It would be great min-labrador
Lourdes Cruz
retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
CareyGSD
smaller sized, retriever, hunting dog - there's alot of similarities!
Lauri C.
4 German Shepherds - The Lifers; and 1 GSD Rescue dog
1 rescue Rottie/Dobe mix
1 Cocker and 2 cats
http://members.xoom.com/careygsd/index.html
Time Traveler
any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller than
regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue (black
spots).
Lourdes Cruz wrote in message <76dpnm$em$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
blac...@dog-play.com
: Get a mix dog with 1/2 Lab and some Chow. The mutt would be healthier than
: any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller than
: regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue (black
: spots).
With a mixed breed dog you really have no idea which parent it will favor.
It might have the hip displaysia because both parents had it, and PRA and
it might come out looking just like a chow (and all the same coat care)
instead of like a Lab. I LOVE my mixed breed dogs. Most people can love
and enjoy mixed breed dogs. But you do both people and dogs a disservice
if you give them unsupported expectations.
Do you know of any scientific studies showing that mixed breed dogs are
healthier than purebred dogs? I don't, but I'd love to read any studies
you know of. Most mixed breeds are not purely random. They are usually a
mix of the most popular and poorly bred dogs. The most effective way to
avoid genetic problems is not to pretend they don't exist but to know and
understand as much as possible about each dog before breeding it. A
number of studies have established that paying attention to problems and
breeding to avoid them has resulted in healthier dogs.
Mystery is both the joy and the problem of the mixed breed dog. A person
who chooses a mixed breed dog should be prepared to live with whatever it
is that they end up with. The advantage of doing so is personal growth
and a terrific education. For many people, however, they have a very
strong desire for a particular temperament and behavior. A person
desiring a Lab personality would be MOST unhappy with the Chow
personality. For someone who really wants a dog of a particular
personality the best way to acheive the goal is to select an adult dog and
select it by personality.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
- - - - - - - - -
: Lourdes Cruz wrote in message <76dpnm$em$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
:>
:>
J & B Tarantino
>I have just realized that the right breed for me is a miniature Labrador
>retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
Well, there are some pretty tiny bitches out there (standard is 21 1/2-23
1/2 " for a bitch but 21" bitches aren't *that* hard to find). Perhaps you
could look to a local rescue group and tell them you particularly want
a tiny bitch.
** www.premier1.net/~snoline **
- SnoLine / Schneegrenze -------- Brandy Burton-Tarantino -
- German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers -----------------
- See our new Digital Photographic Retouching site at: -
http://www.premier1.net/~visions
star chavez
with two different parent breeds. The pup may look exactly CHow (with a
high-maintenance coat) and behave like a CHow (nothing like a lab).
I have a dobe and a lab cross...IF I had wanted the look of a lab, I would
have been extremely dissapointed as the only evident lab in my dog is a
white blaze on his chest....other than this he looks dobe through and
through and has a temperament to match. :)
C>
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Time Traveler wrote:
> Get a mix dog with 1/2 Lab and some Chow. The mutt would be healthier than
> any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller than
> regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue (black
> spots).
>
> Lourdes Cruz wrote in message <76dpnm$em$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
Mrc5555
In article <EoCi2.562$z21....@news.cwix.com>, "Time Traveler"
<wwa...@cwix.com> writes:
>Get a mix dog with 1/2 Lab and some Chow. The mutt would be healthier than
>any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller than
>regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue (black
>spots).
Two questions on this (although I almost hate to ask).
1) If the dog you are reccomending is 1/2 Lab and has some Chow, what is the
rest of the dog comprised of?
2) I would love to hear how you determined that such a mix would look like a
Lab (I assume you mean a correct Lab) except for black spots on the tongue.
What genetic dominance is this based upon?
Mrc
Feingold
>I have just realized that the right breed for me is a miniature Labrador
>retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
There are TONS AND TONS of small lab mixes at most any animal
shelter. You can find them in the 30-40lb range and they look
like small black labs . Adopt one of those!!!!
Mmudville
>
>>I have just realized that the right breed for me is a miniature Labrador
>>retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
A Novia Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever immediately comes to mind....
Don't know if the Canadian Kennel Club does breeder referrals...
- Marsha
AVRAMA GINGOLD
F>
F> >I have just realized that the right breed for me is a miniature Labrador
F> >retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
F>
F> There are TONS AND TONS of small lab mixes at most any animal
F> shelter. You can find them in the 30-40lb range and they look
F> like small black labs . Adopt one of those!!!!
F>
He did say Labrador Retriever, didn't he, not a mixed breed?
However, he might be able to find a Lab bitch about 20-21"
around 40 lbs.
avrama & shomer
.. nfx v2.7 [C0000] Every dog deserves a person; not every person deserves a
Time Traveler
know what color, possibly black). In a litter of more than 4 pups, all came
out looking black Lab except one, which looked like a yellow Lab. The
family who owns these dogs gave me one in November of last year ('97) when
the pups were 8 weeks old.
Since full blooded Labs do not have black tonges, and Chows do, therefore, I
conclude that the Chow tongue's gene is the dominant one. If you have a
different explanation, please let us know.
Mrc5555 wrote in message <19981231133028...@ngol03.aol.com>...
Time Traveler
For those of us not breeders, we tend to get dogs after they are born. My
dog when he was 8 weeks old look just like a black Lab then. He still does,
and he has the temprament of Labs/Golden Retreivers.
star chavez wrote in message ...
>Unfortunately, You can't *know* what characteristics a pup will favour
>with two different parent breeds. The pup may look exactly CHow (with a
>high-maintenance coat) and behave like a CHow (nothing like a lab).
>I have a dobe and a lab cross...IF I had wanted the look of a lab, I would
>have been extremely dissapointed as the only evident lab in my dog is a
>white blaze on his chest....other than this he looks dobe through and
>through and has a temperament to match. :)
>C>
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Time Traveler wrote:
>
>> Get a mix dog with 1/2 Lab and some Chow. The mutt would be healthier
than
>> any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller than
>> regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue
(black
>> spots).
>>
>> Lourdes Cruz wrote in message <76dpnm$em$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
>> >I have just realized that the right breed for me is a miniature Labrador
J & B Tarantino
>F> "Lourdes Cruz" <mqui...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>F>
>F> >retriever... unfortunately...there is not such thing... sigh....
>He did say Labrador Retriever, didn't he, not a mixed breed?
>However, he might be able to find a Lab bitch about 20-21"
>around 40 lbs.
Well, not 40...but 50-60. With their build Labs carry a good deal of
weight for their size. I've placed 2 20-21" bitches in the past year,
one 21"/62# at field weight (in field training and in fabulous
condition) and one 20 1/2"/55 IRC once she recovered (she
was a rescue - if you want to see what a 46# 20 1/2" Lab bitch looks
like see her page at http://www.premier1.net/~snoline/christmas.html)
blac...@dog-play.com
Her puppies looked even more Chow than she did. In fact if you didn't
know they were mixed you wouldn't know it. Some of the puppies had
typical chow temperaments, some were closer to GR. Lab mixes often look
like full Labs.
When it comes to mixes the key word is mystery. Especially when you get
to second generation. People think in terms of simple genetics, X is
dominent over Y. In many cases the expression of a gene depends upon the
interaction between genes. If the dog is XxYyzz for color it will come
out green, if it is Xxyyzz it will come out blue, etc. Since most biology
classes don't get into this there is no reason the average person should
know it.
A recessive can be expressed if the gene responsible for surpressing its
expression is absent. It could be that chow black tongue is dominent.
Nothing wrong with your logic. It could also not be dominent, but
expressed or not expressed depending upon the presence or absence of other
genes. If genes were just simple dominent-recessive then getting rid of
hip displaysia and other problems would be easy.
I also wouldn't count on the "full lab" being a "full lab" even if he had
"papers" Puppy mills and backyard breeders are not noted for their care
in breeding. Most breed registeries rely primarily on breeder honesty in
reporting.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
- - - - - - - -
"Dogs that are trained by handlers who do not try to understand how their
companions learn will never be able to quite master the rules of the
game." "Smart Trainers -- Brilliant Dogs" by Janet Lewis
Time Traveler <wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
: You may be correct here.
: For those of us not breeders, we tend to get dogs after they are born. My
: dog when he was 8 weeks old look just like a black Lab then. He still does,
: and he has the temprament of Labs/Golden Retreivers.
: star chavez wrote in message ...
:>Unfortunately, You can't *know* what characteristics a pup will favour
:>with two different parent breeds. The pup may look exactly CHow (with a
:>high-maintenance coat) and behave like a CHow (nothing like a lab).
:>I have a dobe and a lab cross...IF I had wanted the look of a lab, I would
:>have been extremely dissapointed as the only evident lab in my dog is a
:>white blaze on his chest....other than this he looks dobe through and
:>through and has a temperament to match. :)
blac...@dog-play.com
: Well, a Field Spaniel comes pretty close. Outgoing, loveable, trainable,
: smaller sized, retriever, hunting dog - there's alot of similarities!
Big difference in coat care.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
- - - - - - - -
Agility - more than a sport, its an attitude.
Lisa Baird
Time Traveler wrote:
> Yes, the Chow gene for black tongue is dominant. However, not anything
> black is dominant. For example, in the same litter of several puppies, I
> picked a black Lab among all blacks and one yellow. Black, yellow, and
> chocolate can all come from the same litter with any different colors of
> parents.
I don't know about the genetics of the black Chow tongue, however, the color
black in Labs IS dominant, and why two black parents can produce other color
pups. They need not be homozygous for black.
--
Lisa Baird
Haleakala PWDs
Dublin, Oh.
agi...@columbus.rr.com
http://home.columbus.rr.com/bairds/lisa/index.html
PAWZitive Beginnings Puppy Kindergarten
Trial Secretary, Buckeye Region Agility Group (USDAA)
Match Secretary, Delaware Ohio Kennel Club (AKC)
Matt Warren
> I don't know about the genetics of the black Chow tongue, however, the color
> black in Labs IS dominant, and why two black parents can produce other color
> pups. They need not be homozygous for black.
>
Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
other than the dominant allele.
--
_____________________________
Matt Warren
Time Traveler
black is dominant. For example, in the same litter of several puppies, I
picked a black Lab among all blacks and one yellow. Black, yellow, and
chocolate can all come from the same litter with any different colors of
parents.
I also believe this hip displaysia thing is also a recessive gene. Most of
genetic diseases are recessive. Therefore, the more mixed up the genes the
more healthy a dog can be. This goes for any creatures too.
blac...@dog-play.com wrote in message
<368d0750$0$97...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>The Chow/Golden Retriever down the street looks like a badly bred Chow.
>Her puppies looked even more Chow than she did. In fact if you didn't
>know they were mixed you wouldn't know it. Some of the puppies had
>typical chow temperaments, some were closer to GR. Lab mixes often look
>like full Labs.
>
>When it comes to mixes the key word is mystery. Especially when you get
>to second generation. People think in terms of simple genetics, X is
>dominent over Y. In many cases the expression of a gene depends upon the
>interaction between genes. If the dog is XxYyzz for color it will come
>out green, if it is Xxyyzz it will come out blue, etc. Since most biology
>classes don't get into this there is no reason the average person should
>know it.
>
>A recessive can be expressed if the gene responsible for surpressing its
>expression is absent. It could be that chow black tongue is dominent.
>Nothing wrong with your logic. It could also not be dominent, but
>expressed or not expressed depending upon the presence or absence of other
>genes. If genes were just simple dominent-recessive then getting rid of
>hip displaysia and other problems would be easy.
>
>I also wouldn't count on the "full lab" being a "full lab" even if he had
>"papers" Puppy mills and backyard breeders are not noted for their care
>in breeding. Most breed registeries rely primarily on breeder honesty in
>reporting.
>
>Diane Blackman
>di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
>- - - - - - - -
blac...@dog-play.com
> Yes, the Chow gene for black tongue is dominant. However, not anything
> black is dominant. For example, in the same litter of several puppies, I
I have no information on whether the black tongue gene is dominant or not.
My point is that merely because it appears does not prove it is dominant.
Since I already explained why I won't repeat myself.
> picked a black Lab among all blacks and one yellow. Black, yellow, and
> chocolate can all come from the same litter with any different colors of
> parents.
The gene for the black coat is dominant in labradors. That does not mean
a black lab and a black lab will produce all black puppies. You can indeed
get all three colors in one litter. However, that will not occur with
"any different colors of parents." Two yellows cannot produce a black.
Let me refer you to Genetics of the Dog by Malcom Willis for further
reading and information on color inheritence. The book will also explain
in great deal the interaction between genes. The book is thoruough and
technical in style. For example, on polygenic traits he explains "In
polygenic traits dominence may occur for some genes in one direction and
for other genes in the opposite direction. When added together these
effects may cancel out so that no overall heterosis may be noted. When
dominant effects do occur in a specific direction then the character is
likely to respond with heterosis."
> I also believe this hip displaysia thing is also a recessive gene. Most of
> genetic diseases are recessive. Therefore, the more mixed up the genes the
> more healthy a dog can be. This goes for any creatures too.
This common belief is one I shared five or six years ago. Evidence
convinced me to change my mind. Provide evidence and I may change it
back.
Have you read Dr. Padgett's (among others) writings? On what basis do you
refute them? I am convinced by the writings of a person expert in canine
genetics that hip displaysia is polygenic. Feel free to convince me
that his findings are flawed.
Mixed up genes don't create better health. They produce greater diversity.
Greater diversity means a better opportunity to adapt to environmental
change. If the environment is stable genetic diversity can be a
disadvantage to individuals that differ significantly.
If you have evidence that mixed breed dogs are healthier than purebred
dogs (and in particular carefully bred purebred dogs) please feel free to
provide the references. I am unaware of any scientifically valid study to
support the belief, but I'm always happy to consider evidence.
Cris Waller
wrote:
>Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
>explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
>parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
>other than the dominant allele.
Color in Labradors (and also in flat-coated retrievers) is determined
by two genes, B and E. B controls whether the dog is genetically
black or not, E whether or not the color is expressed. A dog with the
BB or Bb genotype is genetically black; a dog with the bb genotype is
genetically chocoloate/ liver. A dog with the EE or Ee genotype will
be black or chocolate/liver (depending on the B genotype). A dog with
the ee genotype will not express the black orchocolate/ liver and will
be a yellow. There is a chart on Lab color genetics at:
http://home.ici.net/~jiminma/genetics.htm
In brief:
BBEE - Black, non-carrier of chocolate or yellow
BBEe - Black, carrying yellow
BBee - Black-pigmented yellow
BbEE - Black, carrying chocolate
BbEe - Black, carrying chocolate and yellow
Bbee -Black-pigmented yellow, carrying chocolate
bbEE - Chocolate/liver
bbEe - Chocolate/liver , carrying yellow
bbee - Self-pigmented (light-pigmented) yellow
Cris Waller
Cr...@ix.netcom.com
Visit the Predator Defense Institute website!
