Everything here applies to dogs:
Remember–inbreeding in racing pigeons requires harsh culling.
Inbreeding in dogs for performance requires the same thing.
Most people don’t want to do this– we’re talking dogs, remember– so you’re better off trying to reduce COI.
Even then, inbreeding can be very harmful to immune systems as it reduces the diversity within the diversity within the MHC.
I wasn’t able to watch the vid, but outcrossing can be just as harmful to health as inbreeding. Inbreed for health, and health will become greater. All breeds are inbred to some degree, it is how Pointers can be depended on to point, Retrivers can be depended on to retrieve, and so too health can be bred for. The stabilty of inbred (pure-bred) dogs like the Amstaff (in reality the APBT) of the AKC to never bite children is inbred in as opposed to the scatter-bred Pit Bulls of mongrel breeding.
Inbreeding is actually destroying dogs. It is one of themes of this blog.
The big issue is the destruction of the immune system via a reduction in MHC diversity.
Inbreeding may happen in the wild, but it is very rare with wild dogs.
Here are some articles for you to read:
http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/category/health-genetics/inbred-mistakes
http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/closed-registries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-i/
http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/closed-registries-dogs-in-the-handbasket-to-hell-part-ii/
When you have read all of those articles, understood them, and are willing to admit that any breeding within a closed system results in lost genes, and that you DO NOT ALWAYS GET TO PICK WHICH GENES YOU LOSE, and thus, CANNOT PREDICT THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONTINUED INBREEDING, you can come back, and we’ll have a nice chat.
I have cross breds, and I know many people who use multi-generational cross-breeds for actual work, longdogs and lurchers. Selective breeding IS selective breeding, whether it is for temperament, function, or appearance, and whether it is within a closed system, or outside one. Scottie can probably give you more examples, like cur dogs and the like.
Raylen, did you really mean to say that outcrossing can be harmful to an animal’s health? That doesn’t make sense to me at all.
That it might have an effect on some of the desired behaviors of a breed I can believe, but outcrossing increases genetic diversity thus increasing the chances of survivability–that’s a basic tenet of sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction would never have survived if it didn’t provide an evolutionary advantage. That advantage is the mixing of genes to provide genetic diversity. If you narrow the gene pool in a sexually reproducing pair (or breed or species) through inbreeding, you defeat that evolutionary mechanism.
In the evolution of a species, inbreeding is the result of an evolutionary bottleneck–a reduction in breeding population that forces closely related individuals to mate exclusively with each other. The African Cheetah is a species that went through just such a bottleneck at some time in the past. As a result the cheetah is, genetically speaking, a mess.
Some animals have been able to survive very tight bottlenecks and most of the bad recessives have been culled. Cheetahs are an example, but they have undergone natural selection to cull those bad disorders out. They still could get some bizarre autoimmune disease or mutant cancer that would very easily wipe them out.
The best example of a wild species being screwed by being so inbred is the Tasmanian devil, which is dying off due to a bizarre mutant transmissible cancer for which they have no immunity: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/inbreeding-is-so-evil-its-gonna-get-the-devil/
I’ve read that at some point in the past, H. sap. or one of its predecessors also went thru a genetic bottleneck (don’t remember whether it was s’posed to be pre- or post- outcrossing w/ H. s. neanderthalensis, et al) and that as a result the average troop of Chimpanzees exhibits more genetic diversity than all of humanity (all 7 billion of us!)
Sorry, I don’t know the truth of that assertion, but if provable, it would be mind-boggling in its implications.
The concept of purging is an interesting one. There are studies on this, with the conclusion (in natural or captive breeding populations) that there is very little effect of purging on genetic fitness, and it cannot be counted on when managing small captive populations.
In regards to dogs, we can see that purging, as, say, exclusion of affected individuals or carriers from the population, has two effects: one, you can remove or reduce the incidence of a ‘bad’ gene, and two, you remove or reduce the incidence of many, many neutral or possibly advantageous genes.
Selective breeding in itself is a form of purging. By not breeding dogs with undesirable qualities, you are in effect purging them from the population. As I said above, this works whether you have an inbreeding or an outbreeding group.
