breeding a longer lived dog
John G. Faughnan
I hope I am not resurrecting a long dulled discussion, but I have
wondered for some years why we do not attempt to breed a longer lived
dog. As our lifespans lengthen, the gap between the terribly short
lifespan of our companions and our own lives is growing longer. I wish
my 8 yo mixed breed companion could have a longer active, healthy, life
than we can expect.
Canine lifespan is highly variable. True, it is related to size, but
there are some short-lives small dogs and some longer-lived medium sized
dogs. (Of course Great Danes are sadly short lived). Size alone is not
everything.
Breeding for longevity is, obviously, tougher than breeding for
attributes that manifest early. Still, I can think of a few ways to
begin. The goal would be a mid-sized dog, with a companionable
temperament, with a heathy active lifespan of 13-15 years, followed by
3-5 years of old age. This seems close enough to current canine
lifespans to be achievable without major genetic engineering.
Of course this would not be pure-bred! It would be a new breed that
would take generations to stabilize.
We could begin with long lived healthy male dogs who are still sexually
active. They could be bred with young female dogs of a healthy line. A
longer-lived mid-sized dog could be crossed with a smaller longer-lived
dog. I suspect dogs with delayed onset of puberty would be likely to
have longer heathy lives, and delayed onset of puberty is obviously much
easier to use as a breeding marker than long life.
There are other techniques to consider. We could freeze ova from
potential female candidates (this is done in humans seeking IVF, and is
not a dangerous procedure). Those that had delayed puberty and
physiologic markers of youthfulness in middle-aged could be selected for
fertilization from similar males (young females, could, of course, bear
the pups).
Such a breeding program would take time, perhaps 30-60 years, to achieve
the desired goal. The dogs entered in the program would, however, be
desireable for their optimized health and vigor. They would also carry
the cachet of being the fore-runners of a new breed of dog.
Comments?
--
John Faughnan M.D.
john@-remove-.faughnan.com
(To form my email address, remove the text -remove- from this string. I
had to do this to foil spam robots.)
http://dragon.labmed.umn.edu/~john/
KARENKATO
Just recently I read a detailed note about Afghans in America vs Afghans
in Afghanistan. One of the more interesting note was the fact that
Afghans in Afghanistan live to be 20+ years in age and at 18 - 19 years of
age these dogs are still hunting and very much active. American Afghans
usually live to 14 - 15 years of age and by 13 are not very active (in
terms of huntings, moving about, etc.). The other issue were teeth...
American Afghans did not have as good of teeth.
One would think, that with the availble commerical foods and vet care that
one has here in America, that the opposite of longevity would be true in
Afghans. Could health be linked to what we feed our dogs? The dogs in
Afghanistan do not get raw meat that often, but are mainly sustained on a
type of bread that is made there and scraps left over from meals.
One would wonder if there is a connection to what we feed our dogs in
connection to genetics, if this is a factor in longevity.
LauriC8
We, humans, live longer because we know more about how to care for
ourselves. We know that if we don't smoke, drink only moderately,
exercise properly, have regular checkups, etc. - we live longer (usually).
Since dogs can't do those things for themselves, we need to do for them.
We feed what we think is a high quality food, only to find the additives
and preservatives are killing our dogs. We take them in for their regular
shots only to find we are (in many cases) over-vaccinating them. And, as
a whole, we let our friends get WAY to overweight and out of shape!
I can't begin to count the number of times I've had people comment on my
German Shepherds weight. 'Isn't she awfully skinny?' and 'Don't you feed
that poor thing?'. She weighs about 65', which for her frame is perfect.
You can just see her ribcage and, if you rub along her side, you can feel
them - but they don't stick out.
I constantly see dogs in the vet that are OBSCENELY over weight. So we
are falling short of our responsibilities in that respect.
I guess my point is I don't think it's totally genetic.
I would like to see a test case. Take 4 Golden Retrievers bitches. The
same litter, as many OFAs and CERFs in the pedigree as possible.
Now place Golden #1 in a home and give no formal intsructions other than
the basic ones that any good breeder would give.
Golden #2 goes to a home where they will exercise the dog on a written
schedule - let's say building up to a 1 hour jog, twice a day, by the time
the bitch is 1 year old.
Golden #3 goes to a home where they feed him only a 100% all natural diet
- as described in the Vollard (sp?) books.
And Golden #4 goes to a home where #2 and #3 requirements are combined -
food and exercise.
At 3 years of age, after passing all health tests, the 4 bitches would be
breed to the same male and 4 of the ensuing pups would be placed in the
same 4 home styles.
Repeat this for at least 5 generations and see if there is a difference in
the longevity of the animals.
You can't use just any mutt - there's no way to check the background and
thus ensure the best possible starting point. You wouldn't want to pick a
mutt for the pound as your new generation starting point, go through all
the generations of breeding it takes to establish type and determine
longevity, only to have heart disease crop up in the middle of the litter.
And it cropped up because, unbeknownst to you the great-grandfather of
the mutt you started with had congential heart disease and it was quietly
being passed along the lines.
Shepherds used to be a (realtively) long lived breed. Now we have a
special club for those that make it to 13. To me, that's pretty sad.
There is so much and so little we know on longevity in dogs. But we are
learning more and more every day.
We do what we can now and hope (and plan) for the future.
Lauri Carey / Lau...@aol.com
Carey German Shepherds
Slave to 6 German Shepherds, 1 Skye Terrier, 3 cats and the new litter of puppies!
Lori
(Snipped John Faughnan's thought-provoking post about the possibility of
breeding a longer-lived breed of dog)
John and all,
I thought that the primary reason for the increase in human life spans
was the advance of medical science...vaccinations, anitbiotics,
surgeries, transplants, treatments for diseases which were previously
incurable....etc. I didn't think the human gene pool was becoming
stronger or more long-lived for genetic reasons...but that is just my
impression. I haven't studied such things, and as a doctor and the
originator of this thread, you obviously have. It would be wonderful to
have a dog that easily lived 20-25 years...!
