# IN-breeding, line-breeding... po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to... C-O-I



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Inbred Mistakes I


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed) « Ruffly Speaking: Railing against idiocy since 2004


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog


> *bold added - *
> 
> _ "One fact alone is the stunning poster exhibit of our breeds genetic predicament: *the Scottish Terrier is 18 times more likely to develop bladder cancer than other breeds.* Across all purebred dogs the risk for bladder cancer is *0.74*, according to Purdue University researchers. Scotties carry a risk factor of *18.09*! There is no plausible explanation for this shocking fact short of genetic predisposition.
> After all, *our dogs world is the same polluted environment other modern breeds inhabit*, yet Scotties are 18 times more vulnerable; our dogs are on the whole as well or better cared for as any breed, yet they are at massively disproportionate risk to die of bladder cancer." _


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

Hi Terry,

it would be nice if breeders went somehow back starting from biology 101 and learn from university textbooks before playing with breeding actual, four legged dogs...

of course this is not going to happen...as it is well contrary to the ethos of the breed clubs...

it's so simple that is shocckking!
best
D


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

As usual I can't get into any of the links. 

Just wondering - does anyone actually *say* po-TAH-to? :lol:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Luvmydogs, the url for "Inbred Mistakes 1" (if you want to copy and past it into your task bar) is Inbred Mistakes I

The url for "Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed) « Ruffly Speaking: Railing against idiocy since 2004" is Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed) « Ruffly Speaking: Railing against idiocy since 2004

They are both excellent blog articles, and well worh the read.

The comments sections have challenging and thought provoking questions and side conversations as well.

Well .. . that didn't work! Try these and take the dashes off the ends.

-------http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2010/11/inbred-mistakes-i.html-------

-------http://rufflyspeaking.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/inbreeding-and-using-coi-to-analyze-potential-pairings-yet-more-on-pedigree-dogs-exposed/------

CC


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Thanks CC! :thumbup:


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

You're welcome. I have read the second article many times before. The first one, at Chris' blog, I'm still just getting through . . . having a busy day here and getting glares from the OH when I'm on the 'puter (we are painting) so I might not even today.

CC


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

can illustrate the issue - 
Popular sire problems in a livebearer « Retrieverman's Weblog


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

------http://tinyurl.com/2369szr-------- 
DesertWindHounds: Closed Registries: Dogs in the Handbasket to Hell, Part I

DesertWindHounds: Closed Registries: Dogs in the Handbasket to Hell, Part I


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

interesting - I had a peek at his 'planned litters' page - no pedigrees to check out the COI's of his breeding and NO health tests :confused1:

so ........why would you assume that this is a responsible 'alternative' method of breeding ? 

a case of the pot calling the kettle black !


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Bijou said:


> interesting - I had a peek at his 'planned litters' page - no pedigrees to check out the COI's of his breeding and NO health tests :confused1:
> 
> so ........why would you assume that this is a responsible 'alternative' method of breeding ?
> 
> a case of the pot calling the kettle black !


Dear Bijou, in your frenzy to condemn me, perhaps your reading comprehension is poor? There are COIs there. And a pedigree link for my Azawakh litter. (For the crosses, I am happy to provide that information privately, as crossing breeds can be contentious. I get hate mail.) Which health tests I do is also covered. Maybe you missed them? There's also an e-mail address, for you to ask questions, instead of attacking me behind my back.

Cheers,
Jess


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

------------http://tinyurl.com/2b42tyc--------------- for *luv;

PLoS ONE: DLA Class II Alleles Are Associated with Risk for Canine Symmetrical Lupoid Onychodystropy (SLO) 
for the rest of us, 

EXCERPT, 


> In smaller sample sizes of the Bearded Collie and Giant Schnauzer breeds we found the same or similar haplotypes, sharing the same DQA1 allele, over-represented among the cases suggesting that the risk is associated primarily with DLA-DQ.
> We obtained conclusive results that DLA class-II is significantly associated with risk of developing SLO in Gordon setters, thus supporting that SLO is an immune-mediated disease.
> Further studies of SLO in dogs may provide important insight into immune privilege of the nail apparatus and also knowledge about a number of inflammatory disorders of the nail apparatus like _lichen planus, psoriasis, alopecia areata and onycholysis_.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

-----------http://tinyurl.com/qax8h------------

OR 
Contagious cancer in dogs confirmed; origins traced to wolves centuries ago

the cloned-tumor cells moved from wolves to dogs, and have been spreading thru the dom-dog popn 
for approx 200-years; generally, after a period of rapid uncontested growth, the dog's immune-system 
recognizes the tumor and attacks it, then the tumor is broken-down and resorbed, and does not recur.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Thanks Terry. But can you believe this bloody place is blocking the tiny URL's now??  I'm managing to see most by putting titles into google though.

Can someone explain to me in idiots terms what 'assortative mating' is please?


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> Dear Bijou, in your frenzy to condemn me, perhaps your reading comprehension is poor? There are COIs there. And a pedigree link for my Azawakh litter. (For the crosses, I am happy to provide that information privately, as crossing breeds can be contentious. I get hate mail.) Which health tests I do is also covered. Maybe you missed them? There's also an e-mail address, for you to ask questions, instead of attacking me behind my back.


Ok I've had a look at your 'pedigree ' - are you seriously suggesting a COi of 7.86 % over 10 generations?.... how do you know when almost all the pedigree is marked as 'foundation' and NOT recorded ?- in fact you have unrecorded dogs appearing as close up as the 4th generation -

now there's a neat trick folks - an i*nstant* way of lowering those cOi's - simply dont put in the names of ANY dogs in your pedigrees that way they'll be shown as having 0 % of inbreeding !!

honestly... words fail me :confused1:

P.s - your link was posted on an open forum - I was simply replying to that - I don't think this can be construed as -'attacking me behind my back'


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

assortative mating is the breeding of dogs that look similar in type i.e mating my Belgian Shepherds to Dutch Shepherds or your English Shepherds to Border Collies - supporters of this say it will widen gene pools and that this is how dogs were bred in the past - both statements are true but it would mean the end of most individual breeds ( i.e Malamutes/ Sibes/ Eskimo Dogs/Samoyeds could all be classed as 'assortative types' and mated together thus reducing 4 separate breeds into one sled dog 'type' )


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Ah ok thanks Bijou. ES breeders have tried very hard to keep the breeding loose but there's no way they'd breed to a BC, the ES was bred as an all rounder and the BC a specialist. It would be like going backwards.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

the earliest litter i see planned is for Fall 2012 - this being Nov 2010, that's a good ways off - approx 2-years; 
there is also this note: QUOTE, * Pending eye /heart / tgaa checks* if U want to know about screens.
plus this warranty: 


> _ All pups have a six year warranty against hereditary disease. If a dog develops a hereditary disease associated
> with it's breed before six years of age, it will be replaced. Why six years?
> My breeds (Salukis, especially) tend to have conditions that can also be associated with the natural aging process,
> like cancer and heart disease. I feel that premature development of age related disease is probably hereditary,
> ...





