Now that my website HH DASHBOARD has been functioning smoothly for a few years, I can finally start moving to the “next stage” and begin writing about the data. For someone not feeling comfortable with all the tables and numbers, the website can be notoriously hard to interpret. I hope articles like this one will open up the information to a bigger audience. All evaluations are to do with the longhaired variety of the Dutch Shepherd Dog.
Annual reports ↠
Looking at recent years, the direction the variety has taken is a clear one: since 2018 coefficient of inbreeding (COI) has not risen even once, and most years it has fallen instead. In the last 10 years COI has fallen a whopping 12%, and is now 20% lower than in the 90’s, during the worst years of the variety. The average COI for 2023 litters was 21%, and Mean Kinship (MK) was 25%. Because Mean Kinship is the average inbreeding of all animals with each other, COI < MK in the population still says good things about breeder selection of less-than-average kinships in their pairings.
2023 was a good year for the variety in other ways as well, with 35 litters born world-wide, with 246 puppies. This is the second-most haul of puppies the variety has had on any given year before this, just falling behind an even more numerous year 2022. During the last three years more than 200 puppies were born each year, so the popularity of the variety can definitely be said to be on the rise. It is definitely gladdening to see the breed grow larger in both numbers and in gene pool! Average litter size was 7.0 puppies and generation length was 4.1 years. When compared to the last 10 years, the litter size is excellent, but the generation length is somewhat lower than average (higher generation length ie. older breeding animals is generally a more desirable result).
The website also records the proportion of each year’s births that were used in breeding over time. Naturally, no 2023 births have produced any offspring yet, but we can glance at the older numbers. About 20%, or 1 in 5 dogs born each year take part in breeding, and this number has stayed stable during the years. This is not a bad number and if it manages to stay the same even with the rising population size of recent years, it will be yet another aspect that tells us that genetic diversity is being maintained better than in the past. However, when we look at dogs that had offspring in 3 generations, so those individuals that became permanent in pedigrees, the number is only about 13%. This means that more care should be put into not letting the offspring of any one individual “drop” from the breeding population without a good reason.
Litter data ↠
| Country | Number of litters | COI |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 11 | 22% |
| France | 8 | 11% |
| Germany | 5 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 35% |
| Czechia | 2 | 23% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 24% |
| Austria | 1 | 20% |
| Belgium | 1 | 12% |
| USA & Canada | 1 | 30% |
This table above gives us a quick look into which countries are currently producing the bulk of the puppies in the breed, and how each country settles on the COI scale. It is interesting to note that the home country of the breed currently has by far the highest COI, something on the levels of early 2010’s in the breed. Conversely, France consistently produces a large number of litters with significantly lower COIs than the average of the breed. Finland as the largest “producer” falls on the average COI-wise.
Other interesting tidbits from 2023 litters:
| Statistic | Value | Country | Kennel | Sire | Dam |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest COI | 1% | France | MONT BRABANT, DU | ROAD’TRIP DU MONT BRABANT | PEGAZ EENHOORN LOF9510/1269 |
| Highest COI | 41% | Finland | ONNENLETIN | NUTTANDALE’S ARTHUR | ONNENLETIN KARMA RUSKA |
| Largest litter | 12 | France | DAME MIDNIGHT, DE | DEMON DE VAN TEAL’C | ROMA AMORE DE DAME MIDNIGHT |
| Oldest parents | 7.8 years | Germany | BLAUEN KORNBLUMEN, VON DEN | LAXKO BENJEN V.D. DORESTEE | JULE VDH/HSCD17/173R00074 |
| Youngest parents | 2.2 years | France | DAME MIDNIGHT, DE | DEMON DE VAN TEAL’C | ROMA AMORE DE DAME MIDNIGHT |
Current choices at the beginning of 2024
In database views, any with the word current refers to what we consider the current breeding population. In this database this means dogs with birth years 3-9 years ago. Because avoiding the use of very young animals is a part of good population management (shorter [generation length] can cause inbreeding to rise faster [1]), dogs born less than 3 years ago are not visible in these views.
Current Population wiki page @ HH Dashboard
Current animals and litters are assigned MK rankings on the website. Generally speaking dogs with better MK rankings are more valuable as breeding animals (here I want to note the obvious again: by talking about value I am purely talking about genetic diversity value. Breeders will naturally always have to weigh in health, character, appearance etc. as well), which means rankings MK 1 and MK 2 (top quartiles of the population) are “better than average” and rankings MK 3 and MK 4 are “worse than average”. This of course does not mean that MK 3 or MK 4 animals should not be bred at all, it just means they maybe should not be bred as much as higher value animals.
