1. science
2. biology
3. breeding

E XECUTIVE SUMMAR Y
Pedigree dog breeding in the UK:
a major welfare concern?
by Dr Nicola Rooney and Dr David Sargan
with contributions from Dr Matthew Pead, Dr Carri Westgarth,
Dr Emma Creighton and Dr Nick Branson.
the executive summary of an independent scientific report
commissioned by the RSPCA
1. Purpose and scope of the report
This is a summary of an independent report, which was commissioned by the RSPCA in order to help
inform all those committed to protecting and improving the welfare of pedigree dogs.
It addresses the impact on pedigree dog welfare of traditional selective breeding practices.
Specifically, it focuses on welfare issues associated with exaggerated anatomical features and inherited
disease. Whilst conclusions are centred on the specific situation in the UK, the report reviews what is
well recognised as an international problem.
As an independent report, its contents are the findings, views and conclusions of its authors and
contributors, who are recognised experts in the fields of animal welfare science, genetics, epidemiology
and veterinary science. It contains a review of the scientific literature and proposes, in brief, possible ways
forward to improve the welfare of pedigree dogs.
The RSPCA is firmly committed to helping protect the welfare of dogs and recognises that solving
the welfare problems associated with exaggerated anatomical features and inherited disease presents
a very complex challenge. It hopes that this report will be seen as a constructive contribution to the
current debate into the welfare of pedigree dogs and that it will help stimulate and focus essential wider
discussion amongst all relevant stakeholders in order to identify and implement practical, evidencebased, effective solutions.
The full report contains 193 references and can be downloaded from the RSPCA website at:
www.rspca.org,uk/pedigreedogs.
2. The problem and its cause
Many pedigree dogs remain healthy for much of their lives, yet there can be no doubt that numerous dogs
of many different breeds experience compromised welfare due to the effects of selective breeding practices.
Pedigree dogs appearing in shows are required to conform to written breed standards (or
specifications) owned by the Kennel Club and derived in consultation with breed societies. As a result, in
many breeds, specific physical attributes have been selected for preferentially, with a corresponding lack
of attention to health, temperament, welfare and functionality. These trends created in the minority show
dog population also directly affect these breeds in the pet-dog population.
Some breeds have anatomical features which can result in disability, behavioural problems or
pain, and thereby unnecessary suffering (section 3), and many breeds have high rates of diseases with
hereditary causes (section 4).
Amongst many examples given in this report, and others not reported here, there are breeds which
are regularly bred with heads too large to birth naturally, whose faces are so flat that they will not be able
to breath or exercise normally or which carry great risks of early heart disease or cancer.
3. Welfare Issue 1 – Exaggerated anatomical
features that reduce quality of life
Breeding to accentuate specific physical traits is unlikely to be
problematic when performed in moderation. However, when
emphasised to extreme, the direct effect of selection for exaggerated
anatomy can severely compromise a dog’s welfare (section 3 of full
report). In some cases, physical features have been exaggerated to
such an extent that that they restrict a dog’s natural behaviour, or
even cause pain and suffering, and thereby severely limit the dog’s
quality of life. Society has become “desensitised to [these] welfare
issues” (Arman 2007).
The UK Kennel Club has recently acknowledged the presence
and danger of breeding for extreme morphology. They have a
documented health and welfare strategy described in their annual
report (The Kennel Club 2008), and numerous new (and welcome)
initiatives intended to combat the problem. However, a strong case
can be made that there are many breeds whose current anatomies
raise serious welfare concerns. Whilst physical attributes continue to
dominate the breed standards, with less mention of health, welfare
or temperament, this is likely to continue. This situation needs to be
addressed as a matter of continued urgency.
4. Welfare Issue 2 – Increased prevalence of
inherited disorders
A breed is by definition a genetically-restricted subset of the gene
pool of a species, so breed-related diseases are often genetically
driven. Selective breeding for appearance has reduced genetic
diversity, thereby indirectly resulting in elevated prevalence of specific
diseases within particular breeds (section 4 of full report). Coupled
with insufficient selection towards improving health, temperament
and welfare, this has led to certain breeds becoming especially
susceptible to a whole suite of disorders, many of which are acutely
painful or chronically debilitating.
Most breeds began from a relatively small number of individuals,
which were mated together to accentuate traits perceived as
desirable. In an attempt to preserve and improve these traits,
pedigree dog registration rules normally ban out-crossing (breeding
with another breed). Hence dog breeds each represent a closed
gene pool. This has resulted in dog breed populations in which the
amount of genetic diversity is rather low and more genetic material
continues to be lost with each generation (Calboli et al 2008).
In most or all dog breeds, any two individuals in the breed are
related to some degree at the genetic level, and there is an increased
chance of inherited disorders being manifest in their offspring when
compared with unrelated animals. In fact, parts of the genome (genetic
material of the animal) have such low genetic diversity that they
display complete uniformity within the breed. Therefore it is difficult to
eliminate problems or diseases stemming from these regions of the
genome, without breeding to members of another breed.
Today these problems continue. Many breeders now understand
the need to avoid inbreeding of very close relatives, but often do
not look far enough for common ancestry. Unfortunately, some
breeders still do inbreed or select breeding partners only from a sub1
population of the entire breed as they strive for specific features as
laid down in the breed standards. Additionally, the over-use of very
popular champion sires means that any genetic diseases which they
carry can very rapidly become widely distributed in the breed. These
practices exasperate the problem of elevated disease incidence
within specific breeds, and there are currently no regulations or
legislation specifically aimed at controlling these practices in the UK1.
5. How serious is the problem?
Limited record keeping, lack of transparency in the breeding and
showing world, and the absence of sufficient research, mean that the
full extent of the problem is difficult to assess. Collection of disease
prevalence data is currently unsystematic, and relatively few specific
case studies of individual breeds or particular disorders have been
conducted in the UK.
