# The Importance of Low Coefficient Of Inbreeding (COI) in Puppies



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

A study of all of the thousands of golden retrievers in k9data.com included a graph of lifespan vs COI. A typical inbred dog with a 15% COI has historically been living on average one year less than a golden with zero % COI. A highly inbred dog has been living two years less on average than a zero% COI dog. This is real hard data. It is not someone’s feeling.
I’ve heard that there are some breeders who are telling puppy buyers that COI is not important. If the puppy buyer does not care about winning dog shows, it is very wrong for the dog breeder to say that COI does not matter.
One to two years of additional life expectancy for a zero COI pup should be considered second only to only buying pups from parents with good hip x-rays.
I know that some other breeders have not been exposed to the facts of this study yet. I am inviting anyone who disagrees with the above statements to respond.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

um welcome to the forum. So the "study" only looked at k9data which is dependent on voluntary input from individuals? There is no mandatory entry for date of death & just as important cause, could there not be some great holes in this "scientific discovery"?

Breeding decisions can't be solely based on COI and clearances (not just hips, but elbows, eyes & heart as well) but there is the hallmark temperament and meeting breed standard that must also be considered of which won't translate so readily to a graph. Is this you: http://www.autumngoldenretrievers.com/Home_Page.html? If so, both girls you're actively breeding were bred prior to two years & thus didn't have complete clearances prior to being bred. So it seems that your beliefs may not align with your practices.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

That's Charles Jones' data. www.undeniablegoldens.com.
Charles is the bomb- but he'll tell you himself that his info is not complete.


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

Could you provide a little more information about the study, who did it, when, using what methodology? Was it just a plot of COI and age at death for all dogs in k9data where both factors were known? For myself, I think this is useful information, given the size of the population, even if it doesn't represent data on all Goldens. I do agree that there are many other factors to consider in breeding decisions.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Okay, I'll bite. Where is the study accessible from?What where the perameters of the study? What was their a control group? As listed above, what was done for the thousands of dogs that list no date of death?

On a deeper note, there are no purebred Golden Rterivers anywhere that truly have a COI of Zero. By the virtue of being a breed, they all are inbreed. They can be have a zero or low number list if you choose to calculate COI for a certain number of generations such as 10 or 12 like K9data. I would be curious to see how many of the zero or low COIs in the 10th or 12th generation would jump substantially if they were calculated to the 15th or 20th. We have some very prolific sires falling off the 10 and 12 generation COIs. Just because we don't 'see' them anymore does not undo the impact of thier influence.

Just like any other piece of the puzzle, COI is a very important part of making good breeding decisions. It is definitely something I believe we need to weigh carefully. Genetic diversity is critical. I have hope that most breeders are doing better than some of the very tight breeding that happened in the past. Personally, the 15% you listed is close to the tops of what I would be comfortable with.

By the way, not statistic but personal experiance, my puppy with the lowest COI showed up with an eye issue that caused an end to my dreams for her. Will she live longer because of that low COI? Maybe, but the low COI did not prevent this hereditary issue.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

Prism Goldens said:


> That's Charles Jones' data. www.undeniablegoldens.com.
> Charles is the bomb- but he'll tell you himself that his info is not complete.


Thanks for providing the source.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

William Coleman said:


> One to two years of additional life expectancy for a zero COI pup should be considered second only to only buying pups from parents with good hip x-rays.
> I know that some other breeders have not been exposed to the facts of this study yet. I am inviting anyone who disagrees with the above statements to respond.


I have two issues with this. 

1. What do you mean by parents with good hip x-rays? Fair and excellent are also both acceptable ratings. 

2. A COI of 6.25 statistically should affect lifespan by no more than 6 months*, and at that point the benefits *can* outweigh the risks. I don't think it necessarily has to be zero. To get a COI (assuming we are talking 10 generation COI) is extremely difficult, and you would have to sacrifice virtually every other breeding factor in order to get it every breeding. 

*In past discussions with Rhonda Hovan she has mentioned that you can estimate every point of COI equalling 3 weeks lifespan _on average_, but I don't know what study she is getting that from. I am also thinking of a poodle study that I think lines up with that math (however I don't have the link to it at the moment, and don't have time to look for it now. I can find it tomorrow if you want it though.).


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Concerning K9data, all of the litters that I have I have taken a close look at during the past year had links to their litter pedigree using k9data. K9data calculates COI of any proposed litter being considered. Someone might correctly argue that more needs to be considered than COI, but no responsible breeder wil ignore the COI of a proposed litter. Thank God for k9data because informed decision making was impossible when all we had was paper AKC pedigrees of few generations.

Concerning the chart. The data was put into the database without people expecting a study. There was no bias. There was nothing to make people enter data differently based on their dog being low or high COI. The thousands of dogs means that they could collect data for the next couple thousand dogs and repeat the results. That is what matters. 

This study has been slow to get out. Part of the problem is that many breeders dream of producing a litter with show champions in it. The best way to do this is to breed to a show champion and produce a high COI litter. The pups in that litter that do not get the looks to be champions are then sold as pets. If buyers understood that low COI pups are healthiest, who would buy these "pet quality" pups with high COI?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Phoenix LOVES Charles. Nothing to do with the topic of COI, just wanted to share :


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Eowyn,
On the chart, it roughly looks like 15% of COI costs a year or 52 weeks of lifespan. That is close to the 45 weeks that would result from the "3 weeks per point"


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

This is interesting. My only concern is that the study is based off of k9data's COI which is only calculated through 10 and 12 generations, as Ljack mentioned above. I have found that when you run a COI for 19 generations (which is what I pay someone to do) the numbers are often vastly different. 

William, can you address this?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

William Coleman said:


> A study of all of the thousands of golden retrievers in k9data.com included a graph of lifespan vs COI. A typical inbred dog with a 15% COI has historically been living on average one year less than a golden with zero % COI. A highly inbred dog has been living two years less on average than a zero% COI dog. This is real hard data. It is not someone’s feeling.
> I’ve heard that there are some breeders who are telling puppy buyers that COI is not important. If the puppy buyer does not care about winning dog shows, it is very wrong for the dog breeder to say that COI does not matter.
> One to two years of additional life expectancy for a zero COI pup should be considered second only to only buying pups from parents with good hip x-rays.
> I know that some other breeders have not been exposed to the facts of this study yet. I am inviting anyone who disagrees with the above statements to respond.


There are other things to consider- like the predictability of the resulting puppies. Here my girl Tango- Topbrass Everlore Talk Of The Town has an extremely low COI. However, she has bilateral grade 3 elbow dysplasia- crippling and unpredictable in her pedigree that looks so good. Others ended up having ED too. The total outcross has a roulette aspect. I prefer a light linebreeding on a longlived dog who is healthy. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=283623. My lowest COI dog is my least healthy.

