Idle (very) breeding question

[Pippin's person]

I was just reading the thread started by Whinny about breeding her merle female and it reminded me of something I've wondered about.

 

For those of you who breed working dogs, would you breed an outstanding male with an undescended testicle (assuming that the undescended one had been removed since it's so prone to cancer but the descended one was left intact, and the dog was able to produce viable sperm).

 

Thanks

Robin

[kelpiegirl]

Hi Robin

I don't breed, but I have been involved tangentially with it for a long time (read: know others who have/do breed dogs). Conventional wisdom is to not breed a dog- and to neuter it. Cryptorchidism is inherited via the dam's side.

Julie

[Wendy V]

It is generally not acceptable to breed a dog that is monorchid. It is a birth defect that is directly inheritable from either the dam or the sire. It would be similiar to breeding a dog that has an overbite - not a defect that affects working ability, but undesirable nonetheless.

[Pippin's person]

Right--I guess that's part of my question--undesirable in what sense? Is it in terms of a particular body conformation (not in the show sense, but in the function of body sense) or just convention or something else?

 

Is there a functional problem for a male in that situation? Should a dam that has produced a cryptorchid son not be breed anymore even if she is an outstanding working dog?

 

Part of my interest in this question comes from my own attempts to reconcile what seems to be a kind of eugenics when it comes to breeding dogs with my complete agreement that preserving certain traits (like stock-working ability in border collies) is imperative.

[Bill Fosher]

There was a just such a dog up here that I would have killed for a pup off of if bred to the right bitch. Unfortunately he died -- of causes unrelated to his monorchidism -- before any pups were available.

 

He was a hill-trained Scottish dog who had won open trials here in the US. I had the opportunity to work him from time to time, and he was a dreamboat. Power in reserve, sheep sense in spades -- everything I look for in a dog.

 

If he were mine, I would have bred him in a heartbeat.

[airbear]

Similar question, more or less. Let's say that your dog is an average working dog (runs in Open, not a threat to place) but his littermate is a top trialing dog. Would you breed your dog, since at least his genes seem to be worth something? How about if two of his littermates are really good? Would you chalk it up to bad training, good genes?

 

Oh, none of my dogs are intact. Just musing.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

The thing is, it's something that is not only recessive (um, I think?) but also carried by the female in such a way that it can be spread VERY quickly before anyone realizes where it came from.

 

It's devastating when a female is discovered with this problem, heartbreaking - at least with the males you know well before you've put any effort into them, that there's a problem. This is NOT something we want spread willy-nilly through the breed through our already precious female lines.

 

I had a monorchid dog. It was very sad to say "That's it" but kind of a no brainer nonetheless.

 

I now have a dog with an overbite/open bite, not as huge a deal and he's a pretty nice dog. But again, it's recessive and something we don't want troubling the gene pool - he's not so uniquely wonderful that we need to breed him in spite of his weird bite.

 

Second question: I think littermates are highly valuable. I love to watch littermates grow up, and see them in different hands, and I wouldn't hesitate to breed to a littermate of a solid producer, particularly if there were another sib, half sibs, or other evidence that the line in general was a "golden" one. Producer meaning I'm seeing good starts, good working ability, and in particular some strong characteristic shining through all the crosses.

 

Does that make sense? For instance, I've got my eye on a line I'd like to have a piece of some day but so far no one has trialed any dog from this line (to my knowlege) in this country, very high up. These dogs are very consistent workers, there's a strong family resemblence, but I'm hanging back until I see why the genetics don't seem to be in winning hands. Could be politics, I don't know. But I watch all the family members I can.

 

One dog doth not a line make.

[juliepoudrier]

Wendy's right--I just discussed this with my vet, who is also a breeder (whippets)--late or undescended testicles can be carried in either the dam's or sire's lines. Along the lines of the littermate question, in the case of late or undescended testicles, my vet said that if you were to breed a bitch from a litter where the male pups were late descending or undescended (one or both testicles) that you would need to be careful to look for a stud who did not have any incidence of lateness of undescended testicles in his lines (so as not to perpetuate the problem). That said, if the dog were truly, truly wonderful, I'd be willing to take my chances because the worst that could happen is you'd have to neuter male pups who were monorchids or cryptorchids. In many cases, I expect that the undescended dogs are neutered before they ever have a chance to be bred, so the discussion is a bit academic. Even if you wait to nueter till the youngster reaches maturity, it's unlikely you'd know a whole lot about working ability and/or star quality at that young age (1-1.5 years).

 

As for non-stellar siblings of great working dogs, I expect someone who really knows dogs and bloodlines could indeed breed the nonstellar dog and get superior dogs out of it (it certainly was done in the past), but I think that takes more knowledge than most folks have.

 

J.

[SoloRiver]

Part of my interest in this question comes from my own attempts to reconcile what seems to be a kind of eugenics when it comes to breeding dogs with my complete agreement that preserving certain traits (like stock-working ability in border collies) is imperative.

 

Well, breeding dogs IS all about eugenics. That only means selective breeding to produce "better" individuals. Which is only a problem when you start talking about people, because who defines what "better" is? With dogs that are bred for specific reasons the discussion is academic, not political (usually).

 

Speaking as someone who is extremely not a breeder, I don't have a problem with breeding a dog that has a relatively non-problematic "problem" like monorchidism or an overbite, but that dog would have to be a really really exceptional individual otherwise why bother. There are other great dogs out there.

