# Itch Clearances and COI



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I have been looking at breeders and lines for our potential #3 in the next year or so. So far I have come across couple field breedings where one of the dogs show they are Itch carrier and the second does not show the testing for it either on the breeder website or OFFA. Obviously the breeder knows about it since one of the two parents have been tested. Why not test the other parent as well?

COI - I have personally been avoiding couple dogs in the lineage of the field goldens. It makes it pretty hard considering how small the pool has become (maybe this explains my above question to a small degree). 

So I thought I finally found it - nope. Not only I see one dog as the great grandparent of both the dam and dog but both the dam and dog have a high COI. 12 year for a dam 9.71 and 12 year for dog 11.21. 

I know it must be frustrating for the breeders to find good lines and reduce the COI. But it is so frustrating for the puppy buyer.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Ichthyosis ia something you're going to have to ask directly of the breeder.

I also have two specific dogs that will cause me to reject potential litters if either of them is included. 

You can find field bred litters with lower COI's but you're going to have to look for them. They most likely won't be advertised.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

A field show cross might give you that low COI.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Alaska7133 said:


> A field show cross might give you that low COI.


I know I am picky but I also stay away from the crosses like this. I personally like the structure, body and coat of the field goldens.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Alaska7133 said:


> A field show cross might give you that low COI.


Yeah it might lower the COI, but it would almost certainly give me one of those dogs on my "absolutely do not accept" list.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> Ichthyosis ia something you're going to have to ask directly of the breeder.
> 
> 
> If the breeder would have both dogs what would be the reasoning for checking one but not the other and not even cleared by parentage? Which with such high COIs I doubt it would be the case.
> ...


You are correct. I have mainly looked at the field tests and ability after which I have come across the websites - since most breeders do not spend much time online updating websites I tried to correlate with the OFFA.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The new genetic tests are not performed by OFA. The Ichty test for example is done in France. Very few breeders are even concerned with Icthy at this time so there are only a relative few dogs tested. Even fewer have then paid OFA to list the results on the OFA site.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> The new genetic tests are not performed by OFA. The Ichty test for example is done in France. Very few breeders are even concerned with Icthy at this time so there are only a relative few dogs tested. Even fewer have then paid OFA to list the results on the OFA site.


True. I had it done on Rose. None available for Flat coats yet. With Optigen, Itch came in last within a day of the GR_PRA1 while the prcd PRA came in first almost two weeks earlier.


ETA - I was very impressed with Optigen - they have emailed the test results as soon as received, did not have to wait for USPS to deliver.


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

I am amazed at the lack of understanding in even simple genetics such as the recessive Ichthyosis heritability prediction- have been searching for a stud dog, as I own a carrier bitch- and of the 4 I have inquired on, 3 have not only not tested but have said to me,'we've had no problems' which is zero comfort. So I won't use those boys, but given the amount of education out there, it sure was a surprise to me that so few boys have been tested. I know some folks don't pay OFA to post the results, and GoldenDNA.com is great but runs way behind... so thought surely with a personal inquiry I'd hear that the ones I was interested in had been tested but no. FWIW, pawprint genetics is also accepted by OFA for listing, and they are cheaper.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia if you have been k9data and can find one or two males that are tested "clear", try contacting the stud owner for info on any upcoming breedings that are planed. It will not matter much as to the dam's Ichy status and may make your search easier. 
Also there really are some great breeders out there that do crosses that would have dogs that i think you would like. One would be Morningstar Goldens in Warwick, NY. Can not talk about the couple dogs you are trying to avoid though. 
Good luck


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Claudia, if one of the parents tests clear, then it doesn't matter what the other parent's status is, there is no possibility of getting an affected puppy. The worst you could get is a heterozygotic carrier.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

DanaRuns said:


> Claudia, if one of the parents tests clear, then it doesn't matter what the other parent's status is, there is no possibility of getting an affected puppy. The worst you could get is a heterozygotic carrier.


I think the problem is one parent tested carrier and the other was never tested.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> Claudia if you have been k9data and can find one or two males that are tested "clear", try contacting the stud owner for info on any upcoming breedings that are planed. It will not matter much as to the dam's Ichy status and may make your search easier.
> 
> 
> Interesting that you would start with the stud clearances. I have started with the female since that is where I would be purchasing the puppy from as far as location and ability to meet the breeder face to face.
> ...


Would never talk about any dog in particular, especially on a public forum. :no:

From a buyer point of view I can not understand the high COIs. Is the pool THAT limited? Is it this hard for a breeder to find a good match? What good comes out of breeding two dogs whose grandfather is the same and have high COIs?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl:



Prism Goldens said:


> I am amazed at the lack of understanding in even simple genetics such as the recessive Ichthyosis heritability prediction- have been searching for a stud dog, as I own a carrier bitch- and of the 4 I have inquired on, 3 have not only not tested but have said to me,'we've had no problems' which is zero comfort. So I won't use those boys, but given the amount of education out there, it sure was a surprise to me that so few boys have been tested. I know some folks don't pay OFA to post the results, and GoldenDNA.com is great but runs way behind... so thought surely with a personal inquiry I'd hear that the ones I was interested in had been tested but no. FWIW, pawprint genetics is also accepted by OFA for listing, and they are cheaper.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> So I thought I finally found it - nope. Not only I see one dog as the great grandparent of both the dam and dog but both the dam and dog have a high COI. 12 year for a dam 9.71 and 12 year for dog 11.21.





Claudia M said:


> From a buyer point of view I can not understand the high COIs. Is the pool THAT limited? Is it this hard for a breeder to find a good match? What good comes out of breeding two dogs whose grandfather is the same and have high COIs?


The average COI for Goldens in K9Data is 9.53 for 10 generations. So actually these two COIs are lower than the average. BUT I do know a lot of folks are not comfortable with them being that high and I understand. 
Also remember that often the COI of the offspring is most times lower than the COI of the individual parents. But iin this case it may not be be to the grandsire you commented on but it could still be. 
As for the reason a breeder would do this is line breeding helps establish consistency. And if the breeder has been at this for years they likely know what to expect from such a breeding and want what is believed it will get. But yes you not only double up on the "good" but the "bad". Experience is what tells them if it is worth it or not. 
Not condoning or condemning just answering your question I hope.




Claudia M said:


> Would never talk about any dog in particular, especially on a public forum. :no:


I understand and agree.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> The average COI for Goldens in K9Data is 9.53 for 10 generations. So actually these two COIs are lower than the average. BUT I do know a lot of folks are not comfortable with them being that high and I understand.
> Also remember that often the COI of the offspring is most times lower than the COI of the individual parents. But iin this case it may not be be to the grandsire you commented on but it could still be.
> As for the reason a breeder would do this is line breeding helps establish consistency. And if the breeder has been at this for years they likely know what to expect from such a breeding and want what is believed it will get. But yes you not only double up on the "good" but the "bad". Experience is what tells them if it is worth it or not.
> *Not condoning or condemning just answering your question I hope.
> I understand and agree. - Answer completely appreciated.*



Thank you sincerely! Honestly I am looking for an under 5 COI. Our own Trooper was a 7.55 COI 10 generation and 8.64 COI 12 generation. 

Is that too much to ask for in a field golden? 

BTW - in the little time I had at the office I did check Morning Star (I am a night owl and will check more tonight) and I see the COI mostly between 3 and 4. NY would be a hike for me to travel and meet the breeder and of course allow the breeder to know me but still doable.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> I know I am picky but I also stay away from the crosses like this. I personally like the structure, body and coat of the field goldens.


Flip is a field/show cross but you'd never know he wasn't all field. Both 10 and 12 gen are under 5%. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=370847


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> Would never talk about any dog in particular, especially on a public forum. :no:
> 
> From a buyer point of view I can not understand the high COIs. Is the pool THAT limited? Is it this hard for a breeder to find a good match? What good comes out of breeding two dogs whose grandfather is the same and have high COIs?


Is it that hard to find? Well, yes it is. As a breeder, I am looking at all the clearances, the DNA tests, the pedigree, the COI, the titles, the longevity, the bone structure, size, the coat, the trainability, livability, the intelligence and ability to problem solve, courage, and grit. I compare all these strengths and weakness of bitch and stud. Trying to make sure we overcome weaknesses and fortify strengths.

Then there is the working relationship with the stud owner and a few are too difficult despite a boy I really like. Add to that the logistics to of using a stud that does not live near you. 

A good match is hard to find. It takes vision, knowing what you will and won't sacrifice and courage. Because there are always surprises in breeding.

Good luck finding what you are looking for.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> Flip is a field/show cross but you'd never know he wasn't all field. Both 10 and 12 gen are under 5%. Pedigree: Sunfire's Flying Head Over Heels UD BN RE WC


I do like "Steeler" in the pedigree! He also shows in several MorningStar goldens.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> I.........Trying to make sure we overcome weaknesses and fortify strengths.
> 
> Then there is the working relationship with the stud owner and a few are too difficult despite a boy I really like. Add to that the logistics to of using a stud that does not live near you.
> 
> ...


How do you overcome weaknesses and fortify strengths with a high COI? Why would a breeder even consider a dog or dam with a high COI? Longevity, seizures just to name a few issues with linebreeding or inbreeding.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Why would a breeder even consider a dog or dam with a high COI?


That depends upon what you consider high.

COI's under 5 produce litters that are not uniform. (One of the big drawbacks to outcrosses.) When people are looking for a puppy, they have expectations that they're trying to meet. If somebody is looking for a 55 pound bitch with a short red coat, and they instead end up with an 80 pound bitch with a long wavy red coat, they're not going to be happy.
(Yes, there is that much variation in outcross litters.)


----------



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

Prism Goldens said:


> I am amazed at the lack of understanding in even simple genetics such as the recessive Ichthyosis heritability prediction- have been searching for a stud dog, as I own a carrier bitch- and of the 4 I have inquired on, 3 have not only not tested but have said to me,'we've had no problems' which is zero comfort. So I won't use those boys, but given the amount of education out there, it sure was a surprise to me that so few boys have been tested. I know some folks don't pay OFA to post the results, and GoldenDNA.com is great but runs way behind... so thought surely with a personal inquiry I'd hear that the ones I was interested in had been tested but no. FWIW, pawprint genetics is also accepted by OFA for listing, and they are cheaper.