Of course we have had advances in veterinary medicine as well, and I bet
dogs do live longer, in general, than they used to. I have a cocker who
a couple of decades ago would have had to be euthanized, but with
medication, she is living a pretty good life. True, a lot of pet owners
don't take advantage of the advances in vet medicine...but many of us
do, and are grateful.
Do you envision this as a definitely new breed? How is this different
from what responsible breeders are doing for their own breeds...testing
for genetic defects before breeding litters, continually improving their
bloodlines?
This is a very interesting topic, requiring more thought on my part...
Lori
--
Ripley's Den Page: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/1442
"In doG We Trust"
John G. Faughnan
[bcc Lori, newsgroup]
Lori graciously pointed out in an email that human lifespan increases
are unrelated to the kind of increase I'm thinking of for dogs. This is
absolutely true, and I should have been clearer. Human lifespans
increase because of better diet, hygeine, immunization, public health,
medical therapy, birth control, and reductions in war and violence.
It's true all of these things are also available for dogs, and that many
dogs are likely living longer than ever before. Immunizations, better
dog food, and veterinary care all make a great difference.
Dogs have an advantage over us however, that we can use to their
benefit. We humans are unlikely to choose our mates on the basis of
longevity, but dogs are somewhat less selective. (Robert Heinlein, by
the way, based a number of science fiction novels on the premise of just
such a human choice, but I digress.)
It feels odd to me to think about deliberately extending the lifespan of
our dogs, though we have done far odder things to the wolf in the past
100,000 or so years [1]. I think that by comparison to past practices,
breeding for a longer healthier life is a modest change.
Lori asked if I envisioned a definitely new breed. I'm not sure what the
technical meaning of the term 'breed' is. I'm don't think the ll-dog
(long-lived dog) would look like a 'breed'. There would be a lot of
crossing involved, and in breeding for health, longevity, and
temperament we'd probably forsake the usual breed markers of morphology
and size. I'd guess that the new breed might look like the 50 lb mongrel
cur that shows up in cities everywhere. (See my home page for a photo of
my favorite cur.)
Lori also asked how this would be different from what responsible
breeders are already doing to reduce genetic defects in purebred dogs. I
think that there'd be a lot of similarity, and that many of the same
techniques could be used. The main difference would be in the extent of
cross-breeding ll-dogs from different breeds, and in the use of
longevity markers in addition to confirming the absence of genetic
defects. We would, of course, need the same rigorous genetic tracking
used by modern breeders.
Thanks Lori!
john
[1] A recent estimate of how long we've been altering the wolf since we
first began running with wolves.
Erika
In article <19970627184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, kare...@aol.com
says...
>
>Just recently I read a detailed note about Afghans in America vs Afghans
>in Afghanistan. One of the more interesting note was the fact that
>Afghans in Afghanistan live to be 20+ years in age and at 18 - 19 years of
>age these dogs are still hunting and very much active. American Afghans
>usually live to 14 - 15 years of age and by 13 are not very active (in
>terms of huntings, moving about, etc.). The other issue were teeth...
>American Afghans did not have as good of teeth.
Where did you read this article? Afghan Hound Review did a story a year or
so ago about Afghans in Afghanistan, and the only "Tazi" they could locate
was of questionable descent.
In any event, if this story is true (and it does seem doubtful), it would
suggest that the breeders of these dogs are selecting for longevity, which is
not the case here in the States. The teeth of American Afghans depends on
the lines and the care that the teeth get. An amount of it is genetic, and
the other part of good teeth is hygiene either through brushing or doing lots
of vigorous chewing.
>
>One would think, that with the availble commerical foods and vet care that
>one has here in America, that the opposite of longevity would be true in
>Afghans. Could health be linked to what we feed our dogs?
Of course health is linked to food! That is a fundamental truth for any
animal. Proper nutrition is absolutely critical to good health.
>The dogs in
>Afghanistan do not get raw meat that often, but are mainly sustained on a
>type of bread that is made there and scraps left over from meals.
I personally have not seen any evidence that meat has to be raw to be good
for dogs. I have yet to have someone explain to me what the difference is
nutritionally between raw and cooked meat. Food can't be the only factor
here, though. I mean, obviously, these dogs are not dying of genetic
diseases.
>
>One would wonder if there is a connection to what we feed our dogs in
>connection to genetics, if this is a factor in longevity.
It's more than food vs genetics. Environment in general plays an enormous
role in health. If a dog is exposed to a lot of diseases such as lepto or
parvo and has not been vaccinated, it will probably die. Nutrition plays a
role, environment plays a role, and genetics play a role.
As an Afghan owner, I would really love to read the article you mentioned!
--
Best regards,
Erika
"Dogs are not people dressed up in fur coats,
and to deny them their nature is to do them
great harm." -Jeanne Schinto
MishaHouse
<<I have yet to have someone explain to me what the difference is
nutritionally between raw and cooked meat.>>
Erika, I feed some raw, and as I understand it (please bear with me, I'm
no expert), the benefit of raw foods is that there are so many living
enzymes and natural "biotics" that cooking kills.
Oh--here, I can quote Dr. Wysong, from "Fresh and Whole": FRESH MEANS
RAW-- "Cooking--frying, baking, boiling, heating in any manner--severely
alters food. Most significantly, high heat kills the food in the sense
that all the valuable enzymes are destroyed, and vitamins, minerals, amino
acids, essential fatty acids and various other micronutrients are altered,
depleted, or lost completely. Worse yet, heat can initiate chemical
reactions which can turn perfectly wonderful foods into toxins and
carcinogens."
<snip>
"But what about the pet food manufacturers who strongly caution against
supplementing their 'balanced and 100% complete' foods with anything else,
since a well-meaning but uninformed pet owner might upset the delicate
balance of their 'nutrition-in-a-bag'? Nonsense. A pet's body needs raw,
fresh foods as much as any body. But don't wait for the majority of the
pet food industry to help you with this. To recommend home
supplementation may mean better nutrition, but it results in less pet food
sold."
