ASSESSING CANINE BREEDERS CHOICES WHEN DETERMINING

A SUITABLE STUD ACROSS 15 BREEDS WITHIN THE

PASTORAL GROUP IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Chloe Wakeling
Animal Management BSc (Hons)
April 2016

Submitted as part requirement for the Degree of Animal Management BSc (Hons)
Writtle College and the University of Essex.

Contents
Abstract ..I
List of Tables III
List of Figures... IV
List of PlatesV
List of Appendices VI
List of Abbreviations ...VII
Acknowledgements ..VIII
1

Introduction ..... 1

Literature Review
2.1 21st Century Dog Breeding and Trends
2.2 Popular sire syndrome/effect and Current Control Methods
2.3 Competitions and Management of Popular Stud Dogs
2.4 Cataloguing Inherited Disorders Online in Canines
2.5

Further Research

Material and Methods

3.1 Breeds
3.2 Questionnaire Design
3.3 Responses

Results

Discussion
5.1 Top Stud Quality
5.2 Health Tests
5.3 Artificial Insemination
5.4 Popular Sire Syndrome Conclusions

5.5 Working Dog Quality

5.6 Breeders awareness of Literature
6

Conclusion
6.1 Aims

References

Abstract

Popular sire syndrome (PSS) remains an unresolved issue, with a many studies stating PSS is the cause
of inbreeding depression, genetic bottlenecks and founder effects that many breeds are faced with today.
There is an intensification on breeders to produce the faultless dog for their chosen discipline that has
led to extreme conformational disorders leading to subtypes, as demonstrated in the German Shepherd
Dog (GSD), Border Collies (BC) and Shetland Sheepdogs. Many studies offer unique solutions to
pedigree dog breeding but lack information about what breeders consider important qualities in
breeding. This study aims to find out what breeders consider important qualities when looking for a
stud dog out of conformation, temperament, working ability, stud fee, health tests and inbreeding coefficient. This study will also address breeders opinions on stud dog limitations as well as what
literature and databases breeders use and aware of.
15 breeds of the pastoral group were used in this study, which were the GSD, BC, Rough Collie,
Shetland Sheepdog, Old English Sheepdog (OES), Turkish Kangal Dog (TKD), Polish Lowland
Sheepdog (PON), Samoyed, Pembroke Welsh Corgi (PWC), Belgian Shepherd (Malinois and
Groenendael), Australian Shepherd (AUS), Briard and Pyrenean Mountain Dog (PMD). 19 breed
societies were approached according to breed, with the questionnaire forwarded to breeders on the
clubs breeders directory, social media was further used to gain responses.
136 responses were collected, with raw data accumulated via google forms and excel, with data being
analysed by Genstat and chi-squared statistical method. The breeds were broken down in to three
groups; popular breeds, common breeds and rare breeds based upon KC registrations.
Temperament was the top stud dog quality for the popular and common breeds, with conformation and
health tests as secondary considerations, conformation was the most the preferred stud dog quality for
the rare breeds. Breeders were asked the consideration of artificial insemination (AI) for future litters
with 63.5% (p=<0.040) of breeders considering AI in the future. Western Europe was the most popular

country breeder would importing frozen semen from at 35%, Scandinavia was the second top choice.
64.7% (P= <0.018) of breeders believed that 6-10 times a year was adequate amount to breed a popular
stud, with the common breeds and rare groups favour 1-5 times a year. Breeders were asked what
databases they were aware of/member of, with 60% (p = <0.010) of breeders using their individual
breed club as the main source of information. Facebook groups/pages were the second most popular
source of information with 52% of breeders using social media as a source of information. 86.7% of
breeders were unaware of the Breed Disorder Welfare Indicator Score breeding system, with 87.5% of
A1 popular breed judges and 85.7% A1 common breed judges unaware of BDWIS. 76% of breeders
believe that a form of compulsory working title should be standard for a stud dog, with 71% of new (<1
year) breeders considering it very important for a stud dog to have a working title.

Applying the changes favoured by breeders as evidence from this study, creating a criteria that defines
what a popular sire is, to create limitations of popular sires. Additionally, creating a primary database
which can relay scientific literature to judges and breeders in a laymens terms, to design their own
breeding plans.

II

List of Tables
Table 1. Annual Breed Averages of In Breeding Co Efficient, Breed Score Mean and KC Registration
of the 15 breeds investigated in this study of 2015.
Table 2. Inter variety prohibited and permitted matings in the Belgian Shepherd Dog
Table 3. Recommendations from three independent studies directed to pedigree dog breeding
Table 4. UK KC Available and Mandatory breed specific health testing for the 15 breeds involved in
this study
Table 5. List of the 15 breeds selected for the study along with the breeds designated club/society
approached for the study
Table 6. Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who was aware, used
or never heard of the Breed-Disorder Welfare Impact Score (BDWIS).

Table 7. Multivariate Chi-squared analysis compared against demographic data from respondents
who ranked the importance of each of these six choices when picking a stud dog. Respondents picked
between Not Important (NI), Neutral and Very Important (VI) for each stud dog quality.

Table 8: Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who would consider
importing frozen semen for future matings, already done this or who would never consider frozen
semen.

Table 9. Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data of respondents who proposed the
average annual usage of a popular sire.

III

List of Figures
Figure 1: Coefficient of inbreeding in relation to litter size
Figure 2: Countries breeders would consider importing frozen semen from
Figure 3: Comparison of six stud dog qualities breeders consider when looking for a stud dog
Figure 4: Health tests asked to breeders to whether they should be made compulsory within breeding
societies and the Kennel Club
Figure 5: Social Media, umbrella organisations and internet databases that breeders were aware of
Figure 6: Non Champion contributing accolades that breeders have achieved in the study

IV

List of Plates
Plate 1. 1922 GV Ch. Erich v Grafenwerth SchH III, 1920 German Sieger
Plate 2. Germanic Type GSD Ch Conbhairean Waro Top Sire and Top GSD Dog 2015
Plate 3. English type Champion - Surstone Coolio for windgunn

List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Full copy of the questionnaire used in the study
Appendix 2: Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who
thought what the best age to rescore (BVA) hips and elbow at or not to rescore
Appendix 3: Demographic data compared against data on whether breeders thought Score Limits
for Breeding Purposes needed to implemented, with dogs under a certain limit should be bred
from or not
Appendix 4: Demographic data compared against whether breeders felt that a combination of
winnings, pedigree and health tests needed to be implemented as a database
Appendix 5. Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who was
asked whether BVA multiple testing throughout a dogs life would increase knowledge on an
individual to provide healthier matings in the future.

Appendix 6: Demographic data against whether a breeder would prefer if proposed canine stud
policy was free or earned

Appendix 7: Multivariate Chi-squared data compared against demographic data where breeders
were asked to rank importance on 11 health disorders on whether they should be made
compulsory to test for. NI = Not Important, Ne = Neutral and VI = Very Important.

Appendix 8: Judges List

VI

List of Abbreviations
I.
II.

GSD = German Shepherd Dog

BC = Border Collie

III.

KC = The Kennel Club

IV.

OES = Old English Sheepdog

V.

PON = Polish Lowland Sheepdog

VI.

PMD = Pyrenean Mountain Dog

VII.

AUS = Australian Shepherd

VIII.

BMS = Breed Mean Score

IX.

FCI = Fdration Cynologique Internationale

X.

PSE = Popular Sire Effect

XI.

IKC = Irish Kennel Club

XII.

APGAW = Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare

XIII.

GISID = Generic Illness Severity Index for Dogs

XIV.

BDWIS = Breed Disorder Welfare Impact Score

XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.

SKK = Swedish Kennel Club

CIDD = Canine Inherited Disorder Database
OMIA = Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals
LIDA = Listing of Inheritance Disorders
IDIS = International Sheepdog Society

XX.

TKD = Turkish Kangal Dog

XXI.

CC = Challenge Certificate

XXII.

PWC = Pembroke Welsh Corgi

VII

Acknowledgements
I would like to say thank you to Nieky, my supervisor for the all the help throughout my dissertation,
also thanks to my Mum and Stefan for the support throughout writing this.
Finally thank you to all breed societies and breed secretaries that helped circulate my questionnaire
throughout the dog breeding community, in particular Shelia Rankin for printing my work in the
German Shepherd Dog National Magazine (Official Journal of the GSD).
Additional thanks to Ray Owen who will present the results at the Euro Dog Show conference in
Barcelona, 2016.

VII
I

1 Introduction
The practice of breeding pedigree dogs has become a vast and critical activity across the UK, with
breeders producing litters to their own subjective image of the perfect dog, in variety of disciplines
recognised, ranging from conformation showing to testing innate working abilities (Nicholas 2011;
Nicholas et al., 2011).

The United Kingdom Kennel Club Pastoral group consists of 37 breeds that possess a specialist herding
behaviour that has a rich documentation over many centuries, with these herding breeds originating
from across Europe. Vast majority of these breeds traditional purposes are still practiced today, in
particular the Border collie and German Shepherd, whilst rarer breeds are produced as an exhibition of
their breed in the hopes to regain popularity, such as the Pembroke Welsh Corgi and Turkish Kangal
Dog.

With majority of these breeds facing hereditary health issues that have caused a diverse range of
conditions, with arguably the epidemic breeding practice of Popular Sire Syndrome being an origin to
majority of problems. An array of different and sometimes complex breeding systems that are embraced
by breeders to produce an assortment of subtypes in breeds has further caused genetic bottlenecks and
inbreeding depression. The documentation of these types of incidences and health statists has already
been studied into regarding internet data systems, however a joint collaboration of breed health,
scientific journals, progeny and winning record still remains underdeveloped.

There is currently a lack of knowledge into breeders awareness about online services tools, health
groups, as well as the importance of health testing becoming compulsory.

2 Literature Review
2.1 21st Century Dog Breeding and Trends

The 21st century has shown a dramatic increase in breeding pastoral pedigree dogs, with breed standards
and qualification requirements of the perfect dog being standardized in the early part of the 19th century.
The UK Kennel Club was founded in 1873 firstly specialising in breed showing, when in 1927 the first
Working Trials Championship recognized by the KC took place (Collins et al., 2011a; The Kennel
Club, 2014a). The long term pressure on breeders to conform to these standards can still be observed in
modern day breeding practices, and subsequently the theoretical origin of inbred health problems that
pedigree dogs face today (Asher et al., 2009; Leroy, 2011). Governing bodies that document these
standards, such as The Kennel Club, Irish Kennel Club and Fdration Cynologique Internationale
(FCI), as well as other similar umbrella organisations around the globe that are influential to the canine
industry, and have arguably lack of motion of policing owners of stud dogs and studding of their sires
(Mellanby et al., 2013). In August 2008, BBC aired a documentary titled Pedigree Dogs Exposed in
which health and welfare of breeding pedigree dogs was revealed to the public, unveiling a variety of
breeds that were plagued by genetic and phenotypic disorders, by the breeds individual breed standards
(BBC, 2008; Nicolas, 2011). The documentary heavily criticised the UK Kennel Club for the lack of
regulation of the breeding and exhibition of unhealthy dogs, and concluded that there was lack of
observation regarding inter relation matings, inbreeding and over usage of popular winning studs
(Nicholas, 2011). The main focus of the programme was the theme of inbreeding, however statistics
show 88% of 2.1 million dogs in 10 breeds studied showed <10% inbreeding co efficient from the
matings of second-degree relatives, however the documentary argued that the product of first degree
matings, and subsequently registrations caused inherited defects (Higgins and Nicholas, 2008; Nicolas,
2011). Although the kennel club claimed that the banning of inter related breedings would not affect
the inbreeding coefficient, the KC acted accordingly by reviewing all 209 breed standards in relation to
welfare, and further creating two campaigns titles Fit for Function: Fit for Life and Breed Watch
(Nicolas, 2011). In further years the KC invested time and financial funding into online prediction tools
for breeders, such as the inbreeding Annual breed average co efficient calculator, Mate Select and

recently the Hip dysplasia predictions as well as publishing annual health test data, for the 15 breeds
used in this study table 1 displays the UK average inbreeding co efficient scores, the 2014 hip score
mean, which is the Breed Score Mean (BSM).

Table 1: Annual Breed Averages of In Breeding Co Efficient, Breed Score Mean and KC Registration
of the 15 breeds investigated in this study of 2015 (The Kennel Club, 2015c; Dennis, 2012; The Kennel
Club, 2014b)

Breed

2014 KC

In breeding co

Breed Score Mean

efficient

Registrations

3%

10

130

14.9%

11

371

2.1%

11

40

2.8%

179

Border Collie

4%

13

2,142

Briard

5.1%

18

99

German Shepherd Dog

3.2%

18

7,926

Old English Sheepdog

9.7%

18

405

Pembroke Welsh Corgi

8.9%

24

274

Polish Lowland Sheepdog

10.8%

16

21

Pyrenean Mountain Dog

3.7%

14

87

Rough Collie

14.3%

12

793

Samoyed

8.5%

13

294

Shetland Sheepdog

6.7%

13

1,060

Turkish Kangal Dog

1.9%

Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Belgium Shepherd
(Groenendael)
Belgium Shepherd
(Malinois)

17

The in breeding co efficient percentages show that the more popular the breed the lower the inbreeding
value as this can be shown by the GSD and border collies, this could be from the media focus
surrounding these breeds or that there is numerous breeders in comparison to other pastoral breeds.
Conversely less popular breeds such as the Old English Sheepdog and Polish Lowland Sheepdog have
higher values, this can be argued that the less popularity of the breed results in a niche breeding group
and population, further to this rarer breeds such as the Pyrenean Mountain dog who only managed 87

new registrations last year, have a low inbreeding co efficient with this theoretically being due to
specialist breeding programs and certain amount of imports governed by the breeds parent club (The
Kennel Club, 2015b). Although the breeding of the lesser popular breeds have current low health scores,
it can be theorized that these breeds could be faced with extreme subjective breeding in the future.

