Selection vs. Exclusion in Breeding Rare Breeds
I had a "moment of clarity" today while standing outside in the freezing cold. I've been thinking a lot about various discussions we've had on the forum and a bunch I've had off the forum about Shikoku and other rare breed breeding practices.
Some have eloquently argued for a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to breeding. Others, including myself, have argued for avoiding selecting based on "superficial physical characteristics." One thing we have all agreed on is the need for genetic diversity in rare breeds.
And so it came to me this morning. When breeding Shikoku or other rare breeds, breeding to a standard based on desirable attributes is a very scary prospect. In selecting dogs to be bred that are the "best" examples of the breed, you are only trying to make the best even better.
What should be done is breeding toward a standard based on excluding undesirable attributes. In that sense, you are excluding only the "worst" dogs and therefore raising the quality of the breed as a whole. By making the worst dogs better, the average quality goes up instead of just making the "best" dogs better.
So, my realization is that in these early stages of rare-breed development (or reconstruction), breeding standards and practices should be dictated by the exclusion of undesirable characteristics rather than the narrow selection for desirable ones.
Just to preempt the glass half-empty vs. half-full response. I see this as being substantively different. A well written standard probably highlights some approximately constant percentage of a breed (let's say 25%). Then, in selecting according to an inclusive standard, we pick the top 25% to breed. On the other hand, in excluding according to an exclusive standard, we end up similarly selecting 25%, but this time exclude. Therefore, the majority (75%) is retained as available breeding stock.
Some have eloquently argued for a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach to breeding. Others, including myself, have argued for avoiding selecting based on "superficial physical characteristics." One thing we have all agreed on is the need for genetic diversity in rare breeds.
And so it came to me this morning. When breeding Shikoku or other rare breeds, breeding to a standard based on desirable attributes is a very scary prospect. In selecting dogs to be bred that are the "best" examples of the breed, you are only trying to make the best even better.
What should be done is breeding toward a standard based on excluding undesirable attributes. In that sense, you are excluding only the "worst" dogs and therefore raising the quality of the breed as a whole. By making the worst dogs better, the average quality goes up instead of just making the "best" dogs better.
So, my realization is that in these early stages of rare-breed development (or reconstruction), breeding standards and practices should be dictated by the exclusion of undesirable characteristics rather than the narrow selection for desirable ones.
Just to preempt the glass half-empty vs. half-full response. I see this as being substantively different. A well written standard probably highlights some approximately constant percentage of a breed (let's say 25%). Then, in selecting according to an inclusive standard, we pick the top 25% to breed. On the other hand, in excluding according to an exclusive standard, we end up similarly selecting 25%, but this time exclude. Therefore, the majority (75%) is retained as available breeding stock.
Comments
I see- it's making more middle dogs better, rather than a few top dogs better.
So in practical terms, knowing we can't all be real breeders, but would be good owners- would this play out that *many* people who own "middle" dogs of said rare breed have those kindof half-ownership contracts where the breeder would still co-own the dog and manage breeding rights for X litters with chosen partner? where in common breeds, *most* owners must neuter? Thinking again actually about what I know about Kai arrangements...
or is that impractical because of distances, and the possibility of breeding accidents ("there are no kai mixes") or people losing touch?
Can fanciers/owners who are not breeders be responsible? I mean a breeder can only keep so many dogs for themselves, right? How do you keep the 75% of a breed of dogs to be active in the gene pool, without owning them all yourself? It is really dependent on a commuity that gets it and is extraordinarily educated and committed, sounds like.
Not that I am doubting it can be done...for example, there is a core shikoku community here...
--- That's exactly it. Even in established breeds, ultra-selective breeding can be very dangerous to the overall health of a breed. But when the numbers are higher, you can afford to be somewhat more selective.
@Chrys: Having co-ownership agreements with breeders is both a logical conclusion and something I had in mind when I thought about this. You do raise an interesting point about distances and accidental litters. The responsibility will have to lie with the breeders to ensure the homes they place their co-owned puppies in are educated and equipped to handle an intact animal. Arrangements will have to be made for breedings and whelping of litters that will have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Even so, with such a rare breed like the Shikoku there won't be that many co-owernship homes that need to be found.
Breeding OUT certain traits is probably more important than breeding FOR a very specific set. Let's try to remember that dogs were originally bred to DO a certain job. Nihon Ken were intentionally created to perform a function, not just to look a certain way.