Purging of defective imuno genes through inbreeding such as diabeties type 2 in humans and various other defective disease of animals can and do produce healthier animals. The genetic variation of a gene pool is still maintained by strains of pure breeds. Strains are in fact – breeds within breeds. When outcrossing, the recessive genes can and do line up to return defective genes to the surface. People think mongrels are healthier, but no real tracking of such mongrels is done, but mainly only the tracking of breed specific disease. One can not logically track genetic disease in mongrels, as the genes themselves are a mixture comming from several breeds. Sorry, I don’t have time to read all those links, but I have read various books on genetics, especially in dog breeding. An interesting book to read would be “The Art of Breeding Better Dogs” by Onstott
That doesn’t really happen with dogs, because they have not evolved must resistance to inbreeding. Some animals have evolved inbreeding tolerance, especially ungulates and rodent.
Most of these books are written by people, who often have a poor understanding of the current science, or who are prostitutes for a corrupt fancy– which is itself a bizarre Victorian blood purity cult. There are lots of prostitutes. Some of these people will write brilliant pieces on conserving the genetics of endangered species, then will poo-poo any suggestion that a purebred dog needs the same considerartion. Like endangered species, these animals were all created with a founding population, which was then closed off. Then only elite animals were bred from in each generation, thereby destroying genes. This is a very stupid thing to do. Most dog breeders won’t tell you this, because it conflicts with the values of the purity cult.
The truth is many domestic dog breeds are on the verge of pedigree collapse.
Also in a comment you stated that all of these dog breeds were created through inbreeding.
This is incorrect.
Retrievers, which you mention, were always crossbred dogs until about 1880, and even then people were allowed to bring in new blood for decades afterward. Golden retrievers weren’t even really tightly linebred, even though their coloration is based upon a simple recessive to the then more common black.
The bull and terrier breeds which you also mention were by definition crosses for decade afte decade. There is no evidence that outcrossed pit bulls are more likely to attack– this seems to echo the old racist notion that purebred dogs never bite anyone, but mongrels always do.
Raylane, you said “The genetic variation of a gene pool is still maintained by strains of pure breeds.” But the fact of the matter is that all the strains in the purebreds are, in genetic terms, gradually collapsing on themselves because every breeder wants their particular line to have the “blood of champions”. Ultimate result: Founder Effect, reduced genetic diversity, reduced lifespan, reduced quality of life, & increased susceptibility to autoimmune and epidemic diseases.
Also, tho I agree that in comparing any one mongrel against any one purebred, one can find objective positives and negatives, when comparing mongrels in the aggregate (i.e., as representing a huge part, if not all, of the available genetic diversity in C.l. familiaris), to the available gene pool of any one breed (all strains), there simply is no contest.
Survival of the sub-species, C. l. familiaris, will ultimately rest on maintaining a genetic reservoir external to the show purebreds (i.e., mongrels, landraces, primitive breeds, & field or pet quality purebreds.)
This last ris an accepted principle among modern horticulturists, husbandmen & ethnobotanists/zoologists who are scrambling to preserve the gene pools of the wild relatives of our domestic crops/breeds (& of our old close-pollinated cultivars & heritage breeds), before they disappear in the wake of the world-wide, monoclonal environmenticide being practiced by agribiz.
An afterthought: Please remember that genes don’t exist in a binary, good/bad mode. A gene that is less than desirable under one set of circumstances may be the savior of the species under another.
Also, since our understanding of all the factors involved in the expression of any one gene is fuzzy at best, eliminating that gene from the gene-pool can be fraught with unintended consequences. You need some kind of reload option–outcrossing provides that option.
I have a giant stack of dog breeding books. None of them talks about genetics in depth, except Padgett’s book, and even his has serious limitations because NOT A SINGLE ONE talk about gene loss or breeding for the long term genetic health of the breed. And I mean long term, not twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years.
This is a much better book in regards to conservation breeding.
Or you could just read this article, ‘Population Genetics in Practice,’ which is written for dog breeders.
A little caution for you: If you do not at least read the population genetics article, you are going to make yourself look very ignorant during this discussion.
