Line Breeding

[Avalonia]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

As I said before, it is not just the immediate relationship (uncle X niece, cousins) that matters, but how inbred the whole line is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If we consider the fact that I can take any whippet alive today and trace it directly back to Charlie and Lizzy, parents of Herndell, born in 1886, and spouse of White Eye, who jointly produced the first whippet champion in England, Ch. Zuber, born 12 April 1889, using my pedigree program and data base of more than 20,000 whippets -- and I do this regularly to show people how a fairly narrow early gene pool can be diversified by breeding differently over decades, and in this case now more than a century, then clearly every whippet on earth today is linebred and inbred, both! What differs is the degree to which this happens in recent generations -- the typical four, five or six generations that usually occupy most pedigree analyses.

Some years ago the pedigree program I first bought and used became redundant with the introduction of a new Windows protocol, and I stood a real chance of losing everything I had built up because my new computer couldn't access the files. Fortunately I was able to gedcom the old files and save them till I found a program that I could adapt. But this time instead of using another pedigree program -- which I feared might eventually also become redundant, as these things are wont to do -- I took the advice of my brother who pointed to the Mormon Church's preoccupation with family ancestry and the fact they offer a free download or market, at a very reasonable price (under $10 Cdn.) a human ancestry program. As he rightly pointed out, this program has been updated so that data collected by people building family histories never have to worry about losing data if windows protocols change. I adapted the program to whippets and have more than 20,000 pedigrees on the base today.

Part of the program allows me to develop relationships and show the links from one dog to another.

Just for fun a few minutes ago I ran Eng.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely, whom we own, and Ch. Zuber, to identify their relationship. It turns out that Ceely is the 32nd great-granddaughter of Eng.Ch. Zuber.

Then I ran Patsy Gilmour's lovely American bred bitch, Eng.Ch. Sporting Fields Winged Dove Over Dumbriton. She has no apparent common ancestors to Ceely and she comes from another continent, but it turns out that she is the 48th great-granddaughter of Eng.Ch. Zuber!

So in the end, everyone IS related to everyone else, but that doesn't make every equal in terms of desireable qualities.

Henrik raised the interesting question of human involvement in making decisions about breeding, something that has always been the case for registerable purebred dogs.

The choices made by breeders determine the likely outcomes of litters, and establish the bar in terms of quality for the dogs in those litters. Our ability to identify desireable breed type and to engineer it genetically by picking sire and dam explains why the whippet has changed from the dogs I have photographs of that were born and lived in the 1890s -- who bear scant resemblance to whippets today -- and those that are alive today. This ability to make these decisions for dogs -- to think out what will work best and why gives us the opportunity not to make the emotional sort of decisions/mistakes we make about ourselves and our human relationships.

Thus we have the ability within our grasp to maintain breed quality and to eliminate things that should be eliminated, such as the problem with testicles (why are people still breeding to sires known to produce significant numbers of dogs without them... people certainly wouldn't continue to reproduce themselves if half their sons were incomplete, so why do they do it with dogs?) in our genetic engineering of dogs. Because that is of course what breeding is: engineering something built on something else.

Personally I think the whippet today is a vast improvement over the dog that was not yet a really fixed type that I see in photos taken in the early decades when whippets were first recognized and records. All breeds evolve, but it behooves those of us who love our breed to husband them wisely and well, and to make intelligent decisions about they and their progeny that we unfortunately are not always as wise about in making for ourselves!

Lanny

 

[Seraphina]

The reason I have a problem with coefficients is that many people seem to consider them as absolutes, while what they really are is probabilities. Just because a certain dog figures prominently in a pedigree few generations back, it does not necessarily mean that his characteristics we admire, are going to come through if we “line breed” to him. It reminds me of people I met some years ago; they were trying to breed blacks from their brindle parti bitch (with pedigree peppered with blacks) repeatedly mating her to closely related parti brindle male. They gave me a lecture about the difficulties of breeding blacks, and showed me all the coefficients charts, no doubt they spent many hours creating them, which clearly indicated very strong influence of certain black dog and his black progeny. I have pointed out to them that trying to breed blacks from 2 brindles is like trying to get a racehorse form a cow.

Couple of years ago I read very interesting article in New Scientist. It was about scientists conducting long term studies on isolated populations of wild life, including extensive genetic testing,. The conclusion was that individuals least inbred were healthier, and surprisingly also more resistant to parasite infestation. In the case of sparrows on Vancouver Island, when 90% off population got wiped out by unusually inclement winter, it was the birds with biggest gene variety that survived. There were other studies with fish and other animals, and studies with large cats, all which indicate that once the gene pool becomes too homogenous, the species will not survive.

