White boxer breedings

[pep0987]

First let me say
1. I am not breeding bailey, he is fixed.


I was wondering , lets say that the ABC deiced that white boxers were allwoded to be breed, showed, all the things that color boxers are allowed to do. DO you think that they should say that whites/ should only be breed with plain boxers, or with any boxers, that of course meet the stanards. What do all of you think?????? This post, is not for flaming. I hope that one day all boxers , are including in the standard. Not judged alone by there color. Edited because I can't spell.

[JulieM]

Ideally, before the ABC gave a free rein on breeding whites, they'd enlist several experienced, knowledgeable, responsible breeders with different lines to do several test breedings. The first concern would be to, once and for all, gather evidence on the health of white Boxers compared to their colored littermates. After that, the concern of many is that introducing white Boxers into the gene pool would increase the occurrence of deafness in Boxers of all colors - Dr. George Strain, well-recognized as the foremost authority on genetic deafness in dogs in the US, agrees with this theory (as does our own Marimat). I haven't been able to wrap my brain around it yet, but I haven't tried very hard, either (I'm focusing my energies on allowing Limited Registration of whites right now!).

Provided several generations of several white breedings of several bloodlines showed no increase in health issues and no increase in deafness, and provided that whites would be allowed to be shown in conformation, there probably would not be a mandate on including a plain Boxer in a breeding pair. If, however, whites were allowed in breeding programs but not in conformation - which is a possibility - then there most likely would be rules against white/white and possibly white/flashy breedings.

[pep0987]

Julie, I thought you might like this. I would like to see white boxers, be treated the same as there color mates. Tell me if this is true. I heard that the reason whites were banned in the first place was because they were seen easier, for police and war dogs???

[Marimat]

1) One of the problems always associated with this discussion is the simplistic nature it takes.

Whenever we talk of white (that's no pigment for those who have forgotten not a colour per se) the talk only ever revolves around what the eye can see.

It is not possible to make a fully informed opinion without knowing fully how the lack of melanin effects the WHOLE dog.

It's this simple. Melanin effects both the inside and the outside of the dog. It is found not only in the coat but in the organs as well. You get dark livers and light livers, dark hearts and light hearts, dark pancreas and light pancreas.

As dog owners/breeders/enthusiasts we don't get to look inside very often but it is nevertheless fact. I can't find the reference to this in Willis, because I can't be bothered looking that hard right now, but it is in his book.

2) How do people think this problem arose, and is indeed, growing in the first place?

Simple.

The obsession for breeding flashy to flashy in the name of getting a winner is the cause. This has several outcomes that help make up the big picture.

a) There will be more white puppies born

b) There will be dilution of coat colour in coloured dogs

c) There will be dilution of organ colour inside the dog

What causes deafness in boxers?

Lack of pigment (melanin) in the inner ear is the easy answer. But how does this manifest?

Strong piebald expression leads to suppression of melanocytes in the iris (=> blue eyes, more likely to be deaf) and in the blood supply of the cochlea (=> deafness). One deaf ear is still genetic deafness and these dogs produce increased numbers of deaf offspring.

So we are talking about 2 sensory organs here. Forget the actual coat colour and wrap yourselves around that for a minute.

Back to the a, b, c.

a) we know more white puppies are born

b) we know that fawns in some populations are just that - fawn - a deep deer red is a rarity both as a self colour and a background on brindles

c) we know then by default, that we are further diluting the dogs organs as well, including the sensory organs of the ear.

This is all simple logic really.

So if it is then decreed to allow for whites to be bred is leads to further self perpetuation of the problem i.e. an increase in deafness.

What do all of you think?????? This post, is not for flaming. I hope that one day all boxers , are including in the standard. Not judged alone by there color. Edited because I can't spell.

Whites are not judged on their colour. They are judged on their problems so bearing in mind the problems they already have and the potential thay have for more I am against this concept. It's no different to culling out heart affected or thyroid affected stock. It is simply not sound to take the risks..........and never will be.

End Part 1

[Marimat]

Dear Dr Strain

I am a boxer breeder from Sydney Australia. As you are aware there is often a lot of controversy surrounding white boxers and deafness. The argument often put forward by those who do not see deafness in white boxers as a problem is that no formal studies have ever been done.

This is something I don't know for sure. My question to you is, have you ever been involved in any formal studies of white boxers and deafness?

