Is breeding Merles a bad idea?

[John C]

I have A Merle Great Dane. I was told that's it's not good to breed them. I was wondering if that was true and if so what are some of the reasons why?

[jpy]

Here is an exerpt about breeding merles from an article on the subject of breeding harl-family danes:
"As to the eternal question most newcomers have to the breeding of merles:

1) Merles are a disqualifcation under all standards for the Great Dane--and have always been. That is enough, in many retgistries, for a dog to be denied "papers," so this is obviously always been thought a very poor breeding choice. One must assume, historically, such animals were used & the results generally not good, hence the fact they have always been disqualified. There *are* anecdotal reports that using merles in a harl breeding program not only increases the number of mismarks in a litter, but also results in a much higher number of defective puppies than in a harl to harl breeding. Merles LACK the necessary genetics on their own to produce harls: noone has ever heard of a merle to merle breeding that produced harls.

2) It is certainly and always the case that anyone who has not established an *sterling* reputation & can explain to the general dane fancy's satisfaction the reason to break such a general rule of breeding better be prepared to be considered unethical by most if not all others concerned about ethical breeding. This is a case where making an exception to the rule is better NOT done but for the rarest of cases where the person in question has a long track record of good practices, the production of Champions under ethical constraints, AND who has an exceptional & rare enough situation on their hands to warrant a probably once in a lifetime event. People who sell & breed merles (incluing so-called merlikins) as breeding stock on a regular basis can simply be assumed to be commercial (i.e. for-profit) breeders whose goal is cash cropping harl pups, not breed protection.

3) A boston merle, the most likely choice as a breeding partner to a harl, is essentially a "true" boston (i.e.Mantle), with the added problem of producing deaf white & other defective puppies....which does not occur in a Mantle to Harlequin breeding, so a Mantle is always preferable, on that account, to a merle.

4) "Merlikins," a Porcelaine (i.e. a dog with harl pattern but lacking harl pigment) dog with grey markings, have been bred on occassion to Mantles to produce harls. But this is a risky breeding for several reasons: many merlikins are deaf & have eye defects (& without a CERF noone can say a dog's eyes "are fine"!), most will NOT produce properly marked harls under any circumstances, & the harls they DO produce are likely the result of their Mantle (boston) mate carrying unseen the factors needed to produce harls. So, again, a properly marked animal, in this case a show-marked Harlequin, would be preferable to the merlikin.

5) The long & the short of breeding merles& other mismarks, for that matter) is, if you have to ask about the whys & wherefores, you probably "can't afford it;" can't afford the disaster likely awaiting you. Unless you are dealing with a publically estemeed breed expert really caught in a corner, you can pretty much assume someone using mismarks (i.e. merles, merlikins, mismarked harls & mantles) in their breeding program is less than knowledgeable & less than ethical. This *is* a case of guilty until proven innocent.
(To read about the breeding of "whites" see the article so titled.)"
from "The Harlequin to Merle Continuum."

[jpy]

JOhn C-if you go to the archives here at DOL there is already a mass of information compiled on merles. Here is a couple of links that deals specifically with what's bred (& what's not) in the harl family of danes & why that is:
http://www.flash.net/~dby/harl2merle.htm
http://www.flash.net/~dby/piebald%203.htm
The first answers you question specifically.
hope this helps. And FYI, this is *no* negative reflection on you or your dog, but bear in mind not only do reputable breeders generally avoid using merles in their breeding program, they do *NOT* sell them on full (breeding) registration & certainly do not leave people who buy them ignorant of the problems associated with them and breeding them.
good luck with your new dane. jpy
:In reply to "Breeding" posted by John C on 09/19/00:

[Carol]

Yes, that's true. They contribute nothing to the gene pool in harlequin breeding. It's better to spay or neuter and love it as a pet.

[Eava]

I agree with the responses of the other members and also think that it would not be in the Great Dane breeds best interest or yours to breed your Merle.

[jduncan]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-00 AT 09:06PM (PST)[p]I hear tons of - and I quote from other replies - "assumptions" and "theories" of why Merles should not be bred. I open-mindedly would like my ignorance of the Merle to disappear.

I think what I am hearing is the pattern of the coat disqualifies them from being a show dog or a champion line. Who cares? You know, breeders are only a small percentage of dane owners. The majority of danes are big couch pillows who think they are humans.

