Interesting Sloughi discussion

Welcome to Saluki Preservation. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

Interesting Sloughi discussion
Topic Started: Mar 8 2009, 11:03 AM (735 Views)
DeviodOvTalent	Mar 11 2009, 10:49 PM Post #31
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	Blue fawn Azawakh http://www.azawakh.fr/litter24.html http://www.azawakh.fr/daris.html http://www.azawakh.fr/dasenti.html Blue Azawakh http://www.azawakh.fr/dimoun.html The Saluki in question was used for an Azawakh litter, went the Azawakh was the Taureg Sloughi.



saluqi	Mar 12 2009, 10:10 AM Post #32
Advanced Member Posts: 334 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: February 20, 2007 Gender: Male Location: England	DeviodOvTalent Mar 11 2009, 10:34 PM Quote: I know the smooth gene mutates which is why you get the smooths out of two feathered but are you saying it will not happen the other way round ? If it did happen it would be VERY difficult to tell unless it was in a smooth coated breed. Otherwise, say in Salukis, people would simply assume the smooth parents had been carrying the feathered gene. However, I would speculate that such a mutation would be fairly rare, since 'smooth' is actually the natural state and 'feathered' is already a mutation or deviation. Quote: Is it also true that there are only three types of coat smooth ,rough and wire which would mean there is a gene stopping the rest of the feathered coat showing on the feathered saluki ? Don't know about the wire, but yes, I assume there are alleles that modify the feathered coat so it only shows on ears, legs and tail. That is one of the reasons I believe the coat genes are actually very similar in Salukis and Afghans, because both breeds have a strange coat pattern and there is a certain degree of overlap (very hairy Salukis with saddles, very patterned Afghans with no top knot, etc.) Quote: The Sloughi cross saluki happened more than once so the chance of every smooth saluki that was crossed in not having the recessive feathered gene in it has got to be small, so if their not around ( feathered Sloughis ) then they must have been culled and still are JMO. Frankly, I am going to disagree with this. Older breeders and breeders in the past would have had no problems culling for a cosmetic defect, but now that is not done nearly as much, especially with younger breeders and here in the US. If feathered Sloughis were cropping up with any regularity a breeder would have defied the rest by now and placed it as a pet and not kept the secret. Especially now with the brouhaha the Ridgeback club in the UK went through about culling ridgeless pups, it is very un PC to cull a pup for cosmetic reasons and there can be considerable backlash against breeders who do it. If Sloughis do carry a feathered gene, I would say in the next ten years or even sooner you will see such dogs being placed as pets. It used to be that smooth Afghans were routinely culled, but with greater understanding of genetics it really isn't done any more. Thanks very informative, When you cross Deerhounds ( wire ) with Greyhounds ( Smooth ) you will get a broken coat but so far ive never seen a long-coated D x G that I know for sure is what it is said to be. would i be right in thinking the wire would have to be dominate to be showing? because if it was recessive the greyhound would have to have a recessive gene for wire in it to show in any pups. So if both are dominate One gene must be more dominate than the other doing something to the other dominate gene to be showing or stopping the other from showing as much as it normal would another thing I have never seen a first cross D x G that wasn't brindle. I can see what your saying in the last paragraph and yes agree with you that its not PC these days. Years ago you could keep a lot more dogs than most can now, So if you did a lot of test breeding would you be able to get rid of the feathered gene ? I would think not unless you was very lucky as the recessive gene no mater how many breedings you do can still stay hidden, During the war years numbers of dogs would have been cut would that have helped in getting rid of the unwanted gene or stop it showing for a long time? Does all that make sense to you? :D makes me feel like :face slap:



