Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The solution to the cancer problem is known by breeders, but has been kept hidden from families for some years now. It is a certain fact that inbreeding affects the life expectancy of all Golden Retriever puppies by up to two years depending on the level of inbreeding. Puppy buyers need to educate themselves to understand what this post’s chart is saying.



The data for thousands of Golden Retrievers in k9data.com was analyzed for dogs that had their lifespan data in the k9data database. The people that had entered their dog’s information, did not know that it would be used for this study, so there is no reason to expect any bias in the data. The biologists who analyzed the data, provided one chart of great value. I saved the original chart and have a page for it on my Autumn Golden Retrievers website. The biologists have since updated the chart but the new chart appears to only be for Golden Retrievers with OFA ratings: LongevityInfluences ). The updated chart has the same results as the original chart for the line which shows the average life span and is labeled “Least Squares Fit”.



The charts show two years longer life expectancy for the zero inbreeding (zero COI) pups compared to the high COI pups. The chart is for all causes of death, not just cancer. Cancer is the leading killer of golden retrievers and there does not appear to be any other cause of death that comes close. That means that some or all of the life expectancy improvement needs to be attributed to less inbreeding causing less cancer. If someone wants to argue that less inbreeding helps reduce other health related deaths, I would not disagree.



Not making inbred pups should be a top priority for Golden Retriever breeders who sell puppies to pet homes. Instead, the chart has been very unpopular. Breeders want to bury this chart. I think that I am one of the only breeders putting the chart out there and explaining the meaning.



When I first identified the chart here in 2015, The Importance of Low Coefficient Of Inbreeding (COI) in Puppies , I was attacked by other posters, when I should have been thanked for bringing it to light. Since then, it appears that breeders have done nothing to educate family puppy buyers that they should not buy an inbred pup. I do my best to educate people, but other breeders have opposing goals. The chart is real, but I still get phone calls from people who are being told by other breeders that COI means nothing and should be ignored.


Would you like to know the reason why the solution for Golden Retriever cancer was buried? The solution to cancer is to stop inbreeding. Inbreeding is an essential part of the breeding plans of a breeders trying to create a puppy that will win shows.



There are two different definitions of “Pet Quality Puppy”. Most breeders believe that their main goal is to create a show champion. They create litters of inbred puppies because inbreeding is the fastest way to make a champion. Sometimes the inbreeding is intentional and called line breeding. Other litters are sired by another show dog because it also has show bloodlines. Nearly all show dogs are related to each other. Most inbred puppies in each litter will be sold to families who have no intentions to show. The puppies with the least potential to win a dog show are sold to “Pet Homes”. The important thing to understand is that litters are planned to create show champions and the leftover inbred puppies are sold as “pets”.



There is a better way. Litters can be planned to make the best pet possible without concern for making a show champion. Ethical litter planning starts with the main goal of never selling an inbred puppy to a family that does not have intentions to show.



If a breeder creates an inbred litter with the goal of creating show champions, that is not unethical or a crime. Every puppy might go to a buyer that wants to show and understands COI. If some of the puppies are sold to families who do not understand how inbreeding has lowered the life expectancy, that IS unethical. Many breeders today are not disclosing to buyers the COI of the puppy and the life expectancy. Many breeders present themselves as experts, so not disclosing and explaining bad COI numbers of a puppy being sold, is fraud.



Breeders should be required to disclose the COI of every puppy that they sell. If the breeder does not disclose and explain the COI, the breeder should be responsible for any early deaths. If the puppy dies young (under 10 years) due to a health issue that may be genetic, the buyer should be given a replacement for free.



Before 2015 when the chart was discussed here, a breeder has an excuse. Maybe the breeder did not know. Any high COI pup sold after 2015, should be treated as consumer fraud if it dies early and if it is not voluntarily replaced.



How can you know the COI of a litter that you are considering? All competent breeders use k9data to create a pedigree for a test mating of two dogs, before the sire is chosen. Good breeders will provide a link to this k9data pedigree to potential buyers. Here is one link that I provide puppy buyers:



Pedigree: BEAUTY X BINGO



If you look at the lower left of the pedigree page, you will see a link that says “View genetic information”. If you open that link, you will arrive at this COI page for the litter of BEAUTY X BINGO.



Genetic information for Test31723 BEAUTY X BINGO



If you look at the 10-generation COI, you will see 0.08% COI for this litter. You will also see that the average Golden Retriever has a 10-generation COI of 8.29%.



