THE DOWNSIDE OF INBREEDING:
IT’S
TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH
C.A.
"Inbreeding
was once a valuable tool in shaping today’s breeds. As these have now reached a
high degree of homogeneity, it has lost its importance and turned into a fatal
and disastrous habit." Hellmuth Wachtel, PhD
Inbreeding (which, for the purposes of this article, includes
"linebreeding") has been the rule in dog
breeding for the better part of two centuries. Before that, breeders bred
"like-to-like." Records may or may not have been kept, depending on
the literacy, social status or interest of the breeder. Pedigrees were of
marginal interest, if they were considered at all. Registries, as we know them
now, did not exist. New individuals might be introduced to the breeding pool at
any time, so long as they displayed characteristics that the breeder wanted to
perpetuate. Even an unplanned mating with a dog that would never have been
deliberately selected might be shrugged off so long as some of the offspring
proved useful.
In the nineteenth century, prominent European breeders of various
domestic species, including dogs, became interested in maintaining the
"purity" of their bloodlines. They had no knowledge of genetics,
indeed the science had yet to be born. Their breeding theories were a
reflection of social attitudes of the times. It should also be kept in mind
that these individuals were mostly wealthy men whose human pedigrees were
considered better than those of "common" people. As pedigrees became
more important, so did the regular appearance of significant names in those
pedigrees. Eventually registries were established to keep official records. At
some point, virtually all dog registries became closed. Most of this occurred
before breeders had even a rudimentary knowledge of genetic science.
At first, inbreeding proved beneficial. Breeders learned that by
mating related individuals of the desired type, the resulting quality and
uniformity of the offspring improved As people began to learn basic genetics in
the early part of this century, they deliberately sought to fix desired traits,
particularly in production livestock, by breeding near relatives. This practice
continues to the present day. A sire will be "progeny-tested" by
being bred to a group of his daughters. If the offspring measure up, he will be
kept for stud. If they don’t, everybody goes to market. This drastic culling
serves its purpose in livestock, but it is impractical and unacceptable in companion
animals such as dogs.
Nature goes to great lengths to discourage inbreeding. Related
animals rarely mate, which prevents genes for diseases and defects from coming
together with any great frequency. Wild animals have a variety of behaviors which will eliminate or severely restrict
inbreeding. In wolves, the species most closely related to dogs, only the alpha
pair will breed. Pups stay with the pack for their first year. After that time
they must find a place, often low-ranking, within the adult hierarchy. If a
yearling cannot accept this or it becomes the brunt of too much negative social
interaction, it will disperse. Dispersers may have to travel many miles before
they can find an available territory and a mate, if they can find them at all.
Those individuals which do not disperse will not be
breeders unless they should someday attain alpha status, so the breeding of
relatives is unlikely.
Sometimes circumstances give animals no choice but to mate with
relatives. If those conditions persist for any length of time they create a
"genetic bottleneck." The wolves of
In recent years, purebred dogs have experienced increasing problems
with hereditary diseases and defects. The causes are complex, including genetic
load, the presence of lethal equivalents in all individuals, genetic
bottlenecks, closed gene pools, gene pool fragmentation, and genetic drift, but
all are attributable to inbreeding.
Thanks to closed registries, breeds form exclusive gene pools. All
gene pools, no matter how large or diverse, will have a genetic load — the
difference between the fittest possible genotype and the average fitness of the
population. "Fitness" is the individual’s over-all health, vigor and ability. It may or may not directly relate to
traits breeders select for. (The English Bulldog, for
instance, has an "ideal" physical form which virtually precludes
females from being able to naturally whelp their young.) The greater the
genetic load, the more genetic difficulties members of a breed are likely to
suffer. In a closed gene pool, the situation may remain stable or deteriorate.
It cannot get better.
Each individual within a breed also carries it’s
own kind of load — four or five genes for potentially fatal diseases or
defects. These are called "lethal equivalents." In most cases they
will not affect the individual carrying them because a single allele, or form
of the gene, will be insufficient to cause the problem. But when relatives are
mated, the odds of matching up those alleles increases and as
does the frequency the disease.
