Inbreeding

[Sun Valley]

Hey Lynn,

Most of those dogs have American dogs in their pedigree's.

Lou Ann

 

[DreamTime Newfs]

I have European dogs with mostly American lines. I do not see much of a difference in breeding styles between the breeders that I deal with in Europe and American Breeders. Most European breeders breed dogs with American lines.
I feel that the type and structure in this breed is getting worse and worse as time goes on. It is pretty scary to say the least.

 

[ardeagold]

There are two mating systems that haven't been talked about. Only discussed inbreeding/linebreeding and outcrossing.

1. Inbreeding and linebreeding (Current inbreeding - 5 or 6 generations back and non-current inbreeding - inbreeding further back in the pedigree and how high is it to determine if there's a genetic impact)
2. Outcrossing (commonly defined as breeding unrelated dogs in the first 6 generations). Outcrossing works best with like to like.
3. Like to like mating (type to type or positive assortative)
4. Unlike to unlike mating (compensatory, negative assortative or corrective mating)

OK, now that I've had a little time to digest and think about this, I think that your #'s 3 and 4 are sub-components of #'s 1 and 2.

Whether you have like to like or unlike to unlike breedings, you still would have to either inbreed, linebreed or outcross. There are no other options.

 

[Sound Bay Newfs]

You're right, Lou Ann! Didn't mean to imply that they didn't.

 

[Ohana Mom]

OK, now that I've had a little time to digest and think about this, I think that your #'s 3 and 4 are sub-components of #'s 1 and 2.

Whether you have like to like or unlike to unlike breedings, you still would have to either inbreed, linebreed or outcross. There are no other options.

Donna - I agree with you. There really isn't much of an in between.

Very interesting discussion.

I really think this discussion is about two different things. I don't think the breeding practice choice (line breeding vs outcross) is a 100% indicator of "old-style" or today's standard of Newf. For example - if you had a kennel of "old-style" Newfs and used line-breeding practices in your breeding program - you would still perpetuate that particular style/type. In other words - line breeding doesn't create a "new style" but rather does the opposite - it continues the traits over time . It's not the "fault" of line breeding that today's Newfs look as they do as some may have implied.

I agree with an earlier post from Lou Ann - The standard is the standard. There aren't intentionally two "styles" within our breed. We need to follow the standard.


However, as with anything, I think there are interpretations of the standard and there are degrees. Yes, some are overdone today, some don't have the working drive etc... And at the same time I see some without enough bone, too tall, orthopedic issues etc ... Somewhere in-between is our written standard and I hope that more and more of our Newfs continue to be truly in the middle - right at the heart of our standard!

 

[sarnewfie]

I do not recall anyone here saying they were not breeding according to the standard. Everyone is doing that hopefully.
There is the older type or style of newfoundland. The newf of yesterday, look at your newf tide from the 80-90, i was a member then i have them all including the Kitty Drury interview that i will treasure always. The Newfoundland dog has evolved with styles over the years. If someone refers to the old type or style, it is just that. From the late 80 they sure did not look like they do today we could say the newf style from the 80`s 90`s or before those years. if you prefer that over "old type or style"... That is the style or type that some breeders prefer to stick with for many reasons, their own, and yes they were bred according to the standard.

 

[Alex]

sarnewfie or anyone else-
Could you link any pictures to illustrate differences of type for a newbie? Or suggest any dogs for me to look up?

I'm following this discussion with interest.

 

[Pipelineozzy]

If you can get your hands on any old Newf Tides, that would be helpful Alex.

