Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more

ETA

So for some genetic conditions because we do not know the mode of inheritance we should take the safest option and not breed with the carriers.

Got it. Is there a list of genetic conditions where carriers should not be bred to clears?

BTW thanks to all for helping me work this out

Edited March 2, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[poodlefan]

Try saying, I want a dog which has been bred to optimize it's chances for good health, instead of saying I want a breeder that health tests.

Limting 'good breeding' to health testing is really sort of a cop out for the breeders. Most breeds only have a couple (if that) of tests that can be done. It is too easy for them to select dogs that are DNA clear for those few things and then present as if they are off the hook with health. When in fact it may have been far more advantages to the over all health of the pups to have used a carrier of one testable disease to capture other good genes (lets say a bullet proof immune system) in that dog which may be difficult to find in that that breed. There is just heaps that goes into it, so this is really very simplistic. but the point is 'health tested' does not mean anything more than those very few problems have been addressed (and only if there is DNA testing, other screening test do not indicate the pup wil not have the disease in most cases), nor does it indicate a breeder that is producing healthy dogs. Feel free to delete from brain..LOL

Sorry, but I'll take objective tests over lofty statements every time.

Health testing, as you suggest, is not the be all and end all of optimal breeding. However its measureable and provable. That matters to me as an indicator that the breeder is attempting to breed healthy dogs.

You know...I never said not to do health testing, please read it again.

I read it carefully the first time. You suggest your statement is a replacement for the second one. I see both statements as necessary.

You can breed two evidently healthy dogs to achieve the letter of first statement you or you can put some genetic conditions beyond doubt with health testing.

I'd say I want a breeder who strives to optimize the chances for healthy dogs and that includes health testing. I don't buy the 'not in my lines' argument and I never have.

How do you know your dogs aren't carrying PRA, aren't subject to heart issues etc unless you test for it. The fact that nothing in your backyard has had issues isn't the test. You could breed PRA "B" to "B" dogs till the cows come home and you'd never know the parents had an issue until pups started going blind. I know one breeder who learned that the hard way only when a pup she retained did just that aged 5.

[Sheridan]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more

I'll give you an example from my breed. My first wheaten died of an inheritable disease. His sire and dam tested clear all their lives. The sire, at least, was necropsied and there was no sign of the disease. Both or one of them must have carried it but even breeding to another breed doesn't prevent it.

[Dory the Doted One]

I would prefer to be on a united front with a breeder that tested stock for testable health defects, fed, watered, managed and cleaned the dogs and their environments to a standard that was both mentally, physically and emotionally optimum for the development of healthy dogs and healthy puppies. I would also hope that they responsibly homed their puppies to households that would observe the same ethics. ie. Fed, watered, cleaned, managed, socialized etc for optimum mental, physical and emotional health. Ensuring that their dogs did not become annoying or menancing to the general public.

I'm not going to over analyze and pick to pieces the article. It's an article. Someone elses opinion. I read my own interpretation of that article based on my own set of beliefs, experiences and judgements.

I happen to agree with the sentiment that there are many breeders who I believe meet my ideal of a breeder, that pick to death, judge and rag on other breeders who happen to meet my ideal of a breeder. And that this does nothing to ensure the longetivity of a rapidly dying hobby/interest. Which only opens the way for puppymills and unregistered backyarders making a quick buck from people too frustrated from dealing with overzealous and protective breeders.

[Gayle.]

I get the point of the article, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I see it as this. Breeders should worry about themselves, they should be making sure they do the best they can do for the dogs they breed. They should stop worrying about and criticising what other breeders are or aren't doing because that creates division in the ranks of breeders and makes it easier and easier for third parties to divide and conquer.

Believe in yourself and trust that others believe in themselves too.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

Txs Sheridan. I will need to investigate this more

I'll give you an example from my breed. My first wheaten died of an inheritable disease. His sire and dam tested clear all their lives. The sire, at least, was necropsied and there was no sign of the disease. Both or one of them must have carried it but even breeding to another breed doesn't prevent it.