In closing, I would like to say that you should expect to see me attacked by breeders who have messed up priorities. They want to sell their leftover inbred pups as pets when they are not show quality. The chart is true. Don’t let anyone deceive you to believe COI does not matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,929 Posts
I'll say the same thing I said several years ago when you posted the chart- having spoken to Charles Jones myself about this chart, I am aware -per him- that the data is incomplete. No one would suggest highly inbred animals are a good idea, but you have the problem of breeders who breed together two very inbred animals who share no relatives and by this method, come up with a very low COI. Is it really low? No- COI is not meant to use as a Bible for breeding, it is meant as a tool. Two heavily inbred animals -let's use your Bingo X Beauty, shall we? ... Bingo has a much higher than average COI. 10.3%. Beauty's COI is nearly 10.4%. Because they share few ancestors, their puppies will have that low COI. But is it safer? Not really. One might posit that Bingo and Beauty are far more likely to carry pairs of alleles that are damaging to their offspring. So your puppy people may believe they are buying a super safe pedigree but it's likely less safe than the puppies coming from a consistently 5-8% COI that's not falsely reduced such as the Bingo X Beauty pedigree is, giving your buyers a false sense of security.
As Charles said to me- the data is not there to make the leaps you are making. And we WERE talking about your use of his data when this statement was made.
And, I would add, Charles is very well known and respected in the involved Golden community of fanciers- we all know about the graphs and tables and know he himself states they are not meant to be interpreted the way you are interpreting them.
In other words- you didn't get lotsa lauds on 'finding' the info because we all knew it was there and have used it ourselves from time to time in a way that is responsible. I hope you will tell all your puppy people that your litter has a low COI because both parents have super high ones and you just found two unrelated to use together. Worry more about your own disclosures than mine or any other involved GR breeder's- we know what we are doing.
I am not 'looking to sell leftover puppies' or whatever you want to throw out there. I am all about good science- your method of producing low COIs is not good science. Nor would I suggest puppy people ignore COI- it is a valuable tool. But it can be manipulated (your breeding of B X B is a great example of just that, thank you) and one should understand when offspring have two sets of alleles to draw from and both sets are highly inbred, the offspring's low number means zero in terms of risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Yet you do not mention studies showing the likelihood for a golden’s likelihood to develop cancer based on early/late spay? I’m certainly not a scientist or a breeder who spends painstakingly a lot of time researching pairings but...there’s a ton of factors.

It’s a crap shoot with any dog. Environment, genetics, alterations, diet etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Your Beauty has Gold Rush Matt Dillon twice in the same generation along with Matt’s sire Westben Oak Ridge Cadet.

My first golden retriever was sired by Gold Rush Matt Dillon and died of hemangiosarcoma at not quite 7. That was 2008 and classic line breeding.

Matt himself died around the same age though the cause isn’t listed. Perhaps it was genetics, perhaps not. I hope for your dogs sake it isn’t and that a bunch of bad genes didn’t get multiple copies passed down.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
281 Posts
The cure for cancer is to identify the genes and environmental factors that actually cause cancer. No breeder wants their dogs to suffer and with something like cancer, that doesn't usually show up until well after the animal has been bred.

If we outcross, we increase genetic diversity but then we may introduce other deleterious genes into the bloodline. Until we know the genetic markers, broad assumptions like "stop inbreeding" mislead the public. What about their goldendoodle? Their mutt? "I have a mixed breed, I know he's not inbred so I know he won't get cancer". This is so wrong. Breeders are currently trying to improve genetic diversity to prevent a genetic bottleneck, but up until recently, it was very difficult to import or export dogs to expand the gene pool.

Most breeds keep close track of their breeding programs and use COI as a tool. Looking at other animals where we inbreed to exaggerate the traits we're breeding for: dairy cattle, thoroughbred horses, beef cattle; we see that attention to COI is hardly as important as long as the animal wins, but because they're either a) eaten or b) raced and then retired to live for another 20-30 years, we don't consider the effects of loss of genetic diversity in those populations.

What's important to understand is that inbreeding can cause doubling up of both desirable traits and deleterious traits including, but not limited to particular cancer genes. However, if we cross two random dogs, we might very well end up breeding those deleterious traits to each other again. We need to identify what causes cancer if we want to improve breeding practices regarding it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
To further add confusing to that, that is already very confusing!

We have began using 'Tittering' on our Golden's to avoid unnecessary shots. Some science suggests that we over tax our dogs immune systems by giving the all these shots and boosters. By sending a blood sample to a lab, they can verify if the dog is still appropriately immune. Thus avoiding additional shots... to build immunity!

