Dwarfs in Ireland - Page 8

Good news! Dr. Kooistra has given me permission to post his article. So I will do so on my website just as soon as I have time. Also, he has informed me that his research manuscript HAS been submitted to a professional journal. I hope to have a copy of that as soon as it is reviewed for publication. In case anyone is interested, I also have the official form to fill out for the blood test required to test for this genetic condition. I will post that on my web site as well.

And MissBeeb, I will gladly post a short explanation that hopefully will be useful to many. One of the best uses of the internet is to promote learning, for all of us, rather than simply pass on incomplete or untrue information as is so often seen on this web site. However, today I have a lot to do, and the Olympics to watch, so it may be mid-week before I get information up here. I want to make sure I explain it clearly so that everyone can understand it.

With regard to discounting certain dogs that carry the dwarf gene or any other defect for that matter and the concern some seem to have about creating a genetic bottleneck or losing other specific genes , can I try to put this into perspective.
When selecting a male one has to consider how much he has to give. Uran Wildsteigerland was twice German Sieger with much to give in both type and working ability as well as good hips etc, the same cannot be said for other dogs that carry hereditary traits we would otherwise prefer to avoid.
I agree we are not always going to know everything we may get from particular stud dogs but when we are aware of something  it seems sensible to me to avoid doubling up on it. It has always been my understanding that ONLY 10% of the males are worthy of been used at stud as opposed to 90% of the females. This is why males with serious faults should be eliminated because he can do far more damage in his lifetime than can a female (i.e he can produce as many pups in a week as a female would do in her lifetime). This of course means it is the females that carry forth the alternate bloodlines and why providing we eliminate the LESSER dogs from our gene pool, especially those that carry unwanted traits, we will stand less chance of producing these faults and more chance of eliminating them entirely (even if the female is a carrier herself) and yet still have access to ALL the alternate bloodlines.  
Thats my belief anyway (for what its worth). Therefore, one of the morals of the teachings is;- To be true to yourself and the breed, find out all you can about what your female carries and then do your utmost to ONLY use stud dogs that do not carry or possess the same problem. Then keep something from that mating that does not carry or possess that same problem and take the same precaution again for the next generation mating, with any luck you will have eliminated the possibility of a carrier from 50% to 25% and possibly altogether by the third gen. By the same token by doubling up you can bring in a virtue in the same way.
So when people are talking about whether a dog should be used or eliminated from the breeding process because of a problem he is known to possess or carry, for me there is only one question to be asked, "Is he within the Top 10% of available stud dogs availabler for my female? " and unless the answere is "Yes!!" , I would avoid him at all costs.
If what you need is not available then I would say its better not to breed at all that time and wait until something better is.
Regards
Sue b

Hi All

I think perhaps it may be necessary to come in here in support of AmbiGSD.

There seem to be many students of genetics on here. I even detect a maybe geneticist and must state that I respect them all.

To me the only arguments however that seem to be by a person who have ‘lived through’ genetic theories and facts by the necessary and time consuming experience, are the ones by AmbiGSD.

Please keep in mind that genetics is supposed to be an exact science, but at the same time a science in which the question whether 2+2 always equals just 4 should never be left out of mind. NOBODY at this stage knows exactly which other characteristics might also to some extend be co-influenced by something like a simple autosomal recessive gene pair. To me that is where the real worth of AmbiiGSD’s point lays. Can anyone guarantee that you would loose nothing else as a result of totally eradicating a certain recessive gene?

Breeding simply isn’t that easy, otherwise the geneticists alone would breed all the good animals in the world. Breeding is just as much an art as it is science. Successful breeding is the culmination of theory AND praxis and the ability to recognize and utilize BOTH.

Just my cent’s worth
gertv

Hi Gertv
I understand the logic behind your thinking but are you not implying that the same could also be said of all hereditory defects? With that type of theory before we know where we are there will be people claiming it is wrong to eliminate lines carrying Epilepsy, PI, Hip Dysplacia, DM, or any other number of hereditory defects, where would anybody draw the line?

