No. Just becaues they are now only 1/32 pointer does not mean that the outcross would have to be repeated (although it would, IMHO, be beneficial). While only having a miniscule percentage of Pointer behind them 12th and 13th generation backcross Dals CONTINUE to add diversity to this breed where it counts!

There are ~20,000 genes on the dog genome. At each gene locus pups have an allele from each parent - so the first gen cross here would have 20,000 from the Pointer and 20,000 from the Dalmation side. From there what is retained or lost depends on selection . . . and luck as well.

As you can see from the Dalmation project alleles - important ones - have been kept many, many, many generations past even that 4th generation that you keep mentioning. The LUA allele is on chromosome three. As alleles are inherited in chromosomal clusters there will still be several Pointer alleles in the current LUA Dals on this chromosome.

THAT is what can be gained by outcrossing, and this project alone shows that that diversity can be retained many, many, many generations forward.

New haplotypes for breeds that have diminished themselves to the point they are suffering auto-immune problems can as well be held in gene pools now, as there is testing for that. New outcrosses would NOT be necessary every 3-4 gens as you keep saying, although in some cases that might be beneficial.

He is absolutely correct in this. There are LOTS of tricky aspects when it comes to breeding, then, isn't there?

But you say it can’t be done an diversty can't be retained, whilst proof is out there that it can. Some outcross projects are done with such little fuss that many don’t know about them.

http://clumber.net/avel-halsa/rasvardsprojekt/

“2001 the Clumber Spaniel Club of SKK to make this racial crossing between the Clumber spaniel and English cocker spaniel. The inkorsningen of another race is to increase the genetic variation and reduce inbreeding. In order to continue breeding to produce healthy, mentally and healthy Clumbers were granted by the Kennel Club's breeding committee 22 August 2001.

. . .

On 14 June 2008, it was time for the two girls from second generation crossings to participate in inmönstring.

The SSRC's show was inmönstringen of Sugar Loaf Niagara and Spin First Cross Line, judge Ing-Marie Hagelin and Karl-Erik Johansson and the two females was awarded a first prize in quality.

To be numbered took at least a third prize as both bitches did this with a good margin. They have now re-registered as Clumber Spaniel of SKK which means they can be exhibited, bred without first seeking from SKK etc. Their pedigrees are now "blank" on mödernets side, that is all that is not Clumber and the generations behind this has been removed.

On the 14th of june two of the crossbreed from the second generation, was best moments on an official dog show judged by two Experienced group Judges. The purpose was to get Them registered as Clumber Spaniels deprecated of cross breeds. The crossbreed bitches that was best moments was Sugar Loaf Niagara and Spin First Cross Line And the Judges were Ing-Marie Hagelin and Kar-Erik Johansson. Both of the bitches received in respect of a first price in quality.

To be registrered as pure Clumbers, you need to get a third price on an occation like this so the bitches were cleared by a large margin! Now Their pedigrees are cleared on Their mothers side and all information on the Cocker-side is removed.

SKK X-register (from SKK sampled a brochure "Breeding 2009")”

The ongoing Chinook project is here - http://www.chinook.org/xbreeding.html

In the German Pinscher, Schnauzer/Pinscher crosses have been done in Finland. They are already at fourth generation and achieving championship status - http://www.germanpinschers.co.uk/All%20About.html - http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot....ou-get-if.html - http://www.elisanet.fi/yarracitta/upentue.html

There was also one German Pinscher x Dobermann cross done in Germany with the progeny brought into Finland.

In F1 stage;

The Barbet has been crossed with the Pont-Audemer Spaniel. The puppies are registered as Barbet. A litter was born in June 2011: http://www.nuutuksen.net/76

The Brasilian Terrier has been crossed with the Danish-Swedish Farmdog. The puppies are registered as Brasilian Terriers. A litter was born in May 2011: http://www.pirunsaaren.com/pengal.htm

I understand also that the rare Swedish hound breeds, the Smaland Hound, the Gotland Hound and the Schiller Hound can be crossed with each other and offspring can be registered as purebred by Swedish KC. I don't know the details.

The Lapponian Herder has open breed books and there are new dogs registered nearly yearly. There have also been three crosses with the closely related Finnish Lapphund.

Then these are some projects in planning stages:

In the Kromfohrlander, the most inbred breed in this world (at least if you believe pedigrees), as there were just TWO founders, crossing is about to start and at least the Finnish breed club is going to be active. Several potential partner breeds have been suggested and I'm not sure which crosses are going to be done.

In the Lancashire Heeler, another with a small gene pool and some health problems, a cross with either the Pembroke Corgi or Swedish Vallhund (Vastgotaspets) has been planned.

In the Lundehund (Norwegian Puffin Dog),another with a tiny gene pool and a nasty disease breeders have initiated the planning of crosses, but require the breed club of the country of origin to show a green light.

