Latest News On Syringomyelia In Cavalier King Charles Spaniels.

[LizT]

This is true but it would still be good to know the status of all possible info when you are making decisions.

There are already some breeders who will not use unscanned dogs, and there are others doing their best to be within the current protocol.

There are quite a few "A" graded Stud Dogs around the country. No breeder I have spoken to here that I know has MRI'd dogs has "hidden" the results from others.

Dellcara, is scanning a "once off' or can results change over time??

Just thinking in terms of costs.

[Dellcara]

Dellcara, is scanning a "once off' or can results change over time??

Just thinking in terms of costs.

hi LizT

Unfortunately it is NOT a "once off". The experts say that due to "late onset" a scan is recommended at 2.5 yrs and then again after the age of 5.

12months is the minimum age for grading. Some breeders overseas are scanning at 12months, 2.5 years and then again at 5 years.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Dellcara

[bet hargreaves]

Dellcara, is scanning a "once off' or can results change over time??

Just thinking in terms of costs.

hi LizT

Unfortunately it is NOT a "once off". The experts say SM is "late onset". A scan is recommended at 2.5 yrs and then again after the age of 5.

12months is the minimum age for grading. Some breeders overseas are scanning at 12months, 2.5 years and then again at 5 years.

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS.

This is Great, what a Sensible Discussion this has turned into.

I had not understood the Post about whether any A to A's had produced no SM Cavaliers, but I will try to get an answer to this.

There is to be a Cavalier Seminar here in Britain on Saturday ,I will try and get some one to ask about this.

Bet Hargreaves

[Jed]

Shortstep, here is the recommended sm breeding protocol from the Cavalier Club UK's website. This is a revised protocol following an international conference on sm.

http://thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html

A to A has not produced 100% clear unfortunately.

[shortstep]

Shortstep, here is the recommended sm breeding protocol from the Cavalier Club UK's website. This is a revised protocol following an international conference on sm.

http://thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html

A to A has not produced 100% clear unfortunately.

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

For example, take HD. We can find that breed x has a 10% affected rate even in breeding programs where only normal scored parents are used. So we could say that Normal 'A' parents produce 10% affected pups.

That does not mean that every normal dog has produced 10% affected pups. There will be dogs that never produced any affected pups and there will be other dogs that produced 30% affected pups, but the average for the breed is 10% affected from normal parents. Sorry if I am not being clear.

Edited November 15, 2010 by shortstep

[Steve]

Shortstep, here is the recommended sm breeding protocol from the Cavalier Club UK's website. This is a revised protocol following an international conference on sm.

http://thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html

A to A has not produced 100% clear unfortunately.

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

For example, take HD. We can find that breed x has a 10% affected rate even in breeding programs where only normal scored parents are used. So we could say that Normal 'A' parents produce 10% affected pups.

That does not mean that every normal dog has produced 10% affected pups. There will be dogs that never produced any affected pups and there will be other dogs that produced 30% affected pups, but the average for the breed is 10% affected from normal parents. Sorry if I am not being clear.

Very true - the way they have presented the numbers it could mean that 3 out of 4 A to A have no affected and one does rather than one pup out of 4 in any one litter has one in 4. This is a very important piece of information and could make a whole world of difference.We also need to know what comes next - the stats need to be broken down litter by litter and given for at least 3 generations.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Shortstep, here is the recommended sm breeding protocol from the Cavalier Club UK's website. This is a revised protocol following an international conference on sm.

http://thecavalierclub.co.uk/start.html

A to A has not produced 100% clear unfortunately.

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

For example, take HD. We can find that breed x has a 10% affected rate even in breeding programs where only normal scored parents are used. So we could say that Normal 'A' parents produce 10% affected pups.

That does not mean that every normal dog has produced 10% affected pups. There will be dogs that never produced any affected pups and there will be other dogs that produced 30% affected pups, but the average for the breed is 10% affected from normal parents. Sorry if I am not being clear.