However, problems associated with pedigree dog breeding have
been identified as a serious welfare concern (CAWC 2006) because:
they affect large numbers of dogs; there are approximately five
million pure bred dogs in the UK, representing 75% of the overall
dog population (PFMA: 2008),
they perpetuate from generation to generation,
animals’ quality of life can be severely reduced,
the effects can be long lasting, even in some cases for the entirety
of an animal’s life,
dogs of specific breeds are born with a high likelihood that they
will not be granted at least one of the five freedoms, a generally
accepted way of assessing animal welfare (FAWC 1992). Dogs
may suffer discomfort and be prevented from behaving normally
without likely injury, and/or have a high likelihood of developing
a disease that can lead to pain, fear and distress.
Most dog breeding is a hobby conducted by “dog lovers”, rather than
truly utilitarian. Much of the suffering which some pedigree dogs
endure could be avoidable with revised breeding practices. Human
control of breeding has contributed to the problem. For these
reasons, society has a strong moral obligation to solve this problem.
•
•
•
•
•
6. What has already been done and how successful
has it been?
The Kennel Club and many veterinary scientists have been very
aware of these heritable disease problems, and so have tried to
develop programmes to assist breeders in identifying dogs at risk,
and to reduce the incidence of inherited diseases. Clinically based
surveillance schemes for joint and eye health have more recently
been supplemented with DNA based testing for particular mutant
genes (section four of full report).
For the past thirty years, the significant impact of hip and
elbow dysplasia on a large proportion of the dog population has
driven efforts towards countering these problems. But review of
evidence from the current dedicated BVA/Kennel Club scheme,
suggests that progress has been slow. The scheme cannot provide
representative data for many breeds because the proportion of dogs
screened is very small and participants are self selecting. The true
prevalence of hip dysplasia in the bulk of the UK dog population,
Note: as the report was going to press, the UK Kennel Club announced that it will not register puppies that are born from any mother/son, father/daughter or brother/sister mating,
taking place on or after 1st March 2009.
and whether there is any progress in reducing it, remains unknown.
DNA based tests have been developed for more than 50
inherited diseases. DNA based testing has many strengths and great
potential for genetically simple disorders. However, the system is
presently open to abuse by dishonest owners (substituting samples
from one dog for another), and has limited reach into more complex
diseases. The development of additional genetic markers holds
great potential value, but significant time delays and costs mean
that it cannot be viewed as the sole solution to current problems in
pedigree dog breeding.
The UK dog breeding and showing industry is essentially selfregulating, with the Kennel Club effectively having a near monopoly
on registering pedigree dogs. Breed standards have traditionally
been developed between the Kennel Club and individual breed
clubs/societies. These societies vary in the initiatives they have taken
to try to preserve and improve the health and welfare of their breed,
and some are certainly diligent. However, many breed societies still
show reluctance to acknowledge or publicly admit the common
problems within their breed. A more consistent approach in which
individual breed societies do not operate autonomously is needed.
Recommended screening programmes are in place for many
breeds, but these are nearly all non-compulsory and inevitably
incomplete, as tests are only available for a portion of the inherited
diseases identified. In 2004, The Kennel Club introduced an
accreditation system for breeders which lists “required” and
“recommended” tests for specific breeds. Although popular, this
scheme is voluntary and inconsistencies in the tests advised need to
be addressed to allow it to achieve its full potential.
7. Possible ways forward
The situation is complex, with many stakeholders and numerous
plausible courses of action. Each breed has its own array of
problems and so there is no single solution. From research findings,
past reports and discussions with prominent experts in the field, the
authors compiled a list of 36 distinct actions which have all been
posed as possible routes forward. Then based on a survey of twenty
experts in the fields of dog welfare, genetics, veterinary science,
and practising veterinarians, the authors derived fourteen actions
believed to hold the greatest potential value for improving pedigree
dog welfare. These are listed below and discussed further in section
5 of the full report2.
1. Systematic collection of morbidity (disease) and mortality
(cause of death) data from all dogs.
2. Revision of registration rules to prevent the registration of
the offspring of any mating between first-degree and seconddegree relatives (e.g. parent and offspring, two siblings,
grandparent and offspring or half siblings).
3. Open stud books to allow more frequent introduction of new
genetic material into established breeds.
4. Setting up systems to monitor the effectiveness of any
interventions and changes in breeding strategies.
5. Conducting a full ethical review of the health and welfare of
current breeds. This could inform decisions, such as to enforce
2
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13,
14.
rapid out-crossing or (as suggested by some), in extreme cases
even to phase out specific breeds.
Development of detailed management plans for each breed.
Refinement of diagnostic tests and DNA markers for inherited
disorders.
Increase genetic diversity by encouraging importation and intercountry matings, especially in numerically-small breeds.
Make registration of pedigree dogs conditional upon both
parents undergoing compulsory screening tests for prioritised
disorders.
Introduction of Codes of Practice that encourage breeders to
consider health, temperament and welfare.
Training and accreditation of judges to prioritise heath, welfare
and behaviour in the show ring.
Creating and fostering in the public, the image of a happy and
desirable dog as one that experiences high welfare.
Formulation of an independent panel of experts from multiple
disciplines to facilitate dialogue and drive positive action by all
stakeholders.
Development of schemes for calculating Estimated Breeding
Values (EBVs) for disorders influenced by genetic factors. The
EBV of an animal for any trait predicts the average performance
of its offspring for that trait.
8. In conclusion
To date, breeding practices and efforts by breed societies and kennel
clubs have been ineffective at protecting the welfare of many breeds
of domestic dog. Therefore, to safeguard the future of pedigree
dogs, changes in breeding practice are urgently required, and for
some breeds more drastic measures will be needed. All members of
society, and in particular all those who benefit from pedigree dogs,
have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure that every action is
taken to attempt to rectify the problem and to increase the health
and welfare of future generations of pedigree dogs.
