As far as dogs being willing to breed siblings or offspring, well that is one thing we have appear to have changed by domestication. In the wild, it seems to be innate to avoid such breeding.
Interestingly, studies have found that unrelated human children raised from an early age in the same family and meant to marry (arranged marriages) are inhibited sexually and such relationships often fail for this reason. Nature does have its ways of protecting the species.
Not common and innate avoidance are not the same. Animals in the wild WILL breed with relatives, depending on many issues. It is not RARE, just not the most common. But since I already gave quotes, done.
For the human, I really wish you would stop putting humans into the discussion. Psychological factors make us quite a different issue. That said, I'd love to see that study if done by a real scientific research/data gathering, not some right-wing blogger. In reality, many areas in Africa and Asia indeed send young girls to be raised by the potential spouse's family. Trust me, they marry. They don't have a choice. So I'd love to see proof they have a choice and result in such findings. Also, going to college 30 yrs ago with MANY Middle Eastern friends, most of whom had arranged marriages, a lot said they didn't love/feel attraction for their intended spouse and they weren't raised together. Yet if you look at longevity and even studies on marital satisfaction, long term they fair equally with our society "choose your own mate." I'd pretty much bet that those children raised with their potential spouses fared similarly. Cultural expectations and norms have a lot to do with satisfaction. You can bet if we made our USA raised kids marry someone, they'd fail most of the time. We aren't animals. Could genetic predisposition cause us to have the "familiarity breeds contempt" issue that kibutz kids suffer from– sure. But human in closed environments/islands/isolated regions feel attracted to and marry related people. It really depends.
I think another issue is the tendency to treat a breed class as a "showmanship" class,
Oh man do we agree on that one. But what to do? I know a gal who is in a wheelchair, cannot show her own dogs. Should she be penalized if a breed allowed only owner handlers? Oh wait, I know many breeders who put the name of a professional handler on their litter so the handler can show "bred by" classes. People find a way to get around any good idea. But I absolutely feel pros have massive advantage over others in the ring. And it isn't fair.
Boy, somebody spent a lot of time typing. 
All I disputed was the contention that there was no mechanism to avoid inbreeding in wild populations. There is. It is sometimes more successful than others. As pointed out, "island" animals and others in isolated conditions have less choice in the matter. I had referenced in my reply to Patty the studies that show humans seem to be inhibited from sexual attraction to those they are raised with. It is interesting that some studies appear to indicate the children must be together from before the age of five.
Interestingly, studies have found that unrelated human children raised from an early age in the same family and meant to marry (arranged marriages) are inhibited sexually and such relationships often fail for this reason. Nature does have its ways of protecting the species.
I have also noted that in my own experience horses are inhibited from breeding with their offspring. A very interesting study "The Behaviour of Horses" by Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington notes the same thing. Key seems to be a herd situation where they are not separated artificially and do grow up in the group.
As far as using inbreeding/linebreeding to fix type, of course. The danger of "overdoing it" has become apparent in many species, but appears to be less risky in others. Whether the way in which we choose to recognize our dogs as belonging to a specific breed…...i.e. closed registries.......is a good idea is an interesting question. In the past (before registries) and in working breeds or perhaps more accurately types, incorporating new blood to improve the line is used rather frequently. In horses, many breeds went "outside" e.g.Thoroughbreds & Quarterhorses were a recognized outcross for Paints, but solids produced were relegated to "breeding stock" status, Quarterhorses had "appendix" registry for outcrosses to Thorougbred, etc.
An interesting approach is to register on "type" rather than bloodlines. Warmblood registries are more inclined to follow this route.
I think inbreeding is fine if the breeder is willing to cull anything produced if necessary. COI is a useful tool to recognize just how inbred your line is becoming, and it's too bad the AKC isn't offering this service as the UK registry does. I threw out my original query "does the AKC register pups from close matings? (e.g. brother/sister, father/daughter)" to see whether there was any restriction or plans to have one. It was a serious question, and I was a bit disappointed to receive this reply:
And eeeeefarm, lol, yeah, you can breed any dogs. Incest is a human morality/religious issue, not animal.
I don't recall framing my question as a "morality/religious issue", but never mind.
The current direction breeders are taken is called into question by this interesting article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950109/
A bit long, but worthy of a read, IMHO.
For the human, I really wish you would stop putting humans into the discussion. Psychological factors make us quite a different issue. That said, I'd love to see that study if done by a real scientific research/data gathering, not some right-wing blogger..
To humans.. not being snarky, but when you quote a blogger, it might help to know the person is not an expert…...... Studies done on kids raised in kibbutzes found that they rarely married those raised with them, even though not biologically related.