I'm sure there are more that are just not in the public eye. We all know some have been back-doored in following the closure of stud books.

Ruby

I think F4 should be 1/16 pointer or 15/16 "pure".

F1 is 1/2 pointer, F2 1/4, F3 1/8, F4 1/16, F5 1/32

Genetic diversity is a population concept. An F5 may only have 1/32 of the genes of the outcross, but there would be many F5s around and they won't all inherit the same 1/32 of the genes.

If you only breed from one dog per generation, then you would lose 50% of the parents' genes each generation. If you breed from two, then you would only lose 25% per generation on average.

An F1 dog will have 50% of pointer genes, but the two breeding F1s combined will have on average 75%(50-100%) of the pointer's genes since they won't inherit the exact same 50% unless they are identical twins. An F2 dog will have 25% pointer genes but the four breeding F2 dogs(two from each F1) combined will still have on average 56%(75%x75%)(I think) of the original pointer's genes. So the reduction in pointer genes per generation is less than just dividing by 2 each generation. Of course the more dogs you breed from each generation, the slower the loss.

Having said that, not all the pointer genes will be novel to the dalmatian gene pool, so the % of dalmatian genes can't be taken as the % of novel genes.

Ruby - I am well aware that there are plenty of examples of outcrosses - I've done one myself ! - the question I'm asking is what happens in subsequent generations - if all the offspring are bred back into the same restricted breed gene pool with no further outcrossing then inevitably genetic diversity will be lost again - and as a breeder I'm looking at the practicalities of the 'theory' surely outcrossing can only work if done on a large scale within breeds ?-most breeders make their breeding plans independently from other breeders - unless most breeders within a single bred ALL outcross or use outcrossed dogs then there will be little impact on that breeds diversity .

To be honest I think the 'theory' will only work if breeds are merged together so that Labradors and Flatcoats for example are seen as simply variations of the same dog and interbreeding within the two 'varieties ' is done as the norm - I've read somehwere ( can't remember where but think it was an article by Jeffrey Bragg ) that ideally our 400 breeds should be reduced to around 40 and that the definition of a breed should be much more loosely defined.

Of course the irony is that this method would destroy the majority of breeds in the name of 'saving' them !

Would losing a lot of breeds leaving the remaining ones healthier be such a bad thing?

I know that purists will argue yes, but if we could keep the general traits that make breeds what they have become so popular for, does uniformity of looks really matter to any great degree if the benefits are healthier dogs?

vested interests i am afraid if you lose breeds you lose, the breed club, the breeders place in that club and financial gain from breeding, bit like FIFA turkeys will never vote for christmas.
Sadly looks do matter and that is what showing is mainly about, not that showing is a bad thing in some regards but having to breed that close to conformity is really not on, i see no reason why judges cannot be interpretive for best in breed.

How would losing some breeds make others healthier? It's not like the remaining ones were being outcrossed to the ones left ot die out.

Not quite sure what you mean, but I would imagine that to give truly healthy dogs and eradicating as far as is possible hereditary disease that quite a few closely linked breeds in respect of traits would need to be inter-bred leaving a type of dog rather than a pure breed of dog? Hence, breeds would be lost, but remaining dogs would have a better chance of long and healthy lives whilst keeping the traits relative to type rather than pure breed?????

Just a layman in respect of breeding matters so I'm doing quite a bit of assuming here. However, if this would work, wouldn't we - no, rephrase that; wouldn't dogs - be better off?

I don't understand how reducing the amount of breeds would make the remaining healthier ??

I was responding to this from Bjou

"To be honest I think the 'theory' will only work if breeds are merged together so that Labradors and Flatcoats for example are seen as simply variations of the same dog and interbreeding within the two 'varieties ' is done as the norm - I've read somehwere ( can't remember where but think it was an article by Jeffrey Bragg ) that ideally our 400 breeds should be reduced to around 40 and that the definition of a breed should be much more loosely defined.

Of course the irony is that this method would destroy the majority of breeds in the name of 'saving' them"

My question was, would losing some breeds and merging together similar breeds necessarily be a bad thing?

this is frankly insulting - I breed my Belgian Shepherd Dogs NOT for financial gain ....or kudos....or to be part of the breed club but because I have a passion for the breed - it would tear my heart out to lose the breed in some amorphous mix of continental shepherding breeds where their unique qualities are merged with those of the GSD and Dutch Shepherd to become a generic type ( and I'm pretty sure the GSD enthusiasts on here would feel exactly the same way about their breed ! ).

To be honest I'm sick to the back teeth of all the instant experts who spout 'the best way' for us to maintain our breeds without EVER having done so themselves.

If the 'way forward' is the destruction of our breeds then you can count me out !