A prime example of a pedigree breed that is affected by the subjective practicing of breeding is the
German Shepherd Dog (GSD), with an alarming 70+ hereditary disorders that currently plague the
breed, ranging from prominent conditions such as Hip and Elbow Dysplasia to rising conditions such
as Pituitary Dwarfism (Wahl et al., 2008). The topical debate of particular bloodlines used as a breeding
prevalence that results in a particular phenotype has become a ramification within the breed. The
Germanic type with the byname of banana back, being the most slated off all types recognised by the
GSD industry, is believed to be pinnacle problem to this breed's health (Bateson, 2010; Wahl et al.,
2008). Arguably the other popular type of GSD in the UK is the English type, with the sobriquet of
straight back, with as the name suggest the type process a vertically straight back starting at the withers
and ending at the croup, which by some GSD breeders is to benefit hips and elbows, as well as
preventing cow hocks which is a term used to describe loose hocks on the GSD (Bateson, 2010)
Although the GSD breeders claim the straight back help prevent poor scoring of hips and elbows,
Roberts and McGreevy stated in their study that favouring longer body shapes then they are tall will
be inadvertency contributing towards anatomical attributes for prompting hip dysplasia (Robert and
McGreevy, 2010), further to this there is a recent study undergoing by the University of Surrey looking
into the correlation between back shape, gait and hip scoring results (University of Surrey, 2016)

Disputably the GSD has an increasing genetic diverse range in the thoracic and lumbar sections, top
line (back) and the withers, with no other breed having such a intense evolutionary change in the 100
years this breed has existed, Plate 1 and 2 show the differential sloping in the top line as well as Plate 1
showing the more standard GSD of the 1920s. Further to this Plate 3 shows the English type or by
some breeders retaining the name Alsatian, whilst plate 2 represents the Germanic type, the contrasting
of types has caused the breed too completely divide consisting of contrasting views of what type is

correct (Donald, 2015). This similar trend can also be seen in Shetland Sheepdogs were a division of
an American type and English has left breeders separated (Tempest, 2016; Dog World, 2015).

Plate 1: 1922 GV Ch. Erich v Grafenwerth SchH

Plate 2: Germanic Type GSD Ch. Conbhairean Waro

Top Sire 2015 (Conbhairean, 2015)

III - 1920 German Sieger (GSD Club of America,

2006)

Plate 3: English Type Ch. Surstone Coolio for windgunn (Elliot, 2015)

The popularity of the GSD still remains in the top 20, with 7,926 Kennel Club (KC) registrations in
2014, with already 5,828 KC registrations in 9 months of 2015 (The Kennel Club, 2015b), with more
litter registrations for this year to be expected, the health of this breed needs to be addressed with in
relation to the rapid production of GSD litters.

The Border Collie is parallel to the GSD in having two contrasting types, with the border collie
consisting of a working and show type, with studies suggesting that these two type are in fact genetically
different, therefore being almost two separate breeds (Chang et al., 2009). The working type is the
oldest of the border collies, with exhibition of standardised appearance being a relatively new activity
available to border collies, it can be suggested that due to the pressure from breeders to produce winning
stock, this breed could potentially face a genetic bottleneck (Chang et al., 2009). This similar trend can
be correlated to Australian Shepherds, Bearded Collies, Rough Collies, Shetland Sheepdogs, and Old
English Sheepdogs, with a range of inherited eye anomalies that are current issues in these breeds,
alongside the typical issues such as Hip and Elbow Dysplasia (Riis, 2002; Crispin et al., 2010). Border
Collies and Shetlands like GSDs also share a high influx of litters per year, with 2,142 Border Collie
registrations in 2014 with Shetlands Sheepdogs not far behind with 1,060 KC registrations in 2014 (The
Kennel Club, 2015b), with again these two breeds being popular choices for a number of disciplines.

The Pembroke Welsh Corgi and the OES are now no longer considered a vulnerable breed and now
moved to At Watch list due to the PWC receiving a 34% increase in registrations 2015, whilst the
OES has received 22% increase in 2015. Meanwhile the Bearded Collie registrations have dropped due
to popularity and now moved to the At Watch due to failing to get the minimum of 500 registrations
(Dog World, 2016) Breeding of these breeds to be monitored to steadily raise the number of the
population without encouraging inbreeding and prevent PSE.

The exact time of when and how dogs were domesticated remains scientific mystery, however there is
strong evidence that around 18,800 BC - 32,100 BC years ago that man domesticated the canine
ancestor and utilized dogs for work (King et al., 2012). Dog conformation showing is a relatively new

usage of dogs that has shaped and widen the genetics of dogs, resulting in subtypes of a single breed
like the German Shepherd, Belgian Shepherd (Malinois) Border Collie (BC) and the Australian
Shepherd (AUS). The subtypes mentioned are commonly named the working line and show line, with
phenotypic, genetic and behaviour differences, which remain a topical debate amongst breeders which
has resulted in divided breeding belief systems. Chang et al (2009) completed a study in interbreed
stratification and population structure, where it was hypothesized that geographical origin and divergent
breeding programs are the deciding factors for future litters (Chang et al., 2009). In the study by Chang,
blood samples were collected in 76 BC, 49 AUS and 17 GSD as well as additional information such as
demographic data, extensive behaviour questionnaire and pedigrees were collected. The study
concluded that working border collies geographical origins could be traced back to the UK whilst the
show type geographical origins were traced back to Australasia, which is a source to the working versus
show line divergence within the BC. The study concluded that if breeders continue to breed BC, GSD
and AUS in two types this could result in substructure population of each breed, this can already been
seen in in these three breeds where they are conformational and behaviourally different. If this division
of dog breeding continues to take place this will result in a genetic drift within breeds such as the (BC
and GSD) and result in subgroups of their own breed, with this already being observed in Belgian
Shepherds with the four varieties.

The breeds and subtypes mentioned in Changs study are just 4 breeds that have split into subtypes with
the Australian shepherd recently being further split in America to Miniature Australian Shepherds,
another variation of the breed. Further examples of breed this can be applied to are the Bearded Collie,
Rough Collie and Old English sheepdog, with working dogs often having the anatomical tendency to
be more slender and athletic looking. If the breeding of varieties continuing to emerge, breeds will
physically change and become divided by phenotype.

Three Star System

The Belgian Shepherd breed is made up of four varieties which are the Groenendael, Malinois, Tervuren
and the Laekenois which has a strict unique breeding system in the UK that aims to keep the variety
bloodlines pure. There is strict guidelines in to the inter crossing of variety matings within the Belgian
Shepherd, while some crossings are strictly prohibited while other inter variety matings are accepted
with permission from the commission committee, the permitted and prohibited inter variety crossings
can be seen in table 2.

The three star system was implemented when Belgian Shepherds were first imported, Groenendaels
had a very small gene pool and a number of health conditions, to prevent the further offspring
contracting hereditary disorders. The system dictates that in order for a Belgian shepherd to be pure of
variety they have to be three generations of pure breeding with no inter crossing, the system is a
prevention method of inter crossing not only varieties but also health conditions (Secretary of the
Northern Belgian Shepherd club, 14 November 2015, B Wright; pers. comm) . It is suggestible that this
system could be applied to other breeds that face a genetic drift, or other breeds that have recently split
from other breeds ie the TKD that split from the Anatolian Shepherd. The TKD potentially faces a
genetic bottleneck if the popularity of the breed does not increase steadily over the years, or could face
being pushed back into a form of Anatolian Shepherd.

Table 2. Inter variety prohibited and permitted matings in the Belgian Shepherd Dog (Secretary of the
Northern Belgian Shepherd club, 14 November 2015, B Wright; pers. comm)
Inter Variety Crossing

Prohibited/Permitted

BSD Groenendael X BDS Malinois

Highly Prohibited

BSD Groenendael X BSD Laekenois

Prohibited

BSD Tervuren X BSD Groenendael

Permitted

BDS Malinois X BSD Tervuren

Permitted

BSD Tervuren X BSD Laekenois

Permitted

BDS Malinois X BSD Laekenois

Permitted

There is many hereditary health conditions that future litters of these pastoral breeds have the risk of
contracting from their parents due to the breeders choices in brood bitches and stud dogs, however
Popular Sire Syndrome/effect (PSE) is arguably the most adopted problematic breeding practice
increasing homozygosity, health conditions and fertility (Leroy, 2011; Mellanby et al., 2013).

In animal breeding the term biological fitness refers to the measure of animals ability to successfully
produce offspring that will contribute towards the genetic gene pool, offspring that fail to produce the
next generation gives a fitness score of 0. The failure to do this can be due to a number of variations
whether still born or infertile, and therefore equating to failure. Figure 1 shows the negative effects of
COI and resulting fitness on litter size, the GSD data in this figure shows that having a COI of 60>
results in litters sized 6 which is low considering the average litter size of GSDs are 9-12.The cost
benefit ratio is characterized by the slopes representing 0.1, which results in an increase of 10% that
reduces litter size by 1, so therefore the higher the inbreeding coefficient the smaller the litter size and
lower survival rate of a litter (Krukk et al., 2000; Leroy et al., 2015; Gresky et al., 2005).

Figure 1: Coefficient of inbreeding in relation to litter size (Source: Leroy et al., 2015)

2.2 Popular sire syndrome/effect and Current Control Measures

Popular Sire effect does not carry any particular diseases or is it restricted to one breed, it does however
increase potential disease outcome on a litter, with also the phenomenon being the biggest cause of
genetic bottlenecks in many breeds and thus the many health problems pastoral breeds face today
(Leroy, 2011). Popular sire syndrome can be defined as the over usage of winning stud dogs thus
creating offspring that are related creating a genetic bottleneck, with there being a few examples of this
throughout the pastoral group but lack of evidence to support breeds surviving genetic bottlenecks with
long term damage (Mellanby et al., 2013; Nicholas et al., 2012). The subjective ethics surrounding dog
breeding and the management of inherited diseases has caused a reported 575 disorders, with a
suspected 200 to be monogenic determinism, with founder effects and the popular sire syndrome being
the main cause of these issues (Nicholas and Sargan, 2011; Leroy and Baumung, 2011). Conclusive
studies are supportive basis that popular sire effect does have substantial dissemination of genetic

10

conditions, with this sire effect having 4.4 times higher chances then random matings, with reform of
managerial breeding kennels, line breeding and making new literature readily available that breed
societies can interpret, is considered a strategy to eradication (Leroy and Baumung, 2011).

Inbreeding eradication is a worldwide phenomenon that many countries face, however

Hamiltonstovares (a Swedish hunting hound) has shown considerable success of avoiding this effect in
Norway and Sweden. This breed success is due to the FCI and the Swedish Kennel club governing
recommendation of offspring of a stud dog, whether a top winning conformation dog or an average
companion breeding sire. The FCI state in their International Breeding Regulations, (with additional
support from the countries breed clubs) that the offspring production per dog should not exceed >5%
of the number of individual over the course of 5 years (Nicholas et al., 2011; FCI, 2015) Although that
there is this regulation in place there is still arguably problems regarding inbreeding and over stud usage
due to about 5% of male show dogs only being mated to 20% of bitches used for breeding, this low
percentage is due to a number of reasons including, the unpopularity of breeds and breeds that do not
reach the FCI threshold (Hedhammer et al., 2011; Nicholas et al., 2011).

Other schemes that are set in place by FCI include a Breeding Licence which states that only dogs that
have obtained a minimum of Very Good under two different judges are admitted for breeding, with
further to this minimum age is 15 months compared to the UK KC being 18 months (FCI, 2015; The
Kennel Club d, 2015; Leroy and Rognon, 2012). Breeding Licences do not exist in the UK due to
England, Wales and Scotland lacking a grading system in conformation showing, however the IKC has
a grading system for showing but lacks this grading breeding guideline.

Studies into different strategies into allocating a proposed method to eradicating genetic disorders, with
a study conducted by Leroy and Rognon (2012) investigated into two strategies (1) eradication of an
identified monogenic recessive disorder, taking into account three different mating limitations and
various initial allele frequencies; and, (2) control of the population sire effect by limiting the number of
offspring per reproducer. These were applied to four breeds; Epagneaul Breton (Brittany), Coton de

11

Tulear, Berger des Pyrnes (Pyrenean Sheepdog) and Braque Saint Germain, all French breeds of
different heritage. It was concluded that removing all carriers of a specific disease is not advisable, as
this would result in inbreeding due to restricted stud availability, while the notion of creating a limitation
to studs used annually was supported (Leroy and Rognon, 2012). This research could be applied to
pastoral breeds with not prohibiting the usage of carriers but observing that carriers are mated to clear
dogs only, while limitations on studs annually could be suggested to the UK. Following the BBC
documentary as previously mentioned there was 12 provisional aims set concluded by a range of
independent studies directed towards the KC in the years of 2009 to 2010, although back in 2009 the
KC Company claimed to already operate and govern these aims. Table 2 summarizes the crucial
recommendations towards the KC for pedigree dogs.

Table 3: Recommendations from three independent studies directed to pedigree dog breeding (Bateson,
2010; APGAW, 2009; Rooney and Sargan, 2009).
Number

Recommendation

A non-statutory Advisory Council on Dog Breeding should be established

Evaluate all breed standards in terms of their implications for health and welfare, and revise
where necessary to avoid health and welfare being compromised

Instigate a system for collection, analysis and publication of real-time epidemiological

information on diagnoses from veterinary practices

Impose restrictions on the mating of closely-related dogs and on the number of times a sire can
be used

Health screening (including the use of Estimated Breeding Values [EBVS] and DNA tests)
should be made mandatory for animals to be shown and used as breeders

Develop a statutory code of practice for dog breeding, under Section 14 of the Animal Welfare
Act 2006

Upgrade the Kennel Clubs Accredited Breeder Scheme, including de-registration for failure
to comply

Instigate a public-awareness scheme for breeders and pet-buyers

All puppies sold should be permanently identified, preferably by microchip or tattooing

10

Develop detailed breeding strategies, welfare codes and management plans for each breed

11

Open Stud books to allow new and frequent genetic material to breeds gene pools

12

Systematic set up and collection of morbidity, mortality and effectiveness of breeding strategies

12

It is creditable to say that the KC has achieved majority of these aims through varies platforms and
funding, with microchipping becoming mandatory for breeders and owners while also banning the
registration of close inter related registrations, however it is still arguable to say that the kc has not
achieved all the provisional aims. There still seems to be a lack of how many times a stud can be used
an annually with also the KC still having a closed Stud Book which in itself constricts improvement
with in the breed (Leroy, 2011). Although the argument of having an open stud book for pedigree would
cause controversy due the open stud not needing ancestry, therefore it can be argued that unknown
parentage can cause more problems.