This would hopefully include information on coloured boxers as well.

I am aware that the cause of deafness in white boxers is due to a pigment deficiency in the ear and the subsequent loss of sensory hair cells, similar I believe to Dalmations.

I am interested in knowing if introducing white boxers into the gene pool as breeding specimens can in turn lead to this deafness increasing in coloured boxers, possibly due to the whites passing on a lot of minus modifiers?

At http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/breeds.htm "Dog Breeds With Reported Congenital Deafness" I note that boxers are prone to congenital deafness.

However, the table does not specify white or coloured.

There are suggestions around that white boxers be allowed to breed. One catalyst for this is because of a larger problem in boxers with Cardiomyopathy. Some people feel that white boxers, that may not be affected with BCM should not be excluded from the gene pool simply because they are
white and otherwise healthy, the contention being that mating all white boxers to "plain" boxers will produce litters of all "flashy" boxers for the showring. It is thought by some, not me, that this will increase the gene pool in boxers and help eradicate or control BCM.

One aspect of the "proposal" that I am unclear on is the deafness issue.

Is the congenital deafness in boxers limited to whites? If not, could the introduction of whites into the gene pool also introduce the pigment problem in the inner ear to our coloured boxers as well?

An informal poll I ran on a website gave the following figures from
amongst a small sampling of boxer owners. Too small to be menaingful probably with only 236 respondents.

The Question asked was "Have you known a deaf boxer"

The available responses were

Yes - it was white - 43 - 18.22%
Yes - it was coloured - 5 - 2.12%
No - 188 - 79.66%

updated data, there are now 513 responses, at Deafness in boxers survey

I do realise that there are other causes of deafness and I also realise that without BAER testing these figures probably only reflect bilaterally deaf boxers. But I was interested that there were 5 responses to coloured deaf boxers. Unfortunately I do not know the colour of the parent boxers but am in the process of trying to get this information now.

If you have any information you can share with me on this subject I would be greatly appreciative

Thankyou for your time

Matthew Cowley R.N.
Marimat Boxers - Australia
http://www.marimat.com/

MC

****************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "George M Strain" <strain@lsu.edu>
To: "Marimat Boxers (Australia)" <marimat@bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: White Boxers - deafness

Dear Matthew

I am unaware of studies specific to the boxer and white boxers. I suspect it is very similar to the circumstances of the Norwegian dunkerhound, where something like 75% of the whites are deaf [Foss, I. (1981). Development of hearing and vision, and morphological examination of the inner ear in hereditarily deaf white Norwegian dunkerhounds and normal dogs (black and
dappled Norwegian dunkerhounds). Masters thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 133 pp].

When deafness is first addressed within a breed, individuals will often claim that (1) this is not a real problem in our breed, or (2) no studies have been done so it is not a problem, or (3) what
are you trying to do - destroy the reputation of our breed? This problem is similar among all of the breeds that carry one of the alleles of the piebald gene (extreme-white piebald, piebald, and Irish spotting). This gene is recessive, so dogs with white are homozygous. White results from the gene suppressing melanocytes (pigment cells). I have become convinced from working on this for more than a decade that a second gene regulates how strongly the piebald gene affects a dog, since the problem does not appear to conform to simple recessive inheritance.

In Dals, weak piebald expression results in a patch, where the white fails to cover up the underlying black or liver color (these dogs are less likely to be deaf). Strong piebald expression leads to suppression of melanocytes in the iris (=> blue eyes, more likely to be deaf) and in the blood supply of the cochlea (=> deafness). One deaf ear is still genetic deafness and these
dogs produce increased numbers of deaf offspring. Clearly from the data you compiled (the first I've seen) deafness in boxers does not require that the dog be white, but if it IS white the chances are much higher.

In English cocker spaniels deafness is absent in solid colored dogs (I've only seen one case, and it may have carried one copy of the recessive piebald gene) but present in parti colors. In bull terriers, deafness is 10X more prevalent in whites than in colored (which still have white). Note also that if one is not looking for deafness one often does not find it -- typically for each identified dog that is deaf in both ears there will be 2-3 dogs deaf in just one ear, and these dogs are not at all obvious from
behavior, so they get bred.

These uni's at a young age show difficulty localizing the source of a sound, but they soon adapt.

