http://www.windmillfarmsgoldens.com/

Windmill Farms Golden Retrievers, Smithfield, UT (2026)

10/31/2026

2027 Preservation Plans
Will be updated on the website.

Here is our breed preservation outline designed to capture, isolate, and combine the genetic assets from two distinct Transcervical Insemination (TCI) breedings.

This dual-US & UK strategy balances historical conformation attributes with Scottish working lines to bypass modern popular sire bottlenecks, introduce haplotype heterozygosity and re-introduce any potential alleles that have been lost since 1975.

Both females have had a successful TCI

This will be their 2nd litter.

The Dual-Fold US & UK TCI Preservation Outline

1: The US Conformation x Performance Branch

• Sire: Am CH Faera's Sun Dance Risen Shine CD OS SDHF (Born 1975 • Frozen Semen)
• Dam: Blue Mountain Jewel (US Performance Line)

• Primary Genetic Objective: To extract and stabilize phenotypic balance from 1975 standards, deep structural soundness, athleticism, prey drive and historical allelic richness dating back halfway to the AKC acceptance of the breed (1925).

• Expected F1 Dynamic: Captures the structural type of a mid-1970s Conformation Champion paired with high working drive, functioning as a bridge to historical, pre-split genetics.

https://k9-data.org/test-breeding/38932

2: The Transatlantic Deep Outcross Branch

• Sire: Am CH Faera's Sun Dance Risen Shine CD OS SDHF (Born 1975 • Frozen Semen)
• Dam: Taldenian Langhope Heights (Scottish Working Import)

• Primary Genetic Objective: A complete geographical and functional outcross. Because these lines developed in complete isolation from one another, this cross maximizes genomic distance and aims to uncover lost or low-frequency DLA immune haplotypes that predated the modern popular sire "great split."

• Expected F1 Dynamic: High individual heterozygosity and a near-zero or negative Internal Relatedness (IR) value, introducing rare allelic variations entirely independent of modern US show and field bottlenecks.

https://k9-data.org/test-breeding/33625

F1 Evaluation & Genomic Screening Protocol

Once both litters are whelped, standard pedigree evaluation is bypassed in favor of advanced molecular benchmarking:

1. VGL Diversity Panels: Screen all individual puppies to map their explicit Outlier Index (OI) and Average Genetic Relatedness (AGR) against the baseline breed matrix.
2. DLA Haplotype Matching: Identify individuals that successfully inherited rare or underrepresented major histocompatibility complex (MHC) regions from Risen’s 1975 genome.
3. Popular sire Exclusion Verification: Run sequence checks to confirm that the selected progeny maintain zero high-frequency lines within their active 12-generation scope, maintaining a clean break from the dominant popular sire bottlenecks of the late 20th century.

This is a F1 intermediary step. Downstream Integration Matrix (F2 through F4 Projections)

To lock in these unique genetic components without causing immediate genomic decay or spikes in the Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI), the two subpopulation branches will be merged systematically over subsequent generations:

• F2 Inter-Branch Breeding Goal: Mate top-performing, genetically diverse individuals from Progeny A to Progeny B. This step reunites the 1975 historical alleles from both sides while permanently intertwining the working tenacity of the Scottish gun dog with the balance and drive of the US performance line.

• F3/F4 Consolidation: Use the resulting F2 combinations to feed into a wider preservation matrix. This strategy dilutes ancestral overrepresentation, increases the effective population size locally, and retains the classic, versatile Golden Retriever temperament and working capability.

This project represents the absolute peak of the aggressive breed preservation models I have executed to date. By utilizing 50-year-old DOB golden with frozen semen from some of the earliest repro vets, will help bypass decades of genetic erosion, I am fundamentally using a genetic time-travel mechanism to disrupt a closed registry.

By bringing Risen back into my active breeding pool, I am executing an aggressive strategy across four distinct pillars:

1. Disrupting Runs of Homozygosity (ROH)

Modern golden retriever populations have spent the last several decades consolidating around a highly restricted set of popular sires. By introducing a genome from 1975, I am dropping a massive block of ancestral alleles directly into the modern matrix. This acts as an immediate hammer to modern runs of homozygosity, forcing blocks of fixed, uniform genes back into a highly heterozygous state in my F1 generation.