In 2009 Asher et al (2009) and Summers et al (2010) created a foundation experimental risk assessment
scoring system title the Generic Illness Severity Index for Dogs (GISID), which similar templates are
already used in other animal welfare industries to a assess impacts of stress on the individual, as well
as differentiate hazards (Collins et al., 2010b; Summers et al., 2010; Asher et al., 2009). With a
maximum of score 16, with four categories that are assessed; prognosis, complications, behavioural
implications and treatment, with population numbers and literature used to calculate the prevalence of
the disease within the breed, the results of this risk assessment calculated that Collie eye Anomaly
(CEA) in rough collies and border collies had a GISID score of 6-12 with a range of prevalence of 72%
in rough collies and 64% in border collies (Collins et al., 2011). Collins et al (2011) further developed
this assessment criterion into the Breed-Disorder Welfare Impact Scores (BDWIS) which adds the
element of life affected by the disorder, with calculation being as followed BDWIS = Prevalence x
Severity x Proportion of life afflicted. The biggest challenge with using this methods is the lack of data
readily available data which is only 1% currently and also a false representative of a whole dog
population in the UK, as much of this data would have been obtained from breeders (Collins et al.,
2011). Any new breeding strategy becoming a success heavily relies on public awareness and approval,
so the mapping and collection of diseases, breeders, disease prevalence and population numbers of KC
and Non KC dogs is crucial to the prevention.

13

2.3 Competitions and Management of Popular Stud Dogs

Conformation showing is the most popular canine activity in the UK with 32 general championship
shows and more than 800 open shows held annually, however a very minor proportion of dogs that are
registered by the KC that are shown is only a mere 2%, but has the principal influence regarding
appearance and health (Crispin, 2011).

To further the pressure from breeders to produce quality stock, there are many breed competitions that
judge dogs on the basis of conformation matching to the breed standard, with there now being a
competition solely for stud dogs, titled Dog World/Royal Canin Top Stud Dog competition, which is
merited on the stud dog puppies winning Challenge Certificates which equate to. In 2014 the Border
Collie title Sh Ch Sashdan Smokin Jack was 8th Top Stud dog and subsequently Top Pastoral, in just
one year this dog has moved to 3rd place due to this dogs winnings of puppies. This similar movement
can be observed in the Belgian Groenendael Shepherd, titled Ch/Ir/Lux Ch Revloch Zidane who has
become 6th top stud dog, which on comparison was not in the top 10 in previous years (Bull, 2015).

It is commendable that responsible breeders take advantage of all the latest DNA health tests, existing
literature and available online prediction tools, but the pressure to produce healthy studs that are
genetically clear of recessive disorders in a managerial prevention method to avoid expression of the
disease within the offspring (Wade, 2011). There is a vast variety of DNA tests available including
testing for Pituitary Dwarfism, Canine Parentage testing, Eye Anoloimies and coat colour testing
(Animal Health Trust, 2015), with many breed societies and breeders taking full advantage of these
over the years. Due to vast genetic tests obtainable on the market, this generates another pressure to
gain clear results which fashions more selective pressure for breeders to produce the faultless dog.
Selection based upon health tests can cause exclusion of carriers while otherwise healthy stock, which
causes an ever decreasing stud market thus a creating a generation of puppies that are related (Wade,
2011). There is limitations with health tests, and the main concern is currently that majority screening
programs are basic or obligatory, regardless of prevalence of diseases in a breed. Specific examples of

14

this include the GSD with currently 50-77 identified disorders, with new diseases emerging and
becoming more frequent in the breed such as perianal fistula and pituitary dwarfism, with only one
required health screen by the KC and this is for hip dysplasia (Wahl et al., 2009; Bailey, 2010; The
Kennel Club, 2015d). This similar for the OES who have 20 identified disorders, however the KC only
require breeders to test hips dysplasia and the BVA/KC/ISDS Eye scheme, this can also be applied to
the Samoyed who also have 20 identified disorders but similar to the OES only require hip dysplasia to
be tested for, table 5 displays what tests are mandatory and recommended for the 15 breeds in this stud
(The Kennel Club, 2016d). Table 4 shows how skeletal the requirements are to be given the accolade
of KC assured breeder, this table also demonstrates how behind health tests are compared to how many
diseases are affecting a breed. Further to this the table shows a trend of that the grouped rare breeds for
this study, have no breed specific health tests and no recommendation of health screening due to the
breeds having no or very little known health conditions. The expectation for breeders to test for all of
their breeds genetic disorders is unrealistic and could potentially withdrawal from voluntary schemes
causing the KC to lose contact with the dog breeding community (Farrell et al., 2015). The breeding
strategy of excluding breeding stock when prevalence of a disease is very low or is a new disease with
little known information, can cause unnecessary elimination of an individual. Eliminating a stud dog
from the gene pool due to testing positive from a minor disease affecting the population can potentially
cause inbreeding levels to rise, genetic bottleneck and founder effects. By focusing on a specific allele
on a locus for deduction from the gene pool, unknowingly breeders could increase allele frequency of
other disorders to develop or become more prevalent (Farrell et al., 2015). This can be applied to BC
and the emerging disease of PCAG (primary closed angle glaucoma) a cause of blindness with a strong
link to goniodysgenesis, has become a rising issue with BC breeders and as off 2014 the BC was
included on the BVA/KC/ISDS eye scheme schedule B (BVA, 2014). The recommendation if a dog is
tested positive for the eye condition is to not breed from them, however due to the lack of understanding
goniodysgenesis and what loci and alleles are involved, this can cause population problems as
previously mentioned, this demonstrates that health test are not fully effective as a breeding plan nor
can a stud dog be fully chosen on the basis of health tests (Farrell et al., 2015).

15

Table 4: UK KC Available and Mandatory breed specific health testing for the 15 breeds involved in
this study (The Kennel Club, 2013F; Animal Health Trust, 2015; Farrell et al., 2015; Animal DNA
Diagnostics, Asher et al., 2009).

Number of
Disorders

Available Heath Tests

(Breed Specific)

UK KC
Mandatory
Testing

KC Strongly
Recommended
Health Schemes

Australian
Shepherd

20

ED, HD, CCN, CM,

CEA/CH, NCL, MDR1,
HUU, HC-HSF4, DM, CD,
pcrd-PRA, CA, Pelger-Huet
Anomally, Cone
Degeneration, CMR

BVC/KC HD,
BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye scheme, HCHSF4

BVA/BC ED,
CEA/CH, MDR1,
prcd-PRA, CM

Bearded Collie

10

HD, CEA/CH

HD

CEA/CH

Border Collie

25

ED, Gonioscopy, HD, CCN,

CEA/CH, MDR1, NCL,
TNS, CM, DM, CL, SN,
Vitamin 12 deficiency

BVA/KC HD,
BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme

CEA/CH, CL,
TNS

Briard

Eye Schemes, HD, CSNB

BVA/KC HD,
CSNB

BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme

BSD
Groenendeal

BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme,

HD

BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme, HD

No
Recommendation

BSD Malinois

BVA/KC/ISDS Eye Scheme,

HD

BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme, HD

No
Recommendation

German Shepherd
Dog

77

HD, ED, MDR 1, CH, PD,

AF, DM, DFM, HUU,
MPSVII, RCND, DNA
Profile

BVA/KC HD

BVA/KC ED
Haemophilia
(Males)

Old English
Sheepdog

24

ED, HD, MDR1, PCD,

Bobtail

BVA/KC HD and
ED

PCD

Pembroke Welsh
Corgi

13

Bobtail, DM, vWD, EIC,

SCID

No Requirements

No
Recommendation

Polish Lowland
Sheepdog

Bobtail, Eye Scheme. ED,

HD, prcd-PRA

BVA/KC HD

BVA/KC/ISDs
Eye Scheme

Pyrenean
Mountain Dog

17

HD, CMR1, GT, DM, Heart

Testing

BVA/KC HD

No
recommendation

Rough Collie

37

ED, HD, CCN. CEA/CH,

MDR1, prcd2 PRA, NCL

BVA/KC HD,
BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme

CEA/CH, MDR1

Samoyed

21

ED, ES, HD, HN, XL-PRA,

OSD

BVA/KC HD

BVA Eye Scheme

Shetland
Sheepdog

34

Eye Schemes, HD, CEA/CH,

DM, MDR1, vWD

BVA/KC/ISDS
Eye Scheme

CEA/CH,
BVA/KC HD

Turkish Kangal
Dog

No current health tests

No Requirements

No
Recommendation

Breed

16

Abbreviations for table 4: HD; Hip Dysplasia, EB; Elbow Dysplasia, MDR1; Multidrug Resistance, PD; Pituitary Dwarfism, CH; Canine
Hyperuricosina, AF; Anal Furinculosis, HUU; Hyperuricosina, DFM; Dwarfism, DM; Degenerative Myelopathy, RCND; Renal
Cystadenocarcinoma Nodular Dermatofibrosis, MPSVII; Mucopolysaccharidosis type VII, CNN; Canine Cyclic Neutropenia, CEA/CH;
Collie eye Anomaly/Choroidal Hypoplasmia, prcd-PRA; Progressive Retinal Atrophy, NCL; Neuronal ceroid liofuscinosis, TNS; Trapped
Neutrophil syndrome, CL; Ceroid lipofuscinosis, SN; Sensory neuropathy, HN; Herediarty neptritus, XL-PRA; X Linked progressive retinal
atrophy, OSD; Retinal/oscularskeletal dysplasmia, CMR; Canine multifocal retinopathy, GT; Glanzmannis thronbastheria, CM Coblamin
malabsorption, HC-HSF4; Hereditary cataracts, EIC; Exercis induced collapse, SCID; X linked severe combined immunodeficiency , vWD;
von williebrand disease.

The prevalence of how often breeders use online tools, DNA tests and the hip and elbow schemes can
be argued that they are successful with 23,000 searches for the mate select tools, however some breeds
lack gaps of information that are paramount to the breeds overall health (Animal Health Trust, 2014)?.
The latest genetic project in the UK run by the Animal Health Trust which is aiming to DNA sequence
genomes from 50 breeds of dogs thus creating the UK largest genome bank for dogs. The Give a Dog
a Genome program aims to collect all 2.4 billion letters of the canines genomes, which if successful
will be able to recognise mutations which cause inherited defects, and develop DNA tests at a faster
rate and eradicate at a faster pace, the Briard is the first of the pastoral group to take part in the project
(Animal Health Trust, 2016; The British Briard Club, October 13th 2016, M Storm pers.comm)

Other control methods of popular sire effect is due to the advancement of science allowing frozen semen
being imported into the UK, already a choice for many breeders this does however still remain a last
choice for some breeders due to the expense and impediment, and higher probabilities of the mating
going wrong. Horizon of other breeding techniques will begin to emerge, due to already been proven in
other species such as cattle and sheep, with such methods including sex categorisation of semen, embryo
transfer, oocyte harvesting, embryo and semen verification and in vitro fertilization (OConnor and
Traas, 2009).

Dual sired mating is also another breeding program that has recently been established in the UK,
although the examples of offspring from this type of breeding is rare due to many breeders either being
unaware or refusing to participate in this form of breeding. Dual sired mating results in a litter being
fathered by two 2 studs and subsequently causes the 50% of the litter to be fathered by one stud and the

17

other 50% fathered by the other stud. In the UK before 2013 breeders needed to be granted permission
to plan a dual sired mating by the KC, however Professor Dean proposed that the restriction should be
lifted and with dual mating even being encouraged. The notion of producing a dual sired litter is believed
to have a positive genetic impact on diversity within a breed, with allowing breeders to continue to use
popular sires but also giving other less frequent used studs a chance to contribute towards the gene pool.
This encourages breeders to look at a variety of studs with many options to gain a genetically diverse
litter, with artificial insemination from the UK or frozen semen for a different country or simply done
naturally. DNA profiling allows breeders to separate which puppies belong to which stud, with the Dog
Health Group and the BVA fully supporting the notion with no objections that this compromised welfare
with there even consideration that there was welfare advantages for the bitch with producing 2 litters in
one gestation. This method could particularly benefit breeds that have a small population in the UK,
such as the Turkish Kangal dog and the PON.

2.4 Cataloguing Inherited Disorders Online in Canines

To encourage diversity on a national and international scale, suggestion towards creating a new system
that collects data in relation to health tests and phenotype can be implemented, suggestion towards this
movement has already been research into. The beginning of this idea was suggested by Nicolas et al
(2011) who calibrated with Dr Donald Patterson about global knowledge of inherited diseases on
canines, with creating an information source that was current for veterinarians, owners, geneticists, and
breeders. The online database was titled Canine Inherited Disorder Database (CIDD) which was created
as a joint enterprise between a number of American and Canadian veterinary medical associations, with
the database going live in 1999. The database was designed with simplicity in mind and this was shown
by the structure of the website with being broken down into three sections which included (1) General
Information, (2) Disease Page and finally (3) Specific Breed Pages, with the breed pages stating that it
does not list every disease known a breed but rather supports the notion of only paying attention to the
diseases that have the most prevalence within a breed. At the same time that this database was

18

undergoing construction Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals (OMIA) also started, but it can be
suggested that the information provided is too complex for the majority of people considering that the
language is not simplified from scientific journals. Another branch of this type of system called Listing
of Inherited Disorders Animals (LIDA) (Nicholas et al., 2011; Sargan, 2004). From this one study into
an online resource centre for canines, it was clear that these three systems complimented each other but
there still needs work into a balanced system in the UK, while also looking into more research of the
awareness of these systems among breeders

Fikse et al (2013) started the modelling process of an internet system based upon the International Bull
Evaluation Service, INTERBULL. Experimenting with four breeds which were three retrieving breeds
and the bearded collie, being exported and imported between the SKK and the UK KC, the SKK was
chosen as a provisional country due the phenotypes and genetic similarity of dogs being the same (Fikse
et al, 2013). The study concluded that there was a potential basis to creating an international media
platform that would be able to record health test and subsequently creating a wider market for studs,
but the challenge faced is whether a range of breeders would willingly supply the data. To further
facilitate the managerial aspect of simplifying new data regarding diseases, and building upon previous
data platforms research, Wade and Wilson (2012) have started the revolutionary worldwide data
collection idea called Inter-Dog, this data system is still currently underdeveloped to the high influx
of data needed by many Kennel Clubs around the world. If not developed there is strong belief that new
material regarding new health tests will be absent or unused within dog breeding communities as well
as PSE still remaining a modern day breeding problem (Wade and Wilson, 2012).