Bijou said:


> Ok I've had a look at your 'pedigree ' - are you seriously suggesting a COi of 7.86 % over 10 generations?.... how do you know when almost all the pedigree is marked as 'foundation' and NOT recorded ?- in fact you have unrecorded dogs appearing as close up as the 4th generation -
> 
> now there's a neat trick folks - an *instant* way of lowering those cOi's - simply dont put in the names of ANY dogs in your pedigrees that way they'll be shown as having 0 % of inbreeding !!


i am not going to address the known-lineage dogs, of USA or Euro ancestry with known pedigrees - 
i am only going to ask a general info question about COO imports.

dogs imported from a country of origin often have 3 to 5 gens of pedigree at best, but the likelihood 
of their having a large amount of genetic relationship with US or Euro lines is pretty remote. 
i think U would grant that a desert-bred dog is not likely to have near-relatives in the show-ring? 
- terry


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Take a look at the pedigree of his Azawakh litter - the same dam 'Jana' is use THREE times in the fourth generation and a litter brother and sister are used in the third as well as a dog called 'Agarouf' appearing in both the fourth and third generations - I hav'nt worked out the COI of this but I'm telling you this pedigree even with all it's 'missing' dogs is WAY over 7.86 % - in fact it's one of the most INBRED pedigrees I've seen in along time !!

The Azawakh Database


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Take a look at the pedigree of his Azawakh litter - the same dam 'Jana' is use THREE times in the fourth generation and a litter brother and sister are used in the third as well as a dog called 'Agarouf' appearing in both the fourth and third generations - I hav'nt worked out the COI of this but I'm telling you this pedigree even with all it's 'missing' dogs is WAY over 7.86 % - in fact it's one of the most INBRED pedigrees I've seen in along time !!
> 
> The Azawakh Database


I have to say, I was surprised how a 10 generations COI could be cited when there aren't 10 generations of dogs there.

I DO have 10 generation pedigrees for all my dogs, most without any dogs missing at all, save very occasionally the odd one on the 10th generation.

Counting the parents as the 1st generation - a 10 generation pedigree involves assimilating information on 2,046 dogs - and yep - I have that - and can say with confidence the COI's of my gang over 5, 8 and 10 generations.

A COI of 7.86% over 10 gens with a lot of dogs missing is VERY misleading


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i am only going to say this once - so i will say it *loudly - * 
i did not start this thread to have it degenerate into a series of personal attacks. i started it to discuss COI, 
the loss of gene-diversity via commonly accepted *standard* breeding practices, and the threat to our beloved dogs and breeds.

* bijou, *swarthy, and anybody else - 
feel free to start YOUR OWN THREADS and eviscerate anyone U like on them. 
i cheerfully invite U to post any of the links posted here, *somewhere else* - and rip into the author, breeder, their dogs' defects, inadequate number of ribbons, no field-champions or no show-ring champs, or U don't like their decorator - whatever. 
*on this thread, let's stick to C-O-I, not individual breeders. Thanks for understanding, 
- terry *


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Demystifying Inbreeding Coefficients

OR 
------------http://www.netpets.org/dogs/healthspa/demyst.html----------

OR 
Demystifying Inbreeding Coefficients


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Bijou said:


> Take a look at the pedigree of his Azawakh litter - the same dam 'Jana' is use THREE times in the fourth generation and a litter brother and sister are used in the third as well as a dog called 'Agarouf' appearing in both the fourth and third generations - I hav'nt worked out the COI of this but I'm telling you this pedigree even with all it's 'missing' dogs is WAY over 7.86 % - in fact it's one of the most INBRED pedigrees I've seen in along time !!
> 
> The Azawakh Database


Don't know anything about Azawakh, do you, Bijou? Or any kinds of dogs that exist as country of origin populations?

Azawakh, in the West, are a 'new' breed; the first dogs were imported from Africa in the seventies. They are descended, for the most part, from a very small population of dogs. You are not going to find a complete pedigree for many generations, the way you do with dogs like Labs, which were developed in the West and have good records kept. My bitch, Lilly, is half-desert bred; her mother came directly from the Sahel. That's why there is no pedigree behind Tiraout except for the parents. Every dog you see in that pedigree 'unknown' behind it is a dog from Africa. This is standard for dogs with a population that exists in countries where there are no kennel clubs. You will see the same kinds of pedigrees in Sloughi, Salukis, and Azawakh. I'm sure there are other breeds as well; I also have a Tazi, and kennel clubs are a fairly recent thing in Kazakhstan, you can still find Tazi there that are not registered. Here is a pedigree for one of my Salukis, who is what is called a 3rd generation dog, she is eligible for AKC registration.

Saluki Puppies from Rasho von Iransamin and Mamnouna's Mishmish

All of the dogs with 'unknown' in the pedigree are direct imports. Minna's pedigree is mostly Iranian, so the dogs would have been from there. Most kennel clubs have a mechanism for registering desert bred dogs, here in the US desert breds would be critiqued and registered by the Society for the Preservation of Desert Bred Salukis. After three generations of recorded pedigrees, such dogs become eligible for AKC registration. Minna's ancestors were registered in Germany. One of the reasons that Salukis have the greatest diversity in their MHC genes of any dog so far tested is the steady influx of desert blood, from dogs that have no pedigrees.

Azawakh are an AKC FSS breed, which also requires three generations of pedgiree. Once Lilly's descendants have three complete generations behind them, they will be eligible for AKC registration through FSS.