Very true - the way they have presented the numbers it could mean that 3 out of 4 A to A have no affected and one does rather than one pup out of 4 in any one litter has one in 4. This is a very important piece of information and could make a whole world of difference.We also need to know what comes next - the stats need to be broken down litter by litter and given for at least 3 generations.

Yes shortstep the best question!!!

so what if some AA breeding produced NO affected pups ever?????

what would make them different?

this information is vital to find out

[LizT]

Dellcara, is scanning a "once off' or can results change over time??

Just thinking in terms of costs.

hi LizT

Unfortunately it is NOT a "once off". The experts say that due to "late onset" a scan is recommended at 2.5 yrs and then again after the age of 5.

12months is the minimum age for grading. Some breeders overseas are scanning at 12months, 2.5 years and then again at 5 years.

Then scanning could be quite academic. A bitch for example might produce 'signs' on a scan after she has finished her breeding years, despite 'clear' scans at say, 2.5 years and 5 years of age. What then?

Certainly a Dog standing at public stud, for, how many years is likely?? Would be a better indicator for research purposes.

[LizT]

Dellcara, is scanning a "once off' or can results change over time??

Just thinking in terms of costs.

hi LizT

Unfortunately it is NOT a "once off". The experts say SM is "late onset". A scan is recommended at 2.5 yrs and then again after the age of 5.

12months is the minimum age for grading. Some breeders overseas are scanning at 12months, 2.5 years and then again at 5 years.

LATEST NEWS ON SYRINGOMYELIA IN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIELS.

This is Great, what a Sensible Discussion this has turned into.

I had not understood the Post about whether any A to A's had produced no SM Cavaliers, but I will try to get an answer to this.

There is to be a Cavalier Seminar here in Britain on Saturday ,I will try and get some one to ask about this.

Bet Hargreaves

Great Bet, that would be useful.

[Dellcara]

it's important to note the following from the October UK seminar;

"This research is based on the Breeding Guidelines issued in 2006, using 465 dogs (CKCS and Griffon Bruxellois)"

and ....

"Full details cannot be reproduced here (as these are interim results that are undergoing Peer Review prior to publication) but a summary of the results".

[Jed]

Shortstep

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

I only know one breeder personally whose dog has produced 1 sm offspring. Dog probably has sired 300+ if not more pups, though. Well known show dog. No one else I know is admitting to any. Some people I believe, some I don't know well enough to believe. The "old" retired breeder I am in contact with - highly respected, and very well known, showed, imported some very well known, well bred dogs has never seen SM. Has heard about a few dogs with sm over the years. Not many. This breeder travelled interstate to show, so would have had a good idea. Breeder is not lying - just passing the truth to someone who is interested.

My old stud dog didn't throw any SM affected pups.

The current dog who is 7 or 8 has probably thrown 100+ pups approx. The youngest of these are 12 months old (not bred by me). My dog is the product of champions and g/champions from "old" lines. I bought him because I like his parents and his dual grandfather and I liked that they all died of "old age", and his parents are heart clear over 10. Unfortunately, he was a bit too big to show. Luckily, he throws lovely pups, to the standard size wise,and has had quite a lot of use by others who have seen his progeny. He is also heart clear, and his patellas cause vets to swoon with delight.

Most of this breeding was done before anyone much was worrying about SM, so he was not scanned. At the time I was concerned about not introducing LP or MVD into my clear lines.

Last year I decided he was probably an "A" - for no good reason except that I think so. I had him mri'd earlier this year. The scans have not been read by a specialist neurologist vet who is familiar with SM, so I don't have a definitive answer. However, they have been checked out by specialists, who think he is free from any signs of anything to do with SM - in other words, an "A", but obviously I can't advertise him as such. There is no sign of syrinxes. The mri encompassed quite a lot of the spine, not just the head.

I don't advertise anyhow, and I do not stand my dogs at public stud, so that's not important. I probably wont bother having the scan officially read either. My curiosity is satisfied.

