Who’s using the data and why?

It’s not unusual for research papers to get widely reported in the national press, particularly where it’s possible to spin a provocative headline that grabs readers’ attention. Lobby groups and campaigners are also skilled at selecting research that supports their cause. You’d be surprised if they didn’t do that; after all, they have a cause to promote. 

In March 2019, I wrote about the discussions on social media when new scientific papers on canine health and welfare matters are reported and when breed clubs publish their health survey results. Newly published research should prompt us to ask the question “why?” – why might a particular association have been identified and why might the results have turned out like they did.

Last year, the VetCompass project published a paper that generated a lot of publicity in the national press. Life tables of annual life expectancy and mortality for companion dogs in the

United Kingdom reported an approach to assessing canine longevity (Life Tables) which is well-established in human health studies. The paper’s findings that the French Bulldog had the shortest life expectancy of just 4.5 years compared with Jack Russell Terriers (12.7 years) inevitably made for some eye-catching headlines. The VetCompass paper also reported the average longevity of Japanese French Bulldogs to be 10.2 years. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that figure didn’t feature in the press headlines.

In contrast, the Kennel Club’s 2004 and 2014 breed health surveys showed the median age of mortality of French Bulldogs to be 9 and 5.9 respectively. This data is summarised in the French Bulldog Breed Health and Conservation Plan. When the KC’s 2014 survey results were published in 2016, the overall median age of death of pedigree dogs was reported as 10, down from 11.3 in 2004. This led to descriptions of an “apocalyptic drop in purebred dog longevity” despite the fact that no such (statistically valid) conclusion could be drawn from the data reported.

Why the differences in longevity?

The VetCompass paper describes some of the limitations associated with the results they published. The limitations included:

• The sample size for FBs was relatively small, resulting in life tables with reserved confidence
• The sample was biased towards younger dogs that contribute proportionately more deaths in younger ages

VetCompass reports are based on a particular sample population – dogs attending first opinion vet practices in the UK. This sample will, like every sample, have its own biases. We know, for example, that insured dogs are more likely to be taken to the vet. The Life Tables paper was derived from a sample of nearly 900,000 dogs that had at least one visit to a vet

(90% in England) during 2016. These visits would have been not only due to illness but also included routine vaccinations. It is, therefore, not as simple as arguing that the dogs in the study were all ill. The paper drew data from nearly 900 vet clinics and VetCompass claims to gather data from about a third of all practices in the UK.

It is always worth looking at a range of research papers and analyses in order to build a picture of a breed’s health and longevity. Another useful source of such information is the International Partnership for Dogs (www.dogwellnet.com). They have collated and published data for many breeds, including French Bulldogs, Pugs and Bulldogs (all 3 of which have been the subject of recent VetCompass studies). Their Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles (GRIHP) are particularly useful as they pull together data from multiple sources, including UK and Swedish insurance data, VetCompass, Breed Club surveys and more. They don’t, however, provide any specific longevity statistics for French Bulldogs, only data on relative risk mortality compared with an all-breed average. The Agria data show, for example, that French Bulldogs have at least twice the relative risk of mortality than all breeds, for 6 types of health condition including respiratory, eyes and neurological.

One thing VetCompass does really well is communications; it publishes open-access peer-reviewed papers that meet the needs of a technical audience, with supporting data available. It also publishes infographics; easily digestible summaries that are visually appealing and comprehensible to the “person on the Clapham Omnibus”. VetCompass seems to practise a very “agile” approach to the use of its data assets. It publishes useful chunks of information at frequent intervals that answer specific questions. 

Breed clubs need their own good quality research

If a breed has concerns about a particular health condition, age of death or cause of death, it should ensure it can collect sufficient good quality data from a representative sample of dogs. I have previously emphasised the value of clubs collecting data that can show any differences between sub-populations (e.g. show vs. working or show vs. non-show).

