• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

Bits from Bateson

Margaret C

Margaret C

Well-known member
As this report is so crucial for the welfare of all dogs I thought I would post some of the recommendations for discussion.

This is the recommendation for a group to oversee the changes............

"A non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established. The key role of the Council should be to develop evidence-based breeding strategies that address the issues of poor conformation, inherited disease and inbreeding as appropriate to the specific breed and to provide advice on the priorities for research and development in these areas. I recommend that the Advisory Council members and Chairman should be appointed by open competition according to Nolan Principles. Defra should manage the selection process, drawing appropriately upon the advice of the devolved authorities and experts. Members should be selected on the basis of their personal expertise and not with regard to any personal affiliation or membership"


The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:
 
The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:
Click to expand...

Totally agree that we need independent people to do that job.
KC just going to make it sound good and nothing will really happen.
 
Margaret C said:
The Nolan Principles ensure that positions are given to truly independent candidates and this may become very important as the KC seems to be suggesting that their newly set up health group could do the job :mad:
Click to expand...
Yes the KC certainly would want their Health Group to do the job. An Advisory Council would be in a strong advisary capacity to DEFRA. Notice there was recommendations of replacing the various Breeding and Sales of Dogs Acts and amending the Animal Welfare Act, and also notice the following recommendation from Bateson and I think stay tuned some time after the politicians have settled in after the elections.

8.9 Defra should implement a statutory Code of Practice on the Breeding of Dogs under Section 14 of the Act. The Code should encompass such issues as:

a. The health and welfare of the parent dogs.

b. The appropriate screening and testing of parents for breed specific disorders, as laid down in the relevant breeding strategy for the breed (or breeds) concerned.

c. In selection of parents, due consideration being given to compliance with such elements of a breed standard as are intended to avoid extremes of conformation that create welfare problems.

d. The health, welfare and appropriate socialisation of litters of puppies, in order to fit them for their future function.

e. Mechanisms for the sale of the puppies.

f. When UKAS accredited quality assurance schemes address all the issues covered by the code, the Code should recommend membership of such an accreditation scheme.
.
 
Bits From Bateson

Since the Bateson Report commented on the SM Problem in our Cavaliers , mentioning that this is caused when the Brain continues to grow after the Skull has Formed..

This Statement has been confirmed by the Neurologists Researching the Cavaliers' SM Problem.

In other words as APGAW said in their Report,and was mentioned in the Press and on TV after the Publishing of the Bateson Report ,that Cavaliers' Heads are too Small for their Brains ,is this not what it boils down to.

The Cerebro Spinal Fluid is jammed because of this.

Was this caused by Faulty Genes back in the Mists of Time in the 1920's when certain Dogs were being used as the Foundation Stock for the Cavalier Breed, or when the Heads of Cavaliers were being altered in the 1930's from the Dome Shape of the King Charles Spaniel to get the the Flat Shape of Head required for the Cavaliers, or even when the Cavalier Heads were altering in the 1980's, did some-thing happen and those Faulty Genes came to -gether and caused our Cavaliers Brains to get Bigger after their Skulls had Hardened.

I don't think this will ever be found out

Will all the discussions that are to take place between the Kennel Club and Cavalier Breeders ,Advisory Bodies,etc, have an answer to this, when it's recognized that Cavaliers' Brains are too Large for their Heads and causing their SM Problem?

It could be quite a long time in the Future for those Faulty Genes that are giving this problem to our Cavalier are found, since the reason has now been given for the Cavaliers' SM Problem.

Is not the only thing to be being discussed by the Advisory Bodies ,the Kennel Club and Cavalier Breeders, to save the Cavalier Breed and try to contain this appalling disease, since I believe ,that the Breeding Guide -lines for the Cavaliers SM Problem which are to be
being discussed at the forth-coming UK CKCS CLUB'S AGM be made compulsory ,not to Breed from a Cavalier before 2.5 years of age,and ALL Cavalier Breeding Stock to be MRI Scanned .

Why waste time when the facts are now known to be causing the SM suffering in the Cavalier Breed,but do what needs to be being done.
 
Bits From Bateson

I see I have been contradicted on the CC List ,but I feel I must repeat what Professor Sir P Bateson said in his Report Published on Thursday,exact words,from Page 32

"Prominence has been rightly given to Syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels .

