# The cure for cancer is stop inbreeding



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

I'll say the same thing I said several years ago when you posted the chart- having spoken to Charles Jones myself about this chart, I am aware -per him- that the data is incomplete. No one would suggest highly inbred animals are a good idea, but you have the problem of breeders who breed together two very inbred animals who share no relatives and by this method, come up with a very low COI. Is it really low? No- COI is not meant to use as a Bible for breeding, it is meant as a tool. Two heavily inbred animals -let's use your Bingo X Beauty, shall we? ... Bingo has a much higher than average COI. 10.3%. Beauty's COI is nearly 10.4%. Because they share few ancestors, their puppies will have that low COI. But is it safer? Not really. One might posit that Bingo and Beauty are far more likely to carry pairs of alleles that are damaging to their offspring. So your puppy people may believe they are buying a super safe pedigree but it's likely less safe than the puppies coming from a consistently 5-8% COI that's not falsely reduced such as the Bingo X Beauty pedigree is, giving your buyers a false sense of security.
As Charles said to me- the data is not there to make the leaps you are making. And we WERE talking about your use of his data when this statement was made. 
And, I would add, Charles is very well known and respected in the involved Golden community of fanciers- we all know about the graphs and tables and know he himself states they are not meant to be interpreted the way you are interpreting them.
In other words- you didn't get lotsa lauds on 'finding' the info because we all knew it was there and have used it ourselves from time to time in a way that is responsible. I hope you will tell all your puppy people that your litter has a low COI because both parents have super high ones and you just found two unrelated to use together. Worry more about your own disclosures than mine or any other involved GR breeder's- we know what we are doing. 
I am not 'looking to sell leftover puppies' or whatever you want to throw out there. I am all about good science- your method of producing low COIs is not good science. Nor would I suggest puppy people ignore COI- it is a valuable tool. But it can be manipulated (your breeding of B X B is a great example of just that, thank you) and one should understand when offspring have two sets of alleles to draw from and both sets are highly inbred, the offspring's low number means zero in terms of risk.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

Wow, just so many people with their own agendas anymore. Twisting whatever to suit them.

I swear I can see the tin foil hats and with bomb shelter mentality too


----------



## Jmcarp83 (May 4, 2018)

Yet you do not mention studies showing the likelihood for a golden’s likelihood to develop cancer based on early/late spay? I’m certainly not a scientist or a breeder who spends painstakingly a lot of time researching pairings but...there’s a ton of factors.

It’s a crap shoot with any dog. Environment, genetics, alterations, diet etc.


----------



## 204408 (Jul 24, 2019)

Your Beauty has Gold Rush Matt Dillon twice in the same generation along with Matt’s sire Westben Oak Ridge Cadet. 

My first golden retriever was sired by Gold Rush Matt Dillon and died of hemangiosarcoma at not quite 7. That was 2008 and classic line breeding.

Matt himself died around the same age though the cause isn’t listed. Perhaps it was genetics, perhaps not. I hope for your dogs sake it isn’t and that a bunch of bad genes didn’t get multiple copies passed down.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

The cure for cancer is to identify the genes and environmental factors that actually cause cancer. No breeder wants their dogs to suffer and with something like cancer, that doesn't usually show up until well after the animal has been bred.

If we outcross, we increase genetic diversity but then we may introduce other deleterious genes into the bloodline. Until we know the genetic markers, broad assumptions like "stop inbreeding" mislead the public. What about their goldendoodle? Their mutt? "I have a mixed breed, I know he's not inbred so I know he won't get cancer". This is so wrong. Breeders are currently trying to improve genetic diversity to prevent a genetic bottleneck, but up until recently, it was very difficult to import or export dogs to expand the gene pool. 

Most breeds keep close track of their breeding programs and use COI as a tool. Looking at other animals where we inbreed to exaggerate the traits we're breeding for: dairy cattle, thoroughbred horses, beef cattle; we see that attention to COI is hardly as important as long as the animal wins, but because they're either a) eaten or b) raced and then retired to live for another 20-30 years, we don't consider the effects of loss of genetic diversity in those populations. 

What's important to understand is that inbreeding can cause doubling up of both desirable traits and deleterious traits including, but not limited to particular cancer genes. However, if we cross two random dogs, we might very well end up breeding those deleterious traits to each other again. We need to identify what causes cancer if we want to improve breeding practices regarding it.


----------



## 3goldens2keep (Feb 13, 2019)

To further add confusing to that, that is already very confusing! 

We have began using 'Tittering' on our Golden's to avoid unnecessary shots. Some science suggests that we over tax our dogs immune systems by giving the all these shots and boosters. By sending a blood sample to a lab, they can verify if the dog is still appropriately immune. Thus avoiding additional shots... to build immunity!

This week, when our vet was giving our new Golden puppy, his second Parvo shot, my wife reminded him that we would titer him going forward before giving any added shots. Tittering is done to try and minimize any cancer that may be caused by over taxing the immune systems. Our vet got a bit upset and told us that the only way to avoid cancer in Golden's is to stop buying Golden's. He also advised us that he is retiring....and that was the only part of the conversation that was good! He has been our vet for a long while. We started working Titers through him over 7 years ago and he never mentioned anything to us. I guess it has bugged him for a while, since he was retiring he unloaded on us...


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Just a reminder all, please keep the Forum Rules in mind when making posts.


----------



## Sholt (Jun 20, 2019)

3goldens2keep said:


> To further add confusing to that, that is already very confusing!
> 
> We have began using 'Tittering' on our Golden's to avoid unnecessary shots. Some science suggests that we over tax our dogs immune systems by giving the all these shots and boosters. By sending a blood sample to a lab, they can verify if the dog is still appropriately immune. Thus avoiding additional shots... to build immunity!
> 
> This week, when our vet was giving our new Golden puppy, his second Parvo shot, my wife reminded him that we would titer him going forward before giving any added shots. Tittering is done to try and minimize any cancer that may be caused by over taxing the immune systems. Our vet got a bit upset and told us that the only way to avoid cancer in Golden's is to stop buying Golden's. He also advised us that he is retiring....and that was the only part of the conversation that was good! He has been our vet for a long while. We started working Titers through him over 7 years ago and he never mentioned anything to us. I guess it has bugged him for a while, since he was retiring he unloaded on us...


Yikes! Absolutely the time for him to retire.?