One breed that has already shown a path towards this international data system is bearded collies in
Sweden, which have set up an open voluntary registry called Beaconforhealth. This platform of health
test data collection is in the primary stages of development in terms of the quantity of the data collected
due to breeders willing filling in the records, however has been able to obtain data from over six
countries with generating this information into mortality, morbidity and disease prevalence in a niche
populace of bearded collies. From this small data platform it could be improved to all pastoral groups

19

or even all breeds, while also gathering more data from around the globe, this website also shows that
the idea of Inter-Dog or continued usage of Beaconforhealth can be implemented into the breeders
community in the UK, with the education awareness program of the system.

2.5

Further Research

There is already a rich selection of data basis on the internet that are accessible to range of canine
audiences, however none of them are ubiquitous in the UK while there also being a lack of knowledge
into the awareness of these type of systems by breeders. Previously mentioned the 2% of dogs that are
shown hold the most influence over people opinions on dog health, and therefore breeders look for stud
dogs through a range of platforms. None of the online websites hold any record of a dogs pedigree or
winning record, health tests combined, with belief that conformation is a favouritised component
considering that some breeds are plagued by phenotypic conditions, however there is of lack of literature
in breeders top choice for studs. Currently there is no information into what breeders consider the most
important aspect when breeding, and this could be a variety of reasons whether working ability,
conformation, temperament and health among many other varies qualities. This study aims to find out
what breeders consider the most important aspect when searching for stud on the basis conformation,
bloodlines and kennel names, champion titles, working ability, stud fee, temperament and health tests.
Additionally to importance scale of stud choices, it is important to find out what breeders are already
aware in terms health schemes and data base system with concluding whether the promotion of an all
in one data system that consist of, winning records, pedigree and health would be useful to the breeding
community.

Popular Sire syndrome remains an unresolved issue currently where the problem has been accepted but
there is a nonexistence movements in a control measure. The theory of a canine stud licence was
invented for this study as theoretical control method of PSE and the welfare of a stud dog, finding out
how breeders would react to such a licence is crucial development in terms of a revolutionary control
method of PSE, while also finding out what breeders think is an acceptable amount to use a stud a year,

20

as this information could help specialist design programme that UK pastoral breeders would particulate
in. Additionally finding out whether breeders would use a dedicated data system to catalogue their stud
dogs is paramount to controlling PSE, while also considering what breeders are aware of already in
relation to specific data systems such as LIDA and CIDD. The trend of creating subtypes seen in GSD,
BC and AUS can be theorised that branching of breed types could transcend to rarer breeds such as the
Turkish Kangal and PON, as these breeds have small population in the UK currently. Evaluating what
is working in terms of awareness from breeders and applying the changes favoured by breeders and
making scientific databases more prevalent could potentially reduce PSS.

21

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Breeds

From the UK kennel club pastoral group 15 breeds were selected for this study as the group provides a
range of breeds that are topical with breeding preferences, as well as having a range of popular breeds,
new enlisted breeds and rare/endangered breeds, a full list of the breeds included in this study can be
seen in table 3 along with the list of breed societies/clubs approached.

In order to circulate the questionnaire amongst dog breeders, 19 secretaries of national breed clubs
were approached either by email or a phone call, all 19 secretaries agreed to circulate the questionnaire
to breeders by forwarding via email, the full questionnaire can be seen in appendix A. The British
Samoyed club secretary further to emails and calls, placed an advertisement in the popular dog specialist
newspaper Our Dogs to gain awareness and responses for the study.

Additionally social media was used to reach out to people who are not on their breeds club directory,
where groups on the popular social media site Facebook, the questionnaire was put on the groups in aid
to gain responses and also appeal to a wider audience.

3.2 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was aimed at any type of breeder regardless of what discipline they breed in, the
range of breeders discipline included working, conformation (showing), obedience, agility and
companion/pet, a full copy of the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 1. There was no age maximum
to answer the questionnaire, however there was an age minimum of 16 as under this age is considered
a junior, whilst some 18 year old can be in partnerships with older more experienced breeders. The
years of breeding variable was also added to the questionnaire as some breeders are part of different

22

membership schemes that give accolades over the years they breed, generally the longer a breeder has
been breeding will often hold more accolades then breeders who have been breeding under <5 years.
General demographic questions were asked to gain an understanding of the general audience of each
breed, so therefore there was no restrictions on answering the questionnaire other than being a breeder
of one of the 15 breeds being studied.

Table 5: List of the 15 breeds selected for the study along with the breeds designated club/society
approached for the study (Source: Authors own, 2015)
Breed

Breed Club/Society

Australian Shepherd

Australian Shepherd Club of the UK

Bearded Collie

Bearded Collie Club of the UK

Belgian Shepherd (Malinois)

Northern Belgian Shepherd Club of GB

Belgian Shepherd (Groenedael)

Northern Belgian Shepherd Club of GB

Briard

British Briard Club

Border Collie

Border Collie Breed Council

German Shepherd Dog

German Shepherd Dog Breed Council

German Shepherd Long Coat Club of GB
White and Long Coat GSD Society (WALCSS)

Polish Lowland Sheepdog

Polish Lowland Sheepdog Club of UK

Pembroke Welsh Corgi

Pembroke Welsh Corgi League

Old English Sheepdog

Old English Sheepdog Club of East Anglia

Samoyed

British Samoyed Club

Pyrenean Mountain Dog

Pyrenean Mountain Dog of GB

Shetland Sheepdog

English Shetland Sheepdog Dog Club

Turkish Kangal Dog

Turkish Kangal Dog Club of GB

General

British Competitive Obedience Society, The Agility Club,

Working Belgian Shepherd Dog Society

3.3 Responses

Responses were collected via google forms with the raw data automatically transferred to an excel
spreadsheet. The number of responses required per breed depended entirely on how many breeders of
each breed were available in the UK. More popular breeds would require a higher response rate to have

23

a fair representation of each breed at 30 responses ideally, this target is aimed at GSD and Border
Collies. A response rate of 10 20 ideally, where aimed at moderate breeds such as the OES, Bearded
Collies, Australian Shepherds, Samoyeds, Briard and Shetland Sheepdogs as there is not a vast amount
of breeders currently. Unpopular, Rare and new breeds such as the Belgian shepherd (Groenedael and
Malinois), PON, PMD, Pembroke Welsh Corgi and Turkish Kangal Dog would have a model response
rate of 5-10 as in all these breeds there is very limited breeders specialising in these in breeds in the UK
currently. The Turkish kangal dog has as little as 7 breeders in the UK whilst GSDs have over 150
breeders in the UK, respectively this is why the response rate was set according to breed.

Raw data was collected by Google Forms with the Chi Squared statistical test applied using Genstat,
the 15 breeds were broken down into three categories which are Popular breeds, common breeds and
Rare/unpopular breeds. Deciding what breeds belonged to which category was determined by the KC
annual registrations of 2014 for the purpose of this study. The GSD, BC, Shetland Sheepdog, Rough
collie and the OES made up the Popular breed category, the common breeds category contributed of
the Bearded collie, Samoyed, Pembroke Welsh Corgi, BSD Malinois and AUS. The unpopular/rare
breeds category was for breeds that had received less than 100 new registrations annually, the remaining
five breeds used for this study were subsequently placed in this group, the Briard, Pyrenean Mountain
Dog, BSD Groenendael, PON and the Turkish Kangal Dog.

24

4 Results

Data was collected for the questionnaire from October 2015 March 2016 there was a total of 136
responses, from across the United Kingdom from all 15 breeds involved in the study. GSDs received
the highest response rate at 28.1%, whilst the TKD received the lowest response intake at 1.6%. Data
was obtained through a variety of platforms, email and social media and analysed using Chi-squared.
Table 6 - 15 displays demographic information compared against the three multivariate variables, the
popular breeds made up 66% of the response population, common breeds was 22% of the populace and
the rare breeds group made up the remaining 12%.

All categories combined, only 12.6% of population was aware of the BDWIS while 86.7% had never
heard of or used BDWIS. The largest contribution was between 21-30 years of breeding experience and
I am aware but not used it across the three category, this is therefore significant (P<0.415). The rare
breeds awareness of the BDWIS is 0.7% whilst the popular breeds where most aware of the BDWIS
but not used it, the common breeds group showed to be the most unaware of the BDWIS group out of
the three categories. There was a secondary contribution for the rare group I have used BDWIS before
compared against the other groups (p = <0.117).

Despite the group separation of breeds for the study, there was no difference of how many studs dogs
a breeder owned, with 34% (P< 0.789) of breeders owning one stud, with 36% of respondents not
owning a stud dog. Once established whether a breeder owned a stud dog they was subsequently asked
if their stud dog was health tested according to their breed. 85% (P< 0.822) of breeders confirmed that
their stud dog was health tested according to breed requirements, however 14% of breeders admitted
that they do not have their stud dog health tested, with the common breeds group possessing the most
untested stud dogs. Table 6 summarizes the top choices for a breeder picking a stud dog, with
conformation, health tests and temperament being the popular choices, there was significance between
working ability and 31-40 breeding experience group across the 3 categories.

25

Table 8 summarises whether breeders would consider frozen semen imported as a breeding strategy,
63.5% of breeders would consider using frozen semen however 21.2% would never use frozen semen.
For the common breed group there was 6-10 yrs of breeding had the biggest contribution towards
importing frozen semen. The popular breed group 31-40 yrs of breedings had the largest contribution
with breeders not wanting to use frozen semen as an option for future breedings (P<0.296), this was
also the same for the rare breeds group. There was a contribution between common breeds and breeders
who had O levels/A levels as their highest qualification and No would not import frozen semen
(p=<0.929).

Table 9 summarises how many times a year a popular sire should be mated annually, with the common
breeds having the major contribution with picking 5 times a year to mate a popular sire, for the popular
breeds the choice of 5 was also the biggest contribution with a significance of at 6-10yrs of breeding
(P=0.055). For years of breeding in the rare groups, 10 times a year to breed a stud had the main
contribution. For breeders who have bred 11-15 champions there was significance to use a stud 11+
times a year for popular breeds, whilst for common breeders who have bred 31-40 champions there was
a significant level to bred 11+ a stud a year.

26

Table 6. Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who was aware, used or never
heard of the Breed-Disorder Welfare Impact Score (BDWIS)

Variables
Popular
Breeds

I have used
BDWIS N
(%)

I am aware
of this but
not used it, N
(%)

I have never
heard of
BDWIS N (%)

Total, N

Breeding (years)

0.047

1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+

1 (14.3)
2 (13.3.)
2 (22.2)
6 (24)
1 (8.3)

6 (85.7)
12 (100)
13 (86.2)
7 (77.8)
19 (76)
11 (91.7)
7 (100)

7
12
15
9
25
12
7

Common
Breeds

0.36
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+

1 (15.3)

2 (33.3)

2 (100)
5 (84.7)
2 (100)
10 (100)
4 (66.7)
5 (100)

2
6
2
10
6
5
31

Rare
Breeds

Popular
Breeds

P-value
(X2)

0.768
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+
Education Level

1 (25)

1 (33.3)
1 (25)

1 (50)

2 (100)
3 (100)
2 (66.7)
2 (50)
3 (100)
1 (100)
1 (50)

2
3
3
4
3
1
2

0.803
GCSE or Equivalent
O Levels/A level
Btec/Edexcel/NVQ
Degree or Equivalent
Advanced Degree

2 (16.7)
1 (3.8)
5 (17.9)
4 (26.7)

10 (83.3)
25 (96.2)
23 (82.1)
11 (73.3)
6 (100)

12
26
28
15
6

GCSE or Equivalent
O Levels/A level
Btec/Edexcel/NVQ
Degree or Equivalent
Advanced Degree

1 (14.3)

6 (85.7)
5 (100)
9 (90)
5 (100)
2 (100)

7
5
10
5
2

Common
Breeds

1 (10)

Rare
Breeds

0.803

0.187
GCSE or Equivalent
O Levels/A level

1 (25)

27

3 (75)

Table 6 Continued

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ
Degree or Equivalent
Advanced Degree

2 (22.2)
1 (50)

7 (77.8)
2 (100)
1 (50)

9
2
2

Popular
Breeds

0.791
Judging Qualification
A1 List
A2 List
A3 List Breed
Specialist
A3 List Non Breed
Specialist
B List Breed Specialist
B List Non Breed
Specialist
C List
Not currently on any
judging lists

3 (16.7)
1 (33.3)

15 (87.5)
2 (66.7)
4 (100)

1 (12.5)

7 (13.7)

18
3
4

7 (87.5)

4 (100)

44 (86.3)

51

Common
Breeds

0.973
A1 List
A2 List
A3 List Breed
Specialist
A3 List Non Breed
Specialist
B List Breed Specialist
B List Non Breed
Specialist
C List
Not currently on any
judging lists

1 (14.3)

1 (5.9)

6 (85.7)
2 (100)

7
2

1 (100)

2 (100)

2 (100)

16 (94.1)

17

Rare
Breeds

0.001
A1 List
A2 List
A3 List Breed
Specialist
A3 List Non Breed
Specialist
B List Breed Specialist
B List Non Breed
Specialist
C List
Not currently on any
judging lists

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

2 (100)

1 (100)

1
1 (8.3)

28

11 (91.7)

12

Table 8: Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who would consider
importing frozen semen for future matings, already done this or who would never consider frozen
semen.
Variables

Popular
Breeds

Would
Consider it
for future
matings
N (%)

