Dog breeding has to change. Many people realise this and opt to health test all their dogs. The thing is, health testing isn't addressing the reason that these genetic diseases/conditions are appearing in the first place. Often it seems that health testing is used by breeders/breed clubs to as a kind of lip service - to try and show that they're doing the best they can for their breed. In reality, it's just scraping the surface of the problems; problems caused by past inbreeding.

The reason inbreeding has negative effects is due to increased likelihood that a dog will inherit two of the same recessive genes, these may be disease genes, or genes for another trait (i.e. traits characteristic of a breed, such as coat colour or conformation). Conversely, outbreeding (outcrossing), means that the parents are less likely to share genes and therefore less likely to contribute two of the same recessive alleles of a gene. The reason breeds are associated with health problems is because along through selection for breed charcteristics, there is an decrease of genetic diversity within that breed, which may well inadvertently lead to accumulation of disease genes. Of course, it is rarely as simple as this, but it is undoubtedly true that preserving genetic diversity within a species is extremely important for it's overall health.

I do believe health testing is important too, but it's not addressing the real issue. It would be brilliant for the health of our dogs, if health testing was used in conjunction with outcrossing. I know people say that outcrossing to different breeds will reduce the pedigree to nothing more than a crossbreed, but surely the benefits in health are worth sacrificing type for a few generations? If there are distinct lines abroad, then AI would be an invaluable tool to increase genepools in this country, but for some breeds, even this isn't enough.

I totally agree, for what ever reasons Spot, you seem to have taken this personal, when it is not directed your way at all.

many people will rescue a pedigree, but then dont go round slating all pedigrees and breeders.

There are many many good breeders out there, and sadly in some cases they dont know their dogs have ended up in rescue.

But what would you cross it with... pick a breed, they will also have genetic problems so in fact you may even make the situation worse...by add more genetic diseases from the breed you introduce.

thank you ..

The situation wouldn't be made any worse, as the likelihood of a dog inheriting two of the same recessive genes would be reduced - the whole point. Linebreeding increases this risk, outcrossing reduces it.

In order to pick a suitable breed, I guess a lot of advice would have to be sought from geneticists. I'd imagine, to preserve breed characteristics, it would have to be something realtively similar, in terms of traits and aesthetics, but something fairly distinct in terms of genes - I don't know, but this is the type of thing the KC should be funding - and this time, they shouldn't be ignoring the findings!

I mean the boxer has been outcrossed with the corgi, and today's bobtail boxers look, well, like boxers! I know inbreeding has gone on in that instance, but this is the kind of area where research has to be directed, to promote a healthy future for our breeds.

One Boxer was crossed with one corgi.... it was only the one out crossing, and is only one line of Boxer.... this line is no less likely to suffer breed trait diseases...

The Bobtail is no more healthier than the natural tailed Boxer... they all suffer with breed trait problems. (if not screened)

I'm totally not against pedigrees or breeders - I mean, without KC support, breeders can't outcross and register their dogs with them, and therefore, can't show them. The KC thinks it's 'preserving' breeds, but in fact, it's letting them deteriorate before its eyes. More and more inherited conditions are becoming apparent, due to a lack of diversity, and this trend will continue until all our breeds are riddled with inherited conditions. The KC needs to get its act together before it's too late.

Yep, because after the outcrossing, it was linebred. This is where I believe the KC should be focussing their attention: enabling outcrossing and improving health/diversity, while maintaining the breeds we know and love. Do you agree on this?

It is statistically possible but advantages outweigh disadvantages.

A 1st generation cross benefits from increased heterosis and a COI of zero - hybrid vigour...that benefit is not maintained in subsequent (f2) generations. Of course, not the case if it is a dominant genetic trait, but in a breed club controlled situation and advice from canine geneticists one hopes this wouldn't happen.

Before anyone says they know a deaf, blind and dumb cross breed that also happens to be of foul temperament, these figures are worked on population averages.

Mary

Sorry Jackie,

It looks like I'm picking on you, not so, just your assertions .

On what basis do you make the statements I've put in bold, esp the first. Do you have references please?...all mine (about 20+) point to something else altogether, I'm afraid.

The second point I was going to elaborate on, but MSE2P has answered it very well...successive line breeding is insidious - everyone does a bit so it doesn't matter as much as occasional inbreeding. This is dangerous talk, and mis-information. The genetic diversity of the pool is wiped out slowly, it just takes a little bit longer.

Mary