<snip>
"Although some foods should not be fed completely raw and are best when
lightly cooked, there are dozens of enzyme/vitamin/mineral-rich foods
which will, in their natural form, delight your cat or dog. <snip> This
dietary change for your pet--from the killed, denatured, bagged and canned
foods you have been feeding to Wysong foods combined with fresh homemade
foods--will bring results you will witness firsthand."
I hope this is useful information, I am new to this whole thing, too. I
should say, in case this sounds like a Wysong plug, I am not a distributor
or anything, I just really like the way Dr. Wysong presents his
information. I wish I had found this stuff first, instead of after weeks
of research! Also, it is interesting to note that he only gives recipes
and suggestions for combining fresh with Wysong foods AFTER he has told
you that it would be best for you to feed ONLY fresh whole foods--NO
commercial food at all. (Funny, huh? If everyone followed his advice,
he'd go out of business!)
All our best,
Belinda
Niko and Cappy, the Stupendous Standards
John G. Faughnan
KARENKATO wrote:
> Just recently I read a detailed note about Afghans in America vs Afghans
> in Afghanistan. One of the more interesting note was the fact that
> Afghans in Afghanistan live to be 20+ years in age and at 18 - 19 years of
This is particularly interesting since Aghans are not small dogs, and
yet live to 14-15 in the US. They'd be good candidates for the larger
dog end of a long-lived dog breeding program.
Longevity differences are also seen in epidemiologic studies in humans.
Sorting out the explanations can be difficult. Do Japanese men in Japan
live longer than Hawaiian men of Japanese descent because of diet, or
because of less violence and less pre-natal maternal substance abuse?
The purported longevity gap for Afghans is so large (33% of US lifespan)
that, if confirmed, it would be worth investigating for biological
reasons of interest to humans, as well as for those interested in
longer-lived dogs.
Lori
John Faughnan wrote:
>
> Hi Lori!
>
> Thanks for your note! I tried to send a newsgroup reply to your note to you
> (without revealing your email address of course), but it turns out that
> having an anti-spam invalid email address in netscape prevents my SMTP
> server from processing the mail sent via Netscape. (guess I should have
> known that).
I did get your message, and I also saw it on the group. I'm not sure
how that works, generally...I anti-spammed my address for a while, but
found that the people I correspond with who do not frequent newsgroups
were confused. Anyway.....I'll make a few more comments now, as I ran
out of time last evening.
>
> Dogs have an advantage over us however, that we can use to their
> benefit. We humans are unlikely to choose our mates on the basis of
> longevity, but dogs are somewhat less selective. (Robert Heinlein, by
> the way, based a number of science fiction novels on the premise of just
> such a human choice, but I digress.)
Well, if sound hips or healthy hearts are qualities we breed for, I
imagine longevity would be, too...but we'd obviously be looking at the
sire and dam's (probably) great, or even great-great grandparents. That
many generations removed, it might make it difficult to pinpoint the
specific lines with the best longevity, but with lots of time and
patience, I would guess it would be possible...while continuing to breed
for the other qualities that contribute to long, healthy lives.
>
> It feels odd to me to think about deliberately extending the lifespan of
> our dogs, though we have done far odder things to the wolf in the past
> 100,000 or so years [1]. I think that by comparison to past practices,
> breeding for a longer healthier life is a modest change.
True, we have bred for many, many specific characteristics, resulting in
some 300 distinct breeds ranging from Yorkshire terriers and Chinese
cresteds to Great Danes and Russian wolfhounds. In the present day,
there continue to be changes being made, some of which I support, and
some of which I don't. I think a change in a breed should be made for
some health or task-related reason, just as dogs which were bred to seek
out vermin in their burrows have short legs, and dogs that retrieve in
water have webbed toes. And I support those who are breeding some of
the current breeds back to their original standards, as the current ones
are too prone to unnecessary health problems (such as bulldogs being
bred to have longer legs, smaller heads and more of a muzzle, and
cockers going back to the 1950s style).
>
> Lori asked if I envisioned a definitely new breed. I'm not sure what the
> technical meaning of the term 'breed' is. I'm don't think the ll-dog
> (long-lived dog) would look like a 'breed'. There would be a lot of
> crossing involved, and in breeding for health, longevity, and
> temperament we'd probably forsake the usual breed markers of morphology
> and size. I'd guess that the new breed might look like the 50 lb mongrel
> cur that shows up in cities everywhere. (See my home page for a photo of
> my favorite cur.)
Couldn't each breed be bred within itself for longevity, or are the two
options (purebred and l.l.) mutually exclusive? I wonder if a "new"
breed, maybe similar to a dingo or African wild dog, wouldn't eventually
end up with the same problems as current purebreds, when the breed is
established and then confined to a limited gene pool. And in the wild,
aren't they already breeding for longevity? I mean the biggest,
strongest, healthiest male in the pack will produce the most offspring,
because by virtue of those characteristics he will live longer and have
more opportunities to breed. Yet wolves, coyotes and wild dogs
everywhere still have a limited lifespan. (though I confess I don't
know what that is. How long does a wolf live, if he is healthy and not
interfered with by humans?)
>
> Lori also asked how this would be different from what responsible
> breeders are already doing to reduce genetic defects in purebred dogs. I
> think that there'd be a lot of similarity, and that many of the same
> techniques could be used. The main difference would be in the extent of
> cross-breeding ll-dogs from different breeds, and in the use of
> longevity markers in addition to confirming the absence of genetic
> defects. We would, of course, need the same rigorous genetic tracking
> used by modern breeders.
I confess that part of my hesitancy is because I rebel at the thought of
intentionally creating a cross-breed, only because there are so many
accidentally created each year. True, that is how most of our current
breeds were created, including my own beloved goldens (thanks to the
wavy-coated retriever and tweed water spaniel, with a little help from
Irish setters, bloodhounds and others), and my rational self knows that,
but from a gut level, I hesitate. I think part of my confusion comes
from my difficulty separating the concept of breeding for genetic health
from breeding for longevity. Good breeders are already doing the
former, which hopefully leads to the latter. I wonder if there is some
genetic marker that could be tested for which would indicate relative
age, or if it is only a result of many genetic factors combined with
diet, exercise and treatment.