That got me thinking about purebred dogs and after looking at as many Whippet pedigrees as I could, I decided that it would be almost impossible to do a real outcross. Even if the 4-5 generations pedigree may not repeat any dog, look further and you will find very inbred population. The thing is that before dogs were registered, the purity of a breed was not as important as the performance of a dog, and different breeds (or mongrels) were introduced if the breeder thought they had the quality he was looking for. Nowadays we keep the breeds “pure” but at what cost?

 

[playawhile]

The reason I have a problem with coefficients is that many people seem to consider them as absolutes, while what they really are is probabilities.  Just because a certain dog figures prominently in a pedigree few generations back, it does not necessarily mean that his characteristics we admire, are going to come through if we “line breed” to him. It reminds me of people I met some years ago; they were trying to breed blacks from their brindle parti bitch (with pedigree peppered with blacks) repeatedly mating her to closely related parti brindle male.  They gave me a lecture about the difficulties of breeding blacks, and showed me all the coefficients charts, no doubt they spent many hours creating them, which clearly indicated very strong influence of certain black dog and his black progeny.  I have pointed out to them that trying to breed blacks from 2 brindles is like trying to get a racehorse form a cow.
Couple of years ago I read very interesting article in New Scientist.  It was about scientists conducting long term studies on isolated populations of wild life, including extensive genetic testing,.  The conclusion was that individuals least inbred were healthier, and surprisingly also more resistant to parasite infestation.  In the case of sparrows on Vancouver Island, when 90% off population got wiped out by unusually inclement winter, it was the birds with biggest gene variety that survived.  There were other studies with fish and other animals, and studies with large cats, all which indicate that once the gene pool becomes too homogenous, the species will not survive.

That got me thinking about purebred dogs and after looking at as many Whippet pedigrees as I could, I decided that it would be almost impossible to do a real outcross.  Even if the 4-5 generations pedigree may not repeat any dog, look further and you will find very inbred population.  The thing is that before dogs were registered, the purity of a breed was not as important as the performance of a dog, and different breeds (or mongrels) were introduced if the breeder thought they had the quality he was looking for.  Nowadays we keep the breeds “pure” but at what cost?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree with you

Henrik Härling

 

[Avalonia]

Couple of years ago I read very interesting article in New Scientist.  It was about scientists conducting long term studies on isolated populations of wild life, including extensive genetic testing,.  The conclusion was that individuals least inbred were healthier, and surprisingly also more resistant to parasite infestation.  In the case of sparrows on Vancouver Island, when 90% off population got wiped out by unusually inclement winter, it was the birds with biggest gene variety that survived.  ....  The thing is that before dogs were registered, the purity of a breed was not as important as the performance of a dog, and different breeds (or mongrels) were introduced if the breeder thought they had the quality he was looking for.  Nowadays we keep the breeds “pure” but at what cost?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree with you

Henrik Härling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

So, am I right in assuming that if we are all agreed, as I think we are, that all whippets are, ultimately related to each other -- however tenuous and long the link it takes to associate individual specimens with each other (as my pedigree program demonstrates admirably can be done), then the essential crtieria becomes the vigor and strength and quality of the individual specimens of the breed within the gene pool?

This would confirm the observation of The New Scientist about sparrows on Vancouver Island, and for that matter here in my front garden feeding on my niger seed too. Clearly all sparrows ultimately sprang from the same limited gene pool, but all sparrows, like all whippets are not created genetically equal either. Or for that matter, nor are all human beings genetic equals despite the biblical suggestion that we all originated from the same two original specimens.

If we deal on this basis then presumably the next part of the equation as it relates to whippets, is that it is in the best interests of the whippet breed to breed for breed strength and vigour? And I again, can only agree.

So those being the accepted criteria, and here I can only speak for myself, my essential criteria for breeding would include:

. eliminating all dogs from the gene pool that carry known health problems, including whippet lines now known to be carrying hereditary heart disease, auto-immune disease, eye disease, and dogs and bitches from all litters containing males that are not all entire.

. and it would include eliminating from consideration undesireable features that impair the quality, free movement, overall health and vigor of dogs in the breed including such undesireble features as:

. toplines that undulate and look like the Loch Ness Monster as they roll like the English countryside towards the croup

. short toplines that result in steep croups that drop off into nowhere, wheelbacks and sicklehocks,

. all dogswith thin second thighs since these clearly make dogs incapable of essential good rear drive

. dead straight 90 degree shoulders that appear to be growing out of the neck, usually accompanied with straight, inflexible pasterns, since this impairs good front movement

All the above fedature impair overall proper movement and make the resultant animal a less than fully desireable representation of a running, hunting breed

There are other features I don't like -- including whippets so big you could saddle and ride them, or alternatively whippets so fine and thin boned they are not likely to be able to perform the task for which the breed was originally developed, but perhaps you get where I am going.