2. Capturing Pre-Split DLA Haplotypes

The "great split" didn't just divide phenotypic look and field drive; it fractured and discarded massive chunks of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). Because Risen predates the extreme polarization of the modern breed, his DLA haplotypes are highly likely to contain low-frequency or entirely lost immune-system markers. By pairing him simultaneously with a US performance line and an isolated Scottish working line, I maximize the probability that those rare immune-system haplotypes successfully anchor themselves in two completely distinct maternal environments.

3. Exploiting Maximum Genomic Distance

My cross with Taldenian Langhope Heights is an incredibly aggressive outcross model. I am combining a 1970s American baseline with a modern Scottish working line that evolved an ocean away under entirely different selective pressures. The genomic distance between these two individuals is likely near the theoretical maximum for the modern breed, allowing me to drive individual heterozygosity up while pushing Internal Relatedness (IR) scores as negative as possible.

4. Pulling the F2 "Re-Unification" Lever

What makes my model truly aggressive is the downstream architecture. Instead of a simple one-off outcross that gets immediately absorbed and diluted back into the modern population, I am creating two parallel lines anchored by the same historical sire. Bringing them back together in the F2 generation allows me to concentrate and stabilize Risen’s 1975 genetics from both sides, while simultaneously locking in the distinct benefits of the Scottish working line and the US performance line.

A special thank you to Rhonda Hovan of the GRCA genetic committee.

10/30/2026

Thank you for the hundreds of responses we've received regarding the debate around cross-breeding to save the golden retriever. I'm unable to respond to all the questions. We deeply appreciate the passion, concern, and shared commitment to the future of this incredible breed, and we are grateful that so many of you care enough to engage in this vital conversation about canine health.

To address some of the questions raised, we want to be entirely clear: at WM Farms, we are not cross-breeding. Our commitment is strictly to the preservation of the purebred golden retriever. As an upland hunter, our interest is to retain the original traits crafted and embedded by the founders. The golden retriever was meticulously crafted to be a premier, versatile working gun dog. It appears that the founders intentionally closed and restricted the early gene pool because they were strictly focused on cementing an elite, highly specialized working field standard. We all understand that this foundational purpose, paired with over 100 years of intense phenotype and closed-book breeding, has ultimately caused many of the severe health issues we face today.

The data from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory (VGL) gives us immense hope. With 46% of the domestic dog species' genetic diversity still intact within the breed, we absolutely still have time to save the golden retriever, if we use that diversity wisely. We are working entirely within the breed's existing gene pool, specifically utilizing the remaining 46% of the breed's genetic diversity. By strategically drawing from distinct subpopulations within the breed, we are working to capture, retain, and reduce ROH to protect this critical diversity.

Our focus is driven by science, particularly what we now understand from advanced haplotype studies. By focusing on these genetic markers, we aim to directly address and mitigate the staggering health issues facing the breed today, especially auto-immune diseases. Every litter we plan is a careful effort to improve overall genetic health, reduce inbreeding, retain traits and protect the future of these dogs.

https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.org/blog/the-5-most-important-things-to-know-about-cross-breeding

The principles detailed in this article, specifically how serial backcrossing to a single line rapidly halves and eventually deletes newly introduced genetic diversity, are exactly why we have structured our program the way we have. While the ICB outline focuses on the mechanics of crossing to different breeds or landraces to solve a closed gene pool crisis, it highlights the exact same mathematical traps we are avoiding within our own breed's population.

Her core warnings based on genetic outcomes are relevant.

The article correctly points out that crossing two highly in**ed, homozygous lines of the same closed population doesn't solve the problem, as offspring simply inherit identical homozygous blocks. This is precisely why we do not just breed local lines. By mapping and utilizing the final, distinct 46% of the breed's global diversity, we are treating isolated geographical subpopulations as our outcross anchors to effectively break up homozygosity.

The ICB outline explicitly warns that focusing too soon on phenotype can limit genetic progress and compromises immune system function. By prioritizing the reduction of Runs of Homozygosity (ROH) and mapping DLA haplotypes first, we build the diverse genetic foundation necessary to safely preserve the breed.

Beuchat notes that traditional serial backcrossing to a standard line wipes out 50% of the gained diversity with every single generation. To prevent this, WM Farms does not use standard serial backcrossing. Instead, we use a structured, multi-line generational matrix utilizing multiple unrelated outcross dogs from separate subpopulations to anchor and hold that 46% diversity across generations without diluting it back to the baseline.