Most Azawakh pedigrees are very, very tight, 15% COI and over. This is partly due to the fact that under the FCI standard, which most of the world uses, they are very limited in regards to color and white markings, even though Azawakh in Africa come in a huge variety of colors and patterns. This restriction artificially constricts the genes. A dog like Lilly would not eligible for registration or breeding in a country under FCI, because she is parti-colored. A dedicated group of Azawakh breeders is working very hard to change that. With my own breedings, I am trying to keep the COI under 10%; any of Lilly's offspring that I keep will be bred to a desert bred dog or one of recent desert descent. It is important to get those genes out there, as the gene pool in Azawakh is very small, they need all the diversity they can get.

I hope you enjoyed making your attacks on me. I'll forgive you because you're obviously speaking from a position of ignorance. Maybe you should have asked questions before making your assertions. I hope you learned something about dogs with a country of origin population, and how important those desert bred dogs are. Think about how high the COIs would be in Azawakh if we were restricted to only those few dog imported in the seventies.

BTW, Pawpeds calculates the COI for up to ten generations automatically. The COI is accurate given the information that is available. The entire pedigree only goes back about twelve generations, to the founding dogs brought from Africa, so the COI is probably a wee bit higher. If you click on the sire's pedigree, you will see that it is 13.3 % for ten generations; the important thing is reduce that COI for future breedings to preserve diversity.

Are words still failing you? I'd have been happy to explain what 'foundation' means on the pedigree if you had asked.

Jess


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> i did not start this thread to have it degenerate into a series of personal attacks. i started it to discuss COI,
> the loss of gene-diversity via commonly accepted standard breeding practices, and the threat to our beloved dogs and breeds.


Exactly !!! and you should not therefore be surprised if we question the amount of line breeding shown in the pedigrees of someone *you've* held up as an example of how to breed without high COi's..if you did not want us to look then why post the link ?

Jess I fully understand the difficulties in breeding a numerically small breed - ( I do this myself ! ) however if even you admit to not knowing the parentage of many of the dogs behind this litter then is it not a tad misleading to invent a co-efficient of inbreeding that is just not true ?

....and the link to the Sauki litter shows a level of line breeding as great as any show breeder - sorry I'm just not getting how this is in any way better - I've counted this dog *Tita's Mamnouna's Mumtachir ar-Rih* three times in only four generations ?????

Terry perhaps you can tel us just WHY you think these pedigrees are an improvement ?


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

Bijou said:


> Take a look at the pedigree of his Azawakh litter - the same dam 'Jana' is use THREE times in the fourth generation and a litter brother and sister are used in the third as well as a dog called 'Agarouf' appearing in both the fourth and third generations - I hav'nt worked out the COI of this but I'm telling you this pedigree even with all it's 'missing' dogs is WAY over 7.86 % - in fact it's one of the most INBRED pedigrees I've seen in along time !!
> 
> The Azawakh Database


The thing is that the inbreeding coefficient measures the level of inbreeding and common genes between the two parents, therefore although the father does indeed have a degree of inbreeding he is not hugely related to the mother hence the lowish COI. The large proportion of unknown dogs though is slightly worrying as who knows how the parents are indeed related, 7.84%, 15%, 25%, 35%........who knows???

If a highly inbred ie say parent/offspring dog is mated to a parent/offspring or a full sibling mating bitch, the pups will have a COI of 0, if none of the dogs have any ancestors in common.
So although the parents will have high COIs individually themselves the pups do not have related parents hence the COI of 0.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> The thing is that the inbreeding coefficient measures the level of inbreeding and common genes between the two parents, therefore although the father does indeed have a degree of inbreeding he is not hugely related to the mother hence the lowish COI


the father and mother are related to the same dog in the 3rd and 4th generations - just how line bred does this pedigree need to be ?...and thats not counting all the dogs we know nothing about

Look I'm really not in the busines of attacking anyone I just want the rules applied to all - I can't help thinking that if this was show breeder who posted a pedigree like this they would be shot down in flames.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

The mating is a half aunt/nephew mating I think, which has an COI of 6.25%. I suppose the increased value to 7.84% comes from some other relatedness further back.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> The thing is that the inbreeding coefficient measures the level of inbreeding and common genes between the two parents, therefore although the father does indeed have a degree of inbreeding he is not hugely related to the mother hence the lowish COI. The large proportion of unknown dogs though is slightly worrying as who knows how the parents are indeed related, 7.84%, 15%, 25%, 35%........who knows???
> 
> If a highly inbred ie say parent/offspring dog is mated to a parent/offspring or a full sibling mating bitch, the pups will have a COI of 0, if none of the dogs have any ancestors in common.
> So although the parents will have high COIs individually themselves the pups do not have related parents hence the COI of 0.


The COI looks at ALL common dogs irrespective of whether they sit in a fathers or mothers pedigree - it's looking at the total inbreeding COI of the dog - if it doesn't look at commonalities within the parents own pedigree, you are not getting a true reflection of the inbreeding of the pup.

I've just been looking at one of my own dogs - the mother and father have no dogs in common within the 5 generation pedigree, but dad is a linebreed 3rd to 4th generation - and mum has a 5th generation to 5th generation line breed - overall 5 generation COI - 0.81%.

Likewise - her half sister - no common dogs with sire in 5 generations - 5 gen COI - 0.29% from the dog in mums 5th generation.

To establish the level of inbreeding in a dog, you need, near as possible, ALL the dogs to the generation you are citing - as for puppy buyers - most have a problem getting their heads around hips, elbows, eyes, DNA testing - never mind starting to give them COI info


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> The mating is a half aunt/nephew mating I think, which has an COI of 6.25%. I suppose the increased value to 7.84% comes from some other relatedness further back.


A half aunt / nephew mating with a full 10 generation pedigree would give a MUCH higher COI than 6.25% unless every single other of the 2,046 dogs were unrelated - and if you don't have a full 10 generation pedigree, you can never possibly verify whether this is the case or not.

The dogs HAD to start somewhere - they didn't just appear out of fresh air and therefore will have an ancestry which may or may not be related to the other dogs in the pedigree.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> The COI looks at ALL common dogs irrespective of whether they sit in a fathers or mothers pedigree - it's looking at the total inbreeding COI of the dog - if it doesn't look at commonalities within the parents own pedigree, you are not getting a true reflection of the inbreeding of the pup.