It is my opinion that white boxers carry a version of the regulatory gene that causes over-expression of the piebald gene, producing heavy white color, blue eyes, and deafness. Breeding these dogs back into the boxer gene pool will very likely increase the overall incidence of deafness in ALL boxers (white or otherwise).

I do not know the genetics of BCM, but it is not likely that white boxers are free of the defect, and nothing associated with pigmentation (or its absence) should logically protect against BCM. Breeding a white boxer without BCM back into the breed gene pool is not likely to affect BCM incidence, and in fact could worsen it if BCM is polygenic and the white boxer carries some of the responsible genes.

If asked, I would be opposed to breeding white boxers - to either whites or colors. If this practice is continued the prevalence of deafness in all boxers will increase as has happened with other breeds. I know that there is a strong group of advocates for white boxers, mostly because there is always attraction to something novel. To me it seems totally without logic
to continue a breeding practice which, based on all available knowledge, will increase the prevalence of hereditary disease in a dog breed.

I hope this is of some help. I would appreciate being kept up to date on any data you accumulate.

George M. Strain
_________________________________
George M. Strain
Associate Vice Chancellor
Office of Research & Graduate Studies
Louisiana State University
240 Thomas Boyd Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Voice 225-578-5833 Fax 225-578-5983
ORGS Web: www.research.lsu.edu
Personal Research Web: www.lsu.edu/deafness/deaf.htm

End Part 2

[Marimat]

Originally posted by pep0987
DO you think that they should say that whites/ should only be breed with plain boxers, or with any boxers, that of course meet the stanards.

No!

Because again, this is too simplistic (not you pep0987 but the idea itself)

It is already known that there are 2 kinds of plain boxers. And I don't mean genetically against phenotypically

It is now widely accepted that we have flashy plains and plain flashies depending on what population thay come out of.

In populations where most bredings are flashy/flashy even the plains are diluted as per Part 1. In these populations it is not uncommon to have so called "plain" boxers with unpigmented third eyelids for example. This should not happen in a plain population unless there has been significant dilution of melanin.

In other populations it would be unheard of to get a "plain" with unpigmented third eyelids.

Therefore we have undiluted and diluted plains as well. How are we going to tell which are safe to breed with a white?

Julie, I thought you might like this. I would like to see white boxers, be treated the same as there color mates. Tell me if this is true. I heard that the reason whites were banned in the first place was because they were seen easier, for police and war dogs???

That's one theory, probably true as far as the war aspect of it goes, but that's what they knew then and we know what we know now.

It's no good to look back and say that reason is irrelevant (which I think is where you are heading), and ignoring what are actually better reasons now.

What would be the purpose of allowing whites to be bred, but not allow them to be shown in conformation? Isn't that the whole point of conformation - to select the boxers that best fit the standard and evaluate their suitability to breed and carry on the breed?

I actually agree with this in principle but it's also a bit like putting the cart before the horse. What came first, breeding or confirmation?

Breeding did.

So the question to me is not what would be the point of disallowing whites from competition but what's the point of breeding them at all? If they are not a part of the standard how can they be used to improve the dogs produced with the standard in mind?

Tam is correct - the whole point of conformation is to select the boxers that best fit the standard and evaluate their suitability to breed and carry on the breed.

---------

We don't allow dogs with genetic problems to be bred. We have a list of maladies worldwide which we look for and cull by

Thyroid problems, heart problems, kidney problems, hip problems - reputable breeders wouldn't touch dogs affected with these things with a barge pole. Why should reputable breeders be asked to further the boxers problems?

We KNOW whites have problems, the best known and most widely talked about is deafness. We KNOW it. It's an undeniable truth. Why in the world should deafness as a genetic disease be even thought of being treated any differently?

The world is full of happy bitzas and pedigree dogs that will not be bred and never see a showring. White boxers are in that category. Let them be pets and companions. Let them work if they are able but leave them out of breeding and confirmation altogther - it's just another recipe for disaster.

If a white comes from an excellent gene pool, has no health defects, then what would the outcome be to use the white for breeding to enhance the flashiness in a litter. The reason I ask this is because I have heard of this being done, and me being a now breeder seeker I am curious if this should be an issue in my search.