At this point and time, I hear a bunch of whiny breeders who are probably upset since the merle pattern is the "Hines 57" of danes. You probably cringe at the thought of a merle puppy in your litter.

I cannot find any facts on problems with properly breeded danes that have merle puppies. Any facts you have on this topic are greatly appreciated.

[LizK]

>LAST EDITED ON Dec-27-00
>AT 09:06*PM (PST)
>
>I hear tons of - and
>I quote from other replies
>- "assumptions" and "theories" of
>why Merles should not be
>bred. I open-mindedly would like
>my ignorance of the Merle
>to disappear.
>
>I think what I am
>hearing is the pattern of
>the coat disqualifies them from
>being a show dog or
>a champion line. Who cares?
>You know, breeders are only
>a small percentage of dane
>owners. The majority of danes
>are big couch pillows who
>think they are humans.
>
>At this point and time, I
>hear a bunch of whiny
>breeders who are probably upset
>since the merle pattern is
>the "Hines 57" of danes.
>You probably cringe at the
>thought of a merle puppy
>in your litter.
>
>I cannot find any facts on
>problems with properly breeded danes
>that have merle puppies. Any
>facts you have on this
>topic are greatly appreciated.

Well JD you have come to the correct place to learn - and I know many here are delighted that you are open minded enough to do so.
Many unfortnately (for the breed) are not.
I am sure you have heard of "sex-linked" genetic disorders, and also "colour-linked" genetic disorders. The latter is what we are dealing with in the Harlequin family of colours.
I will not go into it all here since on JP's most excellent site - and indeed others around the internet, the problems are well laid out and explained.
One little item I would like to comment on however. When you say that only a small percentage of Dane owners are breeders, you might want to do some reasearch. The breed right now is in terrible trouble. No doubt about it. The problem all comes down to the fact that many/most owners feel the need to breed their dogs are some point,often because they just love them. Others breed a litter purely for extra $$$, and others do it regularly, ie. puppy mills etc. Very few in comparison are the truly dedicated breeders who breed seldom, but carefully, with the betterment of the breed in mind, and making sure that the breeding stock they chose is the very best to produce the next generation of the breed.
Just one rescue in my area has close to 100 grown dogs and two litters of puppies available right not. Do you know what 100 grown Danes look like in your backyard? It's mind boggling to say the least. Yet there is a need for it and all because of irresponsible breeding. Much of it carried out in the Harle family of colours and producing dogs with many genetic problems - deafness, blind, some without eyes at all. Yep, all from those who didn't bother to learn.
Thank the Lord you have come here to find out first hand all that one needs to know before jumping on the breeding bandwagon. And it's not sour grapes, it's knowledge on the part of a few of us who have watched with horror, the decline of the breed in recent years.
Go over to JP's urls and you will think differently no doubt. There's a great deal more to this colour "thing" than just a coat pattern.
LizK

[jduncan]

Thankyou for your feedback. Yes, JP's links are what I am talking about- theory, theory and more theory.

Are there any studies that show statistical information on the merle gene versus another dane? May be someone followed a few generations and documented the litters. This would be helpful.

I gather there are problems in the area of sensory organs - the ears and eyes of Merles. Do any other Danes show genetic disorders - in fact or in theory?

[LizK]

> Thankyou for your
>feedback. Yes, JP's links are
>what I am talking about-
>theory, theory and more theory.
>
>
> Are there any studies that
>show statistical information on the
>merle gene versus another dane?
>May be someone followed a
>few generations and documented the
>litters. This would be
>helpful.
>
> I gather there
>are problems in the area
>of sensory organs - the
>ears and eyes of Merles.
>Do any other Danes show
>genetic disorders - in fact
>or in theory?


