UK BBC "Pedigree Dogs Exposed"

brookcove

I am in love with a breed that is distinguished by a lethal mutation, the Chinese crested.  But, they don't require that every Crestie be hairless and even the hairless dogs can be shown shaved down.  I think that's reasonable.  The more hair a hairless dog is "allowed" to have, the better its health is - resulting in more normal dentition, skin, and ear/eye development.  And puffs are just normal dogs though high maintenance in terms of grooming.

 In selecting for the "hairy hairless" though, the breed is losing what made it a breed to begin with - that hairless mutation. The hairy hairless is being selected solely because they are more attractive show dogs than true hairless when shaved down. If a breed is supposed to be hairless, don't you find it a bit off that most have to be shaved to show? And it isn't about them being "allowed" to have more hair - the standard hasn't been changed at all and breeders must be certain the dogs appear to be hairless when they take them in the ring, even though they have been shaved. Seems like just more breeding for show ring extremes if you ask me and I suspect in the future true hairless Cresteds will only exist in pet/BYB lines.

Liesje

Now someone needs to do a highlight on GOOD breeding.  The breeders I look to and communicate with ALWAYS health screen dogs (elbows, hips, eyes, heart, vW disease), health screen progeny that will never breed (after all, if healthy parents produce unhealthy progeny, obviously the program is not working), never breed before a certain age, never breed without the dogs meeting certain criteria, do not breed exclusively for show (in fact do not breed for show at all), and don't inbreed. 

 Do you feel that any dog who has ever produced a health problem should be eliminated from the gene pool? Do you believe there are "genetically normal" dogs out there who never produce health problems?

 As for the inbreeding, it could be that the more serious problem is everyone outcrossing  to the "next big thing" stud dog. Outcrossing can be harmful as well - in the case of popular sire syndrome, can lead to a bottleneck in the breed where it is nearly impossible to find an outcross. It can also bring unknowns into a pedigree that may remain unknown for generations. 

 You question if inbreeding is an issue here. It can be - pretty much all American showline GSDs go back to one dog (Lance of Fran Jo). In the 90s, I used to see a handful of Amline dogs advertised as being "Lance free" but I haven't heard that for years now. In breeds with small populations, such an issue is a big problems since outcrosses may not be possible any longer. In some breeds with bottlenecks, show breeders wishing to improve on the health of their dogs have bought or used dogs from BYB and commercial breeders which were free of the popular sires. In other breeds even the "pet lines" tend to have the popular sires in them or the breed was saved from extinction using only a handful of dogs. For these breeds the best option may be to allow a few select outcrosses to a similar breed of which the offspring would be carefully monitered and very carefully bred. That is VERY controversial and does not go well with the modern idea of breeding, certainly anyone wishing to continue showing or regsitering dogs could not do such a thing.

AgileGSD

Do you feel that any dog who has ever produced a health problem should be eliminated from the gene pool? Do you believe there are "genetically normal" dogs out there who never produce health problems?

Depends and I don't know.  I know of dogs who passed all available health screening and had unhealthy pups so they were immediately retired as breeding dogs.  That's why I think it's important to health screen ALL the dogs, not just the ones breeding, but especially the progeny even if they are not intended for breeding.

I'm not entirely against outcrossing to other breeds, but it would depend on the purpose.  I don't know much about genetics.  There are many GSD/Mal crosses (or Mal/Dutch Shepherd, etc) that are healthy and top level sport, police, or personal protection dogs.  It's always baffled me why people defend such extremes in the GSD when the Mal serves almost identical purposes with a square body, without the extreme angulation and/or roached back. 

Liesje

Depends and I don't know.  I know of dogs who passed all available health screening and had unhealthy pups so they were immediately retired as breeding dogs.  That's why I think it's important to health screen ALL the dogs, not just the ones breeding, but especially the progeny even if they are not intended for breeding.

 All dogs carry the potential to produce any number of genetic issues. If you are a GSD breeder, no matter how careful you are you will get HD in some litters. Even out of a pedigree that has been OFA'd for generations. Any breeder who tells you otherwise is either dishonest or just doesn't know about the dogs they have produced with HD. Of course, pairings which result in multiple puppies from a litter with HD shouldn't be repeated but that doesn't mean the parents should be pulled from the breeding population.

AgileGSD

Liesje

Depends and I don't know.  I know of dogs who passed all available health screening and had unhealthy pups so they were immediately retired as breeding dogs.  That's why I think it's important to health screen ALL the dogs, not just the ones breeding, but especially the progeny even if they are not intended for breeding.

 

 

All dogs carry the potential to produce any number of genetic issues. If you are a GSD breeder, no matter how careful you are you will get HD in some litters. Even out of a pedigree that has been OFA'd for generations. Any breeder who tells you otherwise is either dishonest or just doesn't know about the dogs they have produced with HD. Of course, pairings which result in multiple puppies from a litter with HD shouldn't be repeated but that doesn't mean the parents should be pulled from the breeding population.