Thank you. I am finding this very interesting.

[benshiva]

I think Shortstep likes to stir up the Bee's nest and see what happens.

Amen

[moosmum]

And again, you're okay with being lumped in with the puppyfarmer who breeds a bitch every season in deplorable conditions and then throws her away? It's amazing that this is okay with you, that you're unwilling to judge such a person because it's meaningless and negative and general. Amazing.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else.

The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner?

There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet.

You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders.

There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB.

So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad.

Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you?

Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence.

[moosmum]

I would prefer to be on a united front with a breeder that tested stock for testable health defects, fed, watered, managed and cleaned the dogs and their environments to a standard that was both mentally, physically and emotionally optimum for the development of healthy dogs and healthy puppies. I would also hope that they responsibly homed their puppies to households that would observe the same ethics. ie. Fed, watered, cleaned, managed, socialized etc for optimum mental, physical and emotional health. Ensuring that their dogs did not become annoying or menancing to the general public.

I'm not going to over analyze and pick to pieces the article. It's an article. Someone elses opinion. I read my own interpretation of that article based on my own set of beliefs, experiences and judgements.

I happen to agree with the sentiment that there are many breeders who I believe meet my ideal of a breeder, that pick to death, judge and rag on other breeders who happen to meet my ideal of a breeder. And that this does nothing to ensure the longetivity of a rapidly dying hobby/interest. Which only opens the way for puppymills and unregistered backyarders making a quick buck from people too frustrated from dealing with overzealous and protective breeders.

I get the point of the article, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I see it as this. Breeders should worry about themselves, they should be making sure they do the best they can do for the dogs they breed. They should stop worrying about and criticising what other breeders are or aren't doing because that creates division in the ranks of breeders and makes it easier and easier for third parties to divide and conquer.

Believe in yourself and trust that others believe in themselves too.

Yes and yes.Work on your own problems.They exsist in all groups who will ultimately be judged,and harshly.

[Vickie]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

still standing by your statement ML?

[poodlefan]

Yes and yes.Work on your own problems.They exsist in all groups who will ultimately be judged,and harshly.

And when some are judged by others failure to work on the problems, what then?

Many professional associatons work on the principle of peer regulation - the reason is due to their desire to safeguard the reputation of the association generally.

The article isn't arguing beyond urging breeders not to bash one another. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work together for the betterment of the breed and I'll agree whole heartedly.

[MolassesLass]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

still standing by your statement ML?

Yes. Feel free to post or PM me which posters have not understood the point the article was trying to make.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Yes and yes.Work on your own problems.They exsist in all groups who will ultimately be judged,and harshly.

And when some are judged by others failure to work on the problems, what then?

Many professional associatons work on the principle of peer regulation - the reason is due to their desire to safeguard the reputation of the association generally.

The article isn't arguing beyond urging breeders not to bash one another. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work together for the betterment of the breed and I'll agree whole heartedly.

:happydance2:

Me Too!!!!!

[Dory the Doted One]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

still standing by your statement ML?

Did I not get something?

If I didn't, it's because I wasn't really that into it. I did skim it.

Bad me.

[shortstep]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

still standing by your statement ML?

Did I not get something?

If I didn't, it's because I wasn't really that into it. I did skim it.

Bad me.

Back to your other post that I repsonded to, I am so sorry. I was in a big hurry to get out the door and your post was the last one and I accidently clicked on it, I meant to post in general to every one. Please accept my appolgy.

And again..the rest of this post is not directed at you what so ever, I am repsonding in general to everyone.

Ok lets start again.

Standard acceptable statement if you want to be called a reputable breeders.

I health test the parents of all my litters, this includes 1 DNA test for XYZ and one heart echo test (or fill in the blanks as you wish). I do this to assure that I have done everything I can to breed healthy dogs.