[Bordercentrics]

My first dog was a white Bull Terrier, and I studied the history of the breed extensively. The greatest sire of all time, up till then, was an English dog who was a monorchid. Raymond Oppenheimer, his breeder and owner, really struggled with the decision to breed him, but he was the most perfect example of the breed to date.The prgeny of Ch. Ormandy Souperlative Bar Sinister have a lower incidence of monorchidism than average. Raymond Oppenheimer was considered a hero in the breed because he had the "courage" to breed Bar Sinister. If it had turned out differently, his name would have been mud, I suppose. I guess the question is really, "Is this dog otherwise perfect in every way?" For Border Collies this would include a fantastic working ability.....

 

Kathy Robbins

[Pippin's person]

Thanks this is all very interesting (especially about the bull terrier) and more or less confirms what I was thinking and what kinds of factors one might take into account.

 

I think if I had a fantastic working dog and interest, I would, like others, take my chances. I've got two dogs with cryptorchidism in their lines (never had any intention of breeding either one) but I would get another pup from those lines if the circumstances were right and I had all the time, money and space in the world.

 

But, it is purely academic in my case as I'm happy to leave the breeding to those with the know-how, etc. etc.

 

On the sibling issue--I just neutered one of my dogs even though he's got great parentage and is showing some talent--on the assumption that at least two of his siblings are likely to remain intact (and the parents could, of course, be bred again).

 

We considered leaving him intact in case he turns out to be something really special (he's 1 now), but he was being such a butthead in other ways that it pretty much became a no-brainer. (of course, he's very special in lots of ways, too, but it's not clear how special he'll be on stock).

 

Robin

[Jordi44]

Right or wrong, I can tell you it's shows up very readily. I once bred my female Sheltie to a beautiful blue merle male. Unfortunately, what I didn't know was that he was a monorchid (until after the pups were born). She had 5 males and at least 2 of them were either monorchids or cryptorchids - been several years ago and I don't remember exactly. (By the way, don't think asking the owner of a potential stud if he is a monorchid is a silly question - what may be obvious to you isn't to all people. This wasn't a "breeder" so she didn't think there was any problem with breeding this dog.) So if you are an absolute purest, you probably shouldn't breed him; if the dog is absolutely fabulous in every other way (particulary since we're talking about a working breed vs. a conformation breed), I'd say it'd be worth thinking about.

[Liz P]

As to breeding littermates of great dogs... It depends on the dog. Statistically full sibs from a litter will share 50% of their genes, sometimes more and sometimes less. If the sibling of the great dog was very similar in every way but say, lacking a fault of the great dog, I would breed to the lesser known sibling. If however, the two sibs were very different (suggesting that they got different genes from their parents), I would not breed to the sibling.

 

Example, Fido won the Nationals and is a wonderful example of the breed, but he has HD. Spot, Fido's littermate brother, is owned by a farmer who trials when he can get away for the weekend. Spot has the same working style, structure, temperament, etc as Fido and could have made it to the Nationals as well had he been owned by someone with the time and money to get him there. Spot has OFA Excellent hips. I would breed to Spot and forget about breeding to Fido.

[Bill Fosher]

Interesting choice, Liz.

 

Of course this is all hypothetical, but I've never seen two dogs that have the same wroking style, temperament, etc. I am that farmer who trails when he can get away for the weekend, and I think it's total self-indulgence when I think that my dog could have made the national finals if I got out and trialed with him a little more. Maybe he could have, maybe he couldn't have. We'll never actually know. (Of course, I often think this thought, but in moments of honest self-reflection I have to admit that it's hooey.)

 

I would wonder if maybe we shouldn't breed FIdo since he won the national finals even with a diagnosis of HD. What is it about him that allows him to overcome such a supposedly crippling disease? All his pups won't develop the disease, and we can choose the bitch carefully knowing what we know about him.

 

But before I'd make a decision along those lines, I guess I'd need to know whether FIdo was clinically sound -- in other words is the trouble in his hips only apparent on film? If he did show clinical signs, when did they first appear? What's his life history?

 

I guess I have a hard time going to a littermate based on conjecture that he is "just as good," because no two dogs are the same. Plus, Spot may be just as likely to throw HD in his pups as Fido.

 

It's all a risk-benefit analysis. I hate to see a great dog thrown out of the gene pool because of a "poor" conformation of a single joint in his body. By the same token, I hate to see a dog bred because of an OFA score. Moreover, I'm not certain that OFA excellent hips are what we want in Border collies necessarily. Tight hips pass all the shock of acceleration, deceleration, and lateral changes off onto other joints, notably the knees and spine.

 

I agree that monorchidism, overbites, underbites, hip malformations, etc., etc., are undersireable, all else being equal. But all else is never equal. Every dog needs to be considered as a whole package because no dog is perfect in every respect. You're always balancing his strong points against his weak points -- whether the weak point is a tendancy to lose his temper in the shedding ring or the fact that one of his testicles didn't descend.

[Liz P]

What I said was all hypothetical. We both know situations exactly like that never happen in real life! No two dogs are ever carbon copies.

 

Would I breed to a National Champ with a defect? Depends. Do his bloodlines tend to breed true (is he from lines known to consistently produce great dogs)? If I was the owner of that dog I might breed him to a select few bitches known to produce pups without that defect. The danger would be using the dog on so many bitches that he saturates the gene pool.