It seems to me that some breeders have lost sight of this. Breeding those "middle of the pack" dogs is a great way to diversify the gene pool.
What are the fundamentals? It probably still depends on the individual breeder, but here are examples that I would pick:
-two fully descended testicles
-regular heat cycles
-maternal instinct
-full dentition
-scissor bite
-no genetically fearful dog (not to be confused with soft dogs, undersocialized dogs, or dogs tramatized during their puppy fear period)
I agree with it too. I think in a rare breed the focus should be on building a stable and robust gene pool so that, as the breed becomes less rare and selection becomes more refined, the bulk of the breeding stock will be solid and give a good foundation.
I think we all know that Dave and I value the working qualities of these breed more so than the looks, but selecting only for working qualities can narrow a gene pool just as fast/much as selecting for phenotype... so, Dave's idea applies to both sides of the coin. I have always argued that having examples of these breeds working and showing will help move the center but I think Dave's suggestion would actually have move the center and improve the overall quality of the breed.
I think in a rare breed, breeders have to focus on a different set of faults to cur than a less rare breed. In some ways a rare breed breeder has to be less selective and picky so that they do not breed themselves into a corner - genetic diversity is so important.
I like Chrystal's idea of a "reverse standard", that's smart.
I am very good friends with a breeder of a rare breed that is more a "breed collaborative" than a typical breed - meaning it is a breed of dog that is from a large area where huge variety was present. In the standardization of the breed the focus on type has become huge and has narrowed the gene pool very quickly to create a rather unhealthy overall breed. In talking to this breeder she has pushed me to see other sides of the breeding equation and helped me to see that the typical ideal qualities of a breeder are actually dangerous to her breed. Its interesting stuff and its pushed me to view breeding in a bit of a different light - to see all sides - and I think Dave's concept plays really nicely with what I have learned.
----
For instance, I knew of a medium-sized pet dog with severe hip dypslasia (actually no ball at all) that was very active - jumping, weight pulling, backpacking - but never gave her owner any signs of dyplasia until she became a senior and lost muscle mass that was keeping the joints in place. The loss of function was first attributed to arthritis, but when the dog had x-rays for another problem, the hip dysplasia was discovered.
Until it's known how widespread or hidden hip dysplasia is in a breed, even a working breed, that is for the most part untested in the country of origin, it's difficult to gauge how permissive to let the ratings be. Breed from OFA excellents and goods, of course, but how about fairs? How about a borderline that came from a rare famly background of excellents? What part is environmental, what part is genetic?
But as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason not to x-ray the dogs that we have here in the states, regardless of their home country. We have the means and the organization in place to do it. It may be even MORE important to x-ray stock coming from elsewhere, since we don't know their backgrounds on hips.
-- I agree, tho I actually think it depends more on the breed than the individual breeder. Some breeds may have a bigger issue than HD (like heart defects).
Basically, I think it would be a bad idea to come up with a blanket list of exclusions that all breeders should adhere to. A better path would be to come up with a list of breed-specific exclusions and have breeders within that breed focus on that list. Each breed has their own list of priority problems.
----
Here is a thought...
I wonder if, in a breed where the health is very poor outside and inside the native country (not the case for any of the NK breeds), and where the gene pool in this country is extremely small and limiting, is it acceptable to breed imported dogs of lower quality (like potential health issues) into the US program as long as the dogs produced in the US - from the US stock - was fully health checked (with a focus of eliminating those health issues)?
----
I would start with diagnosing the imports themselves and evaluating what exactly were the health issues.
If the health issues are easy to diagnose and carriers were unaffected, then I would say yes. A clear x carrier and clear x clear program can be started to increase the genetic diversity in the breed without the individual dog suffering.
If the health issue is easy to diagnose, the carriers were afffected, and yet the disease is not that severe, then I would also say yes.
If the health issue is difficult to diagnose (ie. no diagnostic tests, late on-set, low penetrance so it's difficult to track through a family tree) like the fevering in Shar-Peis, then I would pause or only do a test litter. The background behind the litter would be disclosed and placed with people who would also pause and/or wait longer than usual before breeding. If the disease is so prevalent that it is impossible to find a clear line, then it may be time to consider a complete outcross to another breed that is known to not have the disease. Similar to the Dalmation Pointer cross. Of course, many people are apt to drop out of the breed if the outcross is done...
http://www.terrierman.com/mcgreevey-some-practical-solution-dog-breeding.pdf
"Control of Canine Genetic Diseases" by George A. Padgett, DVM
It made me realize that, for the most part, you're always gonna have some kind of "defect" it's just a matter of choosing the ones that you can deal with and are less of a problem then ones you can't deal with and cause more serious issues for the dog.