This week, when our vet was giving our new Golden puppy, his second Parvo shot, my wife reminded him that we would titer him going forward before giving any added shots. Tittering is done to try and minimize any cancer that may be caused by over taxing the immune systems. Our vet got a bit upset and told us that the only way to avoid cancer in Golden's is to stop buying Golden's. He also advised us that he is retiring....and that was the only part of the conversation that was good! He has been our vet for a long while. We started working Titers through him over 7 years ago and he never mentioned anything to us. I guess it has bugged him for a while, since he was retiring he unloaded on us...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
70 Posts
To further add confusing to that, that is already very confusing!

We have began using 'Tittering' on our Golden's to avoid unnecessary shots. Some science suggests that we over tax our dogs immune systems by giving the all these shots and boosters. By sending a blood sample to a lab, they can verify if the dog is still appropriately immune. Thus avoiding additional shots... to build immunity!

This week, when our vet was giving our new Golden puppy, his second Parvo shot, my wife reminded him that we would titer him going forward before giving any added shots. Tittering is done to try and minimize any cancer that may be caused by over taxing the immune systems. Our vet got a bit upset and told us that the only way to avoid cancer in Golden's is to stop buying Golden's. He also advised us that he is retiring....and that was the only part of the conversation that was good! He has been our vet for a long while. We started working Titers through him over 7 years ago and he never mentioned anything to us. I guess it has bugged him for a while, since he was retiring he unloaded on us...
Yikes! Absolutely the time for him to retire.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'll say the same thing I said several years ago when you posted the chart- having spoken to Charles Jones myself about this chart, I am aware -per him- that the data is incomplete. No one would suggest highly inbred animals are a good idea, but you have the problem of breeders who breed together two very inbred animals who share no relatives and by this method, come up with a very low COI. Is it really low? No- COI is not meant to use as a Bible for breeding, it is meant as a tool. Two heavily inbred animals -let's use your Bingo X Beauty, shall we? ... Bingo has a much higher than average COI. 10.3%. Beauty's COI is nearly 10.4%. Because they share few ancestors, their puppies will have that low COI. But is it safer? Not really. One might posit that Bingo and Beauty are far more likely to carry pairs of alleles that are damaging to their offspring. So your puppy people may believe they are buying a super safe pedigree but it's likely less safe than the puppies coming from a consistently 5-8% COI that's not falsely reduced such as the Bingo X Beauty pedigree is, giving your buyers a false sense of security.
As Charles said to me- the data is not there to make the leaps you are making. And we WERE talking about your use of his data when this statement was made.
And, I would add, Charles is very well known and respected in the involved Golden community of fanciers- we all know about the graphs and tables and know he himself states they are not meant to be interpreted the way you are interpreting them.
In other words- you didn't get lotsa lauds on 'finding' the info because we all knew it was there and have used it ourselves from time to time in a way that is responsible. I hope you will tell all your puppy people that your litter has a low COI because both parents have super high ones and you just found two unrelated to use together. Worry more about your own disclosures than mine or any other involved GR breeder's- we know what we are doing.
I am not 'looking to sell leftover puppies' or whatever you want to throw out there. I am all about good science- your method of producing low COIs is not good science. Nor would I suggest puppy people ignore COI- it is a valuable tool. But it can be manipulated (your breeding of B X B is a great example of just that, thank you) and one should understand when offspring have two sets of alleles to draw from and both sets are highly inbred, the offspring's low number means zero in terms of risk.

Prism, What you wrote gives the appearance that you don’t understand COI at all. You made some very wrong statements. They are nonsense. When you have the COI for a dog, you know the probability that any gene pairs are duplicates. The number of duplicates in either parent does not matter because each parent gives one gene from each gene pair.



1. The chart has so many dogs that it can be trusted. You can refuse to accept what the chart is showing, but that does not change that it does show a two year life span difference between high and low COI. THE CHART IS REAL. I did not present opinion. You can’t wish away the chart.



2. Inbreeding has a simple mechanism that causes damage. Many genetic problems are recessive so that you need two bad copies of a gene to cause the problem. You don’t want dogs to have duplicate chromosomes because that will bring out every recessive genetic defect on the duplicated chromosomes. High COI dogs have many duplicate chromosomes. This large number of duplicate chromosomes means that many recessive genetic flaws will have the opportunity to be expressed.



