Resolved Question: pregnancy and medications?
I am not pregnant and I’m not sure we will be able to have another (not because of health reasons). We have 2 already. Our daughter is 6 (almost 7) and our son is 4. I have always wanted more. I have always seen 3 in our lives but financially our circumstances are pretty overwhelming and adding another would be…you know. HOWever…I still dream about one day having another…in the next few years hopefully if we can keep on top of our finances. My question is…I have been on wellbutrin SR (anti-depressant) for the last 3 years and Atenelol (a heart palpatation medication) for the last year–which has more to do with anxiety than anything, I have no known heart deformities or any other heart issues. What effects would these pills have on a baby say I do get pregnant. I would like to actually stop taking them at some point…for my own health reasons…I hate taking pills and if I can control my issues naturally I’d much rather do that. While pregnant with my first two…I was on zero medications and I have never been a smoker or a drinker…I was always in the best of health…so I’m pretty concerned about even wanting to try because of the medications I’ve been taking. Thanks!
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:46:29 GMT
Open Question: My penultimate question regarding lack of genetic diversity in dog breeds?
Okay, here goes. I’ve asked a few questions pertaining to this, but they quickly became muddled. I’m hoping to get it all down in a clear understandable way. This is ridiculously long, so I’m only expecting it to be read and responded to by breeders/people interested in breeding/people who belong to a KC. Since it’s so long, I’ve used “***” to mark parts where I’m talking about something I directly seek an answer to, and not just parts of my argument. Feel free to respond to whatever though.
I agree that professionals should be in charge of breeding. An understanding of genetics, and knowledge of the breed are not optional skills, they’re absolutely essential. Having said that, I can’t help but feel that breed standards are too strict, and too focused on the visual. This, combined with closed registries have led to a lack of genetic diversity in dog breeds.
Dog breeds do have a problem with a lack of genetic diversity. You can argue it, but it’s been shown in several studies. I will allow that some breeds are better than others in this department, but they all have a problem to some degree (even if it’s not very bad at all) with a lack of genetic diversity just due to the system of breeding and pedigrees that is in place.
I want to define inbreeding also, I feel it may become a point of confusion. I’m not talking about mother/son and father/daughter crosses exclusively. Although those do happen far too much. I’m talking about the system of closed registries where an entire breed can owe its parentage to only a handful of dogs.
The “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” documentary was based on research from the Imperial College of London. From their report, “The researchers’ analysis showed that, for example, Boxer dogs were so closely related to one another and had such little genetic variation between them that genetically, 20,000 dogs looked like a population of about 70. In the Rough Collie breed, 12,000 dogs looked in genetic terms like a population of about 50.” Again, I know some breeds are better than others here.
I think we can all agree that’s a problem, can we not? The only possible thing to do about it is to introduce new blood (not from a different line “new”, with different breeds new). I am not suggesting that suddenly BYB’s have a fantastic point of view, and should breed to their heart’s content. I am also not suggesting that a beagle/pug mix (for example) is going to have none of the problems of either breed due to “hybrid vigor”. I’m not under any such delusion.
***I do think though that there should be nothing wrong with a breeder of any breed introducing a mutt (mostly of the breed its going to be bred into, but not completely, say a 75% mix) into the line as long as the mutt conforms within reason to breed standards, has known parentage, has had health testing and excels at what the breed excels at. The breeds need this to happen if they’re going to continue for the next hundred, two hundred, or five hundred years, do they not?***
The odd fear of “mixed blood” contaminating a line is not backed up by science. Any geneticist will tell you that genetic diversity in a population is a very good thing.
***A very well versed and interesting poster on another of my questions pointed out to me that it’s possible to get a pedigree dog (of the same breed as the one you’re breeding it to) from a different country that is more genetically different than the dogs available to breed in the same country. In this way a breeder could end up with puppies more genetically different than if the breeder had found a match locally. If this is the case, and the genetic variation is indeed increased significantly, how are the results of the study by the Imperial College of London explained? Surely that can’t go on for an extended period of time before the populations become genetically more and more similar, can it?***
There is an argument that bring in new, mixed blood would introduce new diseases into the breed. It’s a fair point, but I’m not entirely convinced. I’m not convinced for two reasons. The first is that the scope of the problem with a lack of genetic diversity in breeds is such that it seems a reasonable risk to take in order to increase the genetic variation in the population. It seems an odd argument to me that in order to protect the breed, it must become more and more inbred.
The second is that even with the all the mutts that come as a result of unintentional breeding, idiots, and puppy mills, mutts live at least as long as purebreds, who have such care and health testing taken in their breeding. “The median lifespan of all dogs in the study, which included 20 breeds and mixed breeds, was ten years, reports Proschowsky. Mixed breeds managed to eke out an extra year, dying at a median age of eleven-years-old.” The study examined 3000 dog deaths.
***The question is, is it possible for a mutt to exist that conforms mostly to breed standar
***The question is, is it possible for a mutt to exist that conforms mostly to breed standards, excels at what the breed excels at, and is healthier than some dogs of that breed which are bred by breeders? The answer is, of course, yes, that dog can exist. Now tell me why it would not be a good, nay, essential thing for the breed to have it? Also tell me how doing this now is any different from when it was done originally to create the breed?***
Congratulations to anyone who got through that. My interest is purely for the well being of animals, and I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I know breeds to some people are a bit of a sacred cow, but I see no reason these things can’t be discussed in a thoughtful way.
Unstoppable, could you provide more detail? You didn’t really address anything I said. You may be right, but how can I ever know why if you don’t explain?
Unstoppable, I guess you’re not up for actually answering any of my questions? I’m happy to change my mind about something if I learn new information. You’re not providing any.
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:53:28 GMT