10-generation COI	0.08%
12-generation COI	0.25%
CH Little Joe Of Tigathoe *** OS	0.03%
Eng. FT. CH. Holway Westhyde Zeus	0.03%
Golden Pine's Tiny Tim OS	0.01%
Am. CH. Rockgold Chug's Ric O'Shay OS	0.01%
Am. CH. Tansy of High Farms Canada *** WC OD


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Here are some interesting articles- I did not find them myself, I confess, Charles (the man who did the chart so inspiring to some ) sent them to me. 

Here are a few articles on the web
http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html



http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570144.html


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Prism Goldens said:


> Here are some interesting articles- I did not find them myself, I confess, Charles (the man who did the chart so inspiring to some ) sent them to me.
> 
> Here are a few articles on the web
> http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html
> ...


Thank you! The first one was the poodle study I was referring to that I was going to pull up today.

ETA: It does not appear the middle link (the net pets one) is working though...


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

sorry folks!


----------



## TheZ's (Jun 13, 2011)

I found it interesting to take a look at Charles Jones' info referred to above. It appears at _LongevityInfluences _The data plots are interesting and the text notes:

*"Results: in comparing 2 groups of Goldens (i.e., one with shorter life spans and one with longer lifespans) the longer lived Goldens had, **on average**, longer lived parents and lower COI.*"

Using regression analysis on the data he notes:

*"Both least square fits agree with our preconceptions. *That is, Goldens with longer lifespans tended to have lower COI and longer parental lifespans. *However, there is a lot of scatter and the statistical support for either idea is not strong, at least, presented in this manner."*


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

The other thing to consider is it isn't just that we are breeding for looks dogs to be conformation champions, but we are also taking soundness into mind when so called "breed for looks". I see many, many byb bred goldens that do not have sound conformation and end up having many health problems that could have been easily prevented as a result of good breeding. Yes, we take looks into consideration (although it isn't the only thing we take into consideration by any stretch of the imagination) but a huge part of that is for the *health* of the dogs we breed. So sometimes we do breed litters with a higher COI that _*may*_ decrease lifespan by a small amount but *will* increase the quality of life. Personally I would rather have a dog that lived 12 healthy, active years, than a dog that lived 14 years in pain because someone didn't take soundness (looks if you want to call it that) into account for their breeding decisions.

As someone who has to watch my golden suffer and constantly has to try to manage pain for my golden (whose breeder knew nothing for sound structure in their breeding dogs) I can tell you I care very little for her zero COI! Even if she would have lived longer do to her COI I am still going to probably end up putting her to sleep much earlier when the pain she is in gets to be unmanageable. So did it really matter that she had a low COI? Ok, so she might have lived longer, but only in horrible pain. I'm telling you that's hard! I hate watching her in pain. I hate watching her limp across the yard after running a few feet. I hate watching her have to miss her favorite activities (walks, runs) because she can't move without pain. But that is unfortunately too often the case when people think breeding is just about a low number. I'm not blaming her low COI*, I am all for breeders taking COI into consideration. But it isn't the only breeding concern, and it isn't an easy solve everything solution. 

*I am blaming breeders who forgo (either intentionally or by lack of knowledge) taking things like soundness into strong breeding consideration.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Eowyn said:


> I'm not blaming her low COI*, I am all for breeders taking COI into consideration. But it isn't the only breeding concern, and it isn't an easy solve everything solution.
> 
> *I am blaming breeders who forgo (either intentionally or by lack of knowledge) taking things like soundness into strong breeding consideration.


 Anytime a breeder focusses on ONE THING- such as color, or COI, or whatever... they miss the boat on the big picture. A good breeder must, must, must consider every thing they have at their disposal including scuttlebutt(and that's one thing one misses when they don't compete- a person in the dog show world does hear rumors- and there's usually some basis in truth whether the story is in it's entirety true or not). You have to consider all the info you can gather to do a decent job of breeding. You cannot look at just color- or just COI- and not, for instance, know about a dog's elbows and his eyes and still produce healthy and long lived puppies. It may happen now and again, but that's not a method I'd take to the bank myself.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Prism wrote:

"_Not to be picky, but if you are Autumngoldenretrievers.com as SheetsSM asked earlier, you have the graph on your site, which might make some think you created it- since you did not credit to the source.... permission to use the materials created by and found on undeniablegoldens.com should be acquired and credited imo. JMO._

prism, that is a complete lie! When I made that page, I put the link to the Undeniablegoldens page where it came from just above the graph. They have rearreanged their site so the graph is now on a different page, but the link still takes you to their site.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Prism Goldens said:


> Anytime a breeder focusses on ONE THING- such as color, or COI, or whatever... they miss the boat on the big picture. A good breeder must, must, must consider every thing they have at their disposal including scuttlebutt(and that's one thing one misses when they don't compete- a person in the dog show world does hear rumors- and there's usually some basis in truth whether the story is in it's entirety true or not). You have to consider all the info you can gather to do a decent job of breeding. You cannot look at just color- or just COI- and not, for instance, know about a dog's elbows and his eyes and still produce healthy and long lived puppies. It may happen now and again, but that's not a method I'd take to the bank myself.


This is such a good point, particularly when a litter currently advertised on the OP's website was sired by a dog who was approximately 10 months old at the time of breeding....


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

William Coleman said:


> Prism wrote:
> 
> "_Not to be picky, but if you are Autumngoldenretrievers.com as SheetsSM asked earlier, you have the graph on your site, which might make some think you created it- since you did not credit to the source.... permission to use the materials created by and found on undeniablegoldens.com should be acquired and credited imo. JMO._
> 
> prism, that is a complete lie! When I made that page, I put the link to the Undeniablegoldens page where it came from just above the graph. They have rearreanged their site so the graph is now on a different page, but the link still takes you to their site.


I'm sorry- you are correct, I missed it in the text. I will delete the post.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Goldenjackpuppy wrote:

_This is interesting. My only concern is that the study is based off of k9data's COI which is only calculated through 10 and 12 generations, as Ljack mentioned above. I have found that when you run a COI for 19 generations (which is what I pay someone to do) the numbers are often vastly different. _

As an engineer, I focus on finding in the data something that can be used to solve problems. This 10 generation graph is something that can be and should be used to plan any future litters. 

Concerning going to 19 generations, they may not have the data in the site to support that. I know that some people have needed to buy pedigrees to have the data to enter just to get to 12 generations. It might be a future consideration though.

If I reworded your idea, I would ask if increasing the number of generations would provide an improvement in the usefulness of the resulting graph. We do not know if increasing the number of generations gives a more useful graph. If anyone is friends with the folks at undeniablegoldens, maybe someone can talk them into putting out a 12 generation chart. The COI numbers on the x axis would not be our concern. The question would be whether the curve fit shows a greater usefulness for predicting lifespan. If a 12 generation chart has a greater difference between lifespans at the high and low COI ends, then it is more useful. If 12 is better than 10 generations, then it is up to the people doing the work, to decide if they have enough data to look furthur.