Bloggers are easy to read and often get it right, but never mind. I assume you are referring to Edward Westermarck's work with the Kibbutz references. But you're right, humans are irrelevant to the discussion, and I wouldn't have bothered if the "human morality/religious issue" hadn't been raised.
@DebraDownSouth:
Oh man do we agree on that one. But what to do? I know a gal who is in a wheelchair, cannot show her own dogs. Should she be penalized if a breed allowed only owner handlers? Oh wait, I know many breeders who put the name of a professional handler on their litter so the handler can show "bred by" classes. People find a way to get around any good idea. But I absolutely feel pros have massive advantage over others in the ring. And it isn't fair.
Wow, on the same page at last! Maybe there is hope for this relationship. Have a great day, Debra. If it means anything (and doesn't destroy our "Jousts") I do like you.
Just an observation…...I don't know a lot about coat colour in dogs, but have done a fair bit of work on it in horses. I find it interesting that grey is recessive, as it is dominant in horses. With a homozygous grey stallion, you know exactly what you are going to get!
Just to add, an example of what I meant about judging. From Reginald S. Summerhays' book, "The Arabian Horse"........"we found a miserable looking little yearling colt, much smaller than all the others and in the poorest condition, obviously suffering from worm trouble, which we placed first. He was in fact, Dargee, later purchased by Lady Wentworth, and was to become famous on both sides of the Atlantic. "........A great example of judges that could look behind the cosmetics and actually see the quality of the animal. This occurred in 1946. I wonder if it would be possible today.
Boy, somebody spent a lot of time typing.
assume you are referring to Edward Westermarck's work
I have also noted that in my own experience horses are inhibited from breeding with their offspring.
As far as using inbreeding/linebreeding to fix type, of course. The danger of "overdoing it" has become apparent in many species,
An interesting approach is to register on "type" rather than bloodlines. Warmblood registries are more inclined to follow this route.
Wow, on the same page at last! Maybe there is hope for this relationship. Have a great day, Debra. If it means anything (and doesn't destroy our "Jousts") I do like you.
Just an observation…...I don't know a lot about coat colour in dogs, but have done a fair bit of work on it in horses. I find it interesting that grey is recessive, as it is dominant in horses. With a homozygous grey stallion, you know exactly what you are going to get!
ROFLMAO, sadly I type about 70 to 80 wpm so things just fly off my fingers.
First, I absolutely should not have included the incest/morality comment. I was surprised you asked since I am not aware of any dog registry that prohibits it. While some places have breed wardens, the issues they address are quality etc, nothing to do with any prohibition about the relationship of the dogs. My response was not really about you, but the morality put on it as if it is against G-d or has anything to do with such stuff by many people. Your inclusion of Arnhardt (who is the blogger I was referring to) did have me wonder if that was an issue for you.
If you look back, you will see I said that their greys are genetically brindle. Most dogs also grey is dominant. Coat color genetics in dogs is a bit overwhelming to me because while there are general rules, there are some variations. As I recall with the SDs the issue wasn't so much color as coat and the belief that darker colors had inappropriate coats (not sure at this point if thickness or length was issue and really I doubt anyone cares who is reading this– it was simply interesting to me that color and type of coat was related).
Having seen a few horses in my day with absolutely no inhibition about breeding mother/daughter/father/son, my experiences vary from yours. In fact the lack of such inhibition has caused concerns with some areas of wild horses and burros resulting in removing and bringing in unrelated stock in a few of the things I looked at yesterday. Bu I didn't address captive horses though because the issue is in the wild, not human managed or artificially contained.
And absolutely I enjoy our jousts. I suspect other than dog training we are on the same page a lot.
And for my final rant-- it is what we do to dogs that gives PETA a foothold. We breed dogs that we then chop their tails and ears. Other countries ban the practice, the breeds go on, they adjust standards to fit natural looks. Many US clubs react, prohibiting natural dogs from showing. (Been a hot fight with the Rottweiler club, with some judges putting up tailed dogs in spite of it being a DQ.) The UK takes a stand that dogs (bulldogs) that are bred so massively they must do c-sections to prevent puppies crushed in the birth canal must move toward more normal standards and many Bulldog folks here are appalled at the idea we shouldn't so artificially select standards that create dogs that cannot naturally mate or whelp. Rottweilers have an astronomical rate of cruciate issues. One university research found that just lengthening the back and a little less angulation would dramatically improved the issue, even with genetic tendencies; but we just want those abnormally short backed dogs and striking. We need to think dog health before dog look, being my point.
Good morning Debra
I agree…...we likely have more common views than not. In regards to horses in the wild, I saw a PBS special (ongoing series) where a wildlife photographer has been tracking the same band for some time, and she had video evidence of a herd stallion allowing......if not actually encouraging......an unrelated stallion to breed one of his daughters! Absolutely surprised the heck out of me! Dr. Marthe Kiley-Worthington observed the more "normal" behaviour of the herd stallion evicting his daughters when they are between one and two years of age. That said, for sure a lot of stallions will breed anything that is receptive to them.
