This would certainly be an interesting outcross
From the Dog World article......
“In the absence of Sarah Blott of the Animal Health Trust, KC geneticist Prof Jeff Sampson gave a talk on estimated breeding values (EBVs). This was followed by a member’s presentation which stated that EBVs were nothing new, and in fact the member had been using them for over 25 years.
“Having asked Dr Sampson to concur that in the absence of a genetic marker EBVs were the next best thing, it was pointed out that publication of the data had no effect on the EBV calculations and was therefore superfluous to the calculation of EBVs. It was demonstrated that in farm livestock, the data was sent to the owner for his use. The EBVs were calculated and the owner would then advertise his cream of the crop, leaving out the failures."
I was at the meeting which, on the whole, was well organised and expertly chaired by Steve Dean, the KC Chairman.
It did become a bit surreal when, as described above, one of the health representatives hijacked the meeting to present his own lecture on sheep EBVs, complete with diagrams and books with photographs of prize winning rams.
The KC and veterinary representatives appeared at first bemused and then amused. One highly qualified gentleman appeared unable to stop his shoulders shaking with laughter.
As someone remarked to me, that could be an interesting new designer breed............Cavalambs
“Profs Herrtage, Dean and Sampson all considered that this information was irrelevant, as the scheme under discussion was to eradicate disease and not to improve the yield of meat and milk, as was the case in sheep and cattle. The member pointed out that the Blup programme used in EBV calculations was more than capable of evaluating any data fed into it and there was no basic difference in the calculation of EBVs for a disease as opposed to, say increased milk yield."
I struggled, not only with disbelieve, but to try and understand the relevance of this seemingly rather egotistical lecture on the speaker's sheep rearing successes, but later I realised this was somehow being advanced as an argument against publishing MRI scan results!
Someone has since suggested that this was not only this person's view but he was also putting it forward with the agreement of the Cavalier Health Liaison Committee.
Please tell me that's not true.
The Dog World Comment column is not on-line, so I thought I would type out what they wrote about the cavalier club representatives' reluctance to publish health results.
"It is good that progress has been made on the development of a testing scheme for syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. It is essential that the breed not only does its utmost to deal with this issue but is seen to do so.
Perhaps we are missing something but we do not understand the reluctance of the breed representatives to accept the publication of test results. We suspect that those in other breeds which have had to deal with health issues will not understand it either.
In all other official schemes, publication is accepted as essential part of the equation, enabling future breeders to make more informed decisions in the quest for fewer problems in each subsequent generation.
Why should the Cavaliers be any different?
Unless there is some issue of which we are unaware, it is hard to follow any objections to this, and the Kennel Club & British Veterinary Association are right to take a firm line.