Labradors Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,483 Posts
So the KC/BVA have in fact reduced the test to a simple pass or fail. To all intense the number is meaningless.

Am I the only one who is wondering, when it comes to the KC's stated aim of broadening the gene pool by lowering the CoI in one breath, then effectively excluding a whole section of dogs from the gene pool with the next breath!

OK, I'm not saying it's right or wrong to breed from 1's, but which is the bigger threat to dogs, breeding from 1's or higher CoI's. Is it not about time we had a bit of "Joined up thinking" from the BVA rather than every "Expert" pushing their own pet theory whilst appearing to totally disregard every other "Expert" then when it all goes sick blaming the breeders?

Regards, John
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Completely agree John, personally, I'd like them to rethink the elbow grading scheme and some how expand the numbering, it just seems too cut and dried in comparison to the hip scoring scheme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,504 Posts
" but which is the bigger threat to dogs, breeding from 1's or higher CoI's "


Was suprised when I saw this change a few months ago. I don't see either above as much of a threat and think a lot of rubbish is waffled about the danger of higher COi's etc etc but that's another story.

To be honest the fact its only strongly recommended, makes me tend to think about it for three seconds, then dismiss it and make my own decisions anyway ;-) They recommend LOTS of things these days, but i think those of us breeding a good few years managed nicely without their 'recommendations' so we shall continue to breed how our heart and gut tells us to.

However IF the 'recommendations' start becoming 'can'ts' (which they won't because until the KC only register litters from healthtested parents which would be impossible) they won't start laying down royal perogatives is my instinct.

So recommended 0 and 1. Recommended only 0. I just smile, nod and turn the page ;-) I believe in several of the health schemes and use them, but the results need far more thought than, as John says 'pass and fail'....

Di
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Hi Di, excuse my ignorance, but can you please explain to me why it would be impossible to only register pups from health tested parents please? Many thanks in advance :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,456 Posts
The KC's reasoning is that anything other than 0 elbows shows a level of dysplasia but surely the same should then apply to hips, so we should only use 0 hips scored dogs (which I'm not advocating at all). As for the higher CoI's it appears that they've based the average on ALL registrations which will include the person who uses the dog down the road simply because he's handy. Anyone who closely line breeds is likely to get a figure higher than the average.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,483 Posts
but can you please explain to me why it would be impossible to only register pups from health tested parents please?
There is a number of reasons.

Firstly, some breeds,few admittedly do not have a requirement for health testing, because they do not suffer to any extent from anything for which there is a test.

Secondly, what tests? I doubt there would be any concurrences on what Labradors should be tested for. Do you realise that at the moment, not counting hips elbows ans the visual eye test Labradors have, to my knowledge a total of 16 DNA tests covering 17 conditions!!

Then comes money. Would you be prepared to pay in excess of £2000 for a Labrador puppy? Because that is what would be required to cover the cost of all that testing.

If testing became compulsory for KC registration I think the KC would be out of business within 5 years because of the rebellion! In fact the KC does make certain tests mandatory in order for a person to become a member of the ABS scheme, but do not have a disqualification. They only say you must test, not that your dog must achieve a certain result, for the very good reason that apart from the eye test there is no pass or fail. The tests only state the amount of deviation from the optimum. For example, hips can vary from between 0 (perfect) to 106 (maximum poor.) and it is up to breeders to decide what limit to accept, and that would be different in every breed. For example, Clumber Spaniels have a hip AVERAGE of close to 40 yet few people would breed from a Labrador who scored 20.

Regards, John
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,483 Posts
As for the higher CoI's it appears that they've based the average on ALL registrations which will include the person who uses the dog down the road simply because he's handy.
Really they have no choice in that, do they. After all,distance to go for a stud dog has nothing to do with how good breeder you are.

As to hips, after the hip scoring has been in existence for close to 40 years we are still no nearer eliminating HD, mainly because it appears that the mode of inheritance is not straight forward. There is now a DNA test for HD, but even they cannot tell you that your bitch will not produce a pup with HD, only that it has a "Lower than average risk."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
Hi JohnW, many thanks for your prompt reply, and clarifying that for me. It appears to be a real minefield. I certainly did not know that there are that amount of DNA tests that can be conducted! Again many thanks for your insightful post
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,456 Posts
JohnW said:
As for the higher CoI's it appears that they've based the average on ALL registrations which will include the person who uses the dog down the road simply because he's handy.
Really they have no choice in that, do they. After all,distance to go for a stud dog has nothing to do with how good breeder you are.
I agree, John. What I was getting at was that the system wasn't able to distinguish between the carefully thought out and planned matings and those where no thought whatsoever had been given to the suitability of the pairing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,702 Posts
Not elbow related because I've always had/used 0:0 elbows and I think it would be hard to persuade me otherwise when they are working dogs. I have no strong feelings on others using 1's though.

I am heartily sick of this breeding co-efficient nonsense though. Practically everyone that comes to use the dogs at stud throws the figure at me that they have looked up on the Kennel Club website including a vet that is soon to use Morse. They have no idea what it means or doesn't mean they are just following the advise on the Kennel Club website. I've given up trying to say anything or correct their thinking I just smile sweetly and nod! The smile is wearing very very thin though :wink: .[/b]
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
20,483 Posts
Some breeds have a lot more difficulty with the size of the available gene pool that we do with Labradors. Earlier in the year, as a result of a chat at Crufts between a well know Clumber breeder and the KC geneticist Tom Lewis, a number of people, myself included, sent in a number of questions. This was his summing up, which I feel is a very fair comment on the subject:-

Regards, John

Dr Tom Lewis comments we should look for a slow, or no increase in mean COI- commenting that in a closed population the gene pool will inevitably shrink in the medium to long term. Pursuing greater genetic diversity is a sensible goal for WCSS but must be without endangering the 30 years of selective breeding which has largely restored the breed. Dr Lewis asks us to note that “it absolutely is not a race to the bottom in terms of trying to get a COI of zero but more a case of satisfying your selection objectives
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,504 Posts
Couldn't agree more jill.... people are so affected by this crazy little number... and its totally insane compared to everything else that should have a far higher priority.

John i also agree that the whole COi thing is so much more orientated towards smaller breed gene pools, but of course people just don't see that, and think they have to panic about Labradors!

We have so many DNA tests now, doubling up on good, DNA tested dogs, almost HOWEVER tigghtly has to be good. i always say, a rubbish pair of dogs might have no dogs in common between their pedigrees.... but they are still rubbish mated to rubbish!!

Sorry you know I feel very sad how this little germ has spread somehow pretty widely and the poor public think its of importance and it really ISN'T and is so irritating to breeders who have been linebreeding for decades!

Di
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,702 Posts
Diana said:
Sorry you know I feel very sad how this little germ has spread somehow pretty widely and the poor public think its of importance and it really ISN'T and is so irritating to breeders who have been linebreeding for decades!
Di
Amen to that. I could hug you Di :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
I too am fed up with people making a stud enquiry and then saying the COI is too high! :roll: Thanks Kennel Club!!

Trace x
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top