The population genetics article has a great deal to think about. One point that might be debated is his condemnation of frozen semen: in certain breeds, preserving the semen of “outcross” males — those NOT from the heavily-bred-on lines– could well be extremely useful. For this reason, I know a few people who have frozen semen from stud dogs of pedigrees not related to popular lines, dogs of proven good health and longevity, proper structure and breed character and working ability. Unfortunately, the people are now of an age when a major concern is how to provide for future maintenance and use of this semen.
I have recently seen a show on H Sap going through a bottle neck. The blanket statement that inbreeding is bad is far too much to even say, as all breeds derive from inbreeding, thus if inbreeding is bad, then so too, breeds are bad?
Recently, on PBS, the documentry “Dogs that Changed the World; Dogs by Design,” explained that in China, breeds like the Pug and Pekinese were selectivly inbreed for their malformed head, muzzle, and inability to run. But, the malformations did not derive from inbreeding alone – but from selection of type. In many modern Bull and Mastiff breeds, these same malformed traits were introduced by crossbreeding. This, we know today, as the “Bully” type aka Molossiod type. So, from my point of view, crossbreeding has greatly ruined most Bull and Mastiff breeds. So ruined are the Bull and Mastiff breeds by crossbreeding, that few people today even know the ancient Mastiff is the Shepherd’s Mastiff – a very tractable working dog of cattle and farms, today.
“The Mastiff, the Bullmastiff and the Bulldog share origins and genes; they have been interbred as breed-types for centuries. The Pug has a wholly seperate origin and despite once being called the Dutch mastiff, has a different skull conformation from the mastiff group. The blending of Pug and Bulldog blood brings togeter entirely different ancestries, totally different historic funtions and essentially different anatomies.”
Hanc0ck
As far as Champions, this depends on how far performance is pushed. In the game APBT, any outcrossing required in a proven line is not desired, as all can be lost. But, there is a time to inbreed, a time to linebreed, and a time to outcross.
“all breeds derive from inbreeding, thus if inbreeding is bad, then so too, breeds are bad?”
No, no, no. ‘Breeds,’ in general, derive from landraces, which are an outbreeding population. Take a landrace, pick a specimen, and make a ‘breed’ out of it. (This does not include ‘breeds’ developed after the advent of the Fancy.) The vast majority of ‘breeds’ are recognized within the Western concept of purity of blood, exist within closed registries, and are by definition inbreeding populations.
A very good example would be the tazi landrace from which KC salukis and Afghan hounds descend.
Sadly, most of the so-called pure breeds registered with the current registries are false. For example, the breed American Bulldog was once a Shepherd’s Mastiff type farm Bulldog, that some of still know today as the White English. The so-called pure breed American Bulldog is a mongrel bred dog sold in the show rings (for top dollar), and most can no longer work on a farm with livestock. Well, guess what, so too was the Old English Mastiff. Retriving is a trait found only on occasion in the wild, which was posted recently. To breed the trait of Retriving consistantly, the slower process on inbreeding did take place. One does breed a Retriver to a Retriver to retain consistancy of the trait to retrieve.
To start with, the concept of pure bred dogs is not new. As pointed out by Mark Derr, this concept was introduced into the Americas by Spain.
“Spain at the time was fixated on the concept of blood purity, limpieza de sangre, which its soldiers and priests applied to humans as well as animals.” Strains or types were maintained “with different monasteries or nobels maintaining their own lines.”
Other writers of the Conquests gave lists of breed types to include perro casto (pure blooded dog) and perro de casta (pedigreed dog).
