@EdK: Thank you so much for the thorough write-up. I, too, am intrigued at the assistance population. By what parameters would it be operating under in comparison to the show population?
I know AI's have been done by the Shikoku breeders in the U.S., but I believe I read that it's been met with varied (little) success. Brad and/or Corina would know more.
Thanks everyone. The parameters depend on a couple of factors, one is the founding population. Ideally you want and diverse a representation of the population as possible and at least 20 and preferably closer to 50 animals. This helps set what is known as the minimal viable population, which is the minimum number of animals needed to maintain the maximal genetic variation for a set period of time (most institutional plans run for somewhere between 100 and 500 years). There are some other modifiers that are used by institutions but with an assurance population for a domestic dog breed with a known pedigree it should be easier to handle since you can cross to the most unrelated animal consistently. Now this doesn't mean that all puppies from a litter would have to remain in the colony, that would probably at some point result in too many to find a home. In institutions, one or more volunteers tracks the available animals and how many offspring from those animals are represented in PMP (Population Management Plan) and suggested pairings are suggested based continuing to maximize the genetic diversity. This shouldn't mean that all of the puppies in a litter have to be destined for the assurance population, typically only one or two animals are needed from a pairing (mainly to preserve sex ratios over time) and the rest of the litter can be used for show, or pets (with neutering clauses if appropriate). For those who want to read the technical basics as it is used in institutions I suggest (free access paper) http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/117/1175861450.pdf as a place to start. Some of this is handled in institutions by limiting the number of offspring per generation. I don't know how that would apply here though.. That is going to take input from those with more knowledge here.. (I would like to learn more also..).
With respect to using AI, one of the things that would have to be determined is how many samples should be stored to provide sufficient representation of the donor male. I guess that this would be dependent on how well AI works with these breeds....
@EdK - Very interesting, thank you for sharing this info with us:)
How is it generally handled if an inherent disease is found in an individual of the assistance population? Are they removed or still bred for the sake of genetic diversity? If they are still bred, are they bred normally or in a very limited amount (like one litter)?
@Calia As to how institutions handle it, it does depend but some things that have to be kept in mind.. if you breed a heritiable defect out of a population, you are also breeding other genes that are may be for beneficial traits. With that in mind, if the genetics of that animal are well represented in the assurance population, then it can be removed from the breeding population. If the genetics are not well represented or are unrepresented (in the case of the equivalent of a "new founder", then the animal will be bred to add to the overall population however the genetics would be monitored to ensure that the disease didn't pop up more than in the original population. I think that if there is a move towards an assurance population, that the group starting the population set the guidelines. The whole goal is to maximize the genetics that keep the dog as it currently is (since you can't recover the exact alleles when they have been eliminated from the population).
I've been digging around on other areas and reading about some of the outcrosses required when a breed ends up heading down the road towards being nonviable (see for example http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/the-outcross-that-saved-the-basset-hound/) and how this is accepted today in some cases. It appears that this is not as popular a method as it once was, in which case, an assurance population can go a long way towards preventing the same issues as occured with the English Bassett.
With regards to Kan'i, Ryosei, and Soboku, are these traits expected of all the Nihon Ken or only the Shiba Inu? Does anyone have a link or document talking about how these apply to other breeds (in particular the Akita of course)? All I can find are Shiba websites referencing it. I've never heard it come up in AKIHO, but I plan to ask about it at the NIPPO Classic if I don't forget.
" The nature of Japanese dogs can be expressed in three very important words, "KAN- I", "RYOSEI" and "SOBOKU". "KAN- I" means strength of character and dignity. Dogs may be lively and bold without being excessively aggressive to the point of noble excellence. "RYOSEI" means faithful and obedient. Dogs should have total trust and attachment to the owners expressing full bond and partnership. "SOBOKU" means natural beauty from seasoned maturity and modest appearance. Its expression is feeling of refined simplicity and sober elegance. These qualities are basic nature inborn to all Japanese dogs and in totality, these qualities express the essential characteristics of the Japanese dogs. In addition, shibas should have sharp and keen senses, quick and nimble movements together with light, elastic steps."
In the book Dogman, wasn't there a special term used to describe a particular Akita quality?
This is all very fascinating! I breed Basenjis and like the Shikoku are a hunting breed that isn't used for their original purpose by most that own them outside of Africa.
Personality wise they make eye contact and are an 'edgy' breed but that isn't keeping people from wanting them... The only real difference I'm seeing, is that we can still go to Africa and take in breeding animals that weren't selectively bred.
The more I learn, the more I'm seeing it is 'controversial' with some breeders. They question the 'purity' of the dogs we take out of Africa...but I have been reading the villages where they take most of these dogs are very isolated. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this and the more I learn about this breed (Shikoku), the more I'm interested in helping with their preservation as well.