JC
Most of that which you read is certainly not just "theory" as you put it. Dedicated breeders in Germany as far back as the late 1800's quickly discovered the problems of breeding Merles and other mismarks and kept notes regarding the problems. As soon as I get to it, I shall hopefully post those notes on my History of the Great Dane website which I am working on frantically at the moment.
Certainly the Harlequin family of colours demands the most knowledge, the most careful breeding, and judicious culling of any of the problem colours. Fortunately I know of nobody who has made studies of several generations of Merle breeding, since most who attempt it are irresponsible at best, and after dumping the puppies who show up with problems or find they are being brought back at a few months when the problems show up, usually end up breeding something else. Not all however, and many mismarks from such breedings are sold as "rare" or whatever else the market will bear.
I personally know of a breeder, known to almost everyone who has looked through this site carefully, who breeds Merles constantly. She has done for years. She breeds them to her Harles and her Piebalds. Thankfully I hear all her stock is for sale! Hopefully - tho I doubt it, they will be sold spayed and neutered. However, I "have" watched her litters when even one parent was Merle and her last two litters with one Merle parent, have been large litters of "all" Merle puppies. Look carefully through places on the internet where the irresponsible dump their litters, and you will find many litters offered from Merle parents. Either one, or both. You will then notice that unlike Harle x Harle or Harle x Mantle, that the numbers of Merles from such unions almost without fail, produce more Merle puppies - and other mismarks, than one would expect from non Merle or mismarked parentage.
It is a "fact" that mismarks produce more mismarks in their litters than do Harles/Mantles etc. Even mismarked Blacks - those with too much white but not enough to be Mantles, also produce their like in greater numbers in litters.
Think about the thousands of litters being born each year from cheaply found mismarks as breeding stock, and you will see the problem we all face - if we really care.
Men of old were certainly not incorrect in their thinking. Too bad more so-called breeders today don't think likewise.
If you want info and stats on several generations of Merle breeding you will have to visit lots of irresponsible breeders - and these days that won't be too difficult. You will at the same time be able to examine the breedings of Piebalds and Merlequins, which is another favourite cheap breeding stock colour used by those who would ruin the breed. However when interviewing them, remember they will never admit to having had problems, they will say that those of us who really care about such things are "jealous" that they are taking money away from us, and will be "the" first to tell you that breeding Merles is perfectly ok because "so and so" does it and they are famous!
Fame and responsibility don't necessarily go hand in hand.
When mismarks were not bred rescues were few and far between. Few Danes could be found anywhere in the country suffering from blindness, deafness, missing eyes, etc. It was only "after" all the BYB's started using mismarks as a source of cheap breeding stock that we had all the problems the breed faces now.
So I will leave it up to you as to whether or not you think this is proof enough.
Nobody - and I repeat NOBODY, who has the betterment of the breed at heart, uses mismarks as breeding stock. NOBODY!
Liz

[jduncan]

LizK,

Your links to information you gave are stated as theory. And I guote...

"A Summary of Theories concerning the Harlequin Variant
in the Great Dane." (published in the GDR (Great Dane Reporter)

I guess I need to hunt down some Merle breeders who have had birth defects in their litters. The main problem with this is there are several Merles, as well as other danes, in my neck of the woods. I haven't heard of anyone having any problems with their danes. I personally didn't realize there was a possible issue until I considered breeding my Merle.

I have been told by the owners of two Mantles, a Harl and a Merle that show dog owners will "put down" a Merle if they show up in a litter. They have bred danes for seven years. This confuses the issue of the inhumanity since I know dane owners with Merles. My girl is perfect without any health problems.

My conclusion as of today is very blurred with opinion and possibility. It looks as if show dog owners are discriminating against the Merle and pet owners do not have any negative issues with the Merle.

I plan to locate some past breeders of the Merle and see what problems they have had.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

[LizK]