Still, I find this possibility interesting. We have all had to say
goodbye to a dog long before we felt it was time. If my goldens could
live 25 years instead of 14, that would be wonderful. One final
thought...if we created *one* breed that would be especially long-lived,
would it be possible to somehow incorporate that trait into other
breeds, because otherwise people who prefer a certain type of dog (the
old Yorkie to wolfhound thing again) would never be able to enjoy this
benefit. If anyone were unwilling or unable to live with the "l.l. dog"
then they are out of luck. And in the quest for health and longevity,
we must not forget intelligence and temperment!
dogsnus
Lori wrote:
>
> (Snipped John Faughnan's thought-provoking post about the possibility of
> breeding a longer-lived breed of dog)
>
>
> dogs do live longer, in general, than they used to. I have a cocker who
> a couple of decades ago would have had to be euthanized, but with
> medication, she is living a pretty good life. True, a lot of pet owners
> don't take advantage of the advances in vet medicine...but many of us
> do, and are grateful.
I just read something about how the dogs in the USA receive the
best medical care in the world, and that they have a longer
life span than most K9's in other countries.
I wonder though...If my other 2 loves had lived this long, I
would not have had the chance to have my current 3 loves.
It is a thought provoking topic, isn't it?
Much like the cloning thread here recently, it is extremely
interesting! So may pros and cons. For example, some would
say, great! Other comments may be, what about more dogs in
shelters at an older age?
Interesting.....
BTW, took a look at Ripley's page. WOW! What an operation!
That picture alone is worth a thousand words to people breeding
dogs without a thought for HD!
Im so glad Ripley found you!
Cheers,
Terri
Erika
Belinda,
>Erika, I feed some raw, and as I understand it (please bear with me, I'm
>no expert), the benefit of raw foods is that there are so many living
>enzymes and natural "biotics" that cooking kills. <much stuff snipped>
Thanks so much for posting that! I have been trying to find some
explanation,but I had come up empty handed until now.
One question, though. I currently prepare home cooked meals for my dogs,
following strictly the NRC recommendations for vitamins and minerals. I have
tried raw meats in the past, and I have found that one of my girls gets
really bad diarrhea from it. I've tried to stick it out, but after a couple
of days, I give up. Have you had this experience with raw meat? What meats
do you feed?
On the other hand, cooked carrots upset all their stomachs, but they can eat
tons of them raw with no problems!
Lori
dogsnus wrote:
>
> Lori wrote:
> >
> > (Snipped John Faughnan's thought-provoking post about the possibility of
> > breeding a longer-lived breed of dog)
> >
> >
> > Of course we have had advances in veterinary medicine as well, and I bet
> > dogs do live longer, in general, than they used to. I have a cocker who
> > a couple of decades ago would have had to be euthanized, but with
> > medication, she is living a pretty good life. True, a lot of pet owners
> > don't take advantage of the advances in vet medicine...but many of us
> > do, and are grateful.
> Lori,
> I just read something about how the dogs in the USA receive the
> best medical care in the world, and that they have a longer
> life span than most K9's in other countries.
>
> I wonder though...If my other 2 loves had lived this long, I
> would not have had the chance to have my current 3 loves.
> It is a thought provoking topic, isn't it?
It really is. I guess I haven't taken a firm position on it, but I'm
keeping an open mind. I'd like to see it accomplished within each
existing breed, but don't know how you would breed for "longevity"
except by what we already do...screening, etc.
> Much like the cloning thread here recently, it is extremely
> interesting! So may pros and cons. For example, some would
> say, great! Other comments may be, what about more dogs in
> shelters at an older age?
Or "gee if my first husband hadn't croaked at 45, I never would have met
my nifty new husband...." <g> Is it better to have *more* dogs in your
life, or keep the ones you love longer? And would these long-lived dogs
who end up in bad homes just suffer longer? So many things to think
about.
> Interesting.....
> BTW, took a look at Ripley's page. WOW! What an operation!
> That picture alone is worth a thousand words to people breeding
> dogs without a thought for HD!
Doesn't he look totally despondent? As miserable as they come! Poor
little goober. Lost his puppyhood being in pain.
> Im so glad Ripley found you!
You and me (and probably Ripley) both!! :-)
MishaHouse
Erika,
Kim answered your questions better than I could--she's been at this a lot
longer than me, too.
Interestingly, after I quoted some Wysong literature re. feeding whole
foods, I got some information from PHD, another pet food company, in the
mail today. On the very first page of the package, there is a feeding
chart for how to switch your dog over to their food, including "raw diet
supplement". Here's a quote (emphasis is PHD's):
"Ideally your pet can be fed a diet consisting of 60%-80% PHD with the
balance consisting of COOKED grain (oatmeal, brown rice, or a non-wheat
grain), RAW MEAT (beef, turkey, or chicken), raw vegetables and fruits,
and a blend of yesterday's table scraps. This will provide proper
nutrients, bacteria and a pleasant variety to your pet's diet."
I have also heard from Sojourner Farms, whose food consists of only
grains, micronutrients, etc. and is designed to be fed ALONG WITH raw
meats, vegetables and fruits.
Erika, I think you would very much enjoy the WELLPET list. (I think Kim is
on it too?) It's a really good source of information and exchange of
ideas, with vets, pet-owners, breeders, all kinds of folks, and some of
them have been feeding 100% raw/natural diet for years--they call it
B.A.R.F.--for Bones And Raw Food! If you'd be interested, e-mail me and
I'll give you instructions for subscribing. Can't recall at the moment
exactly how.
Good luck,
Belinda H.
Cappy and Niko (We just had chicken wings for dinner! Yum!)
MishaHouse
BTW, Erika, since I didn't answer your question about what kinds of meats
I personally feed, here goes: So far, I try to keep a balance of 4:1
(muscle meat:organ meat), and have used mostly ground beef, also beef
liver, kidney, chicken, turkey, and chicken giblets. I give raw beef
marrow bones or knuckle bones, and take them away after an hour or so.
