Gundog Training Forum

It does say that :
Spaniel (English Springer)
8.7%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this value mean?
•Inbreeding is defined as the mating of related individuals, whether they are closely related or more distantly related. The inbreeding coefficient of an individual is the probability that two copies of the same gene have been inherited from a common founder, that is an ancestor shared by both parents. The lower the inbreeding coefficient, the lower the probability (risk) that this will happen.
An inbreeding coefficient of 12.5% means that there is a 1 in 8 chance that a dog will inherit the same version of gene from the same dog that appears in both the sire’s and dam’s pedigree. For example, the puppies born to a mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating would be at least 25%; the risk associated with such a high inbreeding coefficient is considered too high and the KC will no longer register the puppies from such matings. The inbreeding coefficient of puppies born from a grandfather/granddaughter mating would be at least 12.5%.
.
This only says that from such matings they wont register them, not from any other relationship that cause such a high rating tho.

Perhaps someone with time and a placid temperament (for the bit when you're on hold) could ring the KC and get clarification?

I'd be really interested in hese dogs pedigrees BTW if you fancy pm'ing....

the risk associated with such a high inbreeding coefficient is considered too high and the KC will no longer register the puppies from such matings

I read this statement as they see the 25% coefficient to be too high.... and therefor we wont register the matings....

Ive asked the KC will post the response when I get it.

I have just put in my half brother/sister (same sire), and the resulting COI of mating would be 22.9%, so i guess this would be considered acceptable to register pups. (wont happen cos they have been done tho!)

southern cockers wrote:

arwesa wrote:you also need to consider the point made on mateselect that dogs over 25% wont be registered, half brother to half sister =25%+ worth putting names in and see what they get out...

Arwesa,
Is that an absolute definitive decision by the Kennel Club ?
I am getting mixed messages from any number of contributors / owners who are equally unclear as to status of this rule/ regulation.
As I have previously pointed out the C.O.I can be calculated over anything from 9 to 15 generations thus by any rule of thumb the subsequent index is flawed and erroneous.
Obviously in the case of half brother to half sister there is no debate.

No its completely wrong half brother to half sister with no other common factors anywhere else in pegidree = 12.5%.....I must stop posting when Ive had a beer (have gone back and corrected it too)

Anyway, original comment still stands, you should check it out. as there may be other comonalities in the pedigree and its free to check now

The statement re the KC no longer registering litters with a COI of 25% or above is a blanket statement across the front of each 'breed' as you look through them to see what the overall COI is:

http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/servi ... px?id=2048

If The KC had their way we would all be running around in circles+dancing to music,in whites crimpleen trousers with bows in our working dogs hair................

Surely the way to strenghten the "working characteristics in a working breed is to breed dogs with similar working genes?"

This broad stroke mateselect stuff IMO is purely for health reasons.You would imagine that the KC would regulate "just the health risks in in-breeding"(i.e-specify that both dogs are health checked for the key health risks-and if these identify no health risks allow the mating)

I am not a genetetetete----- isist.....but I would imagine that when an (inbred-1/2 brother to 1/2 sister -bitch)is mated to an outcross animal that you have a better chance of a high proportion of the bitches genes are retained in a proportion of the offspring.

IMO authors such as Irvine and Erlanson knew a thing or two about line/inbreeding and both were advocates..................

In the late 50ties and early 60ties a successful breeder of border terriers wrote in one of his books that he had mated a dog to a bitch, kept a pup and mated that to its father, kept a pup and mated that to its grandfather and did another mating to its great grandfather. The same dog was sire to all the pups. He advocated that was what happened in the wild with wolves, lions etc. Thank god we`ve moved forward from those days where all the pups were KC registered.
I know what the OP is implying and I kind of agree with him but if it were not regulated, those less scrupulous of us would not consider health or any other significant issues when planing a litter.

Bill

kelco wrote:If The KC had their way we would all be running around in circles+dancing to music,in whites crimpleen trousers with bows in our working dogs hair................

Surely the way to strenghten the "working characteristics in a working breed is to breed dogs with similar working genes?"

This broad stroke mateselect stuff IMO is purely for health reasons.You would imagine that the KC would regulate "just the health risks in in-breeding"(i.e-specify that both dogs are health checked for the key health risks-and if these identify no health risks allow the mating)

I am not a genetetetete----- isist.....but I would imagine that when an (inbred-1/2 brother to 1/2 sister -bitch)is mated to an outcross animal that you have a better chance of a high proportion of the bitches genes are retained in a proportion of the offspring.

IMO authors such as Irvine and Erlanson knew a thing or two about line/inbreeding and both were advocates..................

I think you will find the chances of a bitches genes being inherited by her pups doesnt change if shes inbred or not.

mateselect hasnt invented anything new here, its just opened up to all an easy way to get to as accurate a COI and all historical health info as is available at present for a given dog or mating.

Youre 100% right the COI is for health reasons.... so you get a bitch worth breeding from (health test if youre interested in ensuring theres no known issus there), you perhaps have identified a number of potential sires that you hope are going to add something to the litter (health tested again if you can/want to) and you check on mateselect for the COIs/health history of those dogs and immediate sires/dams. With a balance of information you make your call. if youve two dogs to choose from you like, one gives a COI of 13% the other a COI of 28% you know one is more likely to NOT be affected by problems associated with inbreeding. Which would you choose all things being equal?.... I bet both of the authors you mention would answer that with the healthiest option.

I know a lad who has done the same father to daughter to granddaughter,he has two dogs frome this breeding 3yrs old,no health problems and are a spit of there father/grandfather,in looks and working ability,right or wrong ?..