The 5th International Dog Health Workshop was held in Helsinki over 3 days in mid-June. This was the first face-to-face event organised by the International Partnership for Dogs since the 2019 event hosted by the Kennel Club at Windsor in 2019.
It was great to see so many familiar faces from previous events and to meet some new people from the dog community worldwide. I had hoped to catch up with Dr Brenda Bonnett who had retired as CEO of the IPFD but, unfortunately, she was unable to travel from Canada due to ill-health. Fittingly, in her absence, she was presented with a new IPFD Award at the workshop dinner on Friday evening in recognition of her immense contribution to the world of dogs.
The workshop was structured around 4 themes:
- Supply and Demand
- Health and Exaggeration
- Big Data
- The definition of “breed”
We had presentations on all these topics from internationally respected speakers during the morning of the second day, as a precursor to going into breakout sessions that afternoon. I was the moderator/facilitator for the 4th group where we focused on outcrossing projects. The theme leader was Dr Heidi Parker whom I was pleased to meet as she was the geneticist who identified the FGF4 retrogene associated with short legs in Dachshunds (and other breeds).
In our group we were fortunate to have people from breeds and kennel clubs where outcrossing projects have already been implemented so we had the opportunity to learn from their experience. We talked about some of the barriers to implementing these projects as well as a typical process to follow.
Communicating the purpose and benefits
It was also helpful to have Dr Alison Skipper in our group as she had made a presentation on some of the historical aspects of breed formation, with useful reminders that many breeds made use of outcrosses in their early days and that closed stud books were, in many cases, a recent decision. She was able to dispel some of the myths about “breed purity” that are often thrown up as a reason for not accepting an outcross project. Our group agreed that messaging around outcrossing should focus on preserving breeds for the future and that the reasons needed to be communicated carefully.
The Swedish Kennel Club has produced a guidance document on outcrossing projects and an English version should be available soon. This provides a template process for others to follow. One of the early decisions has to be about clarifying the purpose of the project. It might be to address concerns in one or more of the following areas: lack of genetic diversity, exaggerated conformation, health or disease, or behaviour and temperament. Once a breed community is clear on the issue(s) to be addressed, they can consider the options available. This might include outcrossing with a different (but appropriate) breed or it may be as simple as making use of imports or other sub-populations (e.g. working vs. show).
There are, inevitably, lots of details to work through before such a project can be implemented, including how to recruit breeders, how to find homes for the puppies, and any changes needed to KC policies or procedures.
International differences
One of the issues we identified was the differences in policies and procedures across different kennel clubs. For example, under the FCI, cross-variety matings are permitted (e.g. different Dachshund coats and sizes). In the UK, things are more inconsistent with, for example, cross-variety matings permitted in Chihuahuas but not in Dachshunds. However, the UK KC does permit recessive coated Dachshunds to be registered as per their coat (e.g. a Mini Long born from 2 Mini Smooth parents). One of the actions we agreed in the working group was to collate the policies from the KCs represented which covered FCI, UK and US KCs.
Incentives and motivation
While it is obviously important to communicate the purpose and benefits of any cross-breeding programme in order to recruit participants, we also discussed a range of ideas associated with incentivising the initiation and implementation of these projects. If people in the wider dog community and puppy-buying public are aware of the benefits, it would help to make them more acceptable options to improve breed health. There may, therefore, be opportunities to showcase the results of these projects at educational events or dog shows. Additionally, the IPFD has an online platform where these projects can be publicised and this gives us further opportunities to legitimise them in the mainstream of pedigree dog breeding. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a “crossbreeding project of the year award” to demonstrate and celebrate the results of these activities?
The proof of the pudding
I think IDHW5 was also a useful reminder for us that we have made some great progress in the UK in recent years. We have Breed Health and Conservation Plans for over 200 breeds. These are detailed summaries of the state of each breed and their priorities for improvement, as agreed with their breed clubs. We have a range of online tools for breeders such as Estimated Breeding Value calculators and Coefficient of Inbreeding data. The recently launched Health Standards also provide a baseline of expectations for breeders to adopt for every breed. They are evidence-based and take account of disease prevalence and severity, as well as the size, structure and genetic diversity of each breed.
As with previous IDHWs, the proof of the pudding is whether or not the participants go back to their countries and initiate any changes. These events are always stimulating but we have to be realistic that they are unlikely to result in any step changes. However, it’s worth remembering Dave Brailsford’s “marginal gains”, also known as the 1 percent principle. Lots of small changes eventually accumulate into significant improvements. I know that each of us from the UK went away with new ideas and some opportunities to make a difference to pedigree dog health.
Finally, I should end with a huge Thank You to the IPFD Board and organising committee, plus the event sponsors (Agria, Mars Petcare and RoyalCanin), without whom none of this would have been possible.
Dog-ED: Social Enterprise 