saluqi	Mar 12 2009, 10:15 AM Post #33
Advanced Member Posts: 334 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: February 20, 2007 Gender: Male Location: England	ohiovalley Mar 11 2009, 09:49 PM Yes, Saluki...exactly...men behave the same everywhere! And that's precisely why I find it nearly impossible to believe that there are truly pure breeds. Is'nt it how we have all found ourselves here...to get away from that kind of boxed thinking about Saluqis (and I mean that in the eastern sense where the place and function have created a particular shape) The people I know, that hunt with dogs are always looking to 'tweak' the dogs they have with something else or something different (I'm not talking AKC, but longdogs staghounds coldbloods, etc.) I can't help but enlarge that idea into hunters with dogs all over the world...it's human nature. It's also human nature to present to your peers something you think will put you in the best light...we edit...everything...including breeders that cull pups. Back before the western ideas became so globalized...in the context of the harsh environments of the sighthounds, you have the environment itself doing the culling. But even with the most meager of life styles, men have taken pride in their dogs...all over the world. They also used to hide their 'best' from western visitors, and still do. they will say, the dogs are all out hunting, or we have no dogs. To sell...why would they sell their best hunting dogs? Or why wouldn't they catch on to a clever way to make a living and take advantage of ignorant arrogant westerners? And tell them a story! Along those lines...Sloughi-r you may never have access to 'proper facts' This is what we're saying...people are breeding these dogs, not in a vacume or a perfect world. sometimes there are unknown outcrosses of a different' breed' perpetuated...sometimes there are 2 sires involved but only one documented. sometimes a completely different dog is thought to be the sire...or said to be the sire...it goes on and on. Pedigrees can be totally fabricated. Dogs and pedigrees are subject to everything man can throw at them. Ok..got it , and I know that we call colors different things in different breeds. I guess dilute blue is what I call a 'self' color. I have a self red...no black pigment at all. and are you then saying that, it isn't that colors or potential for colors is different breed to breed necessarily, but that the expression of certain colors may or may not be found in certain breeds, just because of the 'pool' of genes or other modifiers? Is that too simplified? ov you put it a lot better than me what I'm trying to write B) .



DeviodOvTalent	Mar 12 2009, 06:48 PM Post #34
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	Quote: and are you then saying that, it isn't that colors or potential for colors is different breed to breed necessarily, but that the expression of certain colors may or may not be found in certain breeds, just because of the 'pool' of genes or other modifiers? Is that too simplified? ov That works for me :)



DeviodOvTalent	Mar 12 2009, 07:10 PM Post #35
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	Quote: When you cross Deerhounds ( wire ) with Greyhounds ( Smooth ) you will get a broken coat but so far ive never seen a long-coated D x G that I know for sure is what it is said to be. would i be right in thinking the wire would have to be dominate to be showing? Yes, exactly. That is why it is easy to get wire coats into a breed, like with wire-coated Dachshunds, the gene is a dominant. The first generation of crosses with exhibit the characteristic. The rose ear is also a dominant, when you cross a pendant ear with a rose ear you will generally get rose ears. I actually read about a litter of 'Deerhounds' recently that were shown in conformation as puppies and everyone accepted that they were Deerhounds, but they did not get as big as they should have so DNA was run on the whole litter, and the sire was a Saluki! Quote: So if both are dominate One gene must be more dominate than the other doing something to the other dominate gene to be showing or stopping the other from showing as much as it normal would another thing I have never seen a first cross D x G that wasn't brindle. I think that would be right. Brindle, though, is a simple dominant; you should see half the litter be brindle in a brindle to not brindle cross. However, because of the way dogs reproduce (many eggs ovulated, somewhat less fertilized, somewhat less implanted, somewhat less brought to term) you are not going to get statistically perfect litters. I have seen litters where a dominant color, red carrying black and tan, was bred to a recessive black and tan, and all the pups were black and tan when there should have been red ones. The genetic cookie crumbles in strange ways. Quote: Years ago you could keep a lot more dogs than most can now, So if you did a lot of test breeding would you be able to get rid of the feathered gene ? I would think not unless you was very lucky as the recessive gene no mater how many breedings you do can still stay hidden, During the war years numbers of dogs would have been cut would that have helped in getting rid of the unwanted gene or stop it showing for a long time? For test breedings, you would breed a suspected carrier (say, a sibling of a feathered dog) to a definite carrier or a dog that is homozygous for the trait, so either a feathered dog or one who has produced feathered dogs in the past. It would be possible to eliminate a recessive this way BUT as you say, it could stay hidden for generations, and it would have to be an intensive, breed wide effort. Sloughi and Azawakh were both mainly imported into the West after WWII, so those breeds would not have seen a bottleneck during the war, but yes, the extreme reduction in numbers of dogs during the war could have worked to eliminate recessives. It certainly worked to eliminate genetic diversity in some breeds.