As far as a land race, let us look at an overview of these war dogs brought by Spain. These war dogs were known basically as Alanos (a war dog used for tending cattle). The Alans originated from the Caucasus, or did they, as they were Sarmations, that being decendant of the Scythians of today’s Russia area known as the steppes, where nomadic herdsmen aka shepherds have grazed cattle and livestock since ancient times. The nomadic hunter was replaced by the nomadic shepherd. Grazing land, water, and livestock was fought for, battle after battle. Dogs of the enemy that fought well were interbred with those who remained alive. This process was slow, but came to a realization in more recent times, as grazing lands became scarce. Of the many shepherds, the Alans plundered from the Caucasus to China (where the Great Wall was built to keep these barbarian shepherds out) and introdcing this barbaric life of war to the Huns (in part Alan themselves) who drove the Alans to Europe where they joined other barbarian tribes to cause The Fall of Rome. War dogs were interbred – the best to the best – battle after battle. For all intents and purposes, the Alaunt/Alano is not a breed, but is a type – like the Sighthounds. Other names are the Mastiff (introduced by the Normans of France in 1066 to England), the Bandog (the Anglo-Saxon term of about the 5th centuryAD) the Pugnances (a Roman term that translates to “Fighting Dog.” But, the name Alan is still much older. the Celts and other nomadic cultures had their war dogs similar to and related the Alans. Interbred, tracing any actual origins of a landrace has basically shown a connection to the Caucasions – which include the Egyptions, Hindues, Ayssiarians, ect.
Back to the concept of breeds – specifically – pure breeds. The breed known as the APBT was developed not from bull-terrier crosses, but started with the Alanos brought by Spain.
“In any case, it is clear that dogs of this breed came from various parts of Europe, specifically Spain and Sicially.”
This is the APBT, Stratton, 1976
Dogs bred to fight to their death – such as war dogs that also fought in the Pits/Arenas since ancient times, require a little more than haphazzard breeding. They must be (despite popular belief) highly stable, depenable, tractable, and willing to die for their handler be it their master or their master’s friend. It matters not if the subject is unpleasing, as it turns my stomac, but an understanding of purity in fighting dogs is eye opening.
“To preserve gameness the most reputable and successful breeders have utilized inbreeding extensively and have always dreaded the time when an outcross to another strain would be necessary.”
This is the APBT, Stratton, 1976
Basically, the theory of inbreeding or pure breeding of the various pure strains of APBT purges all other – except Bulldog (including Terrier). Any Bulldog that fails to prove game is called a cur (non-Bulldog). Many of these curs are great for herding, hunting, catching cattle and swine, but fail to be a fighter. All our cur dogs of South USA, basically decend from unpure Bulldog (Alano, Mastiff, or Pugnance aka Fighting Dog) The real Bulldogs used by farmers to fight feral dog packs and other preditors really only have to prove themselves when a preditor arrives on the farm. Still, the idea of purity will help to keep these farm Bulldogs as dependable guardians of the farm, livestock, and family.
“Dogs bred to fight to their death – such as war dogs that also fought in the Pits/Arenas since ancient times, require a little more than haphazzard breeding.”
Fatal flaw. There is no evidence that the development of a landrace, like the drop eared sighthound, is the result of ‘haphazard’ breeding. When you are depending on your animal to feed you, ‘haphazard’ doesn’t cut it.
Those lines of Spanish war dogs were often crossbred. Take the famous Becerillo, the killer dog of Puerto Rico, who belonged to Juan Ponce de Leon. The dog was said to have been a mixture of a type of war mastiff and a kind of wolfhound/large greyhound.
These dogs may have been “pure” in that some notable kept them that way, but they weren’t breeds like we have today.
The true blood purity breeds trace back only to the nineteenth century, and even then, they were occasionally outcrossed.
I don’t know if I buy that pit bulls are derived from Spanish dogs. I’ve also heard that they derive from English war mastiffs that were owned by the Tudor family.
But the truth is they are mostly bulldogs.
There is actually a debate– I was wrong to leave this out on my post on the white English bulldog– about what an alano was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In a personal communication, Mark Derr has suggested that the alano of that time is not the same thing as the Spanish bulldog alano. He thinks it’s a type of large wolfhound, and he showed me some documentation that at least made me question my assertion. Apparently, the bulldog alano is derived from dogs that were brought to Spain from England under the instruction of King Phillip II. There was a brief time in which Mary was Queen of England that Spain and England were very close. Phillip was married to her, and she did all she could to force England back into Catholicism.
“Dogs bred to fight to their death – such as war dogs that also fought in the Pits/Arenas since ancient times, require a little more than haphazzard breeding.”
re-read “…a little more than haphazzard breeding.” As in, “not haphazzard”. And context, the writer does not write in American English.
Ever wonder what a smart person would make of bits and pieces of recorded word, say 2000 years, from now, Scottie? Would they understand the full context? Would the writtings of an individual correspond to the sum of the times?