I don't dispute this.  I'm thinking more along the lines of the TV program, where the Cavalier was proven to have that painful brain problem and yet sired 26 litters after he was diagnosed or the breeder that refused to perform available health screening on her dogs.  There are some diseases/disorders that I DO think warrant never breeding again.  HD in GSDs is just one of many things and I think should be considered carefully because it's not always genetic, so yes a GSD with perfect hip scores could throw dysplastic pups and it would be a shame to automatically retire such a dog.

Do you feel that any dog who has ever produced a health problem should be eliminated from the gene pool? Do you believe there are "genetically normal" dogs out there who never produce health problems?

Every dog breed has genetic defects lurking around in the gene pool somewhere, but if the breeding population is large enough these defects remain rare. Inbreeding leads to the expression of these problems because 

1. They have very few founders, and if the founders happened to be carrying around this rare scary genetic variation you are entirely out of luck
2. Inbreeding increases homozygosity across the entire genome.  This means that disorders caused by or in part by recessive variants are more likely to be expressed.
   

Eventually you end up with a population of virtual clones who are a composite of the unhealthy founders you started with. And then you end up with Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. (Never mind the brain thing, mitral valve defects are so common in that breed that their normal lifespan is something like 7 or 8 years. That is totally unforgiveable in a toy breed dog.)

Dogs like the GSD avoid the Cav situation because they do have a significant population that is dedicated to maintaining function.  Selection for working ability maintains a realistic base for breeders.  If a dog has a hole in the spine, it can't chase lions no matter how lovely and balanced its ridge is.   It really sucks to put a lot of training time into a dog only to have it put down or retired. 

PRA was a huge shock to BC breeders of the 80s because it didn't emerge until the dog was fully mature at 4 or 5.  The registries came down very hard on it - no dog could be registered who had thrown  PRA dogs, all pups from those parents were deregistered, all littermates - whole lines were wiped from the books - and as it turned out it was not PRA, but a nutritional deficiency (in those days dog food companies didn't put the right kind of vitamins in their food to sustain dogs that worked at the level of Border Collies).  We didn't make the same mistake with CEA - a CEA carrier can be registered and used with a CEA Normal mate.

But, it remains that it is the Kennel Club/show environment where the some of the dog world's worst demons are being entertained and condoned.  Quite the opposite from what those same people want the world to think about them - that they are preserving breeds and making them better. And the working world is the enemy to the future of any breed.

The question is, can they get away with continuing to promote themselves that way? 

Marklf

  But the most damnable thing about this is NONE of those breeders were breeding dogs so that they would be lion hunters (there really is not a great need for that ability in England), so the ridge was not being required for that purpose it was being required solely for its looks and for the owners ego. 

You type a lot of words, and claim a lot of authority based on ONE television show. Or should I capitalize "television"? It isn't usually where I go to get balanced and insightful information on any topic.

 But, you reveal your ignorance. Do you really think that the entire purpose of the ridgeback was to "hunt lions"? Do you even know what that hunting lions entailed? Are you imagining a few fierce ridgebacks jumping on a lion's back? LOL.

I can't speak for England, and I'm not a breeder (though I may be someday) but performance and genetics are high on the priority list of GOOD breeders here in the United States. Ridgebacks were, and are, extremely versatile dogs. When you demonstrate a basic understanding of the purpose and present reality of ridgebacks, I will consider your criticisms. Until then, I cannot take anything you complain about seriously.

I am sorry to border on being insulting, but when ignorance and righteousness join forces, I have very little patience.
 

brookcove

Surely RR breeders could allow unridged dogs to be shown - these are beautiful and amazing hounds and to me, don't require that ridge to be distinguished.

This is a hot topic in the RR community, and while it may take some time I am confident that ridgeless RRs (RRR's) will be accepted as genuine ridgebacks, at some point in the future. They had better be! (We actually use the crested as an example of why RRR's should not be excluded).

Ridgebacks are at an interesting point. I hope that things don't swing towards excessive focus on looks.I think the breed could go that way if ridgeback people don't guard the gates.

Dog_ma

You type a lot of words, and claim a lot of authority based on ONE television show. Or should I capitalize "television"? It isn't usually where I go to get balanced and insightful information on any topic.

That's kind of funny.  I have posted links to scientific studies and to the RRCUS to support my statements so it should have been apparent even to you that I am getting my info from more then just this film.

Dog_ma

But, you reveal your ignorance. Do you really think that the entire purpose of the ridgeback was to "hunt lions"? Do you even know what that hunting lions entailed? Are you imagining a few fierce ridgebacks jumping on a lion's back? LOL.

You reveal your inability to read.  I did not say that the entire purpose of the ridgeback was to hunt lions.  I stated that the reason that the breeders claim they want to have the ridge is that the early colonist believed those that have the ridge made better lion hunters.  The show breeders are not using the dogs for their hunting skills therefore the only reason they insist on the dogs having a ridge is for "look".  And no I am not imagining a few fierce ridgebacks jumping on a lion's back, my understanding of how they were used in the hunt was to track down and keep the lion at bay until the hunter could arrive for the kill.

Dog_ma

When you demonstrate a basic understanding of the purpose and present reality of ridgebacks, I will consider your criticisms. Until then, I cannot take anything you complain about seriously.