The only bones I give whole and let them eat all of are chicken wings, and
chicken necks, when I can get them. I am lucky enough to have found a
wonderful butcher shop where there is a USDA inspector on staff, and if I
give them my "recipe" for what meats/organs I want that week, they will
grind it all together for me, and bag it in one-day servings that I keep
in the freezer until needed. I am mixing all this with 50% Wysong dry
food. I have not had a single stomach upset or any ill effects--the only
results I've seen have been positive--with one exeption--Niko got a little
fat VERY quickly, so I've had to adjust and decrease his portions on the
new diet. I have heard some people discussing stomach upset on WELLPET,
but I think it probably corrects itself--I have heard some people
referring to a "cleansing" period, when an animal's system is purging
itself of toxins, etc., but it never lasts too long. Kim adressed that in
her earlier post.
Hope this helps,
Belinda
Steve B.
<Stuff snipped>
> Dogs have an advantage over us however, that we can use to their
> benefit. We humans are unlikely to choose our mates on the basis of
> longevity, but dogs are somewhat less selective. (Robert Heinlein, by
> the way, based a number of science fiction novels on the premise of just
> such a human choice, but I digress.)
>
> It feels odd to me to think about deliberately extending the lifespan of
> our dogs, though we have done far odder things to the wolf in the past
> 100,000 or so years [1]. I think that by comparison to past practices,
> breeding for a longer healthier life is a modest change.
<Stuff Snipped>
--
> John Faughnan M.D.
> john@-remove-.faughnan.com
> (To form my email address, remove the text -remove- from this string. I
> had to do this to foil spam robots.)
> http://dragon.labmed.umn.edu/~john/
I'm all for a longer living dog too, but what you say about how we
humans pick our mates intrigues me also and as an M.D., maybe you are in
a better position to comment. Q: What is happening to the human gene
pool now that, for the most part, thanks to technology and the
comfortable world we live in with many medical advances and other aides
such as insulin, hearing aids, eyeglasses etc. almost anybody,
regardless of their health, can live long enough to have children? Is
our gene pool being weakened by allowing humans to breed on the basis of
"love" rather than science? I know this is an incredibly cold question,
but it used to be that nature made sure only the most suitable human
genes were passed on, but now almost anybody's bloodline can continue.
I applaud what the best breeders are doing with dogs in this area,
selecting only the best while veterinary science allows individual dogs
to live out their lives as comfortably as possible regardless of how
ill-suited their individual bloodlines are for breeding. But what do
implications do you see for the human gene pool in the long term if we
continue to select from "poor" human bloodlines (i.e. ones that show
genetic predisposition to poor eyesight, hearing, and the whole
multitude of other, far more serious hereditary diseases?) What
technology is there coming down the road to humanely (no pun intended)
allow all people to continue their bloodlines if this is indeed even
possible?
Just wondering
Steve Belramini.
Stephen.Beltramini*nospam*@bc.edu
(The portion of text to remove to correct my email address for use is
*nospam* , though I guess you can probably see that. Let's hope the
spam robots have a more difficult time. Thanks)
John G. Faughnan
I'll reply to several thought provoking comments on the long-lived dog
project:
Lauri referred to the role of diet and exercise in longevity, and an
earlier note referred to long lived Afghans in Afghanistan. Diet and
exercise are quite important, though we know that in many organisms
(mice, flies, others?) the longest life is associated with very calorie
restricted diets. A dog on such a near-starvation experimental diet
would be much thinner than Lauri's dogs, who sound like they're at what
a vet would consider ideal weights. Anyway, no argument on diet and
exercise. (Long life through diet does not produce longer-lived
offspring however, that was Larmarck's mistake.).
Lori wondered about breeding within a breed for longevity, thereby
preserving current breed lines. That could certainly be done. I prefer
crossing breeds to dilute out recessives, since an ll-dog program would
have such a predominant focus on temperament and healthy longevity. (Of
course as someone with a companion mongrel, I'm biased. :-) Certainly
both long-lived breeding within breeds and across breeds could be
pursued in parallel, though the cross-breed's offsprings would not be
part of any existing breed.
Another question was about wolves -- does natural selection favor
longevity? Actually, for the evolutionary biologist, this is the
million-dollar question. What selection pressures determine lifespan,
and why is there such a range in lifespans between organisms? Why is a
May fly old at 30 days, a dog at 9 years, a human at 50 years (sorry,
it's true), a sea turtle at 70 years, and a bacteria never? There is
probably a 20-40% variability in genetic aging between healthy members
of the same species, but the inter-species variation is enormous. The
goal in the ll-dog project would be to identify and breed dogs who have
life-expectancies in the top 1% of all dogs. [1]
More fundamentally, why do organisms age and die anyway? Alas, these are
the big questions, and still await answers. In general, however, there
does not seem to be a selection pressure for longevity in most
organisms. Human males, for example, gain muscle mass and competitive
advantage through the hormone testosterone. Elevated testosterone,
however, is probably the main factor that makes men age and die faster
than women.
Lori wondered if breeding for health would also produce a long lived
dog. I think the answer is yes and no. Our understanding of aging is
obviously limited, but there does appear to be a genetic control of the
aging process that is distinct from traits that determine vigor and
disease-resistance. Maximal health/vigor at a particular age is probably
a function of biological youth ('aging genes') + good 'health genes' +
environment. A 3 year old dog is at least as healthy and vigorous as a
human youth, but the dog will age much more quickly. In breeding the
ll-dog, we'd be trying to select for more favorable lifespan genes. [Of
course this discussion may become academic quickly. We'll be done
sequencing the human genome in about 5-10 years, and if we figure out
which genes control lifespan, it may not be that hard to give a dog a
human lifespan.]
john
[1] But, would this produce a dog that lives longer than the current
longest-lived dogs, or would it merely produce a breed of dogs who could
all be expected to live about as long as the CURRENT longest-lived dogs?
I don't know.
