What Would You Do?

[Furx3]

No idea what I'd do in your situation I'm pretty sure I know the breed you are after and it's also a favourite of mine ;) and I think would be very popular if there were more around, so maybe you could import, bring in new blood etc.

I was thinking of importing a few years ago, bracco Italiano, as I adore them and luckily for me, a wonderful ethical lovely breeder DID bring one in and she is just as lovely as I thought, so I'm hoping ONE DAY ......

I don't understand breeders not doing health checks. Of course something like HD can come from anywhere in the animal's ancestry and testing is no guarantee, but the more testing done and history and records available, the better for all dogs and owners.

I wish you luck and a positive outcome and hope you have success with gaining your dream breed.xxx

Wow, I must be really bad at playing it cool and neutral :rolleyes:. Love the Bracco too . It is not like I am about to get a puppy tomorrow I guess, so I still have time to spend on deciding whether the import cost and risk is worth it, waiting for my Aus breeder of choice to have a litter (whenever that may be), or changing breeds.

[BJean]

What health tests

and do you know if the health issues are a problem in the Australian population?

[BJean]

Hi

I have been lurking on these forums for some time, but today decided to post my very first topic .

I have been smitten with a particular breed for nearing a decade and know that this breed is the one for me. I always planned for my next dog to be of this particular breed. The problem is, that this is a relatively rare breed and the active breeders of this breed (bar one), both in Australia and NZ, do not do what I would consider the necessary health testing of their breeding dogs..... And yes, they are listed on DOL and I have personally spoken with them all. They do give me their reasons for not testing, non of them valid in IMHO. I have been on the only Breeder who does test's waiting list for 7 years, a small breeder who has had no successful matings in this time, and no plans for any litters in the near future.

So what now? Do I choose another breed from my 'reserve list' , from a 'reputable breeder'? I currently have two of these whom I love dearly and would not replace for all the world, but know that what I really want is my first choice breed if I am to get a third dog at all. Do I decide to take a puppy from a Breeder of the breed I want, who has not performed any health tests on their dogs? Very risky, and something I feel strongly about and lecture friends and family on :rolleyes: !! Or do I choose to import from a country that will necessitate a stay in quarantine? This is something I am not at all keen on doing for a number of reasons, ranging from wanting to start my puppies life with our family from as close to 8 weeks of age as possible to ensure I am able to socialise the pup appropriately........ to feeling that the last place a young dog should be is in quarantine, which could potential damage the pups temperament! I also live in Qld, where there are no quarantine facilities so I would not be able to visit the dog regularly myself.

How long have they been breeding, how many litters, how old are the dogs living to.

If its HD and ED that are your concerns, then your best indicator is the health of what the breeder has produced from the same lines,

that will tell you more than an xray.

and will be a better indicator of the propensity for health and longevity of a puppy from the sire/dam combination you are considering.

Look at age of sire, dam

age of great/grandparents when died and from what cause.

Oldest sibling or puppy bred from the sire / dam etc

ETA:

atm I am looking at puppy from o/s

health testing is not done or has ever been done in pups country of origin.

I personally would not consider another country or breed just bcz of the existence of health tests -

healthy, long living dogs were bred before the advent of health tests and good breeders knew how to select sound stock -

health testing is about helping breeders gather information as part of the decision making process wrt breeding choices.

Health doesn't need to be a mystery, just be practical and objective in what you are looking out for.

Edited June 13, 2010 by lilli

[Monah]

LOL, I'm probably completely wrong!! :rolleyes:

as usual, lilli has an excellent and sensible post.

HD can be in non breeding stock littermates who have not been tested, and this can go back years, so even testing through sires and dams with negative HD can never alleviate the risk completely. It can still turn up

Hopefully over the years with testing, this will eventually not be passed on, eventually!

Edited June 13, 2010 by Monah

[Staranais]

I don't believe there's any reason not to score for ED and HD in a large breed, especially not a large breed where HD or ED are known to exist. It's not a simple monogenetic condition where if it's out of your lines then it's permanently gone. Puppies can't be clear of HD or ED by parentage. It can pop up after lines have been apparently normal for generations.