The point of Breed Health Surveys depends totally on “the exam question” you are setting out to answer. If the exam question is “what’s the biggest issue?”, most Breed Clubs’ surveys have been able to answer that. The KC’s 2004 and 2014 surveys did that too. If you want to know where to focus effort on improvement, asking about prevalence and age of diagnosis isn’t going to get you very far. You need to know about severity and welfare impact as well. Finally, if you want to know if there’s been any change (for the better or worse) over a period of time, you’d better make sure you’re measuring the same thing, in the same way, at the start and the end. Otherwise, you’ll end up with “Garbage in, Gospel out” with someone cherry-picking the results to suit their own argument!

VetCompass gives us “big data”; breed health surveys give us “small data”. We need both, but most importantly, we need to define the “exam questions” before rushing off to design surveys, or to see if we have data already available.

I believe that all our breed club communities should be supporting the development and use of The Kennel Club’s Breed Health and Conservation Plans (BHCP). These are the most comprehensive documents that summarise the breadth of research available. Breed club officers and health representatives need to be familiar with the content for their own breed so that they can present a balanced and evidence-based argument when challenged about health and/or longevity.

More data won’t improve dog health or longevity

In September 2020, I said that data are necessary but not sufficient. I went on to explain that without human behaviour change, the lives of dogs will not improve. The missing science is that of Human Behaviour Change. 

We do need to question the research that is being published and to understand its strengths and limitations. Every piece of research has the potential to nudge us towards actions that will improve the health and longevity of our dogs. We need to see the bigger picture and focus on the behaviours of owners, breeders and vets who can all actually make a positive impact on dog health.

Advertisement

Who’s looking at the bigger picture?

It’s very easy to get so focused on what’s going on in your own breed (or breeds) that you lose sight of the bigger picture and wider context of what’s happening in the world of dogs. For some breeds, particularly the brachycephalics, there has been a huge amount of scrutiny for many years. The most proactive breed clubs and Breed Health Coordinators have focused on getting messages across about good breeding practices and the value of health screening programmes. Some, though, are less proactive and are perhaps wondering what new legislation is going to hit them. If their short-term focus is on tinkering with their Breed Standard or uptake of a single-gene DNA “health” test, I suspect they will be in for either a disappointment or a shock. While it may be true that “backyard breeders” are the cause of many health issues through poor breeding practices and a disregard for the Breed Standard, it’s likely that those in breed club communities will be impacted first. Breed club communities and those who show their dogs are an easily identifiable target for criticism.

At a National level, Kennel Clubs have to juggle and balance priorities across multiple breeds. Decisions that are made for one breed can often have wider implications across other breeds. Here in the UK, there was a time when the KC would consider implementing “Control Schemes” in specific breeds. Probably the best-known example is CLAD testing in Irish Setters.

With effect from 1 July 2005, the Kennel Club would only register Irish Setters that are proven to be clear of CLAD, or hereditarily clear of CLAD e.g. both parents are clear. With effect from 1 January 2008, the Kennel Club ceased to accept any registrations for Irish Setters produced from a CLAD carrier parent mated to a clear or hereditarily clear parent. Breeders wishing to register progeny from a carrier after this date were required to apply for permission prior to the proposed mating, and applications are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

I remember going to a meeting more than 20 years ago with Professor Jeff Sampson (the KC’s geneticist at the time) where we asked if a control scheme could be introduced for Miniature Dachshunds so that cord1 PRA could be eradicated from the breed. Thankfully, in hindsight, Jeff argued that this would not be in the best interests of the breed and could actually make things worse by further reducing genetic diversity. We had similar discussions with the KC about banning registrations of Mini Wires that were affected by Lafora Disease or that were untested. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and we now know that early onset PRA in Miniature Dachshunds is not caused solely by the cord1 mutation. We have also been able to reduce the risks of breeding Lafora-affected puppies without having the constraints of a Control Scheme.

These days, the KC’s health and genetics advisors are very much aware of the challenges associated with loss of genetic diversity and, I believe, the current policy is that Control Schemes are not considered to be an effective tool for managing inherited diseases. This is a good example of how the role of the KC is to understand the bigger picture and to educate breed clubs and breeders on the potential adverse consequences of what might seem like “simple” solutions.