I find it bizarre that some breeds of dog can no longer reproduce naturally. I asked about registering inbred dogs because in the BBC documentary they were pressing the point with U.K. registry officials about whether inbreeding should be allowed and obviously that the registry could control it by refusing to register such animals. As the documentary isn't new, I wondered if anything had changed or if changes were being considered by the AKC.
I do have a question that perhaps I should pose in the Breeders section, but I'll throw it out here. What is "responsible" breeding as regards Fanconi's syndrome, now that there is a reliable test? Obviously clear to clear is fine, affected to affected shouldn't happen, but the other choices might be less obvious. Clear to carrier may result in carriers. Clear to affected will definitely result in all carriers. Neither will result in affecteds, however. So is the push to remove inherited Fanconi from the gene pool, or just to control it, realizing that we risk decreasing genetic diversity even further? And is it ever an acceptable risk to breed carrier to carrier? Opinions?
Since 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' was produced, the UK KC has mad e several changes in some breed standards in order that a tendency to serious problems should not be rewarded in the show ring.
They have also declared that they won't register offspring of close relatives. Luckily for me it's not retrospective. When I did these matings I was confident in what I was doing. I feel that ths is a retrograde step as in my opinion it could have been done differently. An application for such a prospective mating could have been submitted and considered by knowledgeable individuals within the Kennel Club.
I've printed off the article, Eeeefarm, as it looks interesting and i find it difficult to read from the screen.
I've printed off the article, Eeeefarm, as it looks interesting and i find it difficult to read from the screen.
I would be interested in any comment you have after reading it. I find it unfortunate that the excesses of some end up limiting the options for responsible, knowledgeable breeders. Certainly in my horse breed (Arabians) there has historically been a lot of close breeding, and some of it has yielded excellent results. I can trace my guys back to desert bred, and one of these days I might do the math and figure out the COI for them.
There are currently two schools of evidence on how inbreeding avoidance occurs, but they are very similar. One school of thought is that the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) type group of genes is responsible. The other school is that incest avoidance strongly correlates with MUP type (major urinary proteins). Either way, there is a link between sexual attraction and genetic similarity – our dogs prefer mates with dissimilar chemical type. Both MHC and MUP have been shown to influence individual scent thus making it easy to distinguish individuals and determine relatedness.
Individuals who smell more like self are most likely related to some extent, so you avoid them for mating.
Therefore, natural populations have an evolutionary mechanism to ensure inbreeding avoidance and enhance genetic diversity while maintaining consistent type.
When you [generic] talk about situations where wild populations are observed to permit close matings, is there evidence (paternity tests) that any offspring are produced? There is a critical difference between the act of mating and the results of breeding.
eeeefarm wrote : "The current direction breeders are taken is called into question by this interesting article"
But, I note that the article was actually published in 2007 and would then be based on research prior to that date. So it would not reflect any changes in breeder direction over the recent ~5 years.
@JoT:
eeeefarm wrote : "The current direction breeders are taken is called into question by this interesting article"
But, I note that the article was actually published in 2007 and would then be based on research prior to that date. So it would not reflect any changes in breeder direction over the recent ~5 years.
Yes, I realize the article isn't current. I'm interested in whether breeders are doing things differently since there has been a fair bit of controversy about close breeding in recent times. And that the veterinarians are considering their own involvement is a good thing. It does take some time for anything to change, but often there are indications before a tipping point is reached.
Thanks for the very interesting information on mate selection! The more we learn the more fascinating the whole subject becomes.
First please ignore typos– spilled something on expensive ergo keyboard, trying to manage with reg.
Dr Jo, very interesting! Do you have any links to the smell research? Not that it surprises me. Even for humans, scent is powerful in attraction.
I C one of these days I might do the math and figure out the COI for them.
There are some free online ones you can actually plug about 10 or more generations into to get the number.
Since 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' was produced, the UK KC has mad e several changes in some breed standards in order that a tendency to serious problems should not be rewarded in the show ring.
They have also declared that they won't register offspring of close relatives. Luckily for me it's not retrospective. When I did these matings I was confident in what I was doing. I feel that ths is a retrograde step as in my opinion it could have been done differently. An application for such a prospective mating could have been submitted and considered by knowledgeable individuals within the Kennel Club.
I've printed off the article, Eeeefarm, as it looks interesting and i find it difficult to read from the screen.
Okay so you are saying the UKC now limits close (I assume you mean bro/sis, father/daughter type?) breedings from registry? Why the hell not go on pedigree examination? You can have extremely high COI ratings from dogs that are NOT related closely.
Thanks you for this info Dr Jo.