Additionally, litters are also sorted by offspring, so that it is easier to find litters with no second-generation offspring at all yet, and litters that have one or more breeding animals already. To find the litters that would be most recommended for breeding, or we could say, “most shame if they did not breed at all”, we could cross-reference value and offspring numbers. Here are the current litters that have the ranking MK 1 and have no previous offspring yet (which also means that as soon as one individual in any of these litters breeds, the value of the litter will change):
| Born | Country | Kennel name | Sire | Dam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | Finland | AZURICOYOTES | LAND OF OZ RIDDICK | AZURICOYOTES NIVA SINDRAGOSA |
| 2015 | USA | NO KENNEL NAME | GOTT DES CROCS DE L’OLYMPE | LEXIE DES LEUS CHAPELLOIS |
| 2021 | Belgium | CASA D’AGOSTINI | TARITA’S STREET ARTIST BANKSY | CASA D’AGOSTINI RUSSIAN ROULETTE |
| 2021 | France | MONT BRABANT, DU | PRINZ EINHORN LOF9459/1078 | OPIUM DES LEUS CHAPELLOIS |
| 2021 | France | DEMON DE VAN | RAGNAR DU MONT BRABANT | NEWT DU MONT BRABANT |
| 2021 | France | DREAM DELPHI | PADDY DOVAHKIIN DAAL | ROXY LEGEND’OF KI BREIZH |
| 2021 | France | ROYAUME DU FANELIA, DU | JYCEO DU HAMEAU DES TROIS FONTAINES | MAEGLIN DU MONT BRABANT |
| 2021 | France | MONT BRABANT, DU | JERRY LEWIS DU MONT BRABANT | PEGAZ EENHOORN LOF9510/1269 |
| 2020 | France | DOVAHKIIN DAAL | LOUSTIC DES LEUS CHAPELLOIS | NEMESIS NEVER SAD DOVAHKIIN DAAL |
| 2020 | Finland | HOLLANDROY | NOVAK DU MONT BRABANT | HOLLANDROY XTRA SPECIAL |
| 2021 | France | LEGEND’OF KI BREIZH | NEVER BACK DOWN DU MONT BRABANT | ONLY YOU LEGEND’OF KI BREIZH |
| 2019 | France | MONT BRABANT, DU | MEMPHIS DU MONT BRABANT | OPIUM DES LEUS CHAPELLOIS |
Later on we will talk about popular sires and dams, and when those are taken into account breeders might want to adjust parameters in their searches. Maybe a litter that has no offspring yet but is closely related to popular sires and dams should be less valuable than a litter with already one or two breeding individuals but no overcontribution in the close family? Breeding is never as simple as looking at a list, but in the future I hope to introduce simple indices that would combine several scores into one and give an even clearer image of valuable animals and pedigrees.
Even though I do not ever want to say that some animal should not be bred purely due to its pedigree, there is another side to this. We can again cross-reference the two filters mentioned above to find the least valuable litters to breed from right now (their past value could have been different, and probably has been since these are generally older litters). These litters include several individuals that already had offspring, and generally the whole litter is highly related to most individuals in the population already. Here are the current litters that have been ranked MK 4, and already have at least 3 individuals with offspring:
| Born | Country | Kennel name | Sire | Dam |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Germany | MO CHOMRADAI | MIRREWIL’S IINA WIJSNEUS WESSEL | SILVER ALSUNA V. ‘T FROUWKES HOF |
| 2016 | Germany | HUTER DES NORDENS | DAX V.D. TIENDSCHUUR | BANU HUTER DES NORDENS |
| 2018 | Finland | AMIDOS VAN | KONNAMUORIN PERTSA | ON Y PARLE’S QUIRA VANNILA |
| 2015 | Netherlands | NOORDER ERF, V. ‘T | HERTOG HALEWIJN AXMO V.D. ROZEBORGH | ON Y PARLE’S QUESTA VANNILA |
| 2015 | Germany | WEINBERGSWOLFEN, VON DEN | CEZAN DARON V. ‘T FROUWKES HOF | ON Y PARLE’S QUIRA VANNILA |
| 2019 | Germany | MO CHOMRADAI | AYDEN MO CHOMRADAI | AMIDOS VAN JOLT RUBY |
| 2018 | Netherlands | BINNENVOORT, V.D. | CEZAN DJAIRO V. ‘T FROUWKES HOF | ALITA IZARRA V.D. BINNENVOORT |
| 2015 | Finland | TARITA’S | HOLLANDROY URSUS | HERTOGIN HADEWYCH V.D. ROZEBORGH |
| 2016 | Netherlands | DIAMIDARUS | ICARUS V.D. DORESTEE | TRAJECTUM AD MOSAM DIMA |
Individuals ↠