No N (%)

Yes- I already
have done this
N (%)

Total,
N

Breeding (Years)
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+

0.296
2(28.57)
4(33.33)
5(33.33)
1(11.11)
8(32)
3(42.86)

3(42.86)
8(66.67)
10(66.67)
7(77.78)
14(56)
9(75)
3(42.86)

2(28.57)

1(11.11)
3(12)
3(25)
1(14.29)

7
12
15
9
25
12
7

Common
Breeds

0.664
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+

1(50)

1(10)
1(20)

1(50)
1(100)
2(100)
7(70)
3(50)
3(70)

2(20)
3(50)
1(10)

2
1
2
10
6
5

Rare
Breeds

Popular
Breeds

P-value
(x2)

0.244
1
2-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31 - 40
40+
Education Level

1(50)

GCSE or
Equivalent
O Levels/A level
Btec/Edexcel/NV
Q
Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

4(33.33)

6(50)

2(16.67)

12

6(23.08)
1(16.67)

17(65.38)
5(83.33)

3(11.54)

26
6

7(25)

17(60.71)

4(14.29)

28

5(33.33)

9(60)

1(6.67)

15

1(33.3)

1(50)
3(100)
2(66.7)
3(75)
1(33.3)

1(25)
2(66.7)

1(50)

1(50)

1(100)

2
3
3
4
3
1
2
0.929

Common
Breeds

0.301

32

Table 8 Continued

GCSE or
Equivalent
O Levels/A level
Btec/Edexcel/NV
Q
Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

2(40)

1(20)

6(71.4)

2(28.6)

2(40)
3(100)

1(20)

5
3

8(80)

2(20)

10

4(80)

Rare
Breeds

0.364
GCSE or
Equivalent
O Levels/A level
Btec/Edexcel/NV
Q
Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

2(50)

1(25)
3(100)

1(25)

4
3

1(11.1)

5(55.6)

3(33.3)

2(100)

Popular
Breeds

0.296
Champions Bred
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
21-30
31-40
50+

11(23.9)
12(36.4)

33(71.7)
16(48.5)
3(75)
2(85)

2(4.3)
4(15.2)
1(25)
1(15)
1(100)

1(100)

46
32
4
3
1
1

Common
Breeds

0.040
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
21-30
31-40
50+

2(14.3)

12(85.7)
7(70)

1(50)
1(50)
1(100)

3(30)
1(50)
1(50)
2(100)

14
10
2
2
1
2

Rare
Breeds

0.225
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
21-30
31-40
50+

1(20)
2(25)

3(60)
6(75)

1(20)

1(100)

5
8
1
2
1

1(100)

1(100)
2(100)

33

40
35

Percentage %

30
25
20
15
10
5

Figure 2: Countries breeders would consider importing frozen semen from P= <0.001 (Source: Authors
Own, 2016)

34

Table 9: Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data of respondents who proposed the
average annual usage of a popular sire (1-5 times a year 22.8%, 6-10 times a year 64.7%, 11+ times
a year 12.5% P = <0.018).

Variables
Popular
Breeds

1-5 times a
year
N (%)

6-10 times a
year
N (%)

11+ times a
year
N (%)

Total, N

Years (breeding)

P value
(X2)
0.055

1 year

2 (7.41)

3 (9.38)

2 (7.14)

2-5 years

5 (22.22)

5 (15.62)

1 (3.57)

12

6-10 years

9 (33.33)

2 (6.25)

4 (14.29)

15

11-20 years

2 (7.41)

5 (15.62)

2 (7.14)

21-30 years

4 (14.81)

9 (28.12)

12 (42.86)

25

31-40 years

3 (3.70)

3 (6.25)

6 (14.29)

12

40+

1 (3.70)

5 (15.62)

1 (3.57)

Common
Breeds

0.674
1 year

2 (100)

2-5 years

3 (60)

6-10 years

2 (100)

11-20 years

9 (90)

1 (10)

21-30 years

4 (16.7)

4 (16.7)

31-40 years

5 (100)

3 (40)

6
2
10
4 (66.7)

6
5

40+
Rare
Breeds

1.000
1 year

1 (50)

1 (50)

2-5 years

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

6-10 years

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

11-20 years

4 (100)

21-30 years

3 (100)

31-40 years

1 (100)

40+
Popular
Breeds

2 (100)

Champions Bred

0.424

14 (30.4)

18 (39.1)

14 (30.4)

46

1-5

10 (30.3)

12 (36.4)

11 (33.3)

33

6-10

2 (50)

2 (50)

11-15
21-30

2
3 (100)

1 (100)

35

3
1

Table 9 Continued

31-40

1 (100)

50+
Common
Breeds

0.092
0

12 (85.7)

2 (14.3)

14

1-5

8 (80)

2 (20)

10

6-10

2 (100)

11-15

2 (100)

21-30

1 (100)

31-40

1 (50)

1 (50)

50+
Rare
Breeds

1.000
0

4 (80)

1 (20)

1-5

4 (50)

4 (50)

2 (100)

6-10
11-15

1 (100)

21-30

1 (100)

31-40
50+
Popular
Breeds

1 (100)

Education Level
GCSE or
Equivalent
O levels/A Levels
Btec/Edexcel/ NVQ
Qualification
Degree of
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

0.879
4 (26.67)

7 (46.67)

4 (26.67)

15

9 (34.62)

8 (42.62)

9 (34.62)

26

9 (32.14)

9 (32.14)

10 (35.71)

28

3 (25)

5 (41.67)

4 (33.33)

12

1 (16.67)

4 (66.67)

1 (16.67)

Common
Breeds

0.991
GCSE or
Equivalent
O levels/A Levels
Btec/Edexcel/ NVQ
Qualification
Degree of
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

4 (80)

1 (20)

7 (100)

8 (80)

2 (20)

10

6 (85.7)

1 (14.3)

2 (100)

Rare
Breeds

1.000
GCSE or
Equivalent
O levels/A Levels
Btec/Edexcel/ NVQ
Qualification

1 (50)

1 (50)

5 (55.6)

4 (44.4)

36

Table 9 Continued
Degree of
Equivalent

2 (50)

Advanced Degree

3 (100)

2 (50)

4
3

37

Discussion

5.1 Top Stud Quality

The top quality for what a breeder searches for in a stud dog in the popular and common breeds group
was temperament however the rare groups most popular choice was conformation, however the second
choice for the popular and rare groups was health tests, whilst for common breeds conformation was
the second prevalent variable. Stud Fee was consistently the last decision for picking a stud dog across
the three groups, figure 4 summaries the qualities breeders ideally look for in their stud dogs.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Conformation

Temperament

Popular breeds

Stud Fee

Inbreeding Co
efficient

Common Breeds

Health Tests Working Ability

Rare Breeds

Figure 3: Comparison of six stud dog qualities breeders consider when looking for a stud dog
(p=<0.010) (Source: Authors Own)

Health tests was consistently in the top 3 choices for picking a stud for breeders, this can be deemed an
impractical breeding strategy, as if a dog is a carrier of disease most breeders would probably not choose
that dog. Farrell et al states that choosing a dog to breed from solely on their health test results has
limitations, by not choosing a stud with poor results but otherwise desired qualities this could

38

unconsciously be increasing other alleles that have more harmful effects, such as founder effects,
inbreeding and genetic bottlenecks (Farrell et al., 2015). Mellersh supports the ideology that carriers of
diseases should not be eliminated from the gene pool, but rather considered as breeding potential due
to the risk of genetic loss (Mellersh, 2011). Nicolas and Wade (2011) further states that applying the
Hardy-Weinberg Law it shows the probability of a dog carrying no detrimental recessive alleles is
impossible, and all canines are carrying some form of harmful recessive alleles. Understanding this
breeders must have the knowledge to weigh up when breeding two dogs together and all possible
outcomes. It can be advised that popular and common breeders should consider working abilities more,
especially breeders that having breeding more then 40+ yrs. Encouraging breeders to use working stock
will decrease conformational exaggerations whilst introducing the breeds natural work ethic, for rarer
breeds establishing a strong population without causing inbreeding should be considered priority with
encouraging show and working lines to create variety.

5.2 Health Tests

Health tests are an important aspect when considering a stud dog as this study has confirmed, further to
this breeders were asked to rank the importance of eleven health tests, figure 4 displays on how
important certain health test were be to made compulsory. Miscellaneous disorders were the popular
for becoming compulsory, with skeletal disorders the second most health tests to become obligatory,
with this including hips and elbows. For some breeds hips and elbows there are required to be tested for
but majority of breeds scoring is just recommended, evidence of the study supports the notion of making
hips and elbow scoring compulsory as over 100 breeds are affected by hip/elbow dysplasia (Robert and
McGreevy, 2010). (Refer appendix 7 for more information about compulsory health testing).
Supplementary to testing on hips and elbows breeders were asked whether they thought multiple testing
of hip and elbow scoring would benefit future litters with 52.2% of breeders saying No with 39.8% of
breeders further stating that Once in a lifetime was sufficient (Refer to appendix 2 and 5 for further
information about BVA multiple testing).

39

250

Percentage (%)

200

150

100

50

0
Hematologic
Disorders

Skeletal Disorders

Popular Breeds

Ocular Disorder

Common Breeds

Misscellaneous
Disorders

Rare Breeds

Figure 4: Health tests asked to breeders to whether they should be made compulsory within
breeding societies and the Kennel Club (p = <0.001) (Source: Authors Own)

5.3 Artificial Insemination

AI offers breeders to in cooperate genes into the UK from all the over the world, with 63.5% (p =
<0.040) of breeders considering this for future breeding from across all the groups, this is considerable
important for the rare breeds that have a minimal gene pool in the UK, breed societies of rare breeds i.e
PON and TKD should be encouraged to engage with their international sister clubs to monitor the flow
of genes. Breeders that have been breeding 6-10 yrs were 67% more likely to consider using AI in the
future, whilst common and rare breeders were 60% more probable to use AI. 86% (p= <0.005) Breeders
that have bred 0 champions of common and popular breed groups would additionally consider AI as
breeding option, this could be due to breeders desiring to gain their first champion whilst introducing
new genes. AI is becoming an increasing popular choice and demand for all canid species due to the
excellent results of all 3 types of processed semen, with AI becoming an alternative to traditional mating
in America. During the World Dog Show in Sweden 2008 semen was collected from all dogs Australia,

40

America and Continental Europe in aid for the Swedish dog population to become more genetically
diverse and decrease exaggerations (Thomassen and Forstad, 2009). Thomasson and Forstad document
the success of AI in the Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Mexican gray (Canis lupis bayleyi) and Red wolf
(Canis rufus), stating success of live births and showing the beginning of genetic diversity due the
frozen semen being imported from other countries.

McGreevy and Nicolas in 1999 suggested that set up of an international canine genome bank would
benefit dog breeding on an international scale, and also to prevent the over usage of popular sires, 17
years on and the Animal Health Trust have just started taking samples for mapping the whole dog
genome by breed. Figure 2 shows Western Europe was the most popular country breeders would
consider importing frozen semen from, this could be due a number of breeds used in this study originate
from this part of the world. Scandinavia is the second most popular and this could be due to Scandinavia
having relative success with low inbreeding, strong breeding strategies and a rich selection of show
dogs. AI is general practice in the livestock industry (Farrell et al., 2015), it can proposed that breeders
must use foreign frozen semen at least once in breeding a bitch to help widen the UK gene pool flow.

5.4 Popular Sire Syndrome conclusions

Popular sire syndrome is a considerable problem that is accountable for disease prevalence, with >90%
of single variants lost in 6 generations, with PSE leading to populations with reduced heterozygosity
(Fedenco et al., 2008; Bateson and Sargon, 2012). The ideology of stud limitations have been proposed
but none have set in place, or have any studies asked directly what breeders think is an acceptable
amount to mate a popular sire throughout the year. 64.7% (P= <0.018) of breeders believed that 6-10
times a year was an adequate amount for mating a popular sire. There was a significant level between
21-30 years of breeding experience and 11+ stud usage per year across all groups of the dogs, this also
correlated to breeders who had bred between 11-15 champions. The significance could be due to that
experienced breeders want the choice to pick what stud they like and to achieve what they breed for
without the limitations. The popular breeds favoured 6-10 times a year allowed to be mated, whilst

41

common and rare breeds thought 1-5 yrs was adequate amount, although this would work for rare breeds
due to lack of studs, 1-5 times a year would not be advisable for common breeds and could cause PSE
to increase due to the limitation. Figure 4 illustrations the proposed times a year a stud dog should be
mated by breeders, however it can be argued that these restrictions should only be applied to popular
sires.

100
90
80
Percenatge (%)

70
60

50
40
30
20
10
0
10-5 Per year
Popular Breed

6-10 Per year

Common Breed

11+ Per year

Rare Breed

Figure 4: Proposed amounts of how many times a stud should be mated per year (p=<0.001) (Source:
Authors own)
Using this information it can be suggested that stud dogs that are in the 10 Royal Canine stud dog or
win over a certain amount of CCs in a set time to be considered popular are given stud limitations to
prevent over usage. This could encourage breeders to be pickier about which studs they use in
connection to the three top choices for picking a stud dog. Fedenco et al outlines a similar breeding
plan, to put sire restrictions on breeds that high levels of inbreeding which include, who concluded that
BC and RC had high levels of inbreeding, possibly due to the subtypes in these breeds. Further to this
Fedenco argues the arrival of subtypes is an exaggerated form of the breed ie AUS and miniature AUS,
with this philosophy being potentially applied to the recent impending split of the Shetland sheepdog

42

and GSDs. Fedenco further supports the encouragement of international matings and even the idea of
outcrossing, with introducing new stock from other breeds to get breeds back to original conformation
while also reducing health problems. Leroy further supports the breeding plan for stud limitations, who
believed the FCI systems should be applied to the UK breeding system as basis of a solution with no
more than 5% of puppies belonging to a singular stud. Leroy additionally supports the strategy of
outcrossing some breeds, with evidence of this already working in Dalmatians with the Dalmatian
outcross project in the 1970s with a pointer, with that individual bloodline free from the metabolic
defect that triggers urinary tract disorders (Leroy, 2011; Farrell et al., 2015; Dalmatian Heritage Project,
2005). Another example of outcrossing recently in 2012 that has considerable heath success was the
British Bulldog outcrossing breeding strategy with the Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Bullmastiffs,
which has reduced the exaggerated phenotype of Bulldogs (Dogs A Healthy Future, 2012). This
outcrossing has support of the KC, where it can be advised that other breeds such as the GSD and TKD
could benefit from outcrossing with the Anatolian Shepherd Dog, King Shepherds and Shiloh
Shepherds. Table 8 refers to whether breeders would import frozen semen to encourage new genes in
the UK, with 63.5% of breeders would consider this when looking for a stud, whilst 21.2% of breeders
would not do this, researching into why breeders would not consider this is important to creating new
breeding strategies that breeders would happily follow.

