at all. What I disagree with is blaming inbreeding for the problems, no matter what the breed. Inbreeding is not the problem....bad breeding is the problem.[/quote]


Inbreeding will bring the genetic defects to the surface, so that line, bitch, or sire can be eliminated from the breeding program or test breedings can be conducted to pinpoint the culprit. This is not a 100% tool in removing the defects or unwanted genes. The gene can be "fixed" which is detrimental to the line (I'm strickly talking about inbreeding within the same line, here).

Inbreeding CAN be a hugh problem, when conducted on a continual basis and when done by someone that does not have a working knowledge of genetics. Inbreeding does cause gene drifts and does allow for a much higher incidence of defect by the pairing of two recessive or impaired genes ---- which otherwise may not have been produced.

Inbreeding can be used as a tool --- BUT for those who continue to inbreed, they are lighting the fuse that will someday explode on them. They are hurting their line mentally and / or physically.

[Hobbit]

[quote name='Poofy']You wrote:


If you have a bag of red marbles and put them into a bag of blue marbles, it does not matter how many times you divide or dump those marbles, the red ones do not disapear. They are still there.[/quote]

I love marbles and collect them.


You can HOWEVER; add bigger marbles and more blue ones that when you place them in a sieve --- the big ones block the red ones from leaving the pool. With the added amount of blue ones, you can dilute the red ones to a point that 1 in a million may roll out of the bag every once in a while, instead of EVERY generation. :wink:

[Poofy]

You said:
"You said that you will choose your five or six "breed specific" problems.
I hate to tell you this, but those problems are going to grow to 500 or 600 if you continue to inbreed."


My breed is around 3000 years old....it is pretty well set as what it is.




I guess your screening methods don't really allow you to detect genetic problems do they?

I test for PRA, luxating patellas, heart problems, thyroid and leg perthes...
Only phenotypic problems but very genetic.



You suddenly changed
the subject to how human medicine hurting human genetics, and that is a point with which I will agree completely.


I wasn't changing the subject. Just pointing out some information.

I was in no way comparing human genetics to animal husbandry I was just pointing out that I doubt enough canine genetic research has been done for breeders to screen for many diesease, because we are certainly not there with human medicine where billions are spent every year."


I really don't mind discussing this topic as I enjoy it. But I some how feel that you are fueled by some sort of personal experience. That you are trying to point blame, find blame or what ever. I honestly think that *you* are the one with a closed mind. You have your ideals and that is the only way you will see them....Perhaps they are based on your own breeding experiences...or dog purchase...I am sorry. But I know what I have lived with for many years, what other breeders have done for many years, what rabbit breeders etc have all done with breeding programs.


I have never said that you should only inbreed. I have never said that inbreeding is the only way...etc...etc..etc...I *have* however defended inbreeding because it is a valuable tool. Good breeders are not out to "ruin" their breed. Their goal is not "just that next CH". Good breeders are for one thing...improving the breed....be it with out crossing, inbreeding, or hybridisation.

I always liked studying about transgenic organisms, along with gene knockout..... I thought about taking a class at Cornel dealing with similar topics...

[science_doc]

I never claimed to be an expert on dog breeding in fact just the opposite, I stated that I have never and will never breed dogs. I can however make statements about the detrement of inbreeding on a gene pool. What I have not liked about your responses is that they could give the wrong idea to people who are unfamiliar with genetics. Take for example, Hmmmmm's response that he knows nothing about genetics (these are the authors words) but he thinks that inbreeding is a fantastic idea as long as he can't *see* anything wrong with his dogs. This is a dangerous practice.

I understand that many breeders are out to improve their breeds, however there seems to be an awful lots of breeders who don't give a darn. As far as my statement about you being close minded, I make this assement based on your replies to my posts. I think that I could learn lots of cool stuff from you about the genetics of your breed, but your previous posts gave me the impression that you thought doing things the old way is the best way without paying any attention to new ideas. They definately left me with the impression that you think inbreeding over many generations is a good idea, and I will NEVER agree with that, call me closed minded if you like. When I started this post I was just trying to point out the dangers of inbreeding for many generations. Instead of saying "that's true, but here is why inbreeding is good" you started rattling off a bunch ideas that are no longer believed by the majority of science or animal husbandry. So I am glad you have enjoyed this discussion, I have too, I just hope that it doesn't lead to confusion. I was certainly convinced that all your dogs were likely to be highly inbred and now it's obvious to me that is not likely to be the case.

I am impressed with the genetic knowledge you do have, especially with no formal training. One more question.....Do you or would you consider outcrossing you dog lines? That was really the point of this post originally and perhaps that is the way I should have started the post. Reading the articles that I posted lead me to believe that not many people are willing to outbreed dogs and this is bad.

[science_doc]

Perfect marble example Hobbit :wink:

Please don't even get me started on cat breeding, worse problems than dogs, LOL!