Sure, if the parents and grandparents and siblings never got HD then the chances of your dog getting it are lower than if some of them were overtly dysplastic. But dogs can have borderline hips and still look phenotypically normal. Breed two dogs with borderline hips together, and chances are you'll get some puppies with dyplasia.

Why take the risk? X-rays aren't that expensive to do, not compared to all the other expenses of raising pedigree puppies.

[BJean]

I don't believe there's any reason not to score for ED and HD in a large breed, especially not a large breed where HD or ED are known to exist. It's not a simple monogenetic condition where if it's out of your lines then it's permanently gone. Puppies can't be clear of HD or ED by parentage. It can pop up after lines have been apparently normal for generations.

it pops up because HD and ED are not driven by genetic factors alone.

Sure, if the parents and grandparents and siblings never got HD then the chances of your dog getting it are lower than if some of them were overtly dysplastic. But dogs can have borderline hips and still look phenotypically normal. Breed two dogs with borderline hips together, and chances are you'll get some puppies with dyplasia.

Why take the risk? X-rays aren't that expensive to do, not compared to all the other expenses of raising pedigree puppies.

Hip scores are the image of the hip joint at the time an xray was taken.

It does not tell you how that hip joint will age and how this will then impact the total soudness and longevity of the dog, and the role the dogs musculoskeletal system will also play in supporting and contributing to long term physical soundness.

Consequently the propensity for hip structure to be passed on from parent to offspring, is much better gauged by previous litters from the same combination.

imo hip scores can cause tunnel vision at the expense of the assessment of the total dog.

With large breeds, locomotion and soundness depends on strong leg structure, hocks and pastern and gaskins and muscle development that will support the hips, torso; the dogs weight against the constant wearing force of gravity and the environment.

imo a puppy buyer is better with a puppy from a sire/dam with an average-fair score but with strong sound structural foundation, and with a history of producing the same

than a puppy from sire/dam with 0/0 score who have weak hocks, inadequate stifle, weak pasterns, poor shoulder

and / or no history on the sire/dams propensity to reproduce a certain physical type.

The pup from the first litter will bear the toils of gravity and the environment better and with more hardiness than a pup from the second litter.

One of my girls is slightly cowhocked; hocks are straight when standing but when she moves away from you they almost brush. As she ages, her near perfect hips will be of no consequence

on such a long legged large dog, weak hocks will age her quicker than had her hips scored average or fair.

To her advantage is a perfect front which is better conformed to take more impact than a front not as well conformed.

In large/giant breeds, it's not just hips that have a say in the health and longevity of the dog.

Owners need to be aware that locomotion, soundness and longevity in large / giant breeds depends on balanced structure.

Big dogs = more wear and tear on the joints so efficiency and a strong leg support system is just as imporant as hips. east west pups, weak hocked pups, inadequate stifle in a heavy bones / tall breed will develop arthiritis as a given, inefficient movement casued by weak conformation places undue wear and tear on bones and joints; hips are but one part of many.

Muscle development, exercise and diet as the dog matures impacts its own influence again

so the final result of physical soundess is more multifaceted and interelated

than a hip score leads many to believe.

Edited June 13, 2010 by lilli

[Staranais]

it pops up because HD and ED are not driven by genetic factors alone.

It also pops up because there are many genes contributing to the formation & growth of a hip joint, and we can't directly test for or eliminate each undesirable allele. If we could, there would be no need to radiograph.

Hip scores are the image of the hip joint at the time an xray was taken.

It does not tell you how that hip joint will age and how this will then impact the total soudness and longevity of the dog, and the role the dogs muscolsketal system will also play in supporting and contributing to the total soudnnes of the dog.

Consequently the propensity for hip structure to be passed on from parent to offpsring is much better gauged by previous litters from the same combination.

imo hip scores can cause tunnel vision at the expense of the assessment of the total dog.