The KC policy that puppies from merle-to-merle matings cannot be registered is another example of where seeing the bigger picture can (and should) influence a decision. The number of merle-to-merle matings was always very low and the risks of breeding health-compromised puppies was known to be high. As such, this decision made sense across multiple breeds where the merle gene is present. The impact of this policy on genetic diversity is low but the impact on avoiding significant health risks is high.

Unintended consequences

I’m sure there are plenty of other examples where breed clubs might argue for registrations to be restricted on the basis of health tests or where they believe there are health issues associated with particular aspects of the Breed Standard (e.g. conformation or colour). Stepping back and considering the bigger picture and potential undesirable consequences might lead us to alternative approaches. For example, if people can’t register with the KC, will these dogs continue to be bred outside the KC system or will their breeders register them with false details? In the former case, we still end up with unhealthy dogs that may suffer from lifelong illnesses and, in the latter case, we end up with a KC registry based on unreliable information. The KC might also have to consider whether a decision that apparently makes sense in one breed would have knock-on effects if applied to other breeds.

At an international level, the challenges of joining the dots and making sense of varying KC policies and diverse national legislation are even greater. Our KC has reciprocal agreements with many other KCs and the FCI acts as a worldwide body for 98 members and contract partners, with oversight of 355 breeds.

What is truly in the best interest of all dogs?

The International Partnership for Dogs is another organisation taking a broader perspective on the world of dogs. They have recently published their Annual Report for 2021. In her opening remarks, Acting CEO Katariina Mäki says “we continue to work with our stakeholders to educate our global community and promote what is truly in the best interest of all dogs”. She also says “We need collaboration among our stakeholders now more than ever”. That group of stakeholders includes KCs, groups with breed-specific interests, academics/researchers and members of the pet industry, including DNA test providers. Their Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs Database now includes 82 academic and commercial Genetic Test Providers (GTPs) in 22 countries. IPFD’s online platform dogwellnet.com is their main channel for connecting with the dog community and, if you haven’t already done so, I’d recommend joining the 2000+ people who have signed-up for a free account which will give you access to all of their resources. If you’re a breeder or breed club officer, the information and tools available for 182 breeds are immensely valuable. Over the past couple of years, IPFD has put a lot of effort into creating over 1000 Breed Relevance Ratings for the list of nearly 2000 breed-specific DNA tests that are available. These evidence-based ratings, together with Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles (GRIHP) describe the big picture of health on conditions of interest within a specific breed.

Next month, IPFD will be running their second Virtual Dog Health Workshop with a focus on Genetic Diversity. I’ve been invited to attend, so I expect there will be plenty to share in future “Best of Health” articles.

Outrage helps nobody – “Will my puppies make me rich?”

I have written previously about the International Partnership for Dogs’ paper “A call for respectful dialogue, collaboration, and collective actions”, published in 2020. In it, IPFD Chief Executive Brenda Bonnett described the polarised positions of different groups on the issue of pedigree dog health (and welfare). She discussed how, at each end of the spectrum, people are expressing views diametrically opposed to each other, for example ranging from “some breeds should be banned”, through to “it’s a war against pedigree dogs and we need to fight back”. Somewhere (in the middle?) there are people trying to work hard, using available data and sound science, to find ways to address the complex problems that we find in the world of pedigree dogs. Those problems aren’t just health matters, some of which can be addressed with scientific, genetic and veterinary knowledge. Some of the most difficult challenges are the behavioural change ones; how to get breeders, buyers, vets, judges and others to behave in ways that work to the benefit of dog health.

Clickbait programme title

Last year, when it was announced that a TV production company would be making a film for the online channel BBC3, there was outrage. The cause of that outrage was the clickbait working title “Will my puppies make me rich?”. Unusually, in this case, the outrage was equally distributed across the spectrum of those in the dog world, including those campaigning for improved pedigree dog health and, of course, the show world. Stories appeared in the canine press as well as national press, all expressing horror at the suggestion that a film could be made that would encourage people into breeding dogs purely for profit. In addition to letters being written to the producers and BBC3 Controller, there was also an online petition (if I recall correctly).

