Breeds - Hd And Ed Scoring Requirements

[Stolzseinrotts]

Surely there are many others out there??????

Please let me know I would like to make a complete list.

Thank you to those who have already contributed.

[rajacadoo]

No compulsory testing for anything on either Basenji's or ACD's... In saying that, most, (at least those that have access to it...), will Baer test, hip/elbow score, and DNA PRA test the Acd's.

In the Basenji's, some are DNA testing for Fanconi syndrome, only a few are hip/elbow scoring, some are eye testing, very few thyroid testing...

[espinay2]

Pyrenean Mountain Dog - no compulsory testing. Unfortunately to the best of my knowledge most breeders here in Australia do not hip score . I only know of two breeders that do and they do hips, elbows and patellas (I am one of them). Do I think they should be done? Yes. They are scored a lot more frequently overseas than they are here.

Do I think all breeds should be hip scored? Not necessarily (though I understand fully and agree with the argument that you don't necessarily know you have a problem unless you do test - I just beleive that this is not an issue that can be dealt with via a blanket rule for all breeds and needs to be addressed on a breed specific basis). Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

[Stolzseinrotts]

Pyrenean Mountain Dog - no compulsory testing. Unfortunately to the best of my knowledge most breeders here in Australia do not hip score . I only know of two breeders that do and they do hips, elbows and patellas (I am one of them). Do I think they should be done? Yes. They are scored a lot more frequently overseas than they are here.

Do I think all breeds should be hip scored? Not necessarily (though I understand fully and agree with the argument that you don't necessarily know you have a problem unless you do test - I just beleive that this is not an issue that can be dealt with via a blanket rule for all breeds and needs to be addressed on a breed specific basis). Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

Oh my, another gobsmacked reaction here for not testing for HD and ED in this breed........

Good on you and the other breeders who do test!

Thank you for your answers.

[angelsun]

Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

And how do we know that there is a condition inherent in the breed, unless we test? A lame or limping dog, does not mean dysplasia...a dog that is blind or partially blind does not mean there is an eye problem....in the above, there there could problems that do not show by physical symptoms and without testing, we simply are using an ostrich mentality and leaving our heads in the sand and hope it goes away if we can't see it.

[becks]

So how many tests do you run on a 'just to see' basis? What tests are 'must haves' and which are extras that could be done?

[lappiemum]

Finnish Lapphunds are not required to test, but nowdays most breeders will test their breeding stock. The exceptions are usually with much older dogs, who are either at the end or nearing the end of their breeding age.

The Finnish Lapphund Club of Victoria (currently the only breed club in Australia) strongly recommends that breeders screen for hips and elbows prior to breeding.

[Alyosha]

You can add Borzoi to the no test required list.

I don't test, and have not personally heard of either HD or ED in the breed here in Australia.

An additional aspact when you're dealing with sighthounds in general in poor tolerance of general aneasthetics. A big issue indeed as they can and do drop dead and or not recover and die within a few days. A big risk to take in order to test for a condition that isn't known to be causing any health issues. i don't do GAs unless it is life threatening (the only exception is rescues and desexing, and I have nearly lost one of them - greyhound).

[angelsun]

I understand the concerns of GA....my breed doesn't handle it well either and my old vet used to do hips without it. (I was also permitted in the xray room with my own lead apron to hold/position) however we have good GA compared to years ago, and when gased down properly without sedation narcotic, the dogs handle it much better.

As to what to test....I started doing thyroid when I saw some symptomes that I thought might be an issue...then just kept doing it. I did hips because I simply assumed everyone did because as all dogs have femeral heads and sockets, theoretically they can all have a problem and I don't have exray eyes. I kept doing it.

I got eyes checked on a breed that generally hasn't got any problems because it wasn't expensive, easy to do and non evasive and gave me peace of mind that there wasn't something hiding in there....I kept doing it when I changed to my current breed and am glad, as there IS a problem in my breed....good to know what I"m dealing with.

[espinay2]

Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

And how do we know that there is a condition inherent in the breed, unless we test? A lame or limping dog, does not mean dysplasia...a dog that is blind or partially blind does not mean there is an eye problem....in the above, there there could problems that do not show by physical symptoms and without testing, we simply are using an ostrich mentality and leaving our heads in the sand and hope it goes away if we can't see it.

But where is cut off point? Should all breeds test hearts? BAER test for deafness? What about degenerative myelopathy? Von willibrands? Copper Toxicosis? Should we test every breed for every condition?

How did you come to the decision to test for some things in your breed but not others? What made one test more important for you to do than another?

By your logic you are putting your head in the sand over every condition there is currently a test for that you are not doing on your dogs.

(and before anyone starts slamming me for being 'anti test' I suggest looking at the profiles of my dogs on my website ;) )

Edited August 12, 2011 by espinay2

[Ozstar]

There is no required testing for French Bulldogs.

I have spine and hips xrayed and also DNA test for HC.

About 25% of breeders xray their breeding stock and about 5% DNA test for HC.

Other countries are bigger on testing than we are here for my breed.

