Ok everyone, this is currently being discussed over on the saluki list.

My view is that if Salukis and in fact all working breeds were bred to the original selection processes by carrying out their original functions.

I would say that if breeders had not shifted to selection based on show success the breeds would not be in the mess many are in now.

Should testing with various scanning equipment, blood tests, etc. be necessary to produce sound healthy animals? Can it produce them at all? I have my doubts.

Regards

Mark

Three words: CAN OF WORMS! ;)

Can testing produce sounder animals? Yes. There are other breeds who have done it. Typically, the easiest health problems to control through testing are simple recessives. If a test for dogs carrying a single copy of the gene is available, then you know who the carriers are and can be sure not to breed them to another carrier, or not to breed them at all.

In regards to Salukis, I found this page interesting. A quote: " If there is a family history of health conditions, then these specific screening tests can be useful:" This is followed by several different tests. Of course these tests would only be really useful if as many dogs as possible in a family line were tested. For instance, when using radiographs submitted to OFA for hip dysplasia, the information is only really useful if you test every single puppy in every single litter. It's no good to breed an OFA excellent dog if all it's siblings are fair or poor. I know Salukis don't get hip dyplasia but it's a good example of how testing sounds good on the surface, but can still be very limiting.

The problem is, Salukis don't have simple problems. They have complex ones, and they don't know if there IS a genetic component to it. Cancer can often be environmental in cause. So it would take many generations of testing all first degree relatives, then collating the information, to come up with anything interesting.

Then there is the genetic problem: until fairly recently (in the US, AKC registered Salukis) COO dogs were not eligible for AKC registration. The stud book was closed, creating a closed gene pool, which creates problems in and of itself. Now, third generation Salukis from COO dogs can be registered after an approval process. The Basenji people learned that lesson the hard way. Tiny gene pool=not good for genetic diversity.

Breeding purely for performance can create it's own problems as well. Take NGA greyhounds. Not bred for general health, temperament, or longevity, just for speed. I've had greyhounds in the past, did rescue for a time, and out of six resident hounds only two lived past the age of ten. Two died of cancer. They all had to have huge amounts of attention paid to their teeth. Osteosarcoma is not uncommon in greyhounds.

Plenty of people here in the US lure course their Salukis in addition to showing in conformation. (Some do open field coursing as well, so performance isn't entirely neglected.) In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a breeder who doesn't show in conformation. In most breeds showing is considered a sign that a breeder is 'responsible,' whatever that means. (I do think a lot of these labels, and the pushing of testing, is partly a AR tactic to divide breeders amongst themselves and make them point fingers at each other, but that's really another post entirely.) In some breeds it is near impossible to get a good bitch unless you are planning to show.

I do think breeding to win in the show ring has ruined plenty of breeds. German shepherds make me cringe, Afghan hounds are, well, you've heard me on that score, and plenty of the hunting breeds are pretty much unrecognizable. Breeders really need to take a step back and stop pretending that they are even breeding an animal that is supposed to work. Just be honest if you're breeding to win. Of course, then you have to settle the argument of 'is it a "real" whatever hound.' Which is another can of worms. You're probably familiar with this article.

So, the answer to your question is yes, no, and it depends. Sometimes health testing can make for healthier animals, sometimes it has little or no effect but it makes the breeder feel better to do it, and sometimes it depends on the health problem.

Tests have their place, but as DevoidovTalent (nice one :D ) points out, many of the Saluki's bigger problems can't be tested for as yet. I think tests can also be abused unless we are careful. At the moment mapping of the canine genome and a search for DNA markers for a variety of problems in all kinds of breeds is being done here in Finland, among other places. I just sent off samples of my pack and I pray some day we might have DNA-tests for some of these problems, which I think could really valuable. But, no doubt that is a long way off.

They are also going to do a comparison of the DNA of COO Salukis and Western bred Salukis, specifically to compare certain alleels and haplotypes associated with the immune system, so that should be interesting.

As for function as a tool for health, I believe it is valuable, but not absolute. While the harsh reality of the COOs are, in many cases and to some extent, survival of the fittest (which no doubt is the reason the breed is in as good a shape as it is) on an individual level, harmful genes will still be present.

I experienced real heartache with my first Saluki litter, both parents COO imports - so far 3 out of 9 pups have had severe autoimmune diseases. I just hope there will be no more of that! Of course I won't breed on from that litter, but I feel bad for the dogs and their owners :(

I also have a male, his parents are from Bahrain, who is 6 years old and has been everely epileptic since he was 1 year old. He's on medication and that has kept his seizures in check, but although he only seizes 1-3 times a year and lives a normal Saluki life, he nonetheless is epileptic.

I don't think there are any easy answers when it comes to health issues - we all have to deal with them at some point, whatever the lines we work with.

Glad to see I didn't entirely kill the thread :D

I would love to see DNA tests pop up for some of the more nebulous problems, like which dogs are susceptible to problems due to vaccines, or environmental toxins or the like. As it is, in dogs like your seizure dog, how can you know whether his problem is genetic, or damage from something in the environment, or a drug or vaccine, etc.? The only way would be to do test breedings, and I'm not real comfortable with that.

You're right, there never are easy answers.

I have heard of a few cases of autoimmune in COO salukis also intestinal diseases, dying of cancer at a young age. I wonder whether they or their ancestors have been seriously coursed as the village/farm salukis will have been or are they from hobby breeders that only course occasionally? I think hunting with Saluki's only goes so far like you both say in showing up any faults and even at that the work load must sustained work.

When importing COO Salukis are we getting the best or their failures, does the stress of transport have any lasting effects on health? The we have the effects of a completely alien environment on their immune system to take into account.

***Mine are from Bedouin and villagers who are serious hunters. The thing is, while being worked hard and surviving to adulthod in harsh conditons requires a lot of a dog's constitution, and no doubt aids in creating robust stock and in ensuring that only the strongest survive and are bred, harmful recessives can't be weeded out completely from any population, whatever the species. It just can't be done. The frequency at which problems crop up can be greatly reduced, but not completely eradicated. Even wild animals like wolves, which I think you'll agree work hard, fall prey to disease occasionally.

Having said that, I absolutely believe that the harsh conditions and the hard work the Salukis in the COOs do, is the reason why the breed is in such great shape healthwise compared to many other breeds. That and the broad genetic base of the breed, though in the West that diversity has been reduced greatly by the popularity of certain lines. In a pedigree study recently done in Finland by a friend of mine, I believe she said 1/5 of the genetic base of the Western lines here are Sarona Kelb, even now. This despite the fact that there have been options available.

***Well, I don't know. There is little point in importing COO hounds unless it is from people you trust to get you the best hounds available. Just as in the West, you need to have reliable contacts. As to the transport, I've imported 7 COO hounds and none of them have shown any stress at the long journeys. I do think that certain enviromental things can come into play though. I've often wondered what effects vacinations have on the immune systems of dogs who's parents and ancestors have never been vaccinated, and who have never ben vaccinated themelves, and then they're suddenly taken out of the Syrian or Negev desert and, in those countries, hit with a 7-in-one vaccination...

***Exactly. And test breedings aren't very appealing, I agree. Another good thing about DNA tests would be that you could termine who are carriers and who are not, and carefully breed carriers to dogs who have tested clear, enabling you to keep a wider genetic base without those specific problems presenting themselves in the offspring, whereas now you either throw the baby out with the bathwater i.e. don't breed from any of the close relatives for fear of passing the probem on, or play Russian roulette and hope the sibling you breed from doesn't have the gene(s) responsible for the problem...