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/pdi/index.htm
Flat-coated retriever art gallery
http://members.tripod.com/antique_fcr/index.html
Lisa Baird
Matt Warren wrote:
> Lisa Baird says...
> > I don't know about the genetics of the black Chow tongue, however, the color
> > black in Labs IS dominant, and why two black parents can produce other color
> > pups. They need not be homozygous for black.
> >
>
> Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
> explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
> parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
> other than the dominant allele.
If black were recessive, then two nlack parents could produce nothing BUT black.
Being dominant, allows them to carry the (recessive) for the other color.
Time Traveler
than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
Cris Waller wrote in message <3690ecec....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 22:18:20 -0800, matt...@jps.net (Matt Warren)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
>>explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
>>parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
>>other than the dominant allele.
>
Time Traveler
necessarily less healthy than mix breeds. From my humble few years of
existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
displasia thing is an example. If you can point out that just as many
percentages of mix-bred dogs have this disease as pure-bred ones, I am just
like you who is open to this new idea. Meanwhile, dogs are not unique. Why
do we, humans, disencourage incest? Why did the European royal family have
more genetic problems than the over all population?
blac...@dog-play.com wrote in message
<368d892f$0$97...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
blac...@dog-play.com
: Lisa Baird says...
:> I don't know about the genetics of the black Chow tongue, however, the color
:> pups. They need not be homozygous for black.
: Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
: explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
: parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
: other than the dominant allele.
Sure it does. There is no reason why both parents can't carry the
recessive gene and still be black. Genes come in pairs. One from the
father, one from the mother. The sperm and the egg each carry only a half
set of genes. What you see (expression) is a result of the dominent gene.
That doesn't mean the recessive isn't present.
In genetic notation the genotype is written in upper and lower case
letters with the upper case representing dominence and the lower case
representing recessive.
Assuming for the moment a simple recessive or dominence there is a
difference between what genes are carried and what is expressed. What is
expressed is the effect of the dominent gene that is called the phenotype.
The gentic structure is the genotype.
Let us suppose that there is a dog to be mated. His genotype for color
is Xx. The X makes the dog green. His phenotype will be green. His
sperm, however, each carry only half his genes. Some sperm will be X, and
some will be x.
It turns out that the bitch to be mated is also Xx. So she too is green.
Her eggs carry half her genes. Some eggs will be X some will be x.
When the puppies are born they will represent the combination of egg and
sperm.
If an x sperm and an x egg combined the puppy will be xx for the genotype,
and will show whatever effects are caused when there is no dominent - lets
say a red dog.
If an X sperm and and x egg combine the puppy will be Xx for the genotype.
Because X is present the influence of x will not be expressed. So the dog
will be green, but it carries the gene for red. The same will be true if
the sperm was x and the egg was X.
If an X sperm and and X egg combine the dog will be XX for the genotype,
and it will be green.
OK, so that covers two colors - what about the third? One gene can
influence the expression of another gene. When we considered only one
gene we thought the presence of X meant our dogs MUST be green. But we
were wrong. The presence of another gene can prevent or change how the
gene is expressed.
In labs the colors are influenced by "B" genes and "E" genes. B allows
black to be formed, but in order for it to appear there must also be the
dominent E. If there only recessive e the black will not appear and the
dog will be yellow. Two yellow labs cannot produce a black because no
matter how you divide it up there is no combination of genes that will
produce E to allow black to appear. If there is no B the recessive bb
produces a diluted black - chocolate. BUT in order for it to even be
diluted black it still has to have the ability to produce black - so it
needs to be bbEE or bbEe. If the dog has the recessive bb AND the
inability to produce black ee it will be bbee and will be yellow and
without any black at all - including on the nose etc.
Labs have one of the simplest color genetics. In the process of creating
the purebred other factors influencing colors have been simplified because
all labs are genotypically dominent for those factors. Other breeds are
much more complex. The interaction of genes can be complex and often
surprising. I found Dr Willis' explanation of how the combination of the
Irish Setter (not black) and the Irish Water Spaniel (not black) must
produce black dogs inthe first generation to be very enlightening.
Diane Blackman
Play is necessary to the fullest development of any intelligent being.
http://www.dog-play.com/
J & B Tarantino
>If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
>than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
Because, right now, the "dog of choice" in our breed is a yellow bitch...so
you have a lot of fly-by-nighters breeding for yellows. The easiest way
to think of Lab colors is to remember that ALL Labradors are either
black or chocolate....some simply lack the dominant extension gene
to express it (E). Yellow Labs with black pigment are *black* in color
but cannot express it due to a double dose of e, those with chocolate
pigment (eye rims, lips, pads) are chocolate in color but cannot express
it (not an allowed color for show purposes).
Blacks far outnumber their yellow and chocolate bretheren
in Labs.
If you *really* want to talk about uncommon being the most often
seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable). Most
folks don't even know what a sable GSD *is*. And, IIRC, the most
commonly seen coat type in Collies is, similarly, recessive (?Collie folks?)
Lisa Baird
Time Traveler wrote:
> No, I have not read Dr. Padgett's writing claiming pure-bred dogs are not
> necessarily less healthy than mix breeds. From my humble few years of
> existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
> displasia thing is an example. If you can point out that just as many
> percentages of mix-bred dogs have this disease as pure-bred ones, I am just
> like you who is open to this new idea. Meanwhile, dogs are not unique. Why
> do we, humans, disencourage incest? Why did the European royal family have
> more genetic problems than the over all population?
Since no one tracks CHD in mixed breeds, and few mixed breeds are x-rayed, this
is imposible. Doesn't mean its not there, jsut not recorded.
I worked for a vet for several years, have taught obedience and agility classes
to LOTS of owners with both purebred and mixed breed dogs. NO experience that
mixes are healthier. In fact, if you compare ANY random bred (mixed or pure) to
resp. bred purebreds, wherefamilies are tested for genetic problems, I daresay
you will find the latter MUCH healthier.
Lisa Baird
J & B Tarantino wrote:
> If you *really* want to talk about uncommon being the most often
> seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
> in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable).
Really? How interesting. I LOVE sable GSDs.
---
J & B Tarantino
>
>
>J & B Tarantino wrote:
>
>> If you *really* want to talk about uncommon being the most often
>> seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
>> in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable).
>
>Really? How interesting. I LOVE sable GSDs.
Yes, really. Sables are normally *referred* to by the color of their top
coat....i.e. "black", "red", "silver", "mahogany".....but genetically they
are either gold or grey and either is dominant to B/T (in any of *it's*
shades). For those of you not familiar with the color, if you'd like to see
some lovely examples visit our web pages (I'm not prejudiced or
nothing...nahhhhh!) at:
http://www.premier1.net/~snoline and follow the GSD link down.
Labrador colors are *EASY* compared to GSD colors.
Twzl, Sligo and Roy Happy Together
>necessarily less healthy than mix breeds. From my humble few years of
>existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
>displasia thing is an example. If you can point out that just as many
>percentages of mix-bred dogs have this disease as pure-bred ones, I am just
People who own mixed breeds usually don't bother doing much genetic
testing on them. However, those of us who have contact with a large number
of dogs, both mixed and pure bred, know all about dysplastic Lab and GSD
mixes, Cocker-poos who are blind, Golden mixes who have heart problems,
flat out mutts who have horrible ear or skin problems....
No one is tracking mixed breed stats. So it's a bit hard to compare. You
may want to go read a few books on genetics and dogs however, to see what
the experts say about breeding dogs and problems that lie there in.
Ann, Twzl, Sligo and Roy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
" But I forget you are from New York, right. Not an area of Menses candidates."
Carole Ernst, talking about me...
Delites Shih Tzu
Both of my parents have brown eyes. I have blue.
But both of my parents carried the rescessive gene for blue eyes. But
since they each only carried one gene for it, the brown was dominant and
they had brown eyes. But when they had me, the recessive gene for blue
eyes that they each had paired up and I ended up with both of the genes
for blue eyes and therefore I ended up with blue eyes,not brown.
I studied this in 5th grade biology, didnt you?
--
Susan
Shih Tzu Delites
Http://www.angelfire.com/ga/shihtzudelites/index.html
Topknots & Tails Pet Grooming
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/shihtzudelites/topknotsandtails.html
"Dogs aren't our whole life, they make our lives whole"...Roger Caras
Delites Shih Tzu
>
> From my humble few years of
> existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
> displasia thing is an example.
to be more prevalent in purebreds. Most dysplastic mixed breeds are
never known about unless their symptoms are severe enough. Like my mutt
who was euthanized this fall. He couldnt walk at all due to severe
dysplasia.
>Why
> do we, humans, disencourage incest?
Morality. Because the bible says its wrong.
>Why did the European royal family have
> more genetic problems than the over all population?
They didnt necessarily have more genetic problems. But more genetic
problems were "expressed". Genetic problems are not caused by
inbreeding. You dont breed a perfectly clean animal to another that is
related and all of a sudden a genetic problem appears from no where.
The problem is always there. But when you double up on the genes, the
problem is expressed.
blac...@dog-play.com
: No, I have not read Dr. Padgett's writing claiming pure-bred dogs are not
: existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
: percentages of mix-bred dogs have this disease as pure-bred ones, I am just
: do we, humans, disencourage incest? Why did the European royal family have
: more genetic problems than the over all population?
Incest has been discouraged long before the concept of genes ever existed.
It is based upon our observations about what happens if you carelessly
inbreed. Human societies do not universally discourage incest. It is
primarily a matter based on religion, not science. Our laws are based,
not on science, but on moral values. Some laws are supportable on a
scientfic basis, most are not.
Since our society IS a society and not a set of androids laws that
preserve the commonalities necessary to maintain a society are not
necessarily bad. Just because a law exists, however, does not mean that
it has scientific basis. Our social practices, i.e. customs are even less
grounded in logic and scientific reasoning than our laws. Our customs are
primarily based on superstitions and constructs designed to promote
society - not health.
Breeding without attention to how genetics works can indeed cause
problems. Especially if one breeds defective to defective. That is what
happens when any gene pool is overly restricted AND there is no attempt to
avoid breeding the defective.
While you may have "heard" that purebreds have more problems there is, so
far as I have been able to determine no study that establishes mixed
breeds are indeed healthier. Breeders looking to produce healthy dogs will
often identify a dog as "having" a particular genetic disease even though
the condition would not be noticeable in the daily life of the dog. Have
you tested your dogs for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation, cardiac
problems, PRA, or any of the other diseases that breeders test for? How
many dogs do you know of that have been tested for these,
asymptomatically? Do you think that different rates of testing might
account for different rates of reporting? These were all questions I had
to consider several years ago.
Several years ago I had my mixed breed dog x-rayed - all joints. There
weren't any symptoms of problems. I just wanted to know because we were
doing agility. It turned out she did show signs of genetic disease. If
she were a purebred dog and would have been entered into a database
someplace she would have been "affected" and thus added a "tick" to the
side counting "genetic problems". As it is she is a mixed breed and no
one is collecting statistics on this and even fewer people are willing to
go to the expense and risks of testing a mixed breed dog. From all
apearances she is "normal" and to YOUR eyes would be "healthy" but to a
breeder (who cares) she would be unfit for breeding.
Dr. George Padgett's articles on canine genetics that I read appeared in a
series of articles appearing in Dog World beginning in January 1997 and
continuing over several issues (but skipping some in between). Since I
read the articles I obtained and read the Malcom Willis book on "Genetics
of the Dog" all of which was logical, evaluative of studies of others, and
consistent with other information. Recently Dr. Padgett has produced a
book for more indepth discussion. I have not read that book yet.
Since I don't have the articles at my finger tips for quoting let me quote
an earlier post by Robin Nutall
******
From a post by Robin Nutall March 11, 1997
According to Padgett (DogWorld series, this
article was in the Jan 1997 issue), hybrid vigor does exist, but only
during the very first generation cross. And the dogs will have hybrid
vigor *and* the possibility of all of the shared diseases. For
Golden/dobe, that would include eye problems, thyroid problems, heart
problems and hip dysplasia. Subsequent generations would have a very
high probability of having the worst of both breeds, which would mean a
higher than now seen incidence of hip dysplasia for the doberman, and
the introduction of cardiomyopathy and Wobblers for the Golden.
From Robin Nutall January 27, 1997
FWIW I have Medline and Bioline at my finger tips. I did a search on
hybrid vigor. Got matches. Did a search on canine, got lots of matches.
Put the two together. No matches. Not a single article since 1975 which
had the words CANINE and either hybrid vigor or heterosis in them. None.
Zero, zilch, nada. Peas and corn yes. Dogs no. As far as I can tell the
George Padgett article in the Jan. Dog World is the only one out there.
Padgett is a world-renoun geneticist and says that hybrid vigor in mixed
breeds exists, but only for the first generation, and it doesn't prevent
even the first generation from having any shared genetic disease. After
the very first generation hybrid vigor is lost and subsequent
generations can have ALL of the disease shared by the ancestors, a total
of 102 different diseases, versus an average of 20-50 in each purebred
population.
****** end quotes
After reading the texts (you can order at least the Willis book from the
Dog and Cat book catalog) I found the analysis by Dr. Padgett to be
entirely credible. The logic speaks much more and tends to overwhelm the
"I have heard" arguments especially when the person speaking those words
demonstrates lack of knowledge of genetic principles that have been shown
in scientific studies. None of us can "prove" scientifically that the
either the mixed breed dog or the purebred dog is "healthier" until there
is a serious signficant study. However, the analysis of the theory that
the mixed breed dog should be healthier has always been presented in a
less credible manner than the reverse because it has never been
accompanied by a cogent, logical, scientifically supported explanation of
how it should be so, given the current knowledge of canine genetics.
Given the difference in type of evidence to present the two theories I
tend to discount the "mixed breeds are healthier" theory as mere urban
legend.
That people breed dogs poorly is no big surprise when their knowledge of
genetics is limited. An example is seen in this thread with the lack of
knowledge about color inheritence. Similar lack of knowledge allows the
continuation of genetic disease because people think that accepting the
phenotype is enough evidence to produce a healthy dog. The average person
has no idea what will happen when they breed two dogs together. They make
presumptions, some times logical sometimes not. The average person relies
on anecdotal evidence for their information. At some point it changes
from speculation to "fact" even if it is demonstrably false. That is why
the earth was "flat."
There are plenty of badly bred dogs, purebred and otherwise. Intelligent
breeding requires knowledge of the pedigree of the dog, and its genetic
health and temperament. Many genetic diseases are found in multiple
breeds of dogs. Avoiding the expression of that disease in a dog requires
knowing how to avoid or reduce the risk that the dogs carry the defect.
Lack of pedigree information prevents any meaningful reduction of
genetic disease appearing in mixed breed dogs, or poorly bred purebreds.