JC
I think you will have no trouble in finding those who breed Merles. They are on every street corner these days unfortunately.
However, you will realise that since they have chosen Merles as their breeding stock, that places them in a most dubious of status as a "breeder"
Such "breeders" of course will never tell you that they have had problems. Though by their very actions, they probably have a lot more problems than the colour linked ones which probably show up from their Merle breeding stock. It is these kind of people who, don't show - obviously, don't test - what's that? and don't do all the other things which go to make a breeder a responsible person willing to go to great lengths to make sure that the next litter of Danes will benefit the breed and not his bank account. And the honest ones who would tell you of problems they have found - don't breed from Merles.
Merles are part and parcel of the Harlequin family of colours. However, they shouldn't be bred. Ever.
You don't seem to realise that I have never, and am not now, saying Merles are unhealthy. They will be as healthy as their background dictates. It is in the "breeding" of them where the problems begin. And indeed in the breeding of any mismarks. For some reason owners of Merle dogs talk themselves into thinking it's sour grapes on the part of those who are trying to educate them. Or that we "hate" Merles. I had one for 10 years and think they are rather attractive. And he was not neutered. But breed him - never. They make nice pets but shouldn't be used for breeding stock. This all quite apart from the fact that you can't show them to even get an idea that they might come close to be conformationally of breeding quality.
So go for it. I tend to think that you are trying to talk yourself into it, or hoping to find someone to back you up inasmuch as you are thinking of breeding your own Merle. Too bad if that is the case. Believe me, we who care don't waste our time at 1am in the morning which is what it is here now, just to have something to do.
There's a damned good reason for what we do. It's because we can only stop the march to the rescues, by one way and that's education. And because we love the breed, we are willing to do it.
There are only two types of breeders in any breed. It is up to one's conscience which type we seek to be.
LizK

[jpy]

LAST EDITED ON Jan-01-01 AT 06:45AM (PST)[p]I do think you are having a (not too uncommon) problem understanding what "theory" means in a scientific context. "THEORY" is not the popular & derogatory notion of an "airy" idea (or set of ideas) a particular person has, unsupported by facts, __THEORY__ is a context or framework within which a set of GIVEN FACTS CAN BE EXPLAINED. So, a "theory" of harlequin genetics explains the observations that occur in harlequin breeding. In other words the ACTS of breeding & making puppies came first, and in *very* high number, before a theory could be postulated to explain those facts. That the merle gene is an incomplete dominant semi-lethal is well-documented from all the dead & otherwise defective puppies that arrived here as a result of people (usually unaware of the "theory" of this genetic explanation) breeding merles. I don't think it much matters what a few stray anecdotes about isolated litters involving the breeding of merles report(already suspect as they hardly involve objective parties, let alone the trained scientists).

The fact remains, as the articles collected up given you to read clearly stated (& offered statistical & other evidence, start with Sullivan's huge study in GENETICA if you like), that breeding merles produces a higher proportion of dead & defective pups and that is a fact *SO* in evidence that all but a dozen breeds BAN the merle as it is the only color gene in dogs known to have such a widespread & far reaching deleterious, even devastating, effect. Even in breeds where the merle gene is allowed, the breeding of merle to merle is conventionally banned (to avoid the worst effects), & in fact that breeders' convention is now law in a large part of Europe where the breeding of dogs with a merle gene is called "Cruel Breeding."

Breeding restrictions are not whimsy. Restricting the use of merles isn't about silly ribbons & taking titles while trotting around the show ring--it's about preserving the breed & the peace of mind of puppy buyers. By collecting up all those research & other expert articles on harl breeding, I'd hope to God honestly to stem the tide of people "recreating the wheel" & relearning what is already well known at the expense of the breed. There is no reason in the world to try something for yourself. That's why we (hopefully) have mentors, to guide us & to steer us away from the common pitfalls of being a newcomer.

This just addressed to the general readership & one of my philosophical asides (so not intended as a personal message to the starter of this thread). As is so often quoted, one is doomed to repeat the mistakes of history if unaware of what has already been done. Sadly in this case (of breeding without sufficient study) it is the dogs & the buyers & the breed that suffers from the mistakes made by those unwilling or unable to learn from the collected wisdom gathered up for the benefit of us all. I know I feel very humble in the face of all I have to learn & am always amazed others, often knowing less to my eye, can charge ahead, brushing aside good advice given sincerely by knowledgeable people...but, arrogance aligned with ignorance is a heady brew. Beginning is a dangerous stage; hope & joy of finding a new thing to love should be tempered with the awareness time will bring a different picture & more information, which will bring new attitudes & new opinions very likely, so best not to burn all your bridges & declare all your beliefs<G>within the first few years. And not a bad idea to listen to a few of those salty<G>veterans who are where you one day hope to be.

[jduncan]

Okay, so Merle to Merle is a definate no-no.

Merle to any other dane is considered by the veterans of dane breeding to be possibly lethal and should not be considered.

Are there any other lethal breeding patterns to beware? I read Mantles are now show dogs where they were not a few years back. Were there breeding problems with the Mantles or was there another reason for their disqualification?