> Inbreeding occurs when an individual has one or more common ancestors.* A common ancestor is one that is present on both sides of the pedigree.* I.e., in order for an individual to have a non-zero coefficient of inbreeding it is necessary for both father(sire) and mother(dam) to be descended from one or more common ancestors.


If there are no common ancestors then the COI is zero.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> Terry perhaps you can tel us just WHY you think these pedigrees are an improvement ?


i did not say SQUIT about any pedigrees, in fact never looked at them - i posted ARTICLE LINKS, *bijou. 
assuming i am stumping to elect someone to office is asinine; i am posting INFO, not promoting BREEDERS.
one more abusive personally-directed post goes up on here, and i will ask the mods to remove those posts - 
no matter whose they are.

anyone who wants to discuss individual pedigrees, please post and discuss their own... 
No One Else's, *unless they have the breeder's written consent. *

*jess, do U want to discuss Ur pedigrees on this thread? frankly, i feel we are straying from education into personal, 
and i would rather stick to C-O-I.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> A half aunt / nephew mating with a full 10 generation pedigree would give a MUCH higher COI than 6.25% unless every single other of the 2,046 dogs were unrelated - and if you don't have a full 10 generation pedigree, you can never possibly verify whether this is the case or not.
> 
> The dogs HAD to start somewhere - they didn't just appear out of fresh air and therefore will have an ancestry which may or may not be related to the other dogs in the pedigree.


The COIs quoted for Parent/offspring = 25% or Half siblings = 12.5% etc. are for species where there is no other relatedness. That doesn't apply to pedigree dogs or cats or horses or any other human bred animal, it is merely a guide figure and not to be taken literally.
Many breeds where there is a high degree of relatedness or a tight gene pool could have huge COIs, nowhere near 25% for a parent/offspring mating.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> If there are no common ancestors then the COI is zero.


Common ancestors come from both sides of the parents - just because the dam and sire may not share commonalities - you can't ignore a tight linebreed in one parent as if it doesn't count in the figures.

the COI looks at EVERY single common dog over a generation - irrespective of where it sits - if this is wrong, someone better notify the most successful pedigree software companies in the world that they have all got it wrong.

It looks at the overall COI, the generation linebreeding, and the contribution of every dog in terms of bloodline in the number of generations specified.

Two parents may not be related on paper - but if the sire for example the product of 1st cousins - then there will be a higher concentration of those dogs ancestry and contribution to the output of the dog than if each dog appears just once.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> The COIs quoted for Parent/offspring = 25% or Half siblings = 12.5% etc. are for species where there is no other relatedness. That doesn't apply to pedigree dogs or cats or horses or any other human bred animal, it is merely a guide figure and not to be taken literally.
> Many breeds where there is a high degree of relatedness or a tight gene pool could have huge COIs, nowhere near 25% for a parent/offspring mating.


DOH! - you've just quoted my post and told me exactly what I said!!


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

> Jess I fully understand the difficulties in breeding a numerically small breed - ( I do this myself ! ) however if even you admit to not knowing the parentage of many of the dogs behind this litter then is it not a tad misleading to invent a co-efficient of inbreeding that is just not true ?
> 
> 
> > Even if I admit? Did I not do just that? These kind of pedigrees are PAR FOR THE COURSE when you are talking about dogs that did not originate in the West. Go back far enough on ANY Afghan hound pedigree, or Western bred Saluki, and you will see the same thing.
> ...


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

Bijou said:


> the father and mother are related to the same dog in the 3rd and 4th generations - just how line bred does this pedigree need to be ?...and thats not counting all the dogs we know nothing about
> 
> Look I'm really not in the busines of attacking anyone I just want the rules applied to all - I can't help thinking that if this was show breeder who posted a pedigree like this they would be shot down in flames.


You know what, there are maybe 200 Azawakh in the entire US. The vast majority of them are closely related. Same with Europe. Maybe, in your wisdom, you can tell me how line bred a litter _needs_ to be.

I want these puppies to be able to contribute to the Azawakh gene pool world wide. That means I have to work within the registry system, I can't just breed to another breed to add diversity, no matter how much I'd like to. Those pups would be a dead end.

Jess


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> *jess, do U want to discuss Ur pedigrees on this thread? frankly, i feel we are straying from education into personal,
> and i would rather stick to C-O-I.[/SIZE]


Actually, I don't care. I'm really enjoying being attacked by people who have forgotten that if you go back far enough in any breed's history, when the breed was at the point where Azawakh are now, thirty years from the founders, you will find pedigrees that look almost exactly the same. Afghans in the West are descended from less than twenty-five dogs. Even if I could get a COO Afghan, I couldn't get it registered and into the gene pool at this point. I'm thrilled that I can add COO Salukis and Azawakh to my dogs.

How many breeds have less than twenty-five dogs as founders, and how many of those founders were related to each other?

I find it really ironic, that in a thread about diversity, adding country of origin dogs is attacked because the dog has an unknown background. Let's see, can't cross-breed because the dogs would be 'impure', but when we do have a source of 'pure' dogs, we shouldn't use those either because their background is unknown and they _might_ be related to the ones we already have, or they _might_ be inbred themselves.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You know who's really damned? The dogs.

Knock yourself out, kids.

Jess


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Nightmare said:


> Actually, I don't care. I'm really enjoying being attacked by people who have forgotten that if you go back far enough in any breed's history, when the breed was at the point where Azawakh are now, thirty years from the founders, you will find pedigrees that look almost exactly the same. Afghans in the West are descended from less than twenty-five dogs. Even if I could get a COO Afghan, I couldn't get it registered and into the gene pool at this point. I'm thrilled that I can add COO Salukis and Azawakh to my dogs.
> 
> How many breeds have less than twenty-five dogs as founders, and how many of those founders were related to each other?
> 
> ...


I've not said anything about your pedigrees other than challenging the fact of a true 10 generation COI without all the dogs details.

I can trace back exactly where records started being maintained in my own breed - some 130 years ago - and am fortunate to be in a numerically large breed with a more diverse gene pool than many other breeds - I am aware of the gene pool bottlenecks and what was done by the KC and breeders to diversify that by breeding with 'type' dogs.

