What's peoples thoughts on line breeding

I would like to now people's thoughts on line breeding

Hi & welcome to the forum

Welcome to the Staffordshire bull terrier niceboard. We are pleased you've decided to join us, and hope you enjoy your stay. We hope to see plenty of pictures of your Staffordshire bull terriers or any other breed you may have in your household.

We have several information sheets for those of you looking for help with specific issues. You will find them here:

Training and behaviour information

Puppy information

If you can't find an answer to your question, just ask! You'll probably find someone on here has come across your problem too.

This forum is run by the members for the benefit of the users. It's your forum - get involved.

Just one last thing before you look around could you please just have a quick look At This Poll, we would love to know how you found us.

Here are some links that will get you started with the website:-

Please read the Forum Rules before you start posting.
Here are a List of Tutorial & FAQs that will help you around the forum.
You can ask for Help here if you are having trouble doing something on the forum.
How to update your Profile information
See who the Admin, Moderators & Support staff are Here

Line breeding gets a big thumbs down from me, I'm afraid. The risk of inherited disorders is too great. I believe responsible breeding means aiming for the physical wellbeing of the offspring first and foremost, together with good temperament, and I can't see how line breeding promotes that.

What is line breeding? I'm not too keen on any breeding as there are too many unwanted staffs as it is.

Distantly related dogs in a pedigree isn't a problem - the vast majority of breeds have related animals in their ancestors.

Line breeding is basically inbreeding, but with the dogs not closely related - ie having a great, great grandmother/grandfather etc appear twice in a pedigree is line breeding, whereas a brother/sister or father/daughter mating is inbreeding.

If done sensibly, with all due care being taken regarding inherited problems, line breeding is used to 'fix' certain wanted attributes in a breeding programme & can be beneficial. With a breed like the stafford, though, the gene pool is so large that inbreeding isn't necessary.

This is what put me off buying a puppy. I looked on Champdogs and there was a litter of staffs but when I did some more research I saw the parents were closely related ( I think dad and daughter from what I can remember). It just made me uncomfortable.

Mistys Mum wrote:This is what put me off buying a puppy. I looked on Champdogs and there was a litter of staffs but when I did some more research I saw the parents were closely related ( I think dad and daughter from what I can remember). It just made me uncomfortable.

The Kennel Club no longer allow father/daughter, mother/son or brother/sister matings. It's possible that the one you saw was a grandparent/grandpup mating? To my mind this is still too close & will probably be banned at some point in the future.

but try not to be anthropomorphic; animals don't care whether a possible mate is closely related!!

For me the problem is that, without genetic testing, you simply don't know if you've got inherited recessive genes and any closeness in relationship increases the risk.

The more I think about breeding the more it makes me uncomfortable as well. Much as I love pedigree staffs and other dogs, I have to admit I feel more comforable with crosses. Nature does it all so well on its own, without creating so many problems. (no I'm not advocating indiscriminate breeding, don't worry!)

But surely, crossbreeds are more susceptible to genetic problems as nobody (or virtually nobody) tests for genetically acquired syndromes associated with separate breeds.

For example, Staffords are susceptible to HC. So are poodles. So, you cross a stafford with a poodle & don't bother testing - after all, crossbreeds have 'hybrid vigour', right? You end up with a litter full of pups with hereditary cataracts which suffer the risk of blindness or expensive surgery!

Crossbreeds are NOT necessarily healthier than purebreds. That's an old wives' tale.

The best way forward is to breed to reduce, or eliminate, genetic problems in dogs - line breeding comes second place to that, in my opinion.

notice I say 'line breeding', not 'inbreeding.'

I didn't say they were, although there is an argument that if you cross two breeds that don't share hereditary problems you have a lesser risk. It just bothers me that we humans think we can produce something better so champion pure bred animals as being superior, when in fact we end up creating some shocking problems. Have you seen the Arabian horse that hit the news the other day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4975662/Pedigree-horse-described-horrific-experts.html

Described as 'perfect' by the breeder!

By promoting pure bred animals only, we are supporting the very industry that has created deformed heads, excessively wrinkly skins and hind quarters that can barely carry the dog's weight. I know the powers that be are making noises in the right direction but there's a long way to go before I can shake that uncomfortable feeling.

Absolutely, there are some 'purebred' horrors out there.


But if it wasn't for breeders, there wouldn't be a Stafford.

Much as I am very against inbreeding, I believe that line breeding (done intelligently, of course) is what creates breed specific traits in the first place.

Again, if you look at horses, a pure bred welsh or shire horse will be recogniseable through a certain number of traits because yes, they are the ones bred for in the first place. Look at some of the warmblood stud books (belgian warmblood, selle français) which are much more open, you cannot necessarily tell a horse is that breed at a first glance because the number of characteristic traits for that “breed” are missing through dilution.

