Inbreeding coefficient confusion

[silverback]

I'm looking for a puppy but this COI thing is confusing me. I understand the basics of the lower the % the better, but I'm trying to understand whether the pup's or the parent's COI is more important.

The reason I ask is because according to the kennel club the average for this breed is 4.2%. One of the pups I'm interested in has one parent with a 0% COI and the other is 15%, which is high. The pup is showing as just under 5%.... close to average/safer levels. Parent's DNA health results are all clear.

So I guess my question is.... are the risks that come with inbreeding still considered high for the pup as one of it's parent's has a high COI, or is the risk now low/average because the other parent has zero inbreeding on their side?

This os from the KC website:

Always check to see how many generations have been used for the calculation. If only three generations are fully complete, you may wish to use these results with care

So you need to establish how many generations have been used to calculate the COI. COI is usually accumulative, so slightly skewed and acts mainly as a guideline.
Without the full pedigree, it will be difficult to establish when and how the inbreeding happened.

Then you need to find out why the breeder used this particular dog and if you agree with it personally. Reasons can be show quality, biddable worker, specific colouring, ...

Generally I think your breeder has done the right thing to mate a high COI dog with a 0% one.

The puppies from this mating will be fine.

(Be aware though, breeders do talk to each other and if you walk away and give the COI as reason, you might find it difficult to find another pup - especially if it's a not-so-popular-breed!)

Thanks, that's really helpful.

It’s the mating coefficient so the pups. Looks like they are bringing it down.

A point to note though. Often the higher coefficient pups (not crazy high, just average or above) have had better health testing as they are bred for type. So it’s not a true measure alone. It needs to be taken into account with health tests, breed, age of mum etc. it’s a guide. I know lots of high coefficient dogs who are much healthier than the lower as those have been bred for money eg. Puppy farmers KC reg. I’ve seen this first hand.

So if everything else checks out then sounds fine. But it’s not a measure alone.

I know lots of high coefficient dogs who are much healthier than the lower

Please do not believe this.

You might get a healthier dog due to excessive testing (same as it should be with lower COI.)
It is the high inbreeding like grandfather to granddaughter (12-13%) or even father to daughter (25%) that have resulted in some genetic diseases. Yes, good breeders do test for them, but they also introduced the conditions.

As for puppy farming dogs often don't have health tests and they are kept in poor condition - all can lead to a poorly puppy.

You can have a low coefficient dog that is a conformation trainwreck that will leave it exposed to orthopedic issues later in life, or which is born and spends its early weeks in some puppy farm hell leading to behavioural problems.

BUT, on the whole, a lower coefficient leads to a more robust immune system (hence everything from less cancer to fewer tummy upsets) and a much lower risk of a dog getting 2 copies of the gene for a recessive disorder (of which there are many and not all can be tested for).

So, if everything else is equal, go for the low COI. In fact, I'd probably go for the low COI even if that puppy's parents have had fewer health tests, because the untestable - the quality of its immune system - will make a difference to its well-being.

I am not talking about really high. I’m talking about slightly higher than average for the breed.

Personally I’d take a higher COI which had been fully health tested with evidence that the lines live long and healthy lives over an untested, lower COI puppy.

We viewed quite a few litters when looking for our puppy and some were obviously farmed with KC reg and low COI. Some had obvious problems. We bought a puppy with a higher COI but whose parents had been fully health tested, met relatives and spoke to owners of previous litters who were enjoying their fit and healthy dogs with no reported problems with immune systems or other health issues.

A friend bought the same breed on the internet. KC reg. Lower COI. Lovely dog but multiple health issues.

Just take it in context. Like anything.

One thing I've learnt is that it seems most dogs in this breed (miniature poodles) are related within 5/6 generations.

Ok, I don't know if it's most dogs but it's a lot. I've been looking at puppies available throughout the country for the past few weeks, and using the KC website can see at least one common relative (usually the sire) at around grand/great/great-great-grandparent level for a lot of them. Must be a small pool of studs.

It’s less likely to be a small pool so much as you get one sure that does well and everyone uses him.

it’s a really common issue in lots of breeds.

Firstly well done for checking on the COI and making sure of health tests etc, this is a sensible approach.

Although the KC provides breed averages, this will depend very much on the breed in question - for the numerically small and rarer breeds the COI may be higher due to dogs with similar pedigrees being used more often. This is not a bad thing per se, as long as new lines are added to the gene pool at some point.

Looking at the details you have provided, the highest COI on one side shows there has been line breeding in play. This is a common breeding techinique used. Before anyone jumps in and says it is just in breeding, it is not there is a subtle difference. In breeding is breeding very close relations together, which is not acceptable, line breeding is using dogs and bitches of similar lines. It has advantages of knowing health tests are continually good throughout the lines plus temperaments, conformation etc.

So on one side there has been line breeding, to ensure this does not become in breeding, every so often there will be a mating with a totally out cross, meaning no commonality of breeding within the pedigree, which is the 0% COI. This is a very sensible route to take. As you can see from the litter you are looking at, this had reduced the litters COI down to 5%.

Breeding is both an exact science and elements of luck - using a sire and dam with 5 generations of totally unrelated pedigrees is a real unknown but will produce a low COI. Using line breeding and/or line breeding and out crossing provides more insight into what may be produced in the litter.

Probably the adage better the devil you know is part of the science!

Visit the breeders, see the dam and any other relations. See if you can meet the sire, although sometimes this isn't possible. Look at the pedigrees and gain health test results for as many generations as you can. Ask yourself the question, are you happy with the breeder and the dam, is everything open and honest, can you imagine keeping in touch with the breeder throughout your new dogs life, do you think they will be happy to take the puppy back for any reason throughout its life, would you turn to them for advice?

If you can answer yes to the majority of those questions, then I would choose that breeder even if it means the litter will have a slightly higher COI.