I seriously considered not breeding Shoushuu, getting him neutered and importing a replacement dog because he is allergic to Chicken =(. He's been fed a Chicken-based diet (kibble and raw) since he was weaned as a pup up to 15 months of age before I switched over to a fish-based diet. He is sensitive to Chicken but his allergy isn't severe or life-threatening. The absolute WORST thing that happens, is him licking and chewing a little bit (non-obsessively) on his foot. He's an "easy fix" though...I can feed him fish, beef, lamb, etc...I just don't feed him chicken and "problem" solved. Since it's a food-based allergy to just 1 specific, non life-threatening and an "easy fix"...I'm not gonna fuss over it.
Believe you me though, it was a tough decision in the beginning but then I realized...this is an easy to diganose, inexpensive "defect" that can be dealt with and the individual dog feels only a minor irritation as a "cause of defect". I'd rather deal with a possible non-life threatening food-based allergy to 1 specific in my dogs/puppies rather then HD, LP, skin allergies (sensitivity when the fur tears/falls off), heart/cardic conditions, eye problems and other more severe and damaging defects.
Breeding really is an "art" and the idea for the next generation is always either to replicate the parents or to improve and become better then the parents. In a single breeding you may not be focusing on the "overall fixtures" because it would be nearly impossible to do. One can select for a few things to improve on but the "overall picture" must be selected for in steps (through multiple breedings):
- For breeding "A" you focus on perhaps elimating or minamizing a certain fault.
- For breeding "B" you want to focus on temperment.
- For breeding "C" you focus on intensifying or adding a certain trait or traits (i.e. hunting ability, play drive, pack drive, etc).
Focusing on the good qualities of each individual dog and a little less on smaller, "non-important faults" will help the gene pool immensely. If the dog has more faults then good qualities and perhaps even more severe faults...then that dog should be removed from the gene pool entirely. In other words don't exclude a dog from the genepool if s/he has something to offer the next generation(s) and can be improved on. Exclude the dog that cannot be improved on and the dog that will end up producing more faults for the following generation(s).
This is why breeding is an art...you might be happy, you might appreciate what you've got but perhaps never completely satisfied. As there's always room for improvement =]. Every now and then though, you produce something that you're just thrilled about, especially when you've put so much time and energy into it and strived hard to achieve.
"Breeding really is an "art" and the idea for the next generation is always either to replicate the parents or to improve and become better then the parents...."
--- I do want to respond to this part though. I think this is actually counter to my point. If you are always selectively breeding to hone in on particular traits, then you are narrowing the gene pool in a way that can be dangerous for the breed as a whole. That's standard breeding practice. Try to produce the best dog you can. I tried to argue against that. In breeding a rare breed, you want to produce the best gene pool you can, even if one generation isn't "better" than the previous one.
notice that is "the idea" in breeding...
...the way I see it is that "average" and "better then average" are being produced and not "below average". It's quite possible that a pup may not become better then the parents or even be exact copies of the parents but that puppy should still maintain an "average" and not be worse off then the parents. That pup should still be able to contribute to the gene pool, assuming it has not obtained any severe defects that would be damaging to the breed.
The pup's parents don't need to be "champion" dogs, one or both could very well be "middle of the pack" dogs.
As for my litter examples...
...I'm thinking of it as putting a puzzle together piece by piece before completing the picture. You have a general standard that all dogs adhere but each breeding may have a particular focus...which can be simply weaning out undesirables but one is still selecting for this. Often times one is just "re-ordering" existing traits, since these traits will still exist within the gene pool but perhaps remain "unexpressed" and then becoming "expressed" in later generations.
I am told that I often speak in riddles, so you may need to pull more information out of me
I'm trying really hard to grasp this, but...something is not "clicking with me."
Can someone be kind enough to give me an "Example" so I can understand what you all are talking about so that I can then form an opinion & contribute
Traditionally breeding is performed according to a breed standard that is written "inclusively". That is, the standard specifies that good specimens of the breed will contain certain traits (type or temperament) that define the breed. What results is breeding programs that tend to narrowly define (and therefore select) breeding stock based on the inclusion of those desirable traits. So, if you have a litter of five puppies, maybe the breeder will pick the single best puppy and include it in their breeding program, often times breeding that puppy three, four, five times or more.