ohiovalley	Mar 12 2009, 08:06 PM Post #36
Advanced Member Posts: 172 Group: Members Member #154 Joined: August 19, 2008	So, what's the story with the Azawakh on the links???? Is it one breeder with 24 litters? If yes...then that's the example of a bottleneck alright! It seems they were actually striving for this Wiem look....were they??? Hideous to me...sorry. Though this sort of thing doesn't surprise me I was just wondering if I misunderstood the purpose of the links other than showing the color. ov



DeviodOvTalent	Mar 12 2009, 09:35 PM Post #37
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	ohiovalley Mar 12 2009, 08:06 PM So, what's the story with the Azawakh on the links???? Is it one breeder with 24 litters? If yes...then that's the example of a bottleneck alright! It seems they were actually striving for this Wiem look....were they??? Hideous to me...sorry. Though this sort of thing doesn't surprise me I was just wondering if I misunderstood the purpose of the links other than showing the color. ov I put up the links to illustrate the colors. And yes, that's one breeder. I don't know how closely those litters were bred, so cannot speak as to the genetics.



ohiovalley	Mar 14 2009, 03:37 PM Post #38
Advanced Member Posts: 172 Group: Members Member #154 Joined: August 19, 2008	My post and comment before Deviod's was premature really. Now I have looked through alot of the breeding and pedigrees. I was a little skeptical with so many litters, assuming, wrongly, that they must have been so linebred or without new blood, that the result and/or, the aim, was this. At least, according to the database, one of these blue eyed Azawakh has an aboriginal parent. But, I maintain, without having full disclosure of the history of the individual ('COO' or otherwise) I can't make any conclusion at all about the color of these blue/ blue eyed Azawakh, other than...it happens! (For me "COO" has to be more than a country of origin. How would a blue eyed dog do in it's native keeping? What would the traditional nomad/Bedouin/Tuareg hunter think of them?) ov



sloughi-r	Mar 15 2009, 06:51 PM Post #39
Advanced Member Posts: 33 Group: Members Member #211 Joined: March 8, 2009	saluqi Mar 11 2009, 08:10 PM No I'm not taking it personally :boxing: ,now stand still :hunterelma: its just the way i write :D . Some people who own lurchers want them standardized :Laugh: thats what comes with modern living and wanting something better than others, ring a bell :HMMMMM: do you think the owners in COO are immune to it? :lol1: Your first sentence really made me laugh! I dont think this is a case of people with Sloughis 'wanting something better', I just think they are passionate about their breed. Nothing wrong with that :)



sloughi-r	Mar 15 2009, 07:06 PM Post #40
Advanced Member Posts: 33 Group: Members Member #211 Joined: March 8, 2009	DeviodOvTalent Mar 10 2009, 06:22 PM Quote: Just FYI, this is a result of one of the two coated genes mutating back into the dominant smooth gene. It does happen, I know a feathered dog that produced a smooth with a feathered bitch here in the US. This is a rare occurrence. I have also seen in an SPDBS newsletter that one of these 'cropout' smooths was bred and produced feathered pups with a feathered mate, proving that only one of the coat genes had mutated. This is also how smooth Afghans pop up in the West. In Afghans at least, the smooth pups used to be culled because of questions of purity. Because smooth is a dominant, culling those pups kept the smooth gene out of the gene pool until the next mutation popped up. Brindle can skip generations or remain hidden, but it is NOT inherited as a simple recessive like feathering. Going slightly off topic, if the smooth gene in Afghans is dominant why is the long haired Afghan more common now? Is there a reason that the smooth Afghans were not wanted? This is a really interesting read, thank you Deviod :) The pictures of the dilute Azawakhs are great. The nutty woman in the SW of England who churned out Sloughis for 30 years also had a blue dog. Interesting that OV compares the blue Azawakh to the Weim as this is what I thought when I first saw this dog. Posted Image Unfortunately it's the only photo I have of him as he was pts by the RSPCA before we knew about him as he had severe fear aggression :no: From everything you say I wonder if he was part of the litter of black mantles - who also didnt look very Sloughi'ish (due to excessive inbreeding and this woman clearly not having a clue what she was doing) :thumbsdown:



