This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Oskar1 on 16 February 2012 - 11:02
that's nature for you - it takes turns that we would have never bielived.
Thing is, how can we determen which way to go, to get these desease out of our breed ? I believe it to be totally descontructive to have so many countrys to go so many different ways. They all may be right in their own way - who can say they are not ?
It should be at least a standart in the large organisations - and yes, more power to you, ALL x-rays should be screened, also the ones that are not submitted to not lower the breedworthiness. That should be mandotory.
Will we ever see that happen ?. Hm, hard to believe - we dont even have a standart procedere in Europe and surrounding countrys ! But still we all claim to have the wellbeing of our breed at heart !
Ulli
by Mackenzie on 16 February 2012 - 12:02
by Oskar1 on 16 February 2012 - 12:02
dont give up just yet - we wont make it too easy for them to continue their ventures !
There is a whole lot going on here, I dont know excatly it will end, but changes are on the horizon.
Ulli
by Abhi on 16 February 2012 - 13:02
What has taken "Natural Selection" several thousand years to acheive, it is impossible to emulate in real life particularly with a limited gene pool. But what wrong was committed in sixty years of bad breeding cannot be undone in forty years, yes a marginal change is evident today. The show lines have further narrowed the gene pool by breeding according to type rather than scientific reason.
As Videx propagates, evident through his posts that Harley can produce viable elbows then all the veterinarians, scientists & orthopaedicians should be termed as confounded fools.
Louis it is a fact that even dogs with severe HD ED can produce normal offsprings the same goes for monorchid/cryptorchid animals, question arises should you breed from the resulting stock with such inherent traits even though clinically they are normal.
Abhi
by Mackenzie on 16 February 2012 - 14:02
Abhi
The paper that you have submitted is interesting and very long. However, looking at the numbers involved in the GSD studies I would suggest that they are to few to be conclusive. Another point in the reference information is that many are based on opinion in the 60’s and 70’s with the earliest reference being in 1942 and the most recent in 1980. I have only read the paper very quickly and the dates may be slightly out. However, the references are 30 to 40 years old and, I would respectfully suggest, that they may not be relevant today. However, a few of the comments will be relevant today.
As for the quote that HD has not, at that time, been reported in wild carnivores e.g. wolves and foxes can be, IMO, be largely discounted. I say this on the basis that certainly not enough of these species will be captured and subjected to x-ray examination after considering the cost of such an exercise and the elusiveness of these animals.
You are quite right in saying that what was propagated some sixty years ago cannot be undone in forty years. The gene pool has also been narrowed but not always to the benefit of the breed. The narrowing of the gene pool to what we see today increases the difficulty in solving our problems because there is only a very limited alternative gene pool available to help move forward. Further, the narrowing of the gene pool has also been to the benefit of a few individuals from a financial standpoint.
Mackenzie
by Abby Normal on 17 February 2012 - 09:02
IMO NZ dogs should definitely be eliminated from breeding. My understanding is that this is the equivalent of up to a 35 score on the BVA scheme which is hovering around moderately dysplastic. I have a dog that is just a few points over this who is on mild medication. She's getting on, and does well, but also does need medication in her old age to make her life a little easier. That is not a breedworthy prospect. The current limited gene pool is not so limited that it would have any significant impact to remove NZ.
The same could be said for using lower scores generally. Elbow scores are too high IMO in the UK, but that is following the German model. There is a need to try and improve the situation, which is currently stagnant, and there is no prospect of it changing. I wonder whether using lower scores is just a barrier for breeders in that it would eliminate some of their dogs, and therefore their earning potential, rather than truly being an impossibility for the breed. Is that an excuse rather than a reason? I don't know.
If we are at a point where we cannot breed from lower scores without compromising the gene pool further (and I am not sure that this is the case), maybe it is time to look at outcrossing without throwing up our skirts in horror.
by Mackenzie on 17 February 2012 - 10:02
Abbey Normal
Firstly, the results of the ED and HD as published now do not provide enough information to make a more informed decision for a mating. Secondly, breeders generally are using sires and dams with lower ratings, however, that in itself will not solve the problems. We have to look at the breeding families behind these animals to assess the risks based on the previous history of the breeding family. The inbreed situation that we see now may produce some good results but the closeness will also stamp in more faults at the same time and, these may be more even more difficult to eradicate. Sensible out crossing will be useful but the gene pool for alternative breeding families is very limited and sacrifices will have to be made.
The breed changed very rapidly under Hermann Martin because he substantially reduced the gene pool by specifically excluding bicolours, grey dogs and black dogs. Now, we will never know whether these dogs would have influenced the hip and elbow situation but the absence of the dogs has certainly affected the attributes of the breed for the worse. At the time these animals were producing anatomically acceptable dogs in the showlines of the day but the changes for the sake of colour have also reduced many of the attributes that the breed was famous for. How to get these back and tackle the current problems that the breed faces is just too much for the majority of breeders to achieve. Also, the problems have been exacerbated by breeders hawking their females around the top placed dogs regardless of the outcome.
One last point . Anyone breeding from an animal rating "fast normal" or "noch zugelassen" is breeding from a dysplastic animal.
Mackenzie
by Abby Normal on 17 February 2012 - 13:02
I agree that it should be mandatory to publish all results. I would extend this to 'preliminary' xrays, which is something that has become standard practice with many breeders to avoid xraying dogs which are identified as candidates who show early signs of dysplasia and are likely to have a failing score. These dogs are therefore never xrayed at all when reaching the correct age. You subsequently see these young dogs for sale on the breeder websites to 'pet homes' only. They are frequently from absolutely top class well known dogs. This makes a mockery of the ZW system, and any other hip or elbow scheme when you have a mean score, based on hip and elbow score results. Effectively it means nothing. On the other hand, unless every puppy from every litter is score it doesn't really give a true picture either.
If a breeder really likes an animal and it has acceptable ratings they will use it in my experience. Why should they not when it is given a rating of still permissible for breeding? Therein I feel lies just one of a myriad of problems. The bar is set too low.
I agree with you though, that regardless this in itself will not solve the problems.
The breed changed very rapidly under Hermann Martin because he substantially reduced the gene pool by specifically excluding bicolours, grey dogs and black dogs. Now, we will never know whether these dogs would have influenced the hip and elbow situation but the absence of the dogs has certainly affected the attributes of the breed for the worse. At the time these animals were producing anatomically acceptable dogs in the showlines of the day but the changes for the sake of colour have also reduced many of the attributes that the breed was famous for. Also, the problems have been exacerbated by breeders hawking their females around the top placed dogs regardless of the outcome.
Indeed, and I feel the Sieger Show predominantly has been the vehicle of the breed's decline, allowing power to some within the SV to drive things in directions to suit personal goal and gain, which sadly was never the original intent.
The variation in colour you mention are all still abundant in working lines, and clearly they have a more varied gene pool to dip into, yet when Helmut Raiser broached outcrossing to working lines all hell broke loose. Would you consider this a viable option? I ask because you are more knowledgeable about this than I.
by Mackenzie on 17 February 2012 - 13:02
Abby Normal
I would consider and use a male of any colour if it met the requirements needed for breeding. He would also have to complement the female that I wanted to use.
You mention Helmut Raiser and his suggestion that they outcross in the working fraternity. The problem here is that so many of the working dogs are anatomically incorrect and the wrong colour for a showline owner to permit the use of his stud dog. For the working people they do not want to run the risk of losing the work ethic that their dogs have by using a showline dog who carries the gene for size as most of them do. The increase in size and weight shortens the dogs working life.
Mackenzie
by Abby Normal on 17 February 2012 - 17:02
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
