A short introduction to genetic health

David Cavill explains the basic facts about genetic health and selective breeding and corrects the misleading impression given the TV programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed

Category:

Pets & Animals

Tags:

• pedigre
• dogs
• dog
• breeding
• pedifree
• exposed
• our
• animal
• care
• college
• genetics
• selective

[davidcavill]

Agreed - but we are where we are and changes have been and are being made. It will take three or four generations but there are already significant improvements in breeds such as the Chow over the last 10/15 years and that experience is being applied to other breeds as we speak. The problems are not simple - but they are capable of solutions.

[davidcavill]

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to the debate

[davidcavill]

I am confident that within three generations (five to ten years) those breeds with serious problems (in the UK at least) will be transformed. Despite its distortions PDE will have achieved what was already the KC's objective -in trying to close a door Jemima has given us an opportunity which the KC and others have grasped in both hands

[davidcavill]

advocate a very broad strategy for pedigree dog health and what I must emphasise is that most breeds accept those definitions and that they are healthy and sound as a result and even within the remaining 15% the vast majority of dogs are fine. The breeds that have a questionable genetic heritage (the other where there is (usually) just one genetic problem are, quite rightly, being forced to change their standards and judges and breeders are being called to account.

[davidcavill]

A fascinating series of observations, James. You are, of course, right, as far as the science is concerned but I question the conclusions because the social structure of society and man's psychological mind set are more complicated even than the science. We have to start from here and al, the pijts you make are recognised by the KC but the two above complexities means that change will not happen overnight. If you read my latest wordpress piece you will see that I

[NEBESHIKU]

You are a big old bag of shit! Please let me now when you die so i can send flowers! 

[ZANGZANGDANZ]

What about breed standards, as interpreted by breeders and the community of judges, that are by definition genetic problems? So even in a population large enough to lack high inbreeding coefficients, the process of selective breeding for deleterious but aesthetically acceptable characteristics can become a problem. If muzzles are specifically bred so short as to cause respiratory problems, or torsos so large to prevent NATURAL SEX, then the project of current pedigree breeding seems abhorrent.

[DeNovoApollyon]

Lastly, the KC is setting very strict guidelines on a breed in terms of morphology, dangerously so. This just isn't seen in the wild because natural selection isn't that selective, it just keeps what works.

We are forcing in phenotypes that are not beneficial to the animal or breed... This is a far cry from breeding them for a purpose, requiring fitness or agility!

Eugenics in humans was thrown out on moral grounds, but those morals also saved us from the situation we have put dogs in now.

[DeNovoApollyon]

You also say the KC has measures in place to prevent this limitation of genetic variability..

Is it keeping a large gene pool?

No.

Therefore the "regulations" are insufficient. However i do not think regulation is the right way forward... It would be much easier just to change the attitude of breeders to breed for the right qualities...

[DeNovoApollyon]

"been contracted down several generations without any difficulties"

Actually you should look at the various royal families' lineages in Europe. Problems did arise actually. However because the entire population of humans had not done the same the problem amended itself regularly with a healthy dose of new genes. Ie: the milkman...

Also dog generations are shorter, and per generation produce more offspring...