As you might expect, the Kennel Club’s public affairs team, along with other dog welfare charities, contacted the producers to offer advice and to try to steer the programme makers in a less sensational direction. I was soon made aware that my breed, Dachshunds, were to be featured in the film. At that time, the angle was young people breeding Dachshunds and young people buying them. Clearly, that had the potential to add to our woes in the breed, particularly for Mini Smooths where registrations have grown from 3450 in 2015 to 10369 last year and no sign of their popularity declining.

On behalf of our Breed Council, I contacted the producers to offer our help with information on the breed and to try to engage with them in a way that might lead to a storyline that might be less damaging for our breed. I suspect that our emails came as something of a surprise to them as the tone was one of collaboration, rather than outrage and criticism. Consequently, I had several conversations with them and they were really interested in finding out more about breeder and buyer motivations for Dachshunds, as well as the health and ownership aspects of the breed. BBC3’s target audience is younger people (than your average dog club committee member!) and I was able to direct them to some younger breeders as well as representatives of our breed rescues.

Luckily for us, one of our Health Committee is a breeder, exhibitor and veterinary student and she ticked lots of boxes for the producers. I was really pleased to hear when they confirmed that they would be interviewing Bryony and thought she was an ideal person to include in the programme, being young, knowledgeable and undergoing vet training. Win win for all of us.

Undercover storyline

The programme hit our screens (albeit online) in mid-July but, disappointingly, I heard just before its launch that Bryony’s interview had been cut. While filming, they had discovered various canine fertility clinics and a more “juicy” storyline of illegal practices when they went undercover. 

So, sadly, we didn’t get the opportunity to see a member of our Health Committee sharing her knowledge on Dachshund breeding. However, a member of the Red Foundation (Dachshund Rescue) did get a few minutes of airtime and managed to get across to the young couple looking to buy a Dachshund some key messages about doing their research and the hard work needed to train a puppy. The presenter, a vet, briefly discussed our breed’s major health issue, Intervertebral Disc Disease but it was disappointing that there was nothing stronger about this from a buyer and owner’s perspective. It would have been brilliant if somebody could have mentioned our IVDD Screening Programme which was formally adopted by the KC earlier this year.

In the end, the young couple who originally wanted to get a Dachshund puppy took on an RSPCA foster puppy. We didn’t get to see whether it was a breed or a crossbreed, for legal reasons associated with a pending investigation and potential court case. Was that a good outcome for our breed? Possibly. It was one less buyer who had perhaps realised the breed was not the one for them and their lifestyle. Whether the messaging in the film was strong enough for other young buyers to recognise the responsibilities that go with buying a Dachshund, I doubt. Thankfully, we didn’t get to see anyone breeding Dachshunds and, some of the breeders we did see, made it clear how easy it is for things to go wrong and for it to become a very expensive exercise. Overall, I’m not convinced the programme will have any impact on the breeding of Dachshunds or their popularity. 

Collaboration works

I do think the programme was constructive and another helpful insight into some of the things going on in the world of dog breeding and buying. Probably most importantly, it was aimed at a young audience, presented by a young vet and included young breeders and buyers. That demographic is typically influenced by their peers so that fact it wasn’t shown on terrestrial TV and seen by us older folk, doesn’t matter that much.

The learning point for me is that collaboration works and is likely to be a more constructive approach than mere outrage. It’s far easier to share facts and evidence if you start from the perspective of there’s an opportunity to work together to improve things. Outrage rarely enables a conversation based on science and evidence, and often starts with the assumption that the other party is “wrong” and you are “right”. 

“There is nothing more foolish, nothing more given to outrage than a useless mob.”

Herodotus

It’s time to get a GRIHP – a new resource from the IPFD

We have seen over recent months that the topic of pedigree dog health is truly an international concern. The legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds in the Netherlands has probably been the most high profile but there have been similar moves in France, Germany, and Finland. The proposed German legislation has had a focus of conversations on social media related to the amount of exercise dogs must be given and the potential difficulty of policing any such legislation. However, an aspect that should concern us is the threat to ban dogs with “extreme exaggeration” from participating in dog shows. We can be pretty sure that it won’t just be the brachycephalic breeds that are targeted; short-legged breeds including the Dachshunds are also likely to be within the scope of these proposals.