We are applying these exact population management rules, not by introducing an outside breed, but by managing the global architecture of the purebred golden retriever to protect its health and its historic legacy.

The commercial cross-breeding market is driven by marketing fads, not population genetics, and it routinely combines highly incompatible genetic risk profiles.

The Brian Regan comedy bit is spot on, cranberry is in everything, and right now, the golden retriever is the "cranberry juice" of the dog world. It has become the foundational mixer for nearly every trendy crossbreed on the market.

But from a population genetics standpoint, pouring golden retriever genes into every cocktail is an incredibly risky gamble.

What really is the golden retriever today? It is a breed experiencing a profound identity crisis born from extreme fragmentation and commercial polarization. From a 100 # couch potato to a 400 yard retrieve, the golden has become one of the most fractured and bottlenecked breed today.

The statistic is stark and true: data from major research entities, like the Morris Animal Foundation's golden retriever Lifetime Study, confirms that approximately 60% of golden retrievers will face a cancer diagnosis in their lifetime. This is double the 25–30% baseline cancer rate seen in the general dog population. The breed is overwhelmingly prone to aggressive malignancies like hemangiosarcoma, lymphoma, and osteosarcoma.

The standard defense for these crosses is "hybrid vigor," but true genetic rescue requires a deep understanding of the parental lines' health architecture. When people blindly cross two breeds without doing that homework, the results can be disastrous.

Crossing a golden retriever and a Bernese mountain dog, two breeds with some of the highest statistical rates of histiocytic sarcoma and hemangiosarcoma in the canine world, without genetic screening is a ticking time bomb. Instead of "fixing" anything, it simply aggregates complex polygenic cancer risks into a single litter, which is then sold at a massive premium based purely on novelty.

The "Worst of Both Worlds" Reality
Traits do not automatically blend into a perfect 50/50 mix. When crossing a golden retriever and a poodle, you are combining two highly intelligent, high-energy working breeds with completely different coat types, structural standards, and behavioral bents. In the F1 and F2 generations, the random assortment of alleles often results in unstable temperaments, high anxiety, and high-maintenance, easily matted coats that lack the structural purpose of either purebred parent. This is without a doubt my least favorite cross.

An intentional F1 through F4 generational matrix, conducted under the strict oversight of a population geneticist, using rigorous genomic sequencing, precise tracking of Internal Relatedness (IR), and selective retention, is a valid scientific framework for genetic rescue. This process requires a minimum 10-year timeline, massive institutional discipline, and sophisticated molecular testing that simply is not happening at the neighborhood or commercial level.

There is a vast difference between commercial fad-crossing for a premium price tag and scientific population management.

In my eyes, the function, temperament, and beauty of the golden retriever are completely unmatched, making this incredible breed well worth saving.

10/28/2026

Here's my golden retriever 100 year breeding analogy: breeding purebred golden retrievers today is structurally akin to attending a century-long family reunion, finding a first cousin, having children, and repeating that cycle over generations while deliberately packing as many aunts, uncles, parents, and grandparents into a four-generation pedigree as possible.

Pop culture, comedians, and families have spent generations making the "married cousins" trope the ultimate punchline for structural deformities, dental anomalies, and neurological issues. (Slack jaw, bug eyed) Society collectively recognizes that a first-cousin human pairing carries an elevated genetic risk, even though, ironically, that human cousin scenario only yields an inbreeding coefficient of 6.25%.

In factual terms, the biological reality is actually much tighter than my analogy suggests. While a human first-cousin mating yields a Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI) of 6.25%, modern genetic testing reveals that the average purebred golden retriever has an internal genomic COI exceeding 20% to 25%. In population genetics, this makes the baseline relationship between two average purebred dogs the biological equivalent of mating full human siblings or a parent with their offspring.

So why? Why breed to a 25% genomic COI if almost everyone understands the cost?

Because registries operate under a closed studbook, no new genetic material has entered the breed for over 100 years. Breeders trying to select for specific physical or behavioral traits have been forced to continuously recombine the exact same finite pool of foundational DNA. I recognize that this intensive linebreeding has been severely amplified by the "popular sire effect," where a small handful of heavily awarded show or field dogs father hundreds of litters, creating massive genetic bottlenecks. Consequently, even dogs from entirely separate lines remain deeply interconnected under the hood.