 

[ardeagold]

Here's a page that, even tho the photos are small, you can see some of the top winning show dogs of the NCA from the past. Some reflect what a few here are calling the "old style" Newf:

http://www.ncanewfs.org/hof/dogs/showwinners.html

And here's the most recent Newf who won Westminster in 2004...Josh...CH Darbydale's All Rise Pouch Cove. His photo is also on the bottom of the link above. He's what's being referred to as the "new style":

http://www.pouchcovenewfs.com/Josh.html

And for those who aren't sure what constitutes the Breed Standard (for the NCA), here ya go. So you decide...although they look different, they all must have fit the standard to be "top winners".

http://www.ncanewfs.org/standard.shtml

 

[Snowden]

Just my 2 cents and really I know nothing about breeding. So please correct me if I'm wrong and remember that I am your typical newbi....your client if you will

I don't think for one min that anyone here does not breed to standard and it's been said a few times that standard is all in how you read it and whats winning. My only concern as a puppy buyer is the health. If I'm going to show, yes I do like a certain look, however what I like may not be good for me (get my drift) I feel like somewhere along the line winning (show ring) became more important. How many champions you have showed how great of a breeder you are. A win is great, but I feel I would be happier with SOUND temperament, healthy, long living pups, who can work vs what we are trying to turn them into.

I guess I don't understand what went wrong with the health. Is the gene pool so limited (because there is a look we want) that now we are seeing more of the "bad" health issues come out?

 

[Pipelineozzy]

I guess you have to understand that in reality...whether we like it or not...all of the testing we do now actually LIMITS our gene pool farther. And with the exception of cystinuria.....we don't actually eliminate the gene by testing for it and not using affected dogs. But when we discard a really great dog for having marginal hips, his GOOD genetics are also lost. I think we need to be very careful in that respect. We can take another dog, who has good hips, but may lack many of the other attributes of the breed that are just as important. Is it worse to use a dog with marginal hips than it is to use a dog whose cruciates dissolved when he was 3 years old? We don't have a test for that....so nobody can ask for a clearance on it...and yet I truly believe it's a bigger problem than hips. A dog with marginal hips will live a happy, normal life most of the time, the same cannot be said for a dog that has cruciate issues. They are going to need expensive surgery and rehab..virtually every time.

Breeding to standard allows for a great deal of interpretation on a breeder's part, and eventually, the show ring takes over because we are led to believe that the dogs in the ring are "the standard"..which may or may not be the case. The standard becomes, eventually, the dogs that are shown to the judges the most...in the eyes of the people who want to show. And sometimes that changes...for a while, it will seem like only HUGE dogs are winning, then it will change again and a truly large dog will look out of place in the ring and be dumped because everything else in the ring is smaller. Judges are only people..and you have to remember how many standards a judge would have to know to truly assess a dog by the standard for THAT breed. And in our quest for THAT dog..the one that will take the ribbons...there can be a tendency to relax on other things, and over time, that can be very detrimental to the breed.

 

[ardeagold]

My only concern as a puppy buyer is the health. If I'm going to show, yes I do like a certain look, however what I like may not be good for me (get my drift) I feel like somewhere along the line winning (show ring) became more important. How many champions you have showed how great of a breeder you are. A win is great, but I feel I would be happier with SOUND temperament, healthy, long living pups, who can work vs what we are trying to turn them into.

There are excellent breeders who do all, to the best of their ability.

There are no guarantees in breeding. Something that is far back in the lineage can raise it's ugly head at any time. Knowing the history of the lineage (both sides) helps the breeder make the most educated choices he or she can, but there are some things that are just plain unknown.

And there are other things that appear, that have never occurred in the lines before, as far as anyone knows.

Genetics is tricky, and until there are DNA tests for everything a dog could possibly inherit (which won't happen in our lifetimes), breeders can only do the best they can do.

Also, some things weren't "genetic" in the past, but are impacting the DNA now. Those would be environmental influences, such as chemicals in the food, water, air, grass, building supplies, and oil spills in the gulf, etc. Even if one lives completely "organically" as do your dogs...that still doesn't eliminate the fact that the air is polluted, as is the water, your clothing, your furniture, etc. All of that is causing changes to the cells in the body, even if it doesn't go so far as to change the DNA.

