If there was a really outstanding white Boxer, I see no reason why it shouldn't be bred from. By breeding to a plain, all the pups will be flashy. There is no risk of producing white (and therefore deaf) puppies from this breeding.
Ok so what we are saying is? Plain x Plain = 100% Plain 0% Flashy 0% White Plain x Flashy = 50% Plain 50% Flashy 0% White Plain x White = 0% Plain 100% Flashy 0% White Flashy x Flashy = 25% Plain 50% Flashy 25% White Flashy x White = 0% Plain 50% Flashy 50% White White x White = 0% Plain 0% Flashy 100% White And obviously the expected 0% and 100% are correct, but the other percentages are based on an average. So say a flashy x flashy mating could produce: 20% plain 60% flashy 20% white and so on.
Yep, that's about it Roxy. The way the percentages work out in a litter can be very variable eg it wouldn't be that unusual to get say 100% flashies from a flashy x flashy just as it's possible to get a whole litter of one sex instead of the predicted 50:50 split.
Breeding two whites together will reinforce and continue the ill effects of this recessive gene. Breeding whites with others will sustain the recessive gene, even if no ill effects are visible in the immediate offspring. It is for this reason The White Boxer Chronicles does not condone the deliberate breeding of any whites. It is not fair to the animal a few generations down the line to have a problem it must live with for life because someone wanted to breed their white for human reasons.
Pod my problem with what you have said is that you see no reason why an oustanding white shouldnt be breed from. So in the same vein this is what is happening at the moment. Breeders have two excellent examples of flashy Boxers (they do so well at Crufts), so they see no reason NOT to breed them and once again we are back to square one. IMHO until we stop trying to produce Flashy boxers for the show ring then we will never eliminate the white gene.
I don't think anyone would suggest breeding two whites together Moli. This would give 100% whites. But it's not correct that the ill effects are reinforced. The hearing abnormalities are due entirely to the presence of the sw 'gene' in duplicate. It doesn't matter one bit if it's inherited from white or flashy parents, the effects are the same. Yes it does mean the 'gene' for white is perpertuated in the population but the only sure way to reduce it's incidence is for breeders/judges to not accept flashy markings and only breed from plain. I can see the reasoning behind this. If it was acceptable to breed from whites, then breeders may be more inclined to risk the breeding of flashy x flashy to produce whites. It makes absolutely no difference to the health or breeding potential of a flashy if its parents are from white x plain, or flashy x plain. The only way to be fair to generations down the line would be to eliminate not only whites from breeding but flashies too. But the simple way to accomplish this without eliminating any dogs, is to ensure that every litter has at least one plain parent. Would be interesting to know Moli, do the breed clubs advise not breeding flashies together?
Yes, I agree with you I think breeders/judges just need to see plains as equal to flashies, then there will be more plains being bred and so provide more good quality plains to breed to the flashies.
Outstanding by what definition though ? On that stance alone [ in terms of looks ], Boxers these days tend to be mainly bred for the show ring [ professional breeding I mean ], as opposed to working, and as whites are considered a huge fault [ by breed standard ], why purposefully breed from them ? On the ethical side, it really is a big no no to breed from white Boxers because of the inherited genetic risk. Its not the same as merling and deafness in other breeds. From http://www.boxerworld.com/health_testing/ ``White boxers should not be bred since the genes responsible for deafness in whites are inheritable. Breeding dogs that carry the extreme white spotting gene (white boxers have two copies of this gene, see http://www.boxerworld.com/coat_colour) will cause pigment dilution in all offspring and increase the incidence of deafness throughout the breed.``
No not just looks. Deafness is not the only health concern in Boxers. Other serious issues include cancer and heart disease, and these are not so easily predicable, because the inheritance, unlike extreme white, is not the simple co-dominance. Which is exactly why there is a high incidence of whites being born. Not sure what you mean by "professional" breeding, most show breeders are hobbyists. I don't think anyone is actually purposely breeding for white, it's just an unfortunate byproduct of ill-informed breeding for flashies. Breeding white to plain produces 100% flashies, absolutely no chance of producing white, and therefore colour related deafness from this mating. Inherited risk of what? Colour related deafness is the same in all affected breeds, but the merle type is slightly different to extreme white. Breeds that have exteme white all share the same type eg Border Collie, Boxer, Dalmatian etc. There is no known breed specific deafness. Patch, you seem to be saying that by eliminating white Boxers from the gene pool, you can eliminate all future whites. It's really not as simple as that. It's the breeding of flashy x flashy which gives the high incidence of whites in the breed. Eliminating whites from breeding would do nothing to help and could possibly be removing good quality dogs that could improve health. And take the case of the Dalmatian. If we were to follow your guidelines and not breed from whites, no more Dalmatians would ever be bred as they are all sw sw exactly the same genotype as the white Boxer. Also white in other breeds, English Bull Terrier, Jack Russell, Bulldog, Sealyham Terrier etc. These are all the same sw sw. Should we stop the breeding of these too? As all Dalmatians are extreme white, breeders are working towards reducing the incidence of deafness by other means ie screening all pups and breeding only from those with normal hearing.