--
John Faughnan M.D.
pub...@faughnan.com
http://dragon.labmed.umn.edu/~john/
Ed Gauci
In article <33B5B1...@worldnet.att.net>, WO...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>It really is. I guess I haven't taken a firm position on it, but I'm
>keeping an open mind. I'd like to see it accomplished within each
>existing breed, but don't know how you would breed for "longevity"
>except by what we already do...screening, etc.
Prof. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books, had an interesting hypothesis on
how to increase human life spans. Basically, you set a minimum age for
procreation. Start it at say, 35. Then every few generations bump it up five
years. It filters out genes that cause death in young people. (Before anyone
blows his or her fuse, nobody suggested actually doing this.) I'm doing this
from memory, I'm sure the details are wrong.
I don't see why it wouldn't work in dogs.
Ed.
Ed Gauci mailto:ga...@good-things.org
http://www.good-things.org/ <-- pet pics and atheist cookies
The Carrolls
Now I don't lurk to this group or anything, but how would you know that you
had long-lived dogs until they were too old to breed???
Emily
Gail B. Mackiernan
In article <01bc84c4$0e9da480$5b68...@carroll.dundee.net>, "The Carrolls"
<car...@dundee.net> wrote:
Very good point. However, the best strategy would seem to be to select as
breeding stock offspring of long-lived individuals and eliminate from
breeding stock descendents of short-lived (barring accidents, of course)
individuals.
Also, select studs which are older, but healthy, vigorous and free of
serious age-related problems.
That there is a definite genetic component to longevity is pretty certain,
since some breeds or some lines within breeds are longer-lived (or shorter
lived) than others.
My own breed, standard schnauzers, are pretty long-lived and also known
for being active until rather advanced ages. I once won best veteran at a
specialty with a 14 1/2 year-old bitch. The judge asked me afterwards how
old she was; he didn't believe me and had the steward confirm her age in
the catalogue. She lived to be 17 1/2 and was healthy and active up until
her last couple of months. The oldest SS I knew of was 21 at death; he was
owned by Sybil Hussar of New York -- she was given him as a puppy when she
was eight and he died when she was 29! However, I would say the average
age at death for SS is closer to 14-15. Whether such extremely long-lived
individuals are genetically determined (that is, there is the genetic
potential for significantly raising average age in the breed) is not
certain, of course. They may just be outliers.
Gail Mackiernan
pro...@pantless.com
Putting a stop to the rampant inbreeding currently going on in
the industry would probably increase pet lifespans. 20% of all vet
treatments are for genetic diseases caused primarily by artificial
inbreeding, so it would also decrease the cost of pet care. There are
also a host of neurological and behavior problems caused by
inbreeding.
It's not uncommon for wolf hybrids to die in the 20-25 year
zone, it kinda makes you wonder why other dogs can't live that long.
Unfortunately they are such large dogs they are not suitable for most
people.
dogsnus <"Terri"@cyberhighway .net> wrote:
>Lori wrote:
>>
>> (Snipped John Faughnan's thought-provoking post about the possibility of
>> breeding a longer-lived breed of dog)
>>
>>
>> Of course we have had advances in veterinary medicine as well, and I bet
>> dogs do live longer, in general, than they used to. I have a cocker who
>> a couple of decades ago would have had to be euthanized, but with
>> medication, she is living a pretty good life. True, a lot of pet owners
>> don't take advantage of the advances in vet medicine...but many of us
>> do, and are grateful.
>Lori,
>I just read something about how the dogs in the USA receive the
>best medical care in the world, and that they have a longer
>life span than most K9's in other countries.
>
>I wonder though...If my other 2 loves had lived this long, I
>would not have had the chance to have my current 3 loves.
>It is a thought provoking topic, isn't it?
>Much like the cloning thread here recently, it is extremely
>interesting! So may pros and cons. For example, some would
>say, great! Other comments may be, what about more dogs in
>shelters at an older age?
>Interesting.....
>BTW, took a look at Ripley's page. WOW! What an operation!
>That picture alone is worth a thousand words to people breeding
>dogs without a thought for HD!
>Im so glad Ripley found you!
>Cheers,
>Terri
Cluebus Mechanic
On Tue, 1 Jul 1997 pro...@pantless.com wrote:
> Putting a stop to the rampant inbreeding currently going on in
> the industry would probably increase pet lifespans.
"Rampant"? As in "erect"? Yes, yes, we must stop erect inbreeding!
> 20% of all vet
> treatments are for genetic diseases caused primarily by artificial
> inbreeding,
Substantiation for the two assertions above would be appreciated. First,
"20% of all vet treatments are for genetic diseases" - citation, please.
Second, some definition of "artificial inbreeding", and support for the
statement that inbreeding (artificial or natural) CAUSES GENETIC DISEASE.
Inbreeding is either a measurement of the probability that one side of an
organism's inheritance is identical by descent to the other side of its
genome, or a system of breeding that pairs close relatives to increase
homozygosity (uniformity) in the offspring. Neither definition includes
any reference to mutation, which is the only way a genetic disease is
CAUSED. A gene mutates and the expression of that mutation is
detrimental to the health of the animal carrying it. Whether the animal
inherits the mutated allele(s) from closely related parents or not.
>... There are
> also a host of neurological and behavior problems caused by
> inbreeding.
Wrong. There may well be neurological or behavioral problems perpetuated
by poor breeding practices, but suggesting that "inbreeding" CAUSES
problems that are somehow unique to inbred animals is false and misleading.
Mary H.
Gail B. Mackiernan
> Putting a stop to the rampant inbreeding currently going on in
> the industry would probably increase pet lifespans. 20% of all vet
> treatments are for genetic diseases caused primarily by artificial
> inbreeding, so it would also decrease the cost of pet care. There are
> also a host of neurological and behavior problems caused by
> inbreeding.
> It's not uncommon for wolf hybrids to die in the 20-25 year
> zone, it kinda makes you wonder why other dogs can't live that long.
> Unfortunately they are such large dogs they are not suitable for most
> people.