Plus, there are viruses that may be "carried" which can impact offspring, which have nothing at all to do with the "history" of the line, but may cause issues in future pups in the line.

So, the best you can do is to find a highly educated breeder with a good history behind their breedings. This goes for health, working ability, structure, temperament, all of it. And then, honestly, it's up to "chance".

All scientists know that the "Chaos Factor" is real. If something can go wrong...it will. They know nothing is certain...it's always mutable.

There is no perfect dog. There is no perfect line. You just have to do the best you can to "hedge your bet" when you choose that breeder and puppy.

What Cindy said is correct. If every dog who has any sort of issue in the history of it's lineage (or even has a problem itself...such a mild HD) is removed from the gene pool the gene pool would be reduced to about 35 dogs, and IMO, that's a high estimate. So there's a balancing act going on to try to keep the breed alive, yet limit the negatives, and enhance the positives.

As more DNA tests become available, they will make it possible for breeders to breed out certain diseases in their lines, but I believe that in time, it will be found that every dog in every line will have at least ONE potential genetic health issue ... so they can't all be eliminated from the gene pool, or there would be no future for the breed at all. It'll still be a balancing act...although a much more educated one.

And...you'll still have the questions about working ability, structure, movement, temperament, etc. There won't be DNA tests for those, I don't think.

 

[Pipelineozzy]

And take out health insurance...just in case.

 

[Snowden]

And take out health insurance...just in case.

LOL I learned that the hard way :blush:

ardeagold - I understand what your saying and thank you.

 

[sarnewfie]

As much as i will be hated and poo pooed for my opinion on this, here it goes and i stand strong on it becouse through working in SAR and being in dogs showing obedience and belonging to a club, i have rubbed elbows with many who work their dogs.
A dog who marginally does not pass in one hip and is solid thru their whole life is the one who should not be thrown out of the gene pool. An example and this is just one, Penny. She was marginal in one hip the other fine. She has not slowed down yet, never limped a day in her life, and, at close to 10 years old she was out swimming for the first time since my divorce. She was fabulous out there and still has the energy and stamina that does not surprise me. She has a beautiful gait and is sound as sound can be. I would never consider throwing a non symptomatic dog out of the gene pool that barely did not pass ofa on the hip.
That is my opinion as much as people may hate me for it.
Others who work in shutz, SAR and other events i have seen do the same thing.

 

[ardeagold]

SAR, most of the breeders I've talked to don't eliminate a high quality dog from the gene pool based on mild HD. I know many who will carefully breed that dog.

So, your viewpoint is not at all unusual or wrong. Certainly nothing to be "hated" for!

 

[Sound Bay Newfs]

There is no perfect dog. There is no perfect line. You just have to do the best you can to "hedge your bet" when you choose that breeder and puppy.

That is why it is important to look at the whole dog. Some do seem to get fixated on one aspect of a dog and discount the rest of the dog. Since there is no perfect dog, the pros and the cons have to be evaluated and weighed against the other.

 

[sarnewfie]

:whistling: Thanx Donna! :sunflower:

 

[Sun Valley]

Sar,

Most breeder's would agree with you 100 percent...I have a bitch that won't clear hips but has so many other things going for her, there is no way I would eliminate her from my breeding program, unless of course she would produce alot of hip problems, then she will not be bred again.

On the other hand I have seen may dogs that are very pet quality with all health clearances that are being bred.

Many breeders are now not willing to sell to people unless they commit to at least 2 years of pet insurance. I don't require it, but I HIGHLY recommend it to my buyers.

Lou Ann

 

[ardeagold]

Cole costs us $38 per month, I believe...with Embrace. I don't have routine checkups or dental or prescriptions...just coverage for accidents, diagnostics, and illness (including hereditary problems).

We have it on Mira, Molly and Cole. Not on the others since Chance was already 8.5 when we got him, and Addie has a lot of Ortho problems that would have been deemed pre-existing when we got her at 3 yrs of age (since they were).