What I am trying to say is that yes, all whippets are related -- ultimately -- but that does not mean that all whippets are created equal, or should be treated equally when it comes to consideration for a breeding program.

At a certain point you have to have some intelligent criteria that you apply to the choice you make in a breeding program. And in my world those criteria should eliminate all of the major, and as many of the minor, faults as can be found in the breed as possible.

It is still my contention that some dogs and some lines are bred cleaner and healthier than others, and there is no sin -- and many big pluses -- in linebreeding wisely within lines that are manifestly correct, healthy and solid.

Lanny

 

[Seraphina]

Unfortunately there is no such a thing as a perfect specimen, and if eliminate from breeding all the above there will be nothing left. You would end up with extremely inbred strain. And as EVERY individual carries some potential problem, these would emerge and there would be no animal that is not affected. Besides that your "perfect" specimen may not be my idea of ideal Whippet.

We must not forget that each individual gets ONLY half of each parent's genes. The other half is discarded. As I already pointed out above; dogs may look related on the paper, if the their common ancestors inherited the different halfs of genes from their parents they could be genetically quite different. Therefore when sellecting my breeding stock, i am more interested in what i see, than what is or is not in the pedigree.

 

[Avalonia]

So it is all right to breed genetic problems, major faults, etc. just so long as what you see -- however you perceive what you see -- looks good -- to you? Not allowing for the fact that not everyone has a good eye, and not everyone sees everything the same way? There would be no standards... just breed pretty to pretty?

When I hear this argument I always think of my best friend in the entire world, Doug McGowan, who came from a family with what was apparently a major heart problem. Every male in his father's generation died before they were 50, and Doug and his brothers were determined to beat their genetic fate. So they were fitness fanatics, they had regular medical checkups, kept their chloresterol in check, did everything, positively everything they could to beat the ticking time bomb that their genetic pool suggested was waiting for them.

The first to go was Doug's brother Lorne, who dropped dead at 46 while playing hockey at a local arena. He was into hockey for the fitness and had all sorts of medical checks to assure him that he was doing the right thing and by staying fit he would also beat what he could be carrying genetically. He was dead before he hit the ice.

Doug was the second son in the family of three sons. One late winter he and his wife Betty Anne decided to take a holiday and went for a three week trip to South America. When he came back he popped in to my office to say hi and I was stunned -- he was ashen, grey and looked horrible despite this wonderful holiday. I asked him why he had no colour from his holiday in the sun, why he looked so grey, and he said no worry he just didn't tan well. I pleaded with him to go see his doctor, and he assured me he had an appointment later that week, but first he had a small business trip to make.

That same evening he went on a business trip (we worked in broadcasting together) to one of the stations he was responsible for monitoring. It was in the city where his brother, Alistair, a dentist lived. The next morning we were horrified with the news that Doug, who had just turned 41 the week before, had dropped dead while conversing and sitting at the kitchen table with Alistair. His brother cracked a joke, Doug started his celebrated laugh, and he just dropped dead, collapsing onto the table, in mid laugh. Alistair died four years later walking down the aisle in a department store. He was 43.

It gets worse. Doug and Betty Anne had a son, Mark. Mark was not yet a teenager when his father died. Everyone hoped he had escaped the family curse. But he didn't. I went to Mark's funeral six years ago. And he left a son, and a daughter.

Sometimes genes are there to tell you something.

So, do I believe that genetics are important? You bet I do!

All this to say, Whew! I suppose the natural extension of the argument that you should ignore linebreeding and staying away from bad lines and just breed what looks good to what you think looks good, when taken to an illogical (in this case) conclusion would be that ideally we should also get humans out of the factor entirely and let the dogs decide (natural selection) what is best for them since this argument tends to support the natural evolution of the species. This way we coudl be assured that the biggest, the strongest, the most assertive (perhaps the most aggressive), the most dominant and determined dogs would win the lottery and the others would lose but the best candidates would have won.

To be perfectly candid, while I have seen this happen with office bullies who can cowe the premises into submission and have their way, however wrong that way is, this does not actually make them better or smarter or more competent than those who for whatever reason do not struggle against them.

As "breeders" we are not allowed to throw 40 dogs into an arena with a handful of bitches in season and allow the dogs to sort it out and decide who gets bred to and by whom.