>
This is very interesting -- wolves themselves live about 14-16 years (in
captivity), sometimes less and sometimes more. The few hybrids I have
known have also lived to about this age -- what percentage of hybrids
reach the 20+ range?
However, if hybrid vigor alone promotes longer lives, one would expect
that randomly bred dogs would live longer than purebreds, and I am not
sure that they do (at least, not with any statistical confidence).
Btw, inbreeding does not "cause" these genetic problems -- it does
increase homozygosity and thus there is an increased tendency for
deleterious recessive traits to be expressed. Wild species can also have
these deleterious recessives, as anyone involved with captive breeding of
wild animals (such as zoological parks) knows. In areas where wildlife has
been restricted to small ranges, with an decrease in gene flow, wild
populations often begin to show reduction in vigor, size and fecundity
often considered a side effect of inbreeding.
Gail Mackiernan
Elizabeth B. Naime
This is interesting stuff!
In article <33B6EB...@faughnan.com>, "John G. Faughnan" <pub...@faughnan.com> writes:
> Another question was about wolves -- does natural selection favor
> longevity? Actually, for the evolutionary biologist, this is the
> million-dollar question. What selection pressures determine lifespan,
> and why is there such a range in lifespans between organisms? Why is a
And as you pointed out, there is a fair bit of variability in aging
between members of the same species -- but all species I have seen
figures for show a substantially longer lifespan in captivity
(controlled environment, medical treatment) than in the wild. Take
wolves as an example. Wolf 1 might have a potential active life of 11
years, Wolf 2 only 9 -- but both die before 7 of disease, of
heartworm, of being kicked in the head by a moose. Neither wins, in
terms of evolution. Sucessful moose-dodging is probably more helpful
than longevity. With dogs in particular we look at the lifespan of a
healthy dog given regular veterinary care and we tend to say "barring
accidents" -- but how often in the wild is a death non-accidental?
If our hypothetical wolf made it through a longer stretch than others,
theoretically it would have time to make more offspring. But as you
point out there is a lot else going on here. And even in the most
simplified sense, "once you stop breeding evolution has no further use
for you"!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth B. Naime * Email may be forwarded and/or posted
els...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu *
CUR 70 / FUR 212 * * Standard Disclaimers Apply*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Krakower
There are 2 books on this topic -- the one by Juliette De BAraclevy
Levy and the one by Wendy Volhard & Kerry Brown. When food is cooked,
the fats in the meat are changed to trans fatty acids which are
carcinogenic. In addition, the linoleic acid and linolenic acid are
broken down by the heat. These two acids are needed by the dog. One
way around this, which I use, is to supplement them with cold-pressed
safflower oil, which is high in content for both linleic and linolenic
acids. Occasionally I give my dogs raw marrow bones. There is no
problem with rancidity (I keep them in the freezer until used) as the
dogs eat the marrow from the bones in a couple of hours.
I know people who feed raw meat to their dogs -- I don't, but only
because I want to avoid the problems that can occur if the meat is
mis-handled and spoils. I do cook my own dogfood, as I do not trust
any of the manufacturers as the industry is totally unregulated -- you
really have no idea what is in the bag. I have posted articles dealing
with this on my web site at http://www.vsquare.com/jordemm
On 28 Jun 1997 05:54:48 GMT, misha...@aol.com (MishaHouse) wrote:
><<I have yet to have someone explain to me what the difference is
>nutritionally between raw and cooked meat.>>
>
>Erika, I feed some raw, and as I understand it (please bear with me, I'm
>no expert), the benefit of raw foods is that there are so many living
>enzymes and natural "biotics" that cooking kills.
>
Howard Krakower
JORDEMM Dachshunds
http://www.vsquare.com/jordemm
Don Baldwinson
In article <33B51D19.1721@-remove-.faughnan.com>, john@-remove-.faughnan.com
says...
>
>KARENKATO wrote:
>> Just recently I read a detailed note about Afghans in America vs Afghans
>> in Afghanistan. One of the more interesting note was the fact that
>> Afghans in Afghanistan live to be 20+ years in age and at 18 - 19 years of
>
Robin Nuttall
pro...@pantless.com wrote:
>
> Putting a stop to the rampant inbreeding currently going on in
> the industry would probably increase pet lifespans. 20% of all vet
> treatments are for genetic diseases caused primarily by artificial
> inbreeding, so it would also decrease the cost of pet care. There are
> also a host of neurological and behavior problems caused by
> inbreeding.
And your citations to peer reviewed scientific studies which back up
these "factoids" you are throwing out are....?
Inbreeding in itself is not a harmful thing, and indeed can be very,
very helpful. A properly bred purebred dog is more likely to be
genetically healthy than a mixed breed dog (Padgett, Dog World January
1997). The tripe spouted above is an old wives tale.
--
Robin, Jasper and Dreamer
robin_...@muccmail.missouri.edu
(my opinions are strictly my own!)
Doberman page:
http://www.hsc.missouri.edu/people/robin/
Robin Nuttall
John G. Faughnan wrote:
>
> I hope I am not resurrecting a long dulled discussion, but I have
> wondered for some years why we do not attempt to breed a longer lived
> dog. As our lifespans lengthen, the gap between the terribly short
> lifespan of our companions and our own lives is growing longer. I wish
> my 8 yo mixed breed companion could have a longer active, healthy, life
> than we can expect.
A worthy goal. The Doberman Pinscher Club of America will soon be
starting a BFL registry--Bred For Longevity. This project is the
brainchild of Vic Monteleon, who also invented out WAC/ROM temperament
evaluation test, much copied by other breed clubs. It isn't in place
yet, but as soon as the details are worked out, it will be--hopefully
this fall. Basically, any dog who passes a certain age will be given a
certification. If that dog in turn produces puppies which also reach a
certain age, they will get a high certification. It begins at age 10 and
goes up. Breeders will be encouraged to store sperm from stud dogs. If
the dog reaches an old age, great. If the dog dies of cardio or another
genetic disease early, just throw the stored sperm away.
>
> Of course this would not be pure-bred! It would be a new breed that
> would take generations to stabilize.
