An international approach to breed health improvement

This year, the International Partnership for Dogs will be holding its 4th workshop. Our Kennel Club is hosting the event which will take place from 30th May to 1st June, near Windsor. The Kennel Club was a founding partner of the IPFD since its inception in 2014 and hosted the first ever meeting of the IPFD Board that same year. Kennel Club Secretary, Caroline Kisko, is the Vice Chairman of the IPFD and our KC also provides the secretariat for board meetings.

A major goal of the International Dog Health Workshops (IDHW) is to promote collaboration and networking. This begins with the reception on the Thursday evening and continues throughout the next 2 days. All attendees are expected to share expertise/experiences and to participate actively in discussions in breakout sessions.

I attended the 3rd IDHW in Paris in 2017 and was privileged to be invited to make a short presentation on our work in the Dachshund Breed Council to develop and implement a breed health strategy. I also took part in the breed-specific health strategies workshop and this year I have been asked to help with the design and facilitation of that part of the programme.

As with previous IDHWs, the majority of time is spent in interaction: limited plenary talks have been chosen to highlight Themes; most time is spent in smaller group breakout sessions.

There are 5 main themes being tackled this year:

1)   The concept of ‘Breed’ and how it influences health and welfare in dogs. How attitudes to the definition and understanding of breed affect actions for health; the history and future of outcrossing; public perception; conservation vs. development of breeds; the role/ influences of breed standards; judging for health/function not just appearance; experience in other species.

2)   Supply and Demand. The reality of sourcing – national vs. registered/pedigree populations; commercial breeding: the reality; new developments in health and welfare management; ‘rescues’ / marketing; the role of different stakeholders.

3)   Breed-Specific Health Strategies: By breed, nationally and internationally. Defining and sharing tools to support the work of breed clubs.

4)   Genetic Testing for Dogs: Selection, evaluation and application of genetic testing: building expert resources for genetic counselling / IPFD Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) initiative; coordinating across stakeholder groups; latest developments in genetics and genomics.

5)   Exaggerations and Extremes in Dog Conformation:

a)   Health, welfare and breeding considerations; review of national and international efforts, on all fronts (consumers, show world, breeders, judges, vets, etc) since 2012 – what has been achieved?; brachycephalics; other existing and emerging issues; overcoming polarization and conflict, resolving science and emotion.

b)   Education and Communication – Past practices may not have achieved desired outcomes. What are tools and techniques to promote human behaviour change? What can we learn from other fields?

“In God we trust, everyone else must bring data” – Dr. Edwards Deming

In 2017, one of the themes was “Show me the numbers” and some people might wonder why this has been dropped for 2019. It was obvious from the discussions within that theme in 2017 that it was actually cross-cutting, meaning it was a key aspect running through all the other themes. So, we can take it as read that improvement in any of the themes on the 2019 agenda will have to be underpinned by the availability of good data and evidence.

The format of this year’s workshop is slightly different from 2017; there are 4 interactive plenary sessions taking up a large part of the agenda on 31st May. These include short presentations by renowned experts from around the world. Nick Blaney, who heads up our KC’s Dog Health Group is among the speakers.

All change please!

I’ll be particularly interested to hear the presentation by Suzanne Rogers who is a Director of a consultancy: Human Behaviour Change for Animals (HBCA). I’m pleased to see she will be speaking about communication to promote change. When I spoke in 2017, I started by saying that dog health improvement was not a scientific, veterinary or genetic problem. My view was (and still is) that dog health improvement is a continuous improvement and change management problem. It is something we have to work on continuously and we can expect to see incremental improvement (rather than step-change) only if people behave differently. By “people”, I mean owners, breeders, exhibitors, judges, vets and everyone who directly impacts on the dog system. That is why it’s a change management issue. It’s also no good each of those groups acting independently in their own silos without thinking about how they could be collaborating with others in the system. The Brachycephalic Working Group is one example where a multi-stakeholder approach has been taken in order to produce a plan that has a broad consensus of support. We’ve seen too many campaigns by individuals and groups that simply alienate the people who have the potential to make improvements happen. That is still happening and it feels like lessons aren’t being learnt. I therefore hope Suzanne will be able to bring some new thinking to this year’s workshop. The HBCA website lists 4 pillars for change: the process of change; the psychology of change; the environment for change; and ownership of change. The importance of these has, in my opinion, not been sufficiently well recognised, understood or addressed in many breed health improvement efforts.  