For now we have a 10 generation tool that works. 

This is hard data. There will always be some people that see a trend with one or two dogs that do not turn out as expected. That will always happen when you are dealing with biology. It is not a trend that should be used for setting policy until it has a significant amount of data supporting it. How many people say their dog is healthy and his parents had no health certifications?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Well..... as an attorney I look for the viability of the data supporting arguments that are stated to be true. And if it is extremely easy to poke holes in the factual allegations supporting an argument, I question the viability of an argument as a whole. 

Ironically, I actually don't disagree with the premise that a lower COI generally is probably better, however, I question focusing on COI more than - oh, I don't know - doing health clearances on breeding stock or breeding dogs that are not even yet 1 year of age. It seems that doing either of these things (i.e. breeding a dog under the age of 1 or not waiting to breed before doing final health clearances) is the breeding equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, potentially resulting in (theoretically) long lived but unsound/unhealthy dogs. The risks to those practices are more than I can bear, especially with breeding a 10 month old dog. How does one justify that?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Well I'm not a big fan of high COI's but people need to realize there is no such thing as a COI of Zero in any domesticated dog, let alone a Purebred dog. So in that respect the chart is a little misleading for those who are just learning about this particular concept for the first time. Don't run out and try to find a purebred puppy with a COI of Zero because there is no such thing.

The idea to take away from the chart is that dogs with lower COI's statistically live longer than those with higher COI's. A low COI however is no guarantee that a specific individual is going to live longer than another specific individual that has a higher COI.

Producing litters with low COI's has it's own set of pitfalls to contend with as well, the largest being a lack of uniformity within a litter. 

People seeking a purebred dog do so because they want to be able to predict how that puppy they're bringing home will turn out when it's fully grown. They want to know that their dog is going to fit within a certain predictable range of size, shape, and temperament. When the COI gets too low, that desirable "predictability" goes out the window. 

So breeders have to find balance. They need COI's high enough to maintain uniformity from pup to pup and low enough to not create problems related to inbreeding depression. To complicate matters further all bloodlines are not the same. Some need higher COI's to maintain uniformity. Others will start to express inbreeding problems at lower COI's. They're not all the same, and one size definitely does not fit all.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

COI discussion is out of my league, but I've always found interesting how low Bella's is. Her breeders obviously do it intentionally for whatever reason. I have no idea whether it means Bella will live longer, etc., but I wondered about it, and have never asked. 

10-generation COI	1.71%
12-generation COI	3.26%
Pedigree: Grasslands Liberty Belle CD BN PCD CGC UCD


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

IS Suzanne your breeder?


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Prism Goldens said:


> IS Suzanne your breeder?


Yes. 

Edit: have to add this to make message long enough for the system to accept.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

swamp wrote:
"_ So in that respect the chart is a little misleading for those who are just learning about this particular concept for the first time. Don't run out and try to find a purebred puppy with a COI of Zero because there is no such thing"_

That's nonsense, try:
Genetic information for Test31723 Bingo X Daisy

The number to the left of the decimal point is zero. When the number to the right of the decimal is a 5 or bigger, you round up. If it is a 4 or lower, you round down. What is the number to the right of the decimal? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "z".


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

Here's another link with the same basic information but more charts and broken down by disease. https://www.dogenes.com/poodle/lifespan.html

The most prominent COI study that I know of was the Poodle Longevity Study by John Armstrong. It does show a significant correlation between high COIs leading to earlier deaths...and I personally do think that there's a strong correlation. Just by looking at pedigrees in k9data (all voluntary info but the best we have), you can see that as a general rule, the higher goldens with higher COIs (some in the 22-25 range) seem to die earlier than those under 6.25%. That said, the linebreeding and higher COIs are used to try to cement more desirable traits as well. It's a balancing act.

Here's a quote from What is COI that explains it as well: "Lower COI values are considered "safer" and less likely to exhibit inherited disorders. However, when the problem gene is widespread in a breed, a dog with a low COI may be just as likely to have the disorder as one with a high COI. It is important to know as much as possible about the dogs in the pedigree, regardless of their COI."

As we know, golden retrievers do have inherited issues (cancers like hemangiosarcoma and lymphoma kill 60% of goldens) and back in the 70s a HUGE number of goldens were bred to Misty Morn's Sunset and the popular sire Gold-Rush's Great Teddy Bear (think this one is right but I may be off). It's my understanding that both of these dogs died of cancer and now a tremendous percentage of today's goldens can be traced back to these two. The book Pukka's Promise gets to be a little much but the first 100 or so pages are fascinating and really dig into the issues with certain breeding practices, how it's done in the US and perhaps why we have some of the issues we have today. I found it particularly interesting because they discussed cancer in goldens.


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

William Coleman said:


> swamp wrote:
> "_ So in that respect the chart is a little misleading for those who are just learning about this particular concept for the first time. Don't run out and try to find a purebred puppy with a COI of Zero because there is no such thing"_
> 
> That's nonsense, try:
> ...


And my point is proven -here you've taken a "0" COI and one of the biggest contributors is Misty Morn's Sunset so does the "0" COI really eliminate those inherited cancer risks??


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

It isn't nonsense it's a mathematical fact. Your example clearly indicates the COI isn't Zero.

Zero is not possible with any domesticated dog if you're being mathematically accurate. 0.00000000000000000000000000000012345 is still greater than Zero. That's not an estimate, that's a mathematical truth.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

swamp wrote:
_"Producing litters with low COI's has it's own set of pitfalls to contend with as well, the largest being a lack of uniformity within a litter."_ 

That is such manure. I doubt you even know anyone who produced a low COI litter since very few do.

You do not understand genetics at all. 

Here is an example that might help you understand the genetics. Anyone who has planted sweet corn in their garden, planted seeds that were called hybrid. The seeds in the packet are the offspring of two different sweet corn lines. Both parent plants were sweet corn but they were unrelated to each other. The plants that come from that packet are ZERO COI. The parent plants have completely different lines. Those seeds grow up to be stronger than either parent plant and they are completely uniform. You will not get zero COI if you try to keep your own seeds and you will not have uniformity either.

Uniformity is excellent with zero COI goldens. I pair a field male with a show female to accomplish this.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Christen113 said:


> And my point is proven -here you've taken a "0" COI and one of the biggest contributors is Misty Morn's Sunset so does the "0" COI really eliminate those inherited cancer risks??


Maybe not, but statistically they will still live longer. I don't agree with the op on every part, but at the end of the day dogs with lower COI's do tend to live longer. 

I would love to know of any breeders that keep track of each and every litter COI and then average out how it affects lifespan. It's something I will do if I ever end up breeding.


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

Eowyn said:


> Maybe not, but statistically they will still live longer. I don't agree with the op on every part, but at the end of the day dogs with lower COI's do tend to live longer.
> 
> I would love to know of any breeders that keep track of each and every litter COI and then average out how it affects lifespan. It's something I will do if I ever end up breeding.