[jpy]

Mantles as a color & pattern (black & white, tux-n-tails) don't have any color-related problems (potentially one they can carry, but I'll get to that below in a seperate paragraph). Mantles were "banned" in North America simply due to a historical oddity as far as I can see. What happened (facts B4 my interpretation of why<G>) is that the AKC Standard for the Great Dane was written (or rather evloved to be written) so very strictly when it came to blacks, that, unlike that of the German standard (which allows a black Dane to have white trim) it excluded the sort of black&white dog (called boston or mantle) that was traditionally (along with the solid & so-called mismarked black) bred to harls. Also--along with this evolution towards a black without any white--was a seperate, but related, issue in which the Harlequin under the AKC standard (& *ONLY* the AKC Standard) became "whiter" than the German Standard calls for (because the phrase "white neck preferred" was added into the AKC standard & this has had a profound effect on the Harlequin patterning that is fashionable and sought after). Sorry if this seems confusing & not answering your question, but now I'll try to tie it together.

So, the combo of changes in the standard here in North America meant that, practically, to get that "white neck preferred" you needed a Mantle-patterned black dane, not a solid black dane. Yet, to show a black dane in the USA it had to be "Black," that is without any obvious amount of white. And that dog won't, as a rule, when bred to a harl, get you that preferred pattern of the harl (& produces mismarked blacks as well). So that effectively seperated out one family of danes (Black & Harlequin) into two seperate gene pools if you wanted to strictly meet the preferences of the standard: Blacks as blacks bred to other solid blacks or maybe blues, "harlequin blacks" being mismarked blacks. (IMO this is not a good thing, but that is another topic in itself.) Anyway, for that reason the "harlequin black" had to, essentially, be reintroduced under the AKC standard & when it was, it was reintroduced as a *seperate* black, which is actually the case these days, as the families are efectively split by now in North America at least. Hence the addition of the Mantle to the allowed colors of the Dane. The general argument, & a very good one IMO, is harl breeders breed them routinely anyway, so they should be exhibited (shown) since they do realistically comprise an important part of our breeding stock.
THis is NOT to say that harls cannot have patches on their neck or that showable blacks don't occassionally come from harl litters, but it's not common & you cannot breed solid black to harl without getting alot of "inbetween" mismarked blacks & overmarked (or at least not stylishly marked) harls, if you can see how this works? These so-called mismarked blacks are commonly shown, win prizes & are prized as breeding stock still in Europe, but due to the evolution of the Standard here, that is no longer the case in the States. This is BTW, one of they very superficial (it's only color afterall) ways the Standards do differ. In England a blue & white harlequin was allowed under their standard as blues were not uncommonly also thought of as part of the harlequin gene pool back in the mists of time. I do not know if this is the case now, as the last standard I have seen for Britian is at least a decade old & I cannot say if actually blue & white harl *are* shown & bred there. Good question BTW!

PIEBALDS & LETHAL WHITES: The lethal white one commonly thinks of with harls & merles is the dominant lethal M=merle gene. However the sort of white that produces Dalmatians can be hidden underneath a Mantle coat pattern (esp. flashy Mantles who have breaks in the blanket, big blazes & bid shawls) as this sort of white is a recessive gene. Sso these Mantles, bred to Harls or even other Mantles *can* produce recessive whites and white & black Danes (with only head & tail spots) & these "piebalds" can be deaf just like what happens in Dalmatians. Also a "piebald harl" is a dog who can have both white "lethals" working against its health at the same time. In this way can Mantles contribute to defects...at least theorectically, as some dispute that such piebald genes exist in our breed, however most breeders & rescue folks I've talked to feel they can demonstrate clear evidence of such over & again. The take home message is, regardless, that if you breed for too much white, anyway to slice it, you are going to produce defective & undermarked puppies.Just another reason IMOSHO to not forget, when thinking about color issues, to remember that pigment is STRUCTURAL, not just decorative, that WHITE is a creation of domestication processes & too much of this attractive trait has potentially very seriour consequences. Pigment does more than decorate a dog, it protects against everything from cancer to structural collapse. The fashion of litely marked harls & even flashy mantles & breeding dogs who are undermarked and/or "white factored" has a built in penalty, set by Nature. regards, jpy

[jduncan]

jpy- I don't have any idea what you just said. I'm just a ignorant country boy from Georgia.