To maximise progress at improving the welfare of pedigree dogs,
it is vital to engage all stakeholder groups and to consider both the
direct as well as the indirect effects of breeding practices. Change will
most quickly come about through a concerted approach in which
actions are coordinated and complementary. However, the most
important element is to ensure that all stakeholder groups buy into
the process and fully support the action(s) they need to take. This is
the challenge that lies ahead.
References
Arman K. 2007 Animal Welfare Bien-etres des animaux, A new direction for kennel club
regulations and breed standards. Canadian Veterinary Journal 48: 953-965.
Calboli FCF, Sampson J, Fretwell N and Balding DJ. 2008. Population structure and
inbreeding from pedigree analysis of purebred dogs. Genetics 179(1): 593-601.
Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). 2006 Breeding and Welfare in Companion
Animals. The Companion Animal Welfare Council’s Report on Welfare Aspects of
Modifications, through Selective Breeding or Biotechnological Methods, to the Form,
Function or Behaviour of Companion Animals.
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). 1992 FAWC updates the five freedoms.
The Veterinary Record 13: 357.
PFMA (Pet Food Manufacturer’s Association). 2008 http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/petstatistics.htm Accessed on 11/01/09.
The Kennel Club. 2008 Annual Report 2007/2008. http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/
download/4427/annrep0708.pdf. Accessed 11/01/09.
These actions are summarised here but the full text as presented to the respondents can be found in the full report. There are a further 17 recommendations described in the report
which may also prove valuable.
Dr Nicola Rooney (BSc PGCE PhD) is a Research
Associate at the University of Bristol. She has a
PhD in dog behaviour and for the past nine years
has managed a research programme on working
dog ability and welfare.
Dr David Sargan (MA PhD) is a senior lecturer at
the University of Cambridge Veterinary School, and
a comparative geneticist with special interests in
canine genetic diseases. He curates the database
Inherited Diseases in Dogs, and has produced a
number of DNA based tests for canine inherited
diseases.
Dr. Matthew Pead (BVetMed PhD CertSAO FHEA
MRCVS) is a Senior Lecturer in Surgery at the Royal
Veterinary College. He has over 15 years experience
in treating bone and joint conditions in pedigree
dogs. He was part of the team that set up the
British Veterinary Association (BVA)/Kennel Club
(KC) elbow screening scheme, and is focused on
canine welfare through teaching future veterinary
surgeons and as a trustee of Battersea Dogs and
Cats Home.
Dr Carri Westgarth (BSc PhD) is a Research
Associate at Liverpool University. She has a BSc
in Zoology and Genetics, and a PhD in Veterinary
Epidemiology. She has previously trained Hearing
Dogs for Deaf People, and currently works as a
Consultant in Animal Behaviour, instructs dog
training classes, lectures, and carries out postdoctoral research into the human-companion
animal bond.
Dr Emma Creighton (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer
in Animal Behaviour and Welfare at the University
of Chester, and specialises in human-animal
interactions and the welfare of companion
animal species.
Dr Nick Branson (BVSC PhD) is the animal
welfare officer at Deakin University in Australia.
He completed a doctorate by research in applied
canine behaviour and neuroscience and has spent
over ten years in private veterinary practice.
The following experts gave their time and expertise to help direct the recommendations in this report:3
Welfare experts
John Bradshaw (BA, PhD)
Ralph Merrill (BSc, MSc, PhD)
Deborah Wells (BA, PhD, PGChET, C.Psychol) Senior Lecturer,
Queen’s University Belfast.
Stephen Wickens (BSc, PhD) Development Officer,
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
University-based veterinary specialists
Jon Bowen (BVetMed, MRCVS, DipAS(CABC)) Behavioural
Medicine Referral Service, RVC
Nick Jeffery (BVSc, PhD, CertSAO, DECVS, DECVN, FRCVS,
DSAS(ST)) Professor of Veterinary Clinical Studies
Paul McGreevy (BCVSc, MRVS, PhD, MAVSc) Assistant
Professor, University of Sydney
Daniel Mills (BVSc, PhD, CCAB, CBiol, MIBiol, Dip ECVBMCA, MRCVS) Professor of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine,
University of Lincoln
Karen Overall (MA, VMD, PhD, Diplomate ACVB, CAAB)
Research Associate, Center for Neurobiology and Behavior,
University of Pennsylvania
Genetics experts
Sarah Blott (BSc, MSc, PhD) Senior Research Geneticist,
Animal Health Trust
Frank Nicholas (BScAgr, PhD) Emeritus Professor of Animal
Genetics, University of Sydney
John Burchard (PhD) Semi-retired Biology Professor,
Princeton USA
Two anonymous contributors
Practising veterinary surgeons
Alison Blaxter (BA, DipCABC, PhD, BVM&S, MRCVS)
Harvey Carruthers (BVMS, MBA)
George Grieve (BVM&S, MRCVS)
Clare Rusbridge (BVMS, PhD, DECVN, MRCVS, RCVS
European Specialist in Neurology)
Nikianna Nicholas (BVSc, MRCVS)
One anonymous respondent
RSPCA commissioning team
Mark Evans (BVetMed, MRCVS) Chief Veterinary Adviser
Claire Calder (BSc, MSc) Scientific Officer
The full report can be downloaded at:
www.rspca.org.uk/pedigreedogs
3
Respondents only contributed to the average ratings presented and hence
individuals do not necessarily endorse the views expressed in this report
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS
02.09
cr y n o deb g we i t h red o l
Magu cŵn pedigri yn y DU:
pryder gwirioneddol am les?
gan Dr Nicola Rooney a Dr David Sargan
gyda chyfraniadau gan Dr Matthew Pead, Dr Carri Westgarth,
Dr Emma Creighton a Dr Nick Branson.
crynodeb gweithredol o adroddiad gwyddonol annibynnol
a gomisiynwyd gan yr RSPCA
1. Pwrpas a chwmpas yr adroddiad
Dyma grynodeb o adroddiad annibynnol, a gomisiynwyd gan yr RSPCA er mwyn helpu i hysbysu pawb sydd
wedi ymroi i warchod a gwella lles cŵn pedigri.