I have not sent results in to OFA due to my procrastination... So there are probably others like me... I have tested... two 

of my bitches for the genetic diseases offered by Optigen, plus two of mine I co own as well. All are clear for everything...


----------



## Prism Goldens (May 27, 2011)

I thought for sure when I made the contacts that I'd hear that the stud dogs I was interested in had been tested- just not listed- but no, there is an attitude that 'aw, puppy dandruff is no big thing and we've not had any problems' which just shows a huge lack of understanding... of course, the dogs are getting used anyway, so even bitch owners are buying into that.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> That depends upon what you consider high.
> 
> COI's under 5 produce litters that are not uniform. (One of the big drawbacks to outcrosses.) When people are looking for a puppy, they have expectations that they're trying to meet. If somebody is looking for a 55 pound bitch with a short red coat, and they instead end up with an 80 pound bitch with a long wavy red coat, they're not going to be happy.
> (Yes, there is that much variation in outcross litters.)


True, as a buyer I am not that concerned about the coat or weight. I completely understand that part. Rose has overgrown her mom and sister and some of her brothers. You can certainly not breed for color or weight or height. Some will be out of standard. 

However the COI is related to health problems. I was quite impressed with this dog but then I saw early signs of aging (gray face before the age of 6) and then looked at the COI - it was above 13. 
I would never ever want a pup from that dog. I already had a dog with seizures with a COI above 5. No thank you! I do not ever want to go thru that EVER AGAIN.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Prism Goldens said:


> I thought for sure when I made the contacts that I'd hear that the stud dogs I was interested in had been tested- just not listed- but no, there is an attitude that 'aw, puppy dandruff is no big thing and we've not had any problems' which just shows a huge lack of understanding... of course, the dogs are getting used anyway, so even bitch owners are buying into that.


With the risk of sounding "elite" - it is not that expensive to do it! And if you do all the tests I think that is cost like $25 to list on OFFA. 

Talk about procrastinating - when I did the Optigen there was no GR-PRA2. So now I have to draw more blood and get that done as well. Here we are almost a year since they brought it up and I still have not done it. 

Sometimes it is easy to assume: well, she is clear of prcd-PRA and GR-PRA1 - she should also be clear of GR-PRA2.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> How do you overcome weaknesses and fortify strengths with a high COI? Why would a breeder even consider a dog or dam with a high COI? Longevity, seizures just to name a few issues with linebreeding or inbreeding.


 
So, let me get this straight. You want a field pup that has a low COI but you wont consider an outcross? You want the COI to be below 5 but you want the litter to be consistent so you can predict the strengths of your pup. There are specific dogs that you are going to exclude because they have been bred too much in your opinion. ?????? You might have to pick - do you want a talented dog or one with a low COI. In life you usually cannot have it all. 



IMO the COI is just a number and everyone that looks at this number has their own idea of what is too high. In and of itself, it does not predict anything. If I use a stud dog in my program with a coi of 8/9 what does that say? Good or Bad? What if I told you that 10 of the 12 pups from that litter died of cancer by age 8? That would be bad. What if I told you that all 12 of the pups in that litter are still alive at age 12? 
That would be great. What if I told you that the parents of that litter both died at age 8 of cancer? Now is it back to being bad? What if both parents lived into their teens and neither died of cancer. Now it is great!

So what did the number tell you? The number did not tell you ANYTHING but the dogs that back that pedigree certainly do. 

If I can find the stud dog who had has all of his littermates alive at age 12 and had both parents live into their teens, and not die of cancer, then I would want to use that stud dog in my breeding program, in fact I would want to use him a lot. I would happy to increase the coi of the puppies if he is the stud. 

As a buyer, I would rather have a puppy from a stud dog that lived a long healthy life, from grandparents that lived long and healthy lives. I would want the coi to be in that 9/10 range to ensure that whatever it is in their genetic make up allowed them to live so long would be passed on to my puppy. 

BTW - thank you swampcollie for producing such a great litter 12+ years ago.


----------



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

Just because your dog had seizures and happened to have a COI of over 5% -- that doesn't necessarily mean that the COI was in any way related to the seizures. It brings me back to that example of false logic that I heard over and over in school: 1. Apples are red. 2. Fire trucks are red. So 3. Apples are fire trucks. 

I understand fully wanting to avoid having a dog who suffers in the way your old dog did, I really do. But I would hate to see you spend so much time and effort looking specifically for this extremely low COI and get a dog that looks or acts nothing like what you had hoped for. Not to mention, that dog could be just as likely to have a seizure disorder than any other with a higher COI. I am curious what information you have that led you to believe the seizures were directly related to a COI over the very specific number of 5%?

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> So, let me get this straight. You want a field pup that has a low COI but you wont consider an outcross? You want the COI to be below 5 but you want the litter to be consistent so you can predict the strengths of your pup. There are specific dogs that you are going to exclude because they have been bred too much in your opinion. ??????
> 
> The COI is just a number and everyone that looks at this number has their own idea of what is too high. In and of itself, it does not predict anything. If I use a stud dog in my program with a coi of 8/9 what does that say? Good or Bad? What if I told you that 10 of the 12 pups from that litter died of cancer by age 8? That would be bad. What if I told you that all 12 of the pups in that litter are still alive at age 12?
> That would be great. What if I told you that the parents of that litter both died at age 8 of cancer? Now is it back to being bad? What if both parents lived into their teens and neither died of cancer. Now it is great!
> ...


Leslie, no reason to be defensive. I would however like to see the logic behind these kind of breedings. 
Inbreeding or the way some breeders like to call it "linebreeding" which is nothing but the same is related to epilepsy, longevity and health issues. 

I cannot pretend to know of what you went thru with your dogs health-wise. I can only tell you that even now 9 years later, when my dogs move at night I wake up thinking "OMG another seizure".


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Just because your dog had seizures and happened to have a COI of over 5% -- that doesn't necessarily mean that the COI was in any way related to the seizures. It brings me back to that example of false logic that I heard over and over in school: 1. Apples are red. 2. Fire trucks are red. So 3. Apples are fire trucks.
> 
> I understand fully wanting to avoid having a dog who suffers in the way your old dog did, I really do. But I would hate to see you spend so much time and effort looking specifically for this extremely low COI and get a dog that looks or acts nothing like what you had hoped for. Not to mention, that dog could be just as likely to have a seizure disorder than any other with a higher COI. I am curious what information you have that led you to believe the seizures were directly related to a COI over the very specific number of 5%?
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


With inbreeding you are likely to get a superstar or a complete disaster. While some call it courage I call it Russian roulette or NO MAN"S LAND (take your pick).


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

The other thing about a COI that's being ignored here is it depends on how much influence each dog has. You can have a COI of 12 split evenly among 6 dogs, or a COI of 12 with it being all the influence of one dog (to over simplify).
It's not as straightforward as looking at a number.
BTW, early white on a face isn't a sign of early aging.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> With inbreeding you are likely to get a superstar or a complete disaster. While some call it courage I call it Russian roulette or NO MAN"S LAND (take your pick).


So, in other words you have no actual evidence that your dog's COI being over 5% in any way contributed to his epilepsy? You want to see the logic behind breedings with what you consider to be a high COI. That's reasonable. So is my wanting to see your logic behind attributing a seizure disorder specifically to a COI of more than 5%.



hotel4dogs said:


> The other thing about a COI that's being ignored here is it depends on how much influence each dog has. You can have a COI of 12 split evenly among 6 dogs, or a COI of 12 with it being all the influence of one dog (to over simplify).
> It's not as straightforward and looking at a number.
> BTW, early white on a face isn't a sign of early aging.


Good points. Jersey especially agrees with your last sentence. He got his first bit of white on the chin at 4 years old. It started coming in more on his face shortly before he turned 6. Still, a few months ago at a hunt test when I answered a judge's question of how old Jersey is -- the response was "8 months?" No sir, 8 years... but thank you very much!

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia M said:


> Leslie, no reason to be defensive. I would however like to see the logic behind these kind of breedings.
> Inbreeding or the way some breeders like to call it "linebreeding" which is nothing but the same is related to epilepsy, longevity and health issues.
> 
> I cannot pretend to know of what you went thru with your dogs health-wise. I can only tell you that even now 9 years later, when my dogs move at night I wake up thinking "OMG another seizure".


 
I did not mean to be defensive so if any attitude came thru it was unintentional. 

Here is my logic - I look at the individual pedigree and the individual dog. I look at the longevity of the dog and their ancestors. When they died is more important than what they died of unless it is accidental. After all, if a dog dies at 12 of cancer then I am not worried. I look for a majority of the dead dogs in a pedigree to be over 10 - over 12 is better. I try to talk to the breeders who knew or owned the grandparents or great grandparents. What were their strengths and weaknesses? What health issues did they have that might not be listed. These are parents and grandparents of the puppy and they are of primary importance to the quality of the life of their offspring. 

Of course there is a genetic influence of any disorder, epilepsy, cancer, heart disease, diabeties, you name it. So if you double down on ancestors that HAD the disorder then you will increase the chances that the off spring will have it also. If you double down on ancestors that did NOT have the disorder then you are decreasing chances that the offspring will have the disorder. Knowing the health of the ancestors is what is most important - not the number associated with the coi.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

BTW, I have had a dog with epilepsy. He was a adopted by my first husband from a shelter as a puppy. A mix of unknown heritage but I could see some sheltie in his facial feature. He was also neurotic as the day was long despite being socialized and was afraid of everything. 

I bet his coi was was as low as it could be.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Leslie - So you have a dog with a COI of 8 and a dog with a COI of 9 and you breed them and thru parentage and lineage the pup will have a COI of 15. Doesn't that pretty much throw out the window the health, immune system and longevity of the previous generations since you are increasing the risk of recessive genetic diseases? 