Breed-specific health strategies

At the 3rd IDHW, participants in this theme agreed that effective and sustainable implementation of health strategies requires innovative solutions to many different challenges. Provision of sufficient reliable information was agreed as critical, for both situational assessment as well as health screening and DNA testing of dogs. Considering the design of breed health strategies, the group agreed that it was important to identify and balance the major issues for each individual breed and give guidelines on how priorities could be determined for each, while still allowing breeders discretion to make their own decisions within an overall framework of requirements and recommendations.

The general conclusion was that there is no “one size fits all” solution for developing breed-specific health strategies and that the most effective interventions would need to be adapted according to the specific context of each breed, nationally and internationally.

This year, the activities for this theme will include:

  • Clarifying what we mean by a breed health strategy, by reference to currently available examples
  • Understanding the challenges facing breed clubs, such as how to get started with a breed strategy, how to maintain momentum and how to accelerate progress
  • The role of Kennel Clubs in the wider context (national and international), such as advocating for breeds, influencing legislation and providing resources for clubs and breeders
  • Identifying and sharing currently available resources and tools to address these issues
  • Identifying gaps in current capabilities (approaches, resources, tools) and how these might be addressed

It’s a lot of ground to cover in the 3 working sessions but, if 2017 is anything to go by, participants will bring a high level of knowledge and energy and leave with a clear sense of the priorities and tasks to be undertaken over the next 2 years.

You can find out more about IDHW4 here: https://doghealthworkshop2019.co.uk/

Advertisements

A review of breeding policies at 15 national Kennel Clubs

This month saw the publication of a paper in the Veterinary Journal titled “Breeding policies and management of pedigree dogs in 15 national kennel clubs”. The authors include Dr Tom Lewis from our Kennel Club.

The authors investigated approaches being adopted by Kennel Clubs internationally and what they see as high priority issues. They issued a questionnaire to 40 KCs and received responses from 15, 11 in Europe and 4 elsewhere (Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, and the USA). The European responses were from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Also among the authors were Sofia Malm and Gregoire Leroy who I met at the IPFD’s 3rd International Dog Health Workshop last year. They were facilitating the workstream on Breeding Strategies and Gregoire blogs regularly on the IPFD website (dogwellnet.com).

We know in the UK that our KC believes it registers around 35% of pedigree dogs which leaves a large number of breeders and dogs that fall outside its direct influence. I suspect that, historically, the KC and most breed clubs have taken the view that they can only influence dog owners among the registered population. Given the high percentage of unregistered dogs, the question therefore arises: who is looking after their interests? Certainly, in the Dachshunds, with our Pet Advisors among our Health Committee and Breed Clubs who are proactive on Dachshund Facebook Groups, we have taken the view that we need to help ALL Dachshund owners and potential owners. The dogs don’t know or care whether they are KC registered and if we can provide advice to all owners, that has to be a good thing.

The survey results from the 15 countries showed a range from less than 1% to 78% of dogs registered by their KC. The Nordic countries, in general, had a higher proportion of their pedigree dogs registered by their KCs but it’s worth remembering that the total dog population sizes in these countries are relatively small compared with say the UK and USA. The lowest proportions registered were in India, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Hong Kong. The highest were in Finland, Sweden, Iceland and New Zealand. Our KC reported a figure of 35%.