Mantles were not considered show dogs because of their coat pattern? They carry a lethal gene if bred for white as the dominant color?

Can you simplify why they were just recently introduced as a show dog in the states?

Thanks.

[jpy]

Sorry. Didn't mean to be deliberately obtuse.
Let's back up. Black is a pigment & Mantle is a pattern. Both are inherited seperately. Mantles could be, in theory, blue or even brindle & white, but the standard (worldwide) for danes (with the one possible exception I already mentioned) requires any Dane with white on it to be black in pigment. This general idea is to presernve pigment which equals preserve health. (I'll leave the exact reasons why for another time?)

When people in Danes in the Americas say "Blacks" they mean SOLID BLACK DANES(no more white than toe tips or a star on the chest). When people in Danes say "Mantle" they mean a *SPECIFIC* pattern, a tux-n-tails pattern of BLACK & WHITE. If the dog is somewhere inbetween "BLACK" and "MANTLE" s/he is usually called a "mismarked black," & if the dog is too white to *be* a mantle (more than 30%), then the Dane is called a "piebald" (as not a kind or harl or merle). In Europe (& other FCI countries) "BlACK DANE" has a different connotation: it means a *mostly* Black dog; a dane who could be called "Black" mismarked black" or Mantle" here. You might take a look at the illustrated standard for the breed, as a "picture's worth" as they say: http://www.gdca.org.

As I said, BLACK by the AKC standard excluded "harlequin black" which was recently reintroduced into the standard under the description referred to as MANTLE, a name BTW Germans gave this particular kind of B&W pattern and one they use informally to describe harlequin black. (MANTELTIGER) You need this MANTLE to produce properly marked harlequins.

These MANTLES, just like "flashy" Boxers, can produce all-white or nearly white dogs (who only have patches on their head & tail root). These dogs are called piebalds by Dane people. In this way two Mantles could produce "white" puppies. These piebalds can so lack for pigment that they can be deaf at times. More importantly this piebald can combine with the harl genes to produce a harlequin so lacking it pigment it has major defects. (This happens also in some collie & other herding breeds.) So a harl, esp. a nicely or lightly marked one, bred to a mantle, esp. a flashy one (with lots of white) can produce a whole bunch of mostly white dogs, all of whom have a really likely chance (thru various genetic pathways) of being deaf &/or blind. All because, for various reasons, they don't have enough pigment & pigment cells. If you check out (said your already read them?)the collected articles at my Chroma-Linx on color genetics there are illustrated articles to help with these various points. For mantles the two to begin with are "SPOTS BEFORE YOUR EYES" & the one on Boxers.

Harlequin genetics are considered rather complex & take a bit of study for most folks. It is said harls are the hardest dog to breed properly, so for many worry with these hassles of genetics & lethals & less pups & more costs isn't worth it. Lots of other great dogs & Great Danes to "do" with. And most times folks say they are ignorant or simple "country" they turn out pretty smart enough. Sometimes this is a way of saying the other party is BSing. I'm not & I'm doing my best to explain. Maybe the illustrated articles will help make it clear? Maybe someone else in harls here would now like to take a shot from a different angle? I hope that some folks got something out of the various posts on this thread, as it took me (& LizK too) some time to sit down & compose them. regards, jpy

[jduncan]

No, I am not playing games with you. You are very technical, as to having tons of knowledge in this area.

When you sit a brand new internet "surfer" infront of a computer for the first time, you don't start explaining the basics of Javascript. I was getting lost in your answer. JPY and LizK and everyone in the dane world- it does appear that questions of breeding danes is a hot topic. I am TRULY not attacking anyone. This discussion has obviously been traveled down with the two of you before with tragedy on the opposite side.

My question was why were Mantles just recently(in the last few years) entered as a show dog where they weren't before? JPY, you went into length about the coat and lethal genes. Were coat and lethal genes keeping them out of show dog statis before?


Thanks.

[witzn]

Mantles do not carry a lethal gene as do dogs with Merle. The reason Mantles were not involved in akc showing until recently was because in the US we have held a strict standard for show marked blacks.... in other countries they do not have this.

Mantle blacks have been shown in other countries and been used to breed in everywhere including the US.

sandy