5.5 Working Dog Quality

Popular group breeders that have been breeding 6-10 years were 60% more likely to consider working
abilities and qualifications of a stud dog, 71% of new breeders of a 1 year and under considers working
abilities a very important quality when researching into a potential stud dog. 11% of breeders that had
been breeding 31-40 yrs were less likely to use a stud dog with working abilities, with this also being a
significant. As a representative group, 37% of popular breeders would consider looking for studs dogs
with working qualifications, whilst 5% of common breeders would deliberate a stud dog with working
abilities. Predominantly rare breeders produce litters for exhibition and companion usage, with this
reflected in the results with only 1% of rare breeders contemplating a stud dog with working

43

qualifications important. When breeders were asked about stud dogs having a compulsory working title,
76% of popular breeds strongly agreed with this, whilst 34% common breeds were strongly against this.
Popular breeds could most favour this option due to the breeds that were in that groups which consisted
of GSD, BC, RC and Shetland sheepdogs that are still used in forms of working eg working trials,
sheepdog trials, agility etc. King et al states that breeders must be encouraged to produce dogs that
exhibit their historical innate behaviours, with the ideology of creating a new register for all-rounders
(working and show) stud dogs. Fratkin argues that only dogs with the right personality should be able
to work, as dogs that go into work from rescue centres and puppies under <8 weeks that are not exposed
to a range of stimuli fail as working animals, but supports the notion of creating a measurable
behavioural personality test. It must be advised to breeders when acquiring a working bloodline not
produce an animal with an excessive high drive as these make unfit companions for the common
family, a crossing temperament of a companion and working is deemed ideal as recommended by King
et al.

There is considerable scientific literature that supports the motion that PSE is considerable breeding
and welfare impacting problem, with many solutions towards the prevention and control of the breeding
problem but all are lacking movement. Figure 5 refers to what breeders most like to achieve in the
canine competitive world, with the Stud Book number be the most desired non champion accolade at
58.9%. Score limits need to be applied with proposed BSM as the baseline for hips and elbows, with a
dog over the average should not be allowed to be bred from, or creating a scoring system similar to
condition scoring of a 1-5 scale. This can also be applied to exhibition as well, however 44.1% of
breeders believed this was not necessary in their breed whilst 32.3% felt there should be score health
limits in place for Championship show entry. This scheme can already be demonstrated that it is realistic
as in GSDs for the British Sieger show, all dogs entered must have their hips and elbows scored, and
all males to be haemophilia tested, however there is no restriction (World Union of German Shepherd
Dog clubs (WUSV), 2015). (See Appendix 3 for more information on the table relating to breeding and
score limits). Finally 65.5% of breeders thought it was very important for score limits to be set in place
either at shows or for breeding, with 35% of breeders believed primary at Championship Show entry.

44

100
90
80
Percenatge %

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 5: Non Champion contributing accolades that breeders have achieved in the study (<p=0.484, n = 187)
(Source: Authors Own)
Policing stud dog usage however is an underdeveloped area, with a concept of a canine stud licence
having the potential monitor this, with 38.7% of breeders agreeing future propositions should introduce
this, with 53.3% of breeders supportive of undertaking this licence (Refer to appendix 6 for more the
table referring how breeders would like to gain the license). Like most licences, 48% of breeders would
prefer if this licence was granted and earn by a governing body, with 20.9% of breeders would pay
depending on price. The rare breeders had the highest rate of refusing to participate in the canine stud
licence, this warrants further research in development of the licence and why breeders would or
wouldnt participate in this policing method.

45

5.6 Breeders awareness of scientific literature

BDWIS is a breeding plan designed to calculate the severity and prevalence of a diseases in a breed,
and a critical to planning to matings, however 86% of breeders in the study are unaware of the breeding
plan. Further to this, table 6 shows that 31-40 years of breeding in the popular breeds group are the most
unaware of the plan, whilst the 11-20 years of experience in the rare group was only group to have used
this, there was significance difference amongst 21-30 experience groups across the three breed groups.
87% of breeders who are on the A1 judging list have never heard of the BDWIS of popular and common
breeds, which is concerning considering the requirements and education judges have to pass to be able
to be the A1 list, whilst 100% of A3 breed list specialists had never heard of the BDWIS (Refer to
Appendix 8 for judging lists). 66.7% of rare breeds A1 judges were aware of but not used BDWIS, it
can be recommended popular and common breeds need adopt the rare breeds education programmes.

There are two main reasons as to why breeders and advanced judges are lacking knowledge from the
scientific community 1) The language used in the journals and similar platforms is too complex for the
average educated person as seen in table 6, where lower categories of education are more unaware of
BDWIS compared to breeders that have a degree or advanced degree. 2) The scientific literature that is
published is only accessible on databases that most breeders are unaware, as demonstrated in figure 3
were scientific databases such as OMIA, CIDD and LIDA were 2.1% of breeders are aware of. The
Advisory Council outline four aims to improve the welfare of dog breeding, with aim four relating to
education and publicity, with the council agreeing that there is a lack scientific literature being conveyed
to dog breeders due to breeders being unaware of databases (Crispin, 2011). Bateson agrees with this
problem as well, and concluded that one sole database needs to be implemented for breeders to refer to
updated with the relevant scientific literature, with producing the work in laymens terms as directed
by McGreevey and Nicolas. Figure 6 shows the most successful information sources breeders uses, with
60% of breeders using their individual club and 52% using social media (Facebook) to access
information. A new database of a combination of winnings, test results and offspring, with 59% of
breeders feeling this is very important to be implanted, (appendix 4 refers to more information

46

regarding breeders). Utilizing this information to create a collaboration between social media, breeds
clubs and scientific databases in laymens terms that would aid breeders in decision making. Judges
education to improve by introducing a seminar revolved around the lasted advancements and
developments by scientific journals in canine breeding and health alongside the additional judging
exams and seminars.

100
90
Percentage ( %) of breeders

80
70
60
50
40
30

20
10
0

Figure 6: Social Media, umbrella organisations and internet databases that breeders were aware of n=187
p=<0.010 (Source: Authors Own)
References

47

Conclusion

The study was aimed to research into what breeders consider important qualities when looking for a
stud dog, with 10 of the 15 breeds considering temperament the top quality to look for in a stud dog,
whilst conformation and health tests are secondary considerations. For the 5 rare breeds conformation
is the top stud dog quality, with health tests and temperament secondary variables. The three variables
combined do form a respectable and balanced breeding plan, which should create a uniformed breed
without exaggeration, no subtypes and no high prevalent diseases.

The issue of extreme breeding of conformation and creating subtypes in popular breeds such as the
AUS, GSD, BC and the Shetland Sheepdog can be suggested that is not down to a singular mating but
rather PSE. A sire is popular for reason, a successful showing carrier with a sound temperament and
respectable health test results, with many examples of studs that fit this criteria makes for desirable
litters. Breeders choices are thoughtful in their decision making so the problem of genetic disorders can
be the result of PSS, with limitations on popular sires potentially being the solution. Breeders believed
that 6-10 times a year was suitable amount to breed a stud dog of popular breeds, with this suggested
limitation also applied to common breeds as 1-5 times a yr that was favouritised would create genetic
bottlenecks. Rare breeds believed 1-5 times a years was a suitable stud restrictions was adequate, this
is ideal due to the rare breed group having a limited stud market. Before stud restrictions are to be set
in place, a clear and definite definition of what a popular sire actually is based on upon winnings and
coverings needs to be designed. Once established restrictions on a certified studs dogs needs to be
applied in relation to breed, popular breeds like GSDs and BC will have larger stud allocations
compared to PONS and TKD who have under 10 stud dogs in the UK. AI offers a solution to inbreeding
problems, with the suggestion of AI becoming a standard practice in breeds, with a breeders considering
in future matings this is realistic option for the dog breeding industry.

Education programmes of judges, breeders and alike need to include a database or information source
in regards to the latest scientific literature, as this study showed many breeders and judges were unaware

48

of current breeding plans such as the BDWIS and scientific databases (OMIA, CIDD, LIDA).
Suggestion towards a seminar once a year dedicated to judges and breeders solely on the lasted
advancements in canine genetics and health is advisable, with utilizing social media to advertise and
share information.

6.1 Aims

Clear and key aims need to be established for canine breeders, listed below is 6 provisional aims that
can have a realistic place in the UK breeding standards that breeders favour by evidence of this study,
which are listed below:

1. The definition of a popular sire on the combination of CCs, Reserve CCs, Green Stars,
coverings and placement in the Royal Canin Top Dog and Stud dog competition in a 12 month
period.

2. Setting up Stud Dog limitations of no more than 10 litters/coverings over the course of 2 years
(5 litters a year) if considered a popular sire by aim 1.

3. Breeds that received under 100 KC registrations a year would receive tighter stud limitations
due genetic bottleneck and inbreeding depression of 3/4 litters/coverings a year.

4. Frozen foreign semen to be integrated as standard breeding practice, with a least 4 litters over
2 years produced by foreign unrelated stud dogs in the UK.

5. Score health test limits need to be applied on exhibition and breeding, with an applicable base
line scores on breeding male dogs.

49

6. Prevent formation of split types of breeds to prevent the gene pool becoming heterozygosity
and exaggerations of subtypes.

Applying the changes favoured by breeders from this study PSE can be effectively controlled, creating
a genetically varied generations, whilst setting up a clear and well-advertised database for breeders and
judges to refer to for the latest literature to make critical decisions.

6.2 Limitations of study and Further Study

Sample size of the study could have been larger to gain a wider range of views and opinions from
breeders, with ideally reaching out to more of the rare breeds as monitoring what these are breeds are
doing could benefit other breeds while also preventing problems for their breeds. Sample size was
limited and results would have been more significant with more breeders answering the questionnaire
to express their thoughts on current matters and resources.

There was a considerable response from breeders that participate in showing which is important as this
population have the biggest influence regarding breeding, however there was a low response rate from
breeders who breed dogs for Koerung, Schutzhund, Sheepdog Trails and Working Trails. Further
research in breeding practices of working dog breeders and what they are aware of is warranted to fully
understand what it considered important qualities for a stud dog to working stock. Databases and
register systems of working dog breeders needs to be fully research into with applying successful
practices to each type of breeder. Other breeding practices need to be explored in terms of breeders
opinions such as dual sire litters, whilst researching into what other groups (Utility, Gundog, Toy,
Working, Terrier and Hound) and their favourite stud dog qualities and awareness of literature.

50

References
A. Higgins, F.W. Nicholas. (2008). The breeding of pedigree dogs: Time for strong leadership. The
Veterinary Journal. 178 (2), 157-158.
Animal DNA Diagnostics. (2015). Available tests: Kennel Club DNA screening schemes.
https://www.animaldnadiagnostics.co.uk/page/products. (Accessed 12/03/2016).
Animal Health Trust. (2015). Canine DNA Testing. http://www.aht.org.uk/cmsdisplay/genetics_canine.html. (Accessed 12/03/2016).
Animal Health Trust. (2016). Give a Dog a Genome. http://www.aht.org.uk/gdg (Accessed
01/04/2016)
Asher, L., Diesel, G., Summers, J, F., McGreevy, P, D., Collins, L, M. (2009). Inherited defects in
pedigree dogs. Part 1: Disorders related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal. 182 (3), 402-411.
APGAW (Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare), 2009. A Healthier Future for Pedigree
Dogs: The Report of the APGAW Inquiry into the Health and Welfare Issues Surrounding the
Breeding of Pedigree Dogs. Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, House of Commons,
London, 54 pp.
Bailey, E. (2010). Animal Genetics: Immunogenetics, Molecular Genetics and Functional Genomics.
Havemeyer Foundation. 0268-9146.
Bateson, P. (2010). Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding. University of Cambridge. Micropress
Ltd, Halesworth, Suffolk.
Bateson, P., Sargon, D, R,. (2012). Analysis of the canine genome and canine health: A commentary.
The Veterinary Journal. 194 (3), 256-269.
BBC, 2008. Pedigree Dogs Exposed. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7569064.stm (Accessed
10/12/2015).
Bradshaw, J. (2012) In Defence of Dogs.
Bull, W. (2015). Top Stud Dog 2015 - Current leaders.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/146097/. (Accessed 12/12/2015).
Chang, M, L., Yokoyama, J, S., Branson, N., Hitte, C., Overall, K, L., Hamilton, S, P,. (2009).
Intrabreed Stratification Related to Divergent Selection Regimes in Purebred Dogs May Affect the
Interpretation of Genetic Association Studies. Journal of Hereditary. 100 (1), 28-36.
Collins, M, L., Asher, L., Summers, J., McGreevy, P. (2011a). Getting priorities straight: Risk
assessment and decision-making in the improvement of inherited disorders in pedigree dogs. The
Veterinary Journal . 189 (2), 147-154.

