And forget the fact that science hasn't been used determined this cross will help, science hasn't even been used to determine that there is an endemic problem!
I think that one could argue that the idea that outcrossing will improve genetic health overall is a hypothesis. The question is where is the data from which the hypothesis is drawn? What is the sample size (an important component of data analysis)?
I'll reiterate a part of my earlier questions:
1) You speak about lost genes, but how many akitas have had their genetic profile registered? How many have been tested? Is this speaking strictly about Finland or are you speaking about JA the world over?
A problem can be endemic to Finland's population, or the world's population. How does one scientifically determine that a problem is so severe that it can only be addressed by outcrossing? I think the answer to that is likely inherently subjective. That point will be different for involved parties depending on their priorities.
I'd also like to add to Heidi's excellent discourse on the scientific method and mention that science is about a system of hypotheses that best fit the data at hand. You can have conflicting hypotheses that fit in the same framework but until the data is available/gathered, you won't know which one is correct.
Right now "science" can't prove the assertions of either side of the debate, because it's unclear where the SA or AI haploids are located (as @ayk so helpfully answered). It also seems most studies of SA and AI are using AAs. Are there any studies that focus on JA? I would argue that it's not that either of the hypotheses are proven wrong, but that at this point in time there is insufficient data to form a feasible and scientifically sound hypothesis about the advantage or disadvantage of outcrossing.
Perhaps there is a potential Kepler here, but we're in need of a Tycho Brahe!
I think the pendulum is swinging too much against diversity in a breed, or rather, diversity in the DLA region. The DLA region operates differently than say a single bad gene that causes CEA.
Remember that the DLA is related to the immune system that has to have the flexibility to tackle viruses, bacteria, and foreign substances (including cancer) that are constantly mutating and changing.
Think of a diverse DLA as a box of legos in all the main colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, brown, and black. The immune system when confronted with a "orange virus" draws upon the orange legos to mark the virus as "this is foreign and needs to be eliminated". When a slightly less diverse DLA is missing the orange lego, it makes do with a red and yellow lego to match up to the foreign. The same goes for weird new colors like "marigold" and "mango tango" viruses. The immune system adjusts as best it can and gets by.
When the DLA becomes so homozygous as to have only red and blue legos, the immune system starts losing ability to fight off viruses. Not a very good fit if at all, and sometimes this lack of customization means the immune system no longer uses the precise fit of lego knubs but resorts to just using Elmer's glue to mark viruses. This leads to a sort of collateral damage. Instead of targeting just a virus, it also adheres to say a tyrosine molecule that might be kinda sorta similar. Unfortunately, that tyrosine molecule is kinda important and attacking sites that have this molecule leads to eye damage and pigment destruction.
This homozygous DLA is what people think is going on with the autoimmune diseases. Hypothyroidism, SA, UV, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (right after vaccinations), etc.
Of course, another scenario is that the gene that created that tyrosine molecule was defective and created something that was so far outside the realm of "this is okay" that the immune system had no choice but to attack it.
Please, let's not be rude or disrespectful in this discussion. This could be an educational and interesting discussion if we could all just chill a bit with the emotions.
We've had a few people express their frustration over a few of the comments in this thread. If we receive anymore complaints we'll have to close the thread.
On a personal note, I wish more registries would allow for "introgression" with distant related breeds, it would make for a much more diverse and healthy population for many dog breeds.
We should remember it's this same type breed-purist mentality that's put the Shikoku in it's current position.
Why not just focus on your own breeding programs and not worry so much about what others are doing? If you don't like what a kennel is producing, or how they are producing it, don't breed with them. No need to be the breed police, just focus on your own stuff and produce the best dogs you can produce - and stick close to what you believe the breed should be.
I do think the issue is not that people want to dictate what other should or should not breed, but worried if the information that these dogs are mutts are given to puppy buyers who e.g. may be wanting an akita, but ends up with a dog made up from mainly american akitas.
If it is a part of a plan to better the health of the entire population of akitas, then I think it should be done in accordance with the breed's country of origin.
I'm supportive of out crossing to improve health and I think there should be more freedom to carry out breeding how breeders choose as long as they keep accurate records so people know what happened.
I take issue with appealing to science as giving someone moral authority where there is none, and also the accusation that people who don't out cross are ethically lacking. Any breed could potentially benefit from out crossing; I don't see what's so special about Akitas, other than there being people who are heavily invested in tweenie breeding projects. Furthermore, there are downsides to out crossing and I don't know why there is an assumption that out crossing is always better and people who don't out cross are just not doing it because they're vain or selfish or "religious" about their breeds.