Would love to see where the geneticists stay on this. 

Julie, Eutopia in my view is to have a 0 COI. Since there are so many inbred goldens out there, I like to take my chances with under 5 COI. 

Sorry - did not notice any premature graying on Jersey. 
Some can be genetic, health problems, stress or environment.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Tito was almost totally white in the face at age 3.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Julie, Eutopia in my view is to have a 0 COI.


 
You do of course realize that a COI of zero is mathematically impossible with ANY purebred dog....


----------



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

Swampcollie said:


> You do of course realize that a COI of zero is mathematically impossible with ANY purebred dog....


That was exactly my first thought. Then I got to wondering about mixes... would their COI even be 0? Is it higher if you mix a specific breed with one of the breeds that originally was used in the foundation stock? And what about people? I know we don't really analyze such things in people but aren't we all a little bit related somehow? I read an article a few months ago showing that President Obama is related to former President Bush in some weird semi-removed way. So if two members of their families met and fell in love and had children, there would be a COI of more than 0, right? Who, looking at the very different backgrounds of those families (ethnically, NOT politically.), would have thought that? Aren't we all a little bit related, somehow? I have to wonder if there's a single living being on the planet that doesn't have at least a fraction of a percent of "inbreeding" in them. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz

Edited to add: I guess in most cases you could find a mix or a human who has a COI of 0% in a 10-12 generation pedigree/family tree. I wasn't thinking in regards to the number of generations we typically analyze in dogs but more over all generations. Still, interesting to think about.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Swampcollie said:


> You do of course realize that a COI of zero is mathematically impossible with ANY purebred dog....


I was speaking genetically-wise.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Leslie - So you have a dog with a COI of 8 and a dog with a COI of 9 and you breed them and thru parentage and lineage the pup will have a COI of 15.



I have gone through this thread several times and do not see a specific reference to a litter with parents COI of 8 and 9 and the pups 15, so I am assuming this is is hypothetical. People do understand that just because a sire and dam COI is "high" does not mean that the pups will be even higher, right? Quite often they can be lower.
Here is an example
Pedigree: Ambika's Funny Redhead UDX RN JH MX MXJ WC CCA VCX Can CDX WC



Claudia M said:


> Doesn't that pretty much throw out the window the health, immune system and longevity of the previous generations since you are increasing the risk of recessive genetic diseases?
> 
> Would love to see where the geneticists stay on this.


No it does not UNLESS these issues exist in the lines already. If they have been seen in these lines then yes you are increasing the likelihood they will occur. 
The other thing to consider is in theory if you follow the COI of all Goldens all the way back far enough they will all have the virtually same COI. They are not a "natural" occurring breed, they were "created" by man.


----------



## CharlieBear80 (Oct 13, 2013)

AmbikaGR said:


> I have gone through this thread several times and do not see a specific reference to a litter with parents COI of 8 and 9 and the pups 15, so I am assuming this is is hypothetical. People do understand that just because a sire and dam COI is "high" does not mean that the pups will be even higher, right? Quite often they can be lower.


My pup's COI is significantly lower than his dam's COI and slightly lower than his sire's COI.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> I was speaking genetically-wise.


I don't understand the differentiation you are trying to make here. Genetically, as well as mathematically, it is impossible to have a purebred dog with a COI of 0%. 

Overall, your views frequently confuse me. I don't mean that to be rude. I really am trying to understand. You have said in the past that you think natural selection is the best way to insure healthy offspring. Now you say that in an ideal world you would like a 0% COI (in a 10-12 gen pedigree at least). What I don't understand is why, then, you prefer to seek out purebred dogs rather than a mixed breed. I also am left wondering what the average COI is in a flat coated retriever. It's my guess that since that breed has a significantly smaller gene pool than that of goldens that they would, on average, be higher. Yet you're considering (from my understanding, sorry if I have this wrong) someday breeding your FC if things all work out someday in the future. Would you still be willing to do so if you find it impossible to find a suitable mate within driving distance (since AI is not an option) that would produce offspring with a COI below 5%? 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

My grandmother's hair went bone white in her twenties and thirties. She lived into her nineties. I don't know what her COI was.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> My grandmother's hair went bone white in her twenties and thirties. She lived into her nineties. I don't know what her COI was.


 
LOL!!!!

I love it.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Claudia, I think that you want it all. Who doesn't? I would like to win the lottery even though I don't buy any tickets. 

In the long run, you will have to "pick your poison". There is no perfect breeding and breeders usually don't breed for what a specific buyer is looking for. At least I know that I don't. Perhaps you can narrow the requirements down to just a few "must haves" and accept that the others might or might not happen. For example you might decide you must have a field pedigree, that does not contain Buffy or Fluffy, and the coi is below 5, and you can accept more of an outcross where one parent has hunting titles and the litter was conceived via ai because the sire was over 12. 

Like most things in life, the ability drill down and identify what is really important to you will help clarify the search and allow you to let go of the minor issues that are clouding up the decision making process. 

Remember "Not making a choice or a decision is making the decision to keep things just the way they are".


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> You do of course realize that a COI of zero is mathematically impossible with ANY purebred dog....


Nope. Linda (Tahnee) has a girl with a 10 ten COI of 0.00. 
Genetic information for Doolin's On Fiji Time


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Eowyn said:


> Nope. Linda (Tahnee) has a girl with a 10 ten COI of 0.00.
> Genetic information for Doolin's On Fiji Time


Not True. Look at the link you provided and the ancestors listed (they aren't zero). Just because the program rounded the number down, doesn't make the COI zero.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I recently had the honor of eating dinner with two influential, long time breeders/judges. They were discussing that too many people get too concerned about the COI number, but they really should be looking at is the percentages of the dogs and who the dogs are behind that number.

I am new to all of this, but I thought it was quite interesting.

They also said before k9data, all the pedigrees and COIs were figured out manually, and written in these huge notebooks. Hours would be spent writing these all out.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> Leslie - So you have a dog with a COI of 8 and a dog with a COI of 9 and you breed them and thru parentage and lineage the pup will have a COI of 15. Doesn't that pretty much throw out the window the health, immune system and longevity of the previous generations since you are increasing the risk of recessive genetic diseases?
> 
> Would love to see where the geneticists stay on this.


I am not a geneticist, but I am way into genetics and have a college level understanding of biology (I haven't taken a college class on it so far, I tested out of college biology as a 15 year old). Statistically (I understand there will always be exceptions, but statistically speaking) you can typically expect 1 point on a dogs 10 generation COI to equal 3 weeks of life. Linebreeding will reduce the incidence of heritable diseases we understand enough to breed around (hip/elbow dysplasia, soundness issues etc.) but it will increase the risk of heritable diseases we don't understand enough about to breed around (PU, cancer, etc.). 

Ya know, I think this is the first time we have been somewhat on the same side Claudia! Whatta ya know…


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

So hard to sit on my fingers here. The best I can say is : Do not let your misunderstanding of science, lead you to erroneous conclusions.
1 - Best of luck in a puppy search.......
2 - Most people are happy with any puppy they get


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Swampcollie said:


> Not True. Look at the link you provided and the ancestors listed (they aren't zero). Just because the program rounded the number down, doesn't make the COI zero.


It would still be like 0.00... something though.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

This is what I was trying to say, although I didn't say it well. The number itself doesn't mean that much. If the COI is 12, and 1 dog accounts for all 12%, that's different than if the COI is 12, and 6 dogs make up that 12%.

Also, if you have an outcross breeding of 2 dogs with COIs of 12 each, the puppies will have a much lower COI than either parent, assuming it was a true outcross. If it's a linebreeding, they will have a higher COI.




cubbysan said:


> I recently had the honor of eating dinner with two influential, long time breeders/judges. They were discussing that too many people get too concerned about the COI number, but they really should be looking at is the percentages of the dogs and who the dogs are behind that number.
> 
> I am new to all of this, but I thought it was quite interesting.
> 
> They also said before k9data, all the pedigrees and COIs were figured out manually, and written in these huge notebooks. Hours would be spent writing these all out.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Well Claudia I think you might have some expectations that could lead you to disappointment. 


I've done four litters in the last decade that had COI's under 5. While they might be SLIGHTLY better from a health standpoint, it is only an incremental difference that amounts to a fraction of one percentage point, when compared to my litters with COI's in the 7 to 8 range. 


I keep track of my “Clinker” puppies that had some type of an issue. It might be a dog that developed allergies, seizures, kidney or liver issues, shoulder OCD, elbow issues etc. In litters with a COI in the 7 to 8 range, the clinker percentage runs just under 7%. In litters with the COI under 5, the clinker percentage runs just over 6%. So if I could hypothetically produce 100 puppies with the pairing from the 7 to 8 COI group, I should expect 6 puppies to be clinkers. If I could hypothetically produce 100 puppies with the pairing from the under 5 COI group, I should expect 6 puppies to be clinkers. 


So, while there is some slight improvement in the lower COI litters, is it worth losing the uniformity and predictability that I get with COI's in the 7 to 8 range? That is the kind of decisions every breeder has to make with every litter. You're always weighing what you could gain against what you could give up.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Here's Tito's genetic information. The high COI doesn't bother me one tiny little bit, the percent influence of the major dogs is very small. 

10-generation COI	14.48%
12-generation COI	16.15%

Top 5 ancestors contributing to COI, in order of influence:

Am-Can Ch Tempo's Schoolhouse Rock Can SDHF	3.76%
BISS BIS Am Can CH Amberac's Asterling Aruba OD SDHF	1.99%
Am. CH. Misty Morn's Sunset CD TD WC OS SDHF	1.58%
Am./Can. CH. Asterling's Wild Blue Yonder OS SDHF	1.25%
Halltree Dixie's Jubilee CD	0.85%


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Love this statement.