In this case the Brain Continues to Grow after the Skull has Ossified with the Result that the Canal between the Ventricles of the Brain and the Spinal Cord is Occluded. "

Professor Sir P Bateson had his Report Independantly Reviewed ,so he must be right in what he has said.

I know no more than what was said in his Report , if it is wrong perhaps he should be contacted about his comments.
 
Another bit........On buying a puppy

This echoes something that Karlin wrote on an earlier thread............

"How many people who have bought puppies have stopped to consider the impact of their purchasing decisions? If the Public only bought puppies from health screened parents, if everybody refused to buy a puppy until they had seen its mother and satisfied themselves that the conditions under which it was reared were safe, healthy and provided a life worth living for parent and puppy, if everybody took the sensible step of finding the breed that would best suit their family and their living conditions, then poor breeders would be out of business and far fewer dogs would require re-homing."

One of the recommendations....................

Addressing inadequacies in the way dogs are bought and sold

8.12 Complementing all existing schemes, a public awareness and education campaign should be designed by expert practitioners, in order to persuade members of the general dog-buying public to change their behaviour in specific key respects and to provide readily comprehensible information on what questions to ask and what to look for when buying a dog. This should be supported and run by as many as possible of the dog and animal welfare organisations, acting jointly and in unanimity.

It is suggested that the animal charities, RSPCA, PDSA, Blue Cross, Dog Trust etc as well as the Kennel Club and breed clubs should be involved in this drive to educate puppy buyers.
I have dreams of adverts on the sides of buses, and on hoardings by the roadside

Professor Bateson believes that there should be an accredited breeders scheme that puppy buyers should be directed to, but he feels that the rules governing such a scheme should be tightened up, with inspection of breeders facilities and a requirement that breeders not only health test, but they do not breed from dogs that fail such tests ( something that they can do at the moment)

If the KC does not respond quickly and improve their ABS ( they are saying they want data, conclusively proving there is a problem, collected first.....typical KC foot dragging ) then Prof Bateson suggests an alternative body could provide the accredited breeders scheme
 
Bits From Bateson

Could I just mention that in my previous Post I had quoted from the Bateson Report ,that it was said that in the case of Cavaliers and their SM Problem ,their Brain continues to grow after the Skull has Ossified .

I would think what Dr. McGonnell says,means much the same thing ,that Cavaliers' Brain and Bone are not able to communicate with each other .This relationship is lost in the Cavalier Breed.I don't know ,but it looks as if the two Statements mean much the same.

I know that in the Bateson Report it was mentioned that Dr C. Rusbridge, the Neurologist , who is also involved in the Cavalier Research into SM, had given evidence to Professor Sir P. Bateson.

So as Dr McGonnell has said, the Cavaliers' Brain seems to be growing too much and the Bone is not keeping up with the Brain.

Is this due to a Faulty Gene or Genes?

What-ever is happening , these comments are now starting to make sense about this dreadfull Disease afflicting our Cavaliers.
 
Line breeding is inbreeding

Ruth said:
http://coldwetnose.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

I can understand why Beverley Cuddy was disappointed. The Times-online article hinted at so much more.

Having read the report, I was impressed by Professor Bateson's thoroughness, and I am still heartened by the recommendations.

This is one of his comments on line breeding................

"Some breeders will tell you that they are not inbreeding, they are ‘line breeding’. What is meant by this is that the breeder is carefully selecting mates on the basis of a detailed knowledge of their genealogy and their family’s breeding history. Sometimes this is done to avoid perpetuating a recognisable inherited disease. More usually they are choosing mates carefully to generate, it is hoped, prize-winning characteristics. I shall have more to say about both these actions by breeders in Chapter 6, but either way, if the breeder mates, say, grandfather with granddaughter, he or she is inbreeding and doing so to a marked extent"
 
Breeding Strategy ?

It seems to me, that as Cavaliers all seemingly originate from so few dogs.

Today - you cannot truely go 'out' before doing a 'U' turn and coming back onto oneself ?

I have been told on many occasions that GF to GD is a good mating and of course the opposite GM to GS.

If it's healthy, scanned clear to scanned clear dogs with great hearts, joints and eyes - WHO is actually saying this is wrong ?

I need the answer to be able to pass the info on ?

