This is a placeholder text
Group text
by hamza166 on 19 August 2010 - 10:08
Can anyone help me in naming the dog breeds which have a small gene pool?
I know 1 breed: The dalmatian. I know that this small gene pool in the breed has resulted in a high result of deafness in the breed.
I have borrowed a book from my local library called "genetics for dummies" It states that living creatures with a small gene pool are likely to inherit more diseases.
I just wanted to know any more breeds with a small gene pool.
All help welcome.
I know 1 breed: The dalmatian. I know that this small gene pool in the breed has resulted in a high result of deafness in the breed.
I have borrowed a book from my local library called "genetics for dummies" It states that living creatures with a small gene pool are likely to inherit more diseases.
I just wanted to know any more breeds with a small gene pool.
All help welcome.
by Arnies Dad on 19 August 2010 - 11:08
I know that the "Eurasier" has a very limited gene pool - particularly in the UK.
This is primarily due to the breeds relatively short history though, It was created in the 1960's. The Eurasier thus far a fairly good record regarding health issues. Once this breed recieves wider recognition and demand increases I expect more health issues will arise due to bad breeding practices of those "jumping on the bandwagon".
I think you'll find a greater amount of inbreeding in smaller gene pools, thus both good and bad aspects will be far more highly concentrated in offspring produced i.e. type / health problems.
Hope this helps.
Kind Regards,
Chris.
by VonIsengard on 19 August 2010 - 12:08
Thai ridgebacks, Xolos, Portugese Podengos, Kooikerjondie, Hovawart, Maremma sheepdogs.
by MVF on 19 August 2010 - 15:08
Population genetics is more complex than you might want to imagine, but ANY breed in which the norm is limited registration or spay/neuter is heading for trouble, no matter how populous. Most spay/neuter agreements remind me of ANIMAL FARM -- they say one thing (betterment of the breed) but do the opposite (put the breed at genetic risk). I don't think gsd's are generally at the level of risk of many, but there are linebreedings that are very worrisome. Further, the requirement that dogs be titled is a good thing in principle, but if it leads to many good, healthy dogs not being bred, it is also detrimental in the long run. As well, a narrow genetic pool does not automatically lead to more genetic disease -- if the pool were exceptionally healthy, for example, the mix would be healthy. But the mathematics makes this only a theoretical exception; statistically, you can count on narrow gene pools leading to trouble. A number of breeds were SAVED by outcrossing to other breeds. IMO many breeds would be better off if outcrossed. KCzaja gives only the most extreme examples. You can almost always improve a genetic mix by outcrossing -- even if only within breeds and across types. You just can't always "see" the results, as you are used to looking for "type" which is, unfortunately, the product of too much inbreeding for health. It is very hard to resist line-breedings on great dogs (I like them, too) but they should be resisted, especially the very close breedings. The irony is that most crosses are probably healthier than most purebreds, all other things equal. The problem is in the qualifier: all other things are usually not equal. Crosses are usually of dogs who are not of the same quality and given the same care as purebred breedings. If the top gsds were bred to the top mals, for example, the hybrid vigor we would likely see might be quite remarkable. I have often thought that top working gsd's and border collies could make incredibly intelligent and driven working dogs. You can think of your own examples. My point, after my long winded lecture (sorry -- professor's habits die hard) is that this is not a problem for "other" breeds -- every breed has to think about genetic narrowing.
by MVF on 19 August 2010 - 15:08
Arnie's Dad: I can think of an exception to your generally good rule that it has to due with youth of breed. Boxers have a very narrow gene pool even though they have been around for a long time. The problem is that they are all descending from the same half dozen original dogs!
by Scarlet Akai on 19 August 2010 - 15:08
I think it was estimated that of all the pug puppies in the united kingdom there were only genetically around 50 different individuals. Also there seems to be a quite a few genetic neurological problems with some lines of pekingese. One of the most serious involves a condition where the poor dogs brain is trying to out grow it's skull : ( Not picking on the uk but thats where the information came from.
by hamza166 on 19 August 2010 - 17:08
I agree with MVF.
I was thinking, the Belgian Malinois and the German shepherd. They look alike in a way and perform the same tasks nowadays and also there original purpose is the same.