If you breed a lab and a shepherd and both carry genes for CHD guess what
will happen? In order to avoid CHD you need to know the background of
each. HOWEVER you can't forget that genes interact. Introducing a new
mix can produce new "problems" just as combining two non-black dogs will
result in dominent black because of the way the genes interact (for
specifics look at the Willis book I've cited before). Thus if you mix
breed A that is "healthy" and breed B that is "healthy" you may well wind
up with "unhealthy" because of the effects of creating a new set of gene
interactions.
Also genes aren't "bad" or "good" or even necessarily "healthy" and
"unhealthy" - thus the classic biology text showing how different forms of
the same moth were either beneficial or detrimental depending upon the
level of pollution in the environment. The dark colored moth prevailed
when pollution levels were hight (soot on trees darkened them) and the
light colored moth when they were low. The balance of dominent and
recessive individuals was influenced by the survival rate. At some point
it was the the animals advantage to carry the recessive genes - and thus
that form came to predominante.
Liisa Sarakontu
> in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable). Most
> folks don't even know what a sable GSD *is*.
To still confuse you more, "sable" GSDs are not genetically sables
(like sable collies are) but wolf-greys/agoutis.
> And, IIRC, the most
> commonly seen coat type in Collies is, similarly, recessive (?Collie folks?)
Sure, long coat is recessive to short/smooth coat. Two rough collies
will never get smooth pups, but two smooths might get 25 % rough pups
if they both happen to carry "l" gene. (L = short, l = long)
If something is dominant, it doesn't mean that most specimens have
that gene. Just like Huntington's chorea (sp?) is a disease caused
by a dominant gene, but still most humans don't have it. Luckily.
Liisa
Delites Shih Tzu
> I also believe this hip displaysia thing is also a recessive gene.
Well, you argue that belief with the top scientists and geneticists.
They (as I) believe it is polygenic. If it was recessive, it would be
easily isolated and eliminated and we would no longer have to worry
about it.
>Most of
> genetic diseases are recessive.
Actually most are polygenic, which is why it is so hard to eradicate
them.
> Therefore, the more mixed up the genes the
> more healthy a dog can be. This goes for any creatures too.
Oh really, and what studies are you basing this on?
Lets see, pretend I have a line of dogs that is known to have PRA.
They are otherwise genetically clean except for PRA. So instead of line
breeding on this I bring in another line. But unbeknownst to me, this
line carries genes for hip dysplasia. Uh oh, now I have a line that
carries genes for PRA and HD! So I outcross again. I bring in a line
that unbeknownst to me carries genes for renal dysplasia. Uh oh, now I
have a line that carries genes for PRA, HD and renal dysplasia! So I
outcross again. I bring in a line that unbeknownst to me carries genes
for thyriod disease. Uh oh, now I have a line that that carries genes
for PRA, HD, renal displasia and thyriod disease! So I outcross again.
I bring in a line that unbeknownst to me has the genes for juvinile
cataracts. Uh oh, now I have a line that carries genes for PRA, HD,
renal dysplasia, thyriod disease and juvinile cataracts!
Now I can no longer breed because all my dogs are dying from this
cummilation of genetic disease that I brought in by "mixing up" the
genes.
Get my point?
CJJUNG
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In article <7ytj2.195$gV1....@news.cwix.com>, "Time Traveler"
<wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
>If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
>than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
<snip>
If you *really* want to talk about uncommon being the most often
seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable). Most
folks don't even know what a sable GSD *is*. And, IIRC, the most
commonly seen coat type in Collies is, similarly, recessive (?Collie folks?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, you're right.
I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a some folks to confused a gene's
dominance/recessive status with if the the trait is "common" or "popular." In
collies, the smooth (ie short haired) gene is completely dominant over the
rough (ie long haired) gene. However, rough collies are much more common than
smooths. (The last CCA national I went to, had 850 (est) roughs shown vs
roughly ;-) 150 smooths.) If there was no selective breeding (i.e. no human
interference) then the smooths *would* take over the world <weg>
Chris and the smooth collies,
dino, zeffie, and pablo
Dianne Schoenberg
>No, I have not read Dr. Padgett's writing claiming pure-bred dogs are not
>necessarily less healthy than mix breeds. From my humble few years of
>existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs.
This is commonly believed among the general public, but available
scientific evidence does NOT bear it out. Here's one citation:
"The largest number of dogs in the United States consists of those
of mixed breeding (mutts, curs, crossbreeds and so on), and as would
be expected, since they contain mixtures of most, if not all, breeds,
they have far and away the most diseases. These dogs are reported to
have 220 diseases. In a way, it surprised me that they had so few
disorders, because--since they are a mixture of all breeds--one might
expect them to have all diseases of all breeds. It may be that they do
have many more disorders, since they are often left out when we report
diseases by specific breed."
-- "Control of Canine Genetic Diseases" by George A. Padgett, DVM
professor of pathology at Michigan State University, and one
of the world's great authorities on the subject
Carroll
>seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
>in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable). Most
>folks don't even know what a sable GSD *is*.
What is a grey sable?
How are liver and blue GSD's created? (I've seen two blues and one liver,
both pics, in Dogs USA, please remember they are a DISQUALIFYING FAULT!!!).
Emily
Lisa Baird
J & B Tarantino wrote:
> shades). For those of you not familiar with the color, if you'd like to see
> some lovely examples visit our web pages (I'm not prejudiced or
> nothing...nahhhhh!) at:
> http://www.premier1.net/~snoline and follow the GSD link down.
>
What a wodnerful site! Beautiful pics, lots of useful info, and LOTS of health info on dogs and
litters.
Wonderful to see, I would certainly refer anyone looking for a GSD to you!
blac...@dog-play.com
: If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
: than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
It is much easier to creat lots of recessives than it is lots of
dominents. Breeding two yellow labs will never get you black because
black is dominent. If they had the gene for black they would be black.
So if you breed two yellow labs they will be yellow. If yellow labs are
more popular all you have to do is breed two yellows and that's what you
get. You will have 100% success in breeding the desired color.
If you want to breed blacks you will only get 100% if at least one parent
has BOTH genes dominent for black. And you can't keep getting blacks in
subsequent generations unless you figure out how to tell that BOTH parents
have BOTH genes dominent for black. If at least one of the original
breeding pairs carries yellow you WILL get yellow puppies at some point.
So if we postulate a starting population of one pair of yellows, and one
pair of blacks and if we conistently breed black to black and yellow to
yellow the BEST you could hope for is equal populations of both,
but the more likely scenario is that the yellow will outnumber the black.
Reducing appearance of a simple recessive would be (relatively) simple IF
and ONLY IF the breeder keeps accurate records. You don't breed dogs that
produce puppies that show the undesired trait. It isn't enough to know
how your initial dogs are - to get rid of the recessive you also have to
know what they produce.
Until we get real gene mapping and identification we can't count on ever
entirely ridding any population of a problem recessive. The presence of
the dominent effectively hides it. But knowledge of what has appeared in
the past can reduce the incidence of its appearance significantly. In
contrast breeding without regard for what appears in a litter can increase
the incidence of the recessive in the general population to the point
where it becomes expressed with regularity. i.e. if you breed black labs
that produce yellow as well as black puppies you shouldn't be too
surprised if the incidence of yellow puppies in the population rises.
Play with the numbers yourself. Take a look at all the combinations any
one dog can be:
BBEE BbEE BBEe BbEe BBee Bbee bbee bbEE bbEe
Look at how any two dogs can be combined
BBEE + BBEE
BBEE + BbEE
BbEE + BbEE and so on
look at the zygote combinations produced
and calculate chances (risk) of any particlar combination:
(a BBEE dog can produce only BE zygotes so all pups will be BE + BE = BBEE
on the other hand
a BbEE dog can produce BE or bE or zygotes so a pup from two BbEE dogs
can be BE + BE = BBEE or BE + bE = BbEE or bE + Be = BbEE or bE + bE =
bbEE)
Having a dominent gene is not the same as being more numerous.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
- - - - - - - -
"Reinforcement is always relative to the dog's instincts, his personality,
his physical condition, and the environment." "Smart Trainers -- Brilliant
Dogs" by Janet Lewis
Rebecca Gertz
test available to find out what color your Lab is genetically. They
also have a similar test available for American Cocker Spaniels. VetGen
offers a chart on Lab colors which may make it an easier concept to
grasp. It's located at:
http://www.vetgen.com/color.html
Hope this helps!
Becky
mailto:ne...@nvbell.net
Matt Warren
the statement that color black in labs is domniant, and why two black
parents can produce other color pups was inaccurate because a homozygous
dominant parent could not result in multiple colors of pups. To use your
notation, BBEE crossed with BbEe could still not have yellow pups, but
certain pups from that cross breeding could eventually have yellows.
Again, it was a nitpick, but there was an obvious exception to the
original assertion.
The bigger issue is that too many people who are not geneticists breed
dogs assuming traits. For instance, I know of someone who has bred rat
terriers with JRTs to produce "easy to train" Jack Russells. Very myopic
assumption, I would bet. Then I see ads all the time for "golden labs"
or lab/GSD and they're sold at a premium as being "the best of both
worlds". The "breeder" has no idea if the pups will be the best or worst
of the traits of the parents. Until every gene for temperament and other
traits are identified in dogs, all this cross breeding going on is still
pure speculation. It's bad enough that most pure breeding is based on
speculation.
--
_____________________________
Matt Warren
blac...@dog-play.com says...
Dog Game SuperStar
> While you may have "heard" that purebreds have more problems there is, so
> far as I have been able to determine no study that establishes mixed
> breeds are indeed healthier.
One bit of clear evidence, occurs in the Iditarod Sled Dog
race, the toughest and most grueling test dogs, or perhaps
any other animals, domestic or wild, can undergo, anywhere
on earth. They simply have to race across a blizzard known
as Alaska. Purebred Nordic Breeds (Siberians, Malamutes,
Samoyeds etc...) can't compete and they never win. The
mixed/cross bred Alaskan Huskies, a "breed" which has no
standard other than "the ability to pull hard and run fast"
according to one of the leading mushers, win the races year
in and year out.
This may not count as "evidence" to you or anyone in a show
ring, but it certainly counts as evidence to anyone with a
clear head about them.
> Breeders looking to produce healthy dogs will
> often identify a dog as "having" a particular genetic disease even though
> the condition would not be noticeable in the daily life of the dog. Have
> you tested your dogs for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation, cardiac
> problems, PRA, or any of the other diseases that breeders test for?
And the reason purebred breeders have to test for so many
diseases, is because inbreeding creates the conditions
whereby so many the alleles which cause genetic diseases can
so easily and quickly reach critical mass in purebred
populations.
Yes, inbreeding can and indeed DOES, often, CAUSE the
frequency of certain genetic problems to increase. thereby
CAUSING genetic disease! Without question. Does this mean
crossbreeding/mixed breeding CAN'T cause genetic disease?
Of course not dummies, hold your babbling fire for just a
sec...
> Dr. George Padgett's articles on canine genetics that I read appeared in a
> series of articles appearing in Dog World beginning in January 1997 and
> continuing over several issues (but skipping some in between). Since I
> read the articles I obtained and read the Malcom Willis book on "Genetics
> of the Dog" all of which was logical, evaluative of studies of others, and
> consistent with other information. Recently Dr. Padgett has produced a
> book for more indepth discussion. I have not read that book yet.
>
> Since I don't have the articles at my finger tips for quoting let me quote
> an earlier post by Robin Nutall
Great, you're quoting a post from a purebred Doberman
enthusiast, whom, as I recall, from viewing her web page,
has had a series of Dobermans with serious, serious genetic
problems. Who is an aficionado of one of the breeds, which
I think we can all agree is among the very worst as far as
prevalence of serious genetic ailments goes.
That's just great. You've come up with a ringing example of
a non biased source here.
And you're quoting not the article, but this persons
"interpretation" of the article. Interesting. You're doing
the exact "this is what I've heard" thing which you rail
against later on.
> ******
> From a post by Robin Nutall March 11, 1997
>
> According to Padgett (DogWorld series, this
> article was in the Jan 1997 issue), hybrid vigor does exist, but only
> during the very first generation cross. And the dogs will have hybrid
> vigor *and* the possibility of all of the shared diseases. For
> Golden/dobe, that would include eye problems, thyroid problems, heart
> problems and hip dysplasia. Subsequent generations would have a very
> high probability of having the worst of both breeds, which would mean a
> higher than now seen incidence of hip dysplasia for the doberman, and
> the introduction of cardiomyopathy and Wobblers for the Golden.
>
> From Robin Nutall January 27, 1997
> FWIW I have Medline and Bioline at my finger tips. I did a search on
> hybrid vigor. Got matches. Did a search on canine, got lots of matches.
> Put the two together. No matches. Not a single article since 1975 which
> had the words CANINE and either hybrid vigor or heterosis in them. None.
> Zero, zilch, nada. Peas and corn yes.
Yes, you'll also get clear results on Pigs, Cattle, Sheep,
Pigeons, Wheat, Soybean, and DOGS if you will look at the
evidence which is available.
Here's just a few sites and side takes from the non dog show
world, for the curious:
CROSSBREEDING LINKS
http://www.nig.nl/congres/3rdeuropeancongress1995/abstract/121-0104.html
(fruit flies)
http://agtv-pc11-alt2.massey.ac.nz/char/xbreed3.htm
(cattle)
http://leaky.rock.tap.csiro.au/facts/crossbr-hybrid_txt.html
(cattle)
http://www.beef.org.nz/riss/RissCross.htm (cattle)
http://www.brafords.org/using.html (cattle)
http://www.tidalweb.com/west/advcros.html (cattle)
http://www.beeftoday.com/article.cfm/2439 (cattle)
http://www.ag.auburn.edu/dept/ads/iheteros.html (pig)
http://208.135.133.6/nobl/hot_topics/litter.html (pig)
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02311.htm
(pig)
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02310.htm
(pig)
http://dbbs.wustl.edu/rib/Suarez.html (human)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/1998/0298issue/0298techbus3.html
(human)
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/hsl/ref/guides/amish89.html
(human)
http://www.healthnet.org/programs/promed-hma/9703/msg00051.html
(dog)
http://www.ckcusa.com/genetic1.htm (dog)
http://shorthair.com/psnpups/part5.htm (dog)
http://www.mesc.nbs.gov/projects/forecasting-wolf-trends.html
(wolf)
http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/PBhtmls/abstracts/heterosis.html
(frog)
http://www-bml.ucdavis.edu/afp2.htm (oyster)
http://193.75.143.1/pp/Freddy/heterosis.htm (racing pigeons)
http://www.nalusda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000005/91/0000059109.html
(japanese quail)
http://www.cgiar.org/cimmyt/workshops/heterosis/hetfinan.htm
(maize & wheat)
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000007/54/0000075430.html
(wheat)
http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/Biotech_Patents/1995patents/05436386.html
(safflower)
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000003/29/0000032934.html
(sunflower)
http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/Meetings/WFGA/wang.html (silver
birch)
http://probe.nalusda.gov:8000/otherdocs/rgn/rgn3/v3VII40.html
(rice)
http://www.cgiar.org/irri/riceweb/research/Res_issues.htm
(rice)
http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/rifa/d2/public/d2_pbl_1_3.html
(cereals)
http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/data/000007/88/0000078876.html
(soybean)
http://info.metla.fi/iufro95abs/d2pap65.htm (scots pine)
=========================================================
Dr. B. L. Golden
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523
Theory Of Hybrid Vigor
The effects of crossbreeding beef cattle have been well
known for a long time (Gregory, et. al,
1978). Virtually all crossing of breeds results in an
increase in weight, muscularity, conception
rate and resistance to disease. Collectively, this increase
in performance is called hybrid vigor.