They probably wouldn’t understand much at all.
The historical record is very hard to piece together through the actual records– for much the same reason.
Desertwindshounds – Sighthounds are not war dogs bred to fight to their death. However, do not be surprized when I say that they were the main ingrediant behind some of the Spanish War Digs. In 12th Century Spain, the outcrossing of Sighthound into Alano is well documented for big game hunting. This would not be the first outcross. Many think the ability to hunt and catch big game like wild boar came from Mastiffs, but in fact, this trait came from Sighthounds. Still, catching and killing are two different traits. The fact is, Sighthounds like the Modern Greyhound recieved outcrosses from the Pit Bulldog only two centuries ago, as it add tenacity for the Greyhound to run faster. Sorry to be cold, but when the Sighthound proves game, or fights on the battle feilds, then talk to me – hunting and fighting are two different traits. Gameness can not be proven by hunting.
reteverman, I think you miss the point. All breeds are a mixture of breeds, and their is no ancient breed. As I said, the intercrossing of war dogs is how they developed and as each conqurer met with other conqurers, the war dogs were interbred throughout history. The breed APBT is an amalgamation of various imports and is why the strtains are breeds within the breed.
Spain was the first to import English War Dogs, as their own stock was spread thin. You really don’t think one family like the Tudors only brought these dogs? Well, I didn’t read the rest of your post before answering your question with facts you already have. The basic Alano is a Wolfhound, in its Presa, Fila, or Cuban Bloodhound form. These were the Chase type.
eli, sorry I’m just a country boy. You know, one of those simple people that Nobelmen always thought they were better than.
Actually, the Spanish did use a dog called a “lebrel,” which means sighthound, to kill Indians.
WTF are you talking about? You made the statement that a ‘landrace’ is ‘haphazardly bred.’ Evidently, you were trying to state that inbreeding is necessary to cement certain traits. I disputed it, because it’s *not true.*
You can romanticize the concept of ‘gameness’ or dog aggression as much as you want. It is a genetic *trait*. It can be bred for or against like any other trait. Speed is a trait. You do not need to inbreed to maintain speedy dogs, as evidenced by the fact that racing Greyhounds are not heavily inbred.
Do not try to justify your deification of inbreeding with nonsense.
“The true relationship btween animals is determined by the likeness of their chromosomes and their genes within them. When like alleles from a common ancester come together from each gamete to form the zygote, inbreeding occures, although the parents of that zygote may be but tenth cousins.”
Onstott, 1977
Yes, the traits for gameness as well as aggression either for or against is how the dog is bred. Pretty simple, IMO.
Nice.
Anything from THIS century?
Yes, it’s called selective breeding. Which you can do by breeding like to like. You do not need to inbreed to set traits.
Once again, do not try to justify your deification of inbreeding with nonsense.
These traits were orinally set by inbreeding. This is why breeds look and act the same – they are related. How is this nonsense? I’ll try to explain my point of view one more time, but I do not mean to get anyone upset. I’m here because I love dogs, and I had thought others here do too. Arguing is counterproductive, and if one is to convince me of a better way of thinking, then by all means, I’m here to learn and not to be be-littled like a child.
Mark Derr describes the mongrel bred Sheepdogs of the Amercan Southwest, that decend from the stock Spain imported (which actually was various type stock to include the Mastin of Spain, the French Mastiffs, the English Mastiffs, and others). So exactly what the original was is anyone’s guess. What we call Old White English used as the Shepherd’s Mastiff is this same basic type amalgamation of various imports starting mainly in the Mission Period. The Old White English is not some pure breed of English Mastiff, but like the English Coonhound – it derived from various imports. These are American Breeds. In the 1970s, the American Bulldog offered registration of these farm guardians, but due to a lack of specimens, crossbreeding was resorted to. This would be fine – if the Shepherd’s Mastiff had not been changed to the Boarhound. It is no longer the guardian of cattle and farms – it is a Hunting Dog!!! The last remenants are still kept tucked away in rural farming areas, where they are still kept pure – by inbreeding!!!
It is nonsense, because it isn’t true.
None of these dogs were created through inbreeding.
