# Field VS show dogs cancer rates?



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

There haven't been any formal studies done that I know of.
Anecdotal evidence from the "field community" shows that the cancer rate in the show goldens is much higher.
On the other hand, anecdotal evidence from the "show community" certainly confirms that the cancer rate in field goldens is much higher!


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Not to high jack this thread but think the real issue is longevity. If a 12 year dies of cancer it is far different from an 8 year old with cancer. In ran across this study a few years ago and although it was studying the Standard Poodle, I think the results are interesting to note. Those dogs with a coi of less than 6.25 had a longer life span. As the coi increased the life span decreased. Here is the link

Results of the Standard Poodle Longevity Study


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Anybody who tells you there's a real difference is completely biased. There is absolutely no research on this delineation when it comes to health. In fact, there are so many dogs that don't fit either stereotype that any effort to even _categorize_ the dogs this way would be biased and somewhat misleading, so forget trying to categorize them and then make some kind of statistically sound determination about the differences in cancer rates.

Our breed and cancer experts have also said time and again that there's no particular group of Goldens that has an observed, statistically higher chance of getting cancer than any other grouping.

Your best bet to understand longevity (and Leslie B makes an excellent point there) is the longevity of the pedigree behind the dog in question.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Isn't it true that *in general*, field bred dogs have a lower COI?


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> Isn't it true that *in general*, field bred dogs have a lower COI?


I think that's entirely a product of how you define "field bred." Are you talking about MH/MH dogs only? Or all dogs that sort of visually fit that stereotype? Or all dogs with at least one AFC or FC dog within a few generations? Or you could define it only as dogs in actual competition in a venue, in which case it would be really hard to say for sure if all Goldens currently competing in some kind of field venue or actively hunting had a measurable different COI than all Goldens currently competing actively in conformation.

I think generalizing like this tells us more about human psychology than it does about canine health.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I tried not the generalize, and that is why I chose to say "field bred", and not "field dogs". I'm talking dogs with mainly field and hunt titles in the pedigree, and not conformation. I would not consider a pedigree with a blend of hunt, field, and conformation titles a "field bred dog". I am not talking about any dog that fits the stereotype of field BRED (meaning dependent on conscientious breeding and not looks). I have looked at a lot of pedigrees in search of my next pup, and that is what I see more often than not. I'm not saying conformation dogs can't have a low COI. 

I participate in the venue with my own dog, and would never consider her field bred. There is no mistaking the intentions behind her breeding. I would not even call her a field dog. Her pedigree says conformation, through and through. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Also, I am not implying that COI has anything to do with longevity. I am NOT saying field bred dogs live longer than show bred. I had never even heard that before. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Vhuynh2 said:


> Isn't it true that *in general*, field bred dogs have a lower COI?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


 
Nope - Line breeding is just as common among the field breeders as it is the conformation folks. I have seen field dogs with a 26% coi down to under 2%. 


One thing to note is that the majority of the successful field dogs today have a very common ancestry. Barty, Razz, and Red Devil are all over the top 5 contributors to the genetics of many, if not most, field dogs. All three have been dead for 25+ years! 


More than once I have heard another breeder state that Razz or Red Devil lines have cancer in them. However, the logic is flawed IMO. When an individual dog has cancer you look backward at the pedigree and see these ancestors. What is not looked at are the dogs that don't develop cancer that have the same or similar ancestors.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

I do hope they look at COI in the Morris Animal Foundation GR study. There are so many potential covariates in the cancer equation, and that study is collecting a lot of information on diet, lifestyle, veterinary care, etc. I'm a social science researcher, but I'd sure love to geek out with all of that data. I know that little is known about the inheritance mechanisms of cancer, or whether things in the environment create the perfect storm for gene expression.


----------



## beemerdog (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm sorry, but what is COI? I've never seen that abbreviation before.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

It's the Coefficient of Inbreeding. If you go to k9data.com and find a dog by registered name (if the dog is in the database), click on 'genetic information' at the bottom and it will show you COI. 

See:

Inbreeding

Also:

Australian Shepherd Health & Genetics Institute, Inc.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I tried not the generalize, and that is why I chose to say "field bred", and not "field dogs". I'm talking dogs with mainly field and hunt titles in the pedigree, and not conformation. I would not consider a pedigree with a blend of hunt, field, and conformation titles a "field bred dog". I am not talking about any dog that fits the stereotype of field BRED (meaning dependent on conscientious breeding and not looks). I have looked at a lot of pedigrees in search of my next pup, and that is what I see more often than not. I'm not saying conformation dogs can't have a low COI.
> 
> I participate in the venue with my own dog, and would never consider her field bred. There is no mistaking the intentions behind her breeding. I would not even call her a field dog. Her pedigree says conformation, through and through.