The long-term consequence of this continuous family reunion is a steep rise in inbreeding depression, which manifests as structural vulnerability, shortened lifespans, and a dangerous depletion of the Dog Leukocyte Antigen (DLA) immune complexes. By locking the population into high genetic homozygosity, harmful recessive mutations have become fixed across the breed. This lack of internal diversity ultimately leaves the modern population with a compromised immune blueprint, directly driving the breed's devastating 60% cancer rate.

The data compiled and analyzed on The Institute of Canine Biology (ICB) shows that the vast majority of purebred dog breeds, easily over 90% to 95%, are well over the safe genomic COI limit.

The ICB frequently references a landmark 2021 peer-reviewed study by Dr. Danika Bannasch and colleagues at UC Davis that analyzed the genomic COI (measured via DNA data rather than shallow pedigrees) of 227 purebred dog breeds.

The findings are stark when matched against established biological "safe" thresholds:

1. The Defined "Safe" Limits vs. Purebred Reality

According to population genetics rules outlined by the ICB:

• The Critical Safe Threshold is under 5% to 6.25%: At this level, inbreeding depression is negligible.
• The "Extinction Vortex" begins at 10%: A COI over 10% triggers a sharp decline in individual fitness, immune system health, and reproductive capability, while exponentially rising the expression of recessive mutations.
• The Purebred Average is 25%: The landmark study showed that the average genomic COI across the 227 breeds was a staggering 25%. This means the average purebred puppy is genetically more identical than the offspring of two unrelated full human siblings.

2. Almost No Breeds Are in the Safe Zone

Of the hundreds of breeds tracked, only a tiny handful of highly diverse, recently established, or intensely managed landrace/working breeds maintain an average COI under the 10% danger zone. The vast majority of popular AKC breeds, including Golden Retrievers, Poodles, Bulldogs, and Bernese Mountain Dogs, have average genetic COIs hovering between 20% and 45%. There is a gentlemen that follows our FB posts who has a show golden with an Embark COI of 44%.

What This Means For Breed Survival

As Dr. Carol Beuchat of the ICB routinely emphasizes, no level of inbreeding is completely safe; the detrimental effects scale linearly with the COI. When nearly an entire registry is pushed past a 25% genomic COI, traditional health clearances can no longer save them because the overall immune system is structurally homogenized.

To save these breeds, preservationists argue that kennel clubs must treat these genomic COI figures as a biological emergency and adjust breeding rules before population collapses or severe health epidemics make extinction irreversible.

I don't believe change will happen anytime soon. In fact world wide, governments and activist groups are stepping in. With no regulation "yet" in the US, WM Farms is actively seeking a minimum of 4 subpopulation goldens living or frozen from around the world. Without getting too political, financial and structural incentives of major kennel clubs make a rapid, top-down regulatory shift highly unlikely. When I follow the money and look at how these registries operate, it becomes clear that their core business model is built on volume, registration fees, and event monetization, rather than the long-term biological survival of a population.

Health and cancer are undeniably the number one crises facing the golden retriever breed today. While "proving" goldens is the main priority of most, the VGL indicates we still have about 46% of the golden retriever genes to work with. Proving a dog is not inherently bad at all, it is the foundation of working and functional capability. The issue isn't the concept of proving; it's the narrow, single-lane road the mainstream system uses to get there, and the catastrophic genetic toll that road takes. While kennel clubs focus on ribbons and conformation, the reality under the hood is a biological emergency, with GRLS US studies showing that approximately 60% of all golden retrievers will die of cancer, primarily hemangiosarcoma and lymphoma.

While the mainstream population is trapped in a severe, artificial bottleneck, data from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory (VGL) shows that golden retrievers as a whole still retain roughly 46% of the total genetic diversity found across the entire domestic dog species.

This means the raw genetic materials required to rebuild a healthy, immune-competent population still exist within the breed boundary. The disaster isn't that the genes are completely missing from the planet; the disaster is where those genes are currently trapped, and how traditional breeders prioritize phenotype over genotype.

Phenotype and genotype can absolutely coexist. In fact, combining a beautiful, functional dog with a diverse, healthy genome is the ultimate gold standard of modern preservation breeding.

The two metrics do not have to be mutual enemies. The problem today isn't that selecting for a great phenotype inherently destroys the genome; it is that the traditional system has pursued phenotype exclusively within a highly compressed, overlapping circle.