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Prism Goldens said:


> I'll say the same thing I said several years ago when you posted the chart- having spoken to Charles Jones myself about this chart, I am aware -per him- that the data is incomplete. No one would suggest highly inbred animals are a good idea, but you have the problem of breeders who breed together two very inbred animals who share no relatives and by this method, come up with a very low COI. Is it really low? No- COI is not meant to use as a Bible for breeding, it is meant as a tool. Two heavily inbred animals -let's use your Bingo X Beauty, shall we? ... Bingo has a much higher than average COI. 10.3%. Beauty's COI is nearly 10.4%. Because they share few ancestors, their puppies will have that low COI. But is it safer? Not really. One might posit that Bingo and Beauty are far more likely to carry pairs of alleles that are damaging to their offspring. So your puppy people may believe they are buying a super safe pedigree but it's likely less safe than the puppies coming from a consistently 5-8% COI that's not falsely reduced such as the Bingo X Beauty pedigree is, giving your buyers a false sense of security.
> As Charles said to me- the data is not there to make the leaps you are making. And we WERE talking about your use of his data when this statement was made.
> And, I would add, Charles is very well known and respected in the involved Golden community of fanciers- we all know about the graphs and tables and know he himself states they are not meant to be interpreted the way you are interpreting them.
> In other words- you didn't get lotsa lauds on 'finding' the info because we all knew it was there and have used it ourselves from time to time in a way that is responsible. I hope you will tell all your puppy people that your litter has a low COI because both parents have super high ones and you just found two unrelated to use together. Worry more about your own disclosures than mine or any other involved GR breeder's- we know what we are doing.
> I am not 'looking to sell leftover puppies' or whatever you want to throw out there. I am all about good science- your method of producing low COIs is not good science. Nor would I suggest puppy people ignore COI- it is a valuable tool. But it can be manipulated (your breeding of B X B is a great example of just that, thank you) and one should understand when offspring have two sets of alleles to draw from and both sets are highly inbred, the offspring's low number means zero in terms of risk.



Prism, What you wrote gives the appearance that you don’t understand COI at all. You made some very wrong statements. They are nonsense. When you have the COI for a dog, you know the probability that any gene pairs are duplicates. The number of duplicates in either parent does not matter because each parent gives one gene from each gene pair.



1. The chart has so many dogs that it can be trusted. You can refuse to accept what the chart is showing, but that does not change that it does show a two year life span difference between high and low COI. THE CHART IS REAL. I did not present opinion. You can’t wish away the chart.



2. Inbreeding has a simple mechanism that causes damage. Many genetic problems are recessive so that you need two bad copies of a gene to cause the problem. You don’t want dogs to have duplicate chromosomes because that will bring out every recessive genetic defect on the duplicated chromosomes. High COI dogs have many duplicate chromosomes. This large number of duplicate chromosomes means that many recessive genetic flaws will have the opportunity to be expressed.



3. You are completely wrong with your statements about COI. You don’t understand what COI means. The only COI that matters is the COI of the puppy being bought. If a puppy has a COI of 0.08%, then you can estimate the number of duplicate chromosome pairs to be:

Duplicates = 0.08% times 39 chromosome pairs = 0.08 X 0.01 X 39 = 0.0312 duplicate chromosomes



Many show dogs have COI near 15.00%. For these dogs the estimated duplicate chromosome pairs is:

Duplicates = 15.00% times 39 chromosome pairs = 15.00 X 0.01 X 39 = 5.85 duplicate chromosomes



4. When you get to the point of having the COI from the k9data calculation, you have all you need. The COI of the parents means absolutely nothing if you know thee puppy’s COI. COI is not a hunch or a feeling. COI has a mathematical meaning.



5. What really matters is the chart showing two years life span difference. Talking about duplicate chromosomes is to help people understand what COI means. You don’t understand that COI has a mathematical meaning. People don’t need to understand about duplicate chromosomes, except to know that you want to avoid them. The chart gives us real information that shows inbred dogs don’t live as long. You can’t wish that away.



6. I am not saying that you should not be allowed to make and sell inbred puppies. I am only saying that breeders selling inbred puppies have a responsibility to disclose the COI of puppies and show the impact of that COI on the lifespan chart. Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

The COI is the likelihood that any given allele is directly inherited from one of the dogs behind the dog. Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding illustrates the probability that the alleles contributed by sire and dam at any given gene locus will be identical by descent. When you have two highly inbred animals, and breed them, if they are not related, the 'descent' part if it goes away. That doesn't mean they are not identical alleles, just that they were not inherited directly. The direct inheritance likelihood (from the dogs whose %ages are listed) is the part that is measured, not the # of identical alleles. I don't have time to do the rest- but that piece is the important piece.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Jmcarp83 said:


> Yet you do not mention studies showing the likelihood for a golden’s likelihood to develop cancer based on early/late spay? I’m certainly not a scientist or a breeder who spends painstakingly a lot of time researching pairings but...there’s a ton of factors.
> 
> It’s a crap shoot with any dog. Environment, genetics, alterations, diet etc.


Jmcarp83, I also did not mention car accidents. Unless something is going to happen to high COI vs low COI very diferently, then it does not need to be considered.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Prism Goldens said:


> The COI is the likelihood that any given allele is directly inherited from one of the dogs behind the dog. Wright's Coefficient of Inbreeding illustrates the probability that the alleles contributed by sire and dam at any given gene locus will be identical by descent. When you have two highly inbred animals, and breed them, if they are not related, the 'descent' part if it goes away. That doesn't mean they are not identical alleles, just that they were not inherited directly. The direct inheritance likelihood (from the dogs whose %ages are listed) is the part that is measured, not the # of identical alleles. I don't have time to do the rest- but that piece is the important piece.


The COI that k9data gives is correct. My pups have very little chance of even a single duplicate chromosome. The parent's COI does not matter. The COI of the puppy is what matters..That is fact!


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Kby0811 said:


> Your Beauty has Gold Rush Matt Dillon twice in the same generation along with Matt’s sire Westben Oak Ridge Cadet.
> 
> My first golden retriever was sired by Gold Rush Matt Dillon and died of hemangiosarcoma at not quite 7. That was 2008 and classic line breeding.
> 
> Matt himself died around the same age though the cause isn’t listed. Perhaps it was genetics, perhaps not. I hope for your dogs sake it isn’t and that a bunch of bad genes didn’t get multiple copies passed down.


Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)




----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

William Coleman said:


> Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
> The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.


There was a research paper released in December of 2019, using a variety of data, including the Golden Retriever study done. "Female golden retrievers tended to be longer-lived than male" Within each sex, outbred individuals (CoI < 2%) tended to live longer than inbred individuals".

"They found that even a high level of inbreeding in recent years (ie, since the establishment of modern breeds) could not sufficiently explain the observed patterns of deleterious genetic variation without the effects of population bottlenecks at domestication and breed formation".

"2. Occasional crosses of animals from separate breeding pools (comparable to cross-breeding dogs or transfers of animals between managed international ex situ populations) can produce strong improvements in health and fitness"

You should also mention to your puppy buyers that their male puppy will also likely live less than a year. Finally, your CoI zero puppies, while they look good on paper, do not fit condition number 2. As current GR breeders are doing, they ARE outcrossing to dogs from other countries. There is not way to guarantee that your two breeding dogs have no genetic ancestors unless you do a genomic test and are far less likely to be related if they're from breeding populations from different countries.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Tagrenine said:


> There was a research paper released in December of 2019, using a variety of data, including the Golden Retriever study done. "Female golden retrievers tended to be longer-lived than male" Within each sex, outbred individuals (CoI < 2%) tended to live longer than inbred individuals".
> 
> "They found that even a high level of inbreeding in recent years (ie, since the establishment of modern breeds) could not sufficiently explain the observed patterns of deleterious genetic variation without the effects of population bottlenecks at domestication and breed formation".
> 
> ...

















Are you going to provide a link to the paper that you are talking about? I you do, I will take a look.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

William Coleman said:


> Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
> The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.


