• 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.

Bateson report

Here is something interesting in the latest BBC News.

Sir Patrick also revealed today that in the late 1980s he had been part of a working party which had recommended that new rules should be introduced for dog shows which would "disqualify animals with physical defects specifically encouraged by fashion and which compromise the health and welfare of the animals involved."

"I was shocked then and I remain shocked that so little has changed," he says.

Clearly, Sir Patrick does not need persuading of the seriousness of the problems. But has his report gone far enough?

Sir Patrick clearly has high hopes for the new dog advisory council but without statutory powers to back its recommendations, I think there is a very real danger that the Kennel Club will dismiss suggestions as being "unworkable".

Anyway have a read which includes - "Jemima Harrison, the film's producer/director, welcomes the recommendations but believes they may not be implemented fully." BBC article at this link address.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8460012.stm
.
 
WoodHaven said:
m
m
2537389504_f2f7c9b8b4.jpg


Does this look like smaller HEADS
Click to expand...

I agree with that Sandy. All of mine have generously shaped heads, particularly Rebel, who has both asymptomatic SM and Chariari Malformation. He has several syrinxes.

I feel the need to make it perfectly clear here that when I mention Rebel's MRI results I am not boasting, neither am I in any way flaunting his condition. On the contrary, I am trying to emphasize at every opportunity that there are probably a great number of as yet untested dogs living quite normal lives while having these conditions. Until we test we just do not know who is and who is not clear of malformation.
 
3979256065_8eea575d6d_m.jpg


3979255323_e8ba6e7ab4_m.jpg





Clare Rusbridge uses the two photographs above to show the different facial expressions, before and after treatment.


4023781978_9d974b88cb.jpg


Clare also uses the above photograph, the change in Dougall was immense after just being on a low dose of previcox.

In fact I have two different dogs since they have been treated :)
 
Ciren said:
How many cavaliers is that? 4 or 5? i love this pic, when i saw it i called hubby over and said "look a puddle of cavs!"
Click to expand...

Blenheims left to right:
Dickens (in the back,you really can't see much of him), Dominique (head on tri), Hunter (looking mean at the camera) and the tail of my almost 9 year old Nicholas.
The tri is Emma.-- so that is 5.
 
The head issue has been discussed quite a few times now in recent research. The point made is not that heads per se are smaller; it is that the head SHAPE is creating a small interior space for the brain and that a certain shape of skull definitely seems to be more likely to have greater problems with this lack of space.

Researchers have emphasised that it is very difficult even for longtime breeders to assess this shape outwardly because of the way cavalier ears are positioned and because of their coat. But there has been correlation between internal shape (which is somewhat reflected in outward shape).

Also the general point is that it is all the toy breeds -- and especially those with shorter or flat noses -- that have the greatest incidence of syringomyelia, from evidence so far. Dogs with normal noses and of larger size do not get this particular form of SM that is related to the difference between brain size and skull volume. So there is definitely an issue of some sort with heads.
 
Karlin said:
The head issue has been discussed quite a few times now in recent research. The point made is not that heads per se are smaller; it is that the head SHAPE is creating a small interior space for the brain and that a certain shape of skull definitely seems to be more likely to have greater problems with this lack of space.

Researchers have emphasised that it is very difficult even for longtime breeders to assess this shape outwardly because of the way cavalier ears are positioned and because of their coat. But there has been correlation between internal shape (which is somewhat reflected in outward shape).

Also the general point is that it is all the toy breeds -- and especially those with shorter or flat noses -- that have the greatest incidence of syringomyelia, from evidence so far. Dogs with normal noses and of larger size do not get this particular form of SM that is related to the difference between brain size and skull volume. So there is definitely an issue of some sort with heads.
Click to expand...

There are breeds with FAR flatter and shorter muzzles than cavaliers, yet this breed seems to be hit far more with this disease.
One theory is that the brain and head cavity don't seem to grow (or stop growing) at the same time.
 