Problem with 1 in 4 pups having SM is that you can breed 400 clear and the next 100 all have sm!!

This will probably earn me some abuse, but having commenced breeding long before there were tests for anything, I am inclined to go with the pedigree, how visible the ancestors were, how they were perceived, how they fared health wise, as well as the integrity of the breeder, and use the various tests for back up. I don't think we should be using sires simply because they are rated "A". I think there is a lot more to SM than we know - have no idea what, I am not that clever

Unfortunately, many breeders are walking away because of the uncertainty, and the cost of testing which doesn't give a definitive guide.

I breed cockers too - they can be afflicted by FN (fatal) - however, a test was developed a few years ago, which takes the worry out of it. The dog is either clear, carrier or affected, so you can choose from available studs, knowing their status, and knowing EXACTLY what the status of the pups will be. Obviously, you aim to breed pups which are not affected.

This is what breeders ask of SM researchers, and until that becomes available - if ever (remember, they haven't found a mode of inheritance for MVD yet) breeders need to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to produce pups which do not have SM.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jed

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Jed how do you know the dogs don't have SM if they aren't scanned?

i think we need to be very careful about saying dogs are clear if we have no proof

[Jed]

You are correct I should have said "show no signs of SM". Of course, they may all have had SM.

Dogs with syrinxes don't always show signs, incidentally. Technically, they have signs of SM, practically, they don't.

In my opinion, if the dog is a pet, showing no signs of SM is sufficient.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

You are correct I should have said "show no signs of SM". Of course, they may all have had SM.

Dogs with syrinxes don't always show signs, incidentally. Technically, they have signs of SM, practically, they don't.

In my opinion, if the dog is a pet, showing no signs of SM is sufficient.

thanks Jed for clearing that up.

yes i think if the dog is not affected and is a pet that is a good outcome.

i think we just need to make sure that we don't breed with affected dogs because otherwise i think eventually the breed may die out, or am i being too dramatic?

if we could try to stop this now before it becomes too big to stop then i think this would be good

also, what if we do have something here in oz that we can offer the cav gene pool in other countries, shouldn't we try to help?

[LizT]

Shortstep

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

I only know one breeder personally whose dog has produced 1 sm offspring. Dog probably has sired 300+ if not more pups, though. Well known show dog. No one else I know is admitting to any. Some people I believe, some I don't know well enough to believe. The "old" retired breeder I am in contact with - highly respected, and very well known, showed, imported some very well known, well bred dogs has never seen SM. Has heard about a few dogs with sm over the years. Not many. This breeder travelled interstate to show, so would have had a good idea. Breeder is not lying - just passing the truth to someone who is interested.

My old stud dog didn't throw any SM affected pups.

The current dog who is 7 or 8 has probably thrown 100+ pups approx. The youngest of these are 12 months old (not bred by me). My dog is the product of champions and g/champions from "old" lines. I bought him because I like his parents and his dual grandfather and I liked that they all died of "old age", and his parents are heart clear over 10. Unfortunately, he was a bit too big to show. Luckily, he throws lovely pups, to the standard size wise,and has had quite a lot of use by others who have seen his progeny. He is also heart clear, and his patellas cause vets to swoon with delight.

Most of this breeding was done before anyone much was worrying about SM, so he was not scanned. At the time I was concerned about not introducing LP or MVD into my clear lines.

Last year I decided he was probably an "A" - for no good reason except that I think so. I had him mri'd earlier this year. The scans have not been read by a specialist neurologist vet who is familiar with SM, so I don't have a definitive answer. However, they have been checked out by specialists, who think he is free from any signs of anything to do with SM - in other words, an "A", but obviously I can't advertise him as such. There is no sign of syrinxes. The mri encompassed quite a lot of the spine, not just the head.

I don't advertise anyhow, and I do not stand my dogs at public stud, so that's not important. I probably wont bother having the scan officially read either. My curiosity is satisfied.