Dogs were not created by inbreeding wolves, rather there was a selection pressure for recessive traits in the population. Dogs as a population have 96 percent of the wolf’s genetic diversity. Within the past 200 years, they have lost over a 1/3 of that diversity within the closed registry breeds.
Landraces were not created through inbreeding either. Landraces are physically and behaviorally similar dogs that lots of genetic diversity. All the curs and feists are landraces. So were the dogs we call pit bulls, but with fighting strain pit bulls, there was some insane breeding.
Retrievers were not created by inbreeding. Indeed, they were created largely by breeding dogs that retrieved from a variety of different types together. Golden retrievers are pretty genetically diverse for as a breed, even though they have been selected for two recessive traits, red to yellow color and long hair.
Inbreeding is destroying dog breed after dog breed. It’s really not up for argument. That’s what the science says. The fancy can say otherwise. The fancy is a lot like the young earth creationists in that it will say things that sound true, but actually aren’t.
All of the genetically sustainable dog breeds we have were 1. derived from genetically diverse landraces or 2. bred by very wealthy individuals who had tons of dogs at their disposal to found genetically sustainable strains. Virtually every dog breed that has either been created since the Second World War or has been moved into the closed registry system from that time has been an abysmal failure. That’s because in the post-War world, there were very few individuals with those sorts of resources who were willing to devote the time and money into founding breeds. And, the remaining landraces, like the lundehund, were already almost extinct as a landrace and had to be inbred like crazy in order to set traits. Lundehunds are a genetic basket case. All of them have what is called lundehund syndrome, which prevents them from absorbing nutrients properly. Some have it worse than others. Dogs that have been created with very small genetic stocks since the Second World War have issues with inbreeding, too, like the Eurasier, which was originally the Wolf-Chow, nearly became extinct due to reduced fertility as the result of an inbreeding depression. Samoyed blood saved them from extinction.
Dog breeders have squandered genetic diversity. It’s really quite sad. It’s even sadder that people are publishing pages and articles on dog breeding that attack outcrossing as if it’s somehow a sin.
Really, the best source for you to look at, since you’re into conserving a landrace, are the breeding articles by Jeffry Bragg. Jeffery Bragg imported new blood from the Chukchi peoples of the Russian Far East and bred these dogs into Siberian huskies, which are derived from the same landrace. He has written extensively on dog genetics, and he uses the current science, not Victorian shibboleths. Here’s a good starter on inbreeding:
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/seppala-breeding-4.htm
Actually, the original types of dogs and landraces were *outbreeding* populations. They were developed by *selective* breeding, which probably included *some* inbreeding but it was not standard practice in the way that we consider breeds today (closed populations, which *is* an inbreeding population.) Landraces have a much, much larger genetic base than ‘pure’ closed populations; we can see this in the huge number of DLA haplotypes that COO Salukis have compared to Western Salukis, where 75% of the population is homozygous for one haplotype.
Let us continue with the Saluki as an example: this is a type that has existed for thousands of years. If it had been developed and maintained by inbreeding, like the modern Western population, it would be extinct; you cannot take a population with a small number of founders and continue to inbreed on that population for thousands of years, it would become nonviable due to gene loss.
I call bunk on your farmer example; I’ve never yet someone who deals with livestock who didn’t understand how inbreeding depression works and how to mitigate it (outcrossing).
If you love dogs, you would do yourself a favor to look into how selective breeding really works, and how population genetics works. You will not find this information in dog breeding books.
Also, population genetics:
http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/population-genetics-in-practice.htm
Yes, now let me really shock you, look closely at the rangier type APBT. The wedge head, high tuck-up, arched loins, and rat or slender tails are not Terrier traits – they are Sighthound traits. The Sighthound gave wind (stamina) to the APBT, as it did to the chase type war dogs. Besides the White English, another type Bulldog known as Brindle Bulldog often sports these same traits, is often kept chainned, and seems to follow Bewicks description of a Bandog of England two centuries ago.
“I’m here because I love dogs, and I had thought others here do too.” Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean we ‘don’t love dogs’. Get over yourself, sheesh.
No no no! We are all anti-purebred, dog hating Peta types here. Get with the program!