When I look at why this specific breed is hit so uniquely hard, the financial and structural issues discussed line up perfectly with the biological ones:

The Genetic Fixation of Cancer

Because the breed has been treated like a closed family reunion for a century, the genetic mutations that prime a dog’s body for cancer have become "fixed" meaning they are woven directly into the standard genetic fabric of the population. When breeders select heavily for specific physical traits or overuse a single popular sire, they inadvertently copy and paste those hidden cancer risks into thousands of puppies. Because everyone is breeding cousins to cousins, there are no "clean" lines left to breed away from it.

A Compromised Defense System

Cancer is essentially a failure of the immune system to recognize and destroy mutated cells. By continually prioritizing phenotype over internal diversity, breeding practices have severely depleted the Dog Leukocyte Antigen (DLA) complexes, the very genes responsible for the immune system's frontline defense.

I see a direct line here: when you strip a breed of its immune diversity, you leave it completely defenseless against the genetic cancer time bomb already ticking in its DNA. So, because of the VGL, I can fix that. I have, I am and I will continue to make that a priority in our breeding program.

The massive data collaboration between the Royal Veterinary College VetCompass and the Morris Animal Foundation Golden Retriever Lifetime Study (GRLS) is uniquely positioned to map this crisis. By combining massive electronic patient records from primary-care veterinary practices with the deep, annual biological tracking of the 3,000-dog GRLS cohort, researchers can directly connect clinical outcomes to environmental and genetic risk factors.

WM Farms is 7 years into a 15 year breed preservation initiative. While waiting for the long-term datasets from VetCompass and GRLS to fully mature, active preservationists have a distinct advantage: the tools and methodologies required to act are already accessible.

Testing for Ichthyosis (ICH), PRA1, PRA2, NCL, or DM, the standard handful of simple, single-gene recessive mutations, is merely checking for potholes on a road that is structurally collapsing.

Clearing a dog for 12 known mutations does not mean you have a healthy animal; it just means you have an in**ed dog that won't get those 12 specific diseases.

OMIA in AUS track comprehensive deleterious mutation lists, there are over 50 documented deleterious mutations quietly circulating through the global golden retriever gene pool. Testing for a tiny fraction of them creates a dangerous, false sense of security.

Making phenotype and genotype coexist means utilizing a precise, data-driven approach to navigate the remaining 46% of the breed's genetics is the essence of our 15 year goal.

True breed preservation science suggests abandoning the "single-gene check" mindset and managing the entire genome as an interconnected ecosystem. If we want to save the golden retriever, preservation genetics has a solution.

10/28/2026

Sunset at the farm.

10/27/2026

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it."

Windmill Farms Golden Retrievers

10/27/2026

I received a question this week that I hadn't heard in a while, I use to hear it all the time about 12 or 20 years ago. The discussion was, do your goldens carry cancer?

When the average person asks if a particular lineage "carries" cancer, they are using a outdated, Mendelian frame for a complex, non-Mendelian crisis. Because cancer in golden retrievers is highly polymorphic, polygenic, and widespread, asking if a dog "carries" it is fundamentally asking the wrong question; what they are actually asking about is the dog's genomic landscape of Runs of Homozygosity (ROH) and overall homozygosity.

The Real Ask: Genomic Architecture vs. Mendelian Inheritance

The Inbreeding Engine: Inbreeding does not create cancer mutations out of thin air, but it builds the massive Runs of Homozygosity (ROH) that allow ancestral, deleterious recessive risk alleles to double up and express themselves.

The Immune Monopoly: High homozygosity flags a massive depletion of diversity in crucial immune regions. When a dog has matching haplotypes in their immune complex, they lose the dual-blueprint defense needed for robust cellular surveillance and tumor suppression.

Polymorphic Triggers: Because cancer expression relies on a stacked deck of risk loci across multiple chromosomes, a high internal relatedness score simply guarantees that a dog will inherit the homozygous matching blocks required to trigger those predispositions.

When you shift the conversation to ROH and homozygosity, you move away from defensive, oversimplified inheritance tracking and focus instead on the true antidote to the breed's bottleneck: maximizing genomic heterozygosity to dismantle those fixed recessive risk combinations.