I'm arguing for an "exclusive" or "reverse" standard for rare breeds. So, when you're breeding, rather than looking for a select few desirable traits to *include* in your breeding program, you are looking for a select few undesirable traits to *exclude* from your program. In other words, you aren't trying to hone in on one particular type or temperament. You are merely trying to weed out undesirables, thus producing a more diverse gene pool. So, if you have a litter of five puppies, maybe the breeder will pick one or two puppies that have certain undesirable properties and then keep the remaining three for breeding. In this case, rather than breed one desirable puppy many times, a breeder will breed many not-undesirable puppies just once or twice and in doing so, increase the genetic diversity of the breed while still producing the same number of litters.
Does that help?
To go by traditional standards, you would only breed the green and shades of green to produce better greens, eliminating any other colors. But what I think Dave is trying to say is that instead of just breeding green, you breed the blues and yellows, which may not be green but can eventually make green. And you try to prevent breeding reds, but may breed oranges to get yellows.
Is this kind of what you guys mean?
Let's say the number 1 represents all that is acceptable/desirable in a dog (working temperment, great conformation, manageable allergies, etc.) And let's say the number 0 represents faults of temperment, health or characteristics otherwise detrimental to the breed. If you breed a male and female having both characteristics, and they have 4 puppies -- and here's the gross oversimplification on genetics -- you get the following pairing:
Mom is 1:0
Dad is 1:0
puppy 1 has 1:1 (excellent dog)
puppy 2 has 1:0 (average dog)
puppy 3 has 0:1 (average dog)
puppy 4 has 0:0 (under-average dog)
Now, whereas most breeders of an established breed would only consider puppy 1 for the program, what everyone is stating here is that since you are dealing with a rare breed, then you have to take into consideration that puppy 2 and 3 satisfy the conditions that their parents were originaly bred with and as such should also be considered as part of the breeding program. It would only be puppy 4 that would be excluded. As such, instead of having 1 puppy eligible to further the genetics of the breed, you have your pick of 3.
Jesse
I now dub Beth and Jesse as our official "translators", lol.
Jesse
Alright, so then, in general what we're saying is instead of picking & choosing dams / sires based on qualities [ perfect urajiro, scissor bite, etc. etc. ] we are just excluding pups who won't contribute much of anything to the genepool.
So, for example...a Shikoku who is perfectly healthy, but cream coloured, might be included still because they have a good-sound temperament & a good [ health ] history.
Now, I like this idea, I really do...since we don't want to breed ourselves into a corner so that we're constantly in-breeding. But...the question then becomes...over time, won't the dog breed not be the same?
For example, if we choose NOT to exclude cream shikoku, too large shikoku, "soft temperament" shikoku, after time...won't the shikoku become something other than a shikoku? Or is the goal to work back to the standard after creating genetic diversity?
Don't get me wrong, I usually don't care too much for standard. [ ie: I don't care if my pup has perfect urajiro, or is too large for the standard, as long as they can do what they were bred to do ] but I DO know that the standard helps keep a dog breed stay a certain dog breed.
If we go the "genetic diversity" route & keep breeding...& eventually we get Akita-Sized Kai or Shika...what will make them still be "Kai" or "Shika" vs. a "New breed" ?
Hope that made sense...like I said, my brain is still on vacation ;p ~
I guess that's party a philosophical question about what you feel makes a dog belong to a particular breed. It also depends on how the reverse standard is written and interpreted. Ultimately, if a dog descends solely from pedigreed members of a breed, then is a member of that breed. I visited an American Pointer breeder a few weeks back and one of his dogs looked *exactly* like a GSP. It was out of two American Pointers and had been genetically tested and confirmed to be an American Pointer. So I'd call it an American Pointer. Should it be bred? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the other qualities it possesses and whether or not they should be excluded. If a dog has the health, temperament, and look of a Shikoku but is too big, does that really matter? Probably not.
Further, just because a large or soft or discolored dog isn't being excluded, doesn't mean it should be bred with another large or soft or discolored dog. It's exactly like Jesse pointed out. You don't want to exclude a dog because it has one or two faults and end up excluding the other good things it has. But you would want to compliment those faults with another dog that doesn't have those. That is responsible breeding, regardless of whether or not you use an inclusive or exclusive standard.