I fully agree about lower COIs generally leading to longer lives and higher ones generally shortening the lives...but there's still an inherited risk factor in goldens, regardless of the COI. That said, I'm convinced that one of the reasons by childhood golden from an accidental breeding lived to 15 and our BYB golden from childhood lived to 14.5 and my golden from "show lines" passed away at 9.5. I personally looked at all of the COIs in pedigrees when picking out my puppy and chose to go with a litter that was comprised of mostly low COI goldens since I did see links to longevity...that said, COI isn't the only factor and there are legitimate reasons for higher COIs as well. 

I just thought it was incredibly interesting that on a so called "0" COI litter, that one of the primary contributors was one of the dogs that is attributed to so much cancer in goldens.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

William Coleman said:


> swamp wrote:
> _"Producing litters with low COI's has it's own set of pitfalls to contend with as well, the largest being a lack of uniformity within a litter."_
> 
> That is such manure. I doubt you even know anyone who produced a low COI litter since very few do.
> ...


So from your perspective you are not breeding a golden retriever to a golden retriever? And from your perspective all goldens do not go back to the same dogs? Do you have data to support this? Or is it based on calculating a 10 or 12 generation COI versus a more extensive COI towards 19 generations (as has been mentioned several times in here). I suspect it's the latter. I would be curious to see your COIs if you spent the money and time to calculate a 19 generation COI....

And can I just note that you have failed to address, despite my bringing it up several times, the breeding of a 10 month old dog???


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

To illustrate my point about the vast difference in a COI depending on how many generations are calculated, I have a test breeding where the COI is as follows:

10 gen - 3.20%
12 gen - 5.22%
15 gen - 5.3806%
19 gen - 7.3571%

Just in this example, you will note that the COI increased by over 4% from the 10 generation to 19 generation. This means that there is something happening in these COI calculations, as originally mentioned by LJack, where some popular dogs are falling off the radar. For this reason, in my opinion, stating that any COI as "0%" based on k9data's calculations is just not factually accurate. One is intentionally ignoring a hole in the data by relying on those 10 gen and 12 gen calculations.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I was going to stay out of this, but my fingers started typing of their own accord with no input from my brain.
As I've said before on the COI threads that seem to crop up every now and then, it's not as simple as the hard COI number. That doesn't take into account how much of the COI individual dogs make up.
For example, a dog has a 10 generation COI of 14.48%. But if you look at the breakdown, there are 5 dogs who account as follows:
Dog #1	3.76%
Dog #2	1.99%
Dog #3	1.58%
Dog #4	1.25%
Dog #5	0.85%
Then you have another dog who has a COI of 15%, but 1 dog accounts for almost the entire 15%. (for example, if you breed half siblings the COI is 12.5%, assuming the parents were completely unrelated).
This is a totally different scenario than the dog what has multiple dogs accounting for the higher COI.
It's just not that easy as looking at a number and saying yay or nay.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Christen113 said:


> I just thought it was incredibly interesting that on a so called "0" COI litter, that one of the primary contributors was one of the dogs that is attributed to so much cancer in goldens.



REALLY!!! Please show the scientific evidence of this.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

William Coleman said:


> Uniformity is excellent with zero COI goldens. I pair a field male with a show female to accomplish this.



Please show me the zero COI you have accomplished. And please do not tell me it is your latest litter Bingo/Daisy as it is not zero. 
Zero is 0.00000000 
As already pointed put to attain a zero COI you need to go out side the breed and breed a mongrel such as a Goldendoodle. And we ALL know how healthy they are. :doh:


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> To illustrate my point about the vast difference in a COI depending on how many generations are calculated, I have a test breeding where the COI is as follows:
> 
> 10 gen - 3.20%
> 12 gen - 5.22%
> ...


 And this is why a 10 or 12 gen COI is only accurate for that depth. The further back you go, it generally increases. There are no purebred Goldens with 0 COIs. Linda Bell has a database that can run them to 20 gens on many dogs, it is an expensive proposition to pay to have them run of course. But if one is going to tout COI as a basis for breeding choices- more weight on COI than all the many other things we should be looking at, then one should invest in her services.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Prism Goldens said:


> And this is why a 10 or 12 gen COI is only accurate for that depth. The further back you go, it generally increases. There are no purebred Goldens with 0 COIs. Linda Bell has a database that can run them to 20 gens on many dogs, it is an expensive proposition to pay to have them run of course. But if one is going to tout COI as a basis for breeding choices- more weight on COI than all the many other things we should be looking at, then one should invest in her services.


I agree, you would think one who is really concerned about low COIs would be happy to pay to have more information rather than less.  (And I use Linda as well )


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

AmbikaGR said:


> REALLY!!! Please show the scientific evidence of this.


Genetic information for Test31723 Bingo X Daisy


This is the link he posted. Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF is listed as contributing .02% to the COI. As far as the science linking the cancer to those two dogs, I'm sure there's no study showing causation, just a lot of correlation. I'd encourage you to read the first 100 pages or so of Pukka's Promise. It cites the research at the back of the book


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

The other thing that people seem to be skipping over in this discussion is that COI is an expected AVERAGE of the genetic cross-over. So if a dog has a COI of, say, 12.5% according to the statistical analysis, there is a 12.5% chance that any allele will contain the exact same gene as a direct result of having common ancestors. However, in the individual dog, it could be much much higher, or much much lower. Short of doing a minute examination of that particular dog's DNA, which isn't possible as of yet, there's no way of knowing.
Again, it's not as simple as just looking at a number and saying yay or nay.

eta---if you doubt or dispute this, go to a casino and play roulette. The "red" should come up equally with the "black". Statistically. But in real life, it doesn't always. In fact, it rarely does!


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Christen113 said:


> Genetic information for Test31723 Bingo X Daisy
> 
> 
> This is the link he posted. Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF is listed as contributing .02% to the COI. As far as the science linking the cancer to those two dogs, I'm sure there's no study showing causation, just a lot of correlation. I'd encourage you to read the first 100 pages or so of Pukka's Promise. It cites the research at the back of the book



It is called speculation at best and not correlation. 
As for Karasote's book he goes into MUCH MUCH more than COI for a healthy long lived dog.


----------



## Christen113 (Dec 3, 2014)

AmbikaGR said:


> It is called speculation at best and not correlation.
> As for Karasote's book he goes into MUCH MUCH more than COI for a healthy long lived dog.