Why is such a mating not better than mating a clear 'A' dog to an unscanned dog, allowed to be called a 'D' ?

Mark.

Regards Mark.
 
MARK MARSHALL said:
It seems to me, that as Cavaliers all seemingly originate from so few dogs.

Today - you cannot truely go 'out' before doing a 'U' turn and coming back onto oneself ?.
Click to expand...

I think that breeders just will not let themselves think of the health implications that will arise by breeding cavaliers too closely.

MARK MARSHALL said:
I have been told on many occasions that GF to GD is a good mating and of course the opposite GM to GS.

If it's healthy, scanned clear to scanned clear dogs with great hearts, joints and eyes - WHO is actually saying this is wrong ?.
Click to expand...


Why do people instinctively feel that such close pairings are unhealthy in humans?

Why did the KC Chairman recoil at the thought of mating with his daughter but feel that there is no harm if it is done when breeding dogs?

All inbreeding ( and that includes linebreeding ) is harmful.........
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsande...wssummary/news_15-8-2008-12-22-2?newsid=42674

One of the authors of this study is the Kennel Club's Jeff Sampson

MARK MARSHALL said:
Why is such a mating not better than mating a clear 'A' dog to an unscanned dog, allowed to be called a 'D' ?.
Click to expand...

The result of a inbred mating MAY on some occasions seem better than a mating in accordance with suggested breeding guidelines.
Even mating two young dogs with heart murmurs MAY give you a dog that lives to 12 with no MVD murmur.
But such matings will end up putting even more health compromised cavaliers into the diminishing gene pool.
 
Inbreeding/linebreeding

As this is a hot issue at the moment, here is a couple more 'bits', this time from the executive summary of the report.


Animals that are inbred are less likely than optimally outbred animals to survive and less likely to reproduce. Inbreeding can result in reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability, developmental disruption, lower birth rate, higher infant mortality, shorter life span, reduction of immune system function, and increased frequency of genetic disorders..
Click to expand...

Many breeders exercise the highest standards of welfare, are passionate about caring for their dogs properly and take great trouble to ensure that their puppies go to good homes. Nevertheless, current dog breeding practices do in many cases impose welfare costs on individual dogs from a variety of causes including the following: negligent or incompetent management with a particular impact on breeding bitches but also including failure to socialise puppies appropriately; use of closely related breeding pairs such that already high levels of inbreeding are worsened; use of breeding pairs carrying inherited disorders such that inherited disease is transmitted to offspring
Click to expand...

Breeders that closely line breed ( a less intense but still deleterious form of inbreeding ) may still be trying to excuse their actions by quoting from books written by other breeders, but this thinking is outmoded and now smacks of defending the indefensible.

Mating grandparent to grandchild has been a 'classic' pairing for breeders, but when you are closely mating dogs that are already related many times, & in many ways, it is now known to be downright dangerous for the breed.
If breeders do not recognise the fact they are both blind and foolish.

Cavaliers started with a very few founder dogs & they were closely linebred and inbred to establish the breed. It is not possible to truly outcross within cavaliers, all are related many times to each other.

Some lines have consistently been very tightly bred. One dog sent to Australia had a mother who was also his great grandmother, the mother's full sister being his other great grandmother.
Another dog exported to America, and becoming a top producer, had 7 out of his 8 grandparents that were offspring, or descendants, of just one bitch. This dog and his UK sire produced a lot of cases of SM.

Another line has a dog who has every grandparent going back to a known SM dog ( mine ) and the breeder knew about the diagnosis when that mating was done.
Probably a good test mating for SM and other health problems, but unfortunate for the people who bought the dog's siblings or puppies sired by him. Even more unfortunate for the dogs.

Some breeders will argue that testing for health in each generation before close breeding is the key, as recessive genes both good and bad will show up, but this will only work if ALL the puppies that are produced are kept by the breeder, or at least closely monitored for their lifetieme.

What does happen when these closely line bred dogs are affected by the bad genes later in life?
Unfortunately there is no evidence that any breeder of these cavaliers have welcomed feedback about health problems from their buyers, in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite.
 
Following onfrom Margaret's Post,if I could give an Example of the In-Breeding that had been carried out in the Cavalier Breed in the Earlier Days.

This Litter of Cavaliers

Parents were FULL Brother and Sister

Their Parents were Half Brother and Sister

Then in turn their Parents were Half Brother and Sister.