Hybrid vigor is the additional amount of performance seen in
crossbred animals, beyond the
average of their parents. For example, if you were to breed
a group of Angus females with an
average adjusted weaning weight of 230kg to a mob of
Charolais bulls with an average adjusted
weaning weight of 250kg, because of hybrid vigor you would
expect the progeny's weaning
weight to be more then the simple average of the Angus
females and the Charolais bulls
(ignoring, for a moment, potential differences in milk
production of Angus and Charolais). You
might expect that this group of calves may have an average
adjusted weaning weight of, say
275kg, which is 35kg more then the average of the Angus
females and Charolais bull's own
weaning weight ([230kg+250kg]/2 = 240kg).
This additional 35kg is the hybrid vigor. It is a result of
combining genes from animals which
are less related because they are from different breeds.
Hybrid vigor has been used to increase
productivity in plants such as wheat or corn, and poultry
for many, many years. The pursuit
and use of hybrid vigor has also dramatically changed the
way commercial hogs production is
practised. It has been only the last approximately 15 years
that hybrid vigor has been used
extensively in beef cattle. In the United States, for
example, it has been estimated that about
75% of all cattle slaughtered are crossbred.
To understand how hybrid vigor works we have to understand a
little about how genes which
control the expression of traits such as weaning weight are
inherited from their parents. Each
parent contributes one complete copy of the genetic material
(DNA) to its offspring. Therefore,
each offspring has two copies of each gene, one copy from
each parent. Part of the reason
that animals are not identical is that the genetic material
inherited from one parent is different
than the genetic material inherited from the other parent.
Even, animals which are full siblings
(have the same parents) have only half their genes in
common, on average. This is because
each parent has two complete copies of DNA and provides only
half to each offspring. The
genes contained in the half an offspring receives are a
random mixture of each parent's genes.
Because hybrid vigor is the opposite of what you get when
you inbreed....
========================================================
> Dogs no. As far as I can tell the
> George Padgett article in the Jan. Dog World is the only one out there.
> Padgett is a world-renoun geneticist
Uh, he's a VET. Whether or not he is ALSO a world renowned
geneticist is something I'd need a little proof of, other
than your, or Robin Nuttal's interpretation. Typically,
vets aren't too swift on dog behavior. Not too swift at
all. Whether or not this particular VET is "world
renowned"-swift on genetics is certainly something which
needs documentation. It sounds like he could be someone who
sold a series to an audience who was looking to hear what he
had to say.
> and says that hybrid vigor in mixed
> breeds exists, but only for the first generation, and it doesn't prevent
> even the first generation from having any shared genetic disease. After
> the very first generation hybrid vigor is lost and subsequent
> generations can have ALL of the disease shared by the ancestors, a total
> of 102 different diseases, versus an average of 20-50 in each purebred
> population.
Scare tactic nonsense, made to scare people away from mixed
breed dogs. Most people are sheep and dummies, and it
usually works. "Oh, No, but in the SECOND GENERATION YOU'LL
GET EVERY DISEASE IMAGINABLE." You could get 50 diseases in
a second generation mixed breed!" "All at once!"
Again, this is Robin Nutall's, a lover of one of the most
defective breeds in Dogdom's interpretation of a series she
read almost two years ago. Interesting. What is the
average life expectancy of a purebred Robin Nuttal dog?
What, about 5 years, if that? And what kind of quality of
life do they have? How much money does she pump toward the
VET.
<SCARE TACTIC>
Just to be as outrageously scare tactic oriented as you have
been, I'm going to propose a conspiracy theory, just for
fun? Perhaps VETS have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping dogs
sick? Whew, you can make a lot of money off an owner with a
dog with WOBBLERS disease or a HEART functioning at twenty
percent capacity?
</SCARE TACTIC>
> ****** end quotes
Whew, it's about time!
> After reading the texts (you can order at least the Willis book from the
> Dog and Cat book catalog) I found the analysis by Dr. Padgett to be
> entirely credible. The logic speaks much more and tends to overwhelm the
> "I have heard" arguments especially when the person speaking those words
> demonstrates lack of knowledge of genetic principles that have been shown
> in scientific studies.
That's exactly what you've done. You've tried to use
opinions from someone who is in no way an unbiased, nor
reliable, nor scientific source, to back up your position.
And I have found it necessary to spank you because of it. I
have to do this every once in awhile fans, yes, even to
people like Diane Blackman, the Patron Saint of the Dog
Newsgroups, just to keep everybody honest.
> None of us can "prove" scientifically that the
> either the mixed breed dog or the purebred dog is "healthier" until there
> is a serious signficant study.
Now you've said something I can't quibble with. Up until
then, I'd leave dog show oriented magazines, with articles
written by VETS out as qualifying a serious, significant
study. Way out.
> However, the analysis of the theory that
> the mixed breed dog should be healthier has always been presented in a
> less credible manner than the reverse
There is absolutely ZERO evidence, that purebred,
genetically tested dogs can out compete dogs which are much
less pure bred, and much less conscientiously genetically
tested in the most grueling test of physical strength and
endurance in perhaps, all of the animal kingdom.
ZIP ZERO NADA.
What does that say to me? It says a hell of a lot more than
Robin Nuttal's, an aficionado of one of the sickliest breeds
in dogdom's interpretation of an article she read two years
ago written by a vet for a DOG SHOW oriented magazine.
Now, there IS PLENTY of OVERWHELMING evidence to the
contrary in the Iditarod Sled dog Race. For anyone who
wants to look at it. Does this mean that cross/mixed breeds
are healthier than purebreds? No. But it certainly means
something, as do the fact that hybrid vigor exists in
virtually all other domestic animals. Perhaps the reason
why there purportedly is no evidence for it in dogs, is
because, perhaps, that there really is no such thing? Or
perhaps, and much, much, much more likely, there is
purportedly no evidence of it in dogs, because the people in
power in dogs don't WANT there to be any evidence for it.
Purebreeding/ Inbreeding CAN give you certain skills and
instincts brought to the forefront. It CAN give you a
certain look, a certain type, a certain typical
temperament. It CAN give you lots of things you want, but
to say that it will give you longevity, vitality, fewer
trips to the vets etc...because of all the genetic testing
done by the breeder, is pure and utter and unadulterated
nonsense, no matter how many times someone babbles it.
Genetic testing is EXTREMELY limited and UNRELIABLE in what
it can currently accomplish.
When I get my next dog, it might very well be a purebred.
It might very well be another dog like the Handsome
Chazzman, the 75 lb, lean, muscular, mixed breed, extremely
healthy, speedy and athletic dog who stars in the Video the
Whole Internet Can't stop talking about
DOGZ ALLOWED
I really don't know yet. I'll cross that bridge when I come
to it. But I'll tell you something right now, fans, the
last thing (*I'll*) do is go to a breeder who has to do 25
genetic tests before they breed their stock. You do what you
want. I'll do exactly what the experts will warn me not to
do. I'll use my gut instinct, both in choosing my dog AND
my breeder. I'll pick a dog simply because something
intangible tells me I should. I may get a rescue, a dog out
of a pound, a "backyard bred" dog, who knows, maybe even a
"responsible breeder" bred dog. A pure, cross, or a mix? I
really won't know until it happens. Only thing I most
likely won't do is go to a pet store.
> because it has never been
> accompanied by a cogent, logical, scientifically supported explanation of
> how it should be so, given the current knowledge of canine genetics.
> Given the difference in type of evidence to present the two theories I
> tend to discount the "mixed breeds are healthier" theory as mere urban
> legend.
With absolutely ZERO evidence or proof to back it up.
> If you breed a lab and a shepherd and both carry genes for CHD guess what
> will happen? In order to avoid CHD you need to know the background of
> each.
A shining example of one of the most frequently blabberered
dummyisms in all of dog breeding. First of all, you could
very well breed, two dogs, of two entirely different breeds,
both of whom were extremely dysplastic, and get offspring
who are entirely unaffected and extremely healthy. You
could do the same with two purebreds of the same breed.
You could also breed two dogs, both mixes or both pures, or
vice versa, who are not affected with hip dysplasia, and get
offspring who *are* affected to varying degrees. This is
the magic of polygenic hip dysplasia. Even the experts
don't know exactly what's going on, so please refrain from
simplistic dummyisms to try to influence and scare the
populace, please?
> Introducing a new
> mix can produce new "problems"
So if you are a Doberman enthusiast, it's best to stick with
what you got and WOBBLE to the vet and shell out serious
cash for a heart transplant when your dog is two? Or as a
Golden Enthusiast to accept cancer and bad hips as a part of
life, rather than taking a chance on something else?
....
If I were you, fans, I'd be inclined to keep my options
open.
Look, people, in order to get yourself the best dog you can,
there are mountains of subterfuge, blabbering, dummyisms and
outright foolishness that you have to slog your way through,
but here's the gist of it all. There is a dog
overpopulation problem. People who are concerned about the
dog overpopulation problem have an agenda. They believe
that if all dogs were purebred, that dogs wouldn't be left
at shelters, and that everybody would love their dogs, and
that the population problem will cease to exist.
This, of course, is complete nonsense. These morons, then
try to scare people away from crosses and mixes, not because
crosses and mixes really are less healthy, reliable,
talented, etc...etc...but because by dissing mixes, and
discouraging people from them, they believe they will
somehow solve the dog overpopulation problem.
Which, of course, again, is complete, and UTTER nonsense.
LISTEN CAREFULLY FANS....
The issues of QUALITY and OVERPOPULATION are completely
separate issues which all number of morons will try to lump
together and solve with one broad stroke "neuter everything
except dogs owned by show idiots and let those idiots decide
the future of dogs"
Well, if we do that, the winning times in the Iditarod Sled
dog race will rise not in minutes, or hours, but perhaps in
*days.* And Mushers will be able to relax more, and spend
more time resting and warming their toes by the fire. Hey,
maybe that wouldn't be all bad after all?
Counterpoint from the Incomparable DGS
http://dogtv.com
Richard Weatherly
though it's not a disqualification, it seems that any "serious fault" would
cause the dog to lose unless it is being shown with other dogs that also
have serious faults. My GSD has some white, so I assumed that he would
definately lose in any conformation ring. By the way, he'll be neutered at
6 months, so I wasn't going to show him anyway. I'm just curious why
someone would bother showing a dog with serious faults (faults according to
the AKC--my dog is perfect to me whether or not they think he fits the AKC
standard).
Richard Weatherly
>>How are liver and blue GSD's created? (I've seen two blues and one liver,
>>both pics, in Dogs USA, please remember they are a DISQUALIFYING
FAULT!!!).
>
> No ma'am, they're not. From the standard (cut from AKC's site):
>
>Color
> The German Shepherd Dog varies in color, and most
> colors are permissible. Strong rich colors are preferred.
> Pale, washed-out colors and blues or livers are serious
> faults. A white dog must be disqualified.
Cris Waller
wrote:
>No, I have not read Dr. Padgett's writing claiming pure-bred dogs are not
>necessarily less healthy than mix breeds. From my humble few years of
>existence, I have heard more problems coming from pure-bred dogs. Hip
>displasia thing is an example.
I think that this is because you have to be a fairly serious dog
person to know about hip dysplasia and to screen your breeding stock
for it. The only people that I know that have x-rayed their mixies are
folks who compete in dog sports with them.
In my experience, mixed-breeds are just as likely to get HD, but it's
more likely to be written off as "a touch of arthritis".
> If you can point out that just as many
>percentages of mix-bred dogs have this disease as pure-bred ones, I am just
>like you who is open to this new idea. Meanwhile, dogs are not unique. Why
>do we, humans, disencourage incest? Why did the European royal family have
>more genetic problems than the over all population?
In fact, mixed breeds can be subject to *more* genetic disorders than
most purebreds. There are many different genetic disorders in dogs.
Some, like hip dysplsia and progressive retinal atrophy, are found in
many breeds. Some, like copper toxicosis or Scottie cramp, are more
breed-specific.
A first-generation cross of two different purebred dogs is less
likely to have genetic disorders that are found in only one of the
parent breeds and are recessive in nature, but just as likely to have
a genetic disorder that could be found in either breed or one that is
dominant. For example, a 1st-generation Bedlington terrier/poodle
cross probably would not have copper toxicosis (found in the
Bedlington) or sebaceous adenitis (found in the poodle). But it could
very well carry the genes for those disorders, and if you bred the F1
puppies together to create an F2 bedlington/poodle mix, you now have
dogs that could get *both* copper toxicosis *and* sebaceous adenitis!
(Note here that I am assuming that both copper toxicosis and SA are
simple recessives-I am not positive of that, but even if they are not,
the truth would still hold for ny simple recessive disorders). And, if
this dog then bred with a cocker-Lab mix that carried genes for HD and
PRA, and that dog bred with a Portuguese Water Dog/Basenji mix that
carried the genes for gangliosidosis and Fanconi's anemia...and so on
and so forth.
Selective breeding can increase the percentage in the population of
certain alleles- both beneficial (or at least harmless) and
deleterious. Good breeders are trying to eliminate the deleterious
alleles, and over time can significantly reduce the proportion of dogs
with genetic disorders. Allowing random breeding simply allows more
deleterious alleles into the mix.
Cris Waller
>Time Traveler <wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
>: If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
>: than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
>Until we get real gene mapping and identification we can't count on ever
>entirely ridding any population of a problem recessive.
It's certainly not a "problem recessive", but VetGen now can do a
genetic "color test" on Labs (http://www.vetgen.com/color.html) to
determine the what the dog's B and E alleles are.
blac...@dog-play.com
: Thanks for the detailed notes. However, my original assertion was that
: parents can produce other color pups was inaccurate because a homozygous
: dominant parent could not result in multiple colors of pups. To use your
There is a BIG difference between making the assertion about the phenotype
"black" which is what you did in the original post
"Sorry to nitpick, but if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
explain why two black parents can produce other colors. In fact, both
parents would have to carry the recessive gene in order to have puppies
other than the dominant allele."
and making the assertion about the genotype and further limiting it by
stating a homozygous state.
The person you responded to correctly stated
Lisa Baird says...
> I don't know about the genetics of the black Chow tongue, however, the
> color black in Labs IS dominant, and why two black parents can produce
> other color pups. They need not be homozygous for black.