He does go into much, much more, some of which I believed to be too much for me to ever do. As for calling it speculation, I'm not going to disagree with you. I just thought it was interesting, especially in a litter with such a low COI.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

The other HUGE issue with the study cited by the OP is that it used only about 18,000 out of over 375,000 dogs from K9data. the other issue is you need to understand that K9data is not a good representation of the overall Golden Retriever breed. Basically it only contains dogs from those involved in the fancy. there are a minimum of 25,000 Goldens registered with the AKC every year. There is likely 5 times or more whelped every year. The dogs used in this "study" are a very select group and not at all a good overall representation. JMHO


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> So from your perspective you are not breeding a golden retriever to a golden retriever? And from your perspective all goldens do not go back to the same dogs? Do you have data to support this? Or is it based on calculating a 10 or 12 generation COI versus a more extensive COI towards 19 generations (as has been mentioned several times in here). I suspect it's the latter. I would be curious to see your COIs if you spent the money and time to calculate a 19 generation COI....
> 
> And can I just note that you have failed to address, despite my bringing it up several times, the breeding of a 10 month old dog???


I would also like to see the rationale re: the breeding of a 10 month old dog! I don't pretend to fully understand the issue of COI but as others have mentioned, it's just ONE variable in breeding decisions. Appropriate clearances is another consideration. Temperament, Conformation are additional variables to consider.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

A statistical trend is not a rule. Not all COIs of a given value are created equal. If you have a puppy with a very high 21% COI, but the dogs most influential in the genetic makeup are extremely genetically sound, hardy and long-lived, that puppy will likely buck the overall trend and live longer. It may very well be quite hardy and live to a very old age despite the high COI. Likewise, a dog with a very low 0.04% COI, but with very weak and unsound dogs behind it (perhaps with hidden cancer genes or just general lack of vitality), will also likely buck the trend and die younger. A COI is limited information and, alone, should not be used to make breeding decisions. It really depends on the particular dogs.

You know what they say: Lies, darned lies and statistics.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

OK, I can see that most here are determined to convince people that there is no problem with High COI litters, even though the chart is proof of a two year variation of life expectancy depending on 10 generation COI. 

Some posters thought that personal attacks against my breeding practices were a good substitute for finding something wrong with the facts of the study. The best time to breed a female golden retriever first is on her second season. I bred my two current breeding age females when they had OFA Preliminary Excellent hips on their second seasons. They were later evaluated to both be OFA Good for hips. One poster thought this was enough to prove the study wrong about COI affecting lifespan. When people do personal attacks, it shows they cannot find fault with the study.

Other posters have a problem with my claim to have a zero COI litter on the way. The true 10 generation COI is 0.06% while many show goldens are 15.00%. Science and engineering, discussion in whole numbers involves rounding to the closest whole number. When you file your taxes, your math rounds decimals to the closest whole number. Some posters here think they have defeated the COI study because I called my litter's COI of 0.06% a "zero" instead of "1". The truth of the study will stand whether or not these posters ever learn how to round numbers.

Some posters would like to confuse the reader about the number of generations used in the COI calculation. The 10 generation COI is the standard used for comparison. The calculated number will get bigger each time a generation is added. This is a well known fact and some posters would like to confuse the discussion by discussing it here as if it is new info. We can ignore the noise because we know the 10 generation COI affects lifespan as shown by the chart.

I don't want to waste my life on this message board, so that's it for now.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

William Coleman said:


> OK, I can see that most here are determined to convince people that there is no problem with High COI litters, even though the chart is proof of a two year variation of life expectancy depending on 10 generation COI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you are referencing isn't a "study." It is a presentation of data taken from a third party. Let's not make this in to more than it is. It may raise an interesting hypothesis to actually be "studied" using sound research practices.... but nothing definitive can be taken from this data alone. How many of the young dogs who died (regardless of COI), did so by causes that were in no way genetic? Were some of those dogs hit by cars? Did some ingest antifreeze? Did some die as a result of contaminated food? There is no way of knowing what you are looking at with the chart you are referencing because none of that information was taken into account. Look at the spread of lifespans at each level of COI: what made the 16 year old with a 20% COI different from the 4 year old with the same? That is what people on the forum are attempting to discuss. 

For what it's worth, pretty much everyone who posted agreed to some extent that there can be a benefit to striving to keep COI low -- their tendency to look beyond that simple idea to the larger picture of practical dog breeding is part of what makes them responsible stewards of this breed. Interesting you joined here simply to post this topic and brag about the low COI of your upcoming litter. Smells of advertising to me. I can only hope that you will choose to let your dogs grow up physically and mentally, and have them tested and cleared in the ways that are currently available (phenotypic and genotypic tests included) before you endeavor to breed again. Claim what you will about the best heat cycle on which to breed -- the GRCA and all of the responsible breeders who make up that organization disagree. Perhaps you could spend some of this research time on figuring out why. 

Julie and the boys

PS - any scientist that rounded to a whole number when the data is accurate to multiple decimal places beyond that would be laughed out of the lab.


----------



## BlazenGR (Jan 12, 2012)

This is the information as of right now in K9data for Goldens:
385532 Golden Retrievers in database.

Average 10-generation Coefficient of Inbreeding is 9.45%.

IF (and this is a huge IF) 10% of the dogs in the database have a DOD, I would be surprised. People just don't enter them. And even if they do, how many of them say things like "hit by car" or "accident" or "died after surgery"?? There is a huge difference between dying of cancer and the my examples above.

I like Charles Jones. He makes you think about the data. But he will be the first to tell you that he is working with a limited data set that has plenty of flaws. The table he shows on his site is *NOT* a study. It is a graphic representation of the information that is available to him.

And BTW, the reason that the database only runs 10 and 12 generation COIs has everything to do with the number of hours (into the second day) it currently takes to calculate that data for every dog in the database. Every time you add a generation to the calculation, it increases the time exponentially. Amy is unwillingly to subject the database to the problems that occur when the COI calculations fail, because it crashes the database.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

William Coleman said:


> OK, I can see that most here are determined to convince people that there is no problem with High COI litters, even though the chart is proof of a two year variation of life expectancy depending on 10 generation COI.
> 
> Some posters thought that personal attacks against my breeding practices were a good substitute for finding something wrong with the facts of the study. The best time to breed a female golden retriever first is on her second season. I bred my two current breeding age females when they had OFA Preliminary Excellent hips on their second seasons. They were later evaluated to both be OFA Good for hips. One poster thought this was enough to prove the study wrong about COI affecting lifespan. When people do personal attacks, it shows they cannot find fault with the study.
> 
> ...


The thing is, everyone here agrees with you that COI is something to watch. While looking at your program, some folks noticed you do not follow the CoE in your own breedings but have taken a graph and built a breeding philosophy from it. It's not a new thing-your idea that you came to discuss- Charles does tons of graphs, and is generous with his interpretation of them. But he'd be the first to tell you he has limited information and it is not black and white. I've discussed this particular graph with him several times. 
It would probably benefit you to study the breed- really study it, don't color your study with what are your (current) early ideas of important things to focus on. Just be a blank slate and see what ends up written there. It may be you COULD realize this idea that the best time to breed is second season is way off, or you COULD realize elbows are more important than you thought, or you COULD realize that finding peer relationships are helpful. When one has no mentors, it is easy for them to imagine they have thought of a new thing to be the most important focus.. when in fact, that same idea has been discussed and turned over and over, and this 'new study' (whose creator would tell you is NOT a study but a graph of limited data only) is not a good point on which to build a breeding program. 