3. You are completely wrong with your statements about COI. You don’t understand what COI means. The only COI that matters is the COI of the puppy being bought. If a puppy has a COI of 0.08%, then you can estimate the number of duplicate chromosome pairs to be:

Duplicates = 0.08% times 39 chromosome pairs = 0.08 X 0.01 X 39 = 0.0312 duplicate chromosomes



Many show dogs have COI near 15.00%. For these dogs the estimated duplicate chromosome pairs is:

Duplicates = 15.00% times 39 chromosome pairs = 15.00 X 0.01 X 39 = 5.85 duplicate chromosomes



4. When you get to the point of having the COI from the k9data calculation, you have all you need. The COI of the parents means absolutely nothing if you know thee puppy’s COI. COI is not a hunch or a feeling. COI has a mathematical meaning.



5. What really matters is the chart showing two years life span difference. Talking about duplicate chromosomes is to help people understand what COI means. You don’t understand that COI has a mathematical meaning. People don’t need to understand about duplicate chromosomes, except to know that you want to avoid them. The chart gives us real information that shows inbred dogs don’t live as long. You can’t wish that away.



6. I am not saying that you should not be allowed to make and sell inbred puppies. I am only saying that breeders selling inbred puppies have a responsibility to disclose the COI of puppies and show the impact of that COI on the lifespan chart. Sounds reasonable to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,929 Posts
The COI is the likelihood that any given allele is directly inherited from one of the dogs behind the dog. Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding illustrates the probability that the alleles contributed by sire and dam at any given gene locus will be identical by descent. When you have two highly inbred animals, and breed them, if they are not related, the 'descent' part if it goes away. That doesn't mean they are not identical alleles, just that they were not inherited directly. The direct inheritance likelihood (from the dogs whose %ages are listed) is the part that is measured, not the # of identical alleles. I don't have time to do the rest- but that piece is the important piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Yet you do not mention studies showing the likelihood for a golden’s likelihood to develop cancer based on early/late spay? I’m certainly not a scientist or a breeder who spends painstakingly a lot of time researching pairings but...there’s a ton of factors.

It’s a crap shoot with any dog. Environment, genetics, alterations, diet etc.
Jmcarp83, I also did not mention car accidents. Unless something is going to happen to high COI vs low COI very diferently, then it does not need to be considered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
The COI is the likelihood that any given allele is directly inherited from one of the dogs behind the dog. Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding illustrates the probability that the alleles contributed by sire and dam at any given gene locus will be identical by descent. When you have two highly inbred animals, and breed them, if they are not related, the 'descent' part if it goes away. That doesn't mean they are not identical alleles, just that they were not inherited directly. The direct inheritance likelihood (from the dogs whose %ages are listed) is the part that is measured, not the # of identical alleles. I don't have time to do the rest- but that piece is the important piece.
The COI that k9data gives is correct. My pups have very little chance of even a single duplicate chromosome. The parent's COI does not matter. The COI of the puppy is what matters..That is fact!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Your Beauty has Gold Rush Matt Dillon twice in the same generation along with Matt’s sire Westben Oak Ridge Cadet.

My first golden retriever was sired by Gold Rush Matt Dillon and died of hemangiosarcoma at not quite 7. That was 2008 and classic line breeding.

Matt himself died around the same age though the cause isn’t listed. Perhaps it was genetics, perhaps not. I hope for your dogs sake it isn’t and that a bunch of bad genes didn’t get multiple copies passed down.
Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
281 Posts
Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.
There was a research paper released in December of 2019, using a variety of data, including the Golden Retriever study done. "Female golden retrievers tended to be longer-lived than male" Within each sex, outbred individuals (CoI < 2%) tended to live longer than inbred individuals".

"They found that even a high level of inbreeding in recent years (ie, since the establishment of modern breeds) could not sufficiently explain the observed patterns of deleterious genetic variation without the effects of population bottlenecks at domestication and breed formation".

"2. Occasional crosses of animals from separate breeding pools (comparable to cross-breeding dogs or transfers of animals between managed international ex situ populations) can produce strong improvements in health and fitness"

You should also mention to your puppy buyers that their male puppy will also likely live less than a year. Finally, your CoI zero puppies, while they look good on paper, do not fit condition number 2. As current GR breeders are doing, they ARE outcrossing to dogs from other countries. There is not way to guarantee that your two breeding dogs have no genetic ancestors unless you do a genomic test and are far less likely to be related if they're from breeding populations from different countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
There was a research paper released in December of 2019, using a variety of data, including the Golden Retriever study done. "Female golden retrievers tended to be longer-lived than male" Within each sex, outbred individuals (CoI < 2%) tended to live longer than inbred individuals".