Swampcollie said:


> That is the kind of decisions every breeder has to make with every litter. You're always weighing what you could gain against what you could give up.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

One of Tito's upcoming breedings is with a bitch with a COI of 7.67 over 10 generations, 8.56 over 12 generations. (about 2% of that is Holoway Barty...sign me up!) Tito's is, as I said, 14.48 over 10, 16.15 over 12. But the puppies are 0.10 over 10 generations, and 0.29 over 12, as it's an outcross (and exciting) breeding.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I am at work and last night I stayed up to watch the World Wars on History. Not avoiding anyone. 

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/23704/InTech-Inbreeding_and_genetic_disorder.pdf

I have a couple other links at home that are specific to Goldens, Dalmatians and one linking to the GRCA. I hoped it would be an easy google from the office. Will still try to find them.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

Statistics are a funny thing. I love the Mark Twain line - There are lies, there are **** lies, and then there are statistics.

Statistics can tell you about the incidence of an occurance within a big enough population. I am always wary of low population counts with any statistical since it can throw off the numbers. However, the value of statistics are all about the population and will tell you nothing about the individual. 

I do not have a degree in genetics but I do have 2 years of college biology plus an additional 18 months of medical training. In one of my medical classes the teacher stated that if she had only 2 questions that she could ask a patient they would be 1. Where does it hurt? and 2. What did your grandparents die from? Because it does not matter what the average cause of death is in the general population. It only matters what the most common cause of is in your genetic family. I make a calculated assumption that it is simlar in dogs and believe the COI is not about the number but who are the dogs backing the pedigree.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Leslie B said:


> Statistics are a funny thing.
> 
> Statistics can tell you about the incidence of an occurance within a big enough population. I am always wary of low population counts with any statistical since it can throw off the numbers. However, the value of statistics are all about the population and will tell you nothing about the individual.
> 
> I do not have a degree in genetics but I do have 2 years of college biology plus an additional 18 months of medical training. In one of my medical classes the teacher stated that if she had only 2 questions that she could ask a patient they would be 1. Where does it hurt? and 2. What did your grandparents die from? Because it does not matter what the average cause of death is in the general population. It only matters what the most common cause of is in your genetic family. I make a calculated assumption that it is simlar in dogs and believe the COI is not about the number but who are the dogs backing the pedigree.


I would like to thank you for this part of your post. Morally I couldn't just thank it with the asterisks in there, but I do appreciate the rest of the post.

ETA: Have you done the statistics on your own dogs to find out how COI affects lifespan?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Eowyn said:


> It would still be like 0.00... something though.


I suspect if you ran a genetic influence table the number would be higher. K9data only calculates 10 and 12 generations but genetic influence tables are much more accurate and can calculate back as far as they want. The ones I have run go back 19 generations. Typically the COI for any breeding is a bit higher once you factor in the additional generations.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I suspect if you ran a genetic influence table the number would be higher. K9data only calculates 10 and 12 generations but genetic influence tables are much more accurate and can calculate back as far as they want. The ones I have run go back 19 generations. Typically the COI for any breeding is a bit higher once you factor in the additional generations.


I was being very specific to the 10 generation COI. Even with 2 generations more it went up on k9data. Even looking at the pedigree there are name repeats in that 10 generations but not enough to equal more than 0.00… something. It's not an absolute zero.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

EUREKA! Here they are. 

Understanding Genetics

Understanding Genetics

http://www.grca.org/pdf/health/cancer.pdf


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

AmbikaGR said:


> I have gone through this thread several times and do not see a specific reference to a litter with parents COI of 8 and 9 and the pups 15, so I am assuming this is is hypothetical. People do understand that just because a sire and dam COI is "high" does not mean that the pups will be even higher, right? Quite often they can be lower.
> Here is an example
> Pedigree: Ambika's Funny Redhead UDX RN JH MX MXJ WC CCA VCX Can CDX WC


Very much correct - it depends on the dogs in the pedigree, the COI can be lower or higher for the puppies.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Claudia M said:


> Very much correct - it depends on the dogs in the pedigree, the COI can be lower or higher for the puppies.



I thought you knew that but I was confused by the example obviously.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Eowyn said:


> Linebreeding will reduce the incidence of heritable diseases we understand enough to breed around (hip/elbow dysplasia, soundness issues etc.) but it will increase the risk of heritable diseases we don't understand enough about to breed around (PU, cancer, etc.).


Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. We basically know next to nothing about the inheritance of hip and elbow issues. We have attempted to improve them with phenotype observation not genotype. And whether or not that has been successful can be argued till the cows come home. The few problems we can definitively say we can get a handle on are things we have genetic markers for and those are very few.
As for the others (Dysplasia, PU, Cancer, etc.) we truly will not know if we are making things worse or better until we understand the genetic makeup of these things.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I think many here might be interested in this class

COI Boot Camp - The Institute of Canine Biology


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Jersey's Mom said:


> I don't understand the differentiation you are trying to make here. Genetically, as well as mathematically, it is impossible to have a purebred dog with a COI of 0%.
> 
> Overall, your views frequently confuse me. I don't mean that to be rude. I really am trying to understand. You have said in the past that you think natural selection is the best way to insure healthy offspring. Now you say that in an ideal world you would like a 0% COI (in a 10-12 gen pedigree at least). What I don't understand is why, then, you prefer to seek out purebred dogs rather than a mixed breed. I also am left wondering what the average COI is in a flat coated retriever. It's my guess that since that breed has a significantly smaller gene pool than that of goldens that they would, on average, be higher. Yet you're considering (from my understanding, sorry if I have this wrong) someday breeding your FC if things all work out someday in the future. Would you still be willing to do so if you find it impossible to find a suitable mate within driving distance (since AI is not an option) that would produce offspring with a COI below 5%?
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


Ahh Julie, I did say EUTOPIA which is not real life! If Darcy will ever be bred I am very much aware that it will be a long long process for me. Not as many lines, not yest sure of the COI and that will definitely be a factor in my view. 

Natural breeding is different than natural selection, the human still chooses the pair but the two dogs can decide if they find themselves compatible to breed or not - the female can reject or dominate the male and the male (not so often - sorry guys) can reject the female. Since that is such a touchy subject I prefer to stop it here.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> Claudia, I think that you want it all. Who doesn't? I would like to win the lottery even though I don't buy any tickets.
> 
> In the long run, you will have to "pick your poison". There is no perfect breeding and breeders usually don't breed for what a specific buyer is looking for. At least I know that I don't. Perhaps you can narrow the requirements down to just a few "must haves" and accept that the others might or might not happen. For example you might decide you must have a field pedigree, that does not contain Buffy or Fluffy, and the coi is below 5, and you can accept more of an outcross where one parent has hunting titles and the litter was conceived via ai because the sire was over 12.
> 
> ...


You are correct, the breeder (especially the hobby breeder) is looking for his next puppy. Since they cannot keep all the puppies they keep one or two and sell the rest. They all feel bad when health issues happen, but ultimately they are not the ones dealing with the health issues unless they have a buyer who just throws his/her hands up in the air and says take it back I am not dealing with this; or worse, I do not have the time or money to deal with this and put the pup down. Since most pet sold pups are not genetically tested, hip, elbow, eyes, heart etc it is IMHO even harder to determine what in that breeding went wrong. 
Outcrosses - I am sorry, I just personally do not like the structure. Are they bad dogs, no; are they not golden retrievers, of course they are. 


LOL, AI with a sire over 12 it is completely out of my book. You almost gave me a heart attack!

Older Dads’ Kids at Higher Risk for Genetic Disease | Understanding Genetics

Genetics are quirky.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> You are correct, the breeder (especially the hobby breeder) is looking for his next puppy. Since they cannot keep all the puppies they keep one or two and sell the rest. They all feel bad when health issues happen, but ultimately they are not the ones dealing with the health issues unless they have a buyer who just throws his/her hands up in the air and says take it back I am not dealing with this; or worse, I do not have the time or money to deal with this and put the pup down. Since most pet sold pups are not genetically tested, hip, elbow, eyes, heart etc it is IMHO even harder to determine what in that breeding went wrong.
> Outcrosses - I am sorry, I just personally do not like the structure. Are they bad dogs, no; are they not golden retrievers, of course they are.
> 
> 
> ...


I completely agree with your first point -- breeders are limited in their knowledge of the puppies they sell by what the buyer tests for and shares with them. I think a lot of breeders are doing a good job of trying to educate their puppy buyers on the importance of clearances and I hope that more and more people will do the tests with their pets -- but we may be delving back into another Utopian situation there 

But you lose me a bit on the rest of it. You are opposed to line breeding and are determined to find a puppy with a COI of less than 5%. But you're opposed to outcrosses too. What else is there? How do you get a COI that low without an outcross? If a breeder is neither line breeding nor outcrossing -- what exactly is he or she doing? 

As was mentioned the last time you posted that article about older fathers -- when you are using frozen semen the sperm are generally preserved when the stud is a fairly young dog. So when one does AI with a more than 12 year old stud one would assume you are using frozen that was probably collected when he was in the 4 to 6 year old range. That sperm does not know it's been sitting on ice for 6 to 8 years and it is no more likely to cause the types of issues that article discusses than a younger dog. Not even to mention that the study is related to humans and it's unclear how directly this would correlate to dogs who have a much shorter lifespan (12+ years vs 40+ years is a very big difference). 

When one is concerned with the health and longevity of the parents, much can be gained by using an older (or even a deceased) stud in this way. I'm not saying every litter should be using these older dogs -- but especially in light of PU having a later-in-life onset you would have to admit that there's a benefit to knowing whether the stud dog was clear at 8 - 10 - 12 years old, especially when it's never going to be possible to know that information about the dam prior to breeding. As someone mentioned earlier, when someone breeds they have to figure out what's the top priority and what they're willing to give up to get it. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz

Edited to add: Did you fully read the article you posted? The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming. This information came from 68 families -- not exactly a huge representative sample. And to directly quote: "However, even Dad 5 only contributed 91 mutations. That is 91 out of 6 billion possible mistakes. The odds of these having a significant impact are slim. Unless there is some sort of selection for them…" Note "Dad 5" was the oldest at 40 years old.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Yes Julies, I certainly did read the entire article and many other related to this study as well as TV interviews with doctors and geneticists regarding this. And as the article I posted states: "*Still, there is a lot more work to be done on this theory.* Whether true or not, one thing for sure is that the trend for older dads means that this generation will pass down more mutations to the next than did our forefathers one hundred years ago. The rate of genetic change in human DNA is definitely accelerating."