Mae’n mynd i’r afael ag effaith arferion bridio dethol traddodiadol ar les cŵn pedigri. Yn benodol, mae’n
rhoi sylw i faterion lles sy’n gysylltiedig â nodweddion anatomegol chwyddedig ac afiechydon etifeddol. Tra
mae’r canlyniadau wedi eu seilio ar sefyllfa benodol y DU, mae’r adroddiad yn adolygu problem sy’n amlwg iawn
yn un rhyngwladol.
Fel adroddiad annibynnol, ceir ynddo ddarganfyddiadau, barn a chanlyniadau gan yr awduron a’r
cyfranogwyr, a’r rheiny’n arbenigwyr cydnabyddedig ym meysydd gwyddoniaeth lles anifeiliaid, geneteg,
epidemioleg a gwyddoniaeth filfeddygol. Mae’n cynnwys adolygiad o’r llenyddiaeth wyddonol ac mae’n cynnig,
yn fyr, ffyrdd ymlaen er mwyn gwella lles cŵn pedigri.
Mae’r RSPCA yn gwbl ymrwymedig i helpu i warchod lles cŵn ac yn cydnabod fod datrys y problemau lles
sy’n ymwneud â nodweddion anatomegol chwyddedig ac afiechydon etifeddol yn gosod her gymhleth iawn.
Mae'n gobeithio y bydd yr adroddiad hwn yn cael ei weld fel cyfraniad adeiladol i’r ddadl gyfredol ynglŷn
â lles cŵn pedigri ac y bydd o gymorth i ysgogi a bod yn ffocws i drafodaeth ehangach hanfodol rhwng yr
holl randdeiliaid perthnasol, er mwyn nodi a gweithredu atebion ymarferol, effeithiol a rhai sy’n seiliedig ar
dystiolaeth.
Mae’r adroddiad llawn yn cynnwys 193 o gyfeiriadau a gellir ei lawr lwytho o wefan yr RSPCA:
www.rspca.org,uk/pedigreedogs.
2. Y broblem a gwraidd yr achos
Mae nifer o gŵn pedigri yn aros yn iach am ran helaethaf eu bywydau, ond ni ellir gwadu bod lles nifer o gŵn o
sawl brîd gwahanol dan fygythiad o ganlyniad i effeithiau arferion bridio dethol.
Mae’n ofynnol i gŵn pedigri sy’n ymddangos mewn sioeau gydymffurfio â safonau (neu fanylion) brîd
ysgrifenedig sy’n eiddo i’r Kennel Club ac sydd wedi deillio drwy ymgynghoriad â chymdeithasau bridiau. O
ganlyniad, mewn sawl brîd, mae nodweddion corfforol penodol wedi eu dewis a’u ffafrio, ac yn yr un modd,
mae diffyg sylw i iechyd, natur, lles a swyddogaeth. Mae’r tueddiadau hyn a grëwyd ymysg poblogaeth leiafrifol
y cŵn arddangos wedi cael effaith uniongyrchol hefyd ar y bridiau hyn ymysg poblogaeth y cŵn anwes.
Mae gan rai bridiau nodweddion anatomegol a all arwain at anabledd, problemau ymddygiad neu boen, a
thrwy hynny ddioddef diangen (adran 3), ac mae gan sawl brîd gyfraddau uchel o afiechydon sydd ag achosion
etifeddol (adran 4).
Ymysg nifer o enghreifftiau yn yr adroddiad hwn, ac eraill na sonnir amdanynt yma, ceir bridiau sy’n cael
eu magu’n rheolaidd â phennau rhy fawr i’w geni’n naturiol, wynebau sydd mor fflat fel na allant anadlu nac
ymarfer yn naturiol neu sydd mewn perygl mawr o ddioddef afiechyd calon cynnar neu ganser.
3. Mater Lles 1 – Nodweddion anatomegol chwyddedig
sy’n lleihau ansawdd bywyd
Nid yw’n debygol y bydd bridio er mwyn amlygu nodweddion corfforol
penodol yn peri trafferthion o’i wneud mewn cymedroldeb. Fodd bynnag,
o roi pwyslais eithafol arno, gall effaith uniongyrchol dethol ar gyfer
anatomeg chwyddedig beryglu lles ci yn ddifrifol (adran 3 o’r adroddiad
llawn). Mewn rhai achosion, mae nodweddion corfforol wedi eu chwyddo i’r
fath raddau nes eu bod yn cyfyngu ar ymddygiad naturiol ci, neu hyd yn oed
yn peri poen a dioddefaint, ac o’r herwydd yn cyfyngu’n ddifrifol ar ansawdd
bywyd y ci. Mae cymdeithas wedi tyfu’n “ansensitif i’r materion lles [hyn]”
(Arman 2007).
Yn ddiweddar, mae Kennel Club y DU wedi cydnabod bodolaeth a
pherygl bridio er mwyn morffoleg eithafol. Mae ganddynt strategaeth
iechyd a lles a ddisgrifir yn fanwl yn eu hadroddiad blynyddol (The Kennel
Club 2008), a nifer o fentrau newydd (a groesewir) er mwyn mynd i’r afael
â’r broblem. Gellir dwyn achos cryf, fodd bynnag, gan fod nifer o fridiau y
mae eu hanatomeg bresennol yn peri gofid difrifol ynglŷn â’u lles. Tra bo
nodweddion corfforol yn parhau i fynnu sylw safonau’r bridiau, a thra bo llai
o sôn am iechyd, lles neu natur, mae hyn yn debygol o barhau. Mae angen
parhau i fynd i’r afael â'r sefyllfa hon ar fyrder.