One size does not fit all

When I wrote about the discussions at last year’s IDHW, I specifically commented on the international and cultural aspects that can significantly influence the choice of approach that will work for a Breed Health Strategy and the likely compliance from breeders and owners. This latest paper reinforces those comments. It is clear that what might work in the Nordic countries with smaller pedigree dog populations and a high compliance among breeders, is almost certainly not going to work in the UK, USA or Australia. That’s not to say we can’t learn from each other but a simple “cut and paste” solution that assumes “one size fits all” is doomed to fail. Each Kennel Club and each Breed Club needs to understand not only their specific challenges and priorities but also the context within which they are operating.

The paper goes on to discuss the different issues each of the KCs prioritised. It should be no surprise that exaggerated morphological features and inherited disorders ranked as the most important issues. It has been obvious for at least the past decade that these issues are significant and are not going to go away. The evidence that some breeds need serious action is overwhelming and anyone still calling for more data is, in my view, simply in denial. In the UK, we have seen the formation of the Brachycephalic Working Group whose report and action plan was published last year. To me, this seems like a model for collaboration and practical steps that the diverse range of interested parties (stakeholders!) can sign up to.Our KC ranked issues in the following order (most important, first): exaggerated morphological features, inbreeding and genetic variability, inherited disorders, puppy farming, legislative constraints to breeding, dog behaviour and economic constraints to breeding.

Health and breeding recommendations

Individual Kennel Clubs’ responses to these issues are also discussed and we can see how widely adopted different approaches are and the proportion of breeds these cover. “Health recommendations prior to breeding were provided for more than half of the breeds in 11 countries, health status for breeding was required in 10 countries, and the maximum numbers of litters or/and puppies produced by a single dog were restricted in seven countries. Three countries indicated they do not have any specific restrictions on choosing mating partners, while another three countries reported that specific restrictions on choosing mating partners were implemented for all breeds.” Only 1 of the responding KCs said they have no health recommendations in place prior to breeding. It’s not possible to tell from the paper or its supplementary data which countries place restrictions on choosing mating partners or the limits on puppies produced by a single dog (so-called Popular Sires). Similarly, we don’t know how compliant breeders are where these rules exist or their impact on dog health or genetic diversity.

Austria, Sweden and The Netherlands have breeding strategies covering all of their breeds. Five countries reported that they provide Coefficient of Inbreeding information online for 100% of their breeds (presumably that includes our KC via MateSelect). Three countries provide online advice mating tools for all of their breeds. The paper says that our KC provides EBV data on Hip and Elbow Dysplasia for 28 breeds (Sweden does this for 42 breeds). What’s interesting here is that there is a wealth of expertise available around the world and there should be many lessons learnt that can be applied to help KCs catch up, where they need to. I’m sure some of those lessons learnt would relate to the design and implementation of software solutions, as we often read about how easy or difficult it can be to navigate and find health or pedigree information in different countries. Applying those lessons learnt won’t necessarily be easy, particularly when KCs have legacy IT systems that really weren’t designed to meet the needs of today’s breeders or to cope with the newly emerging data and breeding tools.

Learning from each other

One of the other analyses was the pairing of countries with similar question response profiles. Our KC was most similar to the Danish KC and, perhaps surprisingly, France and the USA were paired. Uruguay/Mexico were also paired, as were Austria/Germany. There is potential for cooperation between these pairs of countries because of their similar responses. However, they might actually find equally useful insights by looking at countries with whom they have little similarity. Apparently, the French KC has already benefited from learning about our Mate Select system to develop their online database.

My main takeaways from this paper are (a) that the issues facing Kennel Clubs and breeders of pedigree dogs around the world have a lot in common and (b) that, by taking an international perspective, there is huge potential for more joined-up solutions to be developed. Solutions will necessarily cover access to and sharing of information on pedigrees, health conditions and test/screening programmes. In terms of creating real change and breed health improvement, I think the key will be the development of Breed-specific Improvement Strategies (Breed Health & Conservation Plans in the UK). Sharing these documents internationally could prove to be a critical success factor in accelerating the rate of improvement in dog health, particularly if we are able to learn what works and what doesn’t in different countries and cultures. Readers will not be surprised, therefore, to see me conclude that I believe the International Partnership for Dogs has a major role to play over the next decade.