Oh hey - I feel like I came off as combative, which wasn't my intent at all, so sorry! I just wanted to point out that "field bred" is probably too ill-defined a category to make any statistically significant claims about, like COI trends or cancer rates. Trying to organize the breed by each breeder's purpose with a litter seems to be impossible.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Oh hey - I feel like I came off as combative, which wasn't my intent at all, so sorry! I just wanted to point out that "field bred" is probably too ill-defined a category to make any statistically significant claims about, like COI trends or cancer rates. Trying to organize the breed by each breeder's purpose with a litter seems to be impossible.


Thanks. It was an honest question based on what I had seen while looking at pedigrees of all kinds. I was not trying to argue either way.

Unfortunately, cancer is a golden thing, not a field vs show thing.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> Nope - Line breeding is just as common among the field breeders as it is the conformation folks. I have seen field dogs with a 26% coi down to under 2%.
> 
> 
> One thing to note is that the majority of the successful field dogs today have a very common ancestry. Barty, Razz, and Red Devil are all over the top 5 contributors to the genetics of many, if not most, field dogs. All three have been dead for 25+ years!
> ...


Thanks. It was just an observation I had made looking at pedigrees. I have seen line breeding in field bred goldens, but I guess not as often as in show pedigrees. I also want to make it clear that I don't think high COI is a bad thing. I know a lot of it probably depends on the contributing ancestors, so I am not trying to put down any style golden. Just an honest question.

Longevity is really important to me as a puppy buyer, and COI is the LAST thing I look at, and not in consideration of longevity. I look at the longevity of the dogs behind the parents, and even then, you never really know.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Isn't the COI importance related to the health of the dogs you are talking about? COI takes into account the common ancestors. Say you breed two totally unrelated dogs, the COI will be low. But if both parents died from cancer at a young age, then is the low COI really a good thing?


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Sally's Mom said:


> Isn't the COI importance related to the health of the dogs you are talking about? COI takes into account the common ancestors. Say you breed two totally unrelated dogs, the COI will be low. But if both parents died from cancer at a young age, then is the low COI really a good thing?


I think that would depend. I don't think they are very many hard and fast laws that always hold. I would say _in general_ Goldens with low COI's are healthier, but that is not always the case.

Here is an interesting article that somewhat addresses what you are asking. 
Commentpalooza part 2: Inbreeding dogs (redux) and a whole bunch of bolding. | Ruffly Speaking


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Eowyn said:


> I think that would depend. I don't think they are very many hard and fast laws that always hold. I would say _in general_ Goldens with low COI's are healthier, but that is not always the case.
> 
> Here is an interesting article that somewhat addresses what you are asking.
> Commentpalooza part 2: Inbreeding dogs (redux) and a whole bunch of bolding. | Ruffly Speaking


I just do not think you can make broad statements about the health of dogs with low COI's. And what is considered to be a low COI? One of my mentors liked to keep it at 9% or lower. I see many conformation show pedigrees in NE with 25% to 30% COI's... I would be looking at the health of the dogs that are high in the percentages in the COI.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I grew up with Tigathoe goldens, and they really were longlived dogs. Even my Quar grandson who I took to college and into my twenties and thirties lived to be nearly 16. I remember thinking of a 9 year old golden as a middle aged dog in the prime of life. Now I feel lucky if I get one to 12. 

A few years ago, I went looking for a golden to buy with the lowest COI I could find, bc I couldnt bear to lose another one young: Pedigree: Topbrass Everlore Talk of the Town TT, CGC.
Tango's COI is 0.08. Ironically she has severe bilateral elbow dysplasia, and I am not sure if her mom is still living, so I kind of gave up on using a low COI in and of itself as a health clue. I am still hoping she lives to be a very old lady though. Both of her parents are MH, but one stems from field lines and one from show lines. 

That was mainly before AFC Holway Barty OS FDHF in the field dogs and Am./Can./Bda. CH. Cummings' Gold-Rush Charlie OS, Am./Can. SDHF along with about ten others became kind of an accidental genetic bottleneck of sorts back in the 70/80's era. This doesn't show up as much on k9data pedigrees, but if you see a 30 generation pedigree, it is amazing how many of the same dogs can be repeated.

I do not know if that has anything to do with the cancer rates, but I definitely have the illusion that field goldens lived longer back in the day even if it is not factually true.


----------