4. Mater lles 2 – Cynnydd yng nghyffredinrwydd
anhwylderau etifeddol
Diffinnir brîd fel is-set sydd wedi ei chyfyngu’n enetig o bwll genynnau
rhywogaeth, felly mae afiechydon sy’n perthyn i frîd yn aml wedi eu
sbarduno gan eneteg. Mae bridio dethol er mwyn ymddangosiad wedi
lleihau amrywiaeth geneteg gan arwain naill ai'n uniongyrchol neu'n
anuniongyrchol at gynnydd yng nghyffredinrwydd afiechydon penodol
o fewn bridiau arbennig (adran 4 o’r adroddiad llawn). Ynghyd â dethol
annigonol er mwyn gwella iechyd, natur a lles, mae hyn wedi arwain
at wneud rhai bridiau yn dueddol iawn o ddioddef o amrediad cyfan o
anhwylderau, a nifer ohonynt yn boenus iawn neu’n achosi llesgedd cronig.
Cychwynnodd y rhan fwyaf o fridiau o nifer cymharol fychan o
unigolion, a gafodd eu paru gyda'i gilydd er mwyn amlygu nodweddion a
oedd yn cael eu hystyried yn rhai dymunol. Er mwyn ceisio cadw a gwella’r
nodweddion hyn, mae rheolau cofrestru cŵn pedigri fel arfer yn gwahardd
all-groesi (bridio gyda brîd arall). Felly, mae pob brîd o gŵn yn cynrychioli
pwll caeedig o enynnau. Arweiniodd hyn at boblogaethau o fridiau cŵn lle
mae nifer yr amrywiaeth genetig braidd yn isel, ac mae mwy o ddeunydd
genetig yn parhau i gael ei golli gyda phob cenhedlaeth (Caboli et al 2008).
Yn y rhan fwyaf o fridiau cŵn neu ym mhob un, mae unrhyw ddau
unigolyn yn y brîd yn perthyn i ryw raddau ar y lefel enynnol, ac mae mwy
o siawns i anhwylderau etifeddol gael eu hamlygu yn eu hepil o’u cymharu
ag anifeiliaid nad ydynt yn perthyn. Mewn gwirionedd, mae gan rannau
o’r genom (deunydd genetig yr anifail) amrywiaeth genetig mor isel fel eu
bod yn arddangos unffurfiaeth lwyr o fewn y brîd. Felly, mae’n anodd dileu
problemau neu afiechydon o’r rhanbarthau hyn o’r genom, heb fridio ag
aelodau o frîd arall.
Heddiw, mae’r problemau hyn yn parhau. Mae nifer o fridwyr bellach
yn deall yr angen i osgoi mewnfridio gyda pherthnasau agos iawn, ond yn
aml, nid ydynt yn edrych yn ddigon pell yn ôl am gyndeidiau cyffredin. Yn
anffodus, mae rhai bridwyr yn parhau i fewnfridio neu ddewis partneriaid
bridio o ddim ond is-boblogaeth o’r brîd cyfan wrth iddynt ymdrechu i gael
rhai nodweddion penodol y cyfeirir atynt yn safonau’r brîd. Yn ogystal â hyn,
mae gorddefnyddio tadau sy'n bencampwyr tra phoblogaidd yn golygu y
gall unrhyw afiechydon genetig y maent yn eu cludo, yn fuan iawn, gael eu
dosbarthu o fewn y brîd. Mae’r arferion hyn yn dwysáu problem y cynnydd
mewn achosion o afiechydon o fewn bridiau penodol, ac ar hyn o bryd, nid
oes rheoliadau na deddfwriaeth sy’n ceisio rheoli’r arferion hyn yn y DU1.
5. Pa mor ddifrifol yw’r broblem?
Gan nad oes digon o gadw cofnodion ac oherwydd diffyg tryloywder yn
y byd bridio ac arddangos, a diffyg ymchwil digonol, mae'n anodd asesu
gwir faint y broblem. Mae casglu data am gyffredinrwydd afiechydon yn
ansystematig ar hyn o bryd, a chymharol brin yw’r astudiaethau achos o
fridiau unigol neu anhwylderau penodol a gynhaliwyd yn y DU.
Fodd bynnag, nodwyd bod y problemau cysylltiedig â bridio cŵn pedigri
yn achos pryder gwirioneddol am les (CAWC 2006) oherwydd:
maent yn effeithio ar nifer fawr o gŵn; mae oddeutu pum miliwn o gŵn
brîd pur yn y DU, sef 75% o’r boblogaeth gŵn yn gyffredinol (PFMA:
2008),
maent yn parhau o un genhedlaeth i'r llall,
gall ansawdd bywyd anifeiliaid gael ei leihau’n ddifrifol,
gall yr effeithiau barhau am gryn amser, a hynny drwy gydol oes anifail
mewn rhai achosion,
caiff cŵn o fridiau penodol eu geni gyda’r tebygolrwydd uchel na chânt
o leiaf un o’r pum rhyddid, sy’n ffordd gyffredin o asesu lles anifeiliaid
(FAWC 1992). Gall cŵn ddioddef anghysur a chael eu rhwystro rhag
ymddwyn yn naturioll heb niwed tebygol, a/neu mae'n debygol iawn y
byddant yn datblygu afiechyd a all arwain at boen, ofn a dychryn.
Mae’r rhan fwyaf o fridio cŵn yn hobi i rai sydd wrth eu boddau â chŵn, yn
hytrach na rhywbeth cwbl iwtilitaraidd. Gellid osgoi llawer o’r dioddef y mae
rhai cŵn pedigri yn ei wynebu drwy newid yr arferion bridio. Mae'r ffaith fod
pobl yn rheoli bridio wedi cyfrannu at y broblem. Am y rhesymau hyn, mae
gan gymdeithas ddyletswydd foesol gref i ddatrys y broblem hon.