51

Collins, L, M., Asher, L., Summers, J, F., Diesal, G., McGreevy, P, D. (2010b). Welfare
epidemiology as a tool to assess the welfare impact of inherited defects on the pedigree dog
population. Animal Welfare. 19 (1), 67-75.
Conbhairean. (2015) Ch Conbhairean Waro Top Dog and Stud 2015.
http://www.conbhaireangsd.co.uk/dogpge.php?dog=28. (Accessed 03/01/2016).
Crispin, S., Gould, D., Elis, S., Mould, J., Renwick, P. (2010). Hereditary eye disease in dogs. British
Veterinary Association: Canine Health Schemes. London.
Crispin, S,. (2011). The Advisory Council on the welfare issues of dog breeding. The Veterinary
Journal. 189 (2), 129-131.
Dalmatian Heritage Project. (2005). About the Project.
http://www.dalmatianheritage.com/about/index.htm (Accessed 01/04/2016)
Dennis, R. (2012). Interpretation and Use of BVA/KC Hip Scores in Dogs. In Practice. 34 (2), 178194.
Dog World. (2012). Breed club welcomes KC decision to recognise Turkish Kangal Dog.
[www.document].
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/81085/1/breed_club_welcomes_kc_decision_to_recognise_t
urkish_kangal_dog_. (Accessed 13/12/2015).
Dog World. (2016). 2015 registrations show slight fall two more breeds become vulnerable.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/152780/1/2015_registrations_show_slight_fall_%E2%80%9
3_two_more_breeds_become_%E2%80%98vulnerable%E2%80%99 (Accessed 01/04/2016).
Dog World. (2015). Split the Shetland Sheepdog breed, petitioners ask KC.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/148692/1/split_the_shetland_sheepdog_breed,_petitioners_a
sk_kc_ (Accessed 01/04/2016).
Dogs A Healthy Future. (2012). Dogs - A Healthy Future- The Kennel Club. [Online]. [Accessed
01/04/2016]. Available from World Wide Web (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrWjVFKuAg8).
Elliot, B., (2016). Ch Surstone Coolio for Windgunn. http://surfstone-boxers.webs.com/gsds.htm.
(Accessed 03/01/2016).
Farrell, L, L., Schoenebeck, J, J., Wiener, P., Clements, N, D., Summers, K, M,. (2015). The
challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inhe rited disease. Canine
Genetics and Epidemiology. 2 (3), 403-407.

Fratkin, L, J., Sinn, D, L., Patall, A, E., Gosling, D, S. (2013). Personality Consistency in Dogs: A
Meta-Analysis. PLOS One. 8 (1), 12-128.

52

Fdration Cynologique Internationale. (2015). Breeding Guidelines.

http://www.uchl.lu/en/images/pdf_files/breed_regulations.pdf . (Accessed 11/12/2015).
Fedenco, C, F., Sampson, J., Fretwell, N., Balding, D, J., (2008). Population Structure and Inbreeding
From Pedigree Analysis of Purebred Dogs. Genetics. 179 (1), 593-603.
Fikse, W,F., Malm, S., Lewis, T, W. (2013). Opportunities for international collaboration in dog
breeding from the sharing of pedigree and health data. The Veterinary Journal. 197 (3), 873-875.
Gresky, C., Hamann, H., Distl, O. (2005). Influence of inbreeding on litter size and the proportion of
stillborn puppies in dachshunds. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr. 118 (3-4), 134-139.
Hedhammer, A, A., Malm, S., Bonnett, B. (2011). International and collaborative strategies to
enhance genetic health in purebred dogs. The Veterinary Journal. 189 (2), 189-196.
King, T., Marston, L, C,. Bennett, C, P. (2012). Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why
scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as
companions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 137 (1-2), 1-12.
Kruuk, L, E,B., Clutton-Brock, T, H., Guinness, F, E., (2000). Heritability of fitness in a wild
mammal population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97 (2), 698-703.
Leroy, G., Baumung, R. (2011). Mating practices and the dissemination of genetic disorders in
domestic animals, based on the example of dog breeding. Animal Genetics. 42 (1), 66-74.
Leroy, G. (2011). Genetic diversity, inbreeding and breeding practices in dogs: Results from pedigree
analyses. The Veterinary Journal. 189 (2), 177-182.
Leroy, G., Rognon, X. (2012). Assessing the impact of breeding strategies on inherited disorders and
genetic diversity in dogs. The Veterinary Journal. 194 (3), 343-348.
Leroy, G., Phocas, F., Hedan, B., Verrie, E,. (2015). Inbreeding impact on litter size and survival in
selected canine breeds. Veterinary Journal. 203 (1), 74-78.
Donald, L. (2015). The Back of the German Shepherd Dog - evolution, structure & function. The
German Shepherd Dog. http://www.louisdonald.com/the-evolution-of-the-back-of-the-gsd.html.
(Accessed 11/04/2016).

McGreevy, P, D., Nicholas, F, W., (1999). Some Practical Solutions to welfare problems in dog
breeding. Animal Welfare. 8 (10), 329-341.

53

Mellanby, R., Ogden, R., Clements, D., French, A., Gow, A., Powell, R., Corrcoran, B., Schoeman, J.,
and Summers, K . (2013). Population structure and genetic heterogeneity in popular dog breeds in the
UK. The Veterinary Journal. 196 (1), 92 97.
Mellersh, C,. (2011). Should we breed with carriers ?. The Kennel Club Genetics centre: Animal
Health Trust.
Nicholas, W. F. (2011). Response to the documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed: Three reports and
their recommendations. The Veterinary Journal. 189 (2), 126-128.
Nicholas, W. F., Crook, A., Sargan, R. D. (2011a). Internet resources cataloguing inherited disorders
in dogs. The Veterinary Journal. 189 (2), 132-135.
Nicholas, W, F, and Wade, M, C. (2011). Canine genetics: A very Special Issue. The Veterinary
Journal. 189 (2), 123-125.
OConnor, C., Traas, A, M,. (2009). Advanced canine reproductive techniques: the most current
approaches in breeding management. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and
Research. 4 (6), 256-257.
Roberts, T., McGreevy, P, D,. (2010). Selection for breed-specific long-bodied phenotypes is
associated with increased expression of canine hip dysplasia. The Veterinary Journal. 183 (3), 266272.
Riis, R (2002). Small Animal Ophthalmology Secrets. United Kingdom; Elsevier. 232-240.
Rooney, N., Sargan, D. (2009). Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: A major welfare concern? RSPCA.
Horsham: West Sussex.
Sargan, D, R., (2004). IDID: inherited diseases in dogs: web-based information for canine inherited
disease genetics. Mammalian Genome: Official Journal of the International Mammalian Genome. 15
(6), 503-506.
Summers, J, F., Diesal, G., Asher, L,. McGreevy, P, D., Collins, L, M. (2010). Inherited defects in
pedigree dogs. Part 2: Disorders that are not related to breed standards. The Veterinary Journal. 183
(1), 39-45.
Thomassen, R., Farstad, W. (2009). Artificial insemination in canids: A useful tool in breeding and
conservation. Theriogenology, 71 (1), 190-199.
Tempest, M,. (2016). GSDs: one breed or two? By Dr Mike Tempest.
http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/155044/1/gsds:_one_breed_or_two?_by_dr_mike_tempest
(Accessed 04/01/2016).

54

The Kennel Club. (2013a). Working Trials. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/activities/workingtrials/. (Accessed 10/12/2015).

The Kennel Club. (2015b). Quarterly Registration Statistics for the Pastoral Group. The Kennel
Club. Piccadilly: London.
The Kennel Club. (2015c). Mate Select; Individual Inbreeding Coefficient.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/mateselect/inbreed/Default.aspx. (Accessed
10/12/2015).
The Kennel Club. (2015d). Breeding Restrictions.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/services/public/breed/restrictions.aspx?id=4084. (Accessed
11/12/2015).
University of Surrey. (2016). Kennel Club funds biomechanics research at Surrey.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/features/kennel-club-funds-biomechanics-research-surrey (Accessed
01/04/2016).
The Kennel Club. (2013f). Breed-specific Health Tests. The Kennel Club. Piccadilly: London.
Wade, C, M. (2011). Inbreeding and genetic diversity in dogs: Results from DNA analysis. The
Veterinary Journal. 189 (2), 183-188.
Wade, C, M., and Wilson, B, J. (2012). Empowering international canine inherited disorder
management. Mammalian Genome: Official Journal of the International Mammalian Genome
Society. 23 (1-2), 195-202.
Wahl, M. J., Herbst, S., Clark, A. L., Tsai, L. K., Murphy, E. K. (2008). A review of hereditary
diseases of the German shepherd dog. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and
Research. 3 (6), 255-265.
World Union of German Shepherd Dog Clubs (WUSV). (2015). British Sieger 2016.
http://www.britishsieger.com/. (Accessed 08/04/2016).

55

Appendices
Appendix 1. The full questionnaire used in the study.
1) Are you an active member of any these breed/health schemes? (Tick all that apply)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme

The Canine Alliance
Dog Lovers Registration Club UK
World Canine Organisation
Individual Breed/Club Society
British Veterinary Association (BVA)
Facebook Health/ Test Group/Page
Vet Learn
Dog Breed Health
Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals (OMIA)
Listing of Inherited Disorders in Animals (LIDA)
Canine Inherited Disorder Database (CIDD)
Other (Please State)

2) How many studs do you currently own?

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11+

3) Are your studs currently health tested according to their breed requirements?
o
o
o

I do not own any stud dogs

Yes
No

56

4) Ordering from 1-5, how do you rate the importance of these choices for a stud dog choice?
(1 being least important 5 most important)
1

Conformation/ Breed
Standard
Champion Title/s
Bloodlines/Kennel
Names
Temperament
Health Test Results
Inbreeding Coefficient results
Stud Fee
Working Ability
5) Rating these health test 1-5, how important are these health test to the breed to made
compulsory within breed societies and other enlisted breed schemes?
(1 being least important 5 most important)
1

Hip Scoring
Elbow Scoring
Haemophilia
DNA Profiling
MDR1 (Multiple
Drug Sensitivity)
PRA (rcd2)
Progressive Retinal
Atrophy
PCD (Primary
Biliary Syskinesia)
vWD (Von Brand
Disease)
TNS (Trapped
Nuetrophil
Syndrome)
Perianal Fistula
Test for a Specific
colour
C.S.N.B (Congenital
Stationary Night
Blindness)

6) Rating these health test 1-5, how important do you personally feel that these tests should
compulsory within breed societies and other enlisted breed schemes?
(1 being least important 5 most important)

57

Hip Scoring
Elbow Scoring
Haemophilia
DNA Profiling
MDR1 (Multiple
Drug Sensitivity)
PRA (rcd2)
Progressive Retinal
Atrophy
PCD (Primary
Biliary Syskinesia)
vWD (Von Brand
Disease)
TNS (Trapped
Neutrophil
Syndrome)
Perianal Fistula
Test for a Specific
colour
C.S.N.B (Congenital
Stationary Night
Blindness)

7a) Do you think there should be score limits on health scores, that only dogs under this limit
should be allowed to be bred from and registered?
Only on the breed
mandatory health test
score

The score limits are

not necessary in my
breed

My breed does not need

score limits

Breeding Purposes
Registration

7b) Do you think there should be score limits on health scores, that only dogs under this limit
should be allowed to be exhibited?
Championship Show
Entry

Crufts Qualification
Competition (inc
Crufts)

Exhibition

58

My breed does not need

score limits

8) How important do you think that health score limits should be set in pace?
1

Least
Importance

5
Very
Important

9) Would you ever consider importing or using frozen semen for introduction of new/foreign
blood for a potential breeding?
o
o
o

Yes I already have done this

Would consider it for the future
No

10) What part of the world would you most likely consider importing frozen semen from?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Scandinavia
Eastern Europe
Western Europe
Australia
Canada
South America Countries
North America
America
Asia
Africa
Mediterranean
Other

11) Popular-Sire Syndrome is a long with standing problem within breeds, how many rimes a
year do you think a popular stud dog should be mated?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11+

59

12) The BVA currently only allow hip and elbow scoring to be scored once in a dogs life span,
often when a dog is young. Do you think a multiple testing throughout a dogs life would
increase knowledge on an individual to provide healthier matings in the future?
o
o

Yes
No

13) At what age would you like to be able re-score at?

o
o
o
o
o

Once in a lifetime at minimum age

24 months (2 years)
5 years
6-8 years
Unlimited testing throughout lifetime

14) There is currently no single online database dedicated to keeping stud health records and
winnings. How important is it to focus on future recommendation of this type of database, in the
aid of producing genetically healthier litters?
An online profile which could contain a picture, number of litters sired, health tests, winning record
etc which results in a complete documentation of a stud dog career.
1 = Not necessary/important 5 Very important/Needs to be recommended
1

Health and
Pedigree records
only
Winnings
Records Only
Health tests,
Pedigree and
Winnings
combined
15) How important on a scale of 1-5 do you think stud dogs should have a form of compulsory
working title (according to breed) enabling them to be breed from?
1= strongly disagree against a compulsory working title 5= strongly agree with a compulsory working
title
1

Least
Importance

5
Very
Important

16) Have you ever conducted or aware of Breed-Disorder Welfare Impact Score (BDWIS)?
o
o
o

I have used BDWIS before

I am aware of this but not used it
I have never heard of BDWIS

60

17) Policing the health and welfare of a stud dog environment remains an unresolved issue.
Should future propositions introduce the concept of a canine stud licence?
o
o
o

Yes
No
Dont Know

18) As a breeder would pay for a canine stud licence, if such policy existed or prefer if it was
free?
o
o
o
o

I would not pay regardless for this licence

I would pay depending on price
I would prefer if this licence was earned and granted by a governing body
I would not pay regardless and stop breeding

19) As a breeder would you undertake into obtaining a canine stud licence if such idea existed?
Canine stud licence would be a policing method to measure the welfare of a stud dog, by monitoring
the dogs environment, health status, sire usage and progeny.
o
o
o

Yes
No
Dont Know

20) Which of these breeds are you currently actively producing litters in?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Groenendael)
Belgian Shepherd Dog (Malinois)
Border Collie
Briard
German Shepherd Dog
Old English Sheepdog
Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Polish Lowland Sheepdog
Pyrean Mountain Dog
Rough Collie
Samoyed
Shetland Sheepdog
Turkish Kangal Dog

21) How many years have you been breeding?

o
o
o
o
o

1 year
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-30 years

61

o
o

31-40 years
40+ years

22) How many champions in any form of discipline have you bred?
o 0
o 1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 21-30
o 31-40
o 50+
23) How many dogs have you bred that have obtained any of the awards listed below?
*Tick all that apply
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Junior Warrant (JW)

Show Certificate of Merit (ShCM)
Award of Merit (Obedience)
Obedience Excellent
Obedience Warrant
CD EX/UD EX/WD EX
Koerung
Show Border Collie Herding Test
Agility Warrant (Any Level)
Schutzhund Qualification
Stud Book number
Pets as Therapy Qualification
Not Applicable
Other:

24) Where is your Kennel based?