While the jury is out in regards to the genetic mutations in aging sperm I personally believe that this study is not to be dismissed. I may be wrong but I tend to agree with this theory. Future and further studies will tell.

While I may be willing to compromise on an AI with a 12 year stud *collected at 4* (and even that would be my last option) I would certainly not compromise on an AI with an older collected dog.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

AmbikaGR said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with this statement. We basically know next to nothing about the inheritance of hip and elbow issues. We have attempted to improve them with phenotype observation not genotype. And whether or not that has been successful can be argued till the cows come home. The few problems we can definitively say we can get a handle on are things we have genetic markers for and those are very few.
> As for the others (Dysplasia, PU, Cancer, etc.) we truly will not know if we are making things worse or better until we understand the genetic makeup of these things.


But we can breed around (not breed affected dogs) hip and elbow dysplasia. No one can tell you what dogs we breed will end up with cancer/PU (unless of course by using a old/deceased stud via AI) so we can't breed around it.


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

Claudia M said:


> Outcrosses - I am sorry, I just personally do not like the structure.


So you want a COI of under 5. You don't want the pup to be linebred, but you don't want an outcross? Just field/show outcrosses, or no outcrosses period?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I've gotten totally lost in this discussion too....how could one have a pedigree with a COI under 5 and approaching 0 but not have the pedigree be a total outcross? Are we talking phenotype versus genotype?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I've gotten totally lost in this discussion too....how could one have a pedigree with a COI under 5 and approaching 0 but not have the pedigree be a total outcross? Are we talking phenotype versus genotype?


Yes -- and I'm not sure I follow the "I don't like the structure of an outcross." Ummmm -- how on earth can you look at a dog's structure and tell if it's an outcross. 
I'm not going to even entertain the anti-AI thing -- but how anyone would choose a young stud dog over a 12+ stud dog, all things but age equal -- is baffling. A 12 year old has withstood the test of time. All the testing and hand-wringing we do to try to predict health -- he's already proved it. The 4 year old could die tomorrow. If you want to improve longevity -- breed to old dogs.........


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

K9-Design said:


> Yes -- and I'm not sure I follow the "I don't like the structure of an outcross." Ummmm -- how on earth can you look at a dog's structure and tell if it's an outcross.
> I'm not going to even entertain the anti-AI thing -- but how anyone would choose a young stud dog over a 12+ stud dog, all things but age equal -- is baffling. A 12 year old has withstood the test of time. All the testing and hand-wringing we do to try to predict health -- he's already proved it. The 4 year old could die tomorrow. If you want to improve longevity -- breed to old dogs.........


Plus at 12, he's already beaten longevity statistics.

PS. Love the new sig pic.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

K9-Design said:


> Yes -- and I'm not sure I follow the "I don't like the structure of an outcross." Ummmm -- how on earth can you look at a dog's structure and tell if it's an outcross.
> .


I guess it's based on the assumption that bad structure = outcross? I'm lost....


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Plus I know the common theory is that outcrosses lead to inconsistent results ---- but only if you breed dogs of dissimilar types. If you breed similar type to similar type, even if it's an outcross you're going to probably get more uniform pups. 
Years ago I went to a seminar given by Connie Gerstner-Miller and basically she said she likes to linebreed for two generations then OUTCROSS TO LIKE TYPE on the 3rd. I'm sure there is a lot of wiggle room here but it hammered home the point that you can achieve consistent results by breeding outcrossed litters of like type...


----------



## wbarnwell (Apr 15, 2014)

K9-Design said:


> Plus I know the common theory is that outcrosses lead to inconsistent results ---- but only if you breed dogs of dissimilar types. If you breed similar type to similar type, even if it's an outcross you're going to probably get more uniform pups.
> Years ago I went to a seminar given by Connie Gerstner-Miller and basically she said she likes to linebreed for two generations then OUTCROSS TO LIKE TYPE on the 3rd. I'm sure there is a lot of wiggle room here but it hammered home the point that you can achieve consistent results by breeding outcrossed litters of like type...


The litter my puppy is coming from what appears, from what I have read here to be an outcross. Most heavily influenced by field dogs, albeit the top 5 ancestors are all under 1%. The 5 gen pedigree has dogs from many lines including field, show, and many other disciplines. 

10 gen: 2.41
12 gen: 2.87

From what you just posted, K-9, would you clarify about what you mean about similar type to similar type? It would seem to me that my litters pedigree has not bread similar type to similar type, but of course, I really don't know what I am talking about  I'm not really worried about the puppy we are getting because I know my breeder is very thorough with her pairings, but I guess I'm just trying to figure out what her thought process was in this breeding...

Five generation pedigree: Bella x Edge


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Quite simply, if you breed two "show style" goldens who have very, very few common ancestors you have a "similar style outcross". Or two "field style goldens" with very few common ancestors, same thing. The puppies of the first breeding, although outcrossed, are very likely to be "show style" goldens while the puppies of the second breeding are likely to be "field style" goldens. 
However, if you breed a "show style" golden to a "field style" golden, you have a very dis-similar style outcross. The puppies can be a range of styles from totally field to totally show to anything in between. 
Sorry guys, one of my pet peeves, it's "style", not "type". "Type" is what makes a Golden different from a labrador or other breed. Style is within type.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

wbarnwell said:


> The litter my puppy is coming from what appears, from what I have read here to be an outcross. Most heavily influenced by field dogs, albeit the top 5 ancestors are all under 1%. The 5 gen pedigree has dogs from many lines including field, show, and many other disciplines.
> 
> 10 gen: 2.41
> 12 gen: 2.87
> ...



That looks like a SUPER pedigree. Remember type and similarities are not just physical - they are mental/temperamental too. For a working dog, 95% of it is mental! Rio Ranch/Barb Loree is a SUPER breeder so I would trust her to make all the right choices in a breeding. My guess is she wanted to do an outcross with strong performance dogs (great temperamental qualities) on both sides of the pedigree. They're not bad looking, either.  Best of luck! You should get an AWESOME pup!


----------



## wbarnwell (Apr 15, 2014)

That helps! And yes, Barb is AWESOME. So knowledgeable and friendly.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

wbarnwell said:


> The litter my puppy is coming from what appears, from what I have read here to be an outcross. Most heavily influenced by field dogs, albeit the top 5 ancestors are all under 1%. The 5 gen pedigree has dogs from many lines including field, show, and many other disciplines.
> 
> 10 gen: 2.41
> 12 gen: 2.87
> ...


Do you hunt? I think at _minimum_ you are going to have one heck of a hunting dog with a rock solid temperament. My understanding is that both of these dogs are amazing at both Upland and Waterfowl. Lucky you!


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> Yes Julies, I certainly did read the entire article and many other related to this study as well as TV interviews with doctors and geneticists regarding this. And as the article I posted states: "*Still, there is a lot more work to be done on this theory.* Whether true or not, one thing for sure is that the trend for older dads means that this generation will pass down more mutations to the next than did our forefathers one hundred years ago. The rate of genetic change in human DNA is definitely accelerating."
> 
> While the jury is out in regards to the genetic mutations in aging sperm I personally believe that this study is not to be dismissed. I may be wrong but I tend to agree with this theory. Future and further studies will tell.
> 
> While I may be willing to compromise on an AI with a 12 year stud *collected at 4* (and even that would be my last option) I would certainly not compromise on an AI with an older collected dog.


See, the part I would have made bold was "Whether true or not." They outright admit that the title of their article -- the big hook that draws readers in -- might not even be entirely true. Yes, there are more genetic mutations in the sperm of an older male than a younger one. But nobody yet has any idea the SIGNIFICANCE of those mutations and how much, if any, they contribute to genetic disorders. And that's just in humans where they have actually looked at it at least a little. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the same holds true with dogs who may be able to sire a litter until somewhere around 10 years old as opposed to the 40 years maximum that the study looked at. Heck, they didn't even start looking at the number of mutations until somewhere around 20 years old (roughly twice the reproductive time span a golden has to offer). The authors of this article can claim absolutely no knowledge of how using a 10 or 12 year old stud dog will affect his offspring... and neither can you. I'm not dismissing the study. I'm just not giving it more credit than it is due.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## wbarnwell (Apr 15, 2014)

hollyk said:


> Do you hunt? I think at _minimum_ you are going to have one heck of a hunting dog with a rock solid temperament. My understanding is that both of these dogs are amazing at both Upland and Waterfowl. Lucky you!


Oh yeah, big waterfowl hunters. We are very excited.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I was avoiding mentioning this because I don't remember the citation, but there is some conjecture that the genetically inferior sperm don't make it to the eggs as quickly as the *perfect* ones do.



Jersey's Mom said:


> See, the part I would have made bold was "Whether true or not." They outright admit that the title of their article -- the big hook that draws readers in -- might not even be entirely true. Yes, there are more genetic mutations in the sperm of an older male than a younger one. But nobody yet has any idea the SIGNIFICANCE of those mutations and how much, if any, they contribute to genetic disorders. And that's just in humans where they have actually looked at it at least a little. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the same holds true with dogs who may be able to sire a litter until somewhere around 10 years old as opposed to the 40 years maximum that the study looked at. Heck, they didn't even start looking at the number of mutations until somewhere around 20 years old (roughly twice the reproductive time span a golden has to offer). The authors of this article can claim absolutely no knowledge of how using a 10 or 12 year old stud dog will affect his offspring... and neither can you. I'm not dismissing the study. I'm just not giving it more credit than it is due.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> I was avoiding mentioning this because I don't remember the citation, but there is some conjecture that the genetically inferior sperm don't make it to the eggs as quickly as the *perfect* ones do.