I think the downside is - your link has been posted on a thread which seemingly highlights the perils of linebreeding


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Paris Poodles why we will not inbreed. COI inbreeding coefficients, health poor temperament


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Common ancestors come from both sides of the parents - just because the dam and sire may not share commonalities - you can't ignore a tight linebreed in one parent as if it doesn't count in the figures.
> 
> *the COI looks at EVERY single common dog over a generation - irrespective of where it sits - if this is wrong, someone better notify the most successful pedigree software companies in the world that they have all got it wrong. *
> 
> ...


No.
If a dog is outcrossed to another breed as long as there are no common ancestors the COI is zero, whether the dogs are inbred individually or not.

See test mating
This is a test mating between a cat that is 17.6% inbred and one which is 0% inbred. What is the COI? - it is zero because they have no common ancestors, despite the male being a half sister/half brother mating. 
The degree of inbreeding in the male doesn't show in the figures because they have *no common ancestors*


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> No.
> If a dog is outcrossed to another breed as long as there are no common ancestors the COI is zero, whether the dogs are inbred individually or not.
> 
> See test mating
> ...


Well - all I can say is their calculations are different to all the other main software providers - I will remember notify the most successful companies in the world they have it wrong.

Taking your approach - if I take dog A - who shares no common ancestors with dog B - however, Dog B is a 3/4th generation linebreed - it wouldn't matter because the COI would still be zero - but it isn't, because of the linebreeding in dog B.

ETA - I have just read your post again - I am NOT looking at the inbreeding COI of the pairing - I look at the COI of the dog itself - hence - why ALL common ancestors are taken into consideration irrespective of where it sits - and IMHO - you are not getting a true measure unless you look at it this way - and is the way typically represented and discussed by other breeders I know.

my two eldest homebred girls were mother / father outcrosses - but the dog itself is NOT a complete outcross - and as far as I can see - to view it any other way in terms of the facts would be wrong.


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Well - all I can say is their calculations are different to all the other main software providers - I will remember notify the most successful companies in the world they have it wrong.
> 
> *Taking your approach - if I take dog A - who shares no common ancestors with dog B - however, Dog B is a 3/4th generation linebreed - it wouldn't matter because the COI would still be zero - but it isn't, because of the linebreeding in dog B.*


That is the truth. The pups would have an COI of zero.


> FSpeed - Fast Calculation of Inbreeding Coefficient - they make Breeders Assistant
> Inbreeding occurs when an individual has one or more common ancestors.* A common ancestor is one that is present on both sides of the pedigree.* I.e., in order for an individual to have a non-zero coefficient of inbreeding it is necessary for both father(sire) and mother(dam) to be descended from one or more common ancestors.


----------



## Nightmare (Aug 26, 2010)

swarthy said:


> I've not said anything about your pedigrees other than challenging the fact of a true 10 generation COI without all the dogs details.


You are not ever going to get a 'true' COI when there are COO dogs of unknown background regularly added to the bloodlines. Breeders in those breeds simply do the best they can with the information they have. That does not mean they are lying or trying to mislead people.

Azawakh, Salukis with desert blood, Basenjis with African blood, none of these will have a 'true' COI.

Jess


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

*each probable source of inbreeding has a cumulative effect on the overall value.*

Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding

FX = å [ {½) n1+n2+1 (1 + FA)]

In the formula,

FX is your dog's COI,
FA is that of the ancestor common to both sides of the pedigree. 
n1 and n2 are the numbers of generations on each side between your dog and that ancestor

Wright's Equation considers duplicated ancestors only if they are common to both sire and dam, but if the inbreeding of an individual is one half the relationship of its sire and dam, *then duplicated ancestors wholly contained within the pedigrees of either the sire or the dam should also be considered because ultimately they will trace to ancestors common to both sire and dam*


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

quote from the vet via Paris Poodles - 
"In general, the average Poodle inbred less than 6% will outlive those inbred 
over 25% (10 generation calculations) by about 3 years." 
--- Dr. John B. Armstrong, PhD.

age at breeding: 
according to Padgett, *waiting until 2-YO to breed dogs adds an average of Two Years to the pups' lifespans.* 
Amazon.com: Control of Canine Genetic Diseases (Howell reference books) (9780876050040): George A. Padgett: Books 
it is the single least-expensive and simplest method of increasing longevity.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Worth having a look here

Coefficient of Inbreeding - Wright's Equation and Hardiman's Method

HIGH BIRDS pedigree

HIGH BIRD has no ancestors in the first five generations which are common to both sire and dam.

The sire HIGH TIME is inbred to DOMINO (3 x 3) x 2
The paternal grandsire ULTIMUS is inbred to DOMINO 2 x 2

The dam Billie Dove is inbred to CYLLENE 3 x 3, ST SIMON 3 x 4 and BONA VISTA 4 x (4 x 4)
The maternal grandam Polistena is inbred to BONA VISTA 3 x 3

The following inbreeding coefficients are produced by Wright's Equation using only the information contained in this five generation pedigree:

HIGH BIRD = 0% HIGH TIME = 12.5% ULTIMUS = 12.5% Billie Dove = 6.25% Polistena = 3.125%

*The inbreeding coefficient of 0% for HIGH BIRD produced by Wright's Equation is impossible*

The method I am proposing produces the following inbreeding coefficients using only the information contained in this five generation pedigree:

HIGH BIRD = 18.75% HIGH TIME = 18.75% ULTIMUS = 12.5% Billie Dove = 18.75% Polistena = 6.25%

==============================

I can't say without paying for a version of new software why the one you have chosen portrays to the contrary - and having downloaded a trial version and the complexities of re-entering over 30K dogs data - I will stick with what I've got.