WoodHaven said:
There are breeds with FAR flatter and shorter muzzles than cavaliers, yet this breed seems to be hit far more with this disease.
One theory is that the brain and head cavity don't seem to grow (or stop growing) at the same time.
Click to expand...

That is the explanation which makes the most sense to me.

Some years ago I saw an exhibition in the Museum of Antiquities in Glasgow which tried to illustrate the evolution of man from Stone Age ape type to the way we are now. They showed where and when the skull in the case was found, the invention that was taking place, i.e. the axe was first used, and it brought home to me that the brain and skull had had to increase and perhaps change shape to permit the higher level of intelligence required to invent and innovate.

In this discussion the big question is HOW and WHY does it sometimes go wrong?
 
Bateson Report

Could I just mention again,that it is the DEEP STOP that so many Cavaliers have now -a -days, that they did'nt have about 20 years ago,.Is this giving the look of Smaller Heads, as Karlin says it's the space inside the Cavalier's that is Smaller.

The UK CKCS CLUB Cavalier Breed Standard says,


STOP SHALLOW.

Is this ,as was mentioned on the BBC TV News item about SM , part of the Fashion for Cavaliers winning in the Show Ring.

If that's the case ,is it Judges and Breeders who are involved with this change, and are not Breeding to the UK CKCS CLUB'S Breed Standards.

Is this where the problem could lie, the Deep Stop.?
 
Bateson Report.

Sorry Folks, but I have just read on the CC List, when I mentioned about Cavaliers having a Deep Stop ,that it's not a Deep Stop they have .It's to do with their markings !!!

So I guess when the UK CKCS CLUB in the Breed Standard say that Cavaliers should have a Shallow Stop, it's just to do with the Cavalier Markings.
 
Bateson Report ,

Forgot to say ,that there was a Cavalier B/T

Kobba of Korunda,born 30-5-28,who Mrs E. Booth described in her Book ,his sweet Head would be the envy of many Present Day Cavalier Breeders.

He had the Deep Stop Iv'e been mentioning.

Her Book was published in 1983, this look that Iv'e been trying to describe ,was starting to appear about the time, were the Cavalier Breeders trying to get back to the Head Type of Kobba of Korunda.
 
WoodHaven said:
... One theory is that the brain and head cavity don't seem to grow (or stop growing) at the same time.
Click to expand...

This is my understanding, too, based upon the article cited here:

Comparison of cerebral cranium volumes between cavalier King Charles spaniels with Chiari-like malformation, small breed dogs and Labradors. H. R. Cross, R. Cappello, and C. Rusbridge. J Small Anim. Pract. 2009 Aug; 50(8):399-405.

in which the authors state:

"When compared with Labradors, CKCS had proportionately the same volume of parenchyma in their caudal fossa, hence there is a mismatch of volumes with too much parenchyma in a too small caudal fossa causing overcrowding. This supports either theory of pathogenesis of CM as mesoderm insufficiency during embryology − causing insufficient scope for the mesoderm and ectoderm layers to develop ... − or alternatively premature growth plate closure. Other small breeds of dogs had a proportionately smaller volume of parenchyma in their caudal fossa which can explain why, despite having a similar sized caudal fossa to CKCS, they do not experience overcrowding."
--
Rod Russell
 
There are breeds with FAR flatter and shorter muzzles than cavaliers, yet this breed seems to be hit far more with this disease.
One theory is that the brain and head cavity don't seem to grow (or stop growing) at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well, yes -- it clearly isn't just how flat the dog's face is or how small the body, but that these predisposing factors (which on all evidence, sometimes risk triggering that failure of the skull to continue to grow to fit the brain as happens normally) are on genes that have been selected for by accident within the cavalier breed in particular.