I do not think that gene mutation has anything to do with how fast it is.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Jersey's Mom said:


> See, the part I would have made bold was "Whether true or not." They outright admit that the title of their article -- the big hook that draws readers in -- might not even be entirely true. Yes, there are more genetic mutations in the sperm of an older male than a younger one. But nobody yet has any idea the SIGNIFICANCE of those mutations and how much, if any, they contribute to genetic disorders. And that's just in humans where they have actually looked at it at least a little. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether the same holds true with dogs who may be able to sire a litter until somewhere around 10 years old as opposed to the 40 years maximum that the study looked at. Heck, they didn't even start looking at the number of mutations until somewhere around 20 years old (roughly twice the reproductive time span a golden has to offer). The authors of this article can claim absolutely no knowledge of how using a 10 or 12 year old stud dog will affect his offspring... and neither can you. I'm not dismissing the study. I'm just not giving it more credit than it is due.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


Actually what I bolded had the word THEORY in it. Which in itself it means that is not not yet proved a concrete truth or falsehood. 

The theory is not new though; what it is new is the genetic ways of testing it. Are the current testing pools small, yes. 

The theories on inbreeding and diseases developed due to older fathers have been out there at least since the days of kings, queens, tsars and nobles.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> Actually what I bolded had the word THEORY in it. Which in itself it means that is not not yet proved a concrete truth or falsehood.
> 
> The theory is not new though; what it is new is the genetic ways of testing it. Are the current testing pools small, yes.
> 
> The theories on inbreeding and diseases developed due to older fathers have been out there at least since the days of kings, queens, tsars and nobles.


No one has said that inbreeding doesn't lead to increased genetic disorders. Unfortunately, if we wish to maintain pure bred dogs, a certain amount of inbreeding/linebreeding will be required. The question is where one draws the line and what the difference is, really, between a COI of 5% or one of (for example) 9%. Being flippant doesn't change the fact that the article you continually post about older fathers has absolutely nothing to say about breeding dogs. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Julie, OK a "certain amount of inbreeding is necessary. The question remains open as far as how much inbreeding. And if the answer was not as low as possible we would not even talk about crossbreeding years after the breed was split in show vs field. 
One can spend hours reading and googling inbreeding and epilepsy, inbreeding and cancer. 

I completely understand why this theory might be upsetting to breeders; it took forever to even be studied in humans.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> Julie, OK a "certain amount of inbreeding is necessary. The question remains open as far as how much inbreeding. And if the answer was not as low as possible we would not even talk about crossbreeding years after the breed was split in show vs field.
> One can spend hours reading and googling inbreeding and epilepsy, inbreeding and cancer.
> 
> I completely understand why this theory might be upsetting to breeders; it took forever to even be studied in humans.


Let me be clear. I am not now, nor have I ever been a breeder. There's nothing wrong with seeking out a puppy with a low COI. But it's irresponsible to suggest that your dog having a COI of 7.x% (can't remember the exact number) over 10 generations, which is 2% below the breed average, was the cause of his seizure disorder. If that were the case, the vast majority of goldens would be afflicted with seizures. As I've already said, there's a much larger picture to consider. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ahhh Julie, but tell that to the people stuck in the cancer and seizure sections of this forum. Tell that to the people who have spent 9 years caring for a seizing dog 24/7 not missing a pill dosage by 5 minutes from the schedule instead of going to training and hunting. 

My dog with a 12 gen COI of 8.64 had a dad with a 12 Gen COI of 3.9 and mom with a COI of 5.9. It may be under the 9 average but darn close. 

The COI average may be skewed as well with many dogs whose COI is calculated on a 5 or 6 generation giving a false 0. Unless the average is only calculated based on the dogs with a 10/12 year COI. I am not sure how k9data compiles the COI average. Is it perfect, not. But at least is something to go by. I wish more breeds would have a data like that.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Ahhh Julie, but tell that to the people stuck in the cancer and seizure sections of this forum. Tell that to the people who have spent 9 years caring for a seizing dog 24/7 not missing a pill dosage by 5 minutes from the schedule instead of going to training and hunting.


Tell them what? To blame their dog's problem on something that has absolutely no demonstrated relationship to it? To search for something to blame for their dog's problem and settle on COI, despite the fact that there's no reason to?

If you want to spin out weird theories based on an incomplete understanding of genetics, go ahead, but don't try to make people feel guilty by pinning any poorly understood health issue on your breeding pet peeves. There's just no plausible reason to think there's a meaningful correlation (much less causation) between COI, AI, age of father, and the risk of conditions like cancer or epilepsy.

And no, googling the five articles that kinda maybe sorta make your theory sound plausible does not constitute sound research.


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> Ahhh Julie, but tell that to the people stuck in the cancer and seizure sections of this forum. Tell that to the people who have spent 9 years caring for a seizing dog 24/7 not missing a pill dosage by 5 minutes from the schedule instead of going to training and hunting.
> 
> My dog with a 12 gen COI of 8.64 had a dad with a 12 Gen COI of 3.9 and mom with a COI of 5.9. It may be under the 9 average but darn close.
> 
> The COI average may be skewed as well with many dogs whose COI is calculated on a 5 or 6 generation giving a false 0. Unless the average is only calculated based on the dogs with a 10/12 year COI. I am not sure how k9data compiles the COI average. Is it perfect, not. But at least is something to go by. I wish more breeds would have a data like that.


Perhaps we should ask all of the people posting in those sections what their dog's COI is? You assume they are all "high". I assume there is variation. The problem here is that your definition of "high" is more than 5% and since most goldens have a COI of more than 5%, it would stand to reason that most of the dogs sampled from any portion of the forum (competitors in a given sport, dogs living on the west coast, etc) would have a COI of more than 5%. But I'm willing to bet that any given sample would also have a few dogs that are less than 5%, including those with cancer or seizures. There is still absolutely no proof to be found that a COI of 7 or 8% puts a dog at any significantly higher risk of these diseases than one with a COI of 5%. There's too many other factors influencing it to be able to make such a simplified claim.

I'm not sure what point you are making with your dog's COI. Was I wrong that the dog with seizures was the one you mentioned earlier with a 7.x% COI and it's really this one with 8.64%? Is it that the breeder was irresponsible for producing puppies that had a higher COI than the parents (even though it remains below average.)? Please explain.

How is the average 10 generation COI skewed by dogs calculated at 5 or 6 generations? It would stand to reason that those dogs are not included in the equation. Interestingly, that MateSelect website I shared with you shows that the Kennel Club calculates a very similar number for goldens (9.0%) in that part of the world. Is that also skewed by dogs with only 5 to 6 generations known? Doubtful, since the KC would certainly know more than 5 to 6 generations on any registered dog -- given that they are not dependent on owner input like k9data.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Eowyn (Aug 29, 2013)

hotel4dogs said:


> I was avoiding mentioning this because I don't remember the citation, but there is some conjecture that the genetically inferior sperm don't make it to the eggs as quickly as the *perfect* ones do.


That is what I was taught in Biology class.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Tell them what? To blame their dog's problem on something that has absolutely no demonstrated relationship to it? To search for something to blame for their dog's problem and settle on COI, despite the fact that there's no reason to?
> 
> If you want to spin out weird theories based on an incomplete understanding of genetics, go ahead, but don't try to make people feel guilty by pinning any poorly understood health issue on your breeding pet peeves. There's just no plausible reason to think there's a meaningful correlation (much less causation) between COI, AI, age of father, and the risk of conditions like cancer or epilepsy.
> 
> And no, googling the five articles that kinda maybe sorta make your theory sound plausible does not constitute sound research.


Well, why don't you explain why those *theories* are incorrect! Instead of just blindly assuming that breeders are geneticists and know better and getting all defensive about it? 

Someone posted that if the dog is older and dies of cancer than he/she is not worried. Well I would most certainly be worried. Both genes and environment come into play there. 

Yes, so far there are theories and while they cannot be proved or disproved it only means more caution and therefore selection until larger pools and more genetic research is done. As a poster (wbarnwell) showed couple pages ago it is not impossible.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> As a poster (wbarnwell) showed couple pages ago it is not impossible.


Ok now I'm confused. I thought you were looking for a puppy with a low COI but all field lines, not an outcross.
I would think that a puppy from the breeding mentioned would be a show/field cross.

I do like the idea of a low COI but for me it is just one piece of the puzzle. While I think 20% would be way to high _for me_, would I accept 5%, 10%, 15%? I really don't know, I would need to see just who the dogs are in the pedigree and have a discussion with the breeder. What they are trying to improve, preserve and/or build on with the breeding. I would look at the breeder's track record. I also would look to see if other breeders have done similar breedings successfully. That's just the tip of the iceberg. 
Then there is the other side of the coin, is my home attractive enough for the performance puppy I'm looking for. LOL


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

COI is, indeed, a risk factor indicator. Goldens have an average COI of a little over 9%. To put that in perspective, if the average COI was 12.5 percent it would mean, essentially, that every Golden is genetically the half-sibling of every other Golden. But why does this matter? It matters because the higher the COI, the higher the odds of any given pup being homozygous for a mutated allele. That means if you have a recessive genetic disease, the odds of any puppy getting that disease would be 1 in 4, or 25% at a COI of 12.5.

Of course, if you have a high COI in one litter, in one generation you could see absolutely no expression at all. Or, perhaps more than 1/4 of the puppies could be affected. With such a small population as a litter, the odds don't play out, but it is still a roll of the dice. But the big problems come two, three, four generations down the line if that high COI is maintained. That pretty much guarantees that the disease that was completely unexpressed in the first generation could be solidly established in the line by the third or fourth generation. This is called genetic drift.