My very first reaction to reading this was laughing out loud - literally.

Please just stop. I was taking a sip of coffee when I read the above and nearly splurted coffee on my keyboard because I was laughing.

There is absolutely reason to be very careful about breeding too close. And there's a need to be very careful about breeding to certain lines which have had some weird problems or young deaths.

And one thing to say about field breeders vs show breeders is they tend to be more vigilant about entering cause of death. I think among else, one primary reason is because these are dogs who live their entire lives with the same owner who are more emotionally affected when the dogs die at age 8 or 9 to cancer.

There was an obedience trial I took my Jacks to a couple years ago and I sadly found out that within hours to days later, at least 3 goldens at the same trial died because of cancer. Average age was 9 for these dogs. These were all dogs with hefty field lines behind them. But the cancer they died from was hemangio across the board. And that is something that is in all the lines. Cancer doesn't spare field dogs just because they aren't as purty as the show ones (I'm kidding!). Go back to the popular sires behind your male (Bingo) and check offspring - you will see a good number (like a lot!) of dogs who died prior to age 10. That is in the lines behind your male dog. And even if you breed him to somebody completely unrelated from a breeder that sells full registration dogs to anyone (Which I think is the biggest problem with Gold Rush and why they've gotten so dragged down in the mud) - you will still be breeding cancer heavy lines to cancer heavy lines.

I used to think that meant there was a higher than average rate of cancer and young deaths with field lines - particularly certain ones I had been looking into at the time and just shuddering at 4-5 year olds dying from cancer. <= This is an unfair assumption - and wrong, since there's the same amount of young deaths and old dogs on the show side as well.

Regarding COI - it is 10% (10 generation) and 13% (12 generations) for my oldest dog (will be 8 in Sept).
Both his sons the COI is 4% (10 generation) and 7% (12 generations).

I DO prefer the COI for my babies, especially since I recognize so many good traits the boys inherited from both sides of the pedigree. Those traits didn't happen by accident. The breeder of the youngest babies was very familiar with the lines behind my boy + confident in what she owned and bred.

Additionally - what I like about my pups is that while they are very typey for the show ring to the point that my Jovi has stopped some people and among else has had people who are breeders and pro handlers and top OTCH trainers comment that he's the most all around ideal golden because he has got the look, the temperament, and the ideal working drive and ability with the OTCH trainers telling me that if I am careful about avoiding bad habits from sneaking into the training, he could be a 199-200 score dog. I don't think I'm disciplined enough to be a 199-200 score trainer, but I am so happy that it's not just me seeing something wonderful in my dog.

Those traits don't happen by accident - they are deliberately bred into the dogs. And breeders need to know the lines they are using - both their own lines, but also what they breed to.

When you do complete outcrosses, you lose predictability. As well, I've heard of people producing complete disasters because they bred to a nice dog and suddenly had a ton of problems that they didn't anticipate. That's not just cancer. It's everything.

I would NOT just randomly buy a puppy with a 0% COI behind him - because personally speaking, I want the whole dog + good health, longevity, and TYPE ALSO that runs in lines.

But the same time, knowing lines and avoiding certain dogs close behind is something a lot of people are doing or should be doing if they are concerned about cancer, temperament issues, etc.

There's very popular sires and popular lines which I would absolutely avoid based on things I've seen. That's not just show lines. That's field and performance lines as well. They all have popular sires that get overused.

Dog breeding isn't something you can jump into and just gamble by throwing mismatched things together with the idea that since they aren't at all related, that they will be better and healthier than dogs who are linebred. On the surface, I do appreciate field breeders using dogs from show lines. It s a step in the right directon - particularly as there are a LOT of inbred dogs on the performance side. But in general it's not just throwing mismatches together and thinking that will fix everything. You've got to be selective and careful in breeding.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

William Coleman said:


> Are you going to provide a link to the paper that you are talking about? I you do, I will take a look.











Body size, inbreeding, and lifespan in domestic dogs - Conservation Genetics


Inbreeding poses a real or potential threat to nearly every species of conservation concern. Inbreeding leads to loss of diversity at the individual level, which can cause inbreeding depression, and at the population level, which can hinder ability to respond to a changing environment. In closed...




link.springer.com





The paper is not free, I purchased it, but I believe you can rent it as well


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Megora said:


> My very first reaction to reading this was laughing out loud - literally.
> 
> Please just stop. I was taking a sip of coffee when I read the above and nearly splurted coffee on my keyboard because I was laughing.
> 
> ...


You just gave a few pages worth of your opinion as a reply to my giving a chart that shows solid facts that golden retrievers with low COI are living two years longer than those with high COI. The chart is based on thousands of dogs. Two years difference in thousands of dogs is more significant than three dogs at a dog competition. Is your conclusion that the two yea difference in thousands of dogs did not happen?


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Tagrenine said:


> Body size, inbreeding, and lifespan in domestic dogs - Conservation Genetics
> 
> 
> Inbreeding poses a real or potential threat to nearly every species of conservation concern. Inbreeding leads to loss of diversity at the individual level, which can cause inbreeding depression, and at the population level, which can hinder ability to respond to a changing environment. In closed...
> ...


Thanks. The link was interesting. The opinion concerning inbreeding is the same as mine. Here is one quote from that summary, "Furthermore, individual pedigree coefficients of inbreeding and lifespans for over 9000 golden retrievers showed that inbreeding does negatively impact lifespan at the individual level." Apparently they can read a chart!


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Well, I got up and this morning you are still going...
You are imagining the important piece is 'identical chromosomes'- we cannot know what chromosomes are at play, nor is the identical part what the COI measures. Just as in eye color for humans, there are limited chromosomes that sit on the loci at any given spot. The COI measures not that- NOT THAT- but the likelihood that a given allele will be directly inherited from one of the ancestors. DIRECTLY through the dogs in the pedigree.. and since I am not teaching BIO 101 today, I will leave your argument there. The "duplicate" vs the " directly inherited" is the problem since you are imagining it is duplicate alleles being measured- and it is not. It is directly inherited that is being measured statistically... for all we know they could ALL be duplicates. Go back and re-study without your prejudice Wright's Coefficient rules. You will see what you are doing does zero to prevent the things in your dogs' pedigrees from recurring. There is no rule stating identical alleles are dangerous (and in fact, identical alleles are extremely common). There are only so many alleles dictating the various things they govern. And unless I just can't help myself, I will leave with the best example of a high COI I know of- Genetic information for Am./Can. CH. Amberac's Nutnbut Trouble WC CGC note he lived to nearly 18.


----------



## William Coleman (Apr 7, 2015)

Prism Goldens said:


> Well, I got up and this morning you are still going...
> You are imagining the important piece is 'identical chromosomes'- we cannot know what chromosomes are at play, nor is the identical part what the COI measures. Just as in eye color for humans, there are limited chromosomes that sit on the loci at any given spot. The COI measures not that- NOT THAT- but the likelihood that a given allele will be directly inherited from one of the ancestors. DIRECTLY through the dogs in the pedigree.. and since I am not teaching BIO 101 today, I will leave your argument there. The "duplicate" vs the " directly inherited" is the problem since you are imagining it is duplicate alleles being measured- and it is not. It is directly inherited that is being measured statistically... for all we know they could ALL be duplicates. Go back and re-study without your prejudice Wright's Coefficient rules. You will see what you are doing does zero to prevent the things in your dogs' pedigrees from recurring. There is no rule stating identical alleles are dangerous (and in fact, identical alleles are extremely common). There are only so many alleles dictating the various things they govern. And unless I just can't help myself, I will leave with the best example of a high COI I know of- Genetic information for Am./Can. CH. Amberac's Nutnbut Trouble WC CGC note he lived to nearly 18.