•
•
•
•
•
6. Beth sydd eisoes wedi ei wneud a pha mor
llwyddiannus oedd hynny?
Mae’r Kennel Club a sawl gwyddonydd milfeddygol wedi bod yn ymwybodol
iawn o broblemau’r afiechydon etifeddol hyn, ac felly wedi ceisio datblygu
rhaglenni er mwyn cynorthwyo bridwyr i adnabod pa gŵn sydd mewn
perygl, a lleihau’r achosion o afiechydon etifeddol. Cynhaliwyd cynlluniau
clinigol er mwyn arsylwi iechyd llygaid a chymalau, ac yn ddiweddar
cynhaliwyd profion ychwanegol seiliedig ar DNA am enynnau newidiol
penodol (adran pedwar o’r adroddiad llawn).
Dros y deng mlynedd ar hugain diwethaf, mae effaith sylweddol
dysplasia’r clun a’r penelin ar gyfran helaeth o’r boblogaeth gŵn wedi
sbarduno ymdrechion i ddatrys y problemau hyn. Ond mae adolygiad
o dystiolaeth cynllun pwrpasol y BVA/Kennel Club, yn awgrymu mai
araf iawn fu’r cynnydd. Ni all y cynllun ddarparu data cynrychioliadol ar
gyfer nifer o fridiau gan fod cyfran y cŵn sy'n cael eu sgrinio yn fychan
iawn ac mae’r cyfranogwyr yn eu dethol eu hunain. Ni ŵyr neb yn iawn
pa mor gyffredin yw dysplasia’r clun yn y rhan fwyaf o boblogaeth gŵn
y DU, nac ychwaith a oes cynnydd yn yr ymdrech i’w leihau.
Datblygwyd profion seiliedig ar DNA ar gyfer dros 50 o afiechydon
etifeddol. Mae gan brofion seiliedig ar DNA nifer o gryfderau a photensial
Noder: fel roedd yr adroddiad yn mynd i’r wasg, cyhoeddodd Kennel Club y DU na fydd yn cofrestru cŵn bach a enir o unrhyw fam/mab, tad/merch neu frawb/chwaer yn paru, sy’n
digwydd ar neu ar ôl 1af Mawrth 2009.
1
ardderchog yn achos anhwylderau geneteg syml. Fodd bynnag, mae’n bosibl
i ddefnyddwyr anonest gam-drin y system ar hyn o bryd (drwy gyfnewid
samplau un ci am rai ci arall), ac mae'n fwy cyfyngedig yn achos afiechydon
mwy cymhleth. Mae gwerth potensial mawr i ddatblygu marcwyr genetig
ychwanegol, ond oherwydd oedi a chostau sylweddol ni ellir ystyried hyn fel
yr unig ateb i broblemau bridio cŵn pedigri ar hyn o bryd.
Mae’r diwydiant bridio ac arddangos cŵn yn y DU yn ei hanfod yn
ei reoli ei hun, ac mae gan y Kennel Club i bob pwrpas reolaeth lwyr
bron dros gofrestru cŵn pedigri. Yn draddodiadol, datblygwyd safonau
bridiau rhwng y Kennel Club a chymdeithasau/clybiau bridiau unigol.
Mae’r cymdeithasau hyn yn amrywio o ran y mentrau sydd ganddynt er
mwyn ceisio cadw a gwella iechyd a lles eu brîd, ac mae rhai ohonynt yn
sicr yn gydwybodol iawn. Fodd bynnag, mae sawl cymdeithas fridiau yn
parhau i fod yn gyndyn iawn o gydnabod neu gyfaddef yn gyhoeddus y
problemau cyffredin o fewn eu brîd. Mae angen dull mwy cyson lle na
fydd cymdeithasau bridiau unigol yn gweithredu’n annibynnol.
Mae rhaglenni sgrinio a argymhellir mewn lle ar gyfer sawl
brîd, ond mae’r rhain i gyd bron yn anorfodol ac yn anochel felly,
yn anghyflawn, gan nad oes profion ond yn unig ar gyfer cyfran o’r
afiechydon etifeddol a nodwyd. Yn 2004, cyflwynodd y Kennel Club
system achredu ar gyfer bridwyr sy’n nodi profion “angenrheidiol” a
rhai a “argymhellir” ar gyfer bridiau penodol. Er bod y cynllun hwn
yn boblogaidd, mae’n wirfoddol ac mae angen mynd i’r afael ag
anghysonderau yn y profion a argymhellir er mwyn iddo gyflawni ei
lawn botensial.
7. Ffyrdd posibl ymlaen
Mae’r sefyllfa’n gymhleth, gyda nifer o randdeiliaid a nifer o ffyrdd
posibl o weithredu. Mae gan bob brîd ei ystod ei hun o broblemau ac
felly, nid oes un ateb i’r broblem. O ddarganfyddiadau gwaith ymchwil,
adroddiadau’r gorffennol a thrafodaethau ag arbenigwyr amlwg
yn y maes, lluniodd yr awduron restr o 36 o weithredoedd penodol
a chynigwyd fod pob un ohonynt yn ffyrdd posibl ymlaen. Yna, yn
seiliedig ar arolwg o ugain o arbenigwyr ym maes lles cŵn, geneteg,
gwyddoniaeth filfeddygol, a milfeddygon wrth eu gwaith, deilliodd yr
awduron un deg pedwar o weithredoedd y credir sydd â’r gwerth posibl
mwyaf er mwyn gwella lles cŵn pedigri. Rhestrir y rhain isod ac fe’u
trafodir ymhellach yn adran 5 yr adroddiad llawn2.
