|
Breeder's Corner
This section of our web site is designed to stimulate discussion and correspondence among Airedale breeders about breeding issues that we regard as key to the future protection of our breed. We consider the breed to be generally in good shape with a good supply of intelligent and responsible breeders. Breeding issues periodically arise that we are in the position to address and that is the purpose of this section. We welcome contact from breeders for ongoing dialog on these and other issues. David Post, DVM, MS and Laura Post, PhD
Population Genetics and Popular Sires
All breeds of purebred animals are the product of inbreeding. That is how breeds are created. An outstanding individual is identified and a breed is created around him or her. Most breeds of purebred dogs are less than 150 years old. During the late 1800s is when the concepts of “purebred” began to develop and the advent of dog shows started. Some breeds have older heritages, but the concept of “pure” existed only rarely. As purebreds were developed and breed registers were closed, the pools of genetic material available was automatically limited. Usually, early in breed creation, an outstanding individual dog becomes a “foundation sire” and most, if not all, ancestral lines in any current example of the breed will trace to that dog. With Airedales, most ancestral lines trace to Airedale Jerry, a dog from the 1890s. So we created a breed, what now?
As breed development continues, other outstanding individuals are identified, often they are big show winners. They also are widely used at stud and they improve the breed. Lower quality genes are reduced or eliminated. But the gene pool shrinks. As time passes, these dogs end up in most ancestral lines of current dogs. Then another generation of dogs comes along, with more big winners. The big winning stud is widely used. The gene pool narrows. The pattern continues. This gives rise to two fundamental problems with purebred dogs.
The obvious problem is the reduction in the gene pool making the frequency of all genes more concentrated. This is good for genes with no detrimental consequences. However, there are no perfect dogs and all dogs carry some genes for detrimental traits. These genes increase as a percent of the gene pool and problems begin to appear in the breed that had not previously been common. Since most breeders these days have small breeding programs that produce only one litter a year or less, the ability to identify carriers and remove them from breeding programs is both difficult and heart wrenching.
The less obvious problem of the “popular sire effect”, is the genetic impact and change that a single stud can have on a breed. If a particular big winning dog has some extraordinary trait, it becomes widespread in a breed, to the point that it changes the breed. An example would be a lot of coat in Cocker Spaniels. This characteristic might make beautiful grooming more spectacular and make for big wins at dog shows. But such a trait would not be correct in a field dog. Yet the impact of the big winner changes the breed. Cocker spaniels now routinely need to be shaved, including their heads and faces and have hair that drags the ground. None of this was characteristic of the original breed. The breed has changed. In German Shepherds, the low slunk appearance of the rear end became a winning dog show fashion in the breed and the breed changed. Turns out this trait is associated with increased hip dysplasia in the breed and the breed has now been replaced by other breeds for most working functions. There were original big winners that were widely used in both breeds that introduced these changes.
So how to address these problems? Population geneticists sometimes suggest always attempting to breed dogs that are as little related as possible to maintain maximum diversity. The problem with this approach is that the phenotypes (appearances) of these maximally unrelated individuals is often quite diverse also. This makes breeding a consistent type difficult, if not impossible. A more practical solution, is to have a number of independent, linebred breeding programs in the breed. With several of these genetically independent, but quality programs operating the genetic diversity of the breed can be maintained, yet consistent quality can be produced. This approach requires that strong willed breeders avoid breeding to the current big winners from other programs, even when the fashion trend at dog shows moves toward the current spectacular dog. This protects the breed from both detrimental effects of popular sires, reduction in the gene pool and changing the breed type in detrimental ways of current fads and fashions at dogs shows.
Unfortunately, few breeders operate breeding programs big enough to maintain genetic independence. This requires that co-operative groups form with related dogs that interbreed within their programs, only out-crossing to outside dogs when it is genetically necessary to maintain vitality and type. Co-operative programs are difficult to maintain over time and unfortunately few exist.
Another difficulty is that few small scale breeders are strong willed enough stay away from the big winners. Breeding to these dogs makes pedigrees “prettier” and pups easier to sell. It also enhances opportunities at upcoming shows since your pups are likely to resemble their recent big winning sire. Most breeders will fall into pursuit of breeding to the big winners or their winning offspring, which has the same genetic effect on diversity. This is why the independent programs need to be identified and encouraged for the well being of the breed.
Judge education is key to successfully protecting a breed. Big winners, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to promote show careers, often have exaggerated traits that make them stand out from the crowd. These exaggerations are often incorrect, even if they are exciting to observe. Think Cocker coats and German Shepherd hips. Judges are incorrectly influenced to pick these heavily promoted dogs and worse, dogs that look like them in the exaggerated trait, but who lack the overall quality.
