Piebald
What is Wrong With White on a Dachshund?
Discussions about piebald in dachshunds charge on.
They were fueled most recently by proposed changes to the breed Standard by the DCA Board of Directors. The proposal to disqualify more than an inch of white on the chest was rescinded this month, properly, in my opinion, because a "small amount of white on the chest" should continue to be acceptable. Sometimes a small amount is more than an inch.
Nonetheless, the topic remains and the controversy continues. Like many dachshund people, I have read numerous public and private comments. They seem to boil down to three basic contentions.
1. What is wrong with white on a dachshund?
2. What is wrong with the people who oppose it?
3. Color is nothing compared with other issues facing the breed.
Arguments for and against piebald have been made repeatedly. My opposition to excessive white is nothing new and there are several reasons for it. But to me, the most important reason for opposing piebald is how the pattern is inherited. I feel strongly that our short-sightedness today will cost us heavily tomorrow. It is why I am putting my thoughts into this article.
Surprisingly, maybe, my comments begin with my experience with a breed characteristic other than color (or lack thereof). I am talking about voice and you will soon see why.
In the 1970s, when I became involved with dachshund and beagle field trials, I learned that voice in a beagle was not optional. Those who run beagles insist on it. Hunters need voice. They are benefited by it. I also learned, however, that voice in dachshunds was considered optional. Most dachshunds are not hunting, most dachshunds are not voicing, and at that time, very few dachshund breeders knew anything about voice. Essentially, therefore, silent trailing was accepted and proliferated through ignorance.
I was ignorant and accepted it, too. I accepted mute until the day I read - in the breed Standard - that "hunting voice" is a breed characteristic. After that, hunting voice, which in German is called "spurlaut," meaning "track loud," was added to all else worth breeding for. My thinking was, and is, that something deemed a breed characteristic should not be ignored! I set about to acquire trail voice and eliminate silent trailing in my dachshunds.
Genetics is never cut and dried but voice appears to be inherited in dominant fashion. Which means that voice is easy to get - and easy to lose. Mute is inherited as a recessive. Believe me when I say that I had years of difficulty in finding the "dominant" breed characteristic! Of course I was looking for it only in dachshunds that I felt were worth breeding to, meaning the so-called well-bred dachshunds. Well-bred standard longhairs to be precise. Literally, I looked all over the country! But mute proved itself a very active recessive. It had accomplished a virtual take over in the population of American dachshunds and not just standard longhairs.
I did discover a well-bred standard long male in a pet home in Ohio who voiced on game but he had been neutered. I found another one, a Dual Champion in California, but he was hypothyroid and was on daily thyroid medication. Another voicing male lived with the son of a prominent standard long breeder in North Carolina, but that male had also been neutered.
Finally and with considerable good fortune, I located a good spurlaut Dual Champion male on Long Island. I used him twice. Since then, I have had to search and literally go overseas to find standard longhairs who express the breed characteristic hunting voice. To find, that is, the dominant trait.
I will grant you, then, that I may be more sensitive on the subject of an unwanted recessive.
What does this have to do with piebald? Well, self-coloration (reds, black & tans etc), like voice, is a dominant trait. Piebald, like mute, is recessive. Recessives are quietly carried. They lurk.
My question for everyone is: Do we truly want to encourage the proliferation of piebald white throughout the US dachshund population? (It is an Eliminating Fault in the FCI Standard.)
Again, does it matter? Is it important?
Recently, it was brought to our attention by a piebald breeder that being able to tell piebald from double dapple - with a view toward accepting piebald, that is - is just a matter of continuing education.
I am in agreement on the education part. But let us keep our focus on the subject at hand. The subject is piebald. Consider the following statements and ask yourself if it matters.
White hair occurs when skin cells are unable to produce any pigment.
http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/white.htm
White is considered a pattern not a color. This pattern could also be called Absence of Color, because when the animal carries this pattern gene, it turns off all of the color-producing cells in the hair (wool) follicles. In other words, this white pattern gene nullifies the basic color gene.