Your last post was a mess. You seem to be intentionally trying to confuse anyone who may be reading this.



When you said something that was correct, you pretended to be teaching me what I already knew. You made “straw man” arguments for me.



Mixed in with your pretending to teach me, you made other ridiculous statements that were so wrong that you cannot possibly believe what you are writing. Here is an example. *You wrote: “ *_*There is no rule stating identical alleles are dangerous (and in fact, identical alleles are extremely common).*_*”*



You cannot possibly believe that! Most of the dangerous genetic health problems that dogs or people have are recessive. When an allele for a genetic health problem is dominant, one allele for that problem is enough for the individual have the problem. Dominant genetic defects which only require only one bad allele cannot hide and be passed to the next generation with no one knowing. Dominant genetic defects are rarely seen compared to Recessive genetic faults. When an individual has a dominant genetic problem, the individual is unlikely to add any offspring to the next generation.



Most genetic health problems are recessive. If an individual has one good allele and one allele for the defect, then the individual does not show the genetic problem. The individual with the bad allele is a carrier and each offspring has a 50/50 chance of getting the parent’s bad allele. Examples of autosomal recessive disorders include cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, and Tay Sachs disease. An individual will only exhibit these recessive disorders when they have *IDENTICAL ALLELES. *Your above claim is completely wrong and you are too educated to not know it. 



You claim to not be aware that inbreeding causes individuals to have more identical alleles and that more identical alleles brings hidden recessive genetic disorders to the surface. You must be aware that you are wrong. I give up on you.



The goal of my post was to let buyers know that some breeders are being very deceptive when they tell buyers that the high COI of their inbred litters is not a problem, or when the breeder ignores COI entirely when talking to trusting buyers. Dogs and their families suffer when the dog dies far too early. 



There is only one way that I know of to end the unethical practice of selling inbred puppies to unsuspecting families. Golden retriever buyers who lose a golden retriever to cancer need to use k9data to find the COI of their deceased pet. If the COI was high and the buyers bought the pup 2015 or later, then the breeder should have explained the impact of COI on life expectancy. Your exchange with me here is evidence that some breeders are making intentionally misleading statements. If some of the buyers who were not informed, were to pursue refunds, unethical breeders might change their practices. The fastest way to solve this problem would be for some of the families who lose their loved high COI pets, to include lawyers. A good lawyer could show that consumer fraud is happening. If some lawyers learn the hard way that they were sold an inbred pup with a lower life expectancy, they may have the motivation to utilize consumer fraud laws which award treble damages. A few of those getting visibility might solve the problem.



I am done talking here. The unwillingness of many breeders to stop making inbred pups has been made clear.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

William Coleman said:


> Your last post was a mess. You seem to be intentionally trying to confuse anyone who may be reading this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Between purebred and mixed breed dogs, both purebred status and body size affected the key parameters of mortality trajectories (Table S3, ESM2). Compared to mixed breed dogs of a given size class, purebred dogs had a significantly lower adult life expectancy (Table 1, Fig. 3). On average, mixed breed dogs lived 1.2 years longer than purebred dogs. Together with body size, purebred status explained 95% of the variance in mean life expectancy, with purebred status alone explaining 46% of the variance. Purebred dogs had a significantly higher baseline hazard, with purebred status Conservation Genetics (2020) 21:137–148 143 1 3 alone explaining 60% of the variance. Purebred dogs also had a significantly higher absolute rate of aging, which explained alone between 8% (at age 10) and 40% (at age 4) of the variance. Counterintuitively, the relative rate of aging was higher for mixed breed dogs, albeit not significantly different. Alone, purebred status explained 15% of the variance. As expected (Kraus et al. 2013), body size mainly affected life expectancy via the absolute rate of aging."

"Female golden retrievers tended to be longer-lived than males (Fig. 5a, t(9789) = 6.846, p = 8.03E−12), a trend that is observed in numerous other species as well (Austad and Fischer 2016)."

"Specifically, since large breeds have larger litters (Borge et al. 2011), it is likely that fewer females reproduce in large breeds compared to small breeds, leading to reduced female effective population size and increased inbreeding. specific differences in reproductive behavior, such as polygyny in natural populations or the use of popular sires in domestic animal breeding, lead to differences in specific effective population sizes. Our finding comes as both a contrast and a complement to past emphasis on popular sire effects in driving inbreeding-related problems in domestic animals (Leroy 2011). As dog breeders increasingly strive to establish breeding regimes that prioritize population health and sustainability, it will be important to consider female effective population size as well as limiting the use of popular sires."

This is what I'm going to focus on. Breeders are at will to say what they want. However, if you are of that same vein, you should also be telling your puppy buyers that if they bought a mixed breed, it would live 1.2 years longer on average than your Golden no matter what level of inbreeding. Secondly, you would also be required to share that because their puppy is male, it is also correlated to reduced longevity by a year or more. It is also about educating breeders and buyers. We now all know to avoid popular sire. But female effective population size is very important as well, especially in large breed dogs. 

Breeders did not know the deleterious effects of inbreeding 50 years ago, not the way they do now. With all the power we have to genotype based on phenotype, we can further improve the health of these breeds while maintaining breed type and it has nothing to do with measuring CoI. 

"Thus, it seems clear that individual-level phenotypes (lifespan and body size) from genotyped dogs would vastly improve power for detecting subtler effects of inbreeding, as well as specific genetic variants that may affect lifespan. For example, the genes in the IGF1 pathway are good candidates for explaining variation in longevity due to known involvement of IGF1 in body size in dogs (Eigenmann et al. 1984; Tryfonidou et al. 2003; Sutter et al. 2007) and lifespan in mice (Holzenberger et al. 2003). However, currently available data lacks sufficient resolution to detect effects of specific genotypes." <--- this is the important stuff. This is what we need to know. 

We NEED to genotype. Just saying that you have low COI is fine and dandy, but it doe absolutely nothing for the breed if you aren't genotyping as well so we can see what is going on. As a responsible breeder, genotype, submit your data. Tell your puppy buyers that your dogs will live longer than Goldens with a higher COI, but they'll have a shorter lifespan if they're male and a shorter lifespan than mixed breed dogs. It sounds silly, and until we know what's going on, it isn't going to do anything for the preservation of purebred dogs except fuel the "adopt don't shop" movement. I have nothing against rescue dogs, but if we stop breeding all together, then we won't have breeds left.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Tagrenine said:


> We NEED to genotype. Just saying that you have low COI is fine and dandy, but it doe absolutely nothing for the breed if you aren't genotyping as well so we can see what is going on. As a responsible breeder, genotype, submit your data. Tell your puppy buyers that your dogs will live longer than Goldens with a higher COI, but they'll have a shorter lifespan if they're male and a shorter lifespan than mixed breed dogs. It sounds silly, and until we know what's going on, it isn't going to do anything for the preservation of purebred dogs except fuel the "adopt don't shop" movement. I have nothing against rescue dogs, but if we stop breeding all together, then we won't have breeds left.