So we end up back at th starting point where we actually have a couple of real choices:

. breed the type you like to the type you like (pretty or not, sound or not) and hope for the best, irregardless of the genetic or breed type faults that the dogs display, or

. breed dogs acknowledged to be good, healthy specimens that carry demonstrated good genes and that display good breed type, and hope for the best knowing that the odds are more in your favour.

I certainly know which choice I would make .. and it wouldn't be breeding pretty to pretty with scant regard to all the other important essentials that any breed of dog, or for that matter any species should carry forth. But chacun a son gout, however awful a taste it leaves in your mouth. At least I don't have to buy it, if I don't happen to like it or what it represents!

Lanny

 

[Seraphina]

No, that is not what i said at all. (w00t) I do not disregard genetics, the problem is you do not really know what genes the dogs have or do not have unless you can test. What you see (by looking or testing) you know is there, what you cannot see (by looking or because you cannot test) may or may not be there. And that works on the positeves as well as the negatives. Obviously, we should not be breeding from animals that have some gross problem that is likely to kill them and their progeny. I guess i should have said I FIRSTLY consider the qualities I can see or know that they are there because they are testable. Qualities or problems, which are in the line but are recessive, not visible or detectable by a test, need to be considered, but if you eliminated any dog related to one that has some trait you do not like, there will not be anything left. I would not use a dog that i know has produced number of cryptorchids, or a serious problem, does not matter how stunning he may look like. BUT what if the other dog I use also produces them, and his owners managed to keep it secret?

Things are just not so simple. Actually they are very complicated and nobody has the answer. My step son and my very good friend's daughter both have PhD in genetics. My friend is a Whippet breeder and so her daughter has also grown up exhibiting Whippets and is an international dog judge. So my, albeit very meager, understanding of this subject comes from two very qualified people. For instance the inheritance of teeth is so complicated it would take a lifetime study to grasp it.

Testicle problems is something that I find very worrying, but nobody seems to know the exact cause. From all the varying info i accessed, my guess is that it is a combination of factors. What exactly is a problem and what is considered "normal"? Thirty years ago i would consider a dog born without 2 testicles in his scrotum a cryptorchid. I was shocked when i found out that Whippets people are pleased if all the balls are down by 5-6 weeks. I am very interested, Lani, at what stage do you expect your male pups to have their testicles fully descended, and what would you do if you had a pup that did not drop them? Would you eliminate the dog, the bitch and their relatives from your breeding program?

Genetic diseases are caused by chromosomal faults or damage, which can be inherited or can be caused by mutation, possibly triggered by environmental factors (such as exposure to chemicals or radiation), but once they are present the faulty genes are passed on to the next generation. That is part of life, and will never be eradicated.

 

[Seraphina]

This would confirm the observation of The New Scientist about sparrows on Vancouver Island, and for that matter here in my front garden feeding on my niger seed too.  Clearly all sparrows ultimately sprang from the same limited gene pool, but all sparrows, like all whippets are not created genetically equal either. 


Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The sparrows on Vancouver Island were sellected specifically because they were an isolated population. The study was trying to establish how inbred they are. From memory it was approximately 90% of the birds that were quite inbred the 10% retained some genetic diversity. All the inbred birds perrished. This particular article was published 18th October 2003 in New Scientist.

 

[Zephyr]

What a fascinating discussion :thumbsup: - K9 at its best!! :cheers:

I sadly have nothing to contribute, but hopefully a little bit about genetics is gradually sinking in to my befuddled brain. :blink:

 

[playawhile]

If we deal on this basis then presumably the next part of the equation as it relates to whippets, is that it is in the best interests of the whippet breed to breed for breed strength and vigour? And I again, can only agree.

 

So those being the accepted criteria, and here I can only speak for myself, my essential criteria for breeding would include:

 

. eliminating all dogs from the gene pool that carry known health problems, including whippet lines now known to be carrying hereditary heart disease, auto-immune disease, eye disease, and dogs and bitches from all litters containing males that are not all entire.

But isn't so that inbreeding and line-breeding leads to less vigour? I have learned that inbreeding makes individuals less fertile and that it increases the chance of inherited problems ( in the long run) as the risk of "bad genes" are more likely to be inherited the more common ancestors the sire and dam share??

If we were to eliminate all dogs that carry the problems that you list above we can shut down the breed immediately!! We can't be sure how many whippets for example are carriers for producing dogs that are not entire. Who knows, if we could do a DNA-test maybe it would show that 45% of all whippets are carriers for this problem. If we then eliminate these individuals we are at the edge of a very steep and high cliff for the breed............