Dr Brenda Bonnett, CEO of the International Partnership for Dogs said “For many years, lecturing about breed-specific issues in dogs, even before the existence of IPFD, in discussions with the breeding community, veterinarians and others, it was becoming self-evident that if concerns were not addressed by the dog community, society would likely impose ‘solutions’ on them.  This is coming to fruition in many areas, and society and the media wants to move at a much faster pace than many in the pedigreed dog world.”

Shortly after the announcement of the proposed French legislation, our Kennel Club hosted a webcast on the subject of Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS). KC Chairman Tony Allcock chaired a discussion panel that discussed some of the issues facing brachycephalic breeds and the role the KC is playing in addressing BOAS through the Respiratory Function Grading Scheme (RFGS) developed at Cambridge University. It’s important to recognise that the RFGS is just one strand of work being done here in the UK and it was also useful to hear about the role of the Brachycephalic Working Group during the webcast. This multi-stakeholder group has taken a wide-ranging approach to address the brachycephalic issue, encompassing both the supply side (i.e breeders) and demand side (i.e. buyers). 

I wrote last month about how more data won’t improve breed health. It’s evident from what has happened in the Netherlands that data and evidence have made very little difference to the framing of the legislation affecting brachycephalic breeds. Despite the case presented by the Raad van Beheer (Dutch KC), their government seems to have been persuaded by a small group of vets at Utrecht University that legislation based on measuring the craniofacial ratio is a suitable tool to improve breed health.

Evidence and collaboration

The increasing internationalisation of breed health reinforces the case for the existence of the International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD). Their independent, non-political, position has always been grounded in a combination of evidence and collaboration. Their latest initiative is GRIHP – Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profiles – which has the potential to shape a more balanced conversation about pedigree dog health.

The IPFD website says:

A Globally Relevant Integrated Health Profile (GRIHP) describes the Big Picture of health on (all) conditions that are of interest within a breed and is intended to inform owners, breeders, and those counseling them. Health Strategies are breed-specific recommendations and requirements developed by Health Strategy Providers (HSPs) including, e.g. kennel clubs, breed clubs, and veterinary organizations. Health strategies may encompass detailed descriptions of breed history and development, evidence/ statistics on conditions of interest, health/temperament screening suggestions or official programs, and more, depending on the breed, the HSP, the country, and/or specific organisations. 

The Big Picture for a breed should include information not only on conditions that have genetic or other screening tests available, but also all conditions that may impact the health, behaviour/temperament, well-being, and welfare of individuals and breed populations; ideally accompanied by an indication of the relative importance of each item, which may involve commonness, severity, and other factors.

Depending on the breed these Get a GRIHP articles will include:

• Breed nomenclature and description of types and characteristics
• Health and welfare issues, including:
• statistics on common and high-risk conditions
• available health, genetic and other screening tests that are recommended or required
• Population statistics from various countries; statistics on trends in popularity
• Management strategies and recommendations for owners and breeders, as well as resources to support veterinary-client communication.

Get a GRIHP on Corgis and Dachshunds

Corgis and Dachshunds are the first 2 breeds with GRIHP reports. In the UK, we already have Breed Health and Conservation Plans being developed by our KC and these are focused on action plans for UK breed clubs. The value of GRIHPs is that they open up the scope to reflect internationally available data and evidence of breed improvement strategies.

For example, with the Corgis, you can see international registration statistics from 6 countries. While the UK population may be on the Vulnerable Breeds list, this international perspective shows Finland has seen a significant growth in popularity.

Another useful aspect of the GRIHP reports is that you can see which screening programmes are being implemented in different countries. This helps provide a consensus view of what breed clubs, kennel clubs and breeders are currently focusing on. What it doesn’t necessarily tell us is whether these screening programmes are the most important ones; they might simply be the most readily available ones. Information on DNA tests is already collated by the IPFD. Their Harmonisation of Genetic Testing database now includes a “relevance rating” based on published research evidence to support the use of DNA tests in given breeds. Just because a test is being sold for a breed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is valid and relevant for that breed.

