Pedigree and Genetics
My other assumption on size is based on early pictures. In fact, Mandeville, in his book, notes that a rather famous male OES, Harkaway, who was born in 1891, was about the size of current day Beardies. And also states that this was typical around the turn of that century. He also notes that when they were first shown, before there was a separate class for OES, they were pretty indistinguishable from a crowd of drover's dogs throughout the five county SW England region of origin who ranged from 17"- 23" at the withers, and weighed from 40-65 lbs - apart from the fact that they were tailless (docked). It took a number of years (he suggested 20) from the time the English standard was written (1885) for there to even be anything resembling what we today consider "type". Anyway, pedigrees. I started my own database in '99 for personal reasons. You can find info in old year books and other breed club publications (also beyond the US), the OFA site is useful (www.offa.org), and some times just asking various breeders for pedigrees. Some of the breed books, like Mandeville's, also have useful info. I just continue to add to it. It's interesting. If you have a four generation pedigree already, you have a good start. If you decide to pursue it, PM me and I'll share whatever I have that may be pertinent. Kristine |
|
|
Mad Dog wrote: You can find info in old year books and other breed club publications (also beyond the US),
And if you decide that you need any OESCA publications (such as yearbooks) to aid in your research please contact me, your friendly OESCA Information Materials person!!!!!! (Shameless OESCA plug!!!) |
infoseeker wrote: Where are you getting your information on your dogs generations? That would be cool to check on Chewy, I think I have his info for at least 4 generations (have not checked it in a long time)
This site is excellent for tracing pedigrees. I got all the way to 1900 on Clyde's mom's side (no missing dogs in the pedigree yet) but then I got busy and haven't gotten back to finishing. It's fun because once you have names, you can sometimes find pictures, too. Everything from his sire and dam back are European and I still had great luck in tracing. http://edoes.gbwebs.com/stamidx.htm (I should give credit to lisaoes for sharing it with me!) |
| I use Eduardo's site too. You have to be careful - like anything else that extensive, there are some mistakes here and there. It contains an awesome amount of painstakingly collected info though.
Since Goat Girl and Clyde are cousins some-what removed, I should double-check with you on parts of her European pedigree. What pedigree software do you use? Kristine |
| Do you mean in terms of actually making a chart, so to speak? I do a lot of design work so I made a giant document in a graphic layout program myself. If that isn't what you mean, I shall require a further explanation! |
Dear lord - a close to 40 generation pedigree, which is roughly what it would take, involves almost a quarter of a billion ancestors - not unique, of course. Lots of repeats. But space-wise...Gigantic! Definitely not something we could share via e-mail 
There are a number of commercially available pedigree software databases. I use Breedmate. I know at least 3 other Americans and one Australian in the breed who do the same. Some times people share. In fact, a friend and I just merged our datebases. That can be tricky - I'm still working on removing duplicates. But worth it. The software has good trouble-shooting functions that let you know when something doesn't seem right, so that makes it easier to catch mistakes and that helps a lot. I'm not sure what other software is popular right now. I started out with something else back-when. But the tech-support and customer service went downhill. Badly. It was DOS based at that time. The software I'm using now is much more userfriendly, though perhaps not quite as sophisticated from a pedigree analysis point of view. I can run inbreeding coefficients and coefficients of relationships and that kind of thing, so it probably is more than sufficient for my use though. But damned if if I've ever found anything that could print even a ten generation pedigree on one sheet of paper. You're already talking 2,046 dogs. It's not realistic, so if I'm doing a visual scan it's on the screen only. I like working with a minimum of ten generations though. Fifteen would be even better. So I just keep plugging... Kristine |
It is HUGE! I printed it out when I was halfway through and it was over 12 feet long (it's 36" wide). There are many duplicates so for those, I don't rebuild the line behind them. As soon as they repeat, I outline the box in red and stop it there. I have the original file on my computer at home but here's a snapshot of what I'm talking about (it's just an incomplete piece from my machine at work.)
I build the grid generation by generation since I don't build off the repeats. It has been taking a long time, hence why I've take a break! I've also when searching for pictures of each dog, too. That's been really tough. I've found a handful but nowhere what I wish I could find! |
| Cool!!
Reminds me a little bit of the first summer I started collecting pedigrees. Not being a graphic designer or having access to any fancy printing capabilities, I had a simple excel file that when printed out had me taping pages and pages together every which-way. Let's just say it wasn't pretty. I ended up walking on it, dogs ended up walking on it (hey!!! Get your filthy paw off your ggggggg-grandmother, you heathen!!!):lol: I couldn't simplify it though, because the calculations I was looking for rely specifically on the "repeats" so it just kept getting wider and wider... I feared as I went on I would only be able to work with it outside and what if it rained and...???
About that time I broke down and bought some pedigree software.  Different purpose though. Even without the space considerations, I wouldn't have been able to do the calculations by hand over very many generations before my brain exploded.
If I thought there was more interest, I'd suggest a pedigree topic. As it is, please just do me a favor and let me know if you come across sire/dam info on Fernville Jane Grey. Thanks! Kristine |
| Oh, that reminds me!
Who do you have for Julian of Bewkes? (He's behind Pockethall New Shoes, among others). Eduardo has him listed as Robin of Yasabel x Pastelblue Lovely Lady. But he also has Julian listed as Robin's sire. Obviously they can't have sired each other, and while I find references to dogs Julius sired here and there, I keep coming up stumped on who his parents were. That's another big thanks if you - or any of you for that matter - can solve that one. It's been driving me nuts!! 
Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: Oh, that reminds me!
Who do you have for Julian of Bewkes? (He's behind Pockethall New Shoes, among others). Eduardo has him listed as Robin of Yasabel x Pastelblue Lovely Lady. But he also has Julian listed as Robin's sire. Obviously they can't have sired each other, and while I find references to dogs Julius sired here and there, I keep coming up stumped on who his parents were. That's another big thanks if you - or any of you for that matter - can solve that one. It's been driving me nuts!! Kristine As I went to consult my chart here at home to see if I could answer your questions, I was greeted with an unpleasant little surprise. The file, for unknown reasons is CORRUPTED! I almost threw up I was so upset. I could only recover a small portion of all the work I had done. The research was fun but building the giant chart was tedious to say the least. *Sigh*I'll keep searching and report back if I find anything. Fernville Jane Grey sounds very familiar... I was just researching for fun but I'm really interested in the calculations you were talking about. I'm assuming it was something to do with compatibility? Could you talk more about it? If you don't mind answering (what I suspect may be a lengthy answer), I'll make a new topic for it. We really don't have a lot of info on pedigrees on the forum and, even though everyone might not be interested, I know some of us definitely are. The science of it all is fascinating to me. |
Quote: everyone might not be interested, I know some of us definitely are. The science of it all is fascinating to me.
Agreed sounds very cool. I am sorry to hear about your database, how big was the file size? did you have a back up? maybe the vendor can help? |
infoseeker wrote: Quote: everyone might not be interested, I know some of us definitely are. The science of it all is fascinating to me. Agreed sounds very cool. I am sorry to hear about your database, how big was the file size? did you have a back up? maybe the vendor can help? It was a big ol' Adobe Illustrator file. I think it may not be the program's fault, but my laptop. It's been having a problem going into standby mode and, instead of standing by, it winds up restarting in some cases and other times just throwing out errors. I have a feeling I left the file open and unsaved and it just closed it down, creating an issue, or in an error fit, it messed up the file. I had an earlier saved version backed up on my work computer so I do have part of it but definitely not the majority. |
ButtersStotch wrote: I was just researching for fun but I'm really interested in the calculations you were talking about. I'm assuming it was something to do with compatibility? Could you talk more about it? If you don't mind answering (what I suspect may be a lengthy answer), I'll make a new topic for it. We really don't have a lot of info on pedigrees on the forum and, even though everyone might not be interested, I know some of us definitely are. The science of it all is fascinating to me.
Sorry - club meeting ran late last night so no chance to get back online. Tell me where you want me to go to try to explain what I'm talking about and then tell me when to shut up, because I really love this stuff. Not an expert at it though. If we run into questions I can't explain (likely) I can consult with a geneticist friend of mine for answers.
I'm so sorry about your pedigree. Happened to me once, reasonably early on, but still! I feel your pain. Truly.  I have an idea that might help you not have to redo all your work. Point the way to where the topic belongs.
Kristine |
| Once upon a time, 1998 to be exact, some crazy lady decided it would be fun to drive 800 plus miles to a dog show just because there would be a lot of OES there. The crazy lady, me, of course, had lost her first OES a year earlier, at age 11, and was still deeply in mourning. Heidi came from a BYB. While she was reasonably healthy, her temperament left much to be desired, but she was much loved and sorely missed nonetheless.
So, the sad, crazy lady drove from NY to Wisconsin where she met this not quite six month old sheepdog puppy whom she was put in charge of for the weekend. It was love at first lick, I like to say. She had the most incredible temperament. To me, she was the epitomy of what sheepdog temperament should be. Still is. Naturally, I coveted this sheepdog for my own. Problem was, her breeder had other plans. So I developed my own. The following year it seemed just as reasonable to move those 800 plus miles so I could permanently be close to Belle. Still crazy, in other words. But a lot less sad. Mind you, it would take me another almost year and a half before she was mine, mostly, I think, because her breeder realized that the only way she was going to get me away from the dog was by surgical means
But this is about that first summer when I moved out here. Her breeder and I were sitting around chatting when she got a call from Canada that a dog she had bred almost certainly had CA (Cerebellar Abiotrophy). I had never heard of it. I started asking questions. How is it inherited? What do we know about it? And, the all important question: how does this relate to Belle, her sister Coco, and their cousin Tommy, whose sister apparently had CA? In the process of talking to Belle's breeder and others, I found information on the mode of inheritance (after learning what mode of inheritance means ), got a short-list of known CA carriers verbally handed to me along with a stack of pedigrees of the dogs in the house and close relatives, and sat down to see if I could make some sense of it. Thusly is an obsession born.