I do not think you understand what I am saying- and Tagrenine is right- to make the claim you are making, you would have to genotype. There are TONS and TONS of identical genes- for (human) example- blue eyes require two alleles for blue eye color. 
You keep stating the COI is a measure of the identical allele pairs and it is not. It is a measure of the likelihood of inheriting an allele directly from one of the ancestors. In your B X B litter, that likelihood is very slim because they do not share many ancestors. But B or B themselves were very likely to have inherited directly from one of their ancestors. That inheritance could- or may not- be deleterious. It depends on both how the trait is inherited- recessive, dominant, polygenic, or one of the more complex patterns of inheritance and there are plenty. But a low COI is nothing to predict cancer or no cancer. The example of Trouble I used earlier is a good one- he had neither cancer nor did he die young even though his COI was more than double the average. You are basing your assertion on a belief that the COI is something it is not.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

William Coleman said:


> Beauty has show titles in her pedigree so she is at risk. Show breeders like to use Gold Rush as a scape goat, but they all all using each other's bloodlines. They point the finger at Gold Rush to hide they they are just as bad. Your dog sounds like he got genes from both Mom and Dad. Beauty has show genes in both her mother and father so she is at risk.
> The good news is that my zero COI pups only get one gene from Mom. They do not need to worry about getting a bad show gene from Dad because his pedigree is field. They can't double up defective show genes because they only get one from the show side. That is how zero COI works.


LOL that is the dumbest statement. You're saying because a breeder is a show breeder they all have Gold Rush and therefore all dogs are at risk!?  My breeder purposely stayed away from Gold Rush and a dog from the west coast decades back that was throwing huge problems down the line. 

Point is your statement is just ridiculous and shows ignorance.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

William Coleman said:


> Thanks. The link was interesting. The opinion concerning inbreeding is the same as mine. Here is one quote from that summary, "Furthermore, individual pedigree coefficients of inbreeding and lifespans for over 9000 golden retrievers showed that inbreeding does negatively impact lifespan at the individual level." Apparently they can read a chart!


Inbreeding isn't the same as line breeding.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

William Coleman said:


> You just gave a few pages worth of your opinion as a reply to my giving a chart...


No. I gave you a 1-2 page response based on your abysmal understanding of biology and pedigree, particularly based on your quoted comment that had me spitting my coffee while laughing my head off at you.

You have got to stop. This is just silly.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> Just a reminder all, please keep the Forum Rules in mind when making posts.


I want to remind everyone Again, to keep the Forum Rules in mind when posting....... 

You may or may not agree with another member's comments, _*but please be Respectful to each other. *_


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

To say that the cure for cancer is to stop inbreeding is the most ludicrous statement I've seen in ages.
Sometimes surgery can cure cancer. Occasionally, although rarely, chemo can cure cancer.
Stopping inbreeding may or may not reduce the risk of developing cancer, but it most assuredly doesn't cure it.
Carry on.


----------



## 153330 (Dec 29, 2016)

*Miele SF-AA50 ActiveAirclean*


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

William Coleman said:


> Mixed in with your pretending to teach me, you made other ridiculous statements that were so wrong that you cannot possibly believe what you are writing. Here is an example. *You wrote: “ *_*There is no rule stating identical alleles are dangerous (and in fact, identical alleles are extremely common).*_*”*
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot possibly believe that! Most of the dangerous genetic health problems that dogs or people have are recessive.


I don't have the energy to debunk everything you wrote. But I'd like you to think about this very simple exercise. Consider these two breedings. In the first, you have two 0-COI parents with these alleles at one spot. Let's assume that the pups are 0 COI also. They are completely heterozygous:

AB AB

Then you have these alleles from dogs with a COI of 20, and the puppies also have a COI of 20. Let's say one dog is homozygous and the other is heterozygous:

BB AB

Let's assume that the "A" allele is the mutated one, on a simple recessive trait, and let's make this super simple and assume that the recessive trait is cancer. Now answer these:

1. Which pairing has the greater chance of producing puppies with cancer?

2. Is a puppy that is homozygous BB better or worse for the breed's future than the heterozygous AB puppy?

3. If the COI in puppies from the first pairing is 0, would that eliminate the risk of cancer?

4. If the COI in puppies from the second paring is 20, do those pups have a greater risk of cancer than the 0 COI pups?

Let's start with those.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

Mr Coleman's whole premise is built on a chart built from ~10% of the dogs in k9database. I'm sure you remember- he has started 3-4 other threads all with the same notion touted and all closed due to arguing because he imagines we are being both unkind and uneducated... I would love to see his answers to your 4 questions. With evidence.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Well, I do not intend for the thread to be closed because of anything I say. After we start with that simple exercise, there is a fascinating conversation to be had on population genetics vs. individual puppy genetics. And then there is the role of epigenetics and environmental triggers in cancer in Goldens, and how that plays into COI. Of course, the deeper we go into this, the less we find we really know. That's why breeding can be such a daunting task. 

I remember researching the breeding that produced my Deuce so deep that I concluded that I simply couldn't breed any dogs together safely, at all, under any circumstances. I was despondent and in tears, and wondering if I should just give up altogether. I recall taking population genetics courses and preservation breeding courses from Carol Beuchat PhD at the Institute for Canine Biology, and coming away with a profound frustration.

So, when I see someone who thinks they have it all figured out and are making big declarations publicly based on a single chart, I remember my experience of taking exams in law school. After every exam we would sit around and dissect it, in a big post mortem discussion. From those, there came an observation that held true 100% of the time, and which I find is illuminating in many walks of life. It was this: Those who believed they had aced the test always failed. Those consumed with doubt or worried that they had missed the issues always did well. It turned out that those with great certainty simply did not know enough to recognize that they lacked the knowledge necessary to understand the complexities and nuances of the test. And those who tore their hair out with worry that they had missed something were the ones who saw deeply enough to understand that sometimes there are no good answers. This thread made me think of that law school experience.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

If this were true, then humans wouldn‘t have cancer as the most common death over age 65. In his method, we would never have cancer in humans.


----------



## BlazenGR (Jan 12, 2012)

Mr Coleman is also not realizing that COI is a calculation that is an flawed assumption based on the theory that because particular dogs are present within a pedigree with more frequency, that the dog is genetically more inbred. We now know, based on research, that this may or may not be true. We don't KNOW by looking at a pedigree which alleles a particular puppy has inherited from each parent. (this is were it gets $$) In order to evaluate the genome of a particular dog, we actually have tools (gee, science is amazing!) thru the University of California-Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory (UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory | Animal DNA testing | forensic testing | animal genetic research and diagnostics) to have the actual diversity put into a much easier to understand tool, and it is much more accurate than guessing. So let's look at an example:

sire: CH Blazen's Tx Twister CD RA NAJ MXP MJP OFP WC SDHF VCX "Austin"
calculated 12 generation COI = 12.21%

dam: Blazen's Reasonable Request CD BN RA MXB MJB OF CCA "Samantha"
calculated 12 generation COI = 8.54%

You might expect the calculated COI to fall in between the two values shown above, but alas, it doesn't work that way. The calculated 12 generation for the litter is 15.01%

When you look at the VGL data, you get a much better idea of what the genetic diversity is of each of the dogs.