Find a venue to compete in. It'd give you a good big picture, no matter what the venue is. And some peers to talk with. When a person has a breeding program and that's their only involvement in a breed, it is a very flat 2D thing instead of the evolving thing the results of a good breeding program should be. It seems fruitless to argue with you when you came here with an idea we've discussed tons of times and want everyone to agree with your interpretation, instead of what we know. You'd have every good breeder toss out the baby with the bathwater and only breed low COI to the exclusion of so many other equally - or MORE- important things.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Well I'm not a big fan of high COI's but people need to realize there is no such thing as a COI of Zero in any domesticated dog, let alone a Purebred dog. So in that respect the chart is a little misleading for those who are just learning about this particular concept for the first time. Don't run out and try to find a purebred puppy with a COI of Zero because there is no such thing.
> 
> The idea to take away from the chart is that dogs with lower COI's statistically live longer than those with higher COI's. A low COI however is no guarantee that a specific individual is going to live longer than another specific individual that has a higher COI.
> 
> ...


Great comment- completely agree


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I have owned several goldens in the "o.something" COI range with grade 3 elbows in one case and early cancer death in one . However my dog who lived to be 16 with excellent hips, normal elbows, heart and eyes clear has COI of 6.21 and my current teenager also is in the 6's.

My most healthy dog - lived to be just shy of 16 with no health problems
10-generation COI	6.50%
12-generation COI	7.56%
Top 5 ancestors contributing to COI, in order of influence:
Tigathoe's Chickasaw *** OD	1.72%
FC AFC FTCH Bonnie Brooks Elmer OS FDHF	1.68%
Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar OS DDHF FDHF	1.66%
CH Little Joe Of Tigathoe *** OS	0.22%
Am./Can. CH. Speedwell Pluto SDHF OS	0.17%

My teenager right now still hikes and plays: 
10-generation COI	6.87%
12-generation COI	7.29%
Top 5 ancestors contributing to COI, in order of influence:
Eldy's Gold Sea Mist CDX	6.25%
Duke of Weld	0.20%
Eng. CH. Camrose Cabus Christopher	0.16%
Eng. CH. Camrose Tallyrand of Anbria	0.12%
DC AFC Ronakers Novato Cain CD OS DDHF FDHF	0.10%


My only early cancer death ( at age 9) in 15 goldens
10-generation COI	0.69%
12-generation COI	1.03%
Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF	0.22%
Am Can Ch Cloverdale Bunker Hill Seth OS	0.16%
Am./Can./Mex. CH. Cal-Vo's Happy Ambassador Am./Can. CD OS SDHF	0.07%
Am. CH. Ritz of High Farms OS	0.05%
CH Little Joe Of Tigathoe *** OS	0.04%


Devastating elbow dysplasia
10-generation COI	0.08%
12-generation COI	0.25%
CH Little Joe Of Tigathoe *** OS	0.03%
Eng. FT. CH. Holway Westhyde Zeus	0.03%
Golden Pine's Tiny Tim OS	0.01%
Am. CH. Rockgold Chug's Ric O'Shay OS	0.01%
Am. CH. Tansy of High Farms Canada *** WC OD	0.01%






William Coleman said:


> swamp wrote:
> _"Producing litters with low COI's has it's own set of pitfalls to contend with as well, the largest being a lack of uniformity within a litter."_
> 
> That is such manure. I doubt you even know anyone who produced a low COI litter since very few do.
> ...



You have no one to check your work! That means you need to get out in the golden world and do your CCAs, TDIs at the very least. The only standard you set is how long your dogs live, and we dont have data your way is better. That doesnt speak to their temperaments, healthy, sturdy structure, usefulness and trainability, hip, elbow, heart, and eye clearance rate, or adherence to our breed standard.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I can think of 10 ways that the data could be skewed by correlation that would affect whether there's really this 15% longevity bump associated with lowered COI. It's a really interesting piece of information and an intriguing graph, but to act like it ends the discussion? I think that's overselling the quality of that data.

Quick example: what if higher COIs are more common among competition breeders, and entering a dog's full information and honest date of death is more common among those breeders? You'd have a hard skew right there. What if a handful of prolific high COI breeders actually have longevity problems? Skew.

Plus, treating that little red line like it's a hard graph of the difference (i.e., lowering COI gives you up to two years more longevity) is kind of a fundamental misunderstanding of what a simple linear regression is.


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

William Coleman said:


> OK, I can see that most here are determined to convince people that there is no problem with High COI litters, even though the chart is proof of a two year variation of life expectancy depending on 10 generation COI.
> 
> Some posters thought that personal attacks against my breeding practices were a good substitute for finding something wrong with the facts of the study. The best time to breed a female golden retriever first is on her second season. I bred my two current breeding age females when they had OFA Preliminary Excellent hips on their second seasons. They were later evaluated to both be OFA Good for hips. One poster thought this was enough to prove the study wrong about COI affecting lifespan. When people do personal attacks, it shows they cannot find fault with the study.
> 
> ...


My impression is that people here have been quite respectful in their questions and comments while trying to engage in a discussion. I did not see any "personal attacks" but you seem to be interpreting questions about your "breeding practice" as an attack vs. legitimate questions based on the expertise of breeders and others in this forum. The good thing about a forum like this is that potential puppy buyers can become aware of these issues and, hopefully, learn and make good decisions about questions to ask potential breeders. The question about breeding a 10 month old dog would be asked of any breeder on this forum regardless of the COI issues.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

William Coleman said:


> OK, I can see that most here are determined to convince people that there is no problem with High COI litters, even though the chart is proof of a two year variation of life expectancy depending on 10 generation COI.
> 
> Some posters thought that personal attacks against my breeding practices were a good substitute for finding something wrong with the facts of the study. The best time to breed a female golden retriever first is on her second season. I bred my two current breeding age females when they had OFA Preliminary Excellent hips on their second seasons. They were later evaluated to both be OFA Good for hips. One poster thought this was enough to prove the study wrong about COI affecting lifespan. When people do personal attacks, it shows they cannot find fault with the study.
> 
> ...



Oh wait you are THAT William Coleman?? The Engineer??? Why of course you are correct and shame on myself and others to attempt to discuss this with you. All that was need as a reply was of course was 

"You are 100% correct and I take an oath the never breed a litter or purchase a pup with a COI of more than .06. Thank you for all your decades of experience and research in this area."

SO SO SORRY to have wasted your time. I promise to never do so again.


----------



## lhowemt (Jun 28, 2013)

William Coleman said:


> Science and engineering, discussion in whole numbers involves rounding to the closest whole number. When you file your taxes, your math rounds decimals to the closest whole number. .