Every population must deal with genetic load and lethal
equivalents, but when the population is prevented having genetic exchange with
other similar populations, genetic diversity within the population begins to
diminish. Some of this may be beyond anyone’s control. A breed’s function may
have become obsolete, resulting in only a few surviving members. This was the
case with the Portuguese Water Dog. All present-day PWDs descend from a handful of dogs. Social, political or
environmental difficulties may also preclude breeding, causing populations to
crash. Many breeds experienced a genetic bottleneck at the time of World War
II. With much of the world at war, dog breeding was not a high priority and
populations in areas of military action were often wiped out or severely
depleted. In such a situation, breeders can only make do with what remains.
It’s a tough row to hoe for the truly rare breeds, especially since the
prevailing attitude that breeds must be kept "pure" prevents
supplementing with fresh genetic material from similar, less impacted,
populations.
Breed gene pools can fragmented into so
many gene puddles when they are arbitrarily split along size, color or coat-type lines, with dogs of one color or variety prohibited from mating with those of
another. No matter how diverse a breed may have been before such distinctions
were made, afterwards breeders have fewer options when choosing mates and the
eventual result will be increased inbreeding because there isn’t anywhere else
to go. One striking example of this is the Belgian Sheepdog in the
Changes in social conditions may also fragment breed gene pools.
The Australian Shepherd was originally a working ranch and farm dog. Today
there are far more Aussies than there are "jobs" on farms and
ranches; so most are companion animals. Over the past three decades, the breed
has clearly split between working and conformation strains with a third,
smaller, category of "versatility" animals whose breeders work toward
a multi-purpose animal .There is also a population of "mini" Aussies—dogs
whose size is below the breed norm. They are often registered as Australian
Shepherds along with listing in a registry for minis. There is very little
breeding between these various sub-groups though all trace back to more-or-less
overlapping sets of founder animals.
One of the results of gene pool fragmentation is loss of alleles
that may exist in the breed but didn’t happen to occur in the founders for that
variety. Genetic drift can cause further loss. Genes not being specifically
selected for tend to "drift" out of the gene pool. Many of these will
be for things so subtle they might never come to a breeder’s direct attention.
A dog has some 100,000 genes, only a relative few of which are for things we
can readily observe or measure. Many of these genes cause minor variations in
form or bodily function. Cumulative losses of such genes through genetic drift
can reduce overall health and fitness without presenting consistent or
identifiable signs; a dog may seem to be a poor keeper, unusually subject to
minor ailments, or lacking in endurance. Even "typical" breed behaviors, such as herding ability, can be diminished in
this manner, if breeders are not using the behavior
as part of their selection criteria.
The use of popular sires, particularly multiple generations of
them, can accelerate loss of alleles. A dog can only have a maximum of two
alleles for any given gene. Excessive use of a single individual will skew the
gene pool toward the alleles that dog happened to carry. Obviously, such a dog
gets heavy use because he has desirable traits. Genes for those traits will
become more common, but so will those for his lethal equivalents and more
subtle ills. And if a deleterious gene is "linked" (sits close on the
chromosome) to a desired gene the sire carries, the breed may suddenly find
itself riddled with the problem that bad gene causes. It won’t be easy to
eliminate unless breeders are also willing to give up the linked desired trait.
Proponents of inbreeding often point out that mongrels have more
genetic problems than purebreds. While it is true that mongrels, as a group,
have more individual kinds of diseases and defects than any single pure breed,
it must be remembered that each breed represents only a portion of the canine
gene pool, whereas mongrels encompass all of it. If mongrels’ defects are
compared to those found among all pure breeds, the discrepancy disappears.
Since mongrels usually are the result of random, unplanned breeding, the
incidence of defects is low in the overall population. In pure breeds many of
those same defects are common. For instance, progressive retinal atrophy and
collie eye anomaly are rare in mongrels. Incidence of both is high in Collies.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the short-term gains of
inbreeding are outweighed by its long-term costs. Present-day breeders need to
re-think their strategy. Assortative mating—the
mating of phenotypically similar but unrelated or
less-related individuals—will allow breeders to reach their breeding goals
while reducing the loss of alleles in the over-all population. To accomplish
this it is vital that each breeder has a thorough knowledge of breed pedigrees.