More to follow. Kristine |
| Later that same year, 1999, I attended my first OESCA National Specialty in Rhode Island during a hurricane (that's not really relevant, but it was memorable ) I watched cousin Tommy float his way to win his class. He had just turned two. I'm a horse person from way back. I appreciate movement. Study it. Can't take my eyes off a nice moving dog. I watched him a lot. Three months later or so, I saw him stumble for no reason. His movement was just slightly "off" at times. Very gradually, so slight in the beginning that you had to question if you were really seeing what you were seeing, that his movement was deteriorating as his sense of spatial relationships diminished ever so slightly at a time. A year almost to the day after the '99 specialty his breeder sat me down and said: "I have to tell you something. Tommy has CA." I said: "I know."
I dug out my endless sheets of paper with pedigree info, happened across a book titled "Control Of Canine Genetic Diseases" by George A. Padgett, DVM, bought myself my first pedigree software, and started reading and inputting in fits and starts. It was my way of coping. Anyway, as to the practical questions you asked about. In the beginning, I didn't care about inbreeding coefficents or coefficients of relationship. All I wanted was a way of mapping dogs that told me where the risk was and how it related to Belle. So I'll get back to what you asked. But tell you some other interesting things I learned along the way. <You can, of course, tell me to shut up and get to the point at any time  This will turn into a saga otherwise.> |
| I'm into the saga, go on... |
| There wasn't a lot of written information available concerning OES and CA. I went back over old OETs (OESCA's publication - The Old English Times) and came across some articles that supported what I had been told verbally - that the the disease was strongly associated with a given kennel, that those breeders had been told it was strictly "their" problem, not a breed-wide problem, that they had responded by (collectively, I presume) donating a considerable amount of money to initate research into the disease, and that something like 26 (give or take) OES had been sacrificed - put down - for the sake of the research.
Some of the articles I just referred to can now be found on the health website: www.oeshealth.org - go to the CA section(s). I later talked to one of the main initial breeders involved and she told me that they were hit so hard that for a while they thought perhaps it was strictly their problem, and that perhaps they were dealing with a more recent gene mutation whose mode of inheritance was dominant (meaning all it takes is one parent to carry the "CA" gene, and all offspring will be affected - that's a simplification, actually). Research proved that hypothesis wrong: the pedigrees and the dogs that were submitted for necropsies actually indicated an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance - autosomal referring to the fact that inheriting the gene is not sex-linked - each parent must carry a copy of the recessive gene in order to produce an affected puppy. There are nice little squares you can draw up to show you % of affected, carrier and clear (normal) puppies you can be expected to produce with a certain combination of parents whose carrier status is known, if they produced 100 puppies (not realistic, but that many for it to be statistically relevant). clear: meaning the parent does not carry a copy of the recessive gene; carrier: meaning the parent carries one copy that it may or may not pass on, but is itself not affected by the disease affected: meaning the dog has two copies of the gene so will certainly pass it on to a puppy. Those numbers are interesting, but not so relevant. If you have a litter of five puppies and both parents were carriers, you could produce all affected puppies, no affected puppies, or any number in between - five is not statistically relevant. Fun to know, but doesn't tell the individual breeder much. What I did learn that is much more interesting and relevant is how to calculate carrier and affected risk when the mode is autosomal recessive. See http://www.purinaproclub.com/public/res ... ticles=379 The relevance of this goes beyond CA and can be used to calculate any trait that has this mode of inheritance. The last time Belle's CA carrier risk was calculated formally (by Dr Bell) she had a 35.48% chance of being a carrier. Her risk of being affected was small, but not completely out of the question. Her dam and Tommy's dam are sisters, meaning Belle is the daughter of a sibling of a known carrier. She also has some carrier risk further back on her sire's side. Otherwise her carrier risk would have been a straightforward 25%. For those of you who like numbers. What I also learned was that the CA carrier risk wasn't limited to a given kennel, or even closely associated kennels (lines), and that it went back to what was behind much of the breed at that point in time. The pedigrees in front of me told me that story and the research supported it. So the next question became: where do you go from here? |
This thread is fascinating....Mad Dog....have you ever considered writing a book?  Seriously!  |
Very interesting, I always loved genetics, it's fascinating!  |
| The first thing anyone who is interested in breeding and genetics needs to understand is that, contrary to our own personal convictions , there is no such thing as a perfect dog. Certainly not in terms of genetics.
Each dog carries, if memory serves, something like a 100,000 genes, give or take. Any time you produce a puppy, it gets half of its genetic contribution from dad, and half from mom. And, unfortunately, since there are different versions , if you will, of each gene, we can't know for sure which "version" mom or dad will pass on, or sometimes even which versions of a given gene they even carry. Now, also keep in mind, in terms of a given breed, that once the stud book is "closed" (no new dogs can be added), whatever you have in that gene pool is what you have. Period. You can breed and come up with all kinds of permutations - but only within what you have. That can be a good thing. Perhaps, when the OES gene pool was closed, the genes for certain inherited diseases were not even present. That's why you don't necessarily see all of the same diseases in all breeds. But every living creature carries some deleterious genes (yes, us too). You can safely assume that Fluffy sitting on your couch right now scratching her bum (has she no manners???) has a given number of what would be considered lethal genes, along with the more ordinary bad ones (two or the right combination of these genes and she might be dead.) If she isn't dead, she still has some bad genes that in combination with another dog with that same selection of lethal genes, can produce puppies that have a significantly shortened life span. There are a number of genes that in the right combination produce less than desirable traits, and then the ones that outright kill. You're a breeder. You want to avoid producing anything bad. You can test for some things, and you should, observe others, but, for now, nothing can tell you exactly what all of Fluffy's bad genes are. In addition to producing the most correct (read the standard) OES you possibly can in terms of structure, type and temperament, you have to be concerned about health. You know Fluffy has some bad genes - some you can guess at the risk of her carrier based on her family - and you know that any stud dog you choose also has some bad genes. It's a given. Remember: no perfect dogs. What you have to try to do in an imperfect world with imperfect information is try to figure out how to (a) the most likely risk in each dog's pedigree and (b) try to pick a mate that not only has what you want for your Fluffy's puppies in general, but also try to avoid "doubling up" on health problems. That brings is back to Belle's breeder. She now knows that half of her line is effectively done - too high risk to carry on in the absence of a DNA marker that can tell you the carrier status of the dog (i.e. they are siblings of known affected dogs - that means they have a 67 % chance of being carriers themselves). She has two girls left from a slightly less risky part of her pedigree (at 36% carrier risk). Where do you go from there? You can quit breeding. A number of breeders did. I don't blame them. If it's something that is very limited and contained (recent) in a breed, your best contribution to the breed is to spay and neuter everything you have and either take up needlepoint or start over. If it's something that's already widespread behind the breed, then that's not necessarily the best course of action. Because if you start spaying and neutering drastically, you (a) limit genetic variability, possibly to an unsustainable level and/or (b) skew the breed in the direction of some other and possibly even worse disease (ask the Basenjii people about that one). If you decide to continue forward, you need to be able to find a quality dog who is much lower risk than your bitch in this regard. Belle's breeder gave me a pedigree to evaluate and though there was one part of that dog's line I was a little concerned about, the risk was, well, formally it couldn't be determined, but with what was known at the time, significantly lower (that still holds true). She bred her in 2001. I had learned a lot by then. I was no longer holding my breath in regards to CA, but had moved on to - thanks to the reading I had done and the breeders I had talked to - obsessing about other health issues and about where the breed is headed in terms of genetic variability. Thankfully I had my handy-dandy pedigree database to help me with that. |
| This sounds like a heck of a lot of math. How much does the pedigree software do and how much do you have to determine? |
ButtersStotch wrote: This sounds like a heck of a lot of math. How much does the pedigree software do and how much do you have to determine? \
Which calculations are you talking about? CA carrier risk? That's fairly easy and can be done by hand. Or did you mean something else? Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: ButtersStotch wrote: This sounds like a heck of a lot of math. How much does the pedigree software do and how much do you have to determine? \Which calculations are you talking about? CA carrier risk? That's fairly easy and can be done by hand. Or did you mean something else? Kristine Hmm, I guess I was more thinking, where do the numbers come from specifically for each dog? I looked at the link you provided but, I have to admit, stats aren't my strong point! |
| Excellent question!
The thing is, first you need to know something about carrier status. If you looked at Clyde's pedigree right now, you wouldn't be able to determine a darn thing (chances are, neither would Dr Bell.) Now, I have high to higher risk pedigrees to play with, and I've looked at plenty of the same, so I've had a chance to practice. Let's play with some numbers. Take the bum-scratching Fluffy. She's high risk (I just decided ) Her sire is now a known CA carrier. (Let's say that when bred to a different dog, he produced CA, because that is the only way to confirm carrier status right now, in lieu of a genetic test). OK, so her sire, Bubba has a 100% chance of being a carrier. We know nothing about her dam, Cutie, except that she doesn't go back to a confirmed CA carrier. Her known risk of being a carrier is 0% (technically, it is Cannot Be Determined, because there could be carriers we don't know about).