Since the gene pool is limited should we then not try to use as much as possible of the existing gene pool instead of limit us to breeding back to a few dogs and bitches? I often hear that it is ok to inbreed on a certain bitch or dog as she or he is so good looking and has won so and so many BOB:s and not thinking of that these individuals are as likely to produce problems as the "ugly pet whippet" living down the street.

I see the genetic variation in the breed as a triangle up side down and many years ago the gene pool was at its top with the broad base at the top of the triangle but through constant inbreeding and line-breeding individuals are pushed aside in favour of the top winners currently "in fashion". The more this goes on the narrower the triangle gets....... At the moment I feel that the state of the breed is good health wise but we can't see in to the future and we don't know how long the situation can stay positive and more problems will crop up?? It is just to compare with other breeds were they in such a bad state that cross breeding probably is the only remedy??

Henrik

 

[posh totty]

what a great topic! ive wanted to ask this question but was afraid to ask! thank you all for your knowledgable and informative answers :thumbsup:

 

[Avalonia]

Lani, at what stage do you expect your male pups to have their testicles fully descended, and what would you do if you had a pup that did not drop them?  Would you eliminate the dog, the bitch and their relatives from your breeding program?

I'm so glad you asked that question because I'm not afraid to answer it honestly. Let me start by saying that I know cryptorchidism is not the most pressing problem in the world for dogs because at least it is not (except perhaps for the greatly increased risk of cancer that dogs who are not neutered who have undescended testicles face) a life-threatening problem, and probably for that reason people have tended to treat it as a fact of life. It is far more important to eliminate life threatening or life shortening diseases known to be heriditary in some breeds and that should be the first priority.

I know that cryptorchidism is a fairly common occurrence in some breeds of dogs, where it is generally considered to be an autosomal recessive trait. Unfortunately this trait was allowed to develop perhaps more than it should have been because up to an handful of decades ago in England where the whippet originated, there was no prohibition that all males used for breeding had to have two normally descended testicles, and thus breeders were not prevented from using monorchid males, and some, including some prominent breeders did. Sadly, while a dog with both testicles undescended ios sterile, monorchid males -- those with one testicle descended -- are not, and thus either through accidental breedings or on purpose, some of those dogs produced litters and helped extend the problem.

Autosomal recessive is the term used to describe the inheritance of genetic traits located in the autosomes, which are the 22 non-sex determining chromosomes. Mendel and scientists since then have demonstrated that recessive genetic traits (or disorders) occur when both parents are carriers. In this case the chance of two of these alleles landing in one of their offspring is at least 25% and in autosomal dominant traits even higher. 50% of the resultant dogs, or a minimum of 2/3 of the rest of the litter will be carriers. So it is obviously not easy to avoid passing on a problem carrying this sort of odds.

When we started our breeding program we were aware of the problem in the breed and knew from observation and frank discussion with their breeders who willing shared information with us, that certain very decent well-conformed dogs then available at stud here in Canada carried a significant problem. So our desire was to find and use dogs at stud that seemed to be clear of this problem. But we knew this would be difficult.

Here back in the late 80s and early 90s it was frankly routine to hear that several males in any whippet litter were born without both testicles. Indeed we had a friend who bred a litter out of a lovely whippet bitch she imported to Canada from England (out of one of the lines rumoured to have used a monorchid male in its breeding program), and I attended at the vets with her when her litter of 7 male pups, no females were assessed for testicles and only two were found in the entire litter. That was enough for her. She took this as a strong message, spayed the bitch and placed every single male in pet homes conditional on their being neutered.

As some know, though we have owned whippets since the early 1980s we did not breed a whippet litter until 1991. We rescued several whippets who lived their lives out with us, but it was only when I bought a country property in 1991 that we bred our first litter. Whether by pure blind luck or good fortune our first litter, out of a renowned Nevedith male and born in October 1991, contained 7 pups, which was made up of 5 males and 2 females, and all were entire. We kept two of those males and used both in our breeding program.

I think now that perhaps we made our breeding endeavours easier over the years since because, living in Canada and breeding whippets based on linebreeding a specific English kennel's bloodline very tightly, and having the first litter be clean and entire, we began with some very good fortune. We think we added to that good fortune by relying on our own carefully selected breeding stock and not breeding out to whatever was out there winning so everyone was flocking to breed to it, and thus we increased our avoidance of testicle problems to a significant degree.

In answer to your question, we believe that since testes begin their descent shortly after birth and are in place from that time forwards, both testicles should be normally descended by 8 weeks of age. In fact, we usually see that our males are entire because the little sacs are evident as early as 4/5 weeks.