What GRLS, Vet Compass and the VGL science and all of the voluntary submission of genetic testing today has taught us so far:

When you combine a heavy reliance on a few popular sires, lock in a strict phenotype, and allow Runs of Homozygosity (ROH) to accumulate, you create the perfect genomic storm for disease.

High rates of ROH mean long stretches of identical chromosomes inherited from both parents. This homozygosity eliminates genetic variety, strips the immune system of its diverse defenses, and forces complex, polymorphic cancer risk alleles to double up and express themselves.

By reversing this approach, focusing on outcrossed pedigrees, lower internal relatedness, and higher genetic diversity, you actively break up those homozygous blocks and reduce the likelihood of these complex diseases manifesting.

Managing genomic architecture is the definitive form of risk mitigation for a breeder, precisely because you cannot control external environmental triggers or the complex, polygenic baseline propensity for cancer already baked into the breed.
While you can’t write a flawless, cancer-free genetic script, you can actively manipulate the genomic environment to stack the deck in the dog's favor. This is exactly what Windmill Farms preservation initiative is doing. Retaining what we have and reconstructing it.

While a single deterministic "cancer gene" doesn't exist to be tested on a simple clear/carrier/affected basis, heavy phenotypic selection and popular sire syndrome have fixed complex immune vulnerabilities across the breed.

Despite having an unprecedented wealth of genomic data at our fingertips, the overall trajectory of the golden retriever breed remains critically misaligned with genetic sustainability.

The data exists, but it isn’t being operationalized at scale. Because the vast majority of the breeding population is still managed under traditional "kennel culture" paradigms, the breed as a whole continues to slide deeper into genetic depletion.

10/27/2026

Crew & Sloane

From the Taldenian Langhope Heights (UK) x Four Lakes Lil Somethin' Special CD MH20 NA NAJ WCX *** DDHF VCX CCA

7 years ago when we started this initiative, I never would have thought this was possible.

Our 3rd subpopulation cross has yielded the best results yet. The real key is to have them crossed back into the F3 & F4 subpopulations. Crew has the most genetically diverse report in our program to date. I sent Sloane's off this week.

10/26/2026

We had 3 more pups leave this week for SAR work from the Eph x Cora litter.

Picture below is an Ephraim son, Basin and handler, Ember who work in CA for the Sheriff's department. He's a certified cadaver golden who is performing well.

Ephraim's temperament, nose and biddable nature along with his unique genetic make up has given us a golden treasure. His progeny are making tremendous strides in these crucial service fields.

Within 24 hours of getting home, Nathan has already started his SAR work with his new Ephraim Cora puppy

10/26/2026

I have information on two other Ephraim pups.

Ember shared the picture below of Basin, another cadaver golden.

Basin specializes in Human Remains Detection (HRD) / cadaver search for the Riverside County Search Dogs, working alongside his handler, Ember.

Basin is a volunteer search and rescue (SAR) canine asset serving Riverside County and the broader Southern California region.

Another litter mate is working in AZ Fire as a bomb detection golden.

I absolutely love seeing these goldens working in any SAR field. Not only is this a liaison for the breed, but another reason we need these dogs living longer. The tragedy of losing a highly trained Search and Rescue (SAR) partner to early-onset cancer highlights a critical crisis where working utility intersects with population genomics.

When a breed requires two to three years of intensive, specialized training to become operational, losing that dog to a sudden genetic crisis like hemangiosarcoma at six or seven years old is devastating. It means a dog is taken in their absolute prime, right when their experience, scent refinement, and handler bond reach peak proficiency.

The 60% cancer rate in Golden Retrievers remains a stark indictment of traditional breeding practices, especially when modern genomic tools and a massive worldwide population mean the resources to fix it are readily available. In high-stakes working industries like SAR, service work, or military applications, a 60% failure-by-disease rate would be considered an unmitigated operational failure in any other context.

The primary barrier is no longer a lack of science, but a widespread resistance to changing how breeding choices are made.

7 years ago WM Farms shifted from phenotype to include genotype. We are rebuilding the genetic profile of today's golden which includes as much of the population genetics as possible. Clearly this is not compromising utility and traits. The tools to measure genomic health, such as tracking Runs of Homozygosity (ROH), assessing DLA haplotype diversity, and calculating true genetic distance, exist right now.

Ephraim has a unique set of haplotypes. The are all heterozygous and rare IE less than a 4% occurance rate.