The typical three to five generation pedigree may indicate few, if any, common
ancestors. But what happens if the pedigree is extended a few more generations?
If two dogs share no ancestors for four generations, but share many in the 5th,
6th and so on, breeding them would be inbreeding.
All members of a single breed are, of course, related to some
degree, though how much varies from breed to breed. Somewhere back in each
breed’s history there is a group of founders from whom all present-day dogs
descend. Portuguese Water Dogs have very few, Australian Shepherds have quite a
number, though not every Aussie goes back to all of them. It is important to
know who the founder individuals were, particularly if the breed is rare, split
into varieties or experienced a significant bottleneck at some point in its
history. A large number of founders allows for greater diversity (assuming
those founders were, themselves, unrelated), but if some are heavily
represented in comparison to others due to inbreeding on their descendents,
diversity is at risk. Breeders should strive to increase the representation of
the neglected founders whenever possible.
Calculation of inbreeding coefficients will give an indication of
how inbred a dog or a prospective cross is. Knowing these numbers enables the
breeder to make choices that will reduce inbreeding. Good books on animal
breeding will have a section explaining how this is done, but calculating them
by hand becomes cumbersome when working with a full pedigree. There are
pedigree programs on the market which will perform these calculations.
Perhaps the most important issue is making health a top priority.
It is obvious even to those who promote inbreeding that screening for genetic
diseases and not breeding affected individuals is important. As tests become
available which will detect carriers of genetic problems, they should be put to
use. However, carrier status should not automatically preclude breeding of
otherwise good individuals. Care should be taken that they aren’t bred to other
carriers and those who buy puppies from a carrier parent should be advised to
screen the pup if they want to breed it. But eliminating proven carriers as
breeding stock is throwing our their many good genes
while avoiding one bad one.
Australian Shepherd breeders are doing this with Pelger-Huet Anomaly. PHA is lethal to offspring that
inherit two copies of the gene, resulting in reduced litter size and neonatal
deaths. Carriers rarely suffer any effects. Knowledgeable breeders use a blood
test to screen and carriers are bred to non-carriers.
Less specific aspects of health must also be considered. A dog that is a
"hard keeper, or repeatedly comes down with one minor ill or another
should not be a breeding prospect. These individuals likely carry a surplus of
genes which individually have only a small negative effect on health but
cumulatively have produced an unthrifty individual.
A common result of inbreeding is "inbreeding depression,"
typified by small litter size or difficulty producing or rearing young. Bitches
from families that consistently produce small litters may be suffering
inbreeding depression. Animals which can only be bred or raise their puppies if
they receive extraordinary human assistance are poor breeding candidates. This
is not to say that people shouldn’t properly house and care for their animals,
but if a dog is indifferent to bitches in standing heat or a bitch needs to be
physically restrained to keep her from resorting to fight or flight in an
attempt to prevent mating, or won’t settle without veterinary intervention, or
is apt to kill or damage her puppies through intent or neglect, these are signs
of inbreeding depression and that animal shouldn’t be bred. Breeders should not
go to excessive, near surgical, lengths to control the environment for
newborns, nor should they use heroic measures to keep failing whelps alive.
(For those who find this too callous: Save them if you will, but don’t breed
them.)
Inbreeding gave us the many breeds of dog we enjoy today, but its
time is past. If purebred dogs are to remain viable into the next century
breeders need to rethink their strategy and work toward their goals with more
emphasis on over-all health and concerted efforts to reduce the level of
inbreeding in their dogs.
Copyright 1999 C.A. Sharp is editor of the "Double
Helix Network News". This article appeared in Vol. VII, No. 1 (Winter 1999).
It may be reprinted providing it is not altered and appropriate credit is
given.
Return Home