Leanne

[angelsun]

Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

And how do we know that there is a condition inherent in the breed, unless we test? A lame or limping dog, does not mean dysplasia...a dog that is blind or partially blind does not mean there is an eye problem....in the above, there there could problems that do not show by physical symptoms and without testing, we simply are using an ostrich mentality and leaving our heads in the sand and hope it goes away if we can't see it.

But where is cut off point? Should all breeds test hearts? BAER test for deafness? What about degenerative myelopathy? Von willibrands? Copper Toxicosis? Should we test every breed for every condition?

I see what you are saying and yes, this is valid. If we test for enough, we will certainly find a problem, however the key is testing and seeing if by these results, we in fact DO have a problem or simply an isolated incident or two.

How did you come to the decision to test for some things in your breed but not others? What made one test more important for you to do than another?

by knowing the history of my breed, where it comes from, where it went (my black and tan terriers were used to develope other breeds which in turn have known genetic issues, therefore it made sense to sporatically test to see if the source could have been my breed as opposed to other breeds that were put in the mix to make up the new breed) As well using experience in the breed and communications with others to assertain if they were having issues (this happened BIT...that would be Before Internet Time) when we wrote to each other or used the phone or sat at shows and actually talked to each other about our breedings and offspring, good and bad. By doing this, we figured out that we MAY have an issue in a certain area, and opted to test to either A) find out for sure if we did, B)find out if it COULD be a genetic/inherant issue, C) was a random 'schit happens sort of thing, or any combination of the above. Importance fell to firstly what could shorten the breeds quality of life or span, and secondly how many times it was occuring in the breed and therefore became not a fluke, but a potential genetic problem.

By your logic you are putting your head in the sand over every condition there is currently a test for that you are not doing on your dogs.

(and before anyone starts slamming me for being 'anti test' I suggest looking at the profiles of my dogs on my website ;) )

No, not at all...because based on the above criteria, we attempt to seek out situations with dogs that may develope into the bigger problems. I am currently watching very close to see if there are more incidents of a spinal condition in my breed as well as a degredation of the liver. The latter seems to be more prevalent in dilutes (such as we know that coat colour alopecia is found in blue dobes for example, we have the same in my breed, hence why we test for dilute in pure colour parents to avoid producing dilutes which could have this problem) I don't have enough date on the spinal issue that would link it to a breed specific problem. Unfortunately this often happens when we see one or two episodes....the trick is to not have a knee jerk reaction, however we can't ignore it either, and like so many issues today that we test for and don't give a second thought, some of these conditions, may in a decade or more, become the same sort of routine testing. Today, because we simply don't know enough, we think they are a big deal..or we believe them to not be genetic linked....we had those thoughts about other things in the past and because we kept our minds open, tested when no one demanded it, we learned in time, that some were hereditary and others not, or at least not when correct breeding practices were put in place (like vWD)

[supercharged]

Portuguese Water Dog - not required but many breeders are Hip/elbow scoring

[espinay2]

Me

Do I think all breeds should be health tested for conditions inherent in their breed? Yes

Angelsun

And how do we know that there is a condition inherent in the breed, unless we test?

Angelsun

by knowing the history of my breed, where it comes from, where it went......... we attempt to seek out situations with dogs that may develope into the bigger problems

Seems we actually agree on these last points.

What tests should breeders HAVE to do in their breed? I don't feel it should be a 'one size fits all' thing that every breed should be tested for one specific condition or another. There are ways of establishing whether we should start testing which dont actually involve testing - and these involve knowing our breed and being aware and open to recognising incidences that require further investigation when they arise. Testing should be approached on an individual breed level (just as you are doing with your own breed). By knowing the history of the breed and seeking out situations within your breed that may be issues, you determine what onditions may be inherent and what tests are relevant to YOUR breed.

In a breed where a condition is certainly present and someone dosn't test because 'they dont have a problem in THEIR dogs' - I agree totally with the 'you dont know if you dont test' theory in many cases. In these types of situations I agree that some breeders are definitely putting their heads in the sand. I have been told by some breeders that if they started testing for a particular condition which is inherent inthe breed they would limit their breeding choices too much so they dont want to do it (if ANYONE can see the actual logic in that please tell me!!!!! ) But the theory can't necessarily be applied in a blanket fashion across all breeds and all conditions though. As you have shown in your reply, there are methods of determining whether a test may be necessary for a breed, BEFORE you actually start testing for it. I therefore think that looking negatively at those who dont test for certain conditions in their breed (which may be highly necessary in another) is not the way to go unless we know that there have been incidences of the condition in that breed that need further investigation.

FWIW

Edited August 13, 2011 by espinay2

[sandgrubber]

How about, only breeds with <3% incidence in the latest statistics need to be tested? It doesn't fall along big/small lines. Some small breeds have awful scores, ie, pugs. OFFA lists six breeds as having <1% incidence of OCD. It would be silly to require elbow testing in these breeds.

see: http://www.offa.org/stats_ed.html

In general, I think the importance of testing is some product of the probability of the dog having the condition and how horrible the condition is, moderated by some factor describing the accuracy and expense of the test. HD/OCD, in my book, is pretty awful, but radiographic testing is only moderately good at predicting whether a dog will be clinically affected, inheritance is complicated, and the test is fairly expensive and intrusive.