Lisa stated "They need not be homozygous for black" I'm guessing you had
difficulty with that sentence. For "They" read "black labs need not be
homozygous for black" or in other words because they are not necessarily
(need not be) homozygous for black there isn't any reason why they can't
be carrying the recessive genes.
That means a black can occur whether or not the parents are homozygous for
black. This is in contrast to the recessive chocolate and yellow, which
each must be homozygous for their respective colors. The reason a black
lab and a black lab can produce a multi color litter is precisely BECAUSE
they need not be homozygous for black in order to be black.
Contrary to your statement "if black is the dominant color, this doesn't
explain why two black parents can produce other colors" that fact is
indeed what explains "why two black parents can produce other colors."
Thus Lisa was quite correct - the fact that black is dominent explains why
two black parents can produce litter with all three colors.
Your next statement "In fact, both parents would have to carry the
recessive gene in order to have puppies other than the dominant allele."
is quite correct, but is in no way contrary to Lisa's statement.
: notation, BBEE crossed with BbEe could still not have yellow pups, but
: certain pups from that cross breeding could eventually have yellows.
: Again, it was a nitpick, but there was an obvious exception to the
: original assertion.
Well if you are going to pick at nits make sure you know what the nits
look like. Now I'll make sure. EXACTLY what "original assertion" are you
speaking of?
: The bigger issue is that too many people who are not geneticists breed
: dogs assuming traits. For instance, I know of someone who has bred rat
: terriers with JRTs to produce "easy to train" Jack Russells. Very myopic
: assumption, I would bet. Then I see ads all the time for "golden labs"
: or lab/GSD and they're sold at a premium as being "the best of both
: worlds". The "breeder" has no idea if the pups will be the best or worst
: of the traits of the parents. Until every gene for temperament and other
: traits are identified in dogs, all this cross breeding going on is still
: pure speculation. It's bad enough that most pure breeding is based on
: speculation.
True enough, and kind of the point in getting people to understand the
complexity of genetics. What you see isn't always what is there.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
- - - - - - - - -
"Compliance with the law ought never mean circumventing common sense"
J & B Tarantino
>J & B Tarantino wrote:
>
>> shades). For those of you not familiar with the color, if you'd like to see
>> some lovely examples visit our web pages (I'm not prejudiced or
>> nothing...nahhhhh!) at:
>> http://www.premier1.net/~snoline and follow the GSD link down.
>
>What a wodnerful site! Beautiful pics, lots of useful info, and LOTS of health
> info on dogs and
>litters.
>
>Wonderful to see, I would certainly refer anyone looking for a GSD to you!
Oh *thanx*! <blush> I *just* rebuilt the entire site and am quite pleased
with the new format. And, I just got a bunch of new pics of the fur/feather
kids that will go up in the next few days so drop back in a few days if
you get a chance and let me know what you think.
J & B Tarantino
>Time Traveler <wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
>: If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
>: than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
>
>dominents. Breeding two yellow labs will never get you black because
>black is dominent. If they had the gene for black they would be black.
Not true Diane...yellows can be BBee (yellow carrying black), Bbee (yellow
carrying black & chocolate) or bbee (yellow carring chocolate). Again,
remember ALL Labs *are* either black or chocolate - they simply lack
the gene to enable them to *express* it. Chocolate is recessive to
black - yellow is not recessive to either - it's a different gene. While
true that a black can't be born to 2 yellows due to lack of the dominant
expression (E) gene they can indeed have the black (B) gene or the chocolate
(b) gene.
> If yellow labs are
>more popular all you have to do is breed two yellows and that's what you
>get. You will have 100% success in breeding the desired color.
Again, no. You can get yellows and chocolates (only incorrectly pigmented
though) from 2 of the yellow gene patterns. Bbee x Bbee = Bbee, BBee or bbee
is one example.
J & B Tarantino
>> If you *really* want to talk about uncommon being the most often
>>seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
>>in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable). Most
>>folks don't even know what a sable GSD *is*.
>
>What is a grey sable?
Well... if you mean what does one look like see my Jaxayn at:
http://www.premier1.net/~snoline/ (follow the GSD links)
If you mean how do you identify one - the easiest way is to
look at the black parts of the dog and pull a hair - each individual
hair is banded from top to bottom changing color as it goes
to the skin.
If you mean genetically - from Willis The German Shepherd
Dog a Genetic History (major snippage!): the GSD coat color is
controlled by the:
: A or Agouti series (in dominance order)
A - Dominant black - NOT present in the GSD
a^y - tan (or golden) sable
a^w - grey sable
a^s - saddle marked
a^t - bicolor black & tan
a - black
(Grey sables can be a^w a^w, a^w a^t, or a^w a - the REST
of the controlling genes follow)
:B or Black series (shows in pigmentation - lips, pads, etc.)
BB - black
Bb - black carrying recessive liver
bb - liver ------- this is where your liver comes from
:C or Colour series
C - colour factor essential for melinin production
c^ch - partial albinism
c^d - white coat with dark eyes and nose -------WGSDs
:D or Dilution series
D dense pigmentation
d blue dilution --------this is where your blue comes from
:E or Extension series
E^m black mask
E dark coat but no black mask except in black dogs
e^br brindle
e clear tan
:INT or Intensity
INT dilutes tan towards dirty white
int^m dilutes tan to light yellow or fawn
int no dilution
>How are liver and blue GSD's created? (I've seen two blues and one liver,
>both pics, in Dogs USA, please remember they are a DISQUALIFYING FAULT!!!).
No ma'am, they're not. From the standard (cut from AKC's site):
Color
The German Shepherd Dog varies in color, and most
colors are permissible. Strong rich colors are preferred.
Pale, washed-out colors and blues or livers are serious
faults. A white dog must be disqualified.
*white* is the only color DQ. And there is at least one blue
CH called out in Willis' text: CH Hoobins Grey Boy (1964)
Labrador colors are MUCH simpler!
blac...@dog-play.com
: In article <368ea89c$0$97...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, blac...@dog-play.com wrote:
:>Time Traveler <wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
:>: If black is dominant, how come I have seen overwhelmingly more yellow Labs
:>: than blacks. Is Detroit area unique?
:>
:>It is much easier to creat lots of recessives than it is lots of
:>dominents. Breeding two yellow labs will never get you black because
:>black is dominent. If they had the gene for black they would be black.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Not true Diane...yellows can be BBee (yellow carrying black), Bbee (yellow
: carrying black & chocolate) or bbee (yellow carring chocolate). Again,
: remember ALL Labs *are* either black or chocolate - they simply lack
: the gene to enable them to *express* it. Chocolate is recessive to
OK, I'll be more accurate. If they had the gene that allowed black to be
expressed they would be black. In other words the fact that they do not
have the gene that allows black to be expressed prevents them from being
black. They do not have the gene that allows black to be expressed
because if they did they would be black. Willis states "Strictly speaking
the terminology is misleading since a BB or Bb dog will not necessarily be
black. The colour will depend upon what other series are present but the
BB/Bb formula means that black pigment can be formed." In the lab the E
gene is necessary to express black. The yellow lab does not have the E
gene.
: black - yellow is not recessive to either - it's a different gene. While
: true that a black can't be born to 2 yellows due to lack of the dominant
: expression (E) gene they can indeed have the black (B) gene or the chocolate
: (b) gene.
:> If yellow labs are
:>more popular all you have to do is breed two yellows and that's what you
:>get. You will have 100% success in breeding the desired color.
: Again, no. You can get yellows and chocolates (only incorrectly pigmented
: though) from 2 of the yellow gene patterns.
Bbee x Bbee = Bbee, BBee or bbee
: is one example.
I haven't looked at the terminology used by lab breeders. I did consult
Willis "Genetics of the Dog" before writing. In discussing the Lbrador
Retriever he states "All chocolate dogs will be bbEE or bbEe and,
because black is diluted by the bb combination, these dogs will always
have a pale nose and lips. Any dog which is bbee will be yellow but will
have a pale nose and lips so that yellows carrying two chocolate genes can
be identified in this case."
In your example you had Bbee (yellow) and BBee (yellow) and bbee (yellow).
The first two have dark pigmented noses and the last a light pigmented
nose. I stand by my answer, even if lab breeders use different
terminology (I don't know whether they do or do not).
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
- - - - - - - - -
"The idea that we can enhance or change various aspects of our
relationships with our dogs through our awareness and use of body lanugage
and emotion makes owning a dog a tremendously intriguing experience. "
"The Body Language and Emotion of Dogs" by Myrna M. Milani, DVM.
AVRAMA GINGOLD
B> It is based upon our observations about what happens if you carelessly
B> inbreed. Human societies do not universally discourage incest. It is
B> primarily a matter based on religion, not science. Our laws are based,
B> not on science, but on moral values. Some laws are supportable on a
B> scientfic basis, most are not.
The definition is always social. If you look across history, and
across societies, you will discover many different versions. For
example, in tribal societies, the most preferred marriages are
"cross-cousin" marriages: marriage to a parent's opposite sex
sibling's child (i.e., mother's brother's child or father's
sister's child) while at the same time "parallel cousin" marriages
(to mother's sister's child or father's brother's child) are
forbidden, i.e., incestuous. There is contextual evidence
suggesting that in biblical times marriages between children
born of the same womb, even with different fathers, was forbidden,
but marriages between children of the same father but different
mothers were permissible. Often brother-sister marriages were
required by certain social classes: thus in Pharoanic Egypt,
the Pharoah was required to marry his sister (womb sister, if
possible, any sister if not). An example of the product of
generations of such "incest" was Cleopatra of Caesar and Cleopatra
fame. (Also Ptolemy.) The Hawaiian alii required brother-sister
marriages, and altho shocked at the practice, the missionaries
who first came to the Hawaiian Islands were all impressed at
how exceptionally attractive and indeed intelligent the allii
as a group were.
No, the rules requiring exogamy (marriage outside the group) were
not derived because of any knowledge of genetics--indeed, we
find even among groups that did not make the connection between
coitus and later pregnancy and childbirth (forgot the name;
Malinowski studied them in THE SEXUAL LIFE OF SAVAGES) incest
rules exist. Usually they can be explained as functional for
property and inheritance rights, and as a means of creating ties
between groups.
If we look at the wolf (the closest relative to the dog), we
realize that almost all matings are what we would call
incestuous. The alpha wolf mates with the alpha female of
the pack, and neither is likely to be a lone wolf taken into
the pack.
Whether inbreeding/incest is deleterious or not depends on what
genes are present.
B> Breeding without attention to how genetics works can indeed cause
B> problems. Especially if one breeds defective to defective. That is what
B> happens when any gene pool is overly restricted AND there is no attempt to
B> avoid breeding the defective.
B>
B> While you may have "heard" that purebreds have more problems there is, so
B> far as I have been able to determine no study that establishes mixed
B> breeds are indeed healthier. Breeders looking to produce healthy dogs will
B> often identify a dog as "having" a particular genetic disease even though
B> the condition would not be noticeable in the daily life of the dog. Have
B> you tested your dogs for hip dysplasia, patellar luxation, cardiac
B> problems, PRA, or any of the other diseases that breeders test for? How
B> many dogs do you know of that have been tested for these,
B> asymptomatically? Do you think that different rates of testing might
B> account for different rates of reporting? These were all questions I had
B> to consider several years ago.
B>
B> Several years ago I had my mixed breed dog x-rayed - all joints. There
B> weren't any symptoms of problems. I just wanted to know because we were
B> doing agility. It turned out she did show signs of genetic disease. If
B> she were a purebred dog and would have been entered into a database
B> someplace she would have been "affected" and thus added a "tick" to the
B> side counting "genetic problems". As it is she is a mixed breed and no
B> one is collecting statistics on this and even fewer people are willing to
B> go to the expense and risks of testing a mixed breed dog. From all
B> apearances she is "normal" and to YOUR eyes would be "healthy" but to a
B> breeder (who cares) she would be unfit for breeding.
B>
B> Dr. George Padgett's articles on canine genetics that I read appeared in a
B> series of articles appearing in Dog World beginning in January 1997 and
B> continuing over several issues (but skipping some in between). Since I
B> read the articles I obtained and read the Malcom Willis book on "Genetics
B> of the Dog" all of which was logical, evaluative of studies of others, and
B> consistent with other information. Recently Dr. Padgett has produced a
B> book for more indepth discussion. I have not read that book yet.
B>
B> Since I don't have the articles at my finger tips for quoting let me quote
B> an earlier post by Robin Nutall
B>
B> ******
B> From a post by Robin Nutall March 11, 1997
B>
B> According to Padgett (DogWorld series, this
B> article was in the Jan 1997 issue), hybrid vigor does exist, but only
B> during the very first generation cross. And the dogs will have hybrid
B> vigor *and* the possibility of all of the shared diseases. For
B> Golden/dobe, that would include eye problems, thyroid problems, heart
B> problems and hip dysplasia. Subsequent generations would have a very
B> high probability of having the worst of both breeds, which would mean a
B> higher than now seen incidence of hip dysplasia for the doberman, and
B> the introduction of cardiomyopathy and Wobblers for the Golden.
B>
B> From Robin Nutall January 27, 1997
B> FWIW I have Medline and Bioline at my finger tips. I did a search on
B> hybrid vigor. Got matches. Did a search on canine, got lots of matches.
B> Put the two together. No matches. Not a single article since 1975 which
B> had the words CANINE and either hybrid vigor or heterosis in them. None.
B> Zero, zilch, nada. Peas and corn yes. Dogs no. As far as I can tell the
B> George Padgett article in the Jan. Dog World is the only one out there.
B> Padgett is a world-renoun geneticist and says that hybrid vigor in mixed
B> breeds exists, but only for the first generation, and it doesn't prevent
B> even the first generation from having any shared genetic disease. After
B> the very first generation hybrid vigor is lost and subsequent
B> generations can have ALL of the disease shared by the ancestors, a total
B> of 102 different diseases, versus an average of 20-50 in each purebred
B> population.
B>
B> ****** end quotes
B>
B> After reading the texts (you can order at least the Willis book from the
B> Dog and Cat book catalog) I found the analysis by Dr. Padgett to be
B> entirely credible. The logic speaks much more and tends to overwhelm the
B> "I have heard" arguments especially when the person speaking those words
B> demonstrates lack of knowledge of genetic principles that have been shown
B> in scientific studies. None of us can "prove" scientifically that the
B> either the mixed breed dog or the purebred dog is "healthier" until there
B> is a serious signficant study. However, the analysis of the theory that
B> the mixed breed dog should be healthier has always been presented in a
B> less credible manner than the reverse because it has never been
B> accompanied by a cogent, logical, scientifically supported explanation of
B> how it should be so, given the current knowledge of canine genetics.
B> Given the difference in type of evidence to present the two theories I
B> tend to discount the "mixed breeds are healthier" theory as mere urban
B> legend.