Ah, what kind of engineer are you? Did you get a degree from an accredited school? Or were you just absent during discussions on the importance of "significant digits" in science? A tax or money conparison is completely meaningless. I doubt you know the basis of the coi analysis to ascertain what the significant digits are, and if you can round down to 0.0, or not.

Signed Laura, B.S. in Chemical Engineering and a P.E. as a Mechanical Engineer


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

I don't have time to answer everyone. One of you wrote:

_*The thing is, everyone here agrees with you that COI is something to watch. While looking at your program, some folks noticed you do not follow the CoE in your own breedings but have taken a graph and built a breeding philosophy from it. It's not a new thing-your idea that you came to discuss- Charles does tons of graphs, and is generous with his interpretation of them. But he'd be the first to tell you he has limited information and it is not black and white. I've discussed this particular graph with him several times. 
It would probably benefit you to study the breed- really study it, don't color your study with what are your (current) early ideas of important things to focus on. Just be a blank slate and see what ends up written there. It may be you COULD realize this idea that the best time to breed is second season is way off, or you COULD realize elbows are more important than you thought, or you COULD realize that finding peer relationships are helpful. When one has no mentors, it is easy for them to imagine they have thought of a new thing to be the most important focus.. when in fact, that same idea has been discussed and turned over and over, and this 'new study' (whose creator would tell you is NOT a study but a graph of limited data only) is not a good point on which to build a breeding program. 

Find a venue to compete in. It'd give you a good big picture, no matter what the venue is. And some peers to talk with. When a person has a breeding program and that's their only involvement in a breed, it is a very flat 2D thing instead of the evolving thing the results of a good breeding program should be. It seems fruitless to argue with you when you came here with an idea we've discussed tons of times and want everyone to agree with your interpretation, instead of what we know. You'd have every good breeder toss out the baby with the bathwater and only breed low COI to the exclusion of so many other equally - or MORE- important things.*_




When I was a child and my grandparents talked about the wonderful hunting breed dogs they had owned, I asked why we did not see those breeds any more. They answered that the breeds became popular and then were “overbred”. I did not understand what the term “overbred” really meant at that time, but I do now.
When I was in 8th grade, I became a junior member of the Salem County Beagle Club. During the next years before college, I did more work to support my dog club than most show dog club members do in a lifetime. We used our own labor to maintain a 25 acre property that could support the maximum number of rabbits for field trials. This is very unlike a dog show club that rents a facility for a show and members might show up to eat cookies and donuts.
At that time, all beagle club members considered it disgusting that show people were producing beagles that were unable to trail a rabbit. Club members were disgusted by the show beagle misfits, but no one was worried about the breed being destroyed. There are enough small time beagle breeders doing what was best that they could not be overcome by the incompetence of the show beagle breeders. Thanks to the large number of hunters who completely ignored show people, a person can still find a beagle puppy today that has the right stuff to become the rabbit dog they are supposed to be.
I’ve owned other breeds besides Golden Retrievers. My Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs and Appenzell Mountain Dogs were awarded ribbons while their leashes were in my hands, not a professional handler. One Greater Swiss was awarded a second place ribbon at the national specialty put on by the breed cub annually. I had top quality dogs. When I sold my last Greater Swiss Mountain Dog for $4000 in the early 1990’s, a club officer told me that was the highest price anyone had ever been paid for a Swissie.
Concerning your comment that I need a mentor, I would welcome the opportunity to learn from those doing hunt tests. However, I would have difficulty placing any value on the words of those who I believe are slowly destroying the breed. I’ve talked with a lot of people that already owned goldens. More than half of them had a dog that did not like swimming or did not like retrieving or both. Consumers like the look of show dogs and are completely unaware that show breeders have bred the performance out of many show dogs.
Some buyers do their research before buying, but the available material does not disclose that show breeders tend to pr
oduce a lot of dogs that are kind, gentle, loving, excellent company that cannot do anything besides those things. Well maybe, also sit and stay, too. For many buyers, that is good enough, but some of them are expecting dogs that have not had the retriever bred out of them. Some of you will argue that your dog does not have this problem, but there are many show dogs out there that are performance misfits. 
If your code of ethics had any real value, it would require owners of litters to disclose when a puppy has a parent that does not like to swim or retrieve. I once asked a show breeder if her show champion stud liked to swim and retrieve. Her answer was that she did not know and that I should bring a ball with me when I came to see him.
There are still some perfect golden retrievers out there. One example would be Hemingway who I show on my website. I reached out to the mainstream genetically diverse gene pool to an individual dog that is what every dog should be. He is the sire of both Daisy and Peach. Show breeders need to do some true outbreeding like I have, but we all know they won’t. They prefer to continue inbreeding and pretend that calling it line breeding will somehow take away the damage of inbreeding. 
When I wrote above that show breeders are slowly destroying the breed, I was thinking of my grandparent’s time where breeds became popular and then were destroyed. I asked myself if the golden retriever situation was more like the beagle situation where show breeders only did some damage that did not affect the entire breed. The golden retriever situation does not seem like the beagle situation because with beagles, there will always be many hunters to keep the true undamaged bloodline going. The problem for golden retrievers is that the show breeders seems to be in control. 
Inbreeding weakens the immune system. A weakened immune system increases the chance of cancer. If show breeders continue to only breed using two show dogs, the inbreeding will continue to get worse. 
I know that inbreeding is present in show goldens from my own experience with golden litters. A pure show golden of mine bred with a show champion to produce pups that did not look very inbred based on pedigrees. Those pups were weaker than expected based on my experience with mainstream goldens that I had about 30 years ago. A year later the same bitch had a stronger litter by Hemingway. The strongest pups that she produced came even later and were zero COI by a field male. I’ve seen inbreeding in other breeds and I know what it looks like, and show goldens have inbreeding.
The solution is to do some real out breeding to worthy individual dogs in the mainstream group of goldens. 
Concerning Bingo, he passed his eye and heart exams and the OFA preliminary rating for hips is Good and elbows is Normal. It could a couple weeks before it is on my site because I have a very full schedule at the moment. A female should not be breed at 10 months because carrying pups would harm her. Bingo is very happy with his life and nothing he is doing is going to stunt his growth. He will not go blind from breeding either.
If you want to talk ethical behavior, what percent of show breeders do not guarantee hips or have a guarantee that will not refund the buyer’s money unless the dog is returned. Most of the show breeder guarantees that I have read would do nothing for a person that has a dog get hip dysplasia and loves his dog enough to get $5000 of surgery.
I try to give everyone a fair deal which exceeds my written guarantee. For example, I had not heard from buyers for 4 years since they bought a pup. Last Spring they contacted me to learn if any other dogs had symptoms like theirs. The answer was no but I asked them to keep in touch. A couple months later they had to put her down after treatments failed and their vet thought it was most likely some virus but could not be certain. I invited them to come down and get another pup. I do what is right and err on the side of being generous. I believe most show dog breeders are as bad as horse traders. There is a lot of talk but no real ethics. I do not need to hear any more noise about ethics unless someone wants to show what their contract covers for hips.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

William Coleman said:


> I do not need to hear any more noise about ethics unless someone wants to show what their contract covers for hips.


