Health Issues with Nihon Ken Breeds
Hi everyone, I'm just very curious and I just wanted to ask, are there any known health issues in any of the Nihon Ken breeds? According to the history of some of the Nihon Ken breeds, some of the NK originated from very isolated locations therefore those breeds would have been reproduced for many years very closely to each other within that particular breed.
I noticed that the Nihon Ken breeds don't really produce a large litter, why is that? And should that be a concern to anyone?
Everybody please provide me your thoughts and information on this. Thank you!
I noticed that the Nihon Ken breeds don't really produce a large litter, why is that? And should that be a concern to anyone?
Everybody please provide me your thoughts and information on this. Thank you!
Comments
I've seen and heard of:
-Hip Dysplasia
-Luxating Patella
-Thyroid issues
-Food allergies
-Crypto orchidism
-Cataracts
-Seizures
-Reproductive issues
-Digestive tract issues
It's interesting because I was just having a conversation about genetic issues in the Japanese breeds with a famous breeder over here the other day. We were talking about in breeding etc, and he reminded me that even though the original NK were free roaming and bred to whichever dogs they liked, there were very few in each village (10-20 dogs), and that would continue for generations due to geographic isolation, the same geographic isolation that kept them from breeding with Western dogs. He used this point to argue that line breeding/in breeding is not as big a deal as some make it seem, as it has been prevalent all through the NK breeds' histories. The important thing was just to cull out unwanted genes when they pop up. It was an interesting point.
But yeah, it's hard to say exactly where the NK stand as far as health goes. If you talk to breeders here, they are the healthiest dogs in the world, but most of them don't even know what LP is or what it looks like. No testing = no concrete numbers.
Just to emphasize though, I think with the exception of Shibas and Akitas, none of these issues are "common" in the NK breeds. They pop up from time to time, but they aren't common enough that breeders are consciously working together to reduce their incidence outside of their normal breeding practices.
And indeed, Akitas and Shibas, being the most common, have the most (known) health issues.
I think there are more issues in the Shiba and Akita populations, but I am sure that is due to there being larger populations in the US
Now that the health issues among the NK are still low, should we have our NK go through a health test and breed only from healthy NK to help prevent the spreading of future health issues to the NK, instead of reacting to the problem trying to fix it when it's already too late?
Please share your thoughts.
See, the geneticist's view would be that if the females had free selection of the males and if females still retained the ability to scent for MHC diversity, then there was a built-in adversion to loss of diversity.
Are NK still allowed to breed freely in this time and age? I absolutely loved that Haru was able to select out of two males when she was bred, but is that the norm?
If males were free-roaming in the past, then weren’t they competing and fighting and deferring to the superior male?
Fast forward to the present age, can humans pick out the superior male better than other male dogs? I don’t believe that the dog that shows the most outward show of aggression would be considered the superior male by other dogs, but I wonder if dogs that give big shows of aggression (ie. frustration) would be mistaken by humans as superior?
The health issues actually appear to have been reduced since some new Shikoku Ken have been imported from Japan instead of the Dutch kennels. So, this would imply that there are most certainly health issues in the "Dutch Shikoku community" whether people are aware of them or not. I'm pretty certain it's a "No testing = no concrete numbers" situation there too.
North America seems to be the only country doing any real health testing on the Shikoku Ken, I don't see/hear of any tests being done in any of the European countries who are now producing Shikoku Ken.
I own 2 Shikoku Ken who are from the original lines brought to North America, which would make them direct descendants of the Dutch Shikoku Ken lines, and both of them have health issues listed above. If there are no know health issues in the Netherlands, then I'd say it might be time for the "Dutch Shikoku community" to start testing their dogs...
----
----
@ayk - From what I understand, there is almost no one doing AIs in Japan, which would imply that they use "natural" methods to breed their dogs and therefore the female would get to select who she mates with (as it's not exactly easy to force something like that).
What is not allowed today, but was allowed in the past, is the interbreeding of the different Nihon Ken breeds. Not too long ago you could cross a Kishu Ken with Shikoku Ken, pick the dog that looked more like a dog from Kishu and call it a NK from Kishu lines. That is not allowed anymore, so obviously there will be a reduction in the genetic material available to the breeder (female) of any one Nihon Ken "breed" today. (a closed stud book)
----
In regards to the question about males fighting and females selecting...
You ask: "If males were free-roaming in the past, then weren’t they competing and fighting and deferring to the superior male? "
>> From the research I have done on this subject (canine reproductive behavior), the selection (by the female) has very little to do with the aggression the male shows and more to do with the "data" the female receives while inspecting the male. Actually, I've read some scientist state that overly-aggressive males would be excluded by the female. The selection is instinctual and based on which male she feels will result in the best chances of her puppies survival (not just on ancestry).