At the end of year 2023 about 1575 longhaired Dutch Shepherds are alive in the world. This number is calculated based on births during the last 9 years (9 years is the average lifespan of the breed in our statistics). Breeding continued with a beautifully even male to female ratio: 31 males and 34 females were used in breeding. This is an important feature for bettering our effective population size. 2023 was the first year of appearance (first time they were used for breeding in the longhair) for 40 dogs. Additionally, 6 dogs were introduced from outside populations or through variety crosses. Introductions like these are the reason why coefficient of inbreeding and mean kinship keep getting better over the years:
| Born | Gender | Name | Source | MK |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | ♀ | AZURICOYOTES SWEET SKOOMA | Shorthaired parents | 9% |
| 2018 | ♂ | AZURICOYOTES STROS M’KAI RUM | Shorthaired parents | 9% |
| 2020 | ♂ | RYSER DES CH’TIS CROCS | Shorthaired parents | 1% |
| 2020 | ♂ | REISER BLACK DREAM DU ROCHER DES DUCS | Shorthaired parents | 2% |
| 2020 | ♀ | RAY-BAN DE L’ODYSSEE D’HERA | Shorthaired parents | 2% |
| 2020 | ♀ | BLACK BOUNTYS DUCHESSE LOUANE | SH x LH cross | 12% |
Current choices at the beginning of 2024
Controlling offspring numbers is the first, the easiest and also the most important line of defense against loss of genetic diversity. In a small breed one individual should not contribute more than 5% of dogs of a generation
Individual contribution wiki page @ HH Dashboard[1]. Second generation contribution should stay under 10% and third generation contribution under 20%.
Because we are trying to have as many different individuals in breeding as possible, generally speaking it could be said that any dog that has already bred once is a little less valuable than any dog with no offspring. Naturally it is not so cut-and-dried, especially in cases where the siblings of a dog already have numerous offspring and/or MK is especially high. But as mentioned before as well; who said selecting for anything, genetic diversity included, was going to be straightforward?!
Let’s take a look at our current “rising” dogs: individuals from the last 2 generations who have nearly or completely reached their offspring cap in 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation. These are the dogs that if carelessly spread in pedigrees can be in danger of becoming popular ancestors – “popular sires and dams”. This concept of popular ancestors is so well presented by so many sources online that I won’t go into it further, and just say that the term “popular” in this case does not come with a positive connotation. Which of these dogs are most likely to meet that fate, and what could breeders do to stop it?
| Born | Gender | Name | MK | G1% | G2% | G3% | Total offspring |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | ♂ | JANGO DE L’OREE DES CRAYERES | 3% | 4% | 20% | 6% | 250 |
| 2014 | ♂ | JYCEO DU HAMEAU DES TROIS FONTAINES | 14% | 5% | 7% | 113 | |
| 2015 | ♀ | OPIUM DES LEUS CHAPELLOIS | 25% | 5% | 8% | 105 | |
| 2015 | ♀ | LUVAHKRIN DU DOMAINE DES SPHINX NOIRS | 12% | 4% | 6% | 94 | |
| 2015 | ♂ | LUPO DU HAMEAU DES TROIS FONTAINES | 25% | 4% | 3% | 63 | |
| 2015 | ♂ | OVO DU BOIS DES MURES | 37% | 4% | 4% | 58 | |
| 2015 | ♀ | OMEGA DU BOIS DES MURES | 37% | 5% | 1% | 47 | |
| 2016 | ♂ | MEMPHIS DU MONT BRABANT | 20% | 4% | 1% | 37 |
The very positive thing about this list is that most of these dogs have actually not reached their offspring cap, but just nearly. The second positive thing is that most of these dogs have lower-than-average MK, which means they are generally speaking not low-value animals. What should be noted though is the obvious: every dog on this list is either French or was mainly breeding in France. French breeders could probably do with some imports from other countries, or maybe long mating trips to avoid breeding those same dogs too many times. For example the male JANGO DE L’OREE DES CRAYERES (born from shorthaired parents and no doubt genetically valuable) already has twice as many 2nd generation offspring than any one dog should have, and every subsequent grand-litter of his will make the situation even worse.