This is a really simple case: as the offspring of a CA carrier, Fluffy has a 50% chance of being a carrier herself - either she got the recessive gene from dad, or not. Flip a coin. 50% chance. Oh, but wait! New information just became available. Her dam's sire, Biff, turned out to be a CA carrier. Oops! Bad news for Fluffy. OK. Now, her mom is the offspring of known carrier, so HER CA carrier risk is 50%. For fluffy, that means: CA carrier risk: Bubba (Dad): 100 % Cutie: (mom): 50% The formula tells us that Fluffy's risk of being affected is: 1/2 100% + 1/2 50% = .50 x .25 = 12.5% (That's VERY high - it means that you would expect to see 12.5 affected puppies in a "litter" of 100 - I know, sort of meaningless, yet a helpful guide) To calculate her carrier risk: 1/2 sire's carrier risk + 1/2 dam's carrier risk less affected risk = (50% + 25%) - 12.5% = 62.50 % chance of being a carrier * Almost as high as if one of her litter mates was affected. Of course, to be able to do this, you have to know as much about carrier status in a given pedigree as possible. These numbers don't tell you to breed or not to breed (well, in some situations....like above...) They give you a guideline. What you want to do, ideally, generation by generation, is (a) avoid producing an affected dog and (b) lower your carrier risk. The Goat Girl, Sybil, for instance, is two generations removed from her great-aunt Belle. Her known CA carrier risk is 8.87% Does that make sense or didn't I totally miss your question? Kristine |
ravenmoonart wrote: This thread is fascinating....Mad Dog....have you ever considered writing a book?
Seriously! Eh, well, thanks! But I think I've spent too much time online. I don't think I can write anymore without emoticons. They'd look pretty silly in a book
KB |
| No, it did answer it mostly. It helped to see it with numbers. So basically, you're taking what you know about a certain dog and dropping it into a formula? Your explanation has really helped clear up what people say when they "study" the lines and pedigrees and what kind of work goes into determining better matches for breeding.
Here's kind of an offshoot question. Say you want to breed a trait that isn't a disease but maybe, like a wider rear end. I know you can obviously look at the parents for that kind of thing but is it possible to kind of figure out statistics on how likely you'll be to actually produce a wider ended dog since breeding 2 wide dogs isn't absolute in getting a wide dog? |
| OK, now you're definitely getting more into breeder territority and less into amateur genetics fanatic territory.
Quick answer: no. Well, yes, in the sense that if a good trait was known to have an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance (can't think of any - most traits appear to be more complex, i.e. they have a polygenic mode of inheritance, meaning they are controlled by a collection of genes) and we could detect carrier status, then, yes, you could use the calculations we just talked about. That said, we don't know what gene(s) produce a "wide(r) rear" But we can take a pretty educated guess that it's not a simple mode of inheritance. So even though you can observe the trait (phenotype: wide rear, CA affected), because of the difference in mode of inheritance, the simple formulas we just played with don't work to give us a good guess at the underlying genotype. Now you're getting into more interesting territory though. When you are dealing with something that (probably) has a polygenic mode of inheritance, a simple pedigree is pretty useless. I.e. you don't want to know just that the dog you're breeding to has a wide rear, or even his parents. You want to know what his siblings rears look like, and what his parents and grandparents' siblings' rears looked like. What if he's a bit of a fluke? He has a wide rear, but all of his siblings, his sire and his dam and most of their siblings, and all of his grandparents except one have "skinny" rears. I wouldn't put a lot of stock on him contributing greatly to producing a wide rear. A little yes. Now, if all/most of his relatives (now you're talking breadth of pedigree - Padgett's book shows you how to draw up a pedigree that is much more useful, where you can include siblings and such.) have wide rears, you're in better shape, probability-wise. But give you a number? Sorry, I can't do it at any rate. The OFA database gives me information in a better format than my own pedigree database on another trait that is though to be polygenic - good hips. Go to www.offa.org, pick a dog, then click on vertical pedigree, I think it says, and it will list the hip ratings of not only the dogs (in a 3-4 gen pedigree, I think it is), but their siblings. Say Fluffy has OFA good hips, two of her siblings do too, and two have excellent ratings. And you can see the same (providing they are in there) for her parents. NOW, that is only as good as the info involved. Unfortunately, what happens is that we select against releasing bad news. I.e. Fluffy's hips may be fine, all of her immediate relatives are wonderful, but maybe her aunt Nancy was rated mildly dysplastic. But we wouldn't know that because that information would probably not be released. Frankly, that's a pity, because we need that as badly as we need to know the good. Maybe more. To be honest, I'd take an OFA good Fluffy with a dysplastic aunt, but the same otherwise wonderful relatives across the board, over an OFA excellent dog who had two severly dysplastic littermates. But what if I don't know about them? Kristine |
| I know I still haven't touched on the calculations that started this whole discussion. I will. But I just have to emphasize that any kind of analysis is only as good as the information it's based on.
You can analyze any number of inherited traits to varying degrees. I've focused mainly on health issues because that's what I've spent the most time on. Frankly, when you're talking about the kind of breeding serious OES breeders do, you're breeding not only for health, but also temperament and structure/type as defined by a breed's standard. So you have to balance all of these dimensions in your pursuit of the elusive "ideal" OES. We've already established there is no such thing as a perfect dog except, perhaps, in the eyes of his loving owner But a serious breeder will have this vision of the ideal in mind and a long-term plan on how to get ever increasingly closer. That is, you don't make breeding decisions one generation at a time - you are looking a number of generations forward, while at the same time considering all that you know about what is in the generations behind your dog, and what can best get you where you want to go.
It's a complicated endevour that will always be part science/knowledge, part artistic vision and part luck - good and bad. We can see and feel structure, we can sense temperament, but the underlying genetic health of our dogs - not just what they have or do not have of health issues, but what their genes could allow them to produce - is what remains the least tangible and therefor hardest to select for - or against. And, at least in the foreseable future, we will always be dealing with imperfect information in terms of health issues. But you need to start somewhere. So, where do you get health information on the dogs in any given pedigree? In terms of your own, the obvious start is health testing, as well as the otherwise observable general health of your dogs and their relatives. You talk to the breeders of the dogs behind your dogs. Hopefully you trust them and have a good relationship with them. This is a collaborative effort. Your dog didn't just appear from nowhere - he or she has this entire genetic history that is the cummulative result of the decisions of the many, many breeders behind him or her, for better and worse. Some of the health test results will have been publically documented. In the US, you can go to www.offa.org (for information on what we should be testing for in this breed, go to the Canine Health Information Center (CHIC) at http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/brdreqs.html?breed=SD) - and look up the dogs in your dogs' pedigrees, if they have been health tested and the results have been submitted. As noted previously, this information is of somewhat limited use because: (1) it generally only tells you which dogs are considered normal in terms of whatever is being tested for; infrequently are any abnormal results listed. (2) in an ideal world you would know the health status of every puppy in every litter - not just a select few. (3) only a limited number of diseases have screening tests. One of the ways to increase the knowledge base is to institute an open health registry. These registries tend to differ from registries like OFA in that it is a place to share health information for which there is currently no testing available. CA would be (and in fact is) a prime candidate in our breed. There is research underway to find a DNA marker that will let us test all OES for CA carrier status. Until we have that, carriers can only be detected if they have produced an affected dog. Recall the mode of inheritance for CA: each parent must contribute a copy of the recessive gene in order to produce an affected dog.That means both parents must be carriers. Other diseases that are common to the breed but have no screening test belong in such a registry as well (any cancers that occur in our breed at higher than average rates, some of the autoimmune diseases most likely, and so on). If and when a screening test is developed, the information can then be moved to the CHIC registry, which already has a formalized way of collecting and reporting test results. OESCA laid the ground work for an open health registry last year when our breed was added to the CHIC registries mentioned above. You can read about the open registry at www.oeshealth.com (look for the August HRC update). It's a step in the right direction, but again, only as good as the information it contains. Meaning people will actually have to contribute health information to make it useful in terms of the kind of analysis I've been talking about, and not just in terms of CA Kristine |
| I'm very interested in this (and posting so you'll know that I am and not think I quit reading!) but I think this is excellent information for anyone even thinking about breeding, just to give them an idea of how much thought and planning goes into this. |
ButtersStotch wrote: I'm very interested in this (and posting so you'll know that I am and not think I quit reading!) but I think this is excellent information for anyone even thinking about breeding, just to give them an idea of how much thought and planning goes into this.
Thanks, Jill. Thing is, if you asked a breeder of say 30 years they may not be able to verbalize what I just said (or they may, and much better ), but that's still mentally in many ways the process they go through, whether they're cognizant of it or not. It's second nature to them, chances are.
They know what their goals are and how to prioritize what they need to accomplish to attain them. They understand who and what produces what (not that they can't be surprised). They have the history, the experience. For someone just coming into the breed, intending to breed, the research you have to do, whether it's more "formal" (learning the basic principles of genetics) or just talking to other breeders and working with them, is extensive. And the learning curve - long-time breeder and new person alike - can be brutal. And then just when you think you know what you're doing, genetic "chance" throws you some curveballs here and there, sometimes heartbreaking ones. I listen to people say "I want to breed a litter" and I think "why in god's name would you want to do that???" But somebody has to, and I appreciate the people who do their darndest to get it right. And, yes, honest, my next "installment" will cover the much mentioned calculations this all started out with. No, really
Kristine |
| Kristine,
Thank you for so elequently explaining some of the ins and outs of genetics, breeding and pedigrees. I am fortunate to have direct access to you almost all the time to get you to explain these things to me
I do think you could write one heck of a book, but I know that its contents would most likely be eaten by The Goat prior to it ever reaching the hands of a publisher!