The person who wrote this is obviously well meaning but ill-informed about the inheritance of deafness. There are no known genes for colour related deafness. The gene is for white spotting which can have the additional effect of deafness. Again this is not accurate at all. Not everything written on webpages is true and as with most topics, there is a lot of duff info out there. If you are interested in good information on colour related deafness, read Bruce Cattanach, geneticist and Boxer breeder. He used a white Boxer for breeding in his well known Corgi cross programme which introduced the bobtail gene into the Boxer. http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES1.html
Just done a more comprehensive search on the breeding from whites issue for the latest thinking on this, and I see that there was one well known deafness researcher who was of the opinion that including whites in breeding could increase deafness. This no doubt is the reason for some Boxer people being against breeding from whites. This researcher did not have any data for the breed and wrongly assumed it to have the same incidence of deafness as another breed that has the merle gene. Found this piece, again by Bruce Cattanach, a specialist Boxer geneticist. Just about sums up what I've been trying to say, but much more succinctly - "On whites: whatever the official historical reason for making this colour a disqualifying fault, the white dog itself is no more liable to disease/defect or whatever than other white breeds of the same genetic constitution. These would include the white Bull Terrier, the Dalmatian to give but two of the very many examples. What we are left with is the ridiculous situation in Boxers where we define white as a disqualifying fault and selectively breed FOR it - by favoring flashy dogs for showing and hence breeding. There is no answer for this madness. It is in fact no more unethical to breed from whites than it is to breed from flashies. Both practices keep the white gene established in the breed." "If one adopted a genetical approach to this 'white' problem, one would extend the approved principle of looking for dogs and bitches that would complement each other, fault for virtue, to make a better combination. Applying the same to the 'white' issue in Boxers and recognizing that one does not want to produce whites, one would first of all avoid mating two dogs that carry the disqualifying fault (white), so flashies would not be mated together. But more directly and outrageously, one would breed whites to solids. In neither cross would one get whites but in the white x solid cross, all the puppies would be the seemingly desirable flashies. The flashy progeny derived from the latter cross would NOT differ genetically in any way from the flashies deriving from any other colour crosses (flashy x solid or flashy x flashy). They would certainly produce no more whites in later generations than their peers, as is commonly imagined. Obviously, it would be silly to mate whites to flashies as one would then expect higher frequencies of whites (50% rather than 25%). However acceptance of flashy x solids crosses could give some better status to the white Boxer." http://www.boxerunderground.com/bu2000/jan2004/geneticists_viewpoint.htm
Interesting. The Animal Health Trust at Newmarket, who pioneered the BAER testing firstly on Dalmatians and then on an increasing number of other breeds with the "white gene" - around 43 when I last spoke to them - and cats- hold an entirely different opinion.:? Personally, I am not prejudiced against white boxers or any other breed where white is a variant whether it is recognised or not, but I would ensure that a BAER haring test had been performed with a favourable outcome before I acquired one. In Dalmatians, the code of ethics of the UK breed clubs includes not breeding from a dog or bitch that is deaf in one or both ears as it is believed to be hereditary, and since the BAER testing programme has become more widespread, there is evidence that the incidence of deafness has decreased where tested (and hearing perfect) stock has been used. The research goes back many years and generations and was done by one of the UK breed clubs a couple of years ago.