Then we come to the Great- Great- Grand-Parents,who were also Half -Brother and Half Sister Matings.

Then you have the Repeat matings of Cavaliers .

One Cavalier Bitch had 7 Litters ,totalling 39 Puppies ,from the same Dog,who was her own Son

Another Cavalier Dog had two Litters ,totalling 13 Puppies from his own Daughter.

Mrs Pitt ,the Founder of the Cavalier Breed , had written ,an Article in 1957, saying that when the Second World War was over ,she started to look around for the Dog that she wanted to lead her TTIWEH Kennel ,but most of them had been so In- Bred on Both Sides to Two Particular Cavalier Dogs ,that they were of Little use to Her.

Both those those Sires were Influential in the Cavalier Breed,but were used to every Bitch .

As a Result the The Cavaliers were left very In-Bred

I am no Geneticist ,but I really do feel that any Geneticist seeing this information ,his mind would be having second thoughts on the information that he would be be giving Cavalier Breeders.
 
Bits from Bateson.

Just had to mention ,I have had a lot of Contact with Dr M Willis, Geneticist, over the years, the last I'd heard when I had sent him my Best Wishes, was he was not very well and in Hospital.
 
Just to follow up some points made by Margaret, I thought I'd post a couple of links and excerpts.

"Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A Major Welfare Concern." It has a full section (4.2) devoted to the link between inbreeding and disease. Rooney, Nicola; Sargan, David (February 2009).

http://www.terrierman.com/PDE-RSPCA-FULL.pdf
"The link between inbreeding and increased disease risks in purebred dogs has been noted by many authors and comprehensively reviewed ...."

"This causal relationship is also supported by studies such as that of the Bouvier Belge des Flandres in France (Ubbink et al 1992). Dogs being treated for numerous ailments (osteochondrosis, food allergy, autoimmune disease, neoplasm, or hypoplastic trachea: see glossary) were seen on average to have higher coefficients of inbreeding than a control population of healthy dogs. Syringomyelia (sections 3.3 and 4.3) was first reported in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels in 1997(Rusbridge et al 2000). A genetic analysis showed that six of eight grandparents of all affected dogs in a study could be traced back to two female ancestors and the condition showed increased severity and an earlier age of onset with increased levels of inbreeding (Rusbridge and Knowler 2004). There are many other examples in the canine literature that highlight the risks of small founder numbers and high levels of inbreeding."
​
There is much more . . . .

Another link: "Canine Population Genetics in Practice: Principles for the Breeder."

http://dogdimension.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=shared:populationgeneticspractice
"Many popular writers, of whom Dr. Malcolm Willis is probably the best known, speak as apologists for inbreeding at one moment, at the next moment attempting to assure us that the average COI in most breeds is quite low. That is simply not the case . . . ".

...."Authors such as Malcolm Willis and Jerold Bell insist that outbreeding “covers up” recessive defects. Indeed it does and indeed it should! That is exactly what nature itself does, and no one criticises natural evolutionary processes or recommends that natural populations should be inbred instead of mated naturally. The fact that inbreeding “exposes” recessives is not necessarily helpful, because in most cases it is impractical to remove or “eliminate” the “defect” genes. Rather, breeding should be guided in such a way as to avoid reinforcement of known recessives whilst maintaining genetic diversity in the population.

Screening and selection can never succeed as a strategy for the “elimination” of genetic disease. As one defect is eliminated, others will be reinforced, and the latter state of the breed will be worse than the former. The genetic load must be known, tolerated and managed; to obsess about its elimination will lead only to disaster."

. . . "It is up to breeders to have the common sense to realise that what is being proposed is a losing game, that already depauperate purebred breed genomes will not support further massive artificial selection and the consequent wholesale elimination of yet more genetic diversity. The “defect” genes cannot be excised with a scalpel; many other genes that happen to reside on the same chromosomes will go right along with the defects, with totally unforeseeable consequences."
​
Again, at that link, there is sooo much more . . . .