All that said I agree fully with your last sentance, whilst still sticking to my own belief of the 10% male V 80% female theory.

Best Regards
Sue b

Sue

Question...

When we've eliminated all the lines carrying all hereditory defects... what will we be left with?

Karen

Some of you continue to miss the point. NO ONE is saying anything about eliminating bloodlines. What is being said is that a responsible breeder, if there is a genetic test that identifies inheritance for a specific and horrible condition such as pituitary dwarfism, could use such a test to rule out mates who also carry that defect. That does NOT mean that the individual dogs, or humans, who carry a specific defect could not or should not mate with another of their species who does not carry that defect.

It is no different than genetic counseling with human beings. When someone is identified to carry a gene for, as an example cystic fibrosis, no one is suggesting that they not marry and have children. However, if they choose someone who carries the autosomal recessive gene for cystic fibrosis, there is a risk that children born to them will have this terrible disease. So genetic testing, when used, could give them a peace of mind that their children would not have this inherited disease. At the very least, they would be counseled to understand the risks involved. Who among you would risk mating to someone when you knew there was a risk of your child being born with some serious genetic problem that meant a lifetime of illness and suffering? Why should it be any different in the dogs? Yes, we all have the responsibility for what we bring into the world. Most of the time, we cannot know ahead of time what will be the genetic cards dealt, but in some cases, we can know the risk and even a percentage risk. 

Karen,

Thats a hypothetical question and  I have never professed to have all the answers I have just offered up my opinion as to how I do things as a breeder,  as I presume have all the others on here. However I will say that I personally dont believe what you have suggested could or would ever happen. Firstly, as I said the females would still carry the genes in their alternate makeup, much like they do now, as would some of their offspring including the males (take a look at pedigree's, the diversity from any modern bloodlines come from the females not the males). Secondly, not everybody will ever be aware of what defects are carried by every dog and even of those that do not all will necessarily eliminate him from their breeding programme. Be it because they know their female doesnt carry the gene or maybe because they couldnt care less, either way it will continue to exist. Thirdly, even if science progressed to the degree that there was a test for everything,  very few people would have all, or even most,  of the tests done. Not purely because of the expense but also because of the impractability of it, at the end of the day any amount of common sense tells you that everything has to die of something, so what exactly would you choose to eliminate? Nothing lives forever afterall !!  This is why I say when you do hear of some useful hereditary information why wouldnt you use that to your advantage? After all isnt that what breeding is all about?  If the defect is something you dont have why would you want to bring it in, unless that male or female was a superb specimen with so much more to offer ? And if it is something you do have why would you want to double up? Doubling up is something I personally would NEVER knowingly do, regardless of how superb the animals in question were! 

Therefore, in retrospect I suppose my answere to your question would have to be, We will never know as I dont believe if will ever happen and though I dont profess to be genetically minded, I know enough about the principles of mathmatics to say , in a breed as numerically large as ours, it is more likely to be a genetic impossibility.

As I said before, all any of us can do is our best by eliminating or diluting the defects we prefer to avoid and be prepared to accept the consequences of those we are unable to or decide not to avoid.

Regards
Sue

Having a female who produced dwarfs in several litters I can speak to the horrors of producing dwarf babies. It's an incredible heartbreak especially when one dies in your arms.  The dilemma I see is that the attempt at responsible breeding is thwarted by the fact that few breeders will ever test for this.  I don't know of any stud owner who has tested for the dwarf gene.  My female is retired because of this issue but I do have her daughter so who do I breed her to????  Not only is there a lack of understanding of the scope of the problem but a general indifference to the gravity of the situation among stud owners.  Maybe because they don't have to deal with the resulting defective kids.  Or maybe it's about their reputation.  How can we weed out defects when there is a code of silence about defects in general?