I look forward to your future installments as I cannot seem to get enough of this information into my brain and I have not had a chance to sit down with you and look at all of the info. But I'm sure I will be finding you all too soon  |
| Good grief, woman! I don't torment, lecture and nag you enough in person? You actually read this stuff voluntarily???
The Goat's not that interested in book-learnin' evidently (why am I not surprised?). She's only eaten one. Her latest culinary conquest was the flashlight I have (oops, had!) bedside in case of a power outage. Unbelievable. I don't want to worry you, but Luca PM'd me the other day and told me he needs to get out in the woods and run with the girls. Enough of the fluffy-stuff for a while. Just let me do a quick behind check of his nieces first to make sure no one's coming into season. They're due in. Which reminds me... inbreeding co-efficients and the likes. Thanks, Luca! Kristine |
| Seriously, Kristine, this is fascinating reading. I've always enjoyed genetics studies and this is so informative without being too bogged down or over my head to understand. Thanks for taking the time to put it out here for us. |
| One of the statements I occasionally come across that makes my hair stand on end (no minor feat, as it happens) pertains to the assumption that inbreeding/linebreeding itself CAUSES disease. In theory, you can only produce what is genetically "there". If there are undesirable genes present, then, yes, you do increase the risk of closely related dogs sharing the same alleles - versions - of various genes and of the undesirable trait(s) being expressed. If neither dog carries, say the gene for PRA, then you're not going to produce PRA just because the two dogs are closely related. An exception to this reasoning would be what is termed "inbreeding depression" - an initially almost imperceptible loss of vigor or hardiness that accumulates over time with increased inbreeding (loss of genetic variability).
The corrollary - when someone tells me their dog MUST be healthy BECAUSE none of his ancestors are related (in a four or five generation pedigree, usually, which depending on the size of the gene pool may or may not mean much), makes me cringe - two dogs can be almost completely unrelated, but share the same genetic lethal equivalents (deadly genes). I.e. they don't have to be closely related for both of them to carry the genes for, say, cardiomyopathy, if it is known to be in the breed. If you think about how most breeds got started, including ours, there was generally a relatively small pool of founding dogs. What does that mean for all of us? For starters, it doesn't matter where or how you got your dog. If it's a purebred OES, sooner or later, if you go back far enough, our dogs are all related (I know some of you don't want to admit that vis-a-vis Sybil, and. believe me, I am sympathetic, but thems the facts. Sorry  ) It's just that some of them are more closely related to themselves than others...
Since there are reasons to avoid relying too heavily on inbreeding/linebreeding, you need an objective measure of the degree of inbreeding to know which way your dogs, and perhaps even the breed, are headed. The most commonly used measure is Wrights Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI). The COI is one of the numbers I was talking about that I run on dogs in my pedigree database. For a much better explanation that I could ever present, please see http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_coi.htm - If you are at all interested in this topic it is well worth the read. It gives you the basics without making those of you who are mathematically feint of heart want to run for the hills, and she also does an excellent job of explaining why, though you do NOT make breeding decisions strictly by the numbers, it's important to keep an eye on this little percentage. Like Sharpe, I use ten generations. To see how the numbers change depending on number of generations, I've run three of mine over 5 and then 10 generations: 5 generations 10 generations Belle 9.84% 16.00% Mad Dog 0.00% 4.85% Sybil (The Goat) 0.00 % 1.51% You can see what a difference going out another 5 generations makes. Belle, whom I would consider fairly heavily linebred, increases significantly. Mad's numbers surprised me. I consider her loosely linebred. Well, she is, but for some reason I had it in my mind that her numbers would be slighly higher. Sybil surprised me as well. She is what I would consider the product of an outcross, yet, clearly, while her COI is low, she is not. I should have known better. I know these pedigrees well. And yet I need the numbers to spell it out for me. They are a tool. Just another piece of the puzzle. Nothing more. There are no set guidelines. No number that spells disaster. It's not like CA carrier risk, where less is definitely more (less risk, that is) and a worthy pursuit on its own merit. As a breeder, I wouldn't set it as a goal to move towards zero. Breeding by outcrossing is much harder (less predicatable - and I know only a very small handful of breeders who genuinely seem to be able to breed by phenotype - by how well the dogs physically complement each other without the benefit of knowing their genetic makeup is similar) and I'd soon run out of places to go. That said, if I saw it creeping up significantly, I'd be concerned. For fun, I ran the hypothetical and not all that uncommon breeding of a given uncle x niece (gross, eh? ) I can do this without fear of retribution (owner coming after me with a pitch fork), because I happen to know Sunny has a sense of humor
COI 5 gen 10 gen Luca 0.00 % 4.85% Sybil 0.00% 1.51% Luca x Sybil puppy 12.79% 15.39% (lord help us) The numbers are still relatively low, because the dogs themselves have low COIs individually. I've seen father-daughter breedings (yes, they are back there) that only hit 29% (I mean, THAT is inbreeding) because the dogs' individual COIs are low. Now compare the fictional puppy to Belle's numbers. Belle's parents are not that obviously related directly to each other like an uncle-niece scenario. But both of them have higher COIs, 10.02% and 19.18% respectively and even though it's further back, share a number of the same ancestors. Which brings me to my next topic (later) How big an influence can an individual ancestor or certain key ancestors have... even if they aren't directly responsible for your dog (i.e. mom & dad) The answer might surprise you. Kristine |
| I think a lot of people assume that inbreeding is bad because they know it's very bad in humans and some other species, as well. I knew some amount was okay, but until recently I started Clyde's pedigree project and saw the family relationships and duplicates, I didn't realize it could be that prevalent and not result in one eyed, three legged dogs, lol. Then Lisa explained to me that you can do it in dogs and horses and have good results if you know what you're doing! I think people would be very surprised to go further back into their dogs' pedigrees and see the amount of "incestuous" relationships that exist in making the dog that they have today! |
| Kristine, you explain and write so well about genetics and breeding that even for me reading it in a foreign language makes it easy to understand.
Thank you! |
| Jill - I should have figured you would have picked up on that with all of your pedigree research.
There are two main father-daughter breedings that have fascinated me. They're both pretty far back there - '60s and '70s respectively. What fascinates (and kind of horrifies) me is that in both cases the father was a CA carrier. In one case confirmed (I believe), in the other, well has to be. In the first case the COI was 29%, in the other, 33%. I.e. neither father had a high COI and neither did their daughters' dams. Both dogs were by all accounts incredible dogs, certainly prolific producers. I know the owner of one, and she had gone over the older dog as well (one is grandsire to the other) and so I got first-hand descriptions of both, which is the best I can do since they were before my time. In both cases, one offspring from each of the father-daughter matings went on to be heavily featured in many pedigrees (in some pedigrees just one of them, in some both). Consider the CA risk. A known CA carrier bred to the daughter of a CA carrier (his own, as it happens). CA carrier risk as I previously described in my hypothetical Fluffy scenario - 62.5%. Yet in neither case have I come across evidence that they produced CA (they may have and I may just not be talking to the right people ) What I noticed is that from that tight-tight breeding, there was a tendancy to go back out some. So the trend was to breed hair-raisingly tight - and you can understand why - great dogs, but not tighly linebred themselves - and then genetically, having "set" certain traits, breed a bit more loosely. Then linebreed some more (breeding that close was not that common) and go out some.
No - I don't have any wonderful insights. I just find it an interesting approach. I can't prove it, but my sense is that after some generations of that, the tendency was to continue to linebreed fairly tightly - not in terms of father-daughter type close, but effectively the same, because you were line-breeding so heavily on certain dogs. And less and less going back out. We may have become overly dependant on linebreeding. There is a reason inbreeding is frowned upon and dogs don't escape those realities. My sense is that it still has to be used carefully. Then again, I've always been a kind of risk-averse fuddy-duddy, when push comes to shove. Kristine |
Prof. Boni wrote: Kristine, you explain and write so well about genetics and breeding that even for me reading it in a foreign language makes it easy to understand.
Thank you! Kata! Whoa! What language?? (English is actually my second language. Scary, eh? I'm surprised anyone understands me - period! )
Kristine |
| English is really your second language? You're clearer than most people where English is all they know! |
| Agreed, Jill!
I, too, found it fascinating that line breeding was not only okay, but often prefered, for the same reasons Jill mentioned. It's interesting how it can be used to actually improve the breed. Keep talking, Kristine. I'm learning so much. |
| OK, so we've talked about the coefficient of inbreeding. While the COI (and line breeding is just another form of inbreeding, really not distinguishable, except by degrees) tells you roughly how homogenous you can expect a given dog's "genepool" to be - i.e. the higher the COI, the less genetic diversity you can expect - the coefficient of relationships (COR) tells you something about which dogs' genes have the most influence on a given dog's genetic make-up.
For a better explantion of the COR and a recap of what I've been talking about in terms of inbreeding coefficients and breeding by genotype vrs phenotype, see http://www.wolfweb.com.au/acd/itsallinthegenes.html In this article, Dr Bell is a bit more sanguine about inbreeding than I am - and the COR tells part of that story for me, though it still comes down to whom you are linebreeding on. Clearly, a dog is 100% related to itself (well, duh, right? ) Each parent contributes 50%. Each grandparent contributes 25% of their genes and so on. In reality, since few if any dogs don't have any of those "repeats", those numbers will be higher.