ETA: I would also like to add that in terms of Akitas, I don't know why we can't just call a spade a spade. Mixing the two breeds should not be represented as anything other than what it is. In a way there are now 3 Akita breeds. The JAs, the AAs, and the Tweenies. I don't know why we can't just call it what it is. They're not the same, and that's okay. There is no need to appeal to moral authority to perpetuate your preferred type or to deny that the types exist.
Mixing two dogs of known origin doesn't create a Mutt or a Mongrel. It's a Mix. There is a HUGE difference.
"A mongrel or mutt is a dog of unknown ancestry that belongs to no single organizationally recognized breed and is not the result of selective breeding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel
----
I take issue with appealing to science as giving someone moral authority where there is none, and also the accusation that people who don't out cross are ethically lacking. Any breed could potentially benefit from out crossing; I don't see what's so special about Akitas, other than there being people who are heavily invested in tweenie breeding projects. Furthermore, there are downsides to out crossing and I don't know why there is an assumption that out crossing is always better and people who don't out cross are just not doing it because they're vain or selfish or "religious" about their breeds.
I honestly haven't read this full thread. I was pulled into it due to the complaints about some of the post.
To be totally honest, I pretty much ignore any Akita related post on the forum as it's just not a breed interest of mine. And I most certainly ignore the JA/AA mixing discussion as it's just so old-hat and boring to me now. I'm sick of the argument.
Really, I'm sick of this argument in almost every breed. Seems most breeds have some element in them that's considered "impure" and the breed purists freak out over it, while the health purists argue the other side.
In reality, selection is selection. If you're hyper selecting for purity, looks, or health, you're still hyper selecting and shrinking a population. It's all damaging.
Anyway, @hondru, I quoted you because I wanted to agree with you. I don't think it's right for either side to claim one side is more ethical than the other. Frankly, if you want to argue of ethics in dog breeds, you have to question how ethical the very existence of most dogs breeds are (period).
Even the most unhealthy inbred Akita, is in WAY better shape than the average French or English Bulldog.
Thanks Ayk for that information, which was interesting, and well state, so even someone with only the most cursory science background (like me) could follow it.
I have to admit that at first, I thought, who cares what someone else is doing in their breeding program? I may not agree with it, but there's a lot in this world I don't agree with. I do agree with perhaps disagreeing and then letting people get on with doing what they're going to do (though I also think if you post something on a public forum, you're pretty much asking everyone else to express their opinions).
However, I still have two issues here, which is 1) that it seems a problem to me to register a dog as something it is not, and that issue was sidestepped. I'm with Heidi, call the dog what it is.
The bigger issue to me, however, and one that is worth talking about more: are the Akitas in such dire shape that it is time to start talking about outcrossing? Is it in both (all three? should the blended ones be a third breed? ) breeds? Or just one? Does blending JA and AA help any? Or does it need more of an outcrossing? I would think that more data needs to be collected, and more hypothesis drawn, and then start trying to find answers.
And I still think, though I could be wrong since I'm far from an expert, that overall, the AA is better health as a breed than they have been. And certainly, as Brad says, in much better health than some other breeds, and we don't even how to go as extreme as those bulldogs, right? Just think of GSDs, or insert whatever other breed in here you can think of that has serious health issues.
Also @Brada1878, (or anyone else) could you explain about introgression with distantly related breeds? Does introgression mean the crossbreeding then breeding back to the...standard? (as in dalmations?). Would distant related breeds be, in NKs for example, a spitz but not an NK? These are things I'm not entirely clear about.
@shibamistress - For the record I quoted "introgression" because it's a bit of a stretch to call breeding two breeds to one another "introgression" since they are still members of the same species (dogs).
Yes, tho, that is what was meant by "introgression". In dog breeds "introgression" can be as simple as what we have done with the Kai Ken - bringing dogs in from the Country of Origin to mix with our smaller, closed, population. Or it can be as extreme as the Dalmatian example, breeding to a separate breed, then back to the Dalmatian.
If it was me, I'd start with other Nihon Ken and see if that improves the breed of focus. If not, I'd start to expand a bit to include breeds that are very similar, like the Jindo, Chow, or Laika. I would probably not select the show dog equivalents of those breeds tho, I'd select the non-standard examples in the hope to bring more variety in.
Let me add: Once you mix two breed together, it's not smart to choose the pups from the F1 litters who most resemble the breed you plan to cross back to as you are inadvertently selecting the genes that produce one phenotype over the other. You'd be better off keeping the most diverse looking examples, breeding them, and THEN crossing back to the original breed and selecting for type. This way you add more diversity into the population.