B>
B> That people breed dogs poorly is no big surprise when their knowledge of
B> genetics is limited. An example is seen in this thread with the lack of
B> knowledge about color inheritence. Similar lack of knowledge allows the
B> continuation of genetic disease because people think that accepting the
B> phenotype is enough evidence to produce a healthy dog. The average person
B> has no idea what will happen when they breed two dogs together. They make
B> presumptions, some times logical sometimes not. The average person relies
B> on anecdotal evidence for their information. At some point it changes
B> from speculation to "fact" even if it is demonstrably false. That is why
B> the earth was "flat."
B>
B> There are plenty of badly bred dogs, purebred and otherwise. Intelligent
B> breeding requires knowledge of the pedigree of the dog, and its genetic
B> health and temperament. Many genetic diseases are found in multiple
B> breeds of dogs. Avoiding the expression of that disease in a dog requires
B> knowing how to avoid or reduce the risk that the dogs carry the defect.
B> Lack of pedigree information prevents any meaningful reduction of
B> genetic disease appearing in mixed breed dogs, or poorly bred purebreds.
B>
B> If you breed a lab and a shepherd and both carry genes for CHD guess what
B> will happen? In order to avoid CHD you need to know the background of
B> each. HOWEVER you can't forget that genes interact. Introducing a new
B> mix can produce new "problems" just as combining two non-black dogs will
B> result in dominent black because of the way the genes interact (for
B> specifics look at the Willis book I've cited before). Thus if you mix
B> breed A that is "healthy" and breed B that is "healthy" you may well wind
B> up with "unhealthy" because of the effects of creating a new set of gene
B> interactions.
B>
B> Also genes aren't "bad" or "good" or even necessarily "healthy" and
B> "unhealthy" - thus the classic biology text showing how different forms of
B> the same moth were either beneficial or detrimental depending upon the
B> level of pollution in the environment. The dark colored moth prevailed
B> when pollution levels were hight (soot on trees darkened them) and the
B> light colored moth when they were low. The balance of dominent and
B> recessive individuals was influenced by the survival rate. At some point
B> it was the the animals advantage to carry the recessive genes - and thus
B> that form came to predominante.
An interesting sidenote: the prevalence of dark grey and even black
pigeons in NYC, to the extent that when an almost all white pigeon is
seen the event is notable.
avrama & shomer
B>
B> Diane Blackman
B> di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
B>
.. nfx v2.7 [C0000] <<Qu'est-que ce apprivoiser?>> dit le petit reynard.
kat...@juno.com
sno...@premier1.net (J & B Tarantino) wrote:
> In article <368ea89c$0$97...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, blac...@dog-play.com wrote:
> >It is much easier to creat lots of recessives than it is lots of
> >dominents. Breeding two yellow labs will never get you black because
> >black is dominent. If they had the gene for black they would be black.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not true Diane...yellows can be BBee (yellow carrying black), Bbee (yellow
> carrying black & chocolate) or bbee (yellow carring chocolate). Again,
> remember ALL Labs *are* either black or chocolate - they simply lack
> the gene to enable them to *express* it. Chocolate is recessive to
> black - yellow is not recessive to either - it's a different gene. While
> true that a black can't be born to 2 yellows due to lack of the dominant
> expression (E) gene they can indeed have the black (B) gene or the chocolate
> (b) gene.
>
> > If yellow labs are
> >more popular all you have to do is breed two yellows and that's what you
> >get. You will have 100% success in breeding the desired color.
>
> Again, no. You can get yellows and chocolates (only incorrectly pigmented
> though) from 2 of the yellow gene patterns. Bbee x Bbee = Bbee, BBee or bbee
> is one example.
> - German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers -----------------___
Huh?
If you call bbee "chocolate" why don't you call BBee "black"?
In both cases the coat is yellow. Breeders are NOT logical.
--
KAT
Don't just SAY you care, ACT!
*-* /|\
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
kat...@juno.com
Dog Game SuperStar <zze...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> One bit of clear evidence, occurs in the Iditarod Sled Dog
> race, the toughest and most grueling test dogs, or perhaps
> any other animals, domestic or wild, can undergo, anywhere
> on earth. They simply have to race across a blizzard known
> as Alaska. Purebred Nordic Breeds (Siberians, Malamutes,
> Samoyeds etc...) can't compete and they never win. The
> mixed/cross bred Alaskan Huskies, a "breed" which has no
> standard other than "the ability to pull hard and run fast"
> according to one of the leading mushers, win the races year
> in and year out.
>
> This may not count as "evidence" to you or anyone in a show
> ring, but it certainly counts as evidence to anyone with a
> clear head about them.
Alaskan Huskies are not random bred. The breed standard requires
dogs of specific physical ability. They are culled ruthlessly.
They don't have an "appearance" standard. They are bred selectively.
NOT what happens with 99.99% of mixed breeds.
>
> And the reason purebred breeders have to test for so many
> diseases, is because inbreeding creates the conditions
> whereby so many the alleles which cause genetic diseases can
> so easily and quickly reach critical mass in purebred
> populations.
>
They test because it makes more sense than pretending the problem
don't exist.
>
> Great, you're quoting a post from a purebred Doberman
> enthusiast, whom, as I recall, from viewing her web page,
> has had a series of Dobermans with serious, serious genetic
> problems. Who is an aficionado of one of the breeds, which
> I think we can all agree is among the very worst as far as
> prevalence of serious genetic ailments goes.
>
> That's just great. You've come up with a ringing example of
> a non biased source here.
Is it inaccurate? How is it inaccurate?
> And you're quoting not the article, but this persons
> "interpretation" of the article. Interesting. You're doing
> the exact "this is what I've heard" thing which you rail
> against later on.
Is it inaccurate? How is it inaccurate?
The article by Dr. Golden deals only with F1 generation.
> =========================================================
> Dr. B. L. Golden
> Department of Animal Sciences
> Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523
> Theory Of Hybrid Vigor
> > Dogs no. As far as I can tell the
> > George Padgett article in the Jan. Dog World is the only one out there.
> > Padgett is a world-renoun geneticist
>
> Uh, he's a VET. Whether or not he is ALSO a world renowned
> geneticist is something I'd need a little proof of, other
> than your, or Robin Nuttal's interpretation. Typically,
> vets aren't too swift on dog behavior. Not too swift at
> all. Whether or not this particular VET is "world
> renowned"-swift on genetics is certainly something which
> needs documentation. It sounds like he could be someone who
> sold a series to an audience who was looking to hear what he
> had to say.
You mean someone should PROVE they are great? Wow, what a concept.
Kind of leaves YOU out in the cold.
> Scare tactic nonsense, made to scare people away from mixed
> breed dogs. Most people are sheep and dummies, and it
> usually works. "Oh, No, but in the SECOND GENERATION YOU'LL
> GET EVERY DISEASE IMAGINABLE." You could get 50 diseases in
> a second generation mixed breed!" "All at once!"
And the reason they are wrong is?
>
> > After reading the texts (you can order at least the Willis book from the
> > Dog and Cat book catalog) I found the analysis by Dr. Padgett to be
> > entirely credible. The logic speaks much more and tends to overwhelm the
> > "I have heard" arguments especially when the person speaking those words
> > demonstrates lack of knowledge of genetic principles that have been shown
> > in scientific studies.
>
> That's exactly what you've done. You've tried to use
> opinions from someone who is in no way an unbiased, nor
> reliable, nor scientific source, to back up your position.
The unscientific approach of Willis is?
> > None of us can "prove" scientifically that the
> > either the mixed breed dog or the purebred dog is "healthier" until there
> > is a serious signficant study.
>
> Now you've said something I can't quibble with. Up until
> then, I'd leave dog show oriented magazines, with articles
> written by VETS out as qualifying a serious, significant
> study. Way out.
And the text in canine genetics?
> > However, the analysis of the theory that
> > the mixed breed dog should be healthier has always been presented in a
> > less credible manner than the reverse
> There is absolutely ZERO evidence, that purebred,
> genetically tested dogs can out compete dogs which are much
> less pure bred, and much less conscientiously genetically
> tested in the most grueling test of physical strength and
> endurance in perhaps, all of the animal kingdom.
>
By which you have ONE criterion "sled pulling." Try them at OTHER
tasks. You have YOUR one criterion for excellence. Other have theirs.
Most mixed breed dogs would make PATHETIC sled dogs. Sled dogs are SELECTED
for that ability.
> are healthier than purebreds? No. But it certainly means
> something, as do the fact that hybrid vigor exists in
> virtually all other domestic animals. Perhaps the reason
> why there purportedly is no evidence for it in dogs, is
> because, perhaps, that there really is no such thing? Or
> perhaps, and much, much, much more likely, there is
> purportedly no evidence of it in dogs, because the people in
> power in dogs don't WANT there to be any evidence for it.
Oooooh conspiracy theory. Would you volunteer YOUR dogs for testing?
> Purebreeding/ Inbreeding CAN give you certain skills and
> instincts brought to the forefront. It CAN give you a
> certain look, a certain type, a certain typical
> temperament. It CAN give you lots of things you want, but
> to say that it will give you longevity, vitality, fewer
> trips to the vets etc...because of all the genetic testing
> done by the breeder, is pure and utter and unadulterated
> nonsense, no matter how many times someone babbles it.
You have it backwards. But babbling is YOU expertise.
> Genetic testing is EXTREMELY limited and UNRELIABLE in what
> it can currently accomplish.
It is. Knowledge of the dogs is a better gap filler than ignorance.
> The issues of QUALITY and OVERPOPULATION are completely
> separate issues which all number of morons will try to lump
> together and solve with one broad stroke "neuter everything
> except dogs owned by show idiots and let those idiots decide
> the future of dogs"
And your experience with shelters and why dogs are there is?
You produce dogs. You don't take them from shelters. You don't
help people keep them out. You don't counsel people planning to
dump a dog there. You have NO CLUE.
J & B Tarantino
>J & B Tarantino <sno...@premier1.net> wrote:
>: carrying black & chocolate) or bbee (yellow carring chocolate). Again,
>: remember ALL Labs *are* either black or chocolate - they simply lack
>: the gene to enable them to *express* it. Chocolate is recessive to
>
>expressed they would be black.
>:> If yellow labs are
>:>more popular all you have to do is breed two yellows and that's what you
>:>get. You will have 100% success in breeding the desired color.
>
>: Again, no. You can get yellows and chocolates (only incorrectly pigmented
>: though) from 2 of the yellow gene patterns.
>Bbee x Bbee = Bbee, BBee or bbee
>: is one example.
>
>I haven't looked at the terminology used by lab breeders. I did consult
>Willis "Genetics of the Dog" before writing. In discussing the Lbrador
>Retriever he states "All chocolate dogs will be bbEE or bbEe and,
>because black is diluted by the bb combination, these dogs will always
>have a pale nose and lips. Any dog which is bbee will be yellow but will
>have a pale nose and lips so that yellows carrying two chocolate genes can
>be identified in this case."
>
>In your example you had Bbee (yellow) and BBee (yellow) and bbee (yellow).
>The first two have dark pigmented noses and the last a light pigmented
>nose. I stand by my answer, even if lab breeders use different
>terminology (I don't know whether they do or do not).
Yes - I made an error in that example. That example is indeed 3 yellow
products from 3 yellow dogs (I often screw up on the bbee till I remember
it's considered yellow - not chocolate! even though it's bb) You are
correct..breeding 2 yellows gets nothing but yellows. Those with a black
gene will have black pigmentation and those without liver.
<to the corner with my cap I go to reread my Willis & Little><G>
J & B Tarantino
>Out of curiosity, why would one show a dog that has a serious fault?
Well...they don't know any better? I once was in the ring with
someone obviously new to the ring with a Lab with a HUGE
white blaze on it's chest - we're allowed a small white spot but
you virtually never see them.
Or perhaps because they feel the dog is so absolutely exceptional
in all other ways that that fault will be overridden by it's other
qualities?
> My GSD has some white, so I assumed that he would
>definately lose in any conformation ring.
*Lots* of GSDs in the AKC ring have white chest spots...I even
saw a few place at this years Seiger.
J & B Tarantino
>In article <N0Cj2.167$p3.27...@news.premier1.net>,
> sno...@premier1.net (J & B Tarantino) wrote:
>Huh?
>If you call bbee "chocolate" why don't you call BBee "black"?
>In both cases the coat is yellow. Breeders are NOT logical.
Easy...because I screwed up :) bbee is yellow....simply
a brain fart on my part.
Lisa Baird
J & B Tarantino wrote:
> In article <oKDj2.31$I43...@skin01.micron.net>, "Richard Weatherly" <rich...@micron.net> wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, why would one show a dog that has a serious fault?
>
> Well...they don't know any better? I once was in the ring with
> someone obviously new to the ring with a Lab with a HUGE
> white blaze on it's chest - we're allowed a small white spot but
> you virtually never see them.
> Or perhaps because they feel the dog is so absolutely exceptional
> in all other ways that that fault will be overridden by it's other
> qualities?
>
I have a breed where the accepted colors are black, white, and various tones of brown; also
combinations of black or brown with white. Now, we occasionally see a black and tan in the ring! Rare
to find a "color fault" in this breed, but there.
Would *I* show a dog with a purely cosmetic fault, such as color? Probably, if I thought they had
something to offer in other ways. Now, a dog with lack of pigment is another matter (would sunburn),
as it would not be as capable of doing the job they are bred for, but cosmetics that DON'T affect
health or working ability, I can overlook.
And for the record, I am VERY glad out colors are easier than GSDs! <g>
Time Traveler
of a population is the better this population can cope with the stress of
genetic diseases. All of a sudden, the dog breeders are putting on expert
genetists’ hats to hand-wave a contrarian opinion without any facts nor any
sound theory. It is true that if you bred the defective genes out of a
creature, the creature is going to be void of that defective gene. But if
this creature is very inbred, there are more likely to have other problems
popping up later (perhaps several generations later). Breeding a certain
defective gene out does not mean the creature is healthy.
Regarding the color of Labs, your very simple model of genes (which I have
learned in junior high school) to control colors does break down by simple
observation. There are shades of yellow Labs. There are shades of
chocolate Labs. Black Labs do look very dark brown under intense sun light.
You dog breeders need to hire true geneticists to do such research for you
instead of coming with hypothesis, at the dog shows, that do not fit
observation.
With a very pure bred puppy selling for $500 to $3,000, I can see why you
dog breeders need to promote the idea that your selected dog breeds are just
as healthy or even healthier than mixed ones.
Delites Shih Tzu wrote in message <368EAA...@bellsouth.net>...
Delites Shih Tzu
>
> All of a sudden, the dog breeders are putting on expert
> genetists’ hats to hand-wave a contrarian opinion without any facts nor any
> sound theory.
Oh PLEASE. Without any facts nor any sound theory? Where have you
been? Have you checked in with reality lately? Obviously not!
You have obviously missed all the quotes from scientific journals and
from geneticists.
Fact is, in order to properly breed dogs you must have a basic knowledge
of genetics. For this reason, most responsible breeders are well
educated on genetic issues.