So, in cavaliers an early genetic predisposition in some dogs has, perhaps due to popular sire syndrome, become quite concentrated in the breed overall to such a degree that researchers think probably all cavaliers are carriers and many are eventually affected, with most having the Chiari-like malformation that perhaps forms because of that skull development issue or is related in some way. It would seem reasonably likely (according to several researchers I have spoken to) that selecting for features considered attractive for showing has arbitrarily also selected for the genes that carry SM. There is research from LIVS that indicates the shorter face of cavaliers does trigger some skull changes, for example.

I have absolutely no doubt that many other breeds risk heading (no pun intended!) the same way. Griffons have been the most prominent at-risk example, but it is still easy to find many fully clear griffons (and extended families) with neither SM nor CM.
 
Karlin said:
Well, yes -- it clearly isn't just how flat the dog's face is or how small the body, but that these predisposing factors (which on all evidence, sometimes risk triggering that failure of the skull to continue to grow to fit the brain as happens normally) are on genes that have been selected for by accident within the cavalier breed in particular.

So, in cavaliers an early genetic predisposition in some dogs has, perhaps due to popular sire syndrome, become quite concentrated in the breed overall to such a degree that researchers think probably all cavaliers are carriers and many are eventually affected, with most having the Chiari-like malformation that perhaps forms because of that skull development issue or is related in some way. It would seem reasonably likely (according to several researchers I have spoken to) that selecting for features considered attractive for showing has arbitrarily also selected for the genes that carry SM. There is research from LIVS that indicates the shorter face of cavaliers does trigger some skull changes, for example.

I have absolutely no doubt that many other breeds risk heading (no pun intended!) the same way. Griffons have been the most prominent at-risk example, but it is still easy to find many fully clear griffons with neither SM nor CM.
Click to expand...

If a cavaliers COI was Horrendous, I would agree. There are numerous breeds that are much higher inbreeding coefficients. The HIGHEST one of mine has is 11%-- many of mine are well under 8%. I've been hunting for 8 generations for my dogs to get the most accurate numbers. I have many dogs that I can go back 9+ generations without a 'hole'(missing dog).
 
Just some thoughts.

Less inbred by recent generation COI doesn't, in itself, mean dogs will necessarily be healthier than others in another breed.

A lot depends on what deleterious genes happened to be in the foundation, what happened to be accidentally selected for while selecting for other traits in the breed, population bottlenecks, including those created when popular sires are selected to the exclusion of others, etc . . .

As I understand it, keeping COIs lower in a litter doesn't necessarily help the individual pups produced (- although studies in the Standard Poodle and Rhodesian Ridgeback indicate that on average it offers an advantage.) Keeping COIs lower in litters does help to maintain effective population sizes in a full breed. If you are speaking to preserving breeds, this is important.

I kept this information from the Cangen list, posted there on May 2008. Is this relevent to SM and MVD? I don't know but if I share it others can mull it over as well.

According to the poster, the KC database shows that statistically, 1 in 10 Cavalier matings since 1970 were closer than first cousins. That would be a 6.25% COI or higher on a 10 gen pedigree. 9 of 10 pairings, therefore, produced pups with a lower than 6.25% COI.

The Cavalier breed also has an effective population size of 78. That is larger population size than a number of dog breeds, but as well for reference, it should also be considered the Siberian Tiger is considered endangered, and it has an effective population size of 250.

According to Clare Rusbridge site, the average heterozygosity is 0.46, which keeps it at similar levels to other small breeds.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=177150&st=450

There is also this post by Patt at the link just above that talks about effective population size (symbol Ne). (according to an earlier post, Patt works in statistics and is doing work in models of inheritance).

Some points I took from it to mull over:

-Rule of thumb is that for contained wild populations, Ne should be greater than 500 to avoid inbreeding depression.

-When Ne = 50 you have a very serious problem YET there are exceptions, like the Chillingham herd with an Ne of 8. (Of course, the toll - nature's tough culling - to get them there would not be considered acceptable practise for pets.)

-In regards to an artificially selected population there are not established guidelines. The skill of the breeders would have to be higher if they are involved with lower effective population sizes. (I dare say, when thinking about linkage, some luck has to be involved as well).