Looking at dog with a low COI, for example Sybil (COI = 1.5%), some of her CORs are as follows: Parents: 51.92% and 52.90% Grand parents: 28.16%, 28.59%, 29.32% and 30.72% (these numbers do not have to add up to 100% - rather, they are cummulative - and won't unless the COI = 0%) Since her COI is low, those numbers are pretty unexciting and predictable. (I should say that in our breed, at least 15 and probably 20 generations would be a better measure of all of these numbers, but because I am not thoroughly there yet, I most frequently use 10 for comparative purposes, and know that these numbers are in reality higher). Looking at Belle's numbers (COI of roughly 16%) Her CORs: Parents: 62.95% and 64.36% grandparents: 38.16 %, 48.0%, 46.30% and 47.76% - recall that with no inbreeding, each grandparent contributes 25% - but she is linebred, meaning she has fewer unique ancestors than Sybil, and each ancestor therefor has more of an impact, genetically speaking. Some more than others, depending on who she is most heavily linebred on. And that's what is interesting. Now, recall that I started out looking at pedigrees because of CA. When I evaluate any pedigree, I immediately start by looking for one specific dog. In Belle's pedigree, he can be found 78 times in generations 7 through 12 and has a COR of 22.58 %. That means he has almost as much impact genetically as a grandparent would in an outcrossed pedigree. He was by all accounts a gorgeous OES - his genetic impact is in many ways a desirable one. But I'm pretty darn sure he happens to be a carrier of a genetic disease I am trying to avoid. Not so good. Now here is where it gets interesting for me. Even with an incomplete pedigree, if I run Sybil's COI at 17 generations (not arbitrary), it creeps up to 5.24%. Of greater interest, I look at this same dog again, and he appears 251 times in generation 9-17 in her pedigree and has a COR of 18.22. That's more genetic influence than a great-grandparent (12.5%). And this is the dog I've actively been trying to avoid. How does this happen, two generations along? Each generation is cummulative, and he is behind so much of the breed that numerically, he will keep occurring more and more times, just further back (I don't lose any sleep over it ) For all that, he does have less genetic impact in Sybil's pedigree than he does in Belle's (18.22% vrs 22.58%), even though he is there more often, because it is further back.
Again, these are just numbers. But it is a way to quantify something you are trying to achieve, whether you are trying to increase a certain ancestor's genetic impact, or not. For fun, I looked at an unrelated (well, in this breed, can we say that? ) dog's pedigree who happens to have a much higher COI. It wasn't arbitrary - someone had made a claim that made no sense, and I couldn't understand how they came to that conclusion.
At 12 generations - he is roughly of the same "generation" as Belle, his COI is about 24 %. That's pretty high, but that's fine. Now I want to know the more interesting thing: whom he is linebred on, and specifically, what about the impact of this one dog that I always keep an eye on. The dog in question appears at least 130 times in generations 7-12 and has a COR of 27%, meaning he has almost as much genetic impact in this dog's pedigree as one of Sybil's grandparent's has in hers. That told me everything I needed to know in terms of that one question. Anyway, that's the last piece of the pedigree puzzle I've been harping on. I know it got very heavily into numbers and I hope you didn't all fall asleep. In reality, our dogs are more than numbers, of course, and breeding is neither by the numbers or the book. But these are useful tools to do a reality check on what you believe to be true of a pedigree. Kristine |
ButtersStotch wrote: English is really your second language? You're clearer than most people where English is all they know!
Well, English IS my second language, but not by that much - my mother is American. But I still try to pass my poor spelling and even poorer typing skills off on that old excuse every chance I get.
Truth is I'm quite sure I couldn't have gone on and on about this topic like I just did in Norwegian at this point in my life. Now, when I came to the US for undergrad, I could read English quite well since I'd been doing that pretty much from the time I started to learn to read. But I couldn't pronounce all the words. And I found myself especially drawn to subjects like biology (those latin roots mean that many of the terms are very similar in both languages) and mathematics (all those nice universal symbols). But I STILL couldn't pronounce a lot of the terminology, so got along just fine on written exams, but did my best to try to hide under my desk my entire freshman year so as not to be called on
There are still a number of words that aren't used in everyday conversation that I can't pronounce. So when I'm with people who may have reason to use them, I use the opportunity to ask them to how they are pronounced. And because I speak English with an American accent, I sometimes get "the look". You know, the one that says: "are you stupid?" Eh, well, can we settle for ignorant and just tell me how to pronounce the darn word, OK?
Kristine |
| Wow, I go away for the weekend and another volume is written, in which Luca and Sybil are cyber-bred Too funny.
The demolition crew those two would produce would level an entire country. Anyhow, I will have to go back and do a bit of homework to catch up a bit. It appears that I got lost somewhere in the COI realm but I think I understand the gist. Ok, let’s talk phenotype for a bit. I want puppies with larger heads. Fluffy has a small head, and there are not many big heads behind her except for a dog named Tiny who occurs a few times waaaay back in the pedigree. Let's say I want to breed Fluffy to Bruno, because Bruno has a large head, but all of his siblings had tiny heads and looking back into the pedigree, if you know most of the dogs, you don't see a lot of them listed who had large heads. You also have another dog you are considering using, Ed. Ed has an alright head, but a few of his siblings have nice large heads, and smattered quite a few times throughout the pedigree is Tiny who was known for his large head. Which do you choose for Fluffy? Please remember I have taken out of the equation all of the nasty genetics and am now talking just phenotype. If I were to decide on the dog to use on Fluffy, and I was hoping to get puppies with larger heads, I think I would choose Ed, as he seems to have the phenotype in his pedigree to support the large head I am looking for....but wait, he doesn't necessarily express the genes for that trait.... So would Bruno be the better choice since he has the phenotype I'm looking for? What say you Kristine Guru of Genetics ...who has the stronger impact on Fluffy's potential puppies? Is it who is behind Ed that can help me maybe get large headed puppies, or is it Bruno who can help me? |
| OK, I'll add to the dilemma..
Some traits are expressed (in phenotype) more so than others. A stronger, more dominat look or feature. Also known as the "stamp" some animals pass on to their progeny. So, based on the math, Ed would seem a more sure bet. But, perhaps Bruno just is one of those animals who will pass strong traits on to future generations. Maybe Bruno and Fluffy will make a fine litter of big-headed puppies. (or a litter of pinheads.....)
Oh, the joys of genetics! |
Lucali wrote: What say you Kristine Guru of Genetics
...who has the stronger impact on Fluffy's potential puppies? Is it who is behind Ed that can help me maybe get large headed puppies, or is it Bruno who can help me?OK, so would a Guru of Genetics have produced Sybil? An OES who is part goat? I think not!
Moving right along, I'll wait and see if anyone else cares to take a stab at it first. Interesting question, though. As for the COIs, stop by some time and you can play with my pedigree database until the concept becomes patently clear. You can even make up your own demolition derby hypothetical breedings.
Kristine |
| Wow Kristine.... welcome to the forum... I am truly thrilled that you've joined and have so much to offer on subjects that are my personal favorites!
I don't even know where to begin with my replies.... I've been somewhat absent, but read each of your posts with great interest. I could go on for hours, except I seem short on those lately so for now I just wanted to say welcome! |
Willowsprite wrote: Wow Kristine.... welcome to the forum... I am truly thrilled that you've joined and have so much to offer on subjects that are my personal favorites!
I don't even know where to begin with my replies.... I've been somewhat absent, but read each of your posts with great interest. I could go on for hours, except I seem short on those lately so for now I just wanted to say welcome! Oh, good! Another genetics junkie! Hi yourself! Looking forward to future exchanges when you hopefully have more time
Kristine |
| Not to skirt the ever-important "breeding for a bigger head" question , but for those of you who have been following this thread with interest and remain interested in how some of the concepts I've rattled on and on about can be important in terms not just of an individual breeder, but for a breed population at large, you may find the article referenced below of interest.
Even if you're not terribly interested in the underlying genetic minutia, it is a darn good read. Enjoy. The Price of Popularity: Popular Sires and Population Genetics by C. A. Sharpe http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_ ... larity.htm Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: Kata! Whoa! What language??
(English is actually my second language. Scary, eh? I'm surprised anyone understands me - period! )Kristine Little late reply but I'm Hungarian.  I learnt English when I was about 16 and I moved to London at 18 so I have a little British accent and I use British words such as "postman" and "binman".
I know what you mean by the "are you stupid?" look, I get that a lot. When I get upset or mad I just say "nice" sentences in Hungarian and smile.  |
Prof. Boni wrote: Mad Dog wrote: Kata! Whoa! What language?? (English is actually my second language. Scary, eh? I'm surprised anyone understands me - period! )Kristine I know what you mean by the "are you stupid?" look, I get that a lot. When I get upset or mad I just say "nice" sentences in Hungarian and smile.
Oh! I learned not to do that when I was vacationing with my then boyfriend, a Finn, but ethnic Swede, in San Francisco and a couple of Swedes in front of us were having what they thought was a "private" discussion. Not...