I think that these 2 breeds should to allowed to breed with each other for a time to widen the gene pool of some GSD lines and also the malinois? They look alike and then after, they could cross them back to their own breeds. This would widen the gene pool and also keep the dogs standard?
What do you think?
I was thinking, the Belgian Malinois and the German shepherd. They look alike in a way and perform the same tasks nowadays and also there original purpose is the same.
I think that these 2 breeds should to allowed to breed with each other for a time to widen the gene pool of some GSD lines and also the malinois? They look alike and then after, they could cross them back to their own breeds. This would widen the gene pool and also keep the dogs standard?
What do you think?
by hamza166 on 19 August 2010 - 17:08
I am reading a book called "Genetics for Dummies"
It is not specifficialy on dog or even animal genetics but more of a whole view and info on genetics. There is a part which says:
There are several ways taht population can wind up out of Hardy-Weinberg equillibrum. One of the most common departures from Haryd-Weinberg occurs as a result of inbreeding. Purebred dog owners are often faced with this problem because certain male dogs sire many puppies, and a generation or two later, descendants of the same male are mated to each other.
Inbreeding tends to fould up Hardy-Weinberg becaue some alleles start to show up more and more often than others. In addition, homozogytes get more common, meaning fewer and few heterozygotes are produced. Ultimately the appearance of reccesive phenotypes becomes more likely."
This causes hereditary problems.
I know that the SV says that inbreeding of 2-2 is closer, but yet the KC allows breedings such as this.
Then the rule which says that breeds are not to be crossbred again limits the gene pool.
It is not specifficialy on dog or even animal genetics but more of a whole view and info on genetics. There is a part which says:
There are several ways taht population can wind up out of Hardy-Weinberg equillibrum. One of the most common departures from Haryd-Weinberg occurs as a result of inbreeding. Purebred dog owners are often faced with this problem because certain male dogs sire many puppies, and a generation or two later, descendants of the same male are mated to each other.
Inbreeding tends to fould up Hardy-Weinberg becaue some alleles start to show up more and more often than others. In addition, homozogytes get more common, meaning fewer and few heterozygotes are produced. Ultimately the appearance of reccesive phenotypes becomes more likely."
This causes hereditary problems.
I know that the SV says that inbreeding of 2-2 is closer, but yet the KC allows breedings such as this.
Then the rule which says that breeds are not to be crossbred again limits the gene pool.
by Scarlet Akai on 19 August 2010 - 17:08
hamza, ideally if we wanted to get the healthest dogs doing the best at a specific job, we would give no real thought to what the dogs look like or even the breed it came from.
Ideally we would just see which dogs preform the best at the jobs we want them for (not just in function but in temperament and all around handling) and make sure that they pass all health certs before deciding they should be bred. Provided no one got carried away with over breeding specific genes it would work out.
however, because people are people this suggestion is like communism it only sounds good on paper... The likelyhood that it would work out is beyond laughable : p
THe hardy wienberg equilibrium does not exist in nature, and can't exist in dog breeding as we know it today.
Ideally we would just see which dogs preform the best at the jobs we want them for (not just in function but in temperament and all around handling) and make sure that they pass all health certs before deciding they should be bred. Provided no one got carried away with over breeding specific genes it would work out.
however, because people are people this suggestion is like communism it only sounds good on paper... The likelyhood that it would work out is beyond laughable : p
THe hardy wienberg equilibrium does not exist in nature, and can't exist in dog breeding as we know it today.
by pod on 20 August 2010 - 00:08
There was a study of inbreeding levels on ten breeds, based on UK KC registrations, taking pedigrees from when electronic recording began - to 2006. The GSD was one of the breeds included and the effective population size was found to be just 76.
When we consider that KC registrations cover all GSD types - German showline, Alsatian, working, pet breeding, we see that each sub category of the breed effectively reduces their gene pool even further by deliberate isolation, or near isolation.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/179/1/593
When we consider that KC registrations cover all GSD types - German showline, Alsatian, working, pet breeding, we see that each sub category of the breed effectively reduces their gene pool even further by deliberate isolation, or near isolation.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/179/1/593
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
