Thoughts on abnormal genes.
The goal of breeding is to improve the animal - breed to the standard for solid type. Health, temperament, fur, and flesh condition are also traits to be selected. Culling to eliminate undesirable traits and defects is part of the process.
A lot of high-ranking breeders insist the Max Factor (MF) gene is vital for nationally competitive dwarfs. Perhaps so, since that is what wins these days. But is it a better rabbit? Why are we perpetuating such a defective gene?
MF advocates argue that by that definition, the dwarf gene is defective in producing peanuts. Yes, that's true, but it can be avoided to some extent. A false dwarf doe (lacking the dwarf gene) bred to a true dwarf buck (the show bunny) can produce show quality offspring and there will be no peanuts. Other dwarf breeds also deal with peanuts, and it's just a fact of life with a dwarf breed. However, those other breeds do not accept another defective gene as desirable.
MF is harder to avoid if you are breeding to the current fashion. MF carriers
are bred to each other to get that desired type, but at the same time producing
more kits that must be destroyed. Many a MF breeder has lamented the high number of MF kits in a litter. One of the advantages of an animal that has litters is being able to choose the best from the litter. If there is only one viable kit (or none), there are no options. You have to rely on the parents to give their all in that one kit. Since these "high quality" rabbits probably cost a very dear penny, that's asking a lot.
Back to the question - is it a better rabbit? One of the main things that makes a species successful is its ability to reproduce. Natural selection culls defects very quickly. Man steps in, breeds a mutation that wouldn't survive in nature, and creates a new breed. That's all well and good, but sometimes fashion creates very unsuccessful animals. Is a dog breed successful if it can only reproduce with man's intervention (C-section)?
Peanuts rarely survive past 3 days. We don't have to destroy them, nature does it for us. MF kits can survive with the terrible deformities if not culled at birth. Some breeders allow them just to see how long they'll survive, or worse, because they have a soft heart, but the poor things are usually blind with constant eye infections, can't get around well enough to keep themselves clean, and they can't breed. While there can be an entire litter of peanuts, it's usually just one or two, leaving some healthy siblings. Breeding MF, the odds are much less favorable.
I could include hippos in this, but no one knows just what, if anything, they contribute to the breed. They might be a side affect of MF or the dwarf gene, and are becoming more common. No one seems to be going out of their way to eliminate the gene.
I admire the European (especially the UK) view on animal husbandry. Certain types of breeding are frowned upon and even illegal because of the defects it produces. They don't appreciate the MF gene, and it's ironic that it came from there. Maybe it was culled to export sales?
While MF is mostly a Netherland thing, other dwarf breeds may be victims, too. If Netherlands were used in development, or to improve type, the risk of introducing the MF gene is there.
I should mention that I haven't seen MF in quite a while. I didn't go out of my way to eliminate it, nor do I seek it specifically. It just went away. I think mostly due to MF-carrier does that never produced any keepers. That's pretty much the last time I saw it. I'm sure it will pop up again as I bring in new rabbits. I just don't think about it either way when choosing new stock.
Sadly, Americans are slaves to fashion with less regard for the integrity of gene pools. If ARBA was to look more closely at how our Netherland Dwarfs are being bred, would they consider educating judges on how to recognize this defective gene? I doubt it. Is it more important to breed a winning rabbit or a better rabbit? Why can't we have both in the same package?
tnt