The one and only time I was in Hungary was while I was in grad. school in Norway and played hookie for a week to catch up with some friends in Vienna. I took the train, Eurorail pass, so I figured I'd take the scenic route home. I only spent a day in Budapest (and one in Prague) But both of my favorite memories from your country are related to food. At lunch time I REFUSED to take the easy way out and go to some American chain, so I marched into some out of the way bar/restaurant - where no one spoke English or even German (which I at least know marginally better than Hungarian! ). I took a chance and just pointed at the menu. I still don't know WHAT exactly I ate, but it was very good
That night, I took a late train to Prague. It didn't leave until close to midnight, and I was through sight-seeing by 9 pm, so headed to the train station to wait. There was only one other female in the entire building, by all appearances, so we sort of tacitly decided we should hang out together. Unfortunately, we didn't have single word of a single language in common. What we both had was a picnic sort of dinner. So we spread it out and shared and kept each other company until my train left. Looking back, it kind of reminds me of dog training. No language in common, but food and security can make up for that. We were actually communicating by the time I had to leave. Don't ask me how!
Beautiful city. Some rather pushy men though... How did you end up in the US? Kristine |
| Sorry for the later reply Kristine. Wow, it is a pretty cool story! I traveled a bit myself and I always loved these situations, when you end up with a person, spend hours together and having fun without speaking a common language - I had a couple of these too.
I lived in Vienna for 6 months and I took the train home all the time...well, I think I stayed home more than I stayed in Vienna. Anyways, do you remember what that Hungarian food tasted/looked like?
Prague is beautiful but for me Budapest is always going to be number one! I do think that is the best place in the world!!!
I'm surprised you said Hungarian men were pushy. (Hungarian) Men I know are very polite (helping women off the train, bus, etc.; letting us go through the door first, holding the door, opening car door, etc.) not so much in the states. I actually told a guy off a couple of weeks ago when we were coming back from a walk I held the door for him in our building and he even got mad at me for not holding it properly. I told him maybe a thank you would be nice and he just rolled his eyes at me. 
Unfortunately, when I go home I do see some rude men but we tell them off. My husband is from TX and he says Hungarians are like Italians but a little calmer.
Next time you come to Budapest, just stick with me and I show you how we "train" our men.
Quote: "How did you end up in the US?"
Oh, long story short, I married a Texan. |
| Well, this is getting pretty far off the genetics topic, but...
All I can remember from the lunch that it was a bit stew like, but not quite. Veggies, meat (was it pork or beef? I forget), covered in some relatively lightcolored sauce that was surprisingly spicy (coming from Norway, where are main "spices" at the time were salt and pepper, that may be very relative... )
I probably stuck out as a foreigner, and as a female traveling alone, that makes you an easy target. It started on the subway. Staring. I mean, I've been to Northern Italy, at least, and you know, there is that appreciate "noise making" for anyone remotely female, but nothing like this. It was almost hostile. I had one gentleman clearly following me later on (my sense is he MEANT for it to be obvious). I solved that by temporarily attaching myself to a German tour group It could have been a series of flukes, but it was odd enough to stick with me.
Prague was a bit of shock in its own right (but, oh my god so beautiful, it's humbling). To get off the train and see police carrying heavyduty weaponary - coming from a country where the police weren't even armed. That was an eye-opener. But no pushy men incidents in that country, so maybe that's what it takes...
All I can say is that American men are on average MUCH more polite than Nordic men, who will cheerfully let the door slam in your face. ("Hey, you're an equal. Open your own darn door!") But in turn they are "gentlemen" in the ways that truly matter, and for that I will always have a soft spot for them.
Texan, eh? OK, so where did the OES come in? Kristine |
| Yes, we are going further and further away from genetics but oh, well!
You poor thing, you got one of the weirdos!! You did the right thing. There was a time in my life when I thought I had it written on me "Weirdos please follow me!" when I was about 15-16. I always stayed with groups of people. I also got more confident with them and now if I think somebody is following me, I make a scene. People get very embarrassed if you yell at them.
I think you had Gulyas Soup (Goulash soup), which is the most famous Hungarian food. I make really good ones and I love it! Oh and it was probably beef. I've never been to Norway but I never though your men wouldn't be polite. Yes, I married a Texan...we met in London, we both lived there for a while...I worked in a bar, gave him a couple of free pints and shots and the rest is history. 
My first "dog love" was an OES. He was my neighbour's dog, Boni...my Boni was named after him actually. |
| OK, I've tried to understand this but..I'm dumb, what can I say. My background in research was/is 16th century Spanish Lit (to include 14th and 15 C Italian-to of course understand the 16th C...go figure)... mind you this research was pre-cyber world (early 80's). Ask me about Cervantes and I could talk non stop for hrs. In fact, Abi is a product of my husband's effort to stop the evil research.
For those dummies, as myself, and mind you Math aint my thing, that just want to start with understanidng genetics what reading do you all recommend? I'm thinking more of a "Genetics for Dummies". I too think it would be fun, it is raining today! |
DandAbi wrote: Ask me about Cervantes and I could talk non stop for hrs. In fact, Abi is a product of my husband's effort to stop the evil research.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Well, it seems to have worked. Smart man. For those dummies, as myself, and mind you Math aint my thing, that just want to start with understanidng genetics what reading do you all recommend? I'm thinking more of a "Genetics for Dummies". I too think it would be fun, it is raining today! Fun and fun , and you not dumb!!! My favorite book, though it is a bit dated now, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases by George A Padgett. He was very much ahead of his time.
As for a primer, let me check with a geneticist friend of mine who teaches and see what she recommends. I'll post back when I hear something. Chances are she'll know of some good articles on the web. Before you ever get to the evil math you have to start with a solid understanding of mode of inheritance. Even some long time breeders seem to get confused on this issue judging by the number of times I hear them describing something that has a polygenic (more than one pair of genes involved) mode of inheritance as "recessive" (typically misused to explain the genetic aspect of hip dyslasia. I know what they mean - they mean both parents can be clear of CHD and still produce it. They have the right idea, but the wrong terminology).
Here's a nice start to place for you in the interim on a rainy day (we have sunshine so even though it's only 13 F out, it FEELS like spring - how pathetic is that? ) From the OESCA OPen Health Registry website - borrowed with permission from the Scottie people:
http://www.oescahealthregistry.org/CA/C ... itance.php Kristine |
Okay I am intriqued - you know me have to know everything about everything - okay something about everything? BUT opening htat link to what I can only think to describe as a Helix chart demands more caffeine than I have had this morning and I know we are further into our morning than you are - sometimes you scare me Kristine  |
kerry wrote: Okay I am intriqued - you know me have to know everything about everything - okay something about everything? BUT opening htat link to what I can only think to describe as a Helix chart demands more caffeine than I have had this morning and I know we are further into our morning than you are - sometimes you scare me Kristine
Ouch! I'm sorry. I got ahead of myself. Have to remember I've already had a number of years to digest and mull over this stuff. I guess that means I should also hold off on the link to an excellent article on the inheritance of deafness (tables and charts and all ) I did put out an SOS to my friend for more appropriate literature so people who haven't been exposed before can ease into it and not have to drink about 13 cups of coffee to be able to face looking at these things -
KB |
| FWIW - This book offers a really nice overview of almost all aspects of dogs and their genetics. Certainly worth checking out of the library if you are looking for details…although, it is written by some upper-echelon researchers so can get a little heady at times.
‘The Dog and Its Genome’– By Ostrander, Giger and Lindblad-toh This link has some online resources that may or may not be useful depending on the time you want to allocate to getting into the world of genetics. http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/ Sometimes if you Google for it, you can find University course websites that have some simple interactive genetic teaching tools. While a little time consuming, the up-side is that there is no better way of learning than having to take a mini-quiz The above can be a little basic depending on your starting point, but with Genetics learning the terms is the hard point, everything else is just G, A, T or C!
There are several places online that have stuff more OES directed, but several of the 'common' issues in the breed are not yet fully characterized (CA, Hip Displaysia etc), making them harder to full explain. - Jonathan |
| I caught up with my friend just as she was running out the door and though she didn't have any ABC of genetics reference handy, she reminded me that the Aussies have an extraordinary site with an absolute smorgasbord of articles related to genetics and breeding: The Australian Shepherd Health & Genetics Insitute.
I dive in there frequently and always come away with something to think about. If it's still raining I suggest you may want to do the same. If as you're reading, the terminology starts to get to you, they have an excellent glossary you can refer to:
http://www.ashgi.org/articles/glossary.htm For a listing of links and articles: http://www.ashgi.org/articles/gen_info.htm For an article that does an excellent job of explaining polygenic inheritance: http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bingo.htm If that still requires too much caffeine to get through, back away from the article, pick something you feel more confortable with and come back to it when you're ready for it. If you have any questions or want to point out something you think bears discussing, throw it back here and we can talk about it. Haven't given up finding some basic articles, but if you're even remotely interested in the genetics of dog breeding, this site really is a treat. Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: If that still requires too much caffeine to get through, back away from the article, pick something you feel more confortable with and come back to it when you're ready for it.
Kristine Its almost lunch time I think most of us can handle it now |
SquirrelBoy wrote: .‘The Dog and Its Genome’– By Ostrander, Giger and Lindblad-toh
I will try to find it. I don't mind a mini-course---it is tornado season and you never know when I will be stuck in a closet and a good book. Kristine, I ordered Control of Canine Genetic Diseases by George A Padgett. $17 inc ship. Thanks. Now I will look at the Aussie site. Geez, the rain better stop. |
| Also maybe try looking for articles written by Dr Jerold Bell. He is a Tufts Genetics researcher, and he has written a great deal of very easy to understand pieces on how to integrate current awareness of genetic disorders into a breeding program. Dr Bell is both a practicing clinician and a faculty geneticist.