So I guess what has to be thought about is that 78 might be the Ne, in Cavaliers, that gives trouble for a variety of reasons which include the fact that there were genes which predisposed to SM and MVD in the foundation of the breed. In other breeds that number might be different.

I think some of Sarah Blott's work is aimed at keeping that Ne where it is, while still trying to sort out the right candidates for breeding forward from.

Oreo
 
Last edited:
Bateson Report

Could I comment on the Bateson Report Page 32,and here are the exact comments from Professor Sir P Bateson.

"Prominance 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 is OCCLUDED.

The eventual Result is Evident Pain in the Dogs and Fitting.

However, Prior to that, the Dog may not manifest obvious Clinical Signs but become quiet and inactive."

I did'nt know what OSSIFIED meant,it means Hardened in Bone.

I don't know what OCCLUDED means ,can any-body help me here.

It was so interesting to read both Karlin and Orea's Posts.

I would think what Professor Sir P. Bateson means , is that when the Cavalier's Skull has formed the Brain is still growing ,what do you others think.

Could this now be why Thousands of the Public who have read the Press and saw on the TV News will have seen the comments about the Bateson Report ,that the Cavaliers' Heads are too Small for their Brains.

At the moment ,as Margaret has said many times , the only way to save the Cavalier Breed from this dreadfull Disease is to MRI Cavalier Breeding Stock.

I know that the EBV SCHEME will also have to be being involved ,but will some of the Cavalier Breeders ,who are given the information about which Cavalier to use in their Breeding Program, not take the advice because that Cavalier will have no chance of winning ing the Show Ring.!
 
A really interesting thing to come out of the Foetal Tissue research at the Royal Veterinary College is that there seems to be a lack of communication in Cavaliers between the brain genes and the skull genes. Normally, when the skull reached its maximum size, it sends a message to the brain to stop growing. Something in Cavalier genes stops the message arriving, so the brain goes on growing. It seems to be more a matter of the brain growing too big for the skull, rather than the skull being too small for a normal-size brain. One of the questions raised is when this mismatch occurs in the puppy's development, and I know Geoff Skerritt at Chestergates is scanning litters of puppies at regular intervals to monitor brain/skull development.

Bet - occluded is just medical-speak for closed up or blocked - in other words, what we all know about, that Chiari Malformation impedes the flow of cerebral-spinal fluid from the spinal cord round the brain and back again.

Kate, Oliver and Aled
 
Bateson Report

Thanks Kate H for that, this is what the SM Researchers say that ,when the Cerebro Spinal Fluid can't get round ,the Syrinxes Form. This explanation has fallen into place.
 
Oreo said:
Just some thoughts.

Less inbred by recent generation COI doesn't, in itself, mean dogs will necessarily be healthier than others in another breed.

A lot depends on what deleterious genes happened to be in the foundation, what happened to be accidentally selected for while selecting for other traits in the breed, population bottlenecks, including those created when popular sires are selected to the exclusion of others, etc . . .

As I understand it, keeping COIs lower in a litter doesn't necessarily help the individual pups produced (- although studies in the Standard Poodle and Rhodesian Ridgeback indicate that on average it offers an advantage.) Keeping COIs lower in litters does help to maintain effective population sizes in a full breed. If you are speaking to preserving breeds, this is important.

I kept this information from the Cangen list, posted there on May 2008. Is this relevent to SM and MVD? I don't know but if I share it others can mull it over as well.

According to the poster, the KC database shows that statistically, 1 in 10 Cavalier matings since 1970 were closer than first cousins. That would be a 6.25% COI or higher on a 10 gen pedigree. 9 of 10 pairings, therefore, produced pups with a lower than 6.25% COI.
Oreo
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was my round about way of trying to make a point. There are people that are pushing the reason cavaliers aren't healthier is because they are so inbred. I know of many cavaliers that have higher COI's and are living long and healthy. There are many signs when animals get overly inbred and one of them is lack of fertility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top