The Need For Genetic Diversity.

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Blitzen on 10 April 2008 - 17:04

This breed is extraordinary in that there are already 3 different and distinct "lines" - showlines, working lines, American lines. I'm not familiar enough with working lines to know this, would DDR dogs bring another set of genes to the table? The diversity is available but it is not used for one reason or another.

by ziegenfarm on 10 April 2008 - 17:04

in the busecker schloss kennels, very often a dog was bought back after a couple of generations from other kennels. this was not an unusual thing and there were others that did it as well. very smart. after careful selection, a young dog brings with it new blood, yet hopefully retains some of what the original breeder had worked for in the first place.

this is just one method.......there are many.

pjp

by Trafalgar on 10 April 2008 - 18:04

Don't Shepherd breeders know about COI and use the convenient software in existence to calculate the coefficient of possible litters before a breeding takes place?

I can't believe not.

Everyone who breeds should know the average COI within their breed and "subgroup" (example: working line shepherds).

Each and every litter planned should have a lower COI than the average for that particular breeding pool.

I thought every enligtened breeder was well aware of this.

by darylehret on 11 April 2008 - 04:04

"How fleeting are the wishes and efforts of man! how short his time! and consequently how poor will his products be compared with those accumulated by nature during whole geological periods."~Charles Darwin

Did you know, that the diversity of DNA sequences among maize genomes is 11 times greater than that of humans? And yet , humans are obviously more adaptable to a broader range of environments throughout the world, and enjoy a greater longevity.

as you may recall - there were a couple of threads some time back on the virtues of reintroducing dutch shepherd or malinois blood. not well received. i felt at the time, that folks were misunderstanding the entire concept. we don't want to "lose" our breed in the process, but that is how they seemed to interpret it.

I've wondered myself, and would like to more fully comprehend its implications.

Sometimes I wish the German Dog people where more like the German Horse people.

And, I think therein lies the problem: it's not the fault of the breed, but of the breed fanciers.

by Speaknow on 11 April 2008 - 10:04

First post isn’t breed-specific but scientist avows that introducing just one ‘foreign’ animal per hundred breeding dogs, per generation, effectively counteracts most genetic losses and advance of inherited defects. And assures that with careful selection, planning and back-breeding a breed’s characteristics would remain intact. (But ignores how most clubs’ existence is enshrined on sacred bedrock of ‘pedigree purity’!) Another method is to put harsh limits on the number of litters each stud is allowed to produce. As Blitzen, the Don and ziegenfarm said, with the GSD though, there’s no need to enlist another breed. I’d leave the American lines well alone, but the working dog (with different flavors) and today’s Wienerau dog are genetically separate enough to benefit each other immensely. Personally I can’t see it happening in any major way because of reigning obsession with ‘looks’ or style and huge financial role played by the puppy market (odd how many roads in this ‘hobby’ lead back to money!) And the working dog people, especially the schutzhund sport ones, would probably still stick to the drives-wise more extreme dogs. Yeah, inbreeding coefficients are incredibly worthwhile, Trafalgar. It’d be a cinch for this database! Must be over ten years when I tried using a free program. I can’t remember how far back I went but it took days to input my dog’s pedigrees, only to find it was still too sectional to be useful! Like you one-liners, Moons, and from what I see you’ve got plenty of wind! Know the topic has come up before (umpteenth times like every other!) but thought to give it the works, which is why I led off with the ‘scientific’ one. Most animals avoid inbreeding in different ways, Moons. The ‘sniffing test’ was also proved with mice under laboratory conditions. And wolves, for instance, are also forced to leave the pack at a certain age, and then range far and wide for a non-related partner. And in species where one male controls a number of females, the males end up rapidly replacing each other due to exhaustion. Female birds extract relevant information from cock’s plumage, symmetry and brightness. And so forth. As opposed to maize, human brains may have been aided a tad where adaptability is concerned, Daryl But how many genes do they share?