So, to your second question, for me, as a breeder, I would ignore the "aggressiveness" of the male when selecting a mate for a female and look at other qualities. And, no, I don't think I could pick a better mate for the survival of her puppies than the female could - but then again, her puppies wouldn't have much of a struggle as far as survival goes as she would be whelped in the house and we would help care for the puppies if needed. Point is - I LOVE the idea of breeding dogs 100% natural, allowing the female to select and such, but I just don't know if that's the right approach now days since so much of the rest of the breeding practice is not at all natural.
I mean, if you wanted to do it natural you would have keep your dogs free-range, let the females select their mate, gestate while still "in the field", whelp the pups "in the field" by themselves, and then raise the pups on her own only allowing humans to handle the pups when she allows it. Change any one of those factors and you render her instincts (for choosing a mate) less valid, right???
Also, most of the selection is done by the female during the first "hormone surge", which is before ovulation. From what I understand (I'll find a link to an article on the subject in a bit), the initial surge, which attracts the males, is used by the female to choose her mate but it's not until later (after ovulation) that she will allow the male to mate with her... This is where the "male aggression" piece comes into play as, after the female has chosen him, the male would then defend her from the other males (read as "Resource Guarding") until she ovulated and was ready to present herself for mating (up to 7 days after the initial selection was made).
So one could argue, in Haru's case, that maybe she had not ovulated yet and there for wouldn't allow the first male (Gin) to mate with her but then later, after ovulation, allowed Riki to mate with her. Could have been a timing thing...
----
I'm envisioning different things when talking about free roaming and dogs picking their own mates.
I wasn't thinking of the circumstance of AI or a situation where the only options are a female either breeds to one available male or she doesn't. Instead, I was envisioning a female that has a choice of several mates and her being able to select based on whatever criteria she holds. I said MHC diversity, but agree with you that it eventually boils downs to what she feels what mate will give her puppies the best chances of survival. I think of degrees of selection, opting to produce some kind of projeny, rather than abstaining from producing projeny, as more of the norm in free roaming females.
For free-roaming males, I had imagined that they do their best to drive out or surpress rivals to eliminate choice by the females. But I don't have too much info on this.
In response to this part "if you wanted to do it natural you would have keep your dogs free-range, let the females select their mate, gestate while still "in the field", whelp the pups "in the field" by themselves, and then raise the pups on her own only allowing humans to handle the pups when she allows it. Change any one of those factors and you render her instincts (for choosing a mate) less valid, right???", I disagree.
Sure, there are instances where free roaming females will choose to do things on their own apart from any humans, but there will also be instances where females realize the advantage of keeping their humans nearby. Call it scavenger heritage, manipulating humans, intelligent conservation of resource, or whatnot. A choice is made by the female. That, in my viewpoint, is more natural than keeping outside a female who really wants to whelp in a more secure location, which may happen to be indoors. Active decision-making is allowed for in the female and done by the female.
As for what happens to the resultant pups when raised "naturally" vs with human assistance, sure, there will be instances where a puppy that would not have survived hundreds of years ago would survive now due to human assistance. I agree that the opportunity for natural selection to kick in is diminished there. However, focusing on just this is muddying things between the advantages of natural selection and the advantages of diversity.
It's very well known that dogs with low inbreeding will live longer and produce more pups in a litter. If we focus on just these two things and not the additional benefits of diversity, we can still extrapolate that diversity = more time to have projeny (males) and higher number of projeny (females). Natural selection, in contrast, would be the force whittling that number down to the dogs that are fit for their environment. Numbers-wise, if only 50% of the projeny end up fit, it's better that 3 out of 6 move on to reproducing age rather than 1 out of 2. Having a higher number of projeny allows for when something unexpected happens to a pup (freak chance) and improve odds that there still remains a fit dog that can reproduce.
Hope my explanation is not as clear as mud there. :-p
As for the timing of the ovulation and the hormone surge, I'll be interested in reading that article. :-)
I think it would be crazy NOT to health test and just hope for the best. Akitas and Shibas didn't just end up with health problems for no reason, but because health issues were being passed down. So yes, much better to test and be vigilant now, so other healthier NKs don't end up with the same kind of health problems (or rather, perhaps some of the health problems can be minimized or not run rampant; I don't believe even careful breeding and screening can keep dogs entirely free of problems, but it certainly is a step in the right direction).
It seems like good record keeping and really following up on pups would be very important. I'm thinking, for example, of things that come from recessive genes (like micro): when a dog has a relatively minor case, like my Akita, it may not be evident as a young pup, and the the breeder might not know, then, that her dogs are carrying it. It's critical, then for the breeder to learn this, so they can make decisions about breeding those dogs again.
Is anyone here know about any health issues(genetic disorders) that our dogs' cousins the wolf/coyote/wild dogs might have?
Just asking because I think it would be good to compare them to dogs today.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10509137
And here is a report about a group of isolated wolves on Isle Royale in Michigan. Page 14 of the report describes the bone defect found in the wolves.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ann_rep_pdf/ISRO_Annual_Report_2008-09.pdf