Note: While I have been involved (owning) Basenjis since 1998. I have only been showing them since 2004 and I bred my first litter in 2010. I still consider myself a novice!
Edk- you make me want to take a genetics class even more so now!
The more I learn, the more I'm seeing it is 'controversial' with some breeders. They question the 'purity' of the dogs we take out of Africa...but I have been reading the villages where they take most of these dogs are very isolated.
@Annandael since the villages are isolated, do the appearance of the Basenjis vary much between villages?
When looking at them, they all have the curled tail, pricked ears...they all look like Basenjis but some vary on height and length of body...and of course we have a few different colors. They have actually found interesting colors that we don't have out there as well (dilutes, like blue).
Comments
I know AI's have been done by the Shikoku breeders in the U.S., but I believe I read that it's been met with varied (little) success. Brad and/or Corina would know more.
Jesse
The parameters depend on a couple of factors, one is the founding population. Ideally you want and diverse a representation of the population as possible and at least 20 and preferably closer to 50 animals. This helps set what is known as the minimal viable population, which is the minimum number of animals needed to maintain the maximal genetic variation for a set period of time (most institutional plans run for somewhere between 100 and 500 years). There are some other modifiers that are used by institutions but with an assurance population for a domestic dog breed with a known pedigree it should be easier to handle since you can cross to the most unrelated animal consistently. Now this doesn't mean that all puppies from a litter would have to remain in the colony, that would probably at some point result in too many to find a home. In institutions, one or more volunteers tracks the available animals and how many offspring from those animals are represented in PMP (Population Management Plan) and suggested pairings are suggested based continuing to maximize the genetic diversity. This shouldn't mean that all of the puppies in a litter have to be destined for the assurance population, typically only one or two animals are needed from a pairing (mainly to preserve sex ratios over time) and the rest of the litter can be used for show, or pets (with neutering clauses if appropriate). For those who want to read the technical basics as it is used in institutions I suggest (free access paper) http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/117/1175861450.pdf as a place to start. Some of this is handled in institutions by limiting the number of offspring per generation. I don't know how that would apply here though.. That is going to take input from those with more knowledge here.. (I would like to learn more also..).
With respect to using AI, one of the things that would have to be determined is how many samples should be stored to provide sufficient representation of the donor male. I guess that this would be dependent on how well AI works with these breeds....
Ed
How is it generally handled if an inherent disease is found in an individual of the assistance population? Are they removed or still bred for the sake of genetic diversity? If they are still bred, are they bred normally or in a very limited amount (like one litter)?
I've been digging around on other areas and reading about some of the outcrosses required when a breed ends up heading down the road towards being nonviable (see for example http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/the-outcross-that-saved-the-basset-hound/) and how this is accepted today in some cases. It appears that this is not as popular a method as it once was, in which case, an assurance population can go a long way towards preventing the same issues as occured with the English Bassett.
Thanks for the patience,
Ed
Thank you all for this.
I can't wait to think of a good question.
Britain
http://yokohamaatsumi.the-ninja.jp/page006.html
" The nature of Japanese dogs can be expressed in three very important
words, "KAN- I", "RYOSEI" and "SOBOKU".
"KAN- I" means strength of character and dignity. Dogs may be lively and
bold without being excessively aggressive to the point of noble excellence.
"RYOSEI" means faithful and obedient. Dogs should have total trust and
attachment to the owners expressing full bond and partnership.
"SOBOKU" means natural beauty from seasoned maturity and modest
appearance. Its expression is feeling of refined simplicity and sober
elegance.
These qualities are basic nature inborn to all Japanese dogs and in totality,
these qualities express the essential characteristics of the Japanese dogs.
In addition, shibas should have sharp and keen senses, quick and nimble
movements together with light, elastic steps."
In the book Dogman, wasn't there a special term used to describe a particular Akita quality?
Seems to imply vitality and energy.
Personality wise they make eye contact and are an 'edgy' breed but that isn't keeping people from wanting them... The only real difference I'm seeing, is that we can still go to Africa and take in breeding animals that weren't selectively bred.
We have the African Stock Project.
http://www.basenji.org/african/project.htm
The more I learn, the more I'm seeing it is 'controversial' with some breeders. They question the 'purity' of the dogs we take out of Africa...but I have been reading the villages where they take most of these dogs are very isolated. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about this and the more I learn about this breed (Shikoku), the more I'm interested in helping with their preservation as well.
Note: While I have been involved (owning) Basenjis since 1998. I have only been showing them since 2004 and I bred my first litter in 2010. I still consider myself a novice!
Edk- you make me want to take a genetics class even more so now!