You're very right, hip scores and elbow scores are not the be all and end all of a good dog, or even of a good hip. But the fact that some breeders pay too much attention to hip and elbow scores is no reason not to score dogs at all. Even if you still choose to breed a dog with only moderately good hips because it is a fantastic dog in other ways, at least you can choose to breed it to a dog with great hips, as proven by performance and radiographs.

I can not think of one single good reason not to hip and elbow score a breeding dog from a large breed that sometimes shows ED or HD.

[BJean]

it pops up because HD and ED are not driven by genetic factors alone.

It also pops up because there are many genes contributing to the formation & growth of a hip joint, and we can't directly test for or eliminate each undesirable allele. If we could, there would be no need to radiograph.

Yes.

Even if you could test for all genes contributing to the formation & growth of a hip joint, would you still exclude a dog from breeding program based on such results?

Hip scores are the image of the hip joint at the time an xray was taken.

It does not tell you how that hip joint will age and how this will then impact the total soudness and longevity of the dog, and the role the dogs muscolsketal system will also play in supporting and contributing to the total soudnnes of the dog.

Consequently the propensity for hip structure to be passed on from parent to offpsring is much better gauged by previous litters from the same combination.

imo hip scores can cause tunnel vision at the expense of the assessment of the total dog.

You're very right, hip scores and elbow scores are not the be all and end all of a good dog, or even of a good hip. But the fact that some breeders pay too much attention to hip and elbow scores is no reason not to score dogs at all. Even if you still choose to breed a dog with only moderately good hips because it is a fantastic dog in other ways, at least you can choose to breed it to a dog with great hips, as proven by performance and radiographs.

I can not think of one single good reason not to hip and elbow score a breeding dog from a large breed that sometimes shows ED or HD.

Whether we can come up with reasons or not is not the issue :rolleyes:

The question is can furbabies buy a sound large breed puppy if ED and HD xrays have not been taken?

And if not,

what do we suppose sire/dam xrays will indicate about the health and longevity of the dogs in consideration, or indeed even the sire/dams propensity to pass this hip structure on,

that pedigree and breeding history, siblings grandparents etc

and an eye for balanced sound structure can't?

And all this, coupled with the incidence of bloat and cancer in the breed.

Which health issue to pick?

As a breeder do you breed from fair average hips or from a bitch who's granddam or offspring died of cancer; bloat?

As a puppy buyer what concerns you more?

Edited June 13, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

In answer to one posters question, the breeder I have been on the wait list of has only attempted 4 matings in the time I have been waiting - two unsuccessful (AI), one phantom and one singleton pup, which she kept.

A puppy from the breeder who does do the health tests, but has had minimal puppies

could pose as more of a 'health unknown'

simply because there is not the proven previous litters on the ground

from the sire/dam combination.

Hence any indication of genetic propensity and what that might be.

[Sheridan]

I get the impression that the heritable disease this breed gets is not HD or ED because these have been mentioned separately to the one in the OP.

I'm also interested in the question as to whether the disease that the breeders are not testing for is one that has shown up in the lines currently available in Australia. It's notable that when I was inquiring about wheatens I was told that there had never been a case of protein losing diseases in Australian lines and yet a number of years later, there it was. It follows, just with that example, that just because there hasn't been a case of the disease the OP is talking about, it doesn't mean it isn't present in Australian lines.

[Staranais]

it pops up because HD and ED are not driven by genetic factors alone.

It also pops up because there are many genes contributing to the formation & growth of a hip joint, and we can't directly test for or eliminate each undesirable allele. If we could, there would be no need to radiograph.

Yes.

Even if you could test for all genes contributing to the formation & growth of a hip joint, would you still exclude a dog from breeding program based on such results?