Interestingly - on the forums, we often compare the COI's of various dogs from different software users and they always have miniscule variations dependent on who happens to have the most accurate 10 generation pedigree.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Fanconi: Kidneys
BCOA Basenji Health Information

BCOA African Stock Project - Hereditary Disorders of the Basenji 


> Our best known problem is Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency Hemolytic Anemia.
> When I first started testing for Hemolytic Anemia, 20% of all the dogs that I tested had the recessive gene for HA. I expect we are now down below 2%.


other problems: 
The Basenji Health Endowment, Inc.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> I want these puppies to be able to contribute to the Azawakh gene pool world wide. That means I have to work within the registry system, I can't just breed to another breed to add diversity, no matter how much I'd like to. Those pups would be a dead end.


you've just described the same dilemma as almost ALL pedigree dog breeders face - (ensuring genetic diversity within a closed system )- I also import and use dogs form my breed's country of origin - I use frozen semen -and take my bitches abroad to be mated - the big difference here is that your breeding methods were being flagged up as an alternative and better way when in fact they are no different to the average show breeders.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

swarthy said:


> Wrights Coefficient of Inbreeding
> 
> FX = å [ {½) n1+n2+1 (1 + FA)]


OK my head is about to explode.....:crazy::blink::huh:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

For interests sake here are the pedigrees of the dogs I'll be using for my next litter and the COi of the resulting pups:

Sire :Corsini HUNTER -- detailed information - XOOPS Site ( click on his name to view his pedigree )

Dam : BIJOU Du Clos Des Agapornis -- detailed information - XOOPS Site ( again click on her name to view her pedigree )

Coi of litter http://baza.belgi.pl/modules/animal/coi.php?s=13893&d=20436&dogid=&detail=1 - this is across 8 generations


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

swarthy said:


> Worth having a look here
> 
> Coefficient of Inbreeding - Wright's Equation and Hardiman's Method
> 
> ...


Can you tell me which software you are using and by which method the COI is being calculated?

In the example you quoted above
Coefficient of Inbreeding - Wright's Equation and Hardiman's Method - at five gens by Wrights method the COI is 0% but obviously will be a lot higher if the common ancestors to 9 generations are considered.
By Hardiman's method the COI is 18.75% at 5 generations.

Even if your software is using Wright's method, if you have 30000 dogs, and your generation level is set high then the chances of finding somewhere in the pedigree a common ancestor must be high. 
If there are indeed no common ancestors, by Wright's method the COI will always be zero.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

from AVAR's Guide to Congenital and Heritable Disorders in Dogs


> Bernese mountain dog: 20, 42, 46, 47, 54, 55, 103, 149, 149d, 152, 166, 221, 221a, 255, 256, 269, 318
> 20. *Ataxia*: (See #255, 288.)
> 42. *Cataract*: ...a change in structure of the lens of the eye leading to cloudiness and usually to blindness.
> 46. *Cerebellar degeneration*: ...a part of the brain deteriorates.
> ...


along with the above, *fertility problems* plagued the breed severely in the 1980s - low sperm-counts, 
high sperm-abnormalities or low motility, delayed first-estrus, erratic estrus, SMALL litters of 2 to 4, 
failure to thrive and pups died before 3-WO,...

an incredible resource for LINKS - *for any breed; for diseases, databases, research, etc.* 
Bernese Mountain Dog Health-Overview


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

I liked this from your link Terry, Inbreeding and using COI to analyze potential pairings (yet more on Pedigree Dogs Exposed) Railing against idiocy since 2004

and this is so relevant to so many breeding practises.



> *If I can say one thing about this and have it be remembered, its this:*
> 
> Theres a story I heard years ago of a young woman who was putting in the roast for Sunday dinner. Her guests watched as she carefully cut off a portion of one end of the roast before putting it in the pan to cook. One family friend asked Wow, thats really interesting. Why do you do that? She said, My mom, who was the best cook I know, taught me to always do this.
> 
> ...


All great links you've posted, Terry. :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

lauren001 said:


> I liked this from your link Terry...
> and this is so relevant to so many breeding practises.


Singing: _*"...traditionnn, tra-diSHUN... tra-di-shun!"*_ :thumbup:


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

Humans too

Open Directory - Health: Conditions and Diseases: Genetic Disorders:

http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Rare_Disorders/

http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Congenital_Anomalies/

should we out cross to gorillas ??

lets be even handed about this Terry - *ALL* species have inherited conditions !


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Bijou said:


> lets be even handed about this Terry - *ALL* species have inherited conditions !


and who ever said they didn't? :huh: not i - in fact, i have repeatedly pointed out that *all dogs* 
in the USA carry an average of *five deleterious genes - * no matter if the individual dog is purebred, 
crossbred, or pure mutt with no known ancestry, *they all carry an average of 5 'bad' genes.*

the crucial outcome is not to duplicate those 5 in the partner - thus avoiding the manifestation in the pups.


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

swarthy said:


> The COI looks at ALL common dogs irrespective of whether they sit in a fathers or mothers pedigree - it's looking at the total inbreeding COI of the dog - if it doesn't look at commonalities within the parents own pedigree, you are not getting a true reflection of the inbreeding of the pup.


OMG, NO! This is not true. If you take a completely inbred father and a completely inbred mother who are not related, the offspring will have a COI of 0%.

COI measures the probability that any single gene will get BOTH of it's two alleles from the same ancestor. If there are no common ancestors on BOTH sides of the pedigree, then the COI will be 0% no matter how inbred the parents are individually.

Please run some numbers yourself to verify that you're just 100% wrong on this!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BorderWars said:


> OMG, NO! This is not true. If you take a completely inbred father and a completely inbred mother who are not related, the offspring will have a COI of 0%.
> 
> COI measures the probability that any single gene will get BOTH of it's two alleles from the same ancestor. If there are no common ancestors on BOTH sides of the pedigree, then the COI will be 0% no matter how inbred the parents are individually.
> 
> Please run some numbers yourself to verify that you're just 100% wrong on this!


I run numbers every single day on my database in addition to which, it keeps a running 10 generation tally of every dog on the table - and if they are wrong, then so are a whole heap of other companies


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Well - all I can say is their calculations are different to all the other main software providers - I will remember notify the most successful companies in the world they have it wrong.


(1) I know how to do a COI by hand and it does not involve taking the COI of the parents. COI is a measurement of what comes together in the puppy, and if the sire is linebred on Dog X but Dog X is not in the dam, there is ZERO PERCENT chance that the puppies will get TWO copies of Dog X's alleles.

It might have a much higher chance of getting one copy of Dog X's allele because the sire has BOTH copies of Dog X's alleles for many genes, but there is NO WAY for the Sire to pass along both copies to the offspring.