Next we can move on to where it is already too late, and the dogs being listed are already considered popular ancestors (on my website a popular ancestor is any dog with overcontribution in at least 2 consecutive generations or at least 15% presence in the whole population). I will place males and females in separate tables for clarity. Hopefully one day I can make a yearly review with tables for this section that are much, much smaller. This will naturally happen only with better population management. The last column here depicts the proportion of population that was descended from this individual at the time of “last appearance” – last time the name was seen in any 3 generation pedigree of a newly born litter.
| Born | Gender | Name | MK | G1% | G2% | G3% | % of N at last appearance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | ♂ | VANDALE LOF136/31 | 37% | 6% | 20% | 40% | 39% |
| 2001 | ♂ | FAIMSHEY’S SHEPERDS BIGGLES | 36% | 4% | 11% | 38% | 26% |
| 2010 | ♂ | MIRREWIL’S IINA WIJSNEUS WESSEL | 33% | 5% | 14% | 21% | 23% |
| 1999 | ♂ | PACHA LOF80/16 | 11% | 3% | 11% | 29% | 22% |
| 2005 | ♂ | ZORAN V.D. TIENDSCHUUR | 27% | 5% | 16% | 17% | 22% |
| 2004 | ♂ | TOMMIE NHSB.BIJL2495416 | 36% | 2% | 9% | 23% | 20% |
| 2011 | ♂ | GEB DES CROCS DE L’OLYMPE | 4% | 5% | 14% | 15% | 19% |
| 1999 | ♂ | IGOR V.H. EIGEN LAND | 37% | 3% | 12% | 23% | 19% |
| 2003 | ♂ | ASTOR V.D. LIMBURGSE BODEM | 36% | 6% | 11% | 20% | 17% |
| 2014 | ♂ | JANGO DE L’OREE DES CRAYERES | 3% | 4% | 20% | 6% | 16% |
| 2005 | ♂ | SHIRE’S EEMIL | 36% | 3% | 9% | 15% | 16% |
| 1996 | ♂ | MEDIA DE LA SOURCE DU MONTET | 36% | 1% | 7% | 26% | 16% |
| 2004 | ♂ | VARLO DU HAMEAU DES TROIS FONTAINES | 11% | 4% | 12% | 10% | 15% |
| Born | Gender | Name | MK | G1% | G2% | G3% | % of N at last appearance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | ♀ | POLKA LOF78/29 | 11% | 4% | 18% | 43% | 33% |
| 2006 | ♀ | BIEKE NHSB2615748 | 37% | 4% | 13% | 33% | 30% |
| 2004 | ♀ | VARGA DU HAMEAU DES TROIS FONTAINES | 11% | 2% | 11% | 22% | 21% |
| 2004 | ♀ | GHEYNTHE NHSB2508965 | 37% | 2% | 9% | 23% | 20% |
| 2008 | ♀ | OMA’S PEARL V.H. EIGEN LAND | 37% | 4% | 14% | 14% | 19% |
| 2008 | ♀ | OMA’S PAREL V.H. EIGEN LAND | 37% | 3% | 9% | 18% | 18% |
| 2006 | ♀ | FURIA RISHJ/43/F | 18% | 3% | 13% | 11% | 16% |
| 2006 | ♀ | MINANTHE’S THYYNILA-SESSY | 36% | 2% | 7% | 17% | 19% |
| 2001 | ♀ | SYAM DU MONT BRABANT | 37% | 1% | 7% | 26% | 16% |
As can be seen, there are some lower MK individuals here as well, but that does not mean they were not bred too much and that they aren’t now disproportionately contributing their genetics to the breed. What is interesting to note, is that in most cases first generation offspring numbers were controlled well and did not exceed healthy breeding limits. Dangerous spread has happened in second and third generation instead, which means that more care needs to be put into monitoring offspring numbers in subsequent generations. The dogs in these lists are typically found in generation 3-6 of current pedigrees and many of them are likely to spread behind 100% of the population eventually. They are also the dogs that will contribute inbreeding to future generations. Every breeder will do their own decisions on which dogs they would like to avoid, if any, and if that is even feasible with current breeding material.
Summary
The breed is definitely going into a better direction right now. Every year some new blood is introduced from one or more sources, which opens up our pedigrees and lowers both COI and MK. The biggest challenges right now have to do with overuse of certain animals, especially those which bring that “new blood”. Rapidly spreading a new bloodline is definitely risky, when the problems and challenges present there haven’t been controlled properly on a litter-by-litter basis first. Hopefully in the future these animals won’t be in such a big risk of becoming popular ancestors, when more and more individuals like them get added to the population. Diversity is always good, but bottlenecking into few diverse animals is not.
Statistics with the lowest and highest COI of the year tell their story of the mild division present in the breed: even if each breeder prefers their own type of dog, this is not as much character or behaviour-related, but depends mainly on bloodlines. Some breeders do not think the introduced new blood is suitable for the breed and instead prefer continuing with the more related lines alone. This is especially visible in the home country of the breed, where inbreeding is much higher than average of the breed and mainly Dutch bloodlines are used. Division itself is not harmful – separate lines can be used to inject new blood into each other, but the fact that currently our division is in the direction of diverse – not diverse is a shame. Hopefully in the future all longhairs can reach acceptable levels of diversity and still be called “purebred” by all.
Thank you for reading, I am already excited to show next year’s results with you!