Hi I'm new here and would appreciate some advice. A bit of background first... We had 2 gorgeous Labradors up until 4 and 4.5 years ago, they lived to grand old ages of 13.5 and 15. We are now able to give time and love to a new puppy in our lives and started the search a few months ago. Well we weren't quite expecting it to be so difficult. We are keen walkers so decided to go for a labrador from working lines. We have contacted a breeder who is on the KC Assured Breeders list but looking at the pedigree we noticed a few names reoccurring. We put the details into the Coefficient of Inbreeding calculator and were shocked to see a figure of 18.6%. Is this too high? We looked up our previous dogs and they had a score of 1.5% and 10%. I'm now trying to read up as much as possible, i would appreciate any helpful advice. Thanks in advance Dot
It is great, Dot, that you are looking into this - because WAY TOO MANY breeders pay zero regard to it whatsoever. High COIs will literally mean the death of a breed. So you have breeders breeding dogs that are closely related together because they want to produce better working or looking labradors - without realising the WAY more important issue of actually ensuring the breed survives - full stop!! We are not going to have good working or show dogs, if the breed ceases to exist(!!). But it is also about health, for the individual dog: The more inbred a dog is, the more likely it is that two copies of recessive genes will be passed on for various diseases and conditions. Whilst we have health tests for a FEW of these conditions to ensure recessives don't come together, those health tests barely scratch the surface of all the things a dog can suffer from or be genetically likely to have... A low COI should see a healthy and robust immune system. COI should be one of the most important things to look at, when choosing a litter. The general rule of thumb, is to aim for COIs which are definitely 1) at or below breed average and 2) preferably at or below 5%. Here is some more information: https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/coi-faqs-understanding-the-coefficient-of-inbreeding To quote a bit of that: "The deleterious effects of inbreeding begin to become evident at a COI of about 5%. At a COI of 10%, there is significant loss of vitality in the offspring as well as an increase in the expression of deleterious recessive mutations... as the population gets smaller the rate of inbreeding goes up, resulting in a negative feedback loop that eventually drives a population to extinction. So, in terms of health, a COI less than 5% is definitely best. Above that, there are detrimental effects and risks, and the breeder needs to weigh these against whatever benefit is expected to gained. Inbreeding levels of 5-10% will have modest detrimental effects on the offspring. Inbreeding levels above 10% will have significant effects not just on the quality of the offspring, but there will also be detrimental effects on the breed. For comparison, mating of first cousins produces a COI of 6.25%; in many societies this is considered incest and is forbidden by law). Mating of half-siblings produces a COI of 12.5%; mating of full siblings produces a COI of 25%." The breed average for labradors is 6.5%, so you should definitely not be considering a litter with a COI above that. The high COIs - IMO - tend to come more from (ironically) the alleged 'top' breeders - for both show and field work. Because they look within a very small gene pool of other successful competition dogs, when they are looking to breed. Over time and across multiple generations, this tends to see COIs going up and up and up. Regardless of the much lower breed average. My little black labrador has a very strong FT pedigree with a lot of red in it - and we have had to search hard to find a stud that suits her and results in a 'good' COI for her - breeding her to almost ANY stud titled in the field, saw a COI higher than we wanted. Her first litter's COI was 5.9% and that was to a FTW who himself was 75% field trial bred and 25% show bred - just that 25% of show blood, reduced the COI. This is not a breeding which a 'top' field trial competitor would probably want to make because they would not like that 25% show in the stud... Her next litter we have planned, next year, will have a COI of 4.3% - to a stud who is 50% field trial bred and 50% show bred - resulting in pups which are 75% field and 25% show...These sorts of carefully thought out breedings, without losing the traits you value in the long-term, are so important for the breed IMO.
One of the costs of a diminished gene pool that might be of interesting is a shortened life span for chocolate Labs. Based on UK data. I don't know whether the precise result would be repeated elsewhere. https://amp.adelaidenow.com.au/news...s/news-story/ba780f6bc780b8bc874fb153279c6fd1
COI's are critical. Just as important, maybe more so than hip/elbows scores, eyes, etc....that though is just my opinion. I am seeing some top bred (FT) low scored dogs developing ED/HD. Maybe I am just hearing about them and they have always existed. I haven't been around that long so I don't know. I do wonder if the attraction of all that red on a pedigree and the prestige of trialling, tends to sell more pups though... So my thoughts are 1. Low scores Hips, but Elbows must be zero. 2. Examine the history of hip/elbow scores going back as many generations as you can, including siblings and progeny if available. 3. Check for temperament 4. How are the puppies going to be reared...inside a bustling home environment with an early habituation programme in place, or outside in kennels. I am looking for a stud for my bitch right now, and oh my it is proving a challenge. A real headache! I am trying for COI of 3 or less though, with zero hips, zero elbows, and of course the most complete health testing. Seriously, come on lads where are you???
Thank you so much everyone for your comments. I am about to turn down this puppy and go with our gut instinct. One thing I've realised is that it's so important to not let your heart rule your head and that waiting for the right puppy is absolutely the right thing to do and to doubly check everything. I've now been in touch with another breeder and keeping my fingers crossed for early next year.
I would like to see a copy of the research I quoted above. I suspect the research is confined to Labs who have pedigrees registered with the relevant association in the UK. The chocolate Labs who have no such pedigrees I suspect have an average COI that is relatively lower than the pedigreed version, could have an average lifespan not significantly different from the blacks and yellows. If my suspicion is correct, then the journalist's reporting of the research is seriously misleading and alarmist. Not all choc labs will have a relatively shorter life span. I will try to find a copy of the research and see what qualifications they have offered.
@Michael A Brooks I think this might be the research you were referring to: https://cgejournal.biomedcentral.co...2t33zmJ4CD072Xxuah5gl3-lbEFzIUwNOWQg6YRWzeKuI
Yes, probably the research on chocolate labs is talking about pedigree chocolate labs - or otherwise, how would we know we were really talking about a purebred lab and not a x-breed? But I would also be interested to see research comparing longevity of show and field bred labs. I would bet a ton that field bred labs far outlive show-bred labs - given their heavier bodies, and all the health issues we know tend to come with that. There are still not that many field bred chocolate labs around. Which by itself, could account for the difference... As in - it may not be about the colour, but about the field v show breedings.... Research is rarely clear-cut.
Many thanks Joy, I will read it with interest. Based on the abstract, they used Vet records rather than the UK Kennel Association. So one part of my critique is flawed.