I asked you earlier, what scientific studies have you based your
theories on. You have yet to answer that. Until you can show me
scientific studies done on DOMESTIC DOGS, do not bother responding to
me, as I will ignore you.
> You dog breeders need to hire true geneticists to do such research for you
> instead of coming with hypothesis, at the dog shows, that do not fit
> observation.
>
I dont believe anyone of us has come up with hypothesis based on stuff
we got at dog shows. You obviously are illiterate or you would be able
to read the scientific basis of our claims. What is the scientific
basis of your claims? What scientific studies on domestic canines is
your arguement based upon?
I repeat, WHAT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON DOMESTIC CANINES IS YOUR ARGUEMENT
BASED UPON?
The proof is in the pudding. Until you can back up your claims, do the
world a favor and shut up.
blac...@dog-play.com
The dog bred without concern or regard for either its health,
performance or background. There is no evidence that the
average mixed breed dog is healthier than a purebred dog. The
articles provided do not support the proposition that it should
be so, and several of strongly suggest otherwise. There was,
I will concede, one comment in one article that a study concluded
that "mixed breeds seemed to live longer".
After reviewing the references provided I have concluded that the
primary factor involved in deteriming whether breedings had good
or poor results was primarily related to the degree of selectivity
involved. If there was no or poor selectivity for health, performance
or other positive attributes the outcome was poor. If there was
a high degree of selectivity with specific defineable breeding goals
the outcome was positive. No proposition was made in this thread that
denied the problems of a high inbreeding co-efficeint
nor of the benefits of CROSSBREEDING to reduce those problems.
Knowledge and understanding of what
genetics could and could not accomplish seemed to be an additional
relevant factor. The majority of the articles addressing
hybrid vigour did so either specifically or by implication only as
to the F1 generation. For the most part those that addressed
the F2 and subsequent generations did so together with the conclusion
that the effects of "hybrid vigour" was either entirely absent at
F2, or rapidly disappeared with each succeeding generation. This
point is discussed in the article you cited at
http://www.brafords.org/using.html
None of the articles supported the proposition that random breedings
of animals without regard for their qualities would, or should, result
in better health. For example, see the article you cited found at
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02310.htm
in which it states "Crossbreeding's benefit is heterosis, or hybrid vigor.
Heterosis is the difference between the average performance of the
crossbred progeny and the purebred parents. The improved performance may
be more or less than the superior parental breed (Figure 1), depending on
the breeds used. To achieve heterosis, the crossbred progeny must perform
significantly better than the parental breed average. If the performance
levels are the same, then no heterosis exists."
Furthermore, in order to achieve the goals discussed in the article
separate breeds must be maintained. This point is discussed at
length in http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02311.htm
If your goal is wide genetic variation, not health, longevity,
temperament or other specific characteristics that can be achieved by
truly random breeding. More of the "good" qualities can only be acheived
by looking for and breeding for those qualities.
I am not a breeder, nor am I an owner of a purebred dog. I do not,
however, encourage or support breeding dogs without regard to their health
or other qualities. Nor do I support breeding dogs in complete ignorance
of their genetic background. I stated, and I continue to believe, that
accepting the notion that a dog bred of a completely unknown background
should be ASSUMED to be healthier than a dog of a known background defies
science and logic. That assumption expressed in the statement " a mixed
breed is healthier than any pure bred" and variations on that theme is
completely inconsistent with any discussion on genetics anywhere.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Life is too short to be fretful.
A. Joy Switzer
pet (Tucker).
We got dog last year. It was a stray about 6 weeks old. The vet said it was a
mix of lab and shephard.
We've had other people say that he has chow in him because of the markings on
his tongue. From all colorations he is a yellow lab. Really good coloring!!!
His nose is longer and thinner like a shephards and his body is less stocky
like a shephard's. He is a very lean dog. (Weighin about 65 pounds!)
My question is:
Just because of the spots on his tongue, does that mean he has chow in him. I
have seen boxers with tongue markings too. Are chows the only breed with spots
on their tongues?
We aren't going to show him or anything...just curious owners. He is a
beautiful dog and it amazes me how anyone could let two beautiful puppies like
this go! (His brother was adopted by a coworker)
Thanks for any replies......
Joy Hamilton
Time Traveler wrote:
> Yes, the Chow gene for black tongue is dominant. However, not anything
> black is dominant. For example, in the same litter of several puppies, I
> picked a black Lab among all blacks and one yellow. Black, yellow, and
> chocolate can all come from the same litter with any different colors of
> parents.
>
> I also believe this hip displaysia thing is also a recessive gene. Most of
> genetic diseases are recessive. Therefore, the more mixed up the genes the
> more healthy a dog can be. This goes for any creatures too.
>
> blac...@dog-play.com wrote in message
> <368d0750$0$97...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> >The Chow/Golden Retriever down the street looks like a badly bred Chow.
> >Her puppies looked even more Chow than she did. In fact if you didn't
> >know they were mixed you wouldn't know it. Some of the puppies had
> >typical chow temperaments, some were closer to GR. Lab mixes often look
> >like full Labs.
> >
> >When it comes to mixes the key word is mystery. Especially when you get
> >to second generation. People think in terms of simple genetics, X is
> >dominent over Y. In many cases the expression of a gene depends upon the
> >interaction between genes. If the dog is XxYyzz for color it will come
> >out green, if it is Xxyyzz it will come out blue, etc. Since most biology
> >classes don't get into this there is no reason the average person should
> >know it.
> >
> >A recessive can be expressed if the gene responsible for surpressing its
> >expression is absent. It could be that chow black tongue is dominent.
> >Nothing wrong with your logic. It could also not be dominent, but
> >expressed or not expressed depending upon the presence or absence of other
> >genes. If genes were just simple dominent-recessive then getting rid of
> >hip displaysia and other problems would be easy.
> >
> >I also wouldn't count on the "full lab" being a "full lab" even if he had
> >"papers" Puppy mills and backyard breeders are not noted for their care
> >in breeding. Most breed registeries rely primarily on breeder honesty in
> >reporting.
> >
> >Diane Blackman
> >di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
> >- - - - - - - -
> >"Dogs that are trained by handlers who do not try to understand how their
> >companions learn will never be able to quite master the rules of the
> >game." "Smart Trainers -- Brilliant Dogs" by Janet Lewis
> >
> >Time Traveler <wwa...@cwix.com> wrote:
> >: You may be correct here.
> >
> >: For those of us not breeders, we tend to get dogs after they are born.
> My
> >: dog when he was 8 weeks old look just like a black Lab then. He still
> does,
> >: and he has the temprament of Labs/Golden Retreivers.
> >
> >: star chavez wrote in message ...
> >:>Unfortunately, You can't *know* what characteristics a pup will favour
> >:>with two different parent breeds. The pup may look exactly CHow (with a
> >:>high-maintenance coat) and behave like a CHow (nothing like a lab).
> >:>I have a dobe and a lab cross...IF I had wanted the look of a lab, I
> would
> >:>have been extremely dissapointed as the only evident lab in my dog is a
> >:>white blaze on his chest....other than this he looks dobe through and
> >:>through and has a temperament to match. :)
> >
> >:>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Time Traveler wrote:
> >:>> Get a mix dog with 1/2 Lab and some Chow. The mutt would be healthier
> >: than
> >:>> any pure bred Labs, would look just like Labs, and would be smaller
> than
> >:>> regular Labs. The only visible Chow marking would be on the tongue
> >: (black
> >:>> spots).
> >
Twzl, Sligo and Roy Happy Together
>Just because of the spots on his tongue, does that mean he has chow in him. I
>have seen boxers with tongue markings too. Are chows the only breed with spots
>on their tongues?
Nope. Golden Retrievers can have them as well.
Ann, Twzl, Sligo and Roy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
" But I forget you are from New York, right. Not an area of Menses candidates."
Carole Ernst, talking about me...
Twzl, Sligo and Roy Happy Together
>Chow is the only pure bred I know that has spotted black tongue. And I know
>for sure that my dog has 1/4 Chow.
It will be nice when you can finally learn something here. Oops! here it
comes!!!
Golden Retrievers OFTEN have black spots on their tongues. Chows on the
other hand have solid purple/black tongues. Maybe you could actually go
read up on some dog breeds, rather than showing off your lack of
information?
>According to all these dog breeders, they are telling us that our mutts are
>not as healthy as their pure breds.
Well, I'm not a dog breeder. But I'll still tell you that a mutt is not
healthier than a pure bred just for being a mutt.
Cris Waller
Happy Together) wrote:
>In <368FEB85...@mindspring.com> "A. Joy Switzer" <aj...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>Just because of the spots on his tongue, does that mean he has chow in him. I
>>have seen boxers with tongue markings too. Are chows the only breed with spots
>>on their tongues?
>
>Nope. Golden Retrievers can have them as well.
In fact, that's how I know when Amber's had enough exercise...when
she's panting so hard I can see the black spot on her tongue :>)
Time Traveler
expert on genetics.
That is why you talk so much nonsense.
Case closed.
Delites Shih Tzu wrote in message <368FED...@bellsouth.net>...
Time Traveler
for sure that my dog has 1/4 Chow.
Since your dog's mixedness of breeds is very much similar to mine, I do
believe you that he is a beautiful dog. Mine got complements all the time.
According to all these dog breeders, they are telling us that our mutts are
not as healthy as their pure breds.
A. Joy Switzer wrote in message <368FEB85...@mindspring.com>...
>I just checked this group today for an answer to a question that I had
about my
>pet (Tucker).
>
>We got dog last year. It was a stray about 6 weeks old. The vet said it was
a
>mix of lab and shephard.
>
>We've had other people say that he has chow in him because of the markings
on
>his tongue. From all colorations he is a yellow lab. Really good
coloring!!!
>His nose is longer and thinner like a shephards and his body is less stocky
>like a shephard's. He is a very lean dog. (Weighin about 65 pounds!)
>
>My question is:
>
>Just because of the spots on his tongue, does that mean he has chow in him.
I
>have seen boxers with tongue markings too. Are chows the only breed with
spots
>on their tongues?
>
Dianne Schoenberg
>It is a consensus in science of genetics that the more diversified the genes
>of a population is the better this population can cope with the stress of
>genetic diseases.
You are confusing the idea of heterozygosity in a population with
heterozygosity in an individual. It is quite possible to have a
population of highly homozygous individuals, yet have a lot of genetic
variation within that population.
>All of a sudden, the dog breeders are putting on expert
>genetists’ hats to hand-wave a contrarian opinion without any facts nor any
>sound theory.
No sound theory? OK, tell me what problems you have with Willis, Padgett,
Little, Burns & Fraser, Scott & Fuller, and Hutt. Pick any point you like
out of any of the books they've written and let's discuss it. It'll
be fun.
>It is true that if you bred the defective genes out of a
>creature, the creature is going to be void of that defective gene.
Hey, you're getting it!
>But if this creature is very inbred, there are more likely to have other
>problems popping up later (perhaps several generations later).
No. There you're wrong. A dog that is highly homozygous is very likely
to express any defects it may be carrying. That's one of advantages of
inbreeding. Therefor, contrary to your assertion, you're far more
UNlikely to be surprised by an unexpected genetic nasty passed down from
an inbred ancestor. You're also ignoring the fact that no matter how
homozygous an individual animal is, all you need to do is to produce
highly heterozygous descendents is to outcross with a single mating.
Homozygousity is therefore one of the *very* easiest things to get rid
of in a breeding program, should one wish to do so.
>You dog breeders need to hire true geneticists to do such research for you
Like Padgett and Bell, perhaps? They are both working with several
breed clubs on reducing the incidence of genetic disease.
Dianne
Delites Shih Tzu
claims. Studies done on domestic canines. Oh, you cant, can you? Then
shut up.
And please stop emailing me. If you email me one more time (unless its
an email containing the scientific studies I am asking for), I will
report you to your ISP.
blac...@dog-play.com
: Chow is the only pure bred I know that has spotted black tongue. And I know
: for sure that my dog has 1/4 Chow.
A purebred chow had a solid black tongue. So does the Shar Pei (see
http://www.akc.org/sharpei.htm ). Other breeds may have spots of black on
their tongues even if they are completely unrelated to either of the above
breeds.
: Since your dog's mixedness of breeds is very much similar to mine, I do
: believe you that he is a beautiful dog. Mine got complements all the time.
There is absolutely no reason not to believe her. Mixed breeds can be
wonderful. Personally I think mine is the best dog in the entire world
and absolutely no dog is just like her.
: According to all these dog breeders, they are telling us that our mutts are
: not as healthy as their pure breds.
No. No one said that. What was said is that mixed breeds cannot be
presumed to be healthier than purebreds simply because they are mixed.
Being a mixed breed does not automatically mean the dog is healthier.
If you find that insulting remember that you made exactly the inverse
statement, specifically
" The mutt would be healthier than any pure bred Labs"
if you had said
" The pure bred Labs would be healthier than any mutt"
then *I* would have made exactly the same objection that I did. There is
no evidence to say that just any old purebred will be healthier than any
particular mutt. It is a HUGE mistake to think that a dog must be
healthier just because it has "papers." It is a mistake people make just
as frequently as assuming that mixed breeds must be healthier - just
because they are mixed.
There is a big difference between the general and the specific. As a
general proposition there is no evidence that random bred dogs (in
general) are more healthy than pure bred dogs (in general). There is
evidence that being selective in breeding results in a dog that is
healthier. That evidence is consistent with all research and practices
used in livestock and agriculture.
None of us have any idea how healthy or unhealthy your individual dog is.
Whether your individual dog is more or less healthy than another dog can
only be aproximately deterimined by checking the health of the respective
dogs.
If the best chances for sound health are very important to you then your
chances will be best if you select a dog with a known background for good
health. For some of us the charm of the mixed breed overrides our
concerns about health risks. I am one of those people. Both my dogs are
mixed breeds. I'm not insulted by the notion that my dog's good health
was not as predictable as, for example, by sister's dog who came from a
very experienced and very caring breeder. Risk is as risk does.
Diane Blackman
di...@dog-play.com http://www.dog-play.com/
- - - - - - - -
"The nature of reinforcement and its timing and delivery are essential for
a dog trainer to master." "Smart Trainers -- Brilliant Dogs" by Janet
Lewis
Dog Game SuperStar
two purebreeds, and a "mixed breed" is something which has
been mixed further.
blac...@dog-play.com wrote:
>
> This discussion started as one discussing the random bred dog.
> The dog bred without concern or regard for either its health,
> performance or background. There is no evidence that the
> average mixed breed dog is healthier than a purebred dog.
And there is certainly no evidence of the opposite and
likely never will be. So there's no point to be made
there.
And the links I posted were not meant to "prove" anything.
They are simply links I dug up regarding crossbreeding.
They weren't carefully chosen to "support my position."
They are simply links for people to look at, who are all too
often bombarded with the nonsense of Show Idiots who blabber
endlessly on dog breeding, without making any sense.