And when you look at mother nature, fish and birds and monkeys (for example) only breed within their “breed” and that’s not necessarily creating monsters either.

I read an article recently in which it was said that cockerpoodles should never have been created, it was a big error. That’s a cross breed in the first place, isn’t it ?

Nifty staffy wrote:

And when you look at mother nature, fish and birds and monkeys (for example) only breed within their “breed” and that’s not necessarily creating monsters either.

But they are species not breeds, and there's a huge difference between the evolution of a species to adapt to changes in environment, climate, etc, and our messing around with another species for what we find aethetically pleasing. Nature does sometimes create aberrations but they don't survive as they aren't the 'fittest'. A dog or horse that has a deformed nose and so can't breath properly just wouldn't survive to reproduce and pass on that defective gene or mutation. We have the ability to keep make sure that genes get passed on that otherwise wouldn't. This reminds me of a discussion we had during an OU genetics course about whether humans are weakening their own species by disobeying the survival of the fittest rule, but in this case the argument is that we are weakening another species.

I know without human intervention we wouldn't have staffies, shires, poodles and Shetland ponies but that's not to say we wouldn't still have lovely dogs, less diverse but maybe with regional variations or something. But I'm not against breeds, what I'm uncomfortable with is breeding for appearance and for fashion, be that deformed faces, trendy colours or designer mongrels.

I don't know what the answer is, there probably isn't one, but if there is a way for animals to be bred for the good of the animal instead of the taste of the human, I'd love to find it!

LizP wrote:

what I'm uncomfortable with is breeding for appearance and for fashion, be that deformed faces, trendy colours or designer mongrels.

I totally agree, but they're not that way because of line breeding. They're like that because SOME breeders want to change a dog to fit with what they want to see. It has nothing to do with Breeds, Breed Standards,  Line Breeding or Inbreeding.

Breeding in general has driven breeds towards an appearance. Kennel Club standards are about appearance, including height, coat colour, etc., and dog shows are about appearance. Deformities such as flat noses have been included in breed standards. While not all breeders have taken these characteristics to the extremes of some, and some breeds are worse than others for encouraging detrimental characteristics, it is to some extent the fact of breeding for a human defined standard that has led to this. So yes, I believe it does have everything to do with breed standards and breeding practices.

ETA - and here's another thought, if general breeding practices throughout the ages have had no impact on health, why are some breeds more disposed to certain genetic conditions than others?

certain breeds have come about because of fashion, yes, I agree. But tgere are many working breeds that have been bred for certain characteristics & these will only stay 'specific' if breeders follow a certain blueprint (or standard). Spaniels, gundogs, sheepdogs and yes, even staffords have all been bred to a specific blueprint to enable them to do a specific job.

Irresponsible & ignorant breeders have ignored health problems & exacerbated them by their methods. However, getting back on track, these health problems are not the exclusive result of line breeding or inbreeding. They are the result of greedy people using dogs for breeding that shouldn't be bred because of their health issues. That isn't the fault of Standards or Line breeding, it's PEOPLE not caring about health in favour money.

People automatically assume that line breeding negatively affects health, but it doesn't. It's actually less unhealthy that human first cousins marrying. Usually, the related dogs are quite far apart.  Inbreeding, of course, is a different matter.

P. S. General breeding practices have caused health problems, but do you honestly think that bad breeders would disappear if there were no breed standards? There are already several known hereditary problems with the various poodle crosses (labradoodles & cockerpoos especially) because none of the breeders give a sh*t about the parent dogs' health & background gealth.

How do you explain this then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/crufts-clamps-deformed-dogs-outcry-last-years-best-breed/

This is a working dog, bred for a job, but that has been deformed by many years of supposedly good breeding and then not only condoned but championed by the greatest voice in the land?

Line breeding is used to select those traits that a breeder finds desirable, such as sloping hindquarters in GSD. I haven't studied this particular dog's parentage but I would be amazed if there wasn't some line breeding used somewhere along the lines. And even if you exclude this extreme case, the unnatural slope in the hips of that breed is now standard and many dogs are left weakened. Is this really defensible?

Back yard breeders may do damage by greed and ignorance, this seems to me damage by vanity and the misplaced belief that, because someone only breeds on type of dog and has good papers, they are doing right by the dogs. I'm not sure which is worse.

Ah, we're going back to the GSD. Yes, it's awful & no, she should never have won. But there are many, many GSDs that are healthy, active & good looking.

Yes, she was line bred, but so was Elmo & he's a fine example of health, strength, intelligence & good temperament. Line breeding, in the right hands isn't a problem. In the wrong hands, yes, but in the wrong hands outcrossing ('accidental' mating) can produce pups that die within a few short months.

Don't blame dogs' health on one single aspect. There are many things that have caused pedigree dogs' problems - line/inbreeding is only a fraction. GREED is by far the worst aspect of ill health in dogs - pedigree or mongrel.