Me? I'm no breeder, Lilli. But if I were in that situation, then if the dog had absolutely crappy hips, if almost every gene related to hip quality was bad, then yes I would most likely exclude it from the program. If it had moderate hips, I'd keep it if it were a dog with other qualities I really wanted - and cross it with a dog with different set of bad alleles, so the pups wouldn't have clinically evident dysplasia. If it had great hips, I wouldn't exclude it from the breeding program on the basis of its hips. Heck, if it had amazing hips, I might breed it just to grab those good alleles into my lines - although of course there is a lot, lot more to a dog than its hips. :rolleyes:

And all this, coupled with the incidence of bloat and cancer in the breed.

which health issue to pick?

As a breeder do you breed from fair average hips or from a bitch with excellent hips who's granddam or offspring died of cancer; bloat?

As a puppy buyer what concerns you more?

It seems a pity to me to have to pick, although I know it is necessary to some degree in all breeds. But my main point is, you don't really know how good hips are if you don't x-ray, so you can't make a fully informed choice. Sure, you can pick the dogs with really crappy hips (they show clinical signs!) But you can't tell the borderline hips from the good ones from the excellent ones based on performance - they all just look normal.

It's the same problem they're having in NZ huntaways now. Great dogs, bred purely for working ability for the last few hundred years by people who (by and large) breed pretty carefully for a dog that can work all day, you'd think they'd have damn good hips. A recent survey of farmers has just shown that there is a considerable problem with hip dysplasia (among other things) turning up in the breed. Would better pedigree keeping have helped? I bet it would! But I also think x-rays would have done a lot as well.

I've rambled too long - sorry OP - this isn't really on topic for you (unless you choose to breed at some point, I guess!) I agree with Lilli that doing pedigree research will be very, very helpful to someone in your situation. It just also makes me cranky that the breeders in Aussie & NZ aren't using all available tools out there to ensure they're producing healthy pups.

[...]

IMO they should be health testing, regardless of how uncommon the breed is. That said if I REALLY wanted the dog, I'd probably go for it. I think it depends on whether you're willing to settle for a different breed or not.

[maxbox]

The more I think about this, the crankier it makes me. How are people supposed to convince the general public that buying from a purebred breeders is safer & better than buying from a BYB when some registered breeders neither test their breeding stock for genetic disease, nor offer a health guarantee against genetic disease?

Sorry to hijack your thread a little, just wanted to express my crankiness at your situation.

Me too, I was listening to a fellow breeder talking to a potential puppy buyer when the buyer enquired about health testing, "oh the vet does that when they're vaccinated" was the reply.

Guess what, that puppy buyer went elsewhere to a breeder that did health test because they had done the research.

[shortstep]

[but if I were in that situation, then if the dog had absolutely crappy hips, if almost every gene related to hip quality was bad, then yes I would most likely exclude it from the program. If it had moderate hips, I'd keep it if it were a dog with other qualities I really wanted - and cross it with a dog with different set of bad alleles, so the pups wouldn't have clinically evident dysplasia. If it had great hips, I wouldn't exclude it from the breeding program on the basis of its hips. Heck, if it had amazing hips, I might breed it just to grab those good alleles into my lines - although of course there is a lot, lot more to a dog than its hips.

And all this, coupled with the incidence of bloat and cancer in the breed.

which health issue to pick?

As a breeder do you breed from fair average hips or from a bitch with excellent hips who's granddam or offspring died of cancer; bloat?

As a puppy buyer what concerns you more?

It seems a pity to me to have to pick, although I know it is necessary to some degree in all breeds. But my main point is, you don't really know how good hips are if you don't x-ray, so you can't make a fully informed choice. Sure, you can pick the dogs with really crappy hips (they show clinical signs!) But you can't tell the borderline hips from the good ones from the excellent ones based on performance - they all just look normal.

It's the same problem they're having in NZ huntaways now. Great dogs, bred purely for working ability for the last few hundred years by people who (by and large) breed pretty carefully for a dog that can work all day, you'd think they'd have damn good hips. A recent survey of farmers has just shown that there is a considerable problem with hip dysplasia (among other things) turning up in the breed. Would better pedigree keeping have helped? I bet it would! But I also think x-rays would have done a lot as well.