Crossbreeding gives you hybrid vigor in an *overwhelming*
majority of agricultural/domestic animal circumstances. But
certainly not always. You're desperately trying to find
"flaws" in these studies. I know all about hybrid vigor and
heterosis. It is a fundamental part of nature. I simply
got links for other people to read if they are interested.
So by pointing out: "but this study said such and such" and
that doesn't support your hypothesis, you are basically
spinning your wheels.
You made a post, whereby you quoted (Robin Nutall), a
purebred Doberman enthusiast's interpretation of what she
read in a dog show oriented magazine, and tried to pass it
off as "evidence" to support your fearmongering position
regarding the _DANGER_ to be had in crossbreeding and/or
mixed breeding as opposed to sticking with purebreeds, which
Robin Nutall has done, in Dobes, with, apparently, tragic
results...according to her own web page.
=======================================================
FWIW I have Medline and Bioline at my finger tips. I did a
search on
hybrid vigor. Got matches. Did a search on canine, got lots
of matches.
Put the two together. No matches. Not a single article since
1975 which
had the words CANINE and either hybrid vigor or heterosis in
them. None.
Zero, zilch, nada. Peas and corn yes. Dogs no. As far as I
can tell the
George Padgett article in the Jan. Dog World is the only one
out there.
Padgett is a world-renoun geneticist and says that hybrid
vigor in mixed
breeds exists, but only for the first generation, and it
doesn't prevent
even the first generation from having any shared genetic
disease. After
the very first generation hybrid vigor is lost and
subsequent
generations can have ALL of the disease shared by the
ancestors, a total
of 102 different diseases, versus an average of 20-50 in
each purebred
population.
========================================================
What this statement does, is ACKNOWLEDGES that there is
hybrid vigor in dogs, but then immediately segues into
pathetically worst case scenario scare tactics, that it only
lasts for one generation, and that thereafter, all hell will
break loose and the dogs can get ALL THE DISEASES OF ALL THE
ANCESTORS"
OH MY GOD!!
What Robin (and you by extension) is trying to say, that
it's better to stick with sickly Dobermans (like she does)
who die expensive and young, from debilitating diseases,
than to take a chance on a cross or mix breed. This is what
is called the "I'm an IDIOT and I want everybody else to be
an idiot TOO!" Syndrome, which is epidemic among certain
populations of purebred dog enthusiasts.
They don't want people to find out what I found out. That
by having a completely unplanned cross breeding, with no
costly genetic testing, that I could get an extremely
healthy, athletic dog (the Handsome Chazzman--of course),
who stars in the video the whole internet can't stop talking
about:
DOGZ ALLOWED
http://dogtv.com
Heh, and not pay a dime for him, and not do any genetic
testing to get him.
> The
> articles provided do not support the proposition that it should
> be so, and several of strongly suggest otherwise. There was,
> I will concede, one comment in one article that a study concluded
> that "mixed breeds seemed to live longer".
Uhhh....There was all sorts of evidence on improvements is
survival, reproduction, size, health and longevity in cross
breeds in several different species. Including the evidence
below from a DOCTOR of animals science. Typically, these
people are much more keen on genetics, than are VETS. This
guy is a professor, not a VET.
Pay attention to this quote:
Virtually all crossing of breeds results in
an increase in weight, muscularity, conception
rate and resistance to disease. Collectively, this
increase in performance is called hybrid vigor.
What he's saying is that it really doesn't matter how
selective you are. No matter what the "quality" of what you
start with, crossbreeding *will* get you better offspring.
You cross crap with crap, you'll get improved crap. You
silver with silver, you'll get gold.
=========================================================
Dr. B. L. Golden
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523
Theory Of Hybrid Vigor
The effects of crossbreeding beef cattle have been well
known for a long time (Gregory, et. al,
1978). Virtually all crossing of breeds results in an
increase in weight, muscularity, conception
rate and resistance to disease. Collectively, this increase
in performance is called hybrid vigor.
Hybrid vigor is the additional amount of performance seen in
crossbred animals, beyond the
average of their parents. For example, if you were to breed
a group of Angus females with an
average adjusted weaning weight of 230kg to a mob of
Charolais bulls with an average adjusted
weaning weight of 250kg, because of hybrid vigor you would
expect the progeny's weaning
weight to be more then the simple average of the Angus
females and the Charolais bulls
(ignoring, for a moment, potential differences in milk
production of Angus and Charolais). You
might expect that this group of calves may have an average
adjusted weaning weight of, say
275kg, which is 35kg more then the average of the Angus
females and Charolais bull's own
weaning weight ([230kg+250kg]/2 = 240kg).
This additional 35kg is the hybrid vigor. It is a result of
combining genes from animals which
are less related because they are from different breeds.
Hybrid vigor has been used to increase
productivity in plants such as wheat or corn, and poultry
for many, many years. The pursuit
and use of hybrid vigor has also dramatically changed the
way commercial hogs production is
practised. It has been only the last approximately 15 years
that hybrid vigor has been used
extensively in beef cattle. In the United States, for
example, it has been estimated that about
75% of all cattle slaughtered are crossbred.
To understand how hybrid vigor works we have to understand a
little about how genes which
control the expression of traits such as weaning weight are
inherited from their parents. Each
parent contributes one complete copy of the genetic material
(DNA) to its offspring. Therefore,
each offspring has two copies of each gene, one copy from
each parent. Part of the reason
that animals are not identical is that the genetic material
inherited from one parent is different
than the genetic material inherited from the other parent.
Even, animals which are full siblings
(have the same parents) have only half their genes in
common, on average. This is because
each parent has two complete copies of DNA and provides only
half to each offspring. The
genes contained in the half an offspring receives are a
random mixture of each parent's genes.
Because hybrid vigor is the opposite of what you get when
you inbreed....
========================================================
> After reviewing the references provided I have concluded that the
> primary factor involved in deteriming whether breedings had good
> or poor results was primarily related to the degree of selectivity
> involved.
When you cross Cattle Pure Breeds, or Pig Pure Breeds you
don't even have to be selective to get hybrid vigor. You
WILL get bigger, stronger, healthier animals who survive
better at successive age intervals, ON AVERAGE than you will
from the purebred populations who were used for the cross.
It's VERY SIMPLE.
Now, if you are "selective" and take only the "BEST" of,
say, a cattle breed, and cross them with only the "BEST" of
another pure Cattle Breed, you WILL, STILL, ALSO, GET hybrid
vigor and an increase in performance in virtually all health
and production statistics, on average.
> Knowledge and understanding of what
> genetics could and could not accomplish seemed to be an additional
> relevant factor. The majority of the articles addressing
> hybrid vigour did so either specifically or by implication only as
> to the F1 generation.
And your point is? Uhhh, that's what the links were about:
"CROSSBREEDING"
which automatically implies an F1 generation. The reason
people in agriculture cross breed, is because they KNOW it
will give them a boost in production (hybrid vigor). This
is also why they would never do away with purebreeds.
Because you CAN'T get that boost without purebreeds to
cross. No "pure" breeds, means no hybrid vigor means no
boost in production. Purebreeds are good. So are mixed
breeds, just healthier, stronger and more productive, in
virtually all of agriculture, plant or animal.
AND ALSO, in DOGS, apparently, according to none other than
the supposedly world renowned "geneticist" ) Dr. Padgett.
> For the most part those that addressed
> the F2 and subsequent generations did so together with the conclusion
> that the effects of "hybrid vigour" was either entirely absent at
> F2,
First of all, hardly any of the articles talk about hybrid
vigor being "entirely absent in the F2 generation." In fact,
pig farmers often use a three breed crossbreeding rotational
crossbreeding system, where all sorts of more "random" type
breeding takes place, including F2 hybrid vigor. You simply
writing what you want to hear.
And about the hybrid vigor "rapidly disappeared with each
succeeding generation." which some of the articles do
mention....
Let me clarify what you are saying, since it's a
dummyism-istic attempt to confuse an issue. What you mean
is that only after successive generations of crossbreeding,
will the cross/mixed breeds eventually deteriorate back down
to the level of quality of the purebreeds?
In other words, say you were to cross Dobermans and
Rottweilers. Let's say you took the VERY BEST bred
Dobermans you could find and crossbred them to the VERY BEST
Rottweilers from the finest lines. Here's what would likely
happen. The F1 generation, would be, on average,
significantly healthier than, yes, the
"well bred- shining-examples-of-their-breed"
dogs who were their parents. And only after successive
generations of crossbreeding, would these mixed/cross breeds
"deteriorate" back down to the quality of the "Well Bred"
purebreds. What you AREN'T saying, is that the mixes, no
matter how often you keep crossing them, will EVER
deteriorate BELOW the quality of the well bred parents.
So again, your point is pretty much meaningless.
Getting a good crossbreed of two breeds you like, from
healthy parents is pretty much a NO BRAINER statistically,
fans, unless, of course you are more hung up on looks than
health.
Is it a NO BRAINER to grab some HEINZ 57 dog who has fifteen
breeds in him? No, you might love the dog, you might hate
it, even if it's the healthiest dog on earth. You won't
know what to expect temperament wise. But, say, if you are
a Doberman and a Rott enthusiast, you would have NOTHING TO
LOSE (except AKC registration) and EVERYTHING TO GAIN by
trying a crossbreed of the two breeds. Especially since the
breed are both prone to so many genetic diseases.
It's very simple Diane. Hybrid vigor exists in dogs,
according to me, according to sled dog racers, *and*
according to Dr. Padgett, your own expert witness.
Obtaining a good crossbreed from healthy parents is a NO
BRAINER. Getting a more random mixed breed, can also be a
NO BRAINER. But not as much of a NO BRAINER as a Reeces
Peanut butter cup combo of two breeds you like which go well
together, and which will give you the type/size of dog you
want. This doesn't mean purebreds are bad. Of course not,
and I may well get one for my next dog, who knows? It's
just that they are LESS of a NO BRAINER, healthwise,
longevitywise, on average, than are crossbred dogs.
i.e, crossbred dogs ARE healthier than pure bred dogs.
i.e. "WELL BRED" crossbred dogs ARE healthier than
"WELL BRED" purebred dogs
i.e. crappily bred crossbred dogs ARE healthier than
crappily bred purebred dogs.
As for MIXED BREEDS being healthier than purebreeds, in
general, on average? Hard to say. But they are almost
certainly AT LEAST AS healthy as purebreeds, on average.
And are PROBABLY somewhat healthier, on average than
purebreeds. Does this mean purebreeds are bad and should be
eliminated? Of course not. It just means that much of what
is written about cross/mixed breed dogs in the Dog Game is
blabbering nonsense, with an ulterior motive involved
(usually population control).
The Incomparable DGS
star chavez
believe you that he is a beautiful dog. Mine got complements all the
time.
According to all these dog breeders, they are telling us that our mutts
are
not as healthy as their pure breds.
"
I also believe that your dog is beautiful. Aren't all our personal dogs
more beautiful than any other?:). It really doesn't matter what breed(s)
they are. However, I don't think that anyone here is telling you that your
dog is less healthy because he is not PB. Your dog may well be much
healthier than the PB living next door to you (or even moreso than some
peoples on here)..BUt, the people who know genetics here were talking in
generalities and what they have found throughout the GENERAL population.
(that MB's were not necessarily healthier than PB's).They were not saying
your dog was inferior in any way....Don't get hepped
up about it.
Why don't you do as suggested and read up on the research so that you can
come to your own conclusions?
CHeers, C.
em...@bcm.tmc.edu
> > seen........consider the fact that black & tan in GSDs is the third color
> > in order of dominance (following gold sable and grey sable).
>
>
> ---
> Lisa Baird
Me too, probably because I have one :) Of course, I get asked quite often if
she is a mix...if it isnt B/T, it isnt a GSD !
Diane
Dog Game SuperStar
> > For the most part those that addressed
> > the F2 and subsequent generations did so together with the conclusion
> > that the effects of "hybrid vigour" was either entirely absent at
> > F2,
>
> First of all, hardly any of the articles talk about hybrid
> vigor being "entirely absent in the F2 generation." In fact,
> pig farmers often use a three breed crossbreeding rotational
> crossbreeding system, where all sorts of more "random" type
> breeding takes place, including F2 hybrid vigor. You simply
> writing what you want to hear.
For Instance:
=====================================================
Using F1 Crossbred Sires in Pig Breeding
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02311.htm
The use of crossbred boars has often been questioned.
Research has shown that crossbred boars are more aggressive
at a younger age and settle a larger percentage of sows.
[SuperStar's Comment
(i.e., hybrid vigor involves sex, also, not just
health, and the, uhh, ability to "perform")]
Their progeny are no worse when compared to pigs sired by
purebred boars. Crossbred boars do work well as terminal
sires in terminal and rotaterminal programs. For instance,
if Breed F is noted for superior postweaning performance
and Breed G is superior for leanness, Fl boars from
crossing Breeds F and G would be more aggressive breeders
and their progeny should be better than average for both
postweaning performance and leanness.
=====================================================
The Incomparable DGS
http://dogtv.com
Mary Healey
> ...If it <hip dysplasia> was recessive, it would be
> easily isolated and eliminated and we would no longer have to worry
> about it.
Not quite. Without a test for carriers, it is very difficult to
completely eliminate recessive alleles.
> >Most of genetic diseases are recessive.
>
> Actually most are polygenic, which is why it is so hard to eradicate
> them.
I'm not too sure about "most". Some are dominant or recessive with
incomplete penetrance, some are polygenic, some are just rare enough
that misidentification or confusion with another problem is likely.
M.
Lisa Baird
Mary Healey wrote:
> Not quite. Without a test for carriers, it is very difficult to
> completely eliminate recessive alleles.
>
We are very fortunate in my breed, the DNA test for PRA is up and running!
About 100 PWds have had their blood tested and results back already!
While this is a HUGE step in helping to breed healthier animals, its not
fool proof. It is a DNA linkage test. I won't pretend to understand all
the details, but basically, they are not working with the prcd gene
itself, but a "marker"?
Anyone interested in this can look at the Optigen site at:
<http://www.optigen.com/> Click on PRA: Portuguese Water Dogs.
Basically, it divides tested animals into one of 3 groups. "A", is a group
of dogs that are NOT carriers of the prcd gene, they have only "normal"
genes for this. The "B" dogs are "probably" heterozygous for the gene for
prcd, making them non affected, but carriers, with a 50/50 chance of
passing on the gene to offspring. Dogs that test in the "C" category are
"probably" homozygous, meaning they would be affected, and pass on the
prcd gene to ALL offspring.
The "probably" comes from this not being a test of the gene itself, but a
"marker". The GOOD news is, we CAN be sure of dogs that are in the "A"
group,. meaning they CAN NOT pass on the gene for PRA to offspring. Dogs
falling in the "B" or "C" categories can be bred to "A" animals without
fear of producing PRA affected puppies.
The test for other breeds is on its way in the near future, I hear. There
are exciting things happening in dog breeding!
Delites Shih Tzu
dysplasia.
Read more here: http://www.animalarts.com/list/