Potential consequences of proposed bans on ear cropping and tail docking for the miniature schnauzer gene pool.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Sir, To fully understand our concerns, a brief overview of our breed’s history is necessary. The miniature schnauzer breed is founded on 3 sires born at the turn of the last century. The first 20 years of development were a period of intense inbreeding, during which time size and type were established. The gene pool, already very narrow, suffered a severe bottlenecking in the 1940’s when a single American sire (Ch. Dorem Display) gained prominence. By the time of his death in 1959, his sons had replaced nearly all other sire lines; all miniature schnauzers alive today trace their ancestry tens of thousands of times over to this 1 dog. To complicate matters, approximately 75% of all female lines descend from a single imported bitch, Ch. Amsel VD Cyriaksburg. Thus the miniature schnauzer is one of the most homozygous of breeds at the genetic level. In North America, the miniature schnauzer competes in the terrier group in which small, neatly carried ears and straight tails are a competitive norm. Never in the history of the miniature schnauzer has selection for length or shape of tail been practiced. The undocked tail often curls forward and down over the flank — a highly undesirable trait in the arena in which our breed competes. Nor has there been selection for any specific type of ear type or carriage. While a few dogs compete successfully with drop ears in North America each year, the vast majority are cropped. It is unknown how many of the current family lines in our breed possess the ability to consistently produce offspring with both correct breed type and structure, along with ears and tails of the desired shape and carriage. Early evidence coming out of Europe suggests such individuals are quite likely the minority. The Miniature Schnauzer Club of Canada is concerned that any ban on these procedures will rapidly swing selection pressure towards the sires and family lines that produce the newly desired traits, while lines that do not die out. The phenomenon is underway in Europe, the UK, and elsewhere, as breeders are actively seeking out and promoting the minority of sires with straight tails. In short, the “unintended consequence” of forcing new and much narrower selection practices for both ear and tail conformation has the potential to reduce the genetic diversity of a gene pool in which full inbreeding coefficients already exceed 40%. The increase in genetic disease frequency that can result from rapid swings in selection practices is well-documented. Indeed, it is one of the primary risks that breed clubs are cautioned about when new DNA tests become available. This risk is one that we do not wish our breed subjected to. Thus, for our breed, the debate over docking and cropping is not merely a question of whether or not cosmetic surgery is “necessary” from the standpoint of the individual animal; it holds serious and irreversible implications for our breed’s genetic diversity and disease rates. The Miniature Schnauzer Club of Canada urges veterinarians and legislators alike to thoroughly investigate and consider all of the implications their decisions may have for the future of our breed and others before supporting such initiatives. Respectfully,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".