saluqi	Mar 15 2009, 07:23 PM Post #41
Advanced Member Posts: 334 Group: Members Member #76 Joined: February 20, 2007 Gender: Male Location: England	I was reading one of the web sites about gypsy horses in America it had a part about the history of them in the UK , that made me to :lol1: , I havent read so much rubbish in a long time. Trouble is people lap it up and soon it becomes fact and no one knows the real truth. I think people no matter how passionate they are about what ever they keep they should take off their blinkers every once in a while



DeviodOvTalent	Mar 15 2009, 08:31 PM Post #42
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	ohiovalley Mar 14 2009, 03:37 PM My post and comment before Deviod's was premature really. Now I have looked through alot of the breeding and pedigrees. I was a little skeptical with so many litters, assuming, wrongly, that they must have been so linebred or without new blood, that the result and/or, the aim, was this. At least, according to the database, one of these blue eyed Azawakh has an aboriginal parent. But, I maintain, without having full disclosure of the history of the individual ('COO' or otherwise) I can't make any conclusion at all about the color of these blue/ blue eyed Azawakh, other than...it happens! (For me "COO" has to be more than a country of origin. How would a blue eyed dog do in it's native keeping? What would the traditional nomad/Bedouin/Tuareg hunter think of them?) ov There are blue COO Azawakh. Also light eyes. It's my understanding that the nomadic breeders would select one puppy, usually a male unless bitches were needed for continuation of the line, for the bitch to raise; the others were removed and exposed to the elements. The pup was picked at birth or shortly after, so eye color, hunting ability, etc. would not be evident at the that time. Fineness of bone was one of the criteria used to pick the surviving pup, I don't know about the rest.



DeviodOvTalent	Mar 15 2009, 08:58 PM Post #43
Queen of the Desert Posts: 488 Group: Members Member #71 Joined: January 25, 2007 Gender: Not Telling Location: USA	Quote: Going slightly off topic, if the smooth gene in Afghans is dominant why is the long haired Afghan more common now? Is there a reason that the smooth Afghans were not wanted? None of the Afghans initially imported into the UK were smooth. There were a pair of smooths gifted to the French president by the King of Afghanistan there were bred and produced smooths. There are smooths in Afghanistan, but the state of the breed there at this time is not anything to go by in regards to how the dogs were when the initial importations occurred regarding the number of smooths. The Afghani call the smooth dogs Laghars and from the description it sounds like they are of the desert type, rangier dogs, though I have seen pictures of smooths that were of the mountain type. The initial imports were of two distinct types, the rangier, more sparsely coated desert type and the heavier coated more compact mountain type. The breeders immediately started a war about which was the 'true' Afghan hound and instead of attempting to preserve or accept both types, the mountain type won out. NONE of the current Afghan hound standards have a provision for a smooth dog. Period. Because the vast majority of Afghans are bred for the show ring, it is considered 'not done' to breed a smooth, even though we KNOW that smooth is a valid type and that there are COO smooths. There is a breeder in Finland who has a gold colored smooth dog that she has bred and I imagine she took some serious heat for it. Unfortunately she did dual-sired litter and the only pup that was from the smooth male was coated (thus proving he is carrying the coated gene as a recessive.) Afghans in the west initially had a great variation in amount of coat and that is almost completely gone now; if you look at pictures of Crufts winners, you can see the amount of coat actually grow. By the time Crufts began again after WWII, breeding had gone away from patterned dogs. Even though we KNOW that there is a great variety of coats in COO Afghans, including dogs with NO topknot, heavily coated dogs are the 'norm' and other variations are not bred for. This is a pet peeve of mine. The genes for dilute color and light eyes go together (like Weims.) It is possible to selectively breed for darker eyes in dilute colored dogs, but kind of stupid and counter productive if you ask me, since they are genetically linked. It contracts the gene pool.


« Previous Topic · Other · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3