Sound familiar?

To really address health in breeding is far more complex and involved than doing a few health tests. Not yelling but want everyone to see YES DO THOSE TESTS. However now the more difficult process begins. For each breed it is going to be different and require different areas of knowledge and advice.

So I say again, do not look for a breeder who is doing 'health testing', look for a breeder that is attempting to optimize the health in their puppies. Caps again not yelling BESIDES DOING THE NORMAL TESTS FOR THE BREED, this might also include attempting to optimize longevity perhaps by using older sires and dams from older parents that have many older pups and a family history of longevity. Perhaps giving high rankings to dog families that have not died of cancer or relatively free of CA for that breed. Perhaps extensive family screening for orthopedic problem such as HD or ED (meaning looking at everybody, all the brothers and sisters, half siblings for several generations) and so on. Much will depend on the breed, the breeders abilities and access to information. These are not cut and dry do a test and problem is solved type of breeding plans. Solving these problems may not be easy and may take many generations and many breeders efforts along with science, but at least we can broaden our ideas about what might be possible and make the effort in our breeding choices and try.

Now I am not going to back over this looking for all the possible ways people can attack what I said to try to make me look like a bad breeders. Have at it, I am not going to respond to that type of behavior.

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[shortstep]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

If the mode of inheritence is unknown then you will not have a DNA test for it, ar at least not a test that tells you for sure how to use the results.

In most cases DNA tests we can use now are for simple recessive diseases and in those a carrier can be bred to a normal and offspring will be either a carrier or normal, but in either case will not have the disease.

However, what is happening in some diseases is that they are thought to have other genes that can turn them on or off, or control the severity of the disease. (look at Cryptorchid in the News section, I tried to get some interest on a study about this defect. It is clearly being controlled by some genes that not only affect the severity of symptoms but also genes affecting the very processes for the litter formation affecting number and sex of the pups, a very good read on this subject.)

It may well be that the tests we are using now for these more complex inheritence patterns will be thrown out and replaced by other tests once they ahve found these other genes. In some cases this lack of total control is not really a problem in using the test. another example in one breed there were far more carries then there were the real number of affected dogs, so there must have been a gene stopping some of the carrier genes from being passed on. However the test was very accrate for finding carriers and normals and affected, so it is a very accurate test to use.

I was reading about this today, if anyone is interested in it, PM me and I can send you the links I was reading today about epigentics, sort of a round about to the subject.

Another problem facing breeders right now, is politics and money in genetic reserch. Some Unis are refusing to publish their work for peer review, yet they are releasing tests for sale to the public. We have only their word for it these tests are accurate. The reason there is peer review is to help catch un intended or intended mistakes, and from what I have been told a lot of mistake are found on a regular basis in the review process. So breeders need to careful in using these tests, make sure they are staying up to date and do not be afraid to question if things are not making sense.

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[MolassesLass]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread seem to have missed the whole point of it. One day it might be too late, I hope not.

I'm yet to see anyone who's missed the assumed point of the article; only people who think the point isn't valid or think it hasn't been made by that article.

still standing by your statement ML?

Did I not get something?

If I didn't, it's because I wasn't really that into it. I did skim it.

Bad me.

No idea Dory, I've gotten no answer.

I have a feeling there was a mistake with the term "missing the point" vs. "disagreeing with the point"

[shortstep]

BREEDING HEALTHY DOGS –

A BREEDERS PERSPECTIVE

http://www.fecava.org/files/ejcap/256.pdf

Knowledge, education, honesty and cooperation are keys to achieve this goal. There must be cooperation between

breeders of a specific breed, breeders of different breeds and between breeders and scientists – both on a

national and an international level.

under FUNCTIONALLY HEALTHY DOGS

Thus, the overall breeding programme

should not exclude more than 50% of the breed population in a country.

Are 50% of the dogs we produce in ANKC going back into the gene pool?