Our statistics on the 24 litters we have bred using 6 different sires since 1991, and which our vet can will verify, tell the story:

We used one of the two males from our first litter only once: he had 5 females so we cannot surmise about testicles there.

But we used his Cdn.Ch. litter brother three times and he produced a total of 11 males and 8 females in his three litters. All 11 males were entire.

We then brought in a new stud dog from England, born in 1995, showed him to his Cdn.Ch. title and then used him a total of 8 times until his untimely death from cancer in 2005. In 8 litters he produced 17 males and 16 females. 16 of the 17 males were entire. 1 male, from the only litter he produced for us out of an outside bitch, and produced when this stud dog was over 9 years of age, was a monorchid although our vet quibbles about this one because he says in the strictest sense of the word he wasn't. The testicle was obvious and visible, going up and down and finally locked just above the ingulian canal and became too big to descend. That dog is owned by good friends and he is neutered. We have never used his litter sister, whom we kept.

We brought in another dog from Europe with both parents linked to the same line we were breeding. After completing his Cdn.Ch. title we have used this dog 4 times. In 4 litters he has produced 9 males and 7 females. All 9 males were entire with fully descended testicles at 8 weeks.

An Avalonia male, produced from a litter bred England after which the dam was shipped in whelp to us, has been our dog of choice for 5 litters in the past handful of years. This Cdn.Ch. male has had 14 males and 12 females in his 5 litters. All 14 males were entire. Several of his sons have been retained by us for future use in our breeding program.

To complete the cataloguing of our litters, 6 years ago we brought in an adult dog whose sire is from our breeding and whose dam is completely unrelated to anything we have ever used. This dog, who is also a Cdn.Ch. has produced 3 litters for us. In those three litters he has had 14 males and only 7 female puppies, so he is obviously pre-potent for producing males. Unfortunately 1 male, in his third and final litter for us (interestingly, this dog was also 9 years of age when this litter was born) had no testicles evident or descended at 8 weeks. At 6 months the owners of this dog had him surgically castrated. On castration they found both testicles were held high in the abdomen on cords about 3/3.5 inches long vs. the 6 inches needed to allow for normal descent.

We kept one male from this male (his dam has produced a litter for us before with 4 males, all entire) but have not used him. I have to be honest and say we are seriously contemplating using this dog at some point in future on the basis he may not be a carrier of the autosomal recessive trait for cryptorchidism. But we will no longer use his sire.

We are wondering whether it is simply coincidence that the two dogs that were not entire were produced by sires that were in both cases over 9 years of age. Is there also potentially a link to aging sperm in producing this trait too? I think that is a stretch, but I does raise the question in my own mind at least.

Finally, as our breeding program has been so catholic, with so few stud dogs used, you can obviously see that we are pretty tightly linebred, maybe even inbred depending on how you define it. We realized this situation would need to be remedied so in late 2006 we, in partnership with a friend who is breeding the same bloodlines we are using, went looking for a suitable male outcross to use on our linebred bitches. We found a possible male and our friend went to visit the breeder and assess the litter. The litter this young pup (he will be four months in a couple of days) came from is from the same outcross line we have brought females in from before. Our partner examined the 5 males, no females in the litter, at 8 weeks and verified that all 5 males in the litter were entire with both testicles were fully descended. She also verified from the breeder, that both the sire and dam's male littermates had all been entire (they were). And then she bought the dog.

This is the sort of due dilligence I think anyone can and should intelligently use when breeding to dogs. Obviously not everyone is prepared to accept that it is necessary to avoid genetic traits such as cryptorchidism since they are not life threatening. But for those out there like us who think it is a pity that otherwise excellent dogs can be lost to the breed because of this problem, and who would like to try to reduce/mitigate or eliminate the problem in their own line, then a good starting point would be to buy dogs used for breeding purposes only from litters where all males have been

We would also encourage those who want to breed to query those who offer dogs at public stud about the contents of previous litters bred to the dog and make a decision on that informed basis. If you find half the males of a stud dog are not entire, I have to ask why ever would you want to breed to him anyway? Since the health and vigour of a breed depends on both good males and good females, we cannot pretend that only the females matter and then farm the males off to pet homes where no one is any the wiser that there has been a problem. Remember, the females in the litter are also carriers -- or not -- of this trait. So buying a female from a litter with a couple of cryptorchids is not necessarily the most brilliant breeding decision you could make.

Anyway, even if this is only a crusade amongst a minority of us to try to produce clean lines, and everyone else is content with the status quo, we are content with out decision to stay the course. So far as we are concerned our success -- 65 males born, only two of which were not entire -- speaks to our commitment to taking strong steps in our own breeding program -- which is really all we can control -- to leave the breed a little bit better off than it was when we started out.

