Is inbreeding coefficient of 9.5% a deal breaker?

Thank you. So it seems the relation is quite close which I thought anyway as they have sent the details of the sire and dam and their family history. The dogs are supposedly bred for their temperament and they have been breeding labs for over 45 years so I guess they want to keep the breeding close they they have a good idea what they're getting.
Still interesting though. I think the biggest indicator will be when we visit on Sindau and see what feel we get.

 

This is the reason people give for line breeding, yes.

 

I think you need to think about what the number actually means. Taking the simplified grandfather/granddaughter percentage (25%), that means that there is a 25% likelihood that there will be genetic effects in the offspring due to inbreeding. You need to decide what percentage of risk you're happy with, keeping in mind that, worst case scenario, it could have potentially life-changing implications for you and your puppy. As much as you can't give any guarantee that the individual puppies will be adversely affected or not, you're lowering the risk by keeping the CoI as low as possible.

There's also an argument that breeding with CoIs greater than the breed average is bad for the breed as a whole and so should be avoided.

 

Yeech. So, OK, now I know that Pongo has a pretty high CoI (18%). Can't do anything about that! But is there anything I should be looking out for as a result - do we know what conditions are the most common regressive problems? (Apart from the obvious hips and eyes ones, that is...)

Just so I can focus my hypochondria, I guess....

 

I agree it's worth thinking about but it seems they've had so many people happy with their puppies they must know what they're doing? And there is a big difference between 15% and 25%. I would rather know that my dog is very likely to have a good temerment. Than a dog with a lower % but just a one off littler where not much may be know about the parents' and grandparents' history. Just my opinion of course

 

As Julie said earlier higher COI is indicative of increased risk. I know several high COI dogs that have been very robust and healthy.

The RISK however is that nasty (possibly unknown) recessive disorders come to the fore when dogs are inbred.

 

Yes, it's absolutely key to remember it's about risk. Yes, lots of puppies with high CoIs are fine, but some won't be (some won't be with low CoIs either). But you stack the odds in your favour by going for a low CoI.

 

W

Would the health of the families mean that if they all had been healthy chances are these puppies would be too? They're all healthy checked. But if no others had any other disorders would they be okay or does it depend on each individual. Would it be worth me asking the breeder if they'd known of any issues? Their are more reviews on their website than I can read praising their dogs

 

The thing is, that there are many more genetic disorders than there are health tests. I can't remember the article I was reading now, but from memory there are hundreds of genetic disorders known about in Labradors, but typically parents of a puppy come with perhaps around 10 health checks for the most common ones. So no matter how good the results, there are a host of problems that can't be tested for. And as time goes on, these other problems become more and more common. I heard the approach of genetic testing referred to as playing 'whack a mole' - and there will always be more and more moles.

 

The breeder is not likely to put reviews on the website from people who have had problems....I joined a facebook site, and various groups from a popular breeder when I was looking for a puppy. I put my name on the waiting list etc. when I got the full details, the CoI was a staggering 26% and I said 'no thanks' (privately, by email). I was kicked out of those groups and unfriended as fast as lightening.

 

Facebook is a wonderful thing .

 

Isn't it just!

 

Oh no! If Saba were a bit older and better behaved, then we could be tempted, but we're not ready for another crocopup just yet!

 

Very interesting discussion.

No calculator available for NZ unfortunately. I've looked at Xena's pedigree and she's very international - UK, USA, Australia. There's lots of importation of sperm/dogs here (country of 4 million, not the biggest Labrador gene pool). Hopefully that implies a low COI? Would the breeder be likely to know?

 

A mix of nationalities could certainly imply a low CoI, but I guess it depends how common those particular dogs' sperm is in NZ dogs. You could certainly ask your breeder if they have the information.

 

Before col I used to just look at lines some of it was scarily inbred with daddy showing up as uncle and grandpa.those i would avoid also i would disregard dogs which had the same kennel name repeatedly. im so much happier with col its made things a lot easier

 

Wow - it's like some sort of Minority Report for dog breeding

I must admit we never even considered this when buying Harv (in all honesty I'd never even heard of it!). Anyway, it turns out his parents produce a figure of 3.4% so we seem to have fluked that.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure the human equivalent is somewhat higher in some places that I've visited ...

 

Unfortunately, I don't think so. I think the KC put that feature after BBC's documentary "Pedigree dogs exposed". Although my dog has some dogs from the UK in his pedigree (Rocheby dogs), I can't find these dogs in the database either. Maybe they have only "newer" dogs in their database, I don't know. I did find my dog's sire and dam in the pedigree database and they state "no common ancestry found in 5 generations", so I wonder what that means.

 

Yup, been there!

 

I couldn't possibly comment but have you see A&E on a Saturday night?