Has it been BAER tested for unilateral deafness is the first thing that comes to mind. Because it won't be picked up in everyday life if it is only deaf in one ear and WILL perpetuate the problem

Increasing the flashiness in a litter is not a pre requisite for breeding anyway. Flashiness is still not required in ANY standard. There's simply no need to do it and any breeder that is neds to be seriously doubted as to motives.

I wouldn't go near a breeder that used whites for this reason and would firmly plant them in the UNreputable basket or even the BYB category. If you have heard of it being done, if it's against the code of ethics where you are and you know who it is, report them, that's your duty as a "breeder seeker"

End Part 3

[JulieM]

Let me preface by saying that I do not support the breeding of whites at this time (although I would support parent club-controlled test breedings). However, in the interest of playing devil's advocate....

What would be the purpose of allowing whites to be bred, but not allow them to be shown in conformation? Isn't that the whole point of conformation - to select the boxers that best fit the standard and evaluate their suitability to breed and carry on the breed? In my opinion there would be no advantage to breeding white boxers if they did not have excellent conformation to improve the breed. I think breeding and conformation showing should go hand in hand.

Absolutely - but there are many breeders who have found that conformationally, the best pups in the litter are the whites. If these conformationally excellent dogs passed all of their health tests (including a BAER test), is it the best thing for the breed to exclude them from the gene pool simply because of their lack of pigment? There is no perfect Boxer, and dogs that don't quite meet the standard in one area or the other are routinely bred.

I do think BAER testing is key, as it would pull out those unilateral deaf whites. Dr. Strain didn't say, I don't think, in his post whether it would make a difference, but I do think that in Dalmatians dogs which are BAER tested bilaterally hearing are given "free rein" as far as breeding, where dogs that are only unilaterally hearing have restrictions. Has this practice increased the amount of deaf Dalmatians or decreased it? (I don't know, and like Matt I'm not going to bother to look now - but maybe he knows, and it's something to consider.) A bonus would be a genetic test for the piebald gene, so that genetically plain dogs could be determined without a doubt.

-it is a proven fact that whites are have more genetic problems

It is a proven fact that whites have more genetic deafness, sort of. (It's actually not proven in studies with Boxers, but I think we can all agree that the genetic mechanism is the same as in other breeds that have been studies.)

-using the phenotype (white coat in this case) that is clearly visible to the naked eye we can cull (for lack of a better word) the genotypically effected dogs that carry the piebald gene from our breeding programs

Yes - whites, which carry two copies, and flashies, which carry one copy. (Invariable some of the heterozygous dogs will slip through the visual culling, but none of the homozygous ones will.)

-plains are homozygous dominant

Plains are homozygous partial dominant - a heterozygous dog will not be plain, as is the case with brindling. It will "combine" the dominant and the recessive and be flashy.

-flashy plains and plain flashies are heterozygous, therefore breeding any of these combos together results in white puppies in the litter

I think this is what Matt is saying, although I would prefer to see it stated as "some flashy plains and some plain flashies."

-whites are homozygous recessive (expression of piebald gene)

Yes.

Another question - if you have a genotypically plain boxer and breed to a genotypically flashy boxer (even if it is plain with unpigmented haws) you never get a white puppy, correct? But these puppies will carry the piebald gene and could pass it on to their own offspring?

Yes, and no. Yes to the first question - genotypically plain x genotypically flashy will never produce a white puppy. No to the second question - the puppies from this breeding may or may not carry the piebald gene, depending on which allele they got from the genotypically flashy parent.

Similarily, if you were to breed flashy to flashy you don't ALWAYS get white puppies, correct? Roughly 25% of the offspring would be white so sometimes you would get more whites while in another instance you may have all colored pups???

In individual litters, yes. In large numbers of litters (say, all of the flashy x flashy litters bred in the US in a year), you would see the percentages line up. The more litters, the closer to the expected.

So, am I right to assume then that the Pedigree papers would have to be altered in some way? I am not trying to open a can of worms here, but unless a person was aware this type of breeding is being done, how would one know other than trusting the ethics of a breeder. My guess is we wouldn't.

No, you wouldn't, and there are many stories of "flashy brindle" or "flashy fawn" bitches kept in breeders' basements over the years....