You can go to the Red Lynx Population Genetics Simulator (Red Lynx: Population Genetics Simulator) to see how genetic drift works. Run some simulations using the default settings - 2000 generations, population size of 800, and initial frequency of each of a particular allele and its mutation (A1 and A2) of 50%. Each time you click on "Run Simulation", it will create 800 new individuals with alleles drawn at random. Then starting over again with alleles at their new frequencies, it will repeat again for 2000 generations. It will draw a line for each run showing how the frequency of the A1 allele changed over time. The total number of alleles in the population stays the same over time, so if A1 goes up, A2 must go down. If A1 goes all the way to 100%, that means A2 has - just by chance - been lost from the population. Likewise, if A1 goes to zero, then all of the alleles in the population are A2. Run a few simulations and see how quickly a mutated allele (A2) can become fixed in the population (breed/line). The smaller the population you use (say, a litter size) the more quickly genetic disease can become fixed.

And the thing is, we don't have enough knowledge to be able to single out and test for the very many genetic problems that could occur. You can't even avoid it by carefully selecting parents from long-lived that have no expression of whatever genetic disease you're concerned about, because what is extremely rare in the lines of the sire and dam such as to be unobserved can completely saturate the line in three or four generations. And then, should one of those fourth generation puppies become a popular sire, you spreading that disease far and wide in the breed, and now you have a bottleneck.

_Every_ dog harbors bad recessive mutations, but could be completely unexpressed (after all, dominant mutations tend to kill dogs early and take them out of the gene pool). When you start increasing the COI and influence of any dog you are increasing the risk that a puppy will get two copies of that bad gene.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

hollyk said:


> Ok now I'm confused. I thought you were looking for a puppy with a low COI but all field lines, not an outcross.
> I would think that a puppy from the breeding mentioned would be a show/field cross.
> 
> I do like the idea of a low COI but for me it is just one piece of the puzzle. While I think 20% would be way to high _for me_, would I accept 5%, 10%, 15%? I really don't know, I would need to see just who the dogs are in the pedigree and have a discussion with the breeder. What they are trying to improve, preserve and/or build on with the breeding. I would look at the breeder's track record. I also would look to see if other breeders have done similar breedings successfully. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
> Then there is the other side of the coin, is my home attractive enough for the performance puppy I'm looking for. LOL



Sorry, perused the comments yesterday while at the office and assumed (based on the follow up questions) it was a field bred dog and not show/field mix. 

The only thing about the breeder track record, you only see one or two of the litter pups (mainly the ones kept or co-owned) - so you are lucky to see the track record of a fifth of the litter. Still something to look at considering that so many breeds do not have a database at all or if there is one it is quite limited.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Sorry, perused the comments yesterday while at the office and assumed (based on the follow up questions) it was a field bred dog and not show/field mix.
> 
> The only thing about the breeder track record, you only see one or two of the litter pups (mainly the ones kept or co-owned) - so you are lucky to see the track record of a fifth of the litter. Still something to look at considering that so many breeds do not have a database at all or if there is one it is quite limited.


Again, only a piece of the puzzle. However the breeders I have been looking at seem to be listing the whole litter. If not and if there was a breeding I was really interested in, then those questions would be add to the list of questions I would be asking.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Funny, someone started the opposite question on RTF: why aren't more retrievers linebred?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

HA - I have not been on RTF for awhile, combination of completely forgot and time. As one poster stated there, my DH has also fallen into the very titled and accomplished father "trap". 

On another note, I have several times come across Gaylans website. As one poster here suggested many of the field breeders are not online or have the time to be online. 

I like what I see on their website at least and probably more field breeders do this but it is just unknown. Especially in the expectations of the puppy buyers. IMHO Genetic testings of all the puppies is a must is we are to have a much better understanding of health and breeding.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Well, why don't you explain why those *theories* are incorrect! Instead of just blindly assuming that breeders are geneticists and know better and getting all defensive about it?


I'm not a breeder, so I have no motivation to be defensive. More, I worry about people reading your posts and feeling like there's some substance to them, which could make them feel guilty or unhappy about their dog.

And I've said it before, there's no way to disprove a theory that's not based on evidence. I think unicorn farts cause epilepsy in Boxers. Try disproving that one.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

hahahahahaha - so all scientific theories are unicorn farts to you! 

You worry about people reading my posts? You think people cannot make up their own mind and think for themselves? Then you think very low about the human mind! Unless they are breeders of course! Then what they say is golden (pun intended). 

I have yet to see a breeder post exactly their thinking in mating a pair, even the ones who just had litters or are awaiting puppies. None have put forward their thought behind their breeding and how they looked at the COI. Maybe it is some secret to it. Or maybe they all are going to re-connect the splits and mix the show and field after they split the breed to start with.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> hahahahahaha - so all scientific theories are unicorn farts to you!


Nope. Just the ones with as much evidence behind them as unicorn farts. That's the difference between science and unicorn farts: evidence.



Claudia M said:


> You worry about people reading my posts? You think people cannot make up their own mind and think for themselves? Then you think very low about the human mind! Unless they are breeders of course! Then what they say is golden (pun intended).


I think genetics are very, very difficult for the average person to grasp, which can cause people difficulty in sorting out plausible sounding baloney from real science. And it can cause a lot of trouble when people spin out incorrect theories. Just look at what non-scientists have done to the state of vaccination in this country. Kids are getting whooping cough and measles again.



Claudia M said:


> I have yet to see a breeder post exactly their thinking in mating a pair, even the ones who just had litters or are awaiting puppies. None have put forward their thought behind their breeding and how they looked at the COI. Maybe it is some secret to it. Or maybe they all are going to re-connect the splits and mix the show and field after they split the breed to start with.


Really? Because a bunch of people, some breeders, some not, have posted evidence-based commends about COI in this very thread. As far as specific comments about matches, I've never really seen a GRF thread where a breeder discussed the reasoning in detail, in regards to COI or other factors. Not sure why...maybe they're rightfully concerned about half-baked, nasty comments from people who have weird theories.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I once read that the average human has a higher COI ten generations back than most pedigree dogs.

Not sure how true it is, but kind of interesting.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Funny you should say that! We ran into my Dad's relatives at my Mom's Grandpa's funeral. Turns out they were related multiple ways. I'm sure ancestry.com has all kinds interesting information about families all over.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Well.....I'll bite...a bit. I don't consider myself a "breeder" but we do have our first litter on the ground right now. Rather than engage in a debate over the particular breeding, I will tell you how I have been evaluating potential pedigrees. First, I research the dogs in my bitch's pedigree. Learn about the dogs, make sure I am well aware of the shortcomings in the pedigree and what dogs I would like to minimize in a future breeding, in terms of genetic influence. Once I know that information, I start running test breedings to get some initial information via k9data. I look at the top 5 genetic contributors according to k9data's database, and make the decision to either dig further or stop based on that information. If I am going to dig further I have a genetic influence table run on the pedigree. There I am able to look (with the help of mentors) in depth to determine the true genetic influence of all the dogs in the pedigree back 19 generations. It's never going to be perfect, but as long as I am improving and moving forward, rather than moving "backward" into dogs I want to avoid, I consider that pedigree a possibility. In terms of COI, I am more concerned about the dogs in there than the number as a whole. I have run pedigrees where the COI sounds great until you realize that the breeding would increase the genetic contribution of certain dogs in the pedigree. So even though the COI may be low, I still wouldn't do the breeding. Our current litter has a 10 generation COI of 6.72% and a 12 generation of 10.01% according to k9data. Interestingly, the 19 generation COI is 12.7727%. It just goes to show you how much k9data leaves out..... So that is my thought process as a first time breeder who still has a lot to learn.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> As far as specific comments about matches, I've never really seen a GRF thread where a breeder discussed the reasoning in detail, in regards to COI or other factors. Not sure why...maybe they're rightfully concerned about half-baked, nasty comments from people who have weird theories.


There is no point to doing it here. This is kind of a low brown forum, in terms of breeders groups, and breeders who speak candidly elsewhere are circumspect here because there are people who know little or nothing who will enthusiastically trash any breeding offered, for no better reason than it makes their pathetic lives feel a little less depressing. I found that out early on when I came to this website.

There are a couple good Facebook groups where breeders discuss things more openly, and they are talking with other knowledgeable people. Not like here.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Nope. Just the ones with as much evidence behind them as unicorn farts. That's the difference between science and unicorn farts: evidence.
> 
> hahahaha - I am glad you can settle something brought up by people with an actual background in biology such as the ones I posted in the links.
> 
> ...


Sorry you find the doctors and graduate biology students at Stanford University weird, or maybe inconvenient. It is pretty weird how theories develop and then turn into laws of a certain science. It may just be too much for the average person to grasp; so until then they will just remain "unicorn farts". 

Since when questioning the reasoning behind breedings, the non genetic testing for Itch and the COI behind a litter has become nasty?


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Well.....I'll bite...a bit. I don't consider myself a "breeder" but we do have our first litter on the ground right now. Rather than engage in a debate over the particular breeding, I will tell you how I have been evaluating potential pedigrees. First, I research the dogs in my bitch's pedigree. Learn about the dogs, make sure I am well aware of the shortcomings in the pedigree and what dogs I would like to minimize in a future breeding, in terms of genetic influence. Once I know that information, I start running test breedings to get some initial information via k9data. I look at the top 5 genetic contributors according to k9data's database, and make the decision to either dig further or stop based on that information. If I am going to dig further I have a genetic influence table run on the pedigree. There I am able to look (with the help of mentors) in depth to determine the true genetic influence of all the dogs in the pedigree back 19 generations. It's never going to be perfect, but as long as I am improving and moving forward, rather than moving "backward" into dogs I want to avoid, I consider that pedigree a possibility. In terms of COI, I am more concerned about the dogs in there than the number as a whole. I have run pedigrees where the COI sounds great until you realize that the breeding would increase the genetic contribution of certain dogs in the pedigree. So even though the COI may be low, I still wouldn't do the breeding. Our current litter has a 10 generation COI of 6.72% and a 12 generation of 10.01% according to k9data. Interestingly, the 19 generation COI is 12.7727%. It just goes to show you how much k9data leaves out..... So that is my thought process as a first time breeder who still has a lot to learn.