(2) No, I use PedX and it calculates COI the correct way. Your way is not the correct way, has never been the correct way, and is a mental error on your part. Please read up on this so you have the right mental image of what a COI is calculating.



> Taking your approach - if I take dog A - who shares no common ancestors with dog B - however, Dog B is a 3/4th generation linebreed - it wouldn't matter because the COI would still be zero - but it isn't, because of the linebreeding in dog B.


This is correct. The COI is 0 in this case as it should be. The COI does not measure how inbred the parents are individually, it calculates the probability that any one allele will be the same in the offspring, getting BOTH copies from the same ancestor, one copy through the dam line, one copy through the sire line.

If the ancestor is only on one side of the pedigree, it can at most send one copy of any allele to the offspring.

For example, if we have a recessive disease, and it only shows up on the Sire's side, we can NOT have expression of this disease in any pups. At most they will be carriers.

COI measures the P(affected) not P(carrier).


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

swarthy said:


> I run numbers every single day on my database - and if they are wrong, then so are a whole heap of other companies as well


Please provide us with a link to a formula or explanation and an example output.

For your consumption:

Coefficient of Inbreeding - Familypedia


> The coefficient of inbreeding of the children of unrelated but inbred parents is set to zero.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

lauren001 said:


> Even if your software is using Wright's method, if you have 30000 dogs, and your generation level is set high then the chances of finding somewhere in the pedigree a common ancestor must be high.
> If there are indeed no common ancestors, by Wright's method the COI will always be zero.


I measure consistently over 5 and 10 - I check every single pairing and mating I consider - 2 parents - NO common dogs - a 4/5 linebreed on dads - 5/5 on mums - COI over 5 generations 0.8% - COI over 8 generations 4.92% - COI over 10 generations 9.90%

Half sister - no common dogs between sire and dam - but obviously mum STILL 5/5 generation linebreed - COI over 5 generations 0.29%, over 8 - 2.98% and over 10 - 8.14%

I can also provide the co-efficient of relationship and the percentage of blood from each ancestor if you like.

Report for Dog 1

Number of generations=5
Ancestor Loss Coefficient 96.7742%
Total number of unique ancestors=60
Total number of ancestors=62
Total number of possible ancestors=62

Report for Dog 2
Number of generations=5
Ancestor Loss Coefficient =98.3871%
Total number of unique ancestors=61
Total number of ancestors=62
Total number of possible ancestors=62


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

Are you using PedX or BreedMate? This is a known issue that I've run across myself. A COI(6) in PedX is equivalent to a COI(5) in other software. It's simply a matter of how many generations are being taken into consideration and what the software knows about certain dogs.

For example, if a dog Jed is in the 2nd Generation and the 10th Generation, and we're taking a COI(10) does the software "forget" about the 8 generations of information it has on Jed when it calculates his influence in the 10th generation?

A classical calculation would consider all dogs in the 10th generation to be "unknown quantities" ... but certain software packages don't.

Please input a test DB for your software with no common ancestors anywhere.

Looking at your output the numbers are so insignificant, I suspect that it's simply taking into account one more generation than you think it is or it is recognizing more history on a given dog than is "appropriate."

If there are no common dogs, the value is zero. This is just a fact.


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

swarthy said:


> Report for Dog 1
> Number of generations=5
> Ancestor Loss Coefficient 96.7742%
> Total number of unique ancestors=60
> ...


Notice that in BOTH cases, the number of UNIQUE ancestors is less than the total number of ancestors. There is a dog doubled up somewhere in the last generation.

This looks like a report from PedX. Let me explain what PedX does.

Generation N, # of dogs in Generation N
0 1
1 2
2 4
3 8
4 16
5 32

So in Generation(0) we have the dog in question. Generation(1) are the parents. Generation(2) are the Grand-Parents.

So a COI(5) takes into account 2+4+8+16+32 dogs = 62.

I've seen other people who for some reason count Generation 1 as the dog in question, but this dog is never used in the calculation (it can't be its own ancestor!), so a COI(5) for these people would only cover 32 dogs. Silly, I know.

BUT.... we have found your problem.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BorderWars said:


> Notice that in BOTH cases, the number of UNIQUE ancestors is less than the total number of ancestors. There is a dog doubled up somewhere in the last generation.
> 
> This looks like a report from PedX. Let me explain what PedX does.
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying - and at least you don't talk to me like I am an imbecile (which I am most certainly not).

I am using Breedmate yes - but I also regularly 'discuss' COI's with others using different software and get the same results.

The Inbreeding table for 5 generations shows all 62 dogs and one doubling up in the 5th generation on mums side only.

The percentage of blood lines shows only those within the 5 generations - seems a bit of an anomaly that it trails further back for the COI and yet doesn't pick those dog(s) up in terms of bloodlines and relationship Co-efficient.

The figures also suggest it doesn't do this for any other ancestor than the dog - very strange


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

Let me provide you with a sample output from PedX. I've gone through and made a sample database. The sire's side has people names for the animals in question, the damn's side has numbers as names.

There are no common ancestors. The Sire and Dam are both highly inbred.
Their offspring is called "Outcross Pup" and it has a COI of 0%:


```
Name          -     COI       -   COR
Outcross Pup	0%		100%	
Inbred_Sire	37.5%		58.6302%
Inbred_Dam	60.1563%	63.2764%
Parent_X_Child	25%		44.7214%
Two		49.2188%	55.1617%
Alfred		0%		43.75%
One		42.1875%	55.035%
```
Entry name=Outcross Pup
Number of generations=5
AVK=45.1613%
Total number of unique ancestors=28
Total number of ancestors=62
Total number of possible ancestors=62