We see this in Old English Bulldogs. They're an open registry where they can cross to whatever they want... However, they always select for the most "Bulldog" looking pups and cull the others, and then inbreeds to keep the "Bulldog" type. The end result is a breed that gets regular additions of outcrossed genetics but still suffers from the typical inbreeding issues. Not good.
Diversity is our friend. It's better to have a very diverse closed population, than a hyper typed open population as it takes inbreeding (tandem repeat) to reproduce an extreme phenotype over and over again.
I'm not following you, Brad. You have an F1 generation. The phenotype could be based on what parental strand is expressed, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the genes of the F1. All the F1 have paternal and maternal contribution. One from each breed.
But say that you do have an F1. What do you mean 'breed them'? Not to the breed that's lacking because that comes in the following generation. To each other? That's counter-intuitive. To the contributing breed?
Yea, I meant F1s from several different outcrossing attempts. Doing one outcrossing wouldn't provide a whole lot in the long run IMHO. It would have to be a larger project.
Comments
And Hondru, great post!
I'll reiterate a part of my earlier questions: A problem can be endemic to Finland's population, or the world's population. How does one scientifically determine that a problem is so severe that it can only be addressed by outcrossing? I think the answer to that is likely inherently subjective. That point will be different for involved parties depending on their priorities.
I'd also like to add to Heidi's excellent discourse on the scientific method and mention that science is about a system of hypotheses that best fit the data at hand. You can have conflicting hypotheses that fit in the same framework but until the data is available/gathered, you won't know which one is correct.
Right now "science" can't prove the assertions of either side of the debate, because it's unclear where the SA or AI haploids are located (as @ayk so helpfully answered). It also seems most studies of SA and AI are using AAs. Are there any studies that focus on JA? I would argue that it's not that either of the hypotheses are proven wrong, but that at this point in time there is insufficient data to form a feasible and scientifically sound hypothesis about the advantage or disadvantage of outcrossing.
Perhaps there is a potential Kepler here, but we're in need of a Tycho Brahe!
It can include Sheltypoos, Huskitas, Chowskys etc...
Remember that the DLA is related to the immune system that has to have the flexibility to tackle viruses, bacteria, and foreign substances (including cancer) that are constantly mutating and changing.
Think of a diverse DLA as a box of legos in all the main colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, brown, and black. The immune system when confronted with a "orange virus" draws upon the orange legos to mark the virus as "this is foreign and needs to be eliminated". When a slightly less diverse DLA is missing the orange lego, it makes do with a red and yellow lego to match up to the foreign. The same goes for weird new colors like "marigold" and "mango tango" viruses. The immune system adjusts as best it can and gets by.
When the DLA becomes so homozygous as to have only red and blue legos, the immune system starts losing ability to fight off viruses. Not a very good fit if at all, and sometimes this lack of customization means the immune system no longer uses the precise fit of lego knubs but resorts to just using Elmer's glue to mark viruses. This leads to a sort of collateral damage. Instead of targeting just a virus, it also adheres to say a tyrosine molecule that might be kinda sorta similar. Unfortunately, that tyrosine molecule is kinda important and attacking sites that have this molecule leads to eye damage and pigment destruction.
This homozygous DLA is what people think is going on with the autoimmune diseases. Hypothyroidism, SA, UV, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (right after vaccinations), etc.
Of course, another scenario is that the gene that created that tyrosine molecule was defective and created something that was so far outside the realm of "this is okay" that the immune system had no choice but to attack it.
Hi All,
Please, let's not be rude or disrespectful in this discussion. This could be an educational and interesting discussion if we could all just chill a bit with the emotions.
We've had a few people express their frustration over a few of the comments in this thread. If we receive anymore complaints we'll have to close the thread.
Thanks,
~Brad
On a personal note, I wish more registries would allow for "introgression" with distant related breeds, it would make for a much more diverse and healthy population for many dog breeds.
We should remember it's this same type breed-purist mentality that's put the Shikoku in it's current position.
Why not just focus on your own breeding programs and not worry so much about what others are doing? If you don't like what a kennel is producing, or how they are producing it, don't breed with them. No need to be the breed police, just focus on your own stuff and produce the best dogs you can produce - and stick close to what you believe the breed should be.
If it is a part of a plan to better the health of the entire population of akitas, then I think it should be done in accordance with the breed's country of origin.