Problem with 1 in 4 pups having SM is that you can breed 400 clear and the next 100 all have sm!!

This will probably earn me some abuse, but having commenced breeding long before there were tests for anything, I am inclined to go with the pedigree, how visible the ancestors were, how they were perceived, how they fared health wise, as well as the integrity of the breeder, and use the various tests for back up. I don't think we should be using sires simply because they are rated "A". I think there is a lot more to SM than we know - have no idea what, I am not that clever

Unfortunately, many breeders are walking away because of the uncertainty, and the cost of testing which doesn't give a definitive guide.

I breed cockers too - they can be afflicted by FN (fatal) - however, a test was developed a few years ago, which takes the worry out of it. The dog is either clear, carrier or affected, so you can choose from available studs, knowing their status, and knowing EXACTLY what the status of the pups will be. Obviously, you aim to breed pups which are not affected.

This is what breeders ask of SM researchers, and until that becomes available - if ever (remember, they haven't found a mode of inheritance for MVD yet) breeders need to use every tool at their disposal to attempt to produce pups which do not have SM.

Jed,

This is a scenario that I'm sure is replicated throughout the dog breeding world.

If I were you I also would be satisfied.

[LizT]

You are correct I should have said "show no signs of SM". Of course, they may all have had SM.

Dogs with syrinxes don't always show signs, incidentally. Technically, they have signs of SM, practically, they don't.

In my opinion, if the dog is a pet, showing no signs of SM is sufficient.

thanks Jed for clearing that up.

yes i think if the dog is not affected and is a pet that is a good outcome.

i think we just need to make sure that we don't breed with affected dogs because otherwise i think eventually the breed may die out, or am i being too dramatic?

if we could try to stop this now before it becomes too big to stop then i think this would be good

also, what if we do have something here in oz that we can offer the cav gene pool in other countries, shouldn't we try to help?

I agree also, but I don't feel we will be needing to "resurect" the breed yet again this century.

Albet awareness is half the battle. You would be surprised how many old time breeders have only just heard of, and some not at all of SM. Also never encountered it either. They may be holding with the old addage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[shortstep]

i think we just need to make sure that we don't breed with affected dogs because otherwise i think eventually the breed may die out, or am i being too dramatic?

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i think we just need to make sure that we don't breed with affected dogs because otherwise i think eventually the breed may die out, or am i being too dramatic?

Just need to clarify what do you mean by 'affected dogs', do you mean breed only 'A' tested dogs?

sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

[Dellcara]

sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

in an "ideal world" yes ..... but it's not an "ideal world" .... hence the following statement in the current protocol;

"As the incidence of syringomyelia is so high in the breed there will be severe depletion of the gene pool if only clear dogs are used (i.e. other problems will develop). Therefore until the genetic defect is determined it is recommended that dogs with syringomyelia be used if they are valuable in another genetic sense e.g. good heart. "

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

sorry i should be more careful posting. i meant we should be breeding with only A tested dogs because that would ensure we were doing the best we could to halt this disease. However, until your question is answered we are flying blind.

in an "ideal world" yes ..... but it's not an "ideal world" .... hence the following statement in the current protocol;

"As the incidence of syringomyelia is so high in the breed there will be severe depletion of the gene pool if only clear dogs are used (i.e. other problems will develop). Therefore until the genetic defect is determined it is recommended that dogs with syringomyelia be used if they are valuable in another genetic sense e.g. good heart. "

i understand, it is an unfortunate situation for all and i think shortstep's question is important to answer

quote shortstep:

Hi Jed, what I meant was has there never been an A dog that has had all normal pups? For example has every stud dog you know produced an affected puppy?

Just becasue they say that A to A litters still produce 25% affected pups, that may not mean every single last A dog on earth has produced an affected pup, at least I am hopeing it does not mean that.

end quote

screening will help us make informed decisions

eta i know there is anecdotal information but we need accurate statistics to move forward in the best way IMO

Edited November 16, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy