top of page

Fitness Freaks

Public·74 members
Patrick Martin
Patrick Martin

English Setters 101 Pt 1 - English Setter Assoc... !!BETTER!!


The scent of game birds is airborne so to pick up this scent the setter carries its head well up and should never follow foot scent.[3] Most setters are born with a natural proclivity to hunting. Dogs that show excitement and interest in birds are described as being "birdy", and trainers look for puppies that show this particular trait. Training is usually done with quail as a first choice or domesticated pigeons.[34]




English Setters 101 Pt 1 - English Setter Assoc...



By the 17th century setters, or "setting dogges", had become established and were widespread on British estates, although the evolution into the more specific individual breeds of setters occurred at a later date. The interbreeding of the different colours was still taking place during this period but it gradually changed and sportsman/breeders began to segregate matings to dogs adapted to the terrain it was required to work on.[37][41]


The field type and show type English Setter look very different, even though they are the same breed. Field type setters are often smaller and are seen with less feathering and usually more distinctive spotting than show type setters. Both traits are beneficial in the field: less feathering makes getting burs out of their coat easier and the spotting makes them easier to see in the field.[51]


There are actually two types of English setters: Laverack and Llewellin. Generally, Llewellin setters are smaller and more commonly used for hunting, says Gladys Jacobson, breeder at EvrSett English Setters. Laveracks can definitely still hunt, but they're usually bigger and happy just being family dogs.


Not only are they nice to look at, but English setters are also great family dogs. They get along easily with kids because they're so laid back, Jacobson says. This calm temperament is why they can also make great therapy dogs.


Above all, they just want to spend time with their families, and might even be a little sad if you keep them out of the kitchen as you make dinner. English setters coexist well with other dogs and do well with cats, too.


OK, back to the English setter's fancy coat. Owners of dog show competitors will brush their setters daily, but Jacobson says once-a-week brushing will do for the everyday pet owner. You definitely don't want that long, feathery hair to get tangled or matted, so use a soft bristle brush or long-toothed metal comb. That long hair is the perfect vehicle for your dog to carry in leaves, pine needles, and small sticks from outside, so regular brushing is vital. Baths are necessary at least once a month, and you might want to keep that longer hair trimmed.


While they do need a fair bit of hair maintenance, English setters don't shed as much as many other dogs, Jacobson says. She currently has five dogs in the house and says she'll only vacuum once or twice a week.


DNA samples were genotyped on the semi-custom 220k CanineHD array (Illumina). Quality control was performed in PLINK v 1.90 [www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/, 30]. Samples with >3% missingness were removed from analysis, SNPs with >95% missingness were removed, and SNPs that deviated from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (observed:expected heterozygosity ratio of 1.0) were also removed. In total, we included 304 Dalmatians, 120 Australian cattle dogs, and 79 English setters genotyped at 201,020 SNPs. To look for population structure, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed for each breed using the program EIGENSTRAT (EIGENSOFT v5.0.1 package) [31]. SNPs present at


For each dog breed (Dalmatian, Australian cattle dog, English setter), we implemented a three-part GWAS design. First, we used a sibling-pair matched case/control design, in which we included a control (bilaterally hearing) for every case (either bilaterally or unilaterally deaf) from the same litter. We included 33 cases and 33 controls (from 33 litters) for the English setters, 52 cases and 52 controls (from 46 litters) for the Australian cattle dogs, 43 cases and 43 controls (from 38 litters) for the UK Dalmatians, and 82 cases and 82 controls (from 72 litters) for the North American Dalmatians. Due to the sampling design, we ran the sibling-pair analysis in PLINK without including a genetic relatedness matrix. By including a matched case for every control from each litter, we remove the need to control for underlying population structure because, on average, the only differences in common among these cases (compared to their sibling controls) should be SNPs that are involved in causing deafness.


(A) Dalmatians, (B) Australian cattle dogs, and (C) English setters from North America (triangles) and UK (circles). Bilaterally deaf dog samples are shown in red, unilaterally deaf dogs in blue, and control dogs in black.


The objective of the present study was to perform GWAS on DNA samples collected from three piebald dog breeds with a recognized high prevalence of deafness: Dalmatians, Australian cattle dogs, and English setters. We used three GWAS designs: (1) samples collected from sibling pairs (one hearing and one deaf in one or both ears), with the assumption that littermates would have less genomic variability than random subjects, (2) quantitative analysis ignoring sibling relationships, and (3) case-control design of bilaterally deaf dogs vs. control dogs.


We identified one significant (at the genome-wide level) and 14 suggestive (at the chromosome level) associations from our analyses. The significant association was identified in Australian cattle dogs using the GWAS design of bilaterally deaf vs. control dogs. A few of the suggestive associations were identified using the quantitative GWAS design but these all increased in significance using the bilaterally deaf vs. control design. Interestingly, the sibling-pair case/control GWAS design performed worse than the quantitative and bilaterally deaf vs. controls GWAS designs in this study. Inflation factors show that the sibling-pair design was very underpowered. We specifically collected siblings from the same litter for this analysis as a way to control for background relatedness, since each case also has a matching related control, while also enabling a relatively sufficient sample size for each breed. However, it appears that this was unsuccessful, possibly partly due to inadequate sample size, which ranged from 66 in English setters to 164 in North American Dalmatians, but also possibly because the control siblings may carry some genetic variants predisposing to deafness that make it hard to disentangle cases and controls genetically. The quantitative GWAS design had an improvement in power over the sibling-pair design, which could be due to the greater sample size and/or the presence of an extra layer of phenotypic information (the unilaterally deaf dogs were separated from the bilaterally deaf dogs) in the quantitative design. The bilaterally deaf vs. control GWAS design had the most power, even though this involved a decrease in sample size and removal of a layer of phenotypic information from the quantitative GWAS design. This unexpected change in GWAS power is because the bilaterally deaf dogs have accumulated more deafness-predisposing alleles than the unilaterally deaf dogs, as shown by Kluth & Distl (2013) [44]. We compared the genotypes at all 9 associations (significant and suggestive) in bilaterally deaf, unilaterally deaf, and control Australian cattle dogs and found that the bilaterally deaf dogs have a higher average number of risk alleles than the unilaterally deaf dogs, and the difference in mean allele count was significant for 8 of the 9 loci (S4 Fig). Rather than being intermediate in risk allele number, the unilaterally deaf dogs were more similar to that of the control dogs.


In days gone by, Madison Avenue ad men used English pointers and setters to hawk everything from peaches and tires to soda pop and cellophane. For some, there remains no greater thrill than to ride a walking horse through an endless prairie, arrive at a higher elevation, and see a brace of pointers locked up. Others praise the athleticism of a performance setter zigzagging through a tangled mess of primary- and secondary-growth forests and pinning a grouse. Nevertheless, times change and breeds fall in and out of favor. Pointers and setters are considered passé by some; new versatile breeds are enjoying their heyday.


The largest and rarest of the setters, the Gordon, is likely to get along with every member of the family (including your cat). Due to their rarity, finding one of these pups usually requires patience.


The class of English gentleman who loved hunting are responsible for this breed. English setters have gorgeous speckled coats, a height of around 25 inches tall, and a reputation for getting along with everyone. 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page