Lanny

 

[Avalonia]

Our statistics on the 24 litters we have bred using 6 different sires since 1991, and which our vet can will verify, tell the story:

Anyway, even if this is only a crusade amongst a minority of us to try to produce clean lines, and everyone else is content with the status quo, we are content with out decision to stay the course. So far as we are concerned our success -- 65 males born, only two of which were not entire -- speaks to our commitment to taking strong steps in our own breeding program -- which is really all we can control -- to leave the breed a little bit better off than it was when we started out.

Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Oops, forgot one litter. I knew we had done 25, not 24 litters but our breeding record for the last litter we had -- born on 20 September 2006, is not yet included with the other 24 litters till the new litter's registration process is completed with the Canadian Kennel Club.

Our last litter was bred to an outside dog imported from England -- who happens to be half brother to our two most used sires. All three share the same Eng.Ch. sire. In our most recent litter we had 6 females and only 1 male, who is also entire.

That means we have had 66 males, only two of which were not entire.

Lanny

 

[Tesa]

Can someone please explain a little more about the term "coefficient" please.

Interesting topic :thumbsup:

karen

 

[Seraphina]

Can someone please explain a little more about the term "coefficient" please.  Interesting topic :thumbsup:

karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The mathematical expression of the amount or degree of any quality possessed by a substance, or of the degree of physical or chemical change normally occurring in that substance under stated conditions.

Basically, in dog breding, it is an indication of how inbred the dog is.

 

[Tesa]

Can someone please explain a little more about the term "coefficient" please.  Interesting topic :thumbsup:

karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The mathematical expression of the amount or degree of any quality possessed by a substance, or of the degree of physical or chemical change normally occurring in that substance under stated conditions.

uh????? :blink: :wacko: (w00t)

Basically, in dog breding, it is an indication of how inbred the dog is.

This I can understand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

 

[Seraphina]

Autosomal recessive is the term used to describe the inheritance of genetic traits located in the autosomes, which are the 22 non-sex determining chromosomes.  Mendel and scientists since then have demonstrated that recessive genetic traits (or disorders) occur when both parents are carriers.  In this case  the chance of two of these alleles landing in one of their offspring is at least 25% and in autosomal dominant traits even higher.  50% of the resultant dogs, or a minimum of 2/3 of the rest of the litter will be carriers.  So it is obviously not easy to avoid passing on a problem carrying this sort of odds.

Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I am not sure that it is simple autosomal recessive trait . Some people even belive that it is carried on the Y chromosom and therefore has nothing to do with the bitch. Also it is possible that it is caused by different problem in different dogs, some maybe hormonal = the glands just do not release the appropriate hormon to trigger the descent, some mayby physical = too short cord etc?

I asked what is the stage it is OK for dog not to have them down, and what is the age you would label him cryptorchid. It seem to be 8 weeks, right? Well so what if the reticent ball appears at 8 weeks and 1 day, or 2 days, or how about 9 weeks?

I have bred 7 litters of Great Danes and every single male pup had both testicles in the scrotum the moment he was born. So I find it difficult to accept this sort of fluid few weeks. Unfortunately it is a fact of life with Whippets. My Callista, the dam of my latest litter, had 3 brothers. We had 5 testicles at birth, and the 6th one was down in place day or 2 later. So I was hoping for all 3 of her sons to have them down also fairly early. There were couple at birth, 5 were very definitely down at 2.5 weeks, the last one struggled down just day or so after 6 weeks.

Which again brings me to the conclusion that either it has nothing to do with the bitch, or it has lot more complicated inheritance.

I certainly would never consider to use a uni-lateral ( bi-laterals are sterile) cryptorchid for stud, nor would I knowingly use dog siring cryptorchids.

But I would certainly worry lot more about heart problems, or eye problems, thankfully we do not seem to have those here.

Anyway, even if this is only a crusade amongst a minority of us to try to produce clean lines, and everyone else is content with the status quo, we are content with out decision to stay the course. So far as we are concerned our success -- 65 males born, only two of which were not entire -- speaks to our commitment to taking strong steps in our own breeding program -- which is really all we can control -- to leave the breed a little bit better off than it was when we started out. original.gif

I had again look at your website and noticed that you base your lines very strongly on the Nevedith. You also claim that you breed dogs within the standard size. The dogs from Nevedith lines that I know all produce size, how do you manage to keep yours correct size?

We all hope that we contribute something worthwhile to this breed, even if we may not agree on the way we go about it.