I've rambled too long - sorry OP - this isn't really on topic for you (unless you choose to breed at some point, I guess!) I agree with Lilli that doing pedigree research will be very, very helpful to someone in your situation. It just also makes me cranky that the breeders in Aussie & NZ aren't using all available tools out there to ensure they're producing healthy pups.

Dogs can have very bad hips and show no signs of lameness or poor gait, some breeds are rather well know for this. You only know by taking xrays.

Breeding for work does not exclude HD in most cases (greys may be the exception). Recently I saw on a Finland web site that 25% of the Kelpies in Finland have HD (both working and show lines), these are direct and recent imports. Yet here the word on HD is they do not get HD and many breeders never check their dogs.

There are few facts about HD that we know.

One fact is, breeding dogs with HD have a higher rate of HD puppies. Breed 2 dogs with HD and the pups almost always have HD.

HD has multiple genes we know this now. It likely has risk factors as well as direct genes. Environment and diet can not on their own cause HD, but they can cause HD to be expressed more severely. It is believed that controlled diet and exercise can mask HD (decrease severity).

There is no excuse in my opinion to not check hips, especially in breeds that have an affected rate of more than 1 in 10 dogs. Large breeds that often have very high rates of affected dogs should be checked. Checking hip scores is a part of the information used to make a decision by the breeder about the worthiness of the dog in their breeding program.

It is true that in a few breeds that have very high affected rates, it would likely be necessary to breed affected dogs. However the breeder needs to make the high risk and use of affected dogs known to the buyer. Stating they do not test as it is not a problem in the breed, when it is know to be in the breed world wide, to me is very poor practice and is not in the best interest of purebred dog breeders in general.

Edited June 13, 2010 by shortstep

[RallyValley]

Not sure if this is true but I heard light herding breeds (Bc's and kelpies) that test effected for HD commonly but show clinical signs rarely due to the breeds having "loose hips". I have no idea if thats true and would love to know. (Discalmer, I am a retriever person in our breeds bad hip scores usually means bad hips )

[shortstep]

Not sure if this is true but I heard light herding breeds (Bc's and kelpies) that test effected for HD commonly but show clinical signs rarely due to the breeds having "loose hips". I have no idea if thats true and would love to know. (Discalmer, I am a retriever person in our breeds bad hip scores usually means bad hips )

You have a bit of it.

Working BC seem to have some amount of laxity of the hip as part of the breed.

One hypothesis is that hips that sublux slightly in the joint allow for the movement and style of working that is highly regarded and selected for in the BC. So in effect loose hips have been selected for over the last 100 years. However at the same time dogs that did not remain sound were not bred from, so the selection was further refind. In effect dogs with loose hips that remained sound were selected for.

In most breeds loose hips mean the dog gets a lot of destruction to the joint and lameness follows (like in labs). PENN measures laxity of the joint. PENN has proven a very good indicator in these breeds of the likelihood of HD at maturity. However there are some breeds that PENN has not been as effective in predicting HD and BC is one of the breeds. Again showing that the loser hip in the BC may not indicate future HD.

There is other evidence, but this is the general idea. I have not heard any of this applies the keplies.

Edited June 13, 2010 by shortstep

[Swanbrook]

Are the health issues that you are insisting upon them testing for an issue in the lines that are in this country?

Thanks Crisovar. I consider them basic tests - hip, elbow, eyes. The breeders I have spoken to, all the active breeders I can find in Aus/NZ (bar one), do none of these tests. And yes, this is a breed with know genetic issues and international breeders routinely test for a few more things also, including heart. One of the reasons I have been given for not testing is that the dogs bred in previous litters do not have any issues. This is a newish breed in Aus, so the history of it in this country is not a long one.

ill remove my comment then...too old.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Swanbrook

[flyingduster]

this thread is old

Edited January 21, 2011 by flyingduster