As far as I am aware, whatever the breed of dog we own /love /breed . we are all 100% committed to the welfare of our dogs, the the first and foremost reason behind breeding should be for the better of the breed, we breed what we concider to be the closest to "breed standard" laid down by all breed clubs. and the "white Boxer" does not comform to breed standard, simple as that! anyone breeding from whites should be avoided as they will mostly be bybs who only want to cash in(before anyone goes on to qoete Bruce Cattanah who is a genetic specialist ), there are as many Boxer people out there who dont agree with his methods. There is no reason why anyone should breed white to white or white to palin, their are enough white Boxers out there without adding to the problem of homing them, look in white Boxer rescue to see how many need homes, yes we have people who will own a white and love then just the same as there coloured siblings, after all they are a Boxer, and yes some will be deaf, adding to the problem of finding good homes. out of any given litter of Boxer pups you will find at white or two,unless the dam and sire are solid colour, but this still has a risk of producing whites, depending on the genetic background of both parents. so why would anybody who has the wealth and health of their breed add to a problem of overpopulating a breed. Breed standards /ethics are what matters it is what we strive for , to produce good examples of any given breed, and untill some one decides to rewrite breed standard , we should not breed against it. The breeding of whites goes against everything we try to achieve in the Boxer , anyone who loves and has the welfare of the breed will never breed from a white dog.
Do you mean they advise against breeding from white Boxers? I would be surprised if they do as this would be singling out one breed. To be fair they would also have to advise against breeding white Border Collies, JRTs, Bull Terriers etc and all Dalmatians. They do advise breeding only from dogs of normal hearing in the affected breeds. There's is so much evidence now that it's most definitely hereditary and a direct consequence of breeding for extreme white colour. Breeding from normal hearing only, has reduced the incidence slightly and eliminating blue eyes too makes a difference but the one sure way to bring down the rate of deafness significantly would be to accept patched Dalmatians for showing and breeding. Patching has a direct link with reduced incidence of hearing abnormality in the Dalmatian.
I do believe most show beeders are fully commited to their breeds and I can believe that there are some who don't agree with Dr Cattanach. But the only explanation I can see for this is ignorance of how the inheritance of deafness works Jackbox, with all respect, you have misunderstood what I have said, and also what's in the quotes from Cattanach. I don't know that anyone would be daft enough to recommend breeding white x white (with the possible exception of puppy farmers). This would produce 100% whites with the associated risk of deafness. Breeding white x plain will not produce any whites. It will produce 100% flashies. It is the practice of breeding flashy x flashy, which show breeders regularly do to produce dogs for the showring, which causes white Boxers to be born. If you could ensure that every litter of Boxers born from now on had at least one plain parent, no more whites would be born. Ok it's not quite that simple, there are other factors which alter the expression, but generally it would be very simple to improve the health of Boxers by not following the trend of the showring.
i just cant get over a vet putting these puppies to sleep without giving them a chance .i find it disgusting that a vet is not better informed after all is that not what we pay them for
So sad and just when breeders seem to be getting round to thinking that it is worth letting the white pups live. Anyone who lives with a Boxer will know that no matter the colour, this is a wonderful breed to share your life with. Is there a drawback to a white boxer - no other than any white dog. Angel
we only would have white pups out of one bitch none as yet have proved deaf R.I.P poor WHITE babies,lots of boxer breeders dont want to admit to white in the lines,but what they fail to realise is the rest of the litter will also have white in their line,who gives a dam the white babies deserve to live a much as the reds/brindle babies
White boxers are not automatically culled now as they once were and if any white boxers are deaf one of the ladies whor organise White Boxer rescue will take young deaf pups and train them to hand signals before rehoming. I think the fear of a lot of breeders wasnt as much being ashamed of white boxers in the litter but of the fear that people would take them for the novelty value and then not cope with the deafness a young boxer can be a handful without the added problem of deafness. One other step in the right direction is that certain boxer breed shows now have scheduled classes for solid colours. A well respected breeder told me when I first had boxers "never call them plain as they are beautiful refer to them as solids"