A Mendelian Interpretation of Jacob’s Sheep by J. D. Pearson
In technical terms, pigment "migrates" to different parts of the body during the development of the embryo, and the S gene determines how far the pigment migrates. Piebald (spsp) usually produces a coloured head (with or without white on the muzzle and as a blaze), and patches on the body. Generally the base of the tail is coloured, but other than that the patches may be located anywhere on the body (but rarely on the legs). Because piebald is a recessive gene and heterozygotes (piebald carriers) don't always have any white markings, it can remain hidden and pop up unexpectedly.
http://www.doggenetics.co.uk/white.htm
A piebald or pied animal is one that has a spotting pattern of large unpigmented, usually white, areas of hair, feathers, or scales and normally pigmented patches. Animals with this pattern may include horses, dogs, birds, cats, pigs, and cattle, as well as snakes such as the ball python. The underlying genetic cause is related to a condition known as leucism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piebald
Leucism is a general term for the phenotype resulting from defects in pigment cell differentiation and/or migration from the neural crest to skin, hair, or feathers during development. This results in either the entire surface (if all pigment cells fail to develop) or patches of body surface (if only a subset are defective) having a lack of cells capable of making pigment.
More common than a complete absence of pigment cells is localized or incomplete hypopigmentation, resulting in irregular patches of white on an animal that otherwise has normal colouring and patterning. This partial leucism is known as a "pied" or "piebald" effect; and the ratio of white to normal-coloured skin can vary considerably not only between generations, but between different offspring from the same parents, and even between members of the same litter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucism
It is an ongoing debate among breeders of other breeds as well.
Piebald Mastiffs, anyone?
Piebald Mastiffs, anyone?
The Willshires already knew that the recessive piebald gene - although rare - has always been in the breed. Consequently, the Willshires felt that their pied pups had every right to be recognised as Mastiffs. As the Wisdom Panel result below shows, their pups were indubitably purebred. So instead of culling them, as some suggested, they have started a campaign to have the colour accepted in the breed.
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2013/12/pied-pipers-and-blot-on-fancys-landscape.html
"Some minor Antipodean breeder, whether by accident or design, have landed themselves with pied dogs and seeks to change our Breed standard to legitimise and justify their actions."
http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2013/12/pied-pipers-and-blot-on-fancys-landscape.html
Here is a picture of a beautiful young dog, Kodiak, 2 years old. Sent for publication by Gloria Davis (this was one of her dogs). He was out of CH Pax River Dozer by Sidetrack and her bitch Emily - there were seven puppies. Five pieds and two fawns. Both parents were fawn.
http://www.worldmastiffforum.com/post/pied-mastiffs-1264765?&trail=400
Most Breeders at the time in history knew Pax River Dozer threw a tremendous amount of white--the ones that used him were going for size and they thought they could control the white, and even today when someone asks where did this white come from --I ask is PR Dozer in your ped--it usually is--He also threw many litters of Pieds.
http://www.worldmastiffforum.com/post/pied-mastiffs-1264765?&trail=400
Pieds are in lines worldwide. Just as are other undesirable things. White can pop up when you least expect it. It could come from way, way back. Again, just traits that find their way forward.
http://www.worldmastiffforum.com/post/pied-mastiffs-1264765?&trail=400
How about piebald Great Danes?
Piebald danes increase the percentage of mismarks & piebald carriers in every breeding in which they are used, and this decreases the number of correctly marked Danes in the gene pool, particularly down through the generations, and also results in the spread of this undesirable gene.
http://www.chromadane.com/index.php/en/chromalinx/89-great-dane-specific-coat-color-info/122-the-piebald-dane-pinto-parti-colored-check-the-colour-headed-or-white-factored-dane-der-plattenhund
Still unconvinced breeding outright piebalds brings mostly bad news? Here's a simple example of why this IS a problem for the breeder & the breed, using a piebald bitch as an example. She carries two doses of what is called excessive white or piebald (that makes her a piebald (mmss)). She is bred to a correctly marked Harlequin male. She produces from him 2 correctly marked harls, 2 correctly marked mantles, 2 boston-marked merles, a piebald like herself, and a "merlikin" (who is actually a merle piebald). Not a bad litter you say? Four show-marked pups to start with, for a harl litter, is really good. Here's the problem: *ALL* four of those pups are now white-factored. They may be show-marked, but they are carriers of white-factoring, and this has gone unrecorded. So they are sold and bred. Let's say they are all bred to other correctly marked, white-factored danes like themselves.
Now what happens? You lose show prospects each time you breed them & keep spreading white-factoring through the gene pool. White-factored to white-factored means 25% of the resulting pups will lack body color, & 2 of 3 correctly marked dogs will be "carriers" like themselves. And so on...and so on...and the genes for piebald are spread.