by Speaknow on 11 April 2008 - 10:04

The following snippet was distilled from an exceptional lecture given by Mr. P VAN OIRSCHOT, Supervisor Breed Affairs S.V. Netherlands; somehow, or hopefully, I don’t think he’d mind. As Dr. Malcolm Willis has it, selecting for type and behavior is of prime importance, while the more traits one seeks to include in any breeding program, the harder the task becomes. At present we’re heading toward a genetic dead-end by excluding too many quality animals from both the working and show lines. If a dog is not a top VA he’s ignored because of the puppy market - the same applies to a dog bereft of a high profile in the working dog scene. In lieu of range of traits needed by a GSD fit to live and survive in our time, we may well be excluding the more desirable breeding partners. The world and society has changed: the most important task of a GSD is his role as a companion dog in a complex urban environment. In 2002, SV’s Mr. Messler acknowledged the existence of two groups of GSD’s and two factions of self-interested pressure groups (or show versus working dog people): each breeding for own market and specific interests in the puppy market. The silent majority of average pet owners are, of course, mostly unrepresented. There’s also a clear distinction, VA/V males-wise, between the lines derived via Utz and the rest: size, weight, type, genetic make-up and pigment etc. The show dog tends to lack the higher drives, spirit and instincts necessary to attain peak working performance, whereas the working ones, comparatively, are often amiss in their structure. The basic problem turns on the fact that working dog breeders generally fail to meet the standard of earlier quality attributable to their foundation dogs. There was thus a time when dogs like VA’s Bernd Lierberg, Seffe Busecker Schloss, Mutz Pelztierfarm and Frei Gugge, or V’s like Nico Haus Beck, Greif Lahntal, and other Busecker Schloss dogs, fulfilled the standard’s aims admirably, competing on equal footing with ‘show’ lines. In the working lines too, and as a consequence of narrowing bloodlines, there’s a rise in general health and physical problems. The last two decades delivered a ‘show’ GSD at the upper limit of height and weight. Together with much criticism of top-line, over-stretched bodies, roached and sloping backs, bad fronts, elbows and cow hocks, unbalanced dogs displaying steep upper arms matched to over-angulated hindquarters. How do they gain top places even at a breed show? Because ‘typey’ dogs with roomy gaits seen side-ways and handled by experts impress! More exaggerations are just around the corner: often it’s wiser to maintain than to improve … Mr. Messler President’s Report also highlighted specific problems. These included HD/ED levels with problems in the back region, over-angulation and lack of stability in the hindquarters both in stance and movement, too much focus on details rather than general presentation, excessive size and weight, general lack of genetic diversity as relates to general health and vitality, and too much emphasis placed on uniform ‘looks’ or ‘style’. Kirschental’s Mr.Fuller made unequivocal, pertinent comment in a 2003 forum discussion: “I think a lot of the actual problems in health and working abilities are the result of repeated inbreeding on the same ancestors, as we see in the Leistungszucht too. I believe, and other experienced breeders will agree with me, that a litter without inbreeding (outcross) is more robust and there are fewer problems. You see the same in farm livestock breeding. We did breed a wonderful unity in Type but what did it cost us? The first 50 dogs of a Hauptzuchtschau are look-a-likes and have the same anatomy and outlook, BUT WE DON’T NEED A UNIFORM TOTALITY. WE DO NEED MORE DIVERSITY PARTICULARLY IN THE BLOODLINES. WE DO NEED

by Speaknow on 12 April 2008 - 09:04

Just to round off the topic, a bit more from Mr. P Van Oirschot’s lecture: Establishing a standard GSD type began with stalwarts Klodo Boxberg, Utz Haus Schutting, Rolf Osnabrucker Land, Alf Nordfelsen and Jalk Fohlenbrunnen. Sable and giver of longcoats, 1925 Sieger Klodo, was a turning point from the previous temperamentally doubtful, large, square, tall-legged dogs, to a more stretched medium-sized dog, one with better character. The 1929 Sieger Utz represented another turning point, dominating show-lines and making black/gold the color of choice, though criticized for temperament and teeth problems. 1950 VA Rolf and 1955 Sieger Alf, illustrate successful ‘complimentary breeding’, as for the 1962 VA Jalk. The seventies saw the famous ‘big three’: Quanto and Canto Wienerau, and Mutz Peltzierfarm, with the first two again examples of line and inbreeding. Mutz added masculinity and good working ability and combined well with Quanto, but failed to become a major sire-line. Canto is said to have been a Type-A hemophiliac. The 1980’s brought influential female Palme Wildsteiger Land and Sieger sons Uran and Quando Arminius. The ‘Q’-litter Arminius with Quando led to the legendary Odin Tannenmeise. With the ‘Q’-litter Arminius/Uran Wildsteigerland (Palme), Odin Tannenmeise (Quando A) and Cello Romerau (Quana A), the inbreeding narrows badly. The Palme/Uran, Quando, Odin, Cello family also brings us to recent dogs like Ulk Arlett, Ursus Batu and Yasko Farbenspiel. The quest for type, in effect, thus ended with that first set by the Wienerau Kennel. Its highpoint was probably in the 1980’s with the Quanto line via Quando Arminius to Odin Tannenmeise, if not with Uran’s arrival. Lest disturbed, and underwritten by the puppy market, Hochzucht breeding became a matter of copying the formula of successful breeders, doing more of the same: ‘line-breeding’ using the same genetic mix. To deviate was to deviate from Hochzucht breeding itself, and it developed into a one-way street. But fixing type (and genetic singularity) came at the cost of essential genetic variation. Consider problems like size/weight, soft temperaments, upper arms, fronts and soft ears. Palme and Cello were both oversize whereas Odin stood right on the limit, and all gave problematic ears; as did Uran (and dwarfs). The ‘Q’-litter Arminius produced questionable fronts and upper arms (as for Cello) and soft temperaments, while Odin’s was on the lazy side. These defects, other physical ones, and those to do with general health, not to ignore breed-specific diseases, is almost certainly the result of continued ‘family breeding’. Temperament-wise we improved the breed: the dog not only became friendlier but also softer. More suitable as a pet perhaps, but some display dullness and lack spirit or are affected by stressful situations. More reliable certainly, but those friendly, soft dogs in stressful circumstances lack hardness, spirit and endurance, and can’t bring us what’s needed from a multi-purpose working dog; sometimes we miss something...

