Genetics and their defects

Research on staffies invariably touches genetics and breeding. I’m curious about several points

White staffies are known to be subject to deafness issues but why ?
How much white is considered worth checking for deafness test ? Is there a general rule ? What about “few-patch” pied ?
I’ve read that many breeders don’t like performing deafness tests on unweaned pups, possibly due to anaesthetic ? Or is this a scam/excuse to sell pups on to uneducated future owners, transferring responsibility of possible undetected future issues ?

Black and tan is not an authorized colour for confirmed pedigree dogs due to the dominant colouring potential of having all future staffies b&t (like rottweilers or dobermans).
If you had a couple of breeding dogs (both red) who threw a b&t pup in each litter, could you suppose that pups would be capable of throwing b&t pups down the line too ?
Of course, b&t staffies are lovely too but it does overlap with the concept of responsible breeding.

Blue staffies are the fruit of dilute genes.
At the moment, over here at least, an awful lot of litters have at least one blue parent. There are also a few select breeders who boast the absence of blue in their lineages.
By breeding to so much blue, will it not ultimately lead to staffies with more sensitivity to certain health issues (skin, for example) ?

Good questions!

All white, in any breed, leads to pups with hearing problems. I'm not totally sure, but I think it's due to the lack of a certain cell that not only governs coat colour, but also the specialist cells that are part of the hearing process.

Black & tan isn't allowed because a) it's a dominant colour pattern which could eventually make all Staffords b & t, and b) it was never actually a part of the Stafford breed. So basically, if your Stafford is b & t, it has a non-Stafford ancestor somewhere, and someone has lied about a litter's true parents!

Blue gas always been in the breed, but was not actually bred for as there is a lack of pigment. Pigment is not only linked to colour, but also skin condition, eyesight & the health of some organs. It's recessive, so unless you breed blue to blue, you can't guarantee to get them in a litter. Breeding for colour as a first consideration is never good & ends up overlooking other problems.

Interesting about b&t being linked to false breed declaration.
Breeder told me that testing for hereditary illnesses was not compulsory for breeding dogs (even though breed confirmation is needed for equivalent KC registering). DNA testing for origins could also be considered as for other animals (certain horses, for example).

Blue may be recessive but by breeding to so many blues surely increases the probability of having “recessive” pups in the future litters, whether one of the parents is blue or not.
I agree that breeding for colour is never good

Basically all gilly said. Blues were a trend for a bit, but so many cottoned on to the health issues i think it died down a bit thankfully. You can breed a healthy blue, but it can NOT come from too many blues in the line, and as you say should never be bred FOR.

As usual, the UK appears to be light years ahead of us for alot of things. Blue is still fashion here with some studs breeding from exclusively blue parents ...

On a side note the KC allow black&tan dogs to be registered. Which is odd, cause the breed standard does not allow them.

The KC will register any pup that has come from registered parents. Personally I fe that, although the pups should be registered, I think that a note should be made on the registration to say that the colour pattern is unacceptable.

I also think that, where DNA or other health tests are available, these should be carried out before a bitch can be mated. All test results should appear on the registration document.

As for blues, their registrations have hardly dropped over the past 5 years & still comprise in excess of 50% of all new pups. I honestly don't think that is good for the breed.

gillybrent wrote:The KC will register any pup that has come from registered parents.

From what I understand, this is true. But the parents, as well as having KC papers, must have what we call here the “breed confirmation”. Presentation in front of a panel of judges who validate that the dog is true to breed type, which would invalidate all those who are b&t or with incorrect ear carriage, for example.
Without this additional breed confirmation, all pups from these parents (even if only one parent is KC registered but not confirmed) will not have KC papers.

It’s a step in the right direction but I feel that they can go one step further to promote breeding as a means to maintain/improve the breed and not just a way to make a quick buck by prostitution of the dogs in the “breeder’s” care.
Some breeds are very affected by problems such as hip displasia and the such (GSD, labradors). I think an extra “health card” joined to KC and confirmation papers (with genetical problem screening) would not only breed healthier individuals for generations to come, but would cut an awful lot of heartache and suffering too.

Actually, many GSDs do precisely that - they are assessed before they are able to be offered at stud, or mated. That, unfortunately, doesn't come from the KC, but from the German Breed Society - the World Union of German Shepherd Dogs (WUSV).

It was the GSD fraternity who set up the hip scoring scheme in the UK, which is used for all breeds. It's 'scored' according to severity with 0 being perfect.

The KC have paid for & set up research into many inherited problems throughout the breeds (something very few people give them credit for) and have dozens of DNA tests in place, but it's up to the breeder as to whether or not they use them. If the KC were to refuse registry to any pups born from non tested parents (where such tests exist) many problems would diminish and eventually die out.

Does you KC allow registration of pups if only one parent is registered?

gillybrent wrote:
Does you KC allow registration of pups if only one parent is registered?

No, both parents MUST be registered AND confirmed in order for pups to be registered.
(Then there’s the debate on how some dogs ever got confirmed and how others were refused, but that’s another story.)

Nifty staffy wrote:

gillybrent wrote:
Does you KC allow registration of pups if only one parent is registered?

No, both parents MUST be registered AND confirmed in order for pups to be registered.
(Then there’s the debate on how some dogs ever got confirmed and how others were refused, but that’s another story.)

I think confirming that a dog/bitch matches the breed standard, but it's still up to interpretation & the fact that this person likes that 'type' and the other likes a different type.

There will always be in-fighting & bitching (excuse the pun ).

I do think there is need for Kc's around the world, I just wish that they would be a bit tougher for the sake of the doggie community.

I do worry when I see apparently confirmed dogs with “labrador ears”
I do think there is a need for KC’s but as you say, I think they should go further in what they do.