Piebald potentially damages the gene pool. And thanks to the recessive nature of the piebald spotting allele, these piebald Danes go unrecognised & continue to be bred by folks unaware of the far-reaching consequences, and so it looks like the piebald is here to stay, and may well be increasing in frequency.
http://www.chromadane.com/index.php/en/chromalinx/89-great-dane-specific-coat-color-info/122-the- piebald-dane-pinto-parti-colored-check-the-colour-headed-or-white-factored-dane-der-plattenhund
So, what about increasing in frequency? Is piebald increasing in frequency among dachshunds? Do you remember the first time you saw a piebald dachshund? I do. And I remember my reaction. And the reactions of many others at that time and place, too. Double and triple takes and from some long-time dachshund people.
20 years later, piebalds are everywhere. We see them in magazine articles and advertisements. We see them all over the internet. We see them at every kind of dachshund competition. We see them in the DCA magazine. Two dachshunds live at a residence in New Lexington, Ohio (county seat, population 4500) where I bank, and one of them is piebald. There is a new veterinary practice in Zanesville, Ohio where I work. Several large photo screens cover the windows. Among the breeds pictured is a dachshund and it is piebald. What was rare has become, in only two decades, quite common.
So, back to the question. Is the increased popularity of piebald a benign entity? Que sera sera? As you prefer? If you don't mind piebalds being the future majority in the US, okay.
But what about all the rest of us? The intolerant arrogant elitist snobs? (I prefer rational, logical traditionalist myself.) What about the many dachshund breeders who do not wish for the piebald recessive to become "normal" or, worse, "ideal." As quoted above, more and more piebalds leads to more and more piebald carriers, too. Breed a dog from solid color genetics to a piebald or piebald carrier and you are introducing piebald carriers to a line that did not have them before. Breed piebald carrier to piebald carrier and you get piebalds - and more piebald carriers.
Might the solid-color breeder eventually have to go overseas to find dogs to breed to? Do you think I am exaggerating? Well, I certainly was not exaggerating about having to go overseas to find voicing dogs to breed to. It is because we Americans in all of our tolerance, actually our complacency and yes, even our ignorance, were not paying attention.
And permitted a recessive not characteristic of our breed to proliferate among our dogs.
We already have divisions of coat and size. These divisions considerably reduce the availability of dogs to breed to, at least for all of us particular about what we want in the whelping box. Do we want to add what amounts to a color division on top of it?
I don't.
Most breeders and judges today are already asserting that size (in an earth dog!) is irrelevant. Shall color become irrelevant, too? After that, what's next?
20 years later, piebalds are everywhere. We see them in magazine articles and advertisements. We see them all over the internet. We see them at every kind of dachshund competition. We see them in the DCA magazine. Two dachshunds live at a residence in New Lexington, Ohio (county seat, population 4500) where I bank, and one of them is piebald. There is a new veterinary practice in Zanesville, Ohio where I work. Several large photo screens cover the windows. Among the breeds pictured is a dachshund and it is piebald. What was rare has become, in only two decades, quite common.
So, back to the question. Is the increased popularity of piebald a benign entity? Que sera sera? As you prefer? If you don't mind piebalds being the future majority in the US, okay.
But what about all the rest of us? The intolerant arrogant elitist snobs? (I prefer rational, logical traditionalist myself.) What about the many dachshund breeders who do not wish for the piebald recessive to become "normal" or, worse, "ideal." As quoted above, more and more piebalds leads to more and more piebald carriers, too. Breed a dog from solid color genetics to a piebald or piebald carrier and you are introducing piebald carriers to a line that did not have them before. Breed piebald carrier to piebald carrier and you get piebalds - and more piebald carriers.
Might the solid-color breeder eventually have to go overseas to find dogs to breed to? Do you think I am exaggerating? Well, I certainly was not exaggerating about having to go overseas to find voicing dogs to breed to. It is because we Americans in all of our tolerance, actually our complacency and yes, even our ignorance, were not paying attention.
And permitted a recessive not characteristic of our breed to proliferate among our dogs.
We already have divisions of coat and size. These divisions considerably reduce the availability of dogs to breed to, at least for all of us particular about what we want in the whelping box. Do we want to add what amounts to a color division on top of it?
I don't.
Most breeders and judges today are already asserting that size (in an earth dog!) is irrelevant. Shall color become irrelevant, too? After that, what's next?
What would many breeds of dogs look like today if their founders and breeders had not selected against white?
I will close with this from Canadian Miniature Schnauzer breeder Catherine McMillan:
I will close with this from Canadian Miniature Schnauzer breeder Catherine McMillan:
If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything.
Put another way, are we committed to our breed Standards? Or are we divorcing ourselves from them?
Patricia Nance
January 27, 2014