1. Casglu data afiachusrwydd (afiechyd) a marwolaeth (achos
marwolaeth) yn achos pob ci mewn ffordd systematig.
2. Adolygu’r rheolau cofrestru er mwyn rhwystro cofrestru epil unrhyw
fagu rhwng perthnasau gradd gyntaf ac ail radd (e.e. rhiant ac epil,
brawd neu chwaer, nain neu daid ac epil neu hanner brodyr neu
chwiorydd).
3.Llyfrau stydiau agored er mwyn caniatáu cyflwyno deunydd genetig
newydd yn amlach i fridiau sefydledig.
4. Sefydlu systemau er mwyn monitro effeithiolrwydd unrhyw ymyriadau
a newidiadau mewn strategaethau bridio.
5. Cynnal adolygiad moesol llawn o iechyd a lles bridiau cyfredol. Gallai
hyn ddylanwadu ar benderfyniadau, megis gorfodi all-groesi cyflym
neu (fel yr awgryma rhai), mewn achosion eithafol cael gwared â
bridiau penodol yn raddol.
6. Datblygu cynlluniau rheoli manwl ar gyfer pob brîd.
7.Gwella profion diagnostig a marcwyr DNA ar gyfer anhwylderau
etifeddol.
8. Cynyddu amrywiaeth genetig drwy annog mewnfudo a pharu
rhyngwladol, yn enwedig mewn bridiau bychain o ran niferoedd.
9.Gwneud cofrestru cŵn pedigri yn amodol ar y ffaith fod y ddau riant yn
cael profion sgrinio gorfodol ar gyfer anhwylderau a flaenoriaethwyd.
10. Cyflwyno Codau Ymarfer sy’n annog bridwyr i ystyried iechyd, natur a
lles.
11.Hyfforddi ac achredu beirniaid fel y byddant yn rhoi blaenoriaeth i
iechyd, lles ac ymddygiad yn y cylch arddangos.
12. Creu a meithrin delwedd ymysg y cyhoedd o gi bodlon a hoffus sy'n
awgrymu ei fod wedi derbyn y gofal gorau o safbwynt lles.
13. Ffurfio panel annibynnol o arbenigwyr o amryw o ddisgyblaethau er
mwyn hwyluso trafod a sbarduno gweithredu cadarnhaol gan yr holl
randdeiliaid.
14. Datblygu cynlluniau er mwyn cyfrifo Gwerthoedd Bridio Amcangyfrifedig
(EBVs) ar gyfer anhwylderau y dylanwadir arnynt gan ffactorau genetig.
Mae EBV anifail yn achos unrhyw nodwedd yn rhagweld cyfartaledd
perfformiad ei epil gyda golwg ar y nodwedd honno.
8. Casgliad
Hyd yma, mae arferion bridio ac ymdrechion y cymdeithasau bridiau a’r
clybiau cenel wedi bod yn aneffeithiol wrth warchod lles sawl brîd o gi
cartref. Felly, er mwyn diogelu dyfodol cŵn pedigri, mae angen newidiadau
mewn arferion bridio ar fyrder, ac yn achos rhai bridiau, bydd angen cymryd
camau mwy eithafol. Mae gan bob aelod o gymdeithas, ac yn enwedig y
rheiny sy’n elwa o gŵn pedigri, ddyletswydd foesol a moesegol i sicrhau
fod pob cam yn cael ei gymryd er mwyn ceisio cywiro’r broblem ac er mwyn
gwella iechyd a lles cenhedloedd o gŵn pedigri i’r dyfodol.
Er mwyn gwneud y cynnydd mwyaf o ran gwella lles cŵn pedigri,
mae’n hanfodol cynnwys yr holl grwpiau o randdeiliaid ac ystyried effeithiau
uniongyrchol yn ogystal ag effeithiau anuniongyrchol arferion bridio. Daw
newid gyflymaf drwy ddefnyddioo dull ar y cyd lle bydd gweithredoedd yn
gydlynol ac yn ategu ei gilydd. Fodd bynnag, yr elfen bwysicaf yw sicrhau
fod yr holl grwpiau o randdeiliaid yn chwarae rhan yn y broses ac yn
cefnogi’r camau sydd angen iddynt eu cymryd yn gyfan gwbl. Dyma’r sialens
sydd i ddod.
Cyfeiriadau
Arman K. 2007 Animal Welfare Bien-etres des animaux, A new direction for kennel club
regulations and breed standards. Canadian Veterinary Journal 48: 953-965.
Calboli FCF, Sampson J, Fretwell N and Balding DJ. 2008. Population structure and
inbreeding from pedigree analysis of purebred dogs. Genetics 179(1): 593-601.
Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). 2006 Breeding and Welfare in Companion
Animals. The Companion Animal Welfare Council’s Report on Welfare Aspects of
Modifications, through Selective Breeding or Biotechnological Methods, to the Form,
Function or Behaviour of Companion Animals.
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). 1992 FAWC updates the five freedoms.
The Veterinary Record 13: 357.
Pet Food Manufacturer Association (PFMA). 2008
http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-statistics.htm Cafwyd mynediad ar 11/01/09.
The Kennel Club. 2008 Annual Report 2007/2008.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/4427/annrep0708.pdf.
Cafwyd mynediad ar 11/01/09.
Mae’r gweithredoedd hyn wedi eu crynhoi yma ond mae’r testun llawn fel y cyflwynwyd ef i’r ymatebwyr i’w gael yn yr adroddiad llawn. Mae 17 argymhelliad pellach wedi eu disgrifio yn
yr adroddiad a allai fod yn werthfawr hefyd.
2
Mae Dr Nicola Rooney (BSc PGCE PhD) yn Gydymaith
Ymchwil ym Mhrifysgol Bryste. Mae ganddi PhD mewn
ymddygiad cŵn a thros y naw mlynedd diwethaf, bu’n rheoli
rhaglen ymchwil ar allu a lles cŵn gwaith.