And then this one. "The Downside of Inbreeding: It's Time for a New Approach"

http://www.jabed.com/inx.htm
"It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs. Present-day breeders need to re-think their strategy. Assortative mating-the mating of phenotypically similar but unrelated or less-related individuals-will allow breeders to reach their breeding goals while reducing the loss of alleles in the over-all population. To accomplish this it is vital that each breeder has a thorough knowledge of breed pedigrees. The typical three to five generation pedigree may indicate few, if any, common ancestors. But what happens if the pedigree is extended a few more generations? If two dogs share no ancestors for four generations, but share many in the 5th, 6th and so on, breeding them would be inbreeding."
​
There is much, much more from C.A. Sharp, Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell, Dr. John Burchard, Dr. James Seltzer, and many others.

Oreo
 
Thanks Oreo, fot your Post and giving the Links.

In a News- Paper here in Britain yesterday , the Daily Express ,it was again mentioned , about thr Cavaliers' Brains being too Big for their Skull.

This is what the Press and Media are concentrating on.

The Article's Head-Lines are

BETRAYAL of OUR PEDIGREE CHUMS.

Concludes with

Dogs are Totally Dependant on us for Their Welfare .

TRADITIONALLY, THEY HAVE BEEN OUR BEST FRIEND,

NOW IT'S OUR TURN TO BE THEIRS.

I think this is the Reason why I am able to with-stand all the Abuse that has been Hurled at Me Recently.!!!
 
Quotes from KC publication in 2006

Oreo said:
"The Downside of Inbreeding: It's Time for a New Approach"

http://www.jabed.com/inx.htm
"It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs. Present-day breeders need to re-think their strategy. Assortative mating-the mating of phenotypically similar but unrelated or less-related individuals-will allow breeders to reach their breeding goals while reducing the loss of alleles in the over-all population. To accomplish this it is vital that each breeder has a thorough knowledge of breed pedigrees. The typical three to five generation pedigree may indicate few, if any, common ancestors. But what happens if the pedigree is extended a few more generations? If two dogs share no ancestors for four generations, but share many in the 5th, 6th and so on, breeding them would be inbreeding."
​
There is much, much more from C.A. Sharp, Dr. Hellmuth Wachtell, Dr. John Burchard, Dr. James Seltzer, and many others.

Oreo
Click to expand...

There is an interesting book, published by the Kennel Club in 2006, called 'Dogs, Dog Breeding and the Control of Inherited Disease in the Dog'

inside it says "The text was written by Mr Ronnie Irving, Dr Jeff Sampson and Dr Malcolm Willis"

Using Schipperkes as an example they write.........
"In an attempt to produce show winning dogs generation after generation, breeders develop breeding programmes that attempt to drive these other genes, those that determine the perceived 'quality' of the Schipperke, to homozygosity. This is why 'popular sires' become popular sires; because they are successful in the show ring, they are believed to have a good combination of alleles and breeders want to introduce them into their own lines.
Linebreeding to one of these popular sires then makes these genes more and more homozygous in future generations. Along the way very large numbers of dogs that are born and registered, are discarded from the breeding pool, never to become parents in their own right, and their own unique versions of these 'quality' genes are lost forever. So, the whole process of modern day dog breeding is designed ( albeit unconsciously) to drive more and more of those 30,000 genes to homozygosity, with a consequent erosion of genetic variation within a breed.
Click to expand...

Hidden within the genes of all dogs will be recessive versions which, if they become homozygous, could have a deleterious effect on the dog. As we will see later, the vast majority of inherited disease in the dog results from recessive versions of genes. Although we don't know precisely, every dog will be a carrier of a number of these deleterious recessive genes, and these breeding practices will increase the possibility that they will become homozygous and result in inherited disease, particularly if that popular sire was a carrier! .
Click to expand...

There are lots more interesting quotes from a book written by the KC Chairman who famously declared "No scientist is going to tell me how to breed", the KC genetics advisor, and a well known dog breeding geneticist.
 
Last edited:
Bits from Bateson.

Could I mention the Name of Dr Hellmuth Wachtell ,who was mentioned in the two Previous Posts along with other Geneticists.

A few years ago ,I was involved with Dr Wachtell and other Researchers in Austria, who were Researching the MVD Problem in Our Cavalier Breed.

They wanted the Pedigrees of the Cavaliers with Heart Trouble that I had collected of Cavaliers from here in Britain.

This was to compare them with the Pedigrees of Cavaliers with MVD in Austria.

When he got back to me about this , he said that he was convinced the Heart Problem in Cavaliers was caused by In-Breeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top