 

[Tesa]

Can someone please explain a little more about the term "coefficient" please.  Interesting topic :thumbsup:

karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The mathematical expression of the amount or degree of any quality possessed by a substance, or of the degree of physical or chemical change normally occurring in that substance under stated conditions.

uh????? :blink: :wacko: (w00t)

Basically, in dog breding, it is an indication of how inbred the dog is.

This I can understand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Googled on Wrights coefficients and whippets found this. Worth a read. I all makes sense now

http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_coi.htm

 

[Seraphina]

In answer to your question, we believe that since testes begin their descent shortly after birth and are in place from that time forwards, both testicles should be normally descended by 8 weeks of age.  In fact, we usually see that our males are entire because the little sacs are evident as early as 4/5 weeks. 

Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

(w00t) I may not have all the testicles in my litters in place at birth, but I certainly have never seen a male without his sacks. :wacko:

Males of almost all mammalian species have their testicles positioned on outside of their bodies. And for very good reason, the testicles cannot tolerate body temperature. They should be descended immediately after birth.

The exception are elephants, they keep theirs inside (and I think whales) and have very interesting and complicated cooling system.

 

[Avalonia]

I had again look at your website and noticed that you base your lines very strongly on the Nevedith. You also claim that you breed dogs within the standard size. The dogs from Nevedith lines that I know all produce size, how do you manage to keep yours correct size?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Yes, you have observed right, and let me tell you more about those dogs we have used. Several of our our sires have been sons of Eng.Ch. Nevedith Justa Jesta. We own three Jesta sons and most recently on our last litter used a fourth -- Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Hfa Hanky Panky -- owned by a friend. Many of you may never have seen Jesta in real life because his show career was in the early 90s, but if I tell you that I and dozens of international breeders and judges watched Nev Newton have Jesta wicketed in at the Centennary show at Doncaster along with all the dogs entered in the class specifically designed for dogs who met the English standard in terms of height. Jesta wicketed in, which means Jesta was 20 inches at the withers or under.

Our principal stud dog over the period we have been breeding was Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Local Lancer, one of Jesta's first sons. Lancer measured 19.75 inches at the withers... but he was a solid bodied nearly 40 pound dog who gave the illusion of being bigger because of his bulk. I think you may find other dogs also face this illusion, but whatever. Lancer consistently produced petite females -- I am talking females at the lower end of the English whippet standard... 18 inches, I don't think any of his daughters were ever bigger than 19 inches. People in Europe may remember seeing the small bitch Multi Ch. Avalonia Glen Scotia that Jarmo Vuorinen showed so well to five titles in Scandinavia or the bitch Int.Belg.Cdn.Ch. Avalonia Macallan shown by Bart Scheerens in Europe. Both are barely 18 inches tall. And the Lancer daughters we kept to continue as part of our breeding program are similar in size.

His males were as moderate as he was and varied between 19.75 inches and 20.5 inches tall. I do not remember a single Lancer son we bred who was taller than that. We took Lancer to the USA to one dog show to show and a top judge (who has judged BIS at Westminster) came over after watching the whippets being judged and said he was the most magnificient stallion of a whippet dog he had ever seen (he was not judging that day) but he was too small to show in the USA. We had him entered in the open dog class of about 10 dogs. Lancer was the smallest dog in his class by inches, and was probably hobbled by that fact. We never showed him there again.

Ch. Avalonia Wotta Jesta, our 20.5 inch tall son of Jesta out of Ch. Nevedith Wotta Wispa (daughter of multi Ch. N. Rare Rogue) has followed Lancer in terms of throwing the same sized kids. He has produced five of our litters.

As a third demonstration of how you keep down size by breeding with dogs consistent for producing it I would cite our male Cdn.Ch. Frontrunner's Full Monty, bred in Denmark by Rudi Brandt, sired by Dk.Swed.Ch. Nevedith Veefa Vagabond out of Multi and 2x World Ch. Honey Honey du Tadjoura, herself entirely out of Nevedith breeding (her sire was Germ.Ch. Nevedith Dawn Dazzler). Monty ties with Avalonia Trick or Treat (a son of Cdn.Ch. Avalonia Wotta Jesta, Jesta x Eng.Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely) as the smallest male on our premises. Monty and Tricky are both 19.5 inches tall. Monty has sired four of our litters.

That, in a nutshell, is how we have kept size down. In a linebred program you can expect consistency, so if you rely on dogs that are moderate, they will more likely be capable of reproducing the size you like and you will end up with litters of moderate sized males and females. We actually worry that our girls are almost too small. We have certainly had people make that comment.

So obviously an awful lot of Nevedith bloodlines, are not too tall and contrary to what some people who haven't used them may say, they consistently produce correct and moderate sized whippets.

Lanny