Mae Dr David Sargan (MA PhD) yn uwch ddarlithydd yn Ysgol
Filfeddygaeth Prifysgol Caergrawnt, yn enetegwr cymharol
â diddordebau arbennig mewn afiechydon genetig cŵn.
Mae’n gofalu am ar fas data Afiechydon Etifeddol mewn Cŵn,
a chynhyrchodd nifer o brofion seiliedig ar DNA ar yn achos
afiechydon etifeddol cŵn.
Mae Dr. Matthew Pead (BVetMed PhD CertSAO FHEA
MRCVS) yn Uwch Ddarlithydd mewn Llawfeddygaeth yn y
Coleg Milfeddygol Brenhinol. Mae ganddo dros 15 mlynedd o
brofiad o drin cyflyrau esgyrn a chymalau mewn cŵn pedigri.
Roedd yn rhan o’r tîm a sefydlodd gynllun sgrinio penelinoedd
Cymdeithas Frenhinol y Milfeddygon (BVA)/Kennel Club
(KC), ac mae'n canolbwyntio ar les cŵn drwy ddysgu darpar
lawfeddygon milfeddygol ac yn rhinwedd ei swydd fel
ymddiriedolwr Cartref Cŵn a Chathod Battersea.
Mae Dr Carri Westgarth (BSc PhD) yn Gydymaith Ymchwil
ym Mhrifysgol Lerpwl. Mae ganddi BSc mewn Sŵoleg a
Geneteg, a PhD mewn Epidemioleg Filfeddygol. Yn flaenorol,
bu'n hyfforddi Cŵn Clywed ar gyfer y Byddar, ac ar hyn o bryd,
mae’n gweithio fel Ymgynghorydd ar Ymddygiad Anifeiliaid,
yn arwain dosbarthiadau hyfforddi cŵn, yn darlithio, ac yn
gwneud gwaith ymchwil ôl-ddoethuriaeth i’r berthynas rhwng
dyn ac anifail anwes.
Mae Dr Emma Creighton (PhD) yn Uwch Ddarlithydd
mewn Ymddygiad a Lles Anifeiliaid ym Mhrifysgol Caer, ac
mae’n arbenigo yn y berthynas rhwng dyn ac anifail a lles
rhywogaethau anwes.
Dr Nick Branson (BVSC PhD) yw swyddog lles anifeiliaid
Prifysgol Deakin yn Awstralia. Cwblhaodd ymchwil
doethuriaeth mewn ymddygiad cymhwysol cŵn a
niwrowyddoniaeth a threuliodd dros ddeng mlynedd yn
gweithio mewn milfeddygfa breifat.
Cyfrannodd yr arbenigwyr canlynol o'u hamser a’u harbenigedd er mwyn helpu i gyfeirio’r argymhellion yn yr adroddiad hwn3:
Arbenigwyr lles
Arbenigwyr geneteg
John Bradshaw (BA, PhD)
Sarah Blott, (BSc, MSc, PhD) Uwch Enetegydd Ymchwil,
Ymddiriedolaeth Iechyd Anifeiliaid
Ralph Merrill (BSc, MSc, PhD)
Deborah Wells (BA, PhD, PGChET, C.Psychol) Uwch Ddarlithydd,
Prifysgol Queen’s Belfast
Stephen Wickens (BSc, PhD) Swyddog Datblygu,
Ffederasiwn y Prifysgolion dros Les Anifeiliaid
Frank Nicholas (BScAgr, PhD) Athro Emeritws Geneteg Anifeiliaid,
Prifysgol Sydney
John Burchard (PhD) Athro Bioleg sydd wedi ymddeol yn rhannol,
Princeton UDA
Arbenigwyr milfeddygol sy’n perthyn i brifysgol
Dau gyfranwr dienw
Jon Bowen (BVetMed, MRCVS, DipAS(CABC))
Gwasanaeth Cyfeirio Meddygaeth Ymddygiadol RVC
Llawfeddygon milfeddygol
Nick Jeffery (BVSc, PhD, CertSAO, DECVS, DECVN, FRCVS, DSAS(ST))
Athro Astudiaethau Clinigol Milfeddygol
Harvey Carruthers (BVMS, MBA)
Paul McGreevy, (BCVSc, MRVS, PhD, MAVSc,)
Athro Cynorthwyol, Prifysgol Sydney
Daniel Mills (BVSc, PhD, CCAB, CBiol, MIBiol, Dip ECVBM-CA, MRCVS)
Athro Meddygaeth Ymddygiadol Milfeddygol, Prifysgol Lincoln
Karen Overall (MA, VMD, PhD, Diplomate ACVB, CAAB)
Cydymaith Ymchwil,
Canolfan Niwrofioleg ac Ymddygiad, Prifysgol Pennsylvania
Alison Blaxter (BA, DipCABC, PhD, BVM&S, MRCVS)
George Grieve (BVM&S, MRCVS)
Clare Rusbridge (BVMS, PhD, DECVN, MRCVS, RCVS,
Arbenigwr Ewropeaidd mewn Niwroleg)
Nikianna Nicholas (BVSc, MRCVS)
Un ymatebwr dienw
Tim comisiynu’r RSPCA
Mark Evans (BVetMed, MRCVS) Prif Gynghorwr Milfeddygol
Claire Calder (BSc, MSc) Swyddog Gwyddonol
Gellir lawr lwytho'r adroddiad llawn yn:
www.rspca.org.uk/pedigreedogs
Dim ond at y mesuriadau cyfartalog a gyflwynwyd y cyfrannodd ymatebwyr ac felly nid
yw unigoliono anghenraid yn cefnogi'r syniadau sy'n cael eu mynegi yn yr adroddiad hwn.
3
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS
02.09