The "internal relatedness" or IR number is "an allele frequency weighted indicator of homogzygosity." In other words, how different is the genome of this dog from other golden retrievers. The goal is to be further to the left. In this case, the two dogs are opposite of what you would expect to see based on their calculated COIs. Austin is more outbred than Samantha.

Let's look at 2 of their offspring, Adam and Knicki:















Although they have the same calculated COI, their IR are very different. Adam's IR is lower than Samantha's, so more of a "mix" of his two parents, while Knicki is _*higher *_than Samantha. It's because of how the alleles were distributed to her. Knicki, unfortunately, inherited more of the "same" alleles from both parents. 

This tool is a MUCH better method for maintaining homozygosity within the breed. We can chose males for our girls by using dogs that have a different profile based on the Diversity Panel as well as the DLA I and DLA II haplotypes.

I have done the same evaluations for a friend's field bred dog. Pretty scary, actually. While his calculated 12 gen COI is 9.05%, he has a much higher IR, even higher than Knicki's if I remember correctly, indicating that he is much less homozygous.

Long and short of this? Stop using calculated COIs. It is likely that many of the most influential dogs in our pedigrees from the '70s and '80s have already fallen off the 12 generation calculation.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Thanks Leslie,
One of my dogs has a calculated COI of 14% at 12 generations. But his genetic test completed by Embark, showed him at 21%.
One of my other dogs has a calculated COI of 9% as 12 generations. But her genetic test completed by Embark, showed her at 21% also. 
I was quite surprised that calculated versus genetic testing could be so different. But when eggs and sperm are made by our bodies, they are not all the same are they? Otherwise every dog pairing would results in all puppies in a litter being exactly the same dog. Which is not the case. 
Going back to my 2 dogs, if I were to breed either, I would use the Embark service to determine real COI for a litter they produced.


----------



## BlazenGR (Jan 12, 2012)

Alaska7133 said:


> But when eggs and sperm are made by our bodies, they are not all the same are they? Otherwise every dog pairing would results in all puppies in a litter being exactly the same dog. Which is not the case.


Nope! That's why when we talk about clear, carriers, or affected individuals for NCL, you have to understand what that really means, and the same is why litter mates don't have the same genetic potential. Each parent provide 1/2 of the "information" for a trait, but they are segregated uniquely to each individual offspring. What I don't like about the Embark evaluation is that it doesn't tell you the actual make up of the haplotypes. Without that information, you are still doing a guessing game as to the actual distribution of the alleles.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Leslie - knowing your background is right up this alley was REALLY HOPING you'd post!


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

BlazenGR said:


> Mr Coleman is also not realizing that COI is a calculation that is an flawed assumption based on the theory that because particular dogs are present within a pedigree with more frequency, that the dog is genetically more inbred. We now know, based on research, that this may or may not be true. We don't KNOW by looking at a pedigree which alleles a particular puppy has inherited from each parent. (this is were it gets $$) In order to evaluate the genome of a particular dog, we actually have tools (gee, science is amazing!) thru the University of California-Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory (UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory | Animal DNA testing | forensic testing | animal genetic research and diagnostics) to have the actual diversity put into a much easier to understand tool, and it is much more accurate than guessing. So let's look at an example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I sure wish my genetic diversity analysis sheets were in color- UCD sent mine in b/w... did your's come in color or did you have to ask for the color version? 
On to the thread topic- he will come back in 5-6 months and post the same nonsense again. It's his selling point- low COI.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

After trying to wade thru the thread's back and forth insults, to get at some real information; I remain quite happy that my Golden puppy came from diverse genetics and bloodlines.
Different points of view are always refreshing. Thank you Mr. Coleman for your information.


----------



## StarBright (Nov 11, 2015)

One of my first goldens, with the highest COI of all my goldens, at 13% was my oldest living golden. 5 of the 10 pups in the litter have their age of death listed, 16.5, 16, 14.5, 14.5 and 11. Her mom had a COI of 19%, with 3 of her litter ages listed, 15y, 14.5 & 14.5y. Dad COI at 9% lived to be16.5y. My next dog had a COI of 4% with ages listed at 16y, 14, 14, 13, 12.5y and 11.5y, from 2 liters. Next dog a COI of 8% with ages listed at 14, 13.5y, 13.5y, 12 and 9.5y from 2 liters. It would be more helpful if more dogs were listed and their ages and cause of death, if known. From my looking through K9 data, I can’t really come to a conclusion, with so much missing information. Often only partial litters listed and then often no ages of death posted. This is why I could never be a breeder, too many unknowns to be able to figure out what to do. Litters where some live very long lives and others, in the same litter, dying way too young. Makes no sense to me. Breeding certainly is complicated. And I am thankful for the breeders out there, willing to take the time, to do the hard work, so I am able to have Golden Retrievers. The breed I have owned and loved continuously since the ‘80’s.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

jeffscott947 said:


> After trying to wade thru the thread's back and forth insults, to get at some real information; I remain quite happy that my Golden puppy came from diverse genetics and bloodlines.
> Different points of view are always refreshing. Thank you Mr. Coleman for your information.


Do you not grasp that his 'info' is nothing new, nor is it useful info?
Diverse genetics oftentimes translates to BYB....


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

StarBright said:


> One of my first goldens, with the highest COI of all my goldens, at 13% was my oldest living golden. 5 of the 10 pups in the litter have their age of death listed, 16.5, 16, 14.5, 14.5 and 11. Her mom had a COI of 19%, with 3 of her litter ages listed, 15y, 14.5 & 14.5y. Dad COI at 9% lived to be16.5y. My next dog had a COI of 4% with ages listed at 16y, 14, 14, 13, 12.5y and 11.5y, from 2 liters. Next dog a COI of 8% with ages listed at 14, 13.5y, 13.5y, 12 and 9.5y from 2 liters. It would be more helpful if more dogs were listed and their ages and cause of death, if known. From my looking through K9 data, I can’t really come to a conclusion, with so much missing information. Often only partial litters listed and then often no ages of death posted. This is why I could never be a breeder, too many unknowns to be able to figure out what to do. Litters where some live very long lives and others, in the same litter, dying way too young. Makes no sense to me. Breeding certainly is complicated. And I am thankful for the breeders out there, willing to take the time, to do the hard work, so I am able to have Golden Retrievers. The breed I have owned and loved continuously since the ‘80’s.


And by your comment, you see the issue with using a chart that is not complete info as an indication of any truth at all. You are 100% right- if people would let their egos out of the equation and post COD and DOD we might have MORE info but k9data is not a database of the (as Jeff called it) 'diverse' pedigree- most BYBs and Yoders do not input data. I input a lot of data from this sort of pedigree, but that is just one person who tries to spend money wisely to the breed's information base. I listed a pedigree earlier that was super high COI and lived to 18. As long as we are breeding without entire genome mapping and interpreting, we are breeding to a best bet.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

Prism Goldens said:


> Do you not grasp that his 'info' is nothing new, nor is it useful info?
> Diverse genetics oftentimes translates to BYB....