"They found that even a high level of inbreeding in recent years (ie, since the establishment of modern breeds) could not sufficiently explain the observed patterns of deleterious genetic variation without the effects of population bottlenecks at domestication and breed formation".

"2. Occasional crosses of animals from separate breeding pools (comparable to cross-breeding dogs or transfers of animals between managed international ex situ populations) can produce strong improvements in health and fitness"

You should also mention to your puppy buyers that their male puppy will also likely live less than a year. Finally, your CoI zero puppies, while they look good on paper, do not fit condition number 2. As current GR breeders are doing, they ARE outcrossing to dogs from other countries. There is not way to guarantee that your two breeding dogs have no genetic ancestors unless you do a genomic test and are far less likely to be related if they're from breeding populations from different countries.















Are you going to provide a link to the paper that you are talking about? I you do, I will take a look.
 

·
Kate
Joined
·
20,875 Posts
Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.
My very first reaction to reading this was laughing out loud - literally.

Please just stop. I was taking a sip of coffee when I read the above and nearly splurted coffee on my keyboard because I was laughing.

There is absolutely reason to be very careful about breeding too close. And there's a need to be very careful about breeding to certain lines which have had some weird problems or young deaths.

And one thing to say about field breeders vs show breeders is they tend to be more vigilant about entering cause of death. I think among else, one primary reason is because these are dogs who live their entire lives with the same owner who are more emotionally affected when the dogs die at age 8 or 9 to cancer.

There was an obedience trial I took my Jacks to a couple years ago and I sadly found out that within hours to days later, at least 3 goldens at the same trial died because of cancer. Average age was 9 for these dogs. These were all dogs with hefty field lines behind them. But the cancer they died from was hemangio across the board. And that is something that is in all the lines. Cancer doesn't spare field dogs just because they aren't as purty as the show ones (I'm kidding!). Go back to the popular sires behind your male (Bingo) and check offspring - you will see a good number (like a lot!) of dogs who died prior to age 10. That is in the lines behind your male dog. And even if you breed him to somebody completely unrelated from a breeder that sells full registration dogs to anyone (Which I think is the biggest problem with Gold Rush and why they've gotten so dragged down in the mud) - you will still be breeding cancer heavy lines to cancer heavy lines.

I used to think that meant there was a higher than average rate of cancer and young deaths with field lines - particularly certain ones I had been looking into at the time and just shuddering at 4-5 year olds dying from cancer. <= This is an unfair assumption - and wrong, since there's the same amount of young deaths and old dogs on the show side as well.

Regarding COI - it is 10% (10 generation) and 13% (12 generations) for my oldest dog (will be 8 in Sept).
Both his sons the COI is 4% (10 generation) and 7% (12 generations).

I DO prefer the COI for my babies, especially since I recognize so many good traits the boys inherited from both sides of the pedigree. Those traits didn't happen by accident. The breeder of the youngest babies was very familiar with the lines behind my boy + confident in what she owned and bred.

Additionally - what I like about my pups is that while they are very typey for the show ring to the point that my Jovi has stopped some people and among else has had people who are breeders and pro handlers and top OTCH trainers comment that he's the most all around ideal golden because he has got the look, the temperament, and the ideal working drive and ability with the OTCH trainers telling me that if I am careful about avoiding bad habits from sneaking into the training, he could be a 199-200 score dog. I don't think I'm disciplined enough to be a 199-200 score trainer, but I am so happy that it's not just me seeing something wonderful in my dog.

Those traits don't happen by accident - they are deliberately bred into the dogs. And breeders need to know the lines they are using - both their own lines, but also what they breed to.

When you do complete outcrosses, you lose predictability. As well, I've heard of people producing complete disasters because they bred to a nice dog and suddenly had a ton of problems that they didn't anticipate. That's not just cancer. It's everything.

I would NOT just randomly buy a puppy with a 0% COI behind him - because personally speaking, I want the whole dog + good health, longevity, and TYPE ALSO that runs in lines.

But the same time, knowing lines and avoiding certain dogs close behind is something a lot of people are doing or should be doing if they are concerned about cancer, temperament issues, etc.

There's very popular sires and popular lines which I would absolutely avoid based on things I've seen. That's not just show lines. That's field and performance lines as well. They all have popular sires that get overused.