He is often one of the speakers at the Annual Canine and Feline Genetics Conference hosted by Tufts vet school every year. If nothing turns up, i can try and email him for permission to re-post. DandAbi - if you are interested in the Dog Genome book and can't find it at the library, let me know and i can lend you my copy (just no running off to Mexico with it!). |
| A number of Bell's articles including pieces he has written specifically on OES can be found or linked to off of OESCA's health & research website www.oeshealth.org and the Open Health Registry site www.oescahealthregistry.org as well the Aussie site just cited, including if I'm not mistaken, his baby/bathwater article. At least one of his articles is linked further up this thread.
Or just google his name. He happens to be the geneticist who does CA pedigree risk analysis for the breed. Kristine |
SquirrelBoy wrote: DandAbi - if you are interested in the Dog Genome book and can't find it at the library, let me know and i can lend you my copy (just no running off to Mexico with it!).
If you knew how much I treasured books, you would know how much I appreciate your offer. I am going to get my own copy if possible. Thank you. If not, I will ask for it after I've visited Cabo San Lucas.
Kristine's links were saturated with Dr. Bell's works. I can see why you both are recommending him. |
DandAbi wrote: SquirrelBoy wrote: DandAbi - if you are interested in the Dog Genome book and can't find it at the library, let me know and i can lend you my copy (just no running off to Mexico with it!). If you knew how much I treasured books, you would know how much I appreciate your offer. I am going to get my own copy if possible. Thank you. If not, I will ask for it after I've visited Cabo San Lucas. No, no, not so hasty, Dee. Maybe we should start an OES.org book sharing arrangement?
(But, yeah, I'm like you - have to own it. ) Though WI rescue just got a very generous donation in the form of a book aimed at dealing with issue dogs for foster homes and others to borrow if interested. Now I'm trying to figure out how to maintain a library (of one book ) for an organization that has no physical place to call home. 
Kristine |
| For a basic explanation plus a fun little quiz to follow, the Boxer people have a fun site:
http://www.boxerunderground.com/apr_bu_99/genetics.htm Kristine |
If I take the quiz, do I have to tell you how I scored?  |
| As I was reading through this thread from the start to see where I may have lost someone like Dee , I was reminded where I was mentally when I started the thread. What I've studiously avoided talking directly about, only hinted politely about here and there, is that while at least a basic understanding of genetics is critical to breeding dogs, and while things like open health registries are critical to controlling genetic disease, both of these tools are only as as good as their practioners.
There is bigger stumbling block to producing healthy dogs: human nature. In her article The Biggest Problem ( http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_ ... roblem.htm ) C.A. Sharpe starts out with the quotation: We have met the enemy and he is us. --Pogo While I was working on this thread, I became involved in a part of the practical aspect of the OESCA Open Health Registry ( www.oescahealthregistry.org ) because a friend and I donated our collaborative pedigree database towards that effort (as did several others) - he is the web designer (the project itself was beautifully handled by Chris Lawrenz) and I ended up helping Chris work on pulling the databases together. Chris herself owned a dog who produced CA. My interest in the disease is covered in detail early in this thread. CA was the first disease to be included in the registry. So the project was deeply personal to both of us, as well as to many others who contributed in a variety of ways as well. In between fretting over deadlines and other practical matters, we would touch on the core issue: please, Dear God, let this be of use for the future health of the breed and used appropriately and wisely and not just another excuse to beat up on breeders who have the guts to come forward. Precedence in our breed - as in most others - was not good. Human nature. Dr. Bell - who was mentioned previously - C.A. Sharpe - who has been deeply involved in a variety of genetic issues related to Aussies - and Sierra Milton - among others - have all written powerful articles on the biggest barrier to improving the health of our dogs: us. Even with my relatively short time more seriously in the breed, I lived some of it, peripherally, observed more of it than I care to remember and I remember how shocked I was the first time I realized what I was seeing regularly happens across breeds, with responses so predictable and recognizable as to have names. C.A. Sharpe's The Ostrich Syndrome 1994 http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_ ... ndrome.htm From the article referenced above: In the decade and a half I have spent informing and educating breeders about genetics and hereditary disease in Australian Shepherds, the most common ailment that has come to my attention is also the most serious. Ironically it is not hereditary. Dogs never get it. You won't find it in any text or resource manual. But it's out there, and its presence can make controlling hereditary disorders difficult to impossible. I call it the "Ostrich Syndrome." Sierra Milton's Omerta: The Breeders' Code of Silence 2004 - http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_omerta.htm From Milton's article: What do most modern-day breeders and the Mafia have in common? What a strange question, you may say. It is, sadly though, a very real commonality. The answer is simply what Padgett, a well-known geneticist refers to as the "Code of Silence" for breeders and perhaps more commonly discussed as "omerta" for the Costa Nostra. Both are deadly silences. It's easy to understand the reasons for the conspiracy of silence when it refers to criminals, but what reasons can a breeder possibly have for maintaining "omerta"? Jerold S Bell DVM Removing the Stigma of Genetic Disease 2003- http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_stigma.htm An inevitable consequence of breeding is the occurrence of genetic problems. No one wants to produce affected dogs, yet some breeders and owners are quick to assign blame. There are no perfect dogs, and all dogs carry some detrimental genes. The emotional reaction to producing a dog with a genetic disorder often follows what is called the grief cycle: Denial: This isn't genetic. It was caused by something else. Anger: This isn't right! Why is this happening to my dogs? Bargaining: My dog sired more than 100 other dogs that are healthy. So this one doesn't really count, right? Depression: My kennel name is ruined. No one will breed to my dogs. And, finally, acceptance: My dog was dealt a bad genetic hand. There are ways to manage genetic disorders, breed away from this, and work toward a healthier breed. Getting beyond denial Unfortunately, many breeders cant get beyond the denial stage. Some will hold to increasingly improbable excuses, rather than accept that a condition is genetic. They will falsely blame relatively rare disorders on common viruses, bacteria, or medications. The fact that these organisms or drugs are common to millions of dogs annually that do not have these disorders is not considered. <snip> Working together to improve our breeds Reducing the stigma of genetic disease involves raising the level of conversation from gossip to constructive communication. Dealing with genetic disorders is a community effort. Each breeder and owner will have a different level of risk or involvement for a disorder. We do not get to choose the problems we have to deal with. Breeders should be supportive of others who are making a conscientious effort to continue breeding their dogs while decreasing the risk of passing on defective genes. Breeders ought to follow up on the puppies they have placed. They should periodically contact their buyers and ask about the health of the dogs. Some breeders fear they will be castigated if a dog they placed develops a problem. However, the vast majority of owners of affected dogs are pleased that their breeder is interested in their dog, and in improving the health of the breed so that other affected dogs are not produced. If you some day aspire to breed, you might as well know now what you can come up against. I hope you have the guts to stand up to these phenonomena and do the right thing for the breed. And that means not just being honest about the health problems you see yourself, but affording the breeders around you who are equally honest with the respect they too deserve. They will be your greatest allies. All the technical understanding in the world of basic genetics as it applies to our dogs won't mean a thing if we can't get past the stigma and talk openly with and respectfully to each other. Yeah, yeah, I know, heavy stuff. Getting off my soap box now to go play with my dogs in the snow. If I don't respond for awhile, assume Sybil and Che made me ski into a tree and I'm off getting something put in a cast
Kristine |
DandAbi wrote: If I take the quiz, do I have to tell you how I scored?
No. And neither do I. Agreed?
Kristine |
| I had done a bit of research on seizures, yrs ago, and suspected a 4 yr old as having seizures. I saw all the signs. He would bite, or get angry, and then look away as if dreaming. A few seconds later he was a bit disoriented. I approached the mom one day and mentioned what I had witnessed. His teacher had seen this behavior also just didn't really know what to make of it. The mom refused to have her son tested! 1 1/2 yrs went by. I was worried sick the whole time. It was obvious, the mom was in denial. She finally approached me and told me that her son had indeed been having seizures, and was on medication, which had allowed him to lead a normal life. I just couldn't imagine just sitting there, doing nothing, and, worrying. The above articles reminded me that if humans at times have the ostrich syndrome then why would some breeders be any different. Admitting that something is wrong changes your life...forever.
So, as I'm trying to learn a wee bit about genetics (my book has shipped. can't wait), I am wondering...even if someday I know a bit about genetics and pedigrees how can I factor human negligence when looking for a stud for Abi? Hypothetical question of course. Until Abi's time for breeding comes, if it comes, I will continue to try to learn. Education is the best weapon. That and having an experienced person to help when it gets muddy. Great articles. Eye openers. Reality sinks in. |
| Awesome Posts above!