Under SCREENING PROGRAMMES

One problem with breeding programmes based on screening

results, is that there is too much focus on one or a few

selected diseases and too little on other problems that may

have more harmful impact on the dogs’ health and welfare.

Hum isn't that just what I was talking about.

under DO SCREENING

PROGRAMMES MAKE THE

DOGS MORE “DISEASED”?

Statistics based on screening are often used by the media and

others to determine if a breed is “healthy” or “diseased”. This

is a problem; it can encourage the breeders and the owners

not to register the results from dogs with diseases such as HD,

elbow dysplasia, spondylosis etc. because positive diagnoses

may give a bad impression of the breed. As breeders we

repeatedly hear that mixed breeds are far healthier than

purebred dogs. This misconception may be due to the fact

that there are no screening programmes for mixed breeds;

they are only examined if they have a clinical problem.

under DNA-TESTS

The development of DNA-tests for inherited diseases will play

a major role in future dog breeding. Some tests are available

today, and many more are expected in the near future. These

are excellent tools for dog breeders. The results of the tests

can tell us if a dog is a homozygote for a specific disease and

will develop the disease, if it is a heterozygote carrier that will

give diseased offspring if mated to another carrier, or if the

dog is free of the defective gene.

But how do we use the results of a DNA-test in breeding?

Based on these tests we can eradicate the gene responsible

for the disease from the population after very few

generations. However, for most diseases a control programme

will be far more beneficial to the breed, because it would

not necessarily exclude otherwise excellent animals from

breeding. With reliable tests we can control a recessively

inherited disease in a population so that all offspring will be

unaffected by the disease although the disease gene still exists

in the population in heterozygous animals. They will not be

“genetically healthy”, but they will be functionally healthy

dogs.

The basic ethical rule is that only functionally healthy animals

should be used for breeding. Therefore homozygotes for the

disease should not be bred. But the goal is functionally

healthy offspring, and some genes cause disease later in the

dogs’ life. In some few cases it might be beneficial for the

breed to use these homozygotes for breeding. Given they are

mated to dogs that do not carry the disease gene, none of the

offspring will get the disease. Testing is not necessary; they

will all be carriers.

Heterozygote dogs can be used for breeding if bred to a dog

that is not carrying the disease gene. All the offspring will

have to be tested, and approximately 50% will be carriers. If

two dogs free of the gene are mated, the offspring do not

have to be tested; all will be genetically normal for the

specific disease.

Thus, reliable DNA-tests will make it possible to control the

disease in the population without excluding excellent dogs

from breeding.

Heaps more from one of the most repsected kennel clubs in the world.

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

In other words a carrier of a genetic disease could be bred to a non-carrier of that disease if this would contribute positively to the health of the offspring and not result in the genetic disease showing up in the offspring?

If carriers are bred to clears they will not produce affected pups.

Incorrect. It depends on the mode of inheritance and this is unknown in many diseases.

Sheridan, I understood that where there were tests to identify carriers of diseases, in each case, the mode of inheritance was known? I thought if the test couldn't id carriers unless there was a moi?

[LizT]

Wow that sure is some list.

I health test all eye conditions annually in my bitches as diagnosable by a Veterinary Opthamologist tha are of concern to the breed. Litters are eye tested at 6 weeks.

Annual Vet checks for MVD

Annual Vet check for general health concerns to ensure all is in good order such as ears, skin, pattelar check etc.

Without any DNA markers available I would be wasting my time and money checking for any possible diseases that might occur (in any dog) such as Cushings for example.

As a hobby breeder and enthusiast I endeavour to breed from outwardly healthy stock, if my bitch is not up to scratch as a suitable specimen for breeding a healthy litter of puppies then she will not be bred from. If there are any indicators of conditions contrary to this she will not be bred from. My intention is that the puppies I breed go to homes that I have taken great care to select and have every chance of growing into strong happy healthy companion animals.