An investigation in to the health of thoroughbred canines

Thanks for the heads up ...must make sure to record that one

There are people trying to do that (or pretending to do that)
There are now "breeds" that are called "The olde Englyshe Bulldogge" or "Victorian Bulldog" or whatever. the same goes for many other fashionable breeds

The "breeders" in their writeups do hark on about health and back to the old values and all that ...it is questionable however, how much of that is genuine interest and KNOWLEDGE (about genetics and all that) and how much of it is marketing. Much like the -doodles and -poos of this world, most of these "resurrected old standard" breeds are just accidental mongrels that look good and then are reproduced for marketability.

Breeding from two or more already defective purebreds and then inbreeding their offspring to create a "new" breed in effect is no different to what the show breeders have been doing for decades now ...just that the dogs look slightly different and therefore sell better.

As soon as you create a breed standard, be that for an established breed or a new invention, you're breeding for uniformity. Uniformity can only be achieved via exclusion of unwanted traits ...which in endeffect means nothing else but inbreeding ...again.

carwash_2006 wrote: »

Breeding and choosing genes should be done with full knowledge of lines, vet testing and also scientific knowledge of genetic combinations.

The main problem there is that there is no scientific knowledge of genetic combinations ...not to the full extent anyway.

Concerned breeders have tried (successfully in some cases) to breed out some obvious defects ...only to introduce others unbeknownst to them through the back door that only raise their ugly head some generations down the line.

Genetics isn't like simple maths where 1 + 1 equals 2...it's more like a lottery ...throw in some natural mutations and the possibilities (for catastrophy most of the time) become endless.

The other problem of course is that the canine genepool overall is now so compromised that finding healthy examples has become almost impossible.

The main problem there is that there is no scientific knowledge of genetic combinations ...not to the full extent anyway.

I agree there. I didn't say it was easy and it is why knowledge of lines and careful assessment at every generation is also necessary. It is really an art form that needs a reasonable scientific knowledge to do it really well. Introduction of healthier genes from lines that haven't been bred within strict breed specifications should be looked at. I don't know whether it would work, but they need to get some broader genes introduced into the equation - especially if you are cutting out all the lines that carry some of the serious health problems. When you try to breed out the defects you are reducing your gene pool by even more and then you start to see some of the defects carried by the so far healthy bloodlines that may have been masked by the ones we are seeing now. These will not necessarily be less serious defects, just that they weren't bred into so heavily so they hadn't appeared in a large number of dogs. With breeds like the pugs that have a smaller gene pool than the giant panda, without finding some new genetic material from somewhere you will certainly see more health problems appearing as time goes by.

I'm not too sure whether breeds like the bulldog and the pug and a few others can be ultimately saved, considering bulldogs and more and more pugs cannot even breed without major assistance.

Out of interest, which "pedigree" breeds have the least problems?

whitser wrote: »

the ones that dont sell for big money.

True.

I would have thought that something like a Doberman would have few genetic issues. But I am only basing that on the look of the dog! But if you look at a Pug and then a Doberman, and ask any person which they thought was the healthier dog.....I'm pretty sure I know which most would pick!