The 5 Gen Pedigree:


```
+--Daniel 
                +--Charles 
                |   +--Darlene 
            +--Brian 
            |   |   +--Diego 
            |   +--Catherine 
            |       +--Destiny 
        +--Alfred 
        |   |       +--Derek 
        |   |   +--Chuck 
        |   |   |   +--Desire 
        |   +--Betty 
        |       |   +--Daddy 
        |       +--Connie 
        |           +--Dana 
    +--Inbred_Sire 
    |   |           +--Charles 
    |   |       +--Brian 
    |   |       |   +--Catherine 
    |   |   +--Alfred 
    |   |   |   |   +--Chuck 
    |   |   |   +--Betty 
    |   |   |       +--Connie 
    |   +--Parent_X_Child 
    |       |       +--Derek 
    |       |   +--Chuck 
    |       |   |   +--Desire 
    |       +--Betty 
    |           |   +--Daddy 
    |           +--Connie 
    |               +--Dana 
+--Outcross Pup 
    |               +--Nine 
    |           +--Five 
    |           |   +--Six 
    |       +--Three 
    |       |   |   +--Seven 
    |       |   +--Four 
    |       |       +--Six 
    |   +--One 
    |   |   |       +--Nine 
    |   |   |   +--Seven 
    |   |   |   |   +--Ten 
    |   |   +--Four 
    |   |       |   +--Nine 
    |   |       +--Six 
    |   |           +--Eight 
    +--Inbred_Dam 
        |           +--Five 
        |       +--Three 
        |       |   +--Four 
        |   +--One 
        |   |   |   +--Seven 
        |   |   +--Four 
        |   |       +--Six 
        +--Two 
            |       +--Nine 
            |   +--Seven 
            |   |   +--Ten 
            +--Four 
                |   +--Nine 
                +--Six 
                    +--Eight
```
So, two unrelated and highly inbred parents produce a 0% COI offspring. AS EXPECTED. This is the way it _has_ to work. By definition. By biology. There's really no way around it.

I'm sorry that your software is not more clear. I find it horribly annoying that when you print a "5 Generation" pedigree it shows the dogs that it would use in a "4 Generation" COI. The program itself is not consistent with how many generations it is using!

Suffice it to say, a dog need to be on both sides of the tree to add to the COI.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Is there any other reasonably priced software out there whereby I can easily transfer some 30K records over - I had a look at one of the other packages mentioned and there is no way I've got the time or patience to copy over everything (which in a lot of instances includes colour, hips, elbows, eyes, PRA, HC and CNM status 

I had a look at the BM website and it does indicate how it calculates in 'this' version - yet I know for a fact the figures have not changed since I produced the original pedigree over 5 years ago


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

There's nothing wrong with PedX/Breedmate, you just have to know what you're getting when you run a COI versus print a pedigree. 

I use it as my software and came to the realization that it was using a different number of generations when I was comparing results with someone using a different package.

Just remember, when you run a "Max Generations used in Inbreeding Calc: 5" you print out a Generations: 6 TEXT pedigree! (listed under Reports) and a 5G Pedigree that is listed under "Pedigrees."


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

BorderWars said:


> There's nothing wrong with PedX/Breedmate, you just have to know what you're getting when you run a COI versus print a pedigree.
> 
> I use it as my software and came to the realization that it was using a different number of generations when I was comparing results with someone using a different package.
> 
> Just remember, when you run a "Max Generations used in Inbreeding Calc: 5" you print out a Generations: 6 TEXT pedigree! (listed under Reports) and a 5G Pedigree that is listed under "Pedigrees."


There is no need to print things out in capitals - now you ARE treating me like an imbecile - I regularly run 5 to 10 generation ancestries for mine and many other people's dogs - just as I do the 10 generation pedigrees - I am fully aware of the software's capabilities and spread - but for the amount I use it - I would like something that gives me an instant and accurate output solely to the generations I happen to be working to.


----------



## BorderWars (Nov 25, 2010)

Oh you're being a little over-sensitive aren't you, Swarthy? I put one word..."TEXT" in capitals, that's not offensive. I did that for emphasis and that emphasis is needed as the program has many different ways to print a pedigree, and I was specifically referring to what *I* had to do to get a COI(5) for my example but had to put Generations 6 into the Text Pedigree interface.

Either way, will you admit that you were fundamentally wrong about what a COI is calculating? There problem is not in the software, the problem *was* in your understanding.

Now, not to let a teachable moment go by, my little COI=0% chart is a good example of the difference between an F1 cross and an F2 cross. This is perhaps where your confusion came from.

Just because we have a COI=0% in one generation doesn't mean we've wiped the slate clean for the offspring of that dog. If those two gene pools (the names vs. the numbrers) are the only ones we can turn to next, then we are almost guaranteed to have COIs shooting back up to about half of what they were in the parents (depending on what branch we're breeding to next).

In THAT mating, the alleles that had 0% chance of pairing up in our "Outbred Puppy" will once again have an opportunity to be paired up. We will have many of the same dogs on the sire and dam side now.

This is what you hear inbreeding apologists saying when they suggest that "hybrid vigor only works in the first generation." Well, that's a half truth. It works as expected. The benefits are most pronounced in the first generation, but they don't disappear in subsequent generations! They benefit is at worst halved each generation as you *inbreed again.*

This is why outcrossing is not a silver bullet but it is a very effective tool. If the gene pool on the larger level is simply too small to have meaningful continued outcrossings then it doesn't matter how far you breed in that pool, it will eventually condense on you.

So, outcrossing is good. Selecting more dogs to breed is good. Having occasional new blood come in is good. Moderation is good.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

BorderWars said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> The COI does *not* measure *how inbred the parents are individually*, it calculates the probability
> that any one allele will be the same in the offspring, getting BOTH copies from the same ancestor,
> ...


that's always been my understanding - which is why IMO it was *criminal* to spay/neuter all or most 
of the 85 *New Guinea Singing Dogs* voluntarily surrendered by a man who got himself in over his head; 
that ONE group of dogs represented *one-third* of all the dogs now known in the world, and because 
they were INBRED TO EACH OTHER - they desexed them. :crazy: yet this is a breed they've worried about for years, 
as they shrink and shrink and shrink - European dogs have long-since been introduced to New Guinea and are, 
of course, becoming street-strays; the odds of them free-breeding with any feral population are hugely likely.

:nonod: a poorly-thought knee-jerk reaction, IMO - these dogs were valuable genes, and they trashed them.


----------



## Bijou (Aug 26, 2009)

> This is what you hear inbreeding apologists saying when they suggest that "hybrid vigor only works in the first generation." Well, that's a half truth. It works as expected. The benefits are most pronounced in the first generation, but they don't disappear in subsequent generations! They benefit is at worst halved each generation as you *inbreed again.*


..so how often would you need to outcross in order to keep genetic diversity within breeds - I'm guessing once every 4-5 generations ?


----------