Some of the most useful information in the GRIHP reports is the Swedish Agria mortality (death) and morbidity (illness) data. They compare the featured breed with “all breeds” and other pedigree breeds to give a clear view of relative risks. Interestingly, back disease for Mini Dachshunds is shown as being 5 times more likely than in “all breeds” combined. Other sources typically quote Dachshunds as being 10-12 times more likely to have a back problem. Pekingese are shown as the highest risk breed for back disease in the Swedish data. 

Returning to my initial discussion about legislation that targets specific breeds, the Swedish data on back disease shows that it is not only the short-legged breeds that have an increased risk. The comparator data really do pose some challenging questions for anyone looking to impose apparently simple solutions (such as legislation) on targeted pedigree breeds. Corgis, for example, have a lower mortality rate (Risk Ratio 0.7) than “all breeds” and a marginally higher morbidity rate (RR 1.07). In the Dachshunds, both sizes have a lower mortality rate than “all breeds” and the Standards have a lower morbidity rate. 

We certainly need to see more of these GRIHP reports for other breeds. Not only will they present useful data but they also exemplify the good work being done, internationally, to improve the health of pedigree breeds.

International Partnership for Dogs Calls for Collective Actions for Health and Welfare of Pedigree Dogs

Press Release:

The International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD) is calling on stakeholder groups – including dog show enthusiasts, kennel and breed clubs, legislators, dog owners, veterinarians, welfare advocates – from all regions and countries to come together to address issues currently impacting the health, welfare, and breeding of dogs.

Our article, Reframing Current Challenges Around Pedigree Dogs: A Call for Respectful Dialogue, Collaboration and Collective Actions (also available in Dutch, Finnish, French, German, and Spanish), responds to a wave of recent legislative actions, especially in Europe. Although primarily focused on brachycephalic (flat-faced) breeds, regulations may eventually impact all pedigree and non-pedigree dogs.

“This is a call for each one of us to examine how our personal attitudes, attachments, and beliefs impact these discussions, says Dr. Brenda Bonnett, CEO, IPFD. “And it is a call to work collectively for what is truly in the best interest of dogs and the people who care for them.”

A key part of IPFD’s mission is to encourage, initiate, and facilitate collaboration among key stakeholders in the dog world to enhance dog health, well-being and welfare, and support human-dog interactions. “IPFD is a multi-stakeholder, international organization,” says Dr. Pekka Olson, IPFD Chair. “And it is perfectly positioned to encourage and facilitate open, respectful dialogue and collective actions in the best interest of both dogs and people.” Many of today’s challenges have been part of discussions at and actions from IPFD’s International Dog Health Workshops. The new IPFD International Working Group on Extreme Conformation in Dogs is one such initiative.

IPFD has compiled extensive resources to advance the conversation called for in this article. Together with collaborators from various sectors, we are creating a roadmap for the future, i.e. to help us to Think Globally, Act Locally.

“While we understand and respect the differences in attitudes and realities in different regions and across stakeholder groups, we also know there is common ground and shared purpose,” Bonnett adds. “Everyone who has any interest in dogs, pedigree dogs, and the world of ‘dogs and people’ is encouraged to become engaged in addressing challenges. This article and accompanying resources will support this process.”

The International Partnership for Dogs (IPFD) is a non-profit organization leading a global, multi-stakeholder effort to address issues affecting dog health, well-being, and welfare. Our main platform is DogWellNet.com. Our people include a Board comprised of individuals with respected international reputations, and a small but committed team of consultants in several countries. Volunteers from our Partners and Collaborator organizations and a network of experts are integral to what we do. 

Our Contributors, Partners, and Sponsors include national kennel clubs, international cynological organizations, groups with breed specific interests, educational/academic and professional organizations, and key players in the pet industry. Together we foster collaborative action to achieve our shared goals, support human-animal interactions, and benefit all dogs worldwide.  

For More Information:

Follow developments and find further resources on DogWellNet.com and learn about the IPFD.

Contact article author, Dr. Brenda N. Bonnett, CEO, IPFD, at Brenda.Bonnett@ipfdogs.com

General enquiries info@ipfdogs.com.