Mr. Coleman's presentations are *QUITE USEFUL TO SOME OF US. *
Attempting to shout him and others down....is not useful, in this or any other thread.

Trying to say that diverse genetics are OFTEN TIMES signs of a BYB is a gross over generalization, and misleading for a change. 
Implying that diverse genetics are those of a BYB, is simply wrong in many parts of the country. People whose farm dogs have puppies, don't deserve scorn and disdain, and those puppies deserve great homes just as those pups from "professional breeders" do.

Luckily dog owners are still able to make their own choices, regarding breed, where to buy/rescue, food, and alternative medicines, to name a few.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

It's not about shutting him down, It's about stepping in and correcting an obviously erroneous OPINION that all show dogs are inbred and from gold rush dogs so therefore are all high risk of getting cancer which is the craziest crack pot statement I've read in a long time, including from you. . That is detrimental to people trying to learn the right things about going about finding a good reputable breeder and that is obviously not helping them. But when the guy has the wrong idea about COI and is so closed minded to try and learn something, he's so closed off and thinks he knows all and can't learn anything else, who has time for that?

Also I used to breed a lot of reptiles back in the 90's and early 2000's. You can breed reptiles from same clutch offspring to the parents of the clutch 3 or 4 continuous generations before seeing inbreeding depression. I never did that but that was how different color morphs came to be like albinos, snows, piebalds, Lusistic (sp?) (all white, no pattern, black not pink eyes). Some animals are more resistant to inbreeding than others. Not saying dogs are more or less, just stating facts/information.

How do you think all of these dog breeds came about? Some inbreeding, mostly line breeding. Dogs are fine as long as common dogs on both sides are 4 generations back or further (line breeding) to keep or refine traits breeders want in their lines. This is what gives certain breeders their typy looks where you can recognize a random dog and say oh that's a so and so dog.


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

The entire point is that people get to decide what is best for their own dogs and proceed accordingly. Adults get to weigh the arguments presented, and do their own followup research *(WITH EVERYTHING). *

Trying to shout down an opposing argument/discussion does nothing to enhance a position..in fact quite the contrary.

Personally I do not support BYBs that are solely in it for the $$..But I DO support EVERYONE'S right to decide for themselves, and do what they see fit (within governing laws) in a free land.

Thanks Mr. Coleman for giving me the information that I needed, to investigate further make up my own mind.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

One can take a course (FAQs for instance) if one wanted to understand the issues w Mr Coleman's posits- which are completely incorrect. There ARE facts, you know. Right and wrong. When one bases a breeding program off a random idea that has no basis in fact, that person may have introduced to someone also uneducated on the mechanics of it, who then believes what they read because they do not know what they do not know. It's not something one can 'make up their own mind' about. It either is or isn't true. And his ideas are not grounded in truth. And the main point is that unless one is breeding, this is not something one has to make up one's mind about, since one would not be making choices on that. And yes- those random BYB Yoder type pedigrees ARE often the most diverse. This is because selectivity is not being employed, only convenience. I'm not saying these are not great pets- but they are not anything predictable re: work ability, conformation, temperament, and a myriad of other things. They are just generic Goldens.


----------



## cwag (Apr 25, 2017)

W


jeffscott947 said:


> The entire point is that people get to decide what is best for their own dogs and proceed accordingly. Adults get to weigh the arguments presented, and do their own followup research *(WITH EVERYTHING). *
> 
> Trying to shout down an opposing argument/discussion does nothing to enhance a position..in fact quite the contrary.
> 
> ...


What you are saying is any individual gets to post whatever agenda driven misinformation they want (we get it, this is America) but no one else should post their opposing views regardless of their years of education and experience because they are "trying to shout down an opposing argument." If one person has a right to post; then both sides should have that right. Some people care that wrong and sometimes harmful information is posted and then believed by quick lookers on the forum. Very few people will take the time to do extensive research on what they read. I am glad there are regular, knowledgeable members who take the time to post facts against random theories. Perhaps many opposing posts are not an attempt to shout down but that there are just so many people who disagree with what was posted.


----------



## OscarsDad (Dec 20, 2017)

Just to reiterate an earlier post by Carolina Mom. Veiled and overtly negative comments do not add anything to the conversation, but inevitably lead to threads being closed and the meaningful aspects of the conversation lost. It is possible to separate out personalities from strong opinions. I would encourage that. Falling back on the childhood old saw of "he or she started it first" as a rationale for continuing to personalize responses is just unfortunate. I don't think that most of us would communicate with each other like this face to face, so why is it ok online? I would hope that this interesting discussion can continue without the unnecessary, personal negativity.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

I am one of the nicest people I know- but if someone who wanted to be a breeder started spouting all this nonsense I would VERY quickly try to educate them in much the same way I did here except I assumed Mr Coleman did have some grasp of COI past his own perception of the value of a graph whose creator is the first to say is incomplete! The difference of course is he believes he - a non scientist- has this amazing 'new' way to prevent cancer in Goldens that is not new, has been debunked and he will not hear it because he has adopted it as a way to sell puppies. Most of the 'arguing' people have no reason to even have an opinion on it, since they do not have breeding programs. This is very deep stuff, and we cannot begin to make it a simple answer especially without actually knowing what alleles are being inherited. We have no way to know what alleles each sperm and egg carry, nor can we know if they create after fertilization hetero or **** for a trait without doing an actual individual genetic study. UCD does one. It's not a simple 'cure' for cancer. When pet people read this nonsense, they buy it because someone wrote it and it is out there. It's important that those of us who use this information on a daily basis put correct information out there to prevent someone believing what they read. There are great minds working on this problem-


----------



## 3goldens2keep (Feb 13, 2019)

I frequently find that those who speak loudest, seem to have less quality information than those who are not loud! 

When reading lengthy posts, I find this to be true also. Of course the 'noise' comes in emotive language, accusation and statement of absolute "truth"!

Of course that's just me...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I often say to my husband, "just because you are being louder doesn't make you more right" LOL


----------



## puddles everywhere (May 13, 2016)

I'm the 1st one to admit the calculation of COI is not something I totally grasp. But to follow the logic of Jeff or Coleman my pound puppy, lab/dal mix should not have died from cancer... or isn't that what you meant by diversity?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

3goldens2keep said:


> I frequently find that those who speak loudest, seem to have less quality information than those who are not loud!
> 
> When reading lengthy posts, I find this to be true also. Of course the 'noise' comes in emotive language, accusation and statement of absolute "truth"!


Hmm... sometimes when you have lengthy posts, that could also be a person's writing style and/or them putting an effort into communicating a point they see as important. Especially when they are also listeners and learners who have surrounded themselves with betters (they acknowledge how little they know and set out to learn from people who have the experience and knowledge they lack).

I do not blame anyone for posting lengthy posts or having a lot to say on certain subjects. 

But there are a lot of people who post online who clearly have not surrounded themselves with the right people. And even worse, these people jump into breeding dogs and clearly set out to polish the turds they own and breed. 