Deleted. I need to just be done with this conversation. I was being arrogant and tooting my own horn when I wrote this and that was wrong. I apologize and am bowing out of this conversation.


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

William Coleman said:


> There is a lot of talk but no real ethics. I do not need to hear any more noise about ethics unless someone wants to show what their contract covers for hips.


The contract i received with my dog included a *2 year* guarantee on hips (among other things) with the option to have a 'replacement' puppy and keep the original if I want to. (your guarantee is for 6 months)
You seem to be painting "show breeders" as being all the same (i.e. only breeding for looks). Most breeders i know/have met want to breed all purpose goldens - (i.e. those who live up to the breed standard). Are there some who don't care about swimming, retrieving, etc? probably, but most that I know care very much about those things and show their goldens in a variety of venues - conformation, field, obedience, agility, etc.
You don't seem at all interested in learning from reputable breeders on this website which is unfortunate as there are a lot of really good people here who are willing to share their experience and expertise. 
I would still like to understand your rationale for breeding a less than 2 year old male who does not have final clearances but it seems apparent you won't answer that question. I hope that anyone who does decide to purchase an expensive puppy from you will do their own research about your particular "method" (low COI) and compare that with other "best practices" in breeding including clearances, etc.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

For anyone interested in continuing the conversation with William Shaw regarding ethics, breeding practices, line breeding, or COI please read the following quote:



"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

George Bernard Shaw


In this case, Mr. Shaw is having a ball.


----------



## thomas&betts (May 13, 2014)

william coleman said:


> i don't have time to answer everyone. One of you wrote:
> 
> _*the thing is, everyone here agrees with you that coi is something to watch. While looking at your program, some folks noticed you do not follow the coe in your own breedings but have taken a graph and built a breeding philosophy from it. It's not a new thing-your idea that you came to discuss- charles does tons of graphs, and is generous with his interpretation of them. But he'd be the first to tell you he has limited information and it is not black and white. I've discussed this particular graph with him several times.
> It would probably benefit you to study the breed- really study it, don't color your study with what are your (current) early ideas of important things to focus on. Just be a blank slate and see what ends up written there. It may be you could realize this idea that the best time to breed is second season is way off, or you could realize elbows are more important than you thought, or you could realize that finding peer relationships are helpful. When one has no mentors, it is easy for them to imagine they have thought of a new thing to be the most important focus.. When in fact, that same idea has been discussed and turned over and over, and this 'new study' (whose creator would tell you is not a study but a graph of limited data only) is not a good point on which to build a breeding program.
> ...


*Bravo my friend! You took the bull by the horn like a champ! You deserve my respect! You will be outnumbered here, but others know this statement is true. Thank you for taking the time to respond! *


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

thomas&betts said:


> *Bravo my friend! You took the bull by the horn like a champ! You deserve my respect! You will be outnumbered here, but others know this statement is true. Thank you for taking the time to respond! *


T&B: So you support and respect the practice of breeding a 10 month old male? You can "Bravo" all you like. I'll pass. 

Mr Coleman: that is a whole lot of talk about maintaining the breed purpose from someone who has never put a performance title on any of his goldens. Daisy - no titles, no performance titles anywhere in her 5 generation pedigree, just a random smattering of those Champions you disapprove of. Peach: same can be said. Sherry: same can be said. Emily: same can be said. Then you go out and buy this male from a decent performance line and you can't even bother to wait until he matures, gets clearances (not the same thing as prelims), or shows that he has the goods to do upper level field work before breeding him. When do you plan to begin entering hunt tests and field trials with him? How many litters will he have sired by that time? Will you stop breeding him if he can't cut it in the field? Will you stop breeding him if he doesn't pass final clearances? And what will you do for all the puppies you put at risk, should that be the case? I'd be a whole lot more impressed by that diatribe if you could prove that even one time you have actually walked the walk rather than just coming here to try to tell responsible, ethical breeders that you know more than them because you bred a litter with "0% COI." 

For the record, I can't share my contract with you as I am not a breeder, just an educated consumer... Educated enough to see right through you. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

thomas&betts said:


> *Bravo my friend! You took the bull by the horn like a champ! You deserve my respect! You will be outnumbered here, but others know this statement is true. Thank you for taking the time to respond! *


I am not responding to the content of your post. But posting in such huge, bold lettering is offensive (no matter the content of the post). You might be better received if you don't do that, it rattles peoples nerves and puts them on edge right off the bat (no matter whose side you are on or what you are saying). Just something to consider... :wavey:


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

thomas&betts said:


> *Bravo my friend! You took the bull by the horn like a champ! You deserve my respect! You will be outnumbered here, but others know this statement is true. Thank you for taking the time to respond! *


*YOU FORGOT TO DO IT IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!! WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!! HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS?????*

Sorry, couldn't help it.


----------



## Goldylover2 (May 1, 2014)

thomas&betts said:


> *Bravo my friend! You took the bull by the horn like a champ! You deserve my respect! You will be outnumbered here, but others know this statement is true. Thank you for taking the time to respond! *


You can respond in caps, underlined, italic or any other way that is an OPTION for you to respond. Geez!!!


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

William Coleman said:


> Concerning Bingo, he passed his eye and heart exams and the OFA preliminary rating for hips is Good and elbows is Normal.


Well now, if that's true it's not on the OFA website. I'll keep an eye out to see if it shows up in the next few days, though, in case this is a brand new certification.

Your "zero COI" is interesting, as the dam doesn't even have enough information for a 10-generation calculation to be made. So the truth is that you have no idea what the COI actually is. But that's neither here nor there.

You've come onto this board with great bombast. You clearly have a very high opinion of yourself, and you are extremely confident in your beliefs, with zero doubt. People with zero doubt are not usually the best or more reasonable thinkers. Doubt is a healthy indicator of intellectual rigor and ability. So, with that, I expect that an army of experienced folks could respond to you with mountains of data, and you would not be budged. That's fine. You came here to instruct and to demonstrate your superiority, not to have a give and take conversation. That's fine, too. To each their own.

But this Bingo you bred at 10 months, though you bash everyone else for lack of ethics even though you know none of them/us: What have you done to prove your 10-month old puppy as a "perfect" (your word) example of the breed, worthy of the incredibly high standard you set? I'm interested. I won't argue with you because it's useless. Instead, tell me how breeding Bingo at 10 months exemplifies all of the ethics and goals of breeding a superbly healthy and superb hunting dog worthy of the grand William Coleman name. Teach me.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Due to excessive arguing, and for board rule violations, this thread is now closed.


----------