The power of education and honesty is amazing – I happen to work in a place where we run routine genetic screens for a variety of canine/feline disorders, and depending on the disease we see totally different approaches by the breed’s members. Some admit there is a problem in the breed (as a whole – NOT isolated places) and decide to have open testing, with results being made publicly viewable – good, bad or ugly! These breeds have seen the mutant allele frequency be reduced in a controlled manner, and the problem is being eradicated. Some breeds do the exact opposite – react to results with anger, guard any non-positive (carrier or affected status) from ever being released, and are some-what shady about confirming or denying if their kennel/line suffers from or carries the mutation. Subsequently the mutant allele frequency remains relatively constant, and the breed is done a disservice by the breeders (whom are, theoretically, charged with the protection and preservation of the breed as a whole). This is why I love to see people get involved in and take an interest about genetics and hereditary disorders (human, canine or any other species)! |
DandAbi wrote: The above articles reminded me that if humans at times have the ostrich syndrome then why would some breeders be any different. Admitting that something is wrong changes your life...forever.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? It really does. So, as I'm trying to learn a wee bit about genetics (my book has shipped. can't wait), I am wondering...even if someday I know a bit about genetics and pedigrees how can I factor human negligence when looking for a stud for Abi? Hypothetical question of course. Great articles. Eye openers. Reality sinks in. Well, the good news is that reality is changing some. I see it strongly in WI and have for several years now -- perhaps because we had so many breeders affected in one way or another by CA from so many different pedigrees. You just look around and realize that you're all in the same boat, just for different reasons, and you start talking and one day you realize - this is better. You thank the person who tells you that when she bred this bitch to that dog she produced this instead of whispering about it, because you've come to realize that 1) it could just as easily have happened to you and 2) she shared her hard-earned, some times heartbreaking, lesson and may have saved you from one. Mind you, there have always been small groups of breeders here and there who cooperate and actually talk to each other. If you ever get that far and the perfect stud dog for Abi belongs to someone outside of "your" group, you don't breed to a lesser dog just because it's easier if you can help it. You start talking to the stud owner, you share your own health concerns, you see what that person has to say, and because few people have huge kennels anymore so there are typically a lot of kennel names involved in any single line, you start talking to the breeders behind the dog you're interested in. You talk to breeders who have bred to him, or perhaps to his sire. What did they see? You take your time, you talk, and you gather a reasonable composite of the dog you're looking at. A close friend had me look at a bunch of pedigrees for her a while back. She was thinking of breeding and trying to make up her mind which way to go. As I was going over them I found one dog that sparked my interest for my own sake. I started digging. The more I saw, the more I liked. I remembered someone whose dogs are behind my dogs had bred to his sire. I contacted her for more information. I asked someone else about him. More information. Some issues, but none that were insurmountable. His virtues were very much what I was looking for for this bitch, with one exception that I was willing to overlook in this generation in order to focus on setting two things that are very important to me and that I didn't want to risk losing. I thought about it some more and realized I had worked on a project with one of his co-owners not too long ago. I didn't know her that well, but well enough to contact her, so I did and confessed what I had been doing and why he caught my eye; that my bitch was still too young, still needed to finish and the remainder of her heath testing had yet to be done and I might decide not to breed her BUT that I felt compelled to explore the What If.... and then laid my bitch's strengths and weaknesses on the table: This is where she's strong. This is what she lacks. This is what I can live with. This is what I cannot. These are the known health risks in her pedigree and this is where they are in her pedigree. Then I came up for air , let her digest what I had told her and...got the same openess in return. Reciprocity. It's a beautiful thing.
Often you have to be the one to lay it on the line first. If I had misjudged her ability to be honest with me in terms of specifics, I had given her an out: she never had to say anything specific about their male other than oh, I'm so sorry, healthwise I really think it would be just too risky. Mind you, I already knew I knew her well enough that she wouldn't be motivated to go ahead just for the stud fee. And in any event, though I don't personally know the dog's breeder, I know a number of people who have worked with her well enough to know that all I had to do was pick up the phone, explain my interest and ask, and she would have been very open with me. A lot of the information really is there for the asking. Often, I think, what prevents people from asking is a fear that they will have to be honest in return. Well, newsflash: you do. Now, in the mean time, back to my dream stud I report my findings back to breeder friend. Tell her there is a specific question she needs to ask. She does, explaining why, and <gasp> again honesty in return. Then - the great betrayal: they breed the bitch to MY dog. Because he is more my type of dog than hers, I thought for sure she would pass. Once I got over the betrayal (do I need to spell out the sarcasm here? I just prefer not to follow crowds when it comes to stud dogs) I realized that because her bitch is closely related to mine, it's actually a blessing in disguise... I get the added benefit of watching how that litter turns out.
Dee - bottomline, even though you may never breed Abi, and that's OK, start doing your research now and that includes talking to people. Lots of people. Whether you some day end up breeding her or not, you will have learned an incredible amount along the way. Oh, and take notes. If you don't have a pedigree database of your own, no problem: go to one of the online ones, print out pedigrees that are important to you as you go along, write notes about what you learn about the dogs and what they've produced right on the pedigrees - not just health, but temperament and structure and so on as well - and stick the sheets in a binder. Because you won't remember everything in your head. And write the source of the information as well so it can be verified independantly if needed. Information just for the sake of information is pointless. It has to be reliable. Kristine |
| Dee - as a thought - i once heard Dr. Carmen Battaglia demonstrate 'good book-keeping' as it relates to dog breeding. He had a nice system of grading both conformation as well as temperament and ‘genetic test’ results, and most importantly keeping track of where traits came from, and where you want to see them go.
His general approach was using stick diagrams of each dog, representing good, bad (desirable/undesirable) traits and attempting to conceptually capture how traits were moving through lines. I like pictures and colours (more than numbers!) so I liked his approach a lot. He also seemed quite reputable, so I generally trust his ideas. I know he does sell some pedigree directed software/paper work – so officially I am not recommending that you rip them off….but I know that googling and viewing his articles gives one a great insight into how they work…hint hint
(i looked through and didn't see any mention of him earlier - but it was just a cursory overview of the now 5 pages - sorry for any repetition of previous info) |
Mad Dog wrote: Now, in the mean time, back to my dream stud
My dream stud: Brad Pitt! Oh, were you talking about dogs? lol Ok, check-List: ordered book on basic genetics print copy of Abi's pedigree read articles on links ordered pedigree software started making notes of OFA,CERF, Elbow, Thyroid (if results posted) go to shows and listen (don't know enough to start asking) google Dr. Carmen Battaglia what's next? Thank everyone that has contributed to this thread and creating a non-threatening learning atmosphere so that even I can ask questions
Note to self: Keep the score on the mini-quiz as classified |
DandAbi wrote: My dream stud: Brad Pitt! Oh, were you talking about dogs? lol
See, right there you reveal your novice status. You'll know you've crossed over to the dark side when you'd cheerfully give up an evening on the town with Mr Pitt for the opportunity to literally get your hands on some dog to see if he lives up to his potential promise with your girl
[OK, maybe not... ]
Kristine |
SquirrelBoy wrote: The power of education and honesty is amazing – I happen to work in a place where we run routine genetic screens for a variety of canine/feline disorders, and depending on the disease we see totally different approaches by the breed’s members.
Details! Details! On the genetic screening. That part fascinates the heck out of me. Some examples of breed clubs or the likes who actually handled a problem sensibly and how they did so, if you can talk about any of it, would be encouraging, too. I'm on an ESS genetics list and it blew me away in the wake of the development of a DNA test for PRA as breeder after breeder would publish to the list the results of their dogs - and the results, though statistically well predicted, were pretty devastating for so many, at least on the surface - for inclusion in a database. The database was not sanctioned by the breed club. It was initated by a group of breeders, but with what appeared to me to be an incredible rate of voluntary participation and appropriate safeguards. I mentioned it to an ESS breeder friend of mine - she's the list owner and the reason I'm on the list in the first place - and she basically said: "Listen, honey, we didn't get to that point without a fight". Kristine |
| Hi - there are some limitations to what can and cannot be said...
However, one particular site i like is the pwdinfo.com. Through their stud dogs section, you can click on the listed stud dogs, and get view of their testing status (and nice pic too). PWDs have a particular type of cardiomyopathy, that is fatal (auto. rec.), so all the dogs that are tested, and choose to do so, can post their result - Carrier or clear (not this is a linked marker assessment) or not tested (JCDM is the disease code). In all cases, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I know the Schipperke club wanted MPSIIIB testing to be mandatory for CHIC - but CHIC doesn't allow "clear by pedigree" and they couldn't make everyone test every dog. Their recommendation was to test any dog that is bred or going to be bred. They have worked quite hard using a breed and replace system to lower the MPSIIIB incidence. On the whole, a lot of genetic tests are for lower incidence diseases, so it is tough to make it a hard rule that they are all tested. This is where private databases can fill the gap, they can offer clear by pedigree and so more dogs can be represented. Ultimately data retention/publishing is usually shirked by research/testing centers as it is too much of a political hot-potato to deal with! |
| Thanks, Jonathan!
The Portie pedigree site is really interesting. That's a great deal of dedication. We have several unofficial one for our breed, and then of course the OESCA club's one at www.oescaohr.org , which contains information on the - so far - released CA affected dogs. In addition to the political issues, you have some heavy duty legal considerations. It was a headache to make it happen and protect the club at the same time. Ultimately, as I understand it, though the club provides and administers the site, the health information legally belongs to Tufts so they are the ones who have to verify accuracy, seek release consent, and then provide the club with the information that has been released to be included in the OHR pedigree database. This paricular hot potato never would have come into being without being administered by a third party. The Skipperke MPSIIIB dilemma is one we'll be facing some day in this breed as well, once we have a DNA marker for CA carrier status. At that point, CA is supposed to be moved from the Open Health Registry to the CHIC registries, but frankly, I'd be a little miffed if I had to spend the money to test an entire litter of OES puppies for CA status just to get them included when both parents had already tested normal, presuming the test is reliable. I guess that also muddies the water in regards to including MDR1 results since, again, there is a genetic test and the mode of inheritance is autosomal recessive so dogs could be cleared by pedigree. Thanks for the heads up! Kristine |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|