When you demonstrate basic reading comprehension perhaps I will consider your criticisms. 

Mark

Marklf

I stated that the reason that the breeders claim they want to have the ridge is that the early colonist believed those that have the ridge made better lion hunters. 

No, they thought the ridged dogs made better hunters, period. These dogs were then selected for breeding by Van Rooyen, who liked to hunt big game.

The ridge existed naturally in a group of semi-feral African dogs. If it were such a horrible fatal trait, it wouldn't have thrived in a group of canines exposed to severe living conditions.

The connection between the ridge and dermoid sinus is not fully understood. Ridgeless dogs *can* have dermoid sinus. This has been documented in the Thai Ridgeback, and reported by highly respected RR breeders.. But it is simply untrue that the a ridge makes a dog less healthy. 

From RRCUS:

"The exact mode of the inheritance of the D.S. is not known. It is thought to be polygenic (multiple genes), rather than simple dominant or recessive. It has been noted that there can be carriers, or individuals that produce more dermoid sinuses than their littermates. Some lines are relatively D.S. free."

and

"It is our belief that careful controlled breeding studies would prove the inheritance of D.S. to be not only complex but also inter-related with other characteristics. Therefore, the likelihood seems to be remote that we will ever have Ridgebacks which are entirely free of D.S. "

Rhodesian Ridgeback, here is some interesting information from this link

http://diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00001669/

The origin of the ridge and associated anomalies in Rhodesian Ridgebacks

Salmon Hillbertz, Nicolette (2007) The origin of the ridge and associated anomalies in Rhodesian Ridgebacks. Doctoral diss. Dept. of Animal Breeding and Genetics, SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae vol. 2007:133.

Full text available is available via link above

Abstract

The thesis presents studies on the inheritance of the dorsal hair ridge and Dermoid Sinus (DS) in Rhodesian Ridgeback dogs. DS is classified as a neural tube defect in humans. Thus, the dog is proven to be an excellent comparative model regarding neural tube defects. It was shown that the hair ridge is caused by an autosomal dominant mutation that predisposes for DS. Collection of material from DS-affected Rhodesian Ridgeback puppies, their parental animals and littermates was performed. Evaluation by histopathology to confirm the presence of DS was conducted. Results revealed that DS (in dogs) were located in the cervical region and that a novel skin lesion (previously referred to as DS), denoted Lipoma of the terminal filum (with skin-dimple and extra-spinal connection) (LTF) was located in the sacral region. A common genetic origin between DS and LTF was suggested. It was proposed that different types of DS and LTF may be caused by differences in FGF levels in combination with different genetic backgrounds and environmental interactions. Samples from eleven DS-affected Rhodesian Ridgebacks and nine ridgeless Rhodesian Ridgebacks were genotyped by a dog-specific genome-wide association analysis utilizing an array of 26.500 SNPs. Association between a 750 kb region and the ridge phenotype was identified. The region contained five genes FGF3, FGF4, FGF19, ORAOV1 and the 3'-end of CCND1. Further fine-mapping of the identified region, utilizing the recently developed multiple ligation-dependent genome amplification (MLGA) technique, enabled identification of the mutation causing the ridge. It was shown that the dorsal hair ridge in ridgeback dogs is caused by a 133 kb duplication of three fibroblast growth factor genes FGF3, FGF4 and FGF19 and the ORAOV1 gene. Dogs homozygous for this copy number variation mutation have an increased risk of developing DS, a neural tube-like defect. The hair ridge and development of DS is most likely caused by a gene dosage effect of increased FGF expression during a critical phase of dermal development. Nucleotide sequence analysis of the internal breakpoint of the duplication further showed that the ridge mutation was identical in Rhodesian- and Thai Ridgebacks, revealing a common origin of the mutation in the two breeds. Ridgebacks homozygote for the ridge mutation, have an increased susceptibility to develop DS and/or LTF. Further studies regarding the genetic complexity of DS and LTF will shed light on the biological complexity of these dermal lesions.

Here is some more info below this link and where there is more information, also I think there maybe yet more from other sources

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17906623

“Duplication of FGF3, FGF4, FGF19 and ORAOV1 causes hair ridge and predisposition to dermoid sinus in Ridgeback dogs.

Nicolette H C Salmon Hillbertz, Magnus Isaksson, Elinor K Karlsson, Eva Hellmén, Gerli Rosengren Pielberg, Peter Savolainen, Claire M Wade, Henrik von Euler, Ulla Gustafson, Ake Hedhammar, Mats Nilsson, Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Leif Andersson, Göran Andersson

The dorsal hair ridge in Rhodesian and Thai Ridgeback dogs is caused by a dominant mutation that also predisposes to the congenital developmental disorder dermoid sinus. Here we show that the causative mutation is a 133-kb duplication involving three fibroblast growth factor (FGF) genes. FGFs play a crucial role in development, suggesting that the ridge and dermoid sinus are caused by dysregulation of one or more of the three FGF genes during development. “

.

Quincy, thank you for that really interesting article.