Edited August 13, 2011 by sandgrubber

[angelsun]

Although I don't have cardiomyopathy in my breed running rampant, I occasionally do cardio testing. We have had cases...we know that the Dobermann was built up from using our breed (there were other breeds as well) so I for one, knowing a few cases of heart issues around, and knowing what it did develop into, sporatically check. If this was made manditory, I'd have no issues....any dog with a heart, can have a malfunctioning heart condition.

Although my former breed (manchesters) did not have HD issues...I got hips done often. We did have (in the toy variety, equivalent to English Toy Terriers) Legges Perthes problem, so by checking from time to time, because the toy manchester is the same as the standard, other than what they weigh on the scale and how we do their ears.....it makes sense that it could pop up...lets face it..they both have a femeral head....like any dog with hind legs.....it's not HD persae...but it's a genetic problem that needs to be kept tabs on....knowing your breed...accepting the physical structure of all dogs as grounds for potential issues, and being open that not testing, doesn't mean there is no problems, to me is simply not good breeding practices.

Lets put it this way..there is no way I would buy a Pyr or Saint for example that didn't have parental hips scored.

[espinay2]

Lets put it this way..there is no way I would buy a Pyr or Saint for example that didn't have parental hips scored.

On that we can both agree! ( But that is because for these breeds, HD and other bone and growth issues are known to be conditions prevalent in the breed.)

Sadly it can be a hard thing for someone to do here in Australia, for Pyrs at least

(I am pleased to say my own dogs now have nearly complete 5 generation pedigrees of hip scoring with the missing scores being 4 and 5 generations back)

Edited August 14, 2011 by espinay2

[Lowenhart]

Lilli, the point being, they are dogs....plain and simple..big or little..they are all built the same way when it comes to bone structure, ligiments, muscles etc...to believe that a chihuahua can not have HD simply because it weighs what it does, but a Great Dane can, simply because it weighs what it does, is hiding in the sand.

It's all relative really...yes the toy breed can weigh 2kilo's, but the bones/muscles/ligaments etc reflect that and proportionately, they are the same as the giant breed weighing over a hundred kilos.

Actually I completely disagree.

You size up a Pekingese to Kelpie size and you don't have a "normal" looking dog. Size up a Pug and you have a dog twice the width of a Bullmastiff. They are NOT proportionately the same.

There is an idea that all dogs have the exact same hip shape - they don't. We've bred them to have different pelvic construction. You can't turn around and say now they all must have the same structured socket.

I think each breed should identify what they are tested for and not have all breeds have the same testing requirement based on what *your* breed tests on.

I am not anti-health testing (I actually known as a campaigner for it), it just needs to be applicable for breed. No point testing eyes and hearing and not Von Willebrand if dogs are dying from VW and <1% are coming up abnormall in ears & eyes.

[BJean]

Lilli, the point being, they are dogs....plain and simple..big or little..they are all built the same way when it comes to bone structure, ligiments, muscles etc...to believe that a chihuahua can not have HD simply because it weighs what it does, but a Great Dane can, simply because it weighs what it does, is hiding in the sand.

It's all relative really...yes the toy breed can weigh 2kilo's, but the bones/muscles/ligaments etc reflect that and proportionately, they are the same as the giant breed weighing over a hundred kilos.

Not really.

Even if we make the Chi 80kgs and give it adaptive intelligence, it still will not have the same constitution, because the muscle proportions, nervous systems, immune systems differ.

Genetically, any dog can have a weakness. Some breeds are more predisposed to some things than other breeds. We hear of things like PRA in retrievers...but I have it in my breed too....sparingly, but it's there...why? Because all dogs have eyes...

Yes of course. And it's important to know what they are. And to learn these are a breeder has to read their dogs in the context of generations and their total environment.

Or failing that, allow other breeders to do so.

The same applies when it comes to hip or elbow deformity or weakness in structure. To believe that breed A or B does not have or can not have any problems, is simply ignoring pure science and anatomical facts.

To believe that Breed A and Breed B should be tested for the same problems

because they are both 'canine'

belongs with the notion of pure science and its infallibility.

Edited August 14, 2011 by lilli

[BJean]

How about, only breeds with <3% incidence in the latest statistics need to be tested? It doesn't fall along big/small lines. Some small breeds have awful scores, ie, pugs. OFFA lists six breeds as having <1% incidence of OCD. It would be silly to require elbow testing in these breeds.

see: http://www.offa.org/stats_ed.html

In general, I think the importance of testing is some product of the probability of the dog having the condition and how horrible the condition is, moderated by some factor describing the accuracy and expense of the test. HD/OCD, in my book, is pretty awful, but radiographic testing is only moderately good at predicting whether a dog will be clinically affected, inheritance is complicated, and the test is fairly expensive and intrusive.