Dog breeding isn't something you can jump into and just gamble by throwing mismatched things together with the idea that since they aren't at all related, that they will be better and healthier than dogs who are linebred. On the surface, I do appreciate field breeders using dogs from show lines. It s a step in the right directon - particularly as there are a LOT of inbred dogs on the performance side. But in general it's not just throwing mismatches together and thinking that will fix everything. You've got to be selective and careful in breeding.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
281 Posts
Are you going to provide a link to the paper that you are talking about? I you do, I will take a look.

The paper is not free, I purchased it, but I believe you can rent it as well
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
My very first reaction to reading this was laughing out loud - literally.

Please just stop. I was taking a sip of coffee when I read the above and nearly splurted coffee on my keyboard because I was laughing.

There is absolutely reason to be very careful about breeding too close. And there's a need to be very careful about breeding to certain lines which have had some weird problems or young deaths.

And one thing to say about field breeders vs show breeders is they tend to be more vigilant about entering cause of death. I think among else, one primary reason is because these are dogs who live their entire lives with the same owner who are more emotionally affected when the dogs die at age 8 or 9 to cancer.

There was an obedience trial I took my Jacks to a couple years ago and I sadly found out that within hours to days later, at least 3 goldens at the same trial died because of cancer. Average age was 9 for these dogs. These were all dogs with hefty field lines behind them. But the cancer they died from was hemangio across the board. And that is something that is in all the lines. Cancer doesn't spare field dogs just because they aren't as purty as the show ones (I'm kidding!). Go back to the popular sires behind your male (Bingo) and check offspring - you will see a good number (like a lot!) of dogs who died prior to age 10. That is in the lines behind your male dog. And even if you breed him to somebody completely unrelated from a breeder that sells full registration dogs to anyone (Which I think is the biggest problem with Gold Rush and why they've gotten so dragged down in the mud) - you will still be breeding cancer heavy lines to cancer heavy lines.

I used to think that meant there was a higher than average rate of cancer and young deaths with field lines - particularly certain ones I had been looking into at the time and just shuddering at 4-5 year olds dying from cancer. <= This is an unfair assumption - and wrong, since there's the same amount of young deaths and old dogs on the show side as well.

Regarding COI - it is 10% (10 generation) and 13% (12 generations) for my oldest dog (will be 8 in Sept).
Both his sons the COI is 4% (10 generation) and 7% (12 generations).

I DO prefer the COI for my babies, especially since I recognize so many good traits the boys inherited from both sides of the pedigree. Those traits didn't happen by accident. The breeder of the youngest babies was very familiar with the lines behind my boy + confident in what she owned and bred.

Additionally - what I like about my pups is that while they are very typey for the show ring to the point that my Jovi has stopped some people and among else has had people who are breeders and pro handlers and top OTCH trainers comment that he's the most all around ideal golden because he has got the look, the temperament, and the ideal working drive and ability with the OTCH trainers telling me that if I am careful about avoiding bad habits from sneaking into the training, he could be a 199-200 score dog. I don't think I'm disciplined enough to be a 199-200 score trainer, but I am so happy that it's not just me seeing something wonderful in my dog.

Those traits don't happen by accident - they are deliberately bred into the dogs. And breeders need to know the lines they are using - both their own lines, but also what they breed to.

When you do complete outcrosses, you lose predictability. As well, I've heard of people producing complete disasters because they bred to a nice dog and suddenly had a ton of problems that they didn't anticipate. That's not just cancer. It's everything.

I would NOT just randomly buy a puppy with a 0% COI behind him - because personally speaking, I want the whole dog + good health, longevity, and TYPE ALSO that runs in lines.

But the same time, knowing lines and avoiding certain dogs close behind is something a lot of people are doing or should be doing if they are concerned about cancer, temperament issues, etc.

There's very popular sires and popular lines which I would absolutely avoid based on things I've seen. That's not just show lines. That's field and performance lines as well. They all have popular sires that get overused.

Dog breeding isn't something you can jump into and just gamble by throwing mismatched things together with the idea that since they aren't at all related, that they will be better and healthier than dogs who are linebred. On the surface, I do appreciate field breeders using dogs from show lines. It s a step in the right directon - particularly as there are a LOT of inbred dogs on the performance side. But in general it's not just throwing mismatches together and thinking that will fix everything. You've got to be selective and careful in breeding.
You just gave a few pages worth of your opinion as a reply to my giving a chart that shows solid facts that golden retrievers with low COI are living two years longer than those with high COI. The chart is based on thousands of dogs. Two years difference in thousands of dogs is more significant than three dogs at a dog competition. Is your conclusion that the two yea difference in thousands of dogs did not happen?
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top