[pep0987]

I would like to see, how the ABC would handle , this type of breeding. Matt I was just wondering if that was the reason that white boxers were not allowed to breed, in the first place. I wasn't going to go back and say...
All I know is that something needs to be done. Not all white boxers are deaf or sick. Take Bailey. We have done some health tests on him, just so we would know what to except. So far so good. We are going to wait to do his heart tests until he is 3 because we were told that , it would the best time . Gentics play a very important role, in life it's self.

[Marimat]

I'm sure Mr Spock would of said something like this about the whole issue

Why sacrifice the good of the many for the good of a few?

Pep0987, just out of interest, has your Bailey been BAER tested for deafness? The reason I ask is that despite him being neutered you seem to be undertaking all the tests normally only done by breeders.

If whites were ever to be bred we'd have to add BAER testing to the list of already performed tests.

It is then that the extent of deafness, as the unilateral deaf dogs will then be identified, will be better guaged.

You can't refer to one dog in a discussion like this. One white dog could produce hundreds, maybe thousands of puppies, just like a coloured. 10 white dogs, 10 times as much. 100 white dogs - 100 times - ad infinitum.

The whole argument is a stalemate anyway

Breeders do nothing to prove the actual incidence of deafness in whites while at the same time the pro white group do nothing to disprove it. It's like neither side wants to be wrong but both sides want their cake and the eating of it.

The chances of the pro breeding of white boxers group "winning" is slim if any formal data were collected. Just look at the results of the poll here. They stay exactly true to expectations.

658 respondents
136 deaf whites - 20.67% (over expectation)
9 deaf coloureds - 1.37%
513 not deaf - 77.96%

Not one person in that poll has identified a unilateral deaf white boxer. Not one. If BAER testing were done you could probably expect that 20.67% figure to double. Probably the 1.37% figure for coloureds that are deaf would double as well.

That people would make 44.08 percent of all boxers deaf, 41.34% of them white.

Do we really want to add whites to a gene pool where nearly half will be deaf? Remember it is self perpetuating - how long till it becomes 60%, 65%, 70%

Nope sorry, there is no justification for this breeding of whites in any circumstance. Not until it is proven they don't carry a high risk of passing on another genetic problem - deafness. And that won't be proven as there is already enough evidence to show it happens and in big numbers.

So as always we talk in endless circles for no result. Not very productive.

[JulieM]

I disagree, Matt, I think this type of conversation is very productive for those who think whites should be allowed to be bred, right now, as it gives them some actual information as to why this would not be a good idea, aside from the "they are disqualified by the standard" line that they usually get. (Granted, IMO the disqualification should be the end of the conversation, but it usually isn't ).

A genotypically 'plain' boxer would be homozygous partial dominance. Phenotypically this dog would be a plain fawn with NO white, pigmented haws and organs? A heterozygous 'plain' could have no white with dark haws and organs, but with brindling?

A homozygous plain could still have some white, in limited places (i.e., confined to the toes, none on the dorsal side of the neck, etc.) I do think Matt is saying that a homozygous plain could not have white haws. Homozygous plains can be either fawn or brindle; I just mentioned brindle as an example of complete dominance (if the dog has even one copy of the brindle gene, it will be brindle).

When you say that some of the heterozygous ones would slip through the visual culling - if you chose a plain fawn with double dark haws and no white, is there still the chance they carry the piebald gene and it is just not expressed?

I think a dog of this description would be very unlikely to be heterozygous. I'm not ready to say it is impossible, but it would quite surprise me if it was! But when I say some of the heterozygous ones would slip through, I mean the ones that have some bits of white. This slide explains it a little more clearly:
http://home.online.no/~henlund/Engli...ite/sld023.htm

When you mean say partial dominance, what do you mean? Co-dominance? If dominant is plain and recessive is white then codominance would be flashy?

Right, my texts call this partial dominance

Matt mentioned that whites have unpigmented organs such as the inner ear, eyes, etc. Aside from deafness (which can be tested for, as mentioned) is there any other problem with having unpigmented organs? For example, an unpigmented heart or liver? If a white passed the deafness exams and was conformationally excellent would breeding still be too risky to be worthwhile?

That seems to be what Matt is saying, perhaps he'll elaborate. I don't think 'unpigmented' is completely accurate, as that would be albino - rather the phrase is 'lack of pigment (melanin)' - which means there may be a little, but not enough to 'create' color. Remember, thought, that "white" humans, especially those with blond hair and blue eyes, also have a lack of melanin.