I take issue with appealing to science as giving someone moral authority where there is none, and also the accusation that people who don't out cross are ethically lacking. Any breed could potentially benefit from out crossing; I don't see what's so special about Akitas, other than there being people who are heavily invested in tweenie breeding projects. Furthermore, there are downsides to out crossing and I don't know why there is an assumption that out crossing is always better and people who don't out cross are just not doing it because they're vain or selfish or "religious" about their breeds.
ETA: I would also like to add that in terms of Akitas, I don't know why we can't just call a spade a spade. Mixing the two breeds should not be represented as anything other than what it is. In a way there are now 3 Akita breeds. The JAs, the AAs, and the Tweenies. I don't know why we can't just call it what it is. They're not the same, and that's okay. There is no need to appeal to moral authority to perpetuate your preferred type or to deny that the types exist.
Mixing two dogs of known origin doesn't create a Mutt or a Mongrel. It's a Mix. There is a HUGE difference.
"A mongrel or mutt is a dog of unknown ancestry that belongs to no single organizationally recognized breed and is not the result of selective breeding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel
---- I honestly haven't read this full thread. I was pulled into it due to the complaints about some of the post.
To be totally honest, I pretty much ignore any Akita related post on the forum as it's just not a breed interest of mine. And I most certainly ignore the JA/AA mixing discussion as it's just so old-hat and boring to me now. I'm sick of the argument.
Really, I'm sick of this argument in almost every breed. Seems most breeds have some element in them that's considered "impure" and the breed purists freak out over it, while the health purists argue the other side.
In reality, selection is selection. If you're hyper selecting for purity, looks, or health, you're still hyper selecting and shrinking a population. It's all damaging.
Anyway, @hondru, I quoted you because I wanted to agree with you. I don't think it's right for either side to claim one side is more ethical than the other. Frankly, if you want to argue of ethics in dog breeds, you have to question how ethical the very existence of most dogs breeds are (period).
Even the most unhealthy inbred Akita, is in WAY better shape than the average French or English Bulldog.
I have to admit that at first, I thought, who cares what someone else is doing in their breeding program? I may not agree with it, but there's a lot in this world I don't agree with. I do agree with perhaps disagreeing and then letting people get on with doing what they're going to do (though I also think if you post something on a public forum, you're pretty much asking everyone else to express their opinions).
However, I still have two issues here, which is 1) that it seems a problem to me to register a dog as something it is not, and that issue was sidestepped. I'm with Heidi, call the dog what it is.
The bigger issue to me, however, and one that is worth talking about more: are the Akitas in such dire shape that it is time to start talking about outcrossing? Is it in both (all three? should the blended ones be a third breed?
And I still think, though I could be wrong since I'm far from an expert, that overall, the AA is better health as a breed than they have been. And certainly, as Brad says, in much better health than some other breeds, and we don't even how to go as extreme as those bulldogs, right? Just think of GSDs, or insert whatever other breed in here you can think of that has serious health issues.
Also @Brada1878, (or anyone else) could you explain about introgression with distantly related breeds? Does introgression mean the crossbreeding then breeding back to the...standard? (as in dalmations?). Would distant related breeds be, in NKs for example, a spitz but not an NK? These are things I'm not entirely clear about.
Yes, tho, that is what was meant by "introgression". In dog breeds "introgression" can be as simple as what we have done with the Kai Ken - bringing dogs in from the Country of Origin to mix with our smaller, closed, population. Or it can be as extreme as the Dalmatian example, breeding to a separate breed, then back to the Dalmatian.
If it was me, I'd start with other Nihon Ken and see if that improves the breed of focus. If not, I'd start to expand a bit to include breeds that are very similar, like the Jindo, Chow, or Laika. I would probably not select the show dog equivalents of those breeds tho, I'd select the non-standard examples in the hope to bring more variety in.
We see this in Old English Bulldogs. They're an open registry where they can cross to whatever they want... However, they always select for the most "Bulldog" looking pups and cull the others, and then inbreeds to keep the "Bulldog" type. The end result is a breed that gets regular additions of outcrossed genetics but still suffers from the typical inbreeding issues. Not good.
Diversity is our friend. It's better to have a very diverse closed population, than a hyper typed open population as it takes inbreeding (tandem repeat) to reproduce an extreme phenotype over and over again.
But say that you do have an F1. What do you mean 'breed them'? Not to the breed that's lacking because that comes in the following generation. To each other? That's counter-intuitive. To the contributing breed?
But I still don't follow on why you wait until the F2 to bring back to the lacking breed?