by darylehret on 13 April 2008 - 06:04

If breeders prioritized their selection for those aspects of temperament, then temperament would be less in question. Just as "type" is strongly set among showlines for appearance's sake, workinglines (should be) equiped with the characteristics that ensure working ability and solid nerves, with diversified aspects available in prefered levels of drives, sharpness, handler sensitivity, aloofness, biddability, and all else.

I don't believe that the practice of linebreeding (itself) is directly the cause of these concerns, but the focus of its application perhaps is. Wouldn't you agree that the inbreeding COI is higher among the showline variety of GSD's, in comparison to the workinglines? Refining a "cookie-cutter type" in physical characteristics is far easier than tackling the complexities of temperament, and temperament is first and foremost, heritable.

by duke1965 on 13 April 2008 - 10:04

speaknow ,I have to disagree with most of your points

most of the people(scientist)who tell the world how it should be done , never left their desk , and did for themselves ,what they tell others to do

Why havent they already created the ideal , healthy line of dogs , they talk about

The first thing you have to look at is the term genetic diversity

genetic diversity in a dog is not what you want , because breeding with a dog that is very diverse geneticly , will produce many different things as well in health conformation and temperament , and you wont have a clue where it is coming from,and it can be gone the next generation(good or bad)

genetic diversity in a breed is what you want , because that will give you the opportunity to make a real 100% outcross , out of your own linebred family

the situation whe have right now is very much the opposite to what I discribed here

many dogs are related somewhere somehow , and are a genetic mishmash in itself

as far as your reference to nature , in nature many breeds are strongly inbred , where every so many generations a male from another inbred line comes by and defends the standing male , and takes over the bredingrights

thats the 100% outcross

after that inbreeding will occur again , as he will breed his own doughters later on

the phenotipical resemblance of wild animals per breed is therefore a million times bigger than in any dogbreed you can

find

furthermore the story of outcrossed dogs being healthier is a fairytale

the breedingchoises one makes will not change the genetics of your dog in itself

if you have a dog who carries genetic problems , you can outcross him to hell and back , but that problem can popup anyday anytime

by pod on 13 April 2008 - 11:04

Not agreeing with much of your post Duke but one point sticks out for me.

The concept of a 'breed' in itself is unnatual and wouldn't occur in nature. In fact very few if any of the breeds, as we know them today, existed until no more than ~150 years ago when the idea of pedigree recording and closed registries began. Until that time breeding is said to have been somewhat random, or at least with little interference by man.

Types used for particular disciplines obviously had increased opportunity to breed together but there was no concept of 'pedigree' as such and transhumance migrations ensured that breeds associated with livestock tending had ongoing gene flow ensuring regular outcross breeding to unrelated populations.

Since the inception of closed registries (breeds), the gene flow between these diverse populations has ceased for most breeds and to further deplete the available gene pool, selection has changed from postzygotic to prezygotic which removes any possible randomness from breeding, as breeders choose to isolate their particular choice of genotype from other types in the breed.

Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top

The Need For Genetic Diversity. - Page 2

Pedigree Database