This thread and the OTHER one posted previously set out to convince people that simply breeding a dog to one completely unrelated will cancel out negative health deficits on either side, including cancer. Among else, the comment also was made that the conformation lines were the ones carrying the cancer gene and as long as that was cancelled out by breeding to a completely unrelated dog (or a dog with an unknown history), the result was producing dogs who have a lowered chance of cancer. 

This same argument has been made in defense of producing mixed breed dogs. And does not make any sense - because if cancer exists on both sides, that doesn't magically go away.
.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Should add. 

We have found that breeding American lines to European lines as people began doing on a spotty basis in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and full blast during the 2010's.... has not cancelled out hemangiosarcoma. 

Instead I'd venture to guess that we just have more cancer than before - with increased cases of lymphoma and mast cell type cancers, and continued tendency towards hemangiosarcoma. 

Likewise, don't forget that NCL is in the breed (apparently coming down from a dog in the 50's or 60's that is behind both show and field lines) - but with affected cases all being field dogs. All that does not go away if you breed a field dog with a known carrier status to a show dog of unknown status, because NCL in the breed as a whole. There may be additional triggers or perfect storm situations that we don't know yet, but currently the need is to test both sides before breeding, especially if either side has a pedigree closely related to those affecteds in the breed.


----------



## Tagrenine (Aug 20, 2019)

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is that high school genetics basically taught that 2 + 2 = 4 and while valid when breeding pea plants, it does not hold ground to the complicated system in animals. It's very difficult to educate anybody when the information is not presented properly. Most people have no idea that siblings can have a different set of genes, but a good example of this would be to look at ancestry percentages of siblings. They can be wildly different and the same method of transfer is in all animals. We are not clones, our genes are not all the same. I feel it is easier to look at genetics as a set of colored dots or beads. Mom can have 5 orange dots, 5 red, 10 green and Dad can have 10 yellow, 5 blue, 5 red. Each child will have a different combination of those colored dots. In the case here, we're looking at specific genes for cancer, we won't know which of those colored dots is giving us cancer until we start testing, but we can't just say "Mom and Dad both have 5 red dots, so the baby will have 10 red dots".


----------



## jeffscott947 (Jun 9, 2019)

I also take some direction in the fact that in MOST states in the USA...*Incest (Inbreeding) is ILLEGAL for humans.* There must be a reason for such laws. (perhaps there remain 2-3 states where incest is legal). From what I have been able to gather..inbreeding among mammals can weaken the gene pool, where in nature, natural selection rules to this day.

We still get to make our own decisions thankfully, regarding where and how we get our own dogs, what we do to treat them medically, etc, without interference from anyone. One also must examine the motives of everyone that is involved in such discussions. Why there is is such a problem when those decisions (our personal decisions) run contrary to some other opinions is unfortunate to say the least.

There are many dog owners that are not breeders etc, geneticists, "experts" etc., and a clear path for our own investigation is/was appreciated, which was provided at the onset of the OPs thread. For many like I, the charts etc were not old news, but another tool from which to make our decisions.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

What decisions do you make? If you are not a breeder, and someone just gives you a dog, did you really need an opinion on COI? A moot question- you are not forthcoming w your dog's k9data link... so all you are doing here by giving these ideas, already been debunked years ago, credence is muddying the waters. You don't have to disagree with every single thing we as a community of Golden enthusiasts have long ago learnt. Incest doesn't really play into this (though incest would not be the right word to use here, inbreeding is - especially because dogs generally do not make the choice of who they breed to and we should use the correct verbiage) because (as an extremely simplistic explanation- and for only one thing not a full explanation) animals who live much shorter lives have different strategies for dealing with environmental drivers, particularly telomere length and telomerase (an enzyme that governs telomere degradation) all of which play into longevity and mutations. That's AFTER fertilization of the egg by the sperm both carrying unknown alleles. And really- for anyone reading- the COI is not a good determination of any of this nor is it a cancer likelihood indicator. The chart cited is incomplete, per anyone in the know and most importantly, per the creator of the chart cited... and COI is just a good guess not anything concrete. Without genetic testing we do not know what alleles a particular dog carries in his gametes.


----------



## puddles everywhere (May 13, 2016)

jeffscott947 said:


> I also take some direction in the fact that in MOST states in the USA...*Incest (Inbreeding) is ILLEGAL for humans.* There must be a reason for such laws. (perhaps there remain 2-3 states where incest is legal). From what I have been able to gather..inbreeding among mammals can weaken the gene pool, where in nature, natural selection rules to this day.
> 
> We still get to make our own decisions thankfully, regarding where and how we get our own dogs, what we do to treat them medically, etc, without interference from anyone. One also must examine the motives of everyone that is involved in such discussions. Why there is is such a problem when those decisions (our personal decisions) run contrary to some other opinions is unfortunate to say the least.
> 
> There are many dog owners that are not breeders etc, geneticists, "experts" etc., and a clear path for our own investigation is/was appreciated, which was provided at the onset of the OPs thread. For many like I, the charts etc were not old news, but another tool from which to make our decisions.


So you are saying stray dogs make the moral decision not to mate with their offspring or parents? You're joking right? I don't know of any quality breeders that do this!
Doing research on anything that reflects on a personal decision is always good but picking out the passages that validate bad decision vs understanding proven information is not the same thing. Learning is not just finding the stuff you agree with.


----------



## Maggie'sVoice (Apr 4, 2018)

jeffscott947 said:


> I also take some direction in the fact that in MOST states in the USA...*Incest (Inbreeding) is ILLEGAL for humans.* There must be a reason for such laws. (perhaps there remain 2-3 states where incest is legal). From what I have been able to gather..inbreeding among mammals can weaken the gene pool, where in nature, natural selection rules to this day.
> 
> We still get to make our own decisions thankfully, regarding where and how we get our own dogs, what we do to treat them medically, etc, without interference from anyone. One also must examine the motives of everyone that is involved in such discussions. Why there is is such a problem when those decisions (our personal decisions) run contrary to some other opinions is unfortunate to say the least.
> 
> There are many dog owners that are not breeders etc, geneticists, "experts" etc., and a clear path for our own investigation is/was appreciated, which was provided at the onset of the OPs thread. For many like I, the charts etc were not old news, but another tool from which to make our decisions.


I just explained that. Do you read? Some animals it takes 4+ generations to see inbreeding depression. I am not saying that is the or is not the case with dogs. You can't just take what affects people and apply that to every animal. If that was the case. why have studies. Do one, on people, and just apply that information to EVERYTHING. Good god man, that's BRILLIANT. We could take that money saved and research and feed the homeless. ?

Edit:
Also the charts that are new news to you but is old news was not complete so why would you not care to know this? This thread is explainging to everyone that the data isn't complete and can lead you to wrong conclusions. Why the hell would you want incomplete data to use to make your "own decisions" as you say. That is 180 degrees on what YOU say you want for yourself and everyone else? Agreeing and supporting someone that is giving you potentially the wrong information. OY! Can one actually dig to china?


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

This thread is being closed...... several reminders have been posted to keep the Forum rules in mind when posting, negative comments have continued.


----------