In Airedales, there are very few independent breeding programs. Most top programs have lots of recent big winners in their pedigrees, including Texter. The traditional way for American breeders to maintain diversity is with the importation of dogs from England. Until recently, England restricted the importation of dogs into their country with 6 month rabies quarantine laws. This meant that they had little American Airedale genetics and their dogs were great out-crosses for us. Recently, their restrictions have changed and they now have American bloodlines. The same is true of Australia. This “shrinking of the Airedale world” has very positive aspects, but it tends to reduce the overall breed diversity. Breeders must become more aware of this issue. Breeders need to be more cautious in the promotion of top dogs and more cognizant of population genetics and popular sire effects. Bravo True Grit, an outstanding winner of the early 1980s is in the pedigree, multiple times, of almost all current winning dogs all across the country just 25 years later. It is difficult to find any Airedales that have not been influenced by his genetics. It would also be easy to argue that his style changed the breed. The appearance of dogs since that time is markedly different from dogs of the 50s and 60s. Since Grit, there have been a couple of other big winners that are already in the majority of pedigrees of current winners. And the gene pool shrinks. And the breed changes? We need to be careful! We need to encourage those independent programs and encourage them to stay independent. We need to encourage the development of new, independent, cooperative breeding programs that don't chase the latest big winner.
Breeder's Corner
Statistics
From September 2004 to August 2005, the AKC registered roughly 2700 Airedales and 750 litters. If the average litter size for the breed is 8 pups, that means that approximately 6000 AKC registration eligible puppies were produced, but less than half were registered. In the 1970s there were approximately 10,000 Airedale registrations, but their rank in breed popularity (around 40th) was similar to today. Is this a reflection on the AKC crackdown on puppy mills and the subsequent advent of alternate registries and the general reduction in AKC registrations or a reduction in the population of the breed? I am unaware of any quality breeders of Airedales that do not register dogs with the AKC.
If we use their recent numbers, we can make some population estimates about Airedales in the US. If we say that 6000 pups were born and the average life expectancy (including early deaths from accidents, etc) is 10 years, the US population is around 60,000 Airedales. This also assumes that “alternate registry” numbers are not significant in Airedales. If we use ATCA breeder listings to quantify quality breeders, there are about 750 ATCA members, of which about 400 list breeding as an activity. Many are not active breeders or breed quite infrequently, once every few years. If on average the 400 breeders, produce a little less than one litter a year, ATCA breeders are responsible for less than half the Airedales in the US.
The AKC reports that about 120 Airedales attain an AKC championship each year, which is about 2% of the Airedale population. Roughly 20 Airedales obtain a CD obedience title, 8 get a CDX, and 3 get a UD each year. Roughly, two get tracking titles, and 10 get novice agility titles. If we compare these statistics to other terriers, the numbers are similar to American Staffordshire Terriers, but behind Miniature Schnauzers and Jack Russell Terriers. The ratio of obedience titles to conformation titles is much higher in working breeds like Dobes and Rottweilers and popular obedience breeds like Border Collies, Labs, and Golden Retrievers.
Breeder's Corner
Type Vs Soundness
One of the frequent discussions in show breeding circles is the discussion of type (typical breed characteristics) verses soundness (desirable traits of conformation, health, and temperament fundamental to all dogs). Those that argue that type is more important will say that without type, you cannot tell what breed the dog is. In the establishment of a breed, this is clearly true. You have to select for specific characteristics that identify the breed, sometimes (in theory) sacrificing soundness characteristics, until type is established. However, when breeds are established, for many breeds including Airedales, the desired characteristics are specific performance traits of foundation stock. These outstanding original individuals were considered outstanding because of their fundamental qualities of health, temperament, and appearance. They were fundamentally sound dogs. Airedales have been an established breed for over a hundred years. Do we now need to still be breeding unsound dogs in order to have type? After 100 years, is there not sufficient type in sound dogs? The argument in favor of type is UNSOUND!
Today's breeders should absolutely insist that judges are trained to pick sound dogs. The standard states that the fundamental test of conformation is movement. Unsound dogs cannot move well. The standard also states that the breed is a moderate breed. No extreme characteristics. When show fads start driving the breed to “type”, it is often extreme type. Really long, narrow heads, long necks, ultrashort backs, very upright shoulders, none of these things are in the breed standard. And many of these characteristics lead to fundamental unsoundnesses. Some individuals with these characteristics can move, some even have some mental acuity. Their descendants have those extreme characteristics, but often don't have the soundness traits. Unique individuals with extreme characteristics become big show winners. The breed moves in a new direction, characterized by unsoundness. In a breed that is a hundred years old, established breeders should should only breed fundamentally sound dogs, with stable temperaments, that move well.
The Excuse Trap
All breeders fall into the excuse trap from time to time. The very promising youngster fails to live up to hopes. Often these short falls are issues of soundness. The dog unexpected becomes shy or aggressive, or starts moving poorly, or develops dysplasia. You have so much hope built up in these dogs, that it is hard to let go. So you make excuses. “His bad behavior is because of event or accident X.” “He is shy because of poor socialization”. “She is aggressive because a handler ran another dog up on her in the ring.” “He is dysplastic because he was dropped as a pup and he landed with his legs splayed.” “He is an outstanding specimen, the parts just don't quite go together quite right, so he moves a little funny in front.”
There are no perfect dogs. They all have genetic flaws that can be seen, and some that can't be seen. But be honest, at least with yourself, about the flaws. And then pick your poison. Do you really want the dysplastic dog in your breeding program? The aggressive dog? Those shy dogs are easier for the typical pet owner to handle, right? Just another excuse? How much movement are you willing to sacrifice for “type”? For how many generations?
Back to Index
|
