Have you looked?

Life expectancy - (Michell 1999); Litter health (Gresky et al 2005); Pre-weaning mortality (van der Beek et al 1999)


All breeding should be done with extreme care. Breeding within pedigrees does not equal good breeding.

It's not as simple as that. Gene sequences that can cause disease in homozygous form can offer tremendous benefits in hetrozygous form. Breeders who automatically discard genetic material have barely any notion of what babies may be cast out with the bathwater.





No you don't. You're still aiming for a finished product whereas it should be a continual process with genetic homozygousity minimised by continual drip-feeding of fresh genetic material.

Amazed.

As Snorri said - this is not a feature unique to Saarloos or even dogs...

I think you are generalising about dog breeds. For example the last paragraph. If you do this you will not at any point have a dog 'breed'. This is a dog breed forum and I suspect you will not get too much support for destroying dog breeds. I understand your views but they would not be compatible with the dog showing world of KC registered dog (or FCI for that matter) may be this is something that needs to be changed. Personally I agree with minimising health risks but pick on other breeds with more problems first!

I think this thread was intended to reflect a pair of specific breeds and not dogs in general.

As for dicarding material, I think the breeder was quite well aware after many years of breeding what was 'discarded', they simply chose not to increase the risk of epilepsy; it was a precaution. The dog has a great home. Whats the problem?

I simply do not seem to share your view that crossing a small breed like the Saarloos with a type of dog that seems to have every known genetic problem known is a good idea; which seems to be what other people are refering to.

I disagree. Livestock producers have long faced (and resolved) this issue. The practice of graded herds (where a herd mostly retains its purebred chacteristics but also retains hybrid vigour by the continual additions of outcrossing) is widespread.

Outcrossing does not equal destroying breeds (although it does represent a sea-change from the established view of the KC, etc.). Small, closed gene pools do destroy breeds.


Even in specific cases the general principles should be observed. Many posters have made generalised comments on this thread against outcrossing so how come this should raise an objection now?


Unlikely. The canine genome is not that well understood.

Did I express that view? I don't think so. Earlier in your post you have criticised me for making a general point about dogs and not being specific about the breeds in question yet here you ascribe to me a very specific view.

Nah. I'm not expert enough on the breeds mentioned to be as specific as you say.

What you say does require that sea-change. This would be going back to breeding dogs the way it was done for thousands of years before the mid 19th century. People are very brand loyal, so do you see them accepting this easily?

In some ways. In other ways we have a deeper understanding of genetic principles that will immeasurably assist us.

Which 'people' are we talking about?

The scientific community and vetinary literature already support this view. That's why Rooney et al's 2008 review of current vetinary data concluded that stud books should be opened to "allow more frequent introduction of new genetic material into established breeds".
http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...pplication/pdf

The dog-owning community is (evidently) a different matter and it pains me that we are so far behind the field in regard to the revelations of modern genetics and that we still adhere to flawed Victorian models of purity that are known to be deleterious.

It is to be expected that those with a vested interest in the status quo (like the KC) will resist change.

We'll get there eventually but I fear we'll be dragged kicking and screaming and, yes, there will be tears before bedtime.

I don't want opinions! I asked for facts and figures - neither of which have been provided.

*Yawn*

I think Snorri's statement was one of fact, not opinion but either way you're not paying attention.

I have already linked to Rooney et al's review of pedigree breeding which deals with this, fully referenced, in the section sub-titled...


There it is...the latest overview of the current body of research, trials and studies...not opinion. Facts (as best we can judge them).

So yawn away but you may find the debate more gripping if you actually read it.

However gripping the statement, it didn't answer my question to you, so for a third time, seeing as you seem to have selective replies.

Can you please give the exact ratio of unrelated Saarloos studs to Saarloos bitches.

Since you haven't specified over how many generations we must consider your use of the term "unrelated" your question looks too vague to permit a definitive answer but, to be frank, I've no idea why you're asking or why you think I would possess this information.

I made a claim about the undesirability of small, closed gene pools for which I have provided an academic source (if any were needed). You ask for some technicality of Saarloos genealogy. What is your point? You have some reason, perhaps, to believe Saarloos immune from deleterious effects of a depleted gene pool?