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Scotland
North East
North West
Yorkshire and the Humber
East Midlands
West Midlands
Wales
London
Eastern
South East
South West
Northern Ireland
Republic of Ireland
Other (Please State)

62

25) What is your age group?

o
o
o
o
o
o

16-19
20-25
26-30
31-40
40-50
51+

26) What is your highest qualification currently?

o
o
o
o
o

GCSE or Equivalent
O levels/ A levels
Btec/Edexcel/NVQ Qualification
Degree or Equivalent
Advanced Degree (MSc, PhD, etc)

27a) Do you currently hold any Kennel Club or other judging certificates/qualifications or on
any Kennel Club Pastoral judging lists?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

A1 List
A2 List
A3 List Breed Specialist
A3 List Non Breed Specialist
B List Breed Specialist
B List Non Breed Specialist
C List
Not Currently on any judging lists

27b) Judging certificates and qualifications.

Note: qualifications do not have to be only UK recognised, please list any canine judging
qualifications (if applicable) from aboard. Leave blank if you have none.

63

Appendix 3: Demographic data compared against demographic data on whether breeders thought
Score Limits for Breeding Purposes needed to implemented, with dogs under a certain limit should be
bred from (Only on the breed mandatory health tests score 80.1%, Score limits are not necessary 11%,
my breed does not need score limits 8.8%).

Variables

Popular
Breeds

Breeding
(Years)
1

My breed
does not need
score limits
N (%)

Only on the
breed
mandatory
health test N
(%)

The score limits

are not necessary
in my breed
N (%)

Total,
N

P-value
(X2)

0.147
1 (14.3)

6 (85.7)

2-5

12 (100)

12

6-10

11 (73.3)

11-20

9 (100)

4 (26.7)

15
9

21-30

4 (16)

19 (76)

2 (8)

25

31-40

1 (8.3)

10 (83.3)

1 (8.3)

12

40+

2 (28.6)

4 (57.1)

1 (14.3)

Common
Breeds

0.059
1

2 (100)

2-5

4 (80)

1 (20)

6-10

1 (50)

1 (50)

11-20

1 (10)

8 (80)

1 (10)

10

21-30

1 (16.7)

3 (50)

2 (33.3)

31-40

5 (100)

40+
Rare Breeds

0.406
1

2 (100)

2-5

3 (100)

6-10

2 (66.7)

11-20

1 (25)

3 (75)

21-30
31-40

2 (66.7)
1 (100)

3
4

1 (33.3)

3
1

40+
Popular
Breeds

1 (33.3)

2 (100)

Judging
0.147

Qualification
A1 List

5 (27.8)

A2 List

68

13 (72.2)

18

3 (100)

Appendix 3 continued

A3 List Breed
2 (50)

Specialist

2 (50)

A3 List Non
Breed Specialist
B List Breed
Specialist

8 (100)

4 (100)

B List Non
Breed Specialist
C List
Not currently on
any judging lists

3 (5.9)

42 (82.4)

6 (11.8)

51

Common
Breeds

0.059
A1 List
A2 List

1 (14.3)
1 (100)

4 (57.1)

2 (28.6)

7
1

A3 List Breed
Specialist
A3 List Non
Breed Specialist
B List Breed
2 (100)

Specialist

B List Non
1 (100)

1 (50)

1 (50)

15 (83.3)

1 (5.6)

18

Breed Specialist
C List
Not currently on
any judging lists

2 (11.1)

Rare Breeds

0.055
A1 List

3 (100)

A2 List
A3 List Breed

1 (50)

1 (50)
2

Specialist
A3 List Non
Breed Specialist
B List Breed
Specialist
B List Non
Breed Specialist

69

Appendix 3 continued

C List

1 (100)

Not currently on

1 (8.3)

9 (75)

any judging lists

70

2 (16.7)

12

Appendix 4: Demographic data compared against whether breeders felt that a combination of winnings,
pedigree and health tests needed to be implemented as a database (Very Important 58.8%, Not Important
22.2%
Variables
Popular Breeds

Very
Important
N (%)

Neutral
N (%)

Not
Important
N (%)

Total, N

Breeding (Years)
1

0.147
4 (57.14)

2 (28.57)

1 (14.29)

2-5

6 (50)

4 (33.33)

2 (16.67)

6-10

10 (66.67)

3 (20)

2 (13.33)

15

11-20

6 (66.67)

1 (11.11)

2 (22.22)

21-30

14 (56)

2 (33.33)

9 (22.22)

25

31-40

6 (50)

4 (33.33)

2 (16.67)

12

4 (42.86)

40+

P-Value
(X2)

3 (57.14)

0.544

Common Breeds
1

1 (50)

2-5

6 (100)

6-10

1 (50)

11-20

7 (70)

21-30

4 (66.7)

31-40

2 (40)

1 (50)

2
6

1 (50)

1 (10)

2 (20)

10

1 (16.7)

1 (16.7)

3 (60)

40+
0.378

Rare Breeds
1

1 (50)

1 (50)

2-5

3 (100)

6-10

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

11-20

3 (75)

1 (25)

21-30

2 (66.7)

31-40
40+

1 (50)

1 (33.3)

1 (100)

1 (50)

Judging
Popular Breeds

0.094

Qualification
A1 List

5 (27.78)

3 (16.67)

A2 List

1 (33.33)

2 (66.67)

10 (55.56)

18
3

A3 List Breed
Specialist

3 (75)

1 (25)

71

Appendix 4 continued

A3 List Non Breed

Specialist
B List Breed
Specialist

6 (75)

2 (25)

B List Non Breed

Specialist
C List

1 (50)

1 (25)

2 (50)

34 (66.67)

10
(19.61)

7 (13.73)

51

Not currently on
any judging lists

0.146

Common Breeds
A1 List

3 (42.9)

A2 List

1 (100)

2 (100)

1 (14.3)

3 (42.9)

A3 List Breed
Specialist
A3 List Non Breed
Specialist
B List Breed
Specialist
B List Non Breed
1 (100)

Specialist
C List

1 (50)

1
1 (50)

3 (16.7)

18

Not currently on
any judging lists

14 (77.8)

1 (5.6)

0.212

Rare Breeds
A1 List

1 (33.3)

2 (66.7)

A2 List
A3 List Breed
Specialist

1 (50)

1 (50)

A3 List Non Breed

Specialist
B List Breed
Specialist
B List Non Breed
Specialist
C List

1 (100)

72

Appendix 4 continued

Not currently on
any judging lists
Popular Breeds

9 (75)

1 (8.3)

2 (16.7)

12

Education

0.921

GCSE or
6 (50)

2 (16.67)

4 (33.33)

12

O Levels/A level

16 (61.54)

5 (19.23)

5 (19.23)

26

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ

4 (66.67)

2 (33.33)

Equivalent

Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

15 (53.57)

5 (17.86)

8 (28.57)

28

8 (53.33)

4 (26.67)

3 (20)

15

Common Breeds

0.952
GCSE or
4 (57.1)

1 (14.3)

2 (28.6)

O Levels/A level

3 (60)

1 (20)

1 (20)

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ

2 (100)

Equivalent

Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

6 (60)

1 (10)

4 (80)

3 (30)

10

1 (20)

Rare Breeds

0.425
GCSE or
Equivalent
O Levels/A level

1 (25)

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ

2 (100)

2 (50)

1 (25)

4
2

Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree

6 (66.7)

1 (11.1)

3 (100)

2 (22.2)

9
3

Contributions levels for years of breeding were at 6-10 years and very important, 1 year and neutral in
common breeds and 31-40 years not important, a range across all the groups. For judging qualifications
A1 lists for the popular and rare groups were significant for very important for implementing a dedicated
database. For education all three groups were significant for neutral if a breeder possessed a degree or
equivalent for popular and common breeds, while for rare breeds it was significant for
Btec/Edexcel/NVQ.

73

Appendix 5: Multivariate Chi-squared analysis and descriptive data from respondents who asked
whether Multiple BVA Hip and Elbow scoring throughout a dogs life would increase knowledge on
an individual to provide healthier matings in the future (No = 52.6% Yes = 47.4%).

Variables
Popular

No (N%)

Yes (N%)

Total, N

Breeding (Years)

P Value
(X2)
0.026

Breeds
1

1(14.3)

6(85.7)

2-5

5(41.7)

7(58.3)

12

6-10

7(46.7)

8(53.3)

15

11-20

6(66.7)

3(33.3)

21-30

15(60)

10(40)

25

31 - 40

9(75)

3(25)

12

40+

7(100)

Common

0.305

Breeds
1

2(100)

2-5

4(80)

6-10

2
2(20)

2(100)

11-20

6(60)

4(40)

10

21-30

3(50)

3(50)

31 - 40

2(40)

3(60)

40+
Rare Breeds

0.127
1
2-5

1(50)

1(50)

1(33.3)

2(66.7)

3(100)

3(75)

6-10
11-20

1(25)

21-30

3(100)

31 - 40

1(100)

40+
Popular

2(100)

Education Level

0.027

Breeds
GCSE or Equivalent

6(40)

9(60)

15

O Levels/A level

15(60)

10(40)

25

74

Appendix 5 continued
Btec/Edexcel/NVQ

15(53.57)

13(44.19)

28

Degree or

7(58.33)

6(41.67)

13

5(83.33)

1(16.67)

Equivalent
Advanced Degree
Common

0.691

Breeds
GCSE or Equivalent

4(44.44)

5(55.56)

O Levels/A level

4(80)

1(20)

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ

1(50)

1(50)

Degree or

6(60)

4(40)

10

2(40)

3(60)

Equivalent
Advanced Degree
Rare Breeds

0.652
GCSE or Equivalent
O Levels/A level

2(50)

2(50)

2(100)

4(44.4)

5(55.6)

1(50)

1(50)

Btec/Edexcel/NVQ
Degree or
Equivalent
Advanced Degree
Popular Breeds Kennel Location

0.746

East Midlands

10(60)

6(40)

16

Eastern

2(40)

3(60)

London

1(100)

North East

2(100)

North West

1(16.7)

5(83.3)

3(75)

1(25)

6(62.5)

4(37.5)

10

5(41.7)

7(58.3)

12

South East

7(70)

3(30)

10

South West

6(60)

4(40)

10

Wales

1(50)

1(50)

4(57.1)

3(42.9)

1(50)

1(50)

Northern Ireland
Other
Republic of Ireland
Scotland

West Midlands
Yorkshire and the
Humber

75

Appendix 5 continued

Common

0.494

Breeds
East Midlands

2(66.7)

1(33.3)

Eastern

2(66.7)

1(33.3)

3(100)

1(50)

1(50)

5(71.4)

2(28.6)

South East

2(50)

2(50)

South West

1(33.3)

2(66.7)

Wales

2(66.7)

1(33.3)

1(100)

London
North East
North West
Northern Ireland
Other
Republic of Ireland
Scotland

West Midlands
Yorkshire and the

2(100)

Humber
Rare Breeds

0.872
East Midlands

1(50)

1(50)

North West

1(100)

Northern Ireland

1(100)

2(40)

3(60)

South East

1(33.3)

2(66.7)

South West

1(50)

1(50)

1(100)

1(50)

Eastern
London
North East

Other
Republic of Ireland
Scotland

Wales
West Midlands

1(50)

Yorkshire and the

1(100)

Humber

76

Breeders were asked whether multiple testing throughout a dogs lifetime would increase genetic
information of a dog, and whether this would help to improve health of future litters, there was
significant levels between kennel location of North West and Yes for the popular and common breed
groups, there was no significance for education and breed groups. The biggest contribution was between
40+ years of breeding and No across the groups. The significance for area could be due to the number
of BVA testers in that area that gives easiness for breeders to find a qualified health tester for eyes, hips
and elbows.

77

Appendix 8
Judges List
A1 List:
o

For judges that have been approved by the KC to award Challenge Certificates in the breed,
completed their first appointment and have full support of their breeds club/council.

A2 List:
o

For judges who have fulfilled all the requirements of the A3 list and have the support of the KC
and breeds club/council. Must be assessed 3 times and passed by KC examiner

A3 Breed Specialists List:

o

Minimum of 7 years judging experience in the breed

Geographical range of judging the breed

To have judge 2 or more Breed club open shows with 65+ present dogs and judged

To have judged minimum of 90 classes of the breed, with a result of 200 dogs of that breed
judges

To have owned/bred 3+ dogs that have obtained their KC stud number

To have stewarded at 12 shows

Passed and attended the KC Regulations and Judging procedures by KC Accredited Trainer

Attended a conformation and movement seminar

Passed Hands on Assessment

Attended a breed specific seminar

Gundogs attend a working trial/test

Have support of breed club/council and the KC

A3 Non Breed Specialist:

o

Same as above but deemed appropriate to judge the breed by the breed council/club

86

Awarded CCs in other breeds

B List Breed Specialists

o

To have judged the breed for 4+ years

To have judged 30+ breed classes

Range of geographical area

Attend a breed specific seminar

To have experience exhibiting in the breed

B List Non Breed Specialists:

o

Agreed by the breeds club/society to judge the breed

Same as above

C List
o

To have an interest in the breed

To have attended a novice seminar and hands on with 10+ dogs of that breed

This judges list criteria is based up the Kennel Club framework and the Labrador Breed council
requirements.

The Kennel Club. (2013). Advisory Criteria for the Compilation of Breed Club judges lists framework
document. The Kennel Club. https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media/101071/advisorycriteria.pdf
(Accessed 11/04/2016).

The Labrador Breed Council. (2013). Judging List Criteria. The Labrador Breed Council.
http://www.labradorbreedcouncil.co.uk/documents/Judging%20Lists%20pdf%20+%20word/criteria%
20April%202013.pdf. (Accessed 11/04/2016).

87