Until people stop grabbing hold of one 'hobby horse' problem, blaming eveything on that, we won't improve the health of our dogs.

Ah yes, the GSD. But the point is that there are many GSDs who are NOT healthy and whose activity is impaired. And another point is that this was done deliberately, not accidentally. It's the difference between me hurting someone by accident and hurting someone deliberately - neither are good but the deliberate act is morally wrong.

Just because someone else (a greedy breeder) does something wrong, even according to some views worse, does not make another's act (in this case breeding for anything other than the dogs' wellbeing) right. Your lie is worse than my lie doesn't mean I didn't lie.

No, it's not all one cause and I'm not at all saying it is. However, trying to ignore each element that causes a problem because they are not the single cause is worse than us 'hobby horse' grabbers. We will not make dogs' lives worse, blinkered breeders will.

Without genetic testing for all inherited things coming back NEG line breeding is just someone trying to get a "good looking" dog to make another, obviously if the dogs relative is good looking too mating the two makes them think it will make another good looking dog...and in many cases it does. But it dilutes the blood so much eventually you get a Frankenstein. It has happened in the miniature horse and is still very prevalent and as a result you get some very disabled horses but the blood pool is so dilute trying to get a non-related animal is quite hard, so it has to be done very selectively and carefully and it doesnt always pay out.

lexii wrote:But it dilutes the blood so much eventually you get a Frankenstein. It has happened in the miniature horse and is still very prevalent and as a result you get some very disabled horses but the blood pool is so dilute trying to get a non-related animal is quite hard, so it has to be done very selectively and carefully and it doesnt always pay out.

Made me think of this advert, that pony just has so many things wrong but it’s small so that’s all they were looking for ...
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3exhje

'mucked about' as they'd say up north.

Line breeding doesn't 'dilute the blood'. In breeding, yes. But with line breeding the related dogs are not closely related (or shouldn't be) and should only appear a couple of times.

We all know that in practice that doesn't quite happen, but that's down to breeders' ignorance, not line breeding as a concept.

The new legislation coming in soon should help to some extent as anyone breeding a litter knowing that they will produce unhealthy dogs, can be prosecuted.

But the puppies are produced by the breeders, not by a concept. You have yourself just admitted that the 'should' doesn't happen in practice and that's what I feel this discussion should be judged on, what actually happens rather than what should happen. It's not just a theoretical debate, it is for the wellbeing of the dogs of the future.

I doubt very much if the threat of prosecution would deter many breeders. There's too much money in the business and it's basic psychology that the knowledge of certain gain wins over the risk of possible loss. While line breeding is permitted at all it will be used.

By the way, our Mungo who was diagnosed with OCD (osteochondrosis dissecans) at the age of 9 months. He was line bred (something we only discovered through his papers after we bought him). He was on painkillers for all of his life. Although there is debate as to the cause of OCD, our vet's opinion was that line breeding was a possible/probable cause, with two recessive genes coming together, and suggested we contact the breeder to let them know. They didn't care a fig - not from our dogs they said. Erm, then whose?

This is the real life of line breeding, not just the theoretical concept. Surely, surely, surely, it is not worth the suffering of dogs to perpetuate a breeding system that is of no benefit to them, only to breeders?

But recessive genes coming together can happen to any breeding unless there are DNA tests carried out (if available) to rule them out. It can also happen with unrelated cross breeds! How closely related were your dog's ancestors & were there instances of OCD in them?

Not all genetic problems have DNA tests available at present. Those that do should be made mandatory prior to mating.

I neither approve nor disapprove of line breeding, but most pedigree dogs (including crossbreeds with pedigrees in their ancestry) have been line bred. You can't escape it. If carried out correctly it doesn't create problems. Inbreeding & indescriminate line breeding (ie not fully health testing both parents & checking back in the pedigrees for specific dogs with known problems) cause health problems.

Apologies for a bit of a random first post, but I will say that at least here in the US, significant breeders tend to be fairly tight with their breeding and you will typically see two or three names pop up at least twice in a pedigree. These aren't small time breeders, and many of these foundation dogs are UK imports.

gillybrent, I know that you're advocating for responsible breeding and you've offered different definitions for line breeding and inbreeding, but in a relatively small genetic pool (SBTs bred for the show ring, rather than for other features), I feel that diversity is definitely lacking and recessive phenotypes pop up far more than most people realize.

almondblue wrote:

gillybrent, I know that you're advocating for responsible breeding and you've offered different definitions for line breeding and inbreeding, but in a relatively small genetic pool (SBTs bred for the show ring, rather than for other features), I feel that diversity is definitely lacking and recessive phenotypes pop up far more than most people realize.

In the USA the gene pool is probably quite small, but here in the UK it's huge! There's very little need for inbreeding here.