Well, it would end up a purebred, regardless of how it started. And
there is no reason to not do this *within* purebred breeds, as the DPCA
is doing. Breeding JUST for longevity will leave out things like
temperament, working ability, and working structure. You could end up
with a 15 year old dog who is genetically healthy but crippled from
jumping for too many years with straight shoulders and who bites
everyone who looks at him. Breeding for a single goal never works.
Robin Nuttall
John G. Faughnan wrote:
> Lori wondered about breeding within a breed for longevity, thereby
> preserving current breed lines. That could certainly be done. I prefer
> crossing breeds to dilute out recessives, since an ll-dog program would
> have such a predominant focus on temperament and healthy longevity.
But you don't have the basics of hybrid vigor correct here. Hybrid vigor
ONLY exists during the very first cross. If, for instance, you crossed a
doberman with a Golden, the first generation cross would have hybrid
vigor *and* the possibility for all of the genetic disease shared by
both breeds (hip dysplasia, hypothyroidism are the two biggies in this
case. In the second generation, you would lose hybrid vigor, and these
dogs would have the ability to get ANY of the genetic diseases of EITHER
parent. So they could have SAS, cardio, PRA, vonWillebrands, hip
dysplasia, hypothyroidism, color dilution alopecia, and/or Wobblers.
Mixed breeds can have a total of 102 different inherited genetic
disorders, whereas about the most any purebred breed has is 52 (cocker
spaniels.)
I am certainly not anti-mixed breed, but you seem to be proposing that
mixed breeds are automatically longer lived than purebreds, and it
simply isn't true.
Elaine Gallegos
John G. Faughnan <john@-remove-.faughnan.com> wrote:
: Longevity differences are also seen in epidemiologic studies in humans.
: Sorting out the explanations can be difficult.
If you consider the factors of genetics and environment to be terribly
difficult to understand, I guess.
Without a doubt, many big dog breeds in the U.S. are short lived. If all
we use for breeding stock is short lived dogs, there is our genetic factor
for short lived dogs. Now if we kept track of the dogs that were making it
to 20, and bred them at that time, we'd have genetic material
pre-programmed for longer life.
We tend to breed the dogs at one or two. They could die at six, and still
have produced lots of pups with designed to only live that long.
: Do Japanese men in Japan
: live longer than Hawaiian men of Japanese descent because of diet, or
: because of less violence and less pre-natal maternal substance abuse?
Geeze, mister....aren't you a doctor? Studies at least 10 years old are
showing that life long reduced calorie diets extend life. Traditionally,
the Japanese diet has been lean, and not too much of it. Little fat, beef
or red meat only rarely.
Naturally when these men come to the U.S., and adopt our style of eating,
it will show. Since the war, it seems that the overall diets of the
Japanese have been improving...at least to the effect of them getting more
food, and higher protien.
This present generation of Japanese Americans has boys topping 6 feet,
and girls 5'6". It has been somewhat surprising to me, as I grew up
thinking that the Japanese were just naturally small people.
The U.S. is mostly not a violent culture. There is just a
disproportionate amount of violent crime mostly in the black, and
the hispanic community. Violent crime has gone DOWN in white and Asian
American communities over the last 30 years.
: The purported longevity gap for Afghans is so large (33% of US lifespan)
: that, if confirmed, it would be worth investigating for biological
: reasons of interest to humans, as well as for those interested in
: longer-lived dogs.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Gallegos
sat...@primenet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
john faughnan
Since I wrote this the cost of canine genome sequencing has fallen enormously, and now we can measure telomere lengths, so there are even more tools to use when selecting stored gametes for in vitro fertilization and implantation.
You'd think there'd be a billionaire somewhere who'd give this a shot. We have a lot more billionaires now ...
On Friday, June 27, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, John G. Faughnan wrote:
> I hope I am not resurrecting a long dulled discussion, but I have
> wondered for some years why we do not attempt to breed a longer lived
> dog. As our lifespans lengthen, the gap between the terribly short
> lifespan of our companions and our own lives is growing longer. I wish
> my 8 yo mixed breed companion could have a longer active, healthy, life
> than we can expect.
>
> there are some short-lives small dogs and some longer-lived medium sized
> dogs. (Of course Great Danes are sadly short lived). Size alone is not
> everything.
>
> Breeding for longevity is, obviously, tougher than breeding for
> attributes that manifest early. Still, I can think of a few ways to
> begin. The goal would be a mid-sized dog, with a companionable
> temperament, with a heathy active lifespan of 13-15 years, followed by
> 3-5 years of old age. This seems close enough to current canine
> lifespans to be achievable without major genetic engineering.
> Of course this would not be pure-bred! It would be a new breed that
> would take generations to stabilize.
>
> active. They could be bred with young female dogs of a healthy line. A
> longer-lived mid-sized dog could be crossed with a smaller longer-lived
> dog. I suspect dogs with delayed onset of puberty would be likely to
> have longer heathy lives, and delayed onset of puberty is obviously much
> easier to use as a breeding marker than long life.
>
> There are other techniques to consider. We could freeze ova from
> potential female candidates (this is done in humans seeking IVF, and is
> not a dangerous procedure). Those that had delayed puberty and
> physiologic markers of youthfulness in middle-aged could be selected for
> fertilization from similar males (young females, could, of course, bear
> the pups).
>
> Such a breeding program would take time, perhaps 30-60 years, to achieve
> the desired goal. The dogs entered in the program would, however, be
> desireable for their optimized health and vigor. They would also carry
> the cachet of being the fore-runners of a new breed of dog.
>
> Comments?
jpdu...@gmail.com
Great discussion. There is a book called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price that has some interesting things to say about the generational effects of malnutrition on human beings. Much of those nutritional observations were also documented in livestock by a University of Missouri professor named William Albrecht.
I'm willing to bet that the longest lived dogs will be produced by breeders who feed raw whole foods to their dogs generation-over-generation. Based on the above two schools of thought, which I think you will find are interesting rabbit holes.
Cheers,
-J