Thank you for your post. May I ask how far (year wise) did you go in the 19 generation? We were able to track back Rose as far back to a yellow flat coated retriever which to some degree may be a reason for the 12.7727 COI.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Thank you for your post. May I ask how far (year wise) did you go in the 19 generation? We were able to track back Rose as far back to a yellow flat coated retriever which to some degree may be a reason for the 12.7727 COI.


I recall seeing dogs in there with DOBs from the late 1930s/early 1940s that were in the 19th generation. In all honesty, I planned this particular breeding beginning in December of 2012, so some of it I knew when I was doing the research but have forgotten since then. I just found it really interesting how big of a discrepancy there was between the k9data information and what you get with a more comprehensive genetic influence table. I do think people rely on k9data often, not realizing that it is very limited in the amount of information it can provide. To me the genetic influence tables are worth the $25 to run.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

reason why k9data does have a disclaimer that the COI is not a guarantee. It is still something to go by but glad that breeders do not rely on it fully. 

We went a bit further than that. If memory serves me right Lord Tweedmouth had 3 yellow flat coats that he crossed with the spaniels.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Just because your dog had seizures and happened to have a COI of over 5% -- that doesn't necessarily mean that the COI was in any way related to the seizures. It brings me back to that example of false logic that I heard over and over in school: 1. Apples are red. 2. Fire trucks are red. So 3. Apples are fire trucks.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


I agree with that. My least healthy dog also had the lowest COI:
10-generation COI	0.08%
12-generation COI	0.25%

Top 5 ancestors contributing to COI, in order of influence:

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%


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Sorry you find the doctors and graduate biology students at Stanford University weird, or maybe inconvenient. It is pretty weird how theories develop and then turn into laws of a certain science. It may just be too much for the average person to grasp; so until then they will just remain "unicorn farts".


Sigh. 

Theories and laws are two different things in science. Laws are descriptions of observed, repeatable phenomena, like Ohm's law. Theories are explanations, typically of causality, with so much data behind them that we can treat them as fact. A theory cannot become a law.

For example, Mendel's observations of inheritance became scientific laws because they simply describe what happens during sexual reproduction. They're not theories and never were.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of causality and as such cannot become a law, despite the fact that it has enough evidence behind it to be considered scientific fact.

What you are describing is a hypothesis, which is neither a theory or a law. A hypothesis is like a pre-theory, a potential, unproven explanation of events that is a starting point for further exploration. Unlike the idea you're pushing about COI and epilepsy and/or cancer, however, hypotheses are usually based on some evidence that indicates they may be worth exploring. The articles you posted do come from reputable sources, but they do not contain support for your hypothesis about COI, AI, age of father, epilepsy, and cancer. I didn't call your sources weird. I called your hypothesis weird, and it's not supported really at all by the sources. It is a gigantic, unfounded leap from the discussion of ratios of mutation to claiming common heritable diseases are caused or even strongly influenced by those things.



Claudia M said:


> Since when questioning the reasoning behind breedings, the non genetic testing for Itch and the COI behind a litter has become nasty?


Accusing people, either directly or by implication, of causing epilepsy and cancer, is pretty nasty, whether the intent to be nasty is there or not. Many of these questions are worth exploring and asking, but drawing causal connections without evidence has the possibility to be pretty hurtful.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Accusing people, either directly or by implication, of causing epilepsy and cancer, is pretty nasty, whether the intent to be nasty is there or not. Many of these questions are worth exploring and asking, but drawing causal connections without evidence has the possibility to be pretty hurtful.


I know, everyone is so mean and nasty towards the golden retriever breeders that the words inbreeding keeps on popping up everywhere......

Golden retrievers help scientists track human disease genes

"Writing in the journal Nature Genetics, the team outline how this ichthyosis type belonging to ARCI results in generalised scaling of the skin, diagnosed at birth. Although the disease is rare in humans, it is occurs frequently in golden retrievers due to inbreeding, and because it has not been counter-selected."


for $225 you can also subscribe to Nature Genetics and get more info.


----------



## wbarnwell (Apr 15, 2014)

Found this link to be interesting:

Coefficient of Inbreeding


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> I know, everyone is so mean and nasty towards the golden retriever breeders that the words inbreeding keeps on popping up everywhere......
> 
> Golden retrievers help scientists track human disease genes
> 
> ...


Or I could just use my institutional access to _Nature_ and its sub-publications and read as I please, though, from the abstract, the research seems to be about about _identifying_ the gene and the way it works, not the role of inbreeding in its prevalence in GRs. And all GRs are inbred in that sense...once again, you are simply taking associated words and lumping them together as if they prove your point. It's like you're imitating what an argument looks like without actually making one.

Lastly, and once again, the mean part, and the part I'd wish you'd stop, is the unfounded accusations against good people, the slinging of mud about COI, AI, age of father, and diseases that have no proven connection to those things.

But now we're going around and around, so it's time for me to bow out.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

For those interested here is another more recent read 

Father's age influences rate of evolution: 90% of new mutations from father, chimpanzee study shows -- ScienceDaily

For those not interested please refrain the sarcastic comments and just ignore.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Claudia, this is very interesting and I believe more studies are now being done on the influence of paternal age and genetic mutations in humans. 
Many of these studies studies can be found in PubMed:advanced paternal age and reproductive outcome - PubMed - NCBI

I do not see any studies on this in dogs and am not sure it would apply due to the short lifespan of the dog. Some of these mutations are a result of years of replicating sperm cells. 
Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic and worth considering in dogs.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

What I found of interest is the fact that there are more mutations found in the chimpanzee whose life span is (I believe 40 years) than in a human.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

""This study finds that in chimpanzees the father's age has a much stronger effect on mutation rate -- about one and a half times that in humans. As a consequence, a greater fraction of new mutations enter the population through males, around 90 per cent, compared to humans, where fathers account for 75 per cent of new mutations."
In the study, Wellcome Trust-funded researchers sequenced the genomes of nine western chimpanzees from a three generation family living at the biomedical primate research centre in the Netherlands.
To establish the number of new mutations a child inherits researchers sequence children and their parents and compare the genetic sequence -- any change in the sequence that doesn't exist in either parent genome is a new mutation. To find out which parent the mutation comes from you need to sequence members of the next generation of the family.
One explanation for this difference is that chimpanzees, as a result of their mating system, have evolved to produce many more sperm than humans -- their testes are over three times the relative size of a human. This means there are likely to be more cycles of sperm production, increasing the opportunity for new mutations to emerge.
*The authors suggest that more work needs to be done across other species to investigate the impact of mating behavior on mutation rates and male mutation bias*."


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Well that is sorta interesting but I'm still not connecting the dots on dog breeding.
I understand this is a sticking point with you and you are very impressed with the limited studies done on paternal age and mutations -- but what should impress you even more is studies on longevity in general. There's no way you can logically assume that an OLDER sire is more likely to give you health problems (leading to early mortality) than a YOUNGER sire whose longevity is undetermined. I think our frustration is you are sorta not seeing the forest through the trees.....


----------



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

Claudia M said:


> "
> One explanation for this difference is that chimpanzees, as a result of their mating system, have evolved to produce many more sperm than humans -- their testes are over three times the relative size of a human. This means there are likely to be more cycles of sperm production, increasing the opportunity for new mutations to emerge.
> *The authors suggest that more work needs to be done across other species to investigate the impact of mating behavior on mutation rates and male mutation bias*."



The part of that excerpt that really stands out to me is this part. Domesticated dogs from reputable breeding programs do not breed anything like chimpanzees do. They don't need that level of sperm production. So, in my mind, the logical hypothesis drawn from this information for a future study on dogs is that their limited breeding and shorter life spans would lead to significantly less mutations over the course of their reproductive lives than either humans or chimps. 

Also, I see no mention in that article that the mutations seen in chimps are linked to genetic diseases, cancer, or any other disorder that would lead to a shortened lifespan. Mutations are not always a negative thing. Just my thoughts on the subject. Your mileage may vary. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

K9-Design said:


> Well that is sorta interesting but I'm still not connecting the dots on dog breeding.
> I understand this is a sticking point with you and you are very impressed with the limited studies done on paternal age and mutations -- but what should impress you even more is studies on longevity in general. There's no way you can logically assume that an OLDER sire is more likely to give you health problems (leading to early mortality) than a YOUNGER sire whose longevity is undetermined. I think our frustration is you are sorta not seeing the forest through the trees.....


Anney, I had a GR who lived close to 13 years of age. Which by many breeders here would say that is a good age for a GR. But he started with petite mal seizures at 4 and grand mal seizures at 6. Considering that he lived way longer than expected (according to the vet), was that age attained because of all the extra care or was it because of the genes. His father whom to my knowledge did not have the same health problems lived the same age.

Longevity is not necessarily accurate as long as the human squeezes every minute of life. 

While the saying is true, sometimes if you do not look at the trees you do not see the forest. 

I honestly would like to see these studies applied to canines. I would love to see how they correlate. Does shorter life span correlate to higher sperm mutations? Is it something else that determines the mutations! Is it the metabolism? Is it the species?


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Claudia M said:


> Anney, I had a GR who lived close to 13 years of age. Which by many breeders here would say that is a good age for a GR. But he started with petite mal seizures at 4 and grand mal seizures at 6. Considering that he lived way longer than expected (according to the vet), was that age attained because of all the extra care or was it because of the genes. His father whom to my knowledge did not have the same health problems lived the same age.
> 
> Longevity is not necessarily accurate as long as the human squeezes every minute of life.


It was genes and it was luck. If he were the average golden retriever he would have died 2 1/2 years earlier of hemangiosarcoma or lymphoma regardless of level of care by the owner.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

K9-Design said:


> It was genes and it was luck. If he were the average golden retriever he would have died 2 1/2 years earlier of hemangiosarcoma or lymphoma regardless of level